Dinosaurs and God

Don't deny me!
Don't deny me!

A very short and light hub about an obvious yet serious realisation:
God never mentioned dinosaurs in the holy texts.

"The Genesis creation narrative (or creation myth) in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis describes the divine creation of the world including the first man and woman" (wiki).

If taken literally, the holy texts claim that all of the animals known to man were all created all at one time by God in one day!



Why God why!?
Why God why!? | Source

Evolution and Dinosaurs

Evolution is a fact. A fact that states that animals are constantly changing to better fit their environments and outcompete the animals that haven't changed as much or at all, filling their niche.

It doesn't matter how, maybe it's God that is causing the changing to happen *slaps self* and not mutation due to electromagnetic radiation brought in by the sun and the natural radiation of mass. Or sexual differentiation, crossing chromosomes and conjugation in bacteria. It doesn't matter.

If animals are constantly changing to we can make an assumption that there have been some animals that have gone extinct.

Finding fossils are great evidence of this as they show great and intricate skeletal details of long gone animals no longer in existence today.

Some of these fossils have been said to be dinosaurs. Using a variety of the most tried and tested radiometric dating techniques (explanation given in link), we have been able to date dinosaur bones as old as 240 million years old (from Brazilian land!).

This hugely contrasts with the idea that the Earth is 6000 years old as the monotheistic texts tell us is true.

Dinosaurs actually contradict the Bible in 3 ways:

  • They are dated to be 40,000 times older than the Bible/Qu'ran/Torah says life is.
  • There are vast collections of dinosaur fossils that back up evolution, so not only do the dinosaurs not fit in with when life was made, but also they don't fit in with how life was made, since evolution means that God did not create all life but rather life was created by nature.
  • The date and creation of dinosaurs means they were around before humans, which means that for at least 239,999,400 years, there was life without humans, making humans not as important as the Bible etc describes. The idea of a "Kalifah" or guardian of the Earth is challenged when the existence of humans on Earth is minuscule compared to the history of the earth.

The evolutionary connections that dinosaurs have with each other as deduced from their fossil analysis.
The evolutionary connections that dinosaurs have with each other as deduced from their fossil analysis. | Source

Countering Counter Arguments

Dinosaurs and Bible Connotations
(Twisting the words in the Bible to make a new meaning of what the Bible actually says - WARNING - leads to homophobia, sexism and stoning)


Dinosaurs were never mentioned in the the three monotheistic religious texts. References to 'dragons' yes, 'beasts', yes. Dinosaurs - no.

And before you say "maybe the ancients found the dinosaur bones and interpreted them as 'dragons' or 'beasts'" let me remind you that the Bible, Qu'ran and Torah are all purportedly the word of God, so if God had MEANT dinosaurs he would have had DINOSAURS written.

Where is there doubt and uncertainty when it is God writing these texts through the medium of human beings? God knows all after all, he knew they were dinosaurs.

To use that argument would concede to the fact that the bible is not the word of God but of human beings.

"God put fossils into the ground to test our faith"

...... That's a joke right?

ha ha...
.....
Right?
..
ha?

Humans :(

History of all Science Ever.
History of all Science Ever.

Radiometric Testing is unreliable

Many people (christians) say that radiometric radiation is unreliable, most of those people (christians) have no idea what they're talking about when they say those words.

But as far as the average human being is concerned, he should know that the scientific community overall accepts radiometric radiation as a very reliable (considering the dates involved - 10,000 years off is still very reliable when you're dealing with 200 million years) method.

For those scientifically equipped, please make sure to keep in mind that when a new paper is entitled "radiometric dating unreliable" they are not saying that it is completely obsolete as a dating method. it is in reference to slight differences to what would be expected, not huge ones. This could be to do with the equipment used in a particular dating procedure that was faulty or not done in a fair test as is known as more common than wanted in the scientific world.

Please be sure to read these links concerning:

  1. What is and how does radiometric dating work
  2. Radiometric Dating - Reliability Challenges Fended off (again)
  3. Pseudo science created by Dr.Hovind to try to tackle radiometric dating - debunked

More by this Author


Comments 21 comments

rLcasaLme profile image

rLcasaLme 4 years ago from Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Interesting but I disagree with your statement that God should have put dinosaurs instead of dragons. The bible was written in a time where people have not heard the word "dinosaur."

Galatians 5: 21

and envy; drunkenness, orgies, AND THE LIKE. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Maybe, God should have included cigarette, heroin, etc... in there instead of just saying "and the like."


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

Oh, so the Dinosaurs debunked the Holy Bible? Dang, here I was, thinking that the ancient alien astronauts debunked the Bible! Man, I need to re-evaluate my studies, as the grey alien girl from a lovely, stylish, sleek UFO from long ago, wearing the sexy space suit that stepped on the trilobite, obviously lied to me!

At any rate, you can also read the cool otherworldly story here: http://www.perpendicularity.org/alien-visitor.html

If you follow that string of stories, you'll also, within the table of contents, find a page about the possible "death of dinosaurs," but either way, it was an interesting, debatable subject, nonetheless...


emmaspeaks profile image

emmaspeaks 4 years ago from Kansas City

Philanthropy2012, great hub! You nailed this one. And yes, dinosaurs do in fact disprove the bible, but that's just one of many things that do. The bible does a pretty good job of disproving itself, what with all the errors, discrepancies and contradictions, but nice try, guys.


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London Author

hahaha thanks Emma and I agree, I think in the hub I mention that dinosaurs were certainly not the first thing :L

And thanks Insane mundane for the links, I'm sure it'll be very interesting.

Your pic is of a comet so I imagine you trust the giant asteroid theory, certainly makes some sense. :)


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

Trust? Ha-ha-ha! What theory? I stay away from satires and fictional magazines, due to the lameness of it all... Anyway, I like your Chinese Yin & Yang pic, so non-original, but at least we agree on something prior to the asinine analytical assumptions of utter swill. Links are only meant to be followed, so please don't click on such things if you assume the boogy-boogy; ha-ha!


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London Author

Excuse me Mr.Mundane, I made no reference to your link's validity in my previous response, care to clarify?


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

Clarification? What's that? You tell me...

Just saying, once you deduct the silly religions of today, the origins and reasons for life are still as much a mystery as it was before. Anyone who debunks the obvious baloney at hand (Wow! Bravo!), will still find it impossible to explain things such as life, thoughts, feelings, emotions, personality, etc. Even the good ol' Object/Concept crap or, as I like to call "Dead Rock Religion," doesn't have a chance when dealing with such things. Anyway, enjoy the new year; cheers!


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London Author

Insane Mundane, obviously that's true?

No one is saying "these things did happen" they're saying "these things mostly like happened" or "it's most likely like this".

Debunking false theories is part of the process to thinking of new and possibly correct ones.

Though some things are fact and evolution is one of them, so what's the point in denying it!?


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

I'll try to respond to your vague 4-sentence reply, in order, below:

Huh? What is obviously true? You lost me, with that first sentence...

What things? Okay, the second sentence is moot, as well?

Hey, there's nothing wrong with debunking. Maybe I've did this too much, and I really just don't get-off on pointing out obvious fallacies via ancient texts anymore.

Just think, people thought the Earth was flat during the biblical times, as well.

If they had internet back then, and you lived during that Era, you may perhaps be uttering chatter about the four corners of the Earth and whatnot, just saying...

No matter how ya look at it, at least for some of us, discovering and learning and experiencing new things is a treasury of ongoing pursuit.

Hopefully, you'll remain open-minded and absorb many things......


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London Author

When a sentence is general, you take it to be general. I meant that I agreed with what you said (all of the words [english words] that you had typed [using a computer] in your previous [the one -message- before your latest one -message-] internet mediated message to me [philanthropy2012])

And you must specify which word is tripping you up in my last comment. Do you need a reference to a good dictionary? The word "these" is a determiner, unfortunately, without your paying me, I won't be teaching you what such a word means.

"Maybe I've did this too much, and I really just don't get-off on pointing out obvious fallacies via ancient texts anymore." - If you had debunked the ancients texts too much, then most of the world wouldn't be believing in them, so don't worry, no one is thinking that :)

"If they had internet back then, and you lived during that Era, you may perhaps be uttering chatter about the four corners of the Earth and whatnot, just saying..." If people still believed in that.. yes..

That would certainly be a more useful expenditure of time than commenting on the people who do.. :s

"Hopefully, you'll remain open-minded and absorb many things......"

I hope the same for you too.


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

Teach me? LOL! No, the last thing I need is some amateur trying to teach me grammar. I'm not grammatically challenged by no means, and if anything, I try to dumb it down as much as I can, but obviously I failed with you. What, do you want me to rhyme & chime like some ancient philosopher? Oh, man... open a window or something; breathe a little; ha!

You seem to be more caught up in trying to prove some otherworldly intellect, which I find to be highly amusing.

Oh well, you'll hopefully learn in due time. You are definitely confused.

Anyway, back to your reply before I start asking how many hundreds of articles from science magazines YOU have published to validate your claims of being a literary giant of utter pompous proclamations:

You said, "If you had debunked the ancients texts too much, then most of the world wouldn't be believing in them, so don't worry, no one is thinking that :)"

I nearly fell out of my chair on that one! Ha-ha! Really, was you serious about that comment; you were joking, right? LOL!

As for the rest, it was too unclear. Maybe you need to learn how to convey messages in a less ambiguous fashion; cheers!


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London Author

"Teach me? LOL! No, the last thing I need is some amateur trying to teach me grammar. I'm not grammatically challenged by no means, and if anything, I try to dumb it down as much as I can, but obviously I failed with you."

Well that's embarrassing for you, because definitions of words isn't grammar... Considering then that you neither know what grammar is, nor the definitions of words, being taught should be on the top of your priorities :S

"You seem to be more caught up in trying to prove some otherworldly intellect"

There's really no need to prove anything about intellect to someone who hasn't learned what grammar is yet..

"Oh well, you'll hopefully learn in due time. You are definitely confused." Seriously.. This is really embarrassing for you :S just google "grammar".

"As for the rest, it was too unclear. Maybe you need to learn how to convey messages in a less ambiguous fashion"

Maybe it's my poor "grammar"? Though you wouldn't know what that means.. pahahah


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

Maybe you need to go get an education besides Google searches for web pages that was constructed by amateurs like your self. Uh, grammar would include the need for definitions as the syntax would require such things, uh, duh! My gawd, are you still in Junior High? Seriously, you obviously have to Google everything or go run back to a dictionary; just think, I have those things in store, as my cognitive function must obviously be even better than I thought.

Dang, what would some of y'all "writers" do without spell-check, dictionary, Google, or Wikipedia? LMAO! You're a funny guy; keep up the great hilarious work, as entertainment might be your forte. :D


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London Author

Pahaha how embarrassing for you :S

Google includes the dictionaries by which humanity functions :s

Pahahahah grammar does not include the definitions of words. Find me one definition that says it does :)pahahaha..

"just think, I have those things in store" obviously not, since you don't even know what grammar is, making mistakes and mitigating them doesn't make you smarter (:

"Dang, what would some of y'all "writers" do without spell-check, dictionary"

Not make fundamental mistakes like you?

And I would say keep up the good work...


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

I'm almost starting to feel sorry for you.

If I see much more evidence that leads me to believe that you have serious mental issues, then I'll at least try to not respond to ya anymore albeit it is tempting, though; ha!

Anyway, you have to know what words mean (definitions) to be able to use them properly in a sentence. Grammar has to include the definitions, you freakin' moron! Why do you think they teach definitions in English class, for example. Did you even go to Grammar School at all?

Who is embarrassed? Why would anybody get embarrassed within a comment field on a free-hosted site (for the members, anyway) like HubPages, unless they are a newbie, amateur, idiot, or whatever.

Some of us have paid domains, websites, blogs and so on, so it is really "not that big of a deal" to squabble with imbeciles in the comment fields via lovely article-submit sites like this. Go get a domain or two, a few blogs or whatever, and maybe you won't take the free sites to extreme, like you seem to do, and would at least be a little more relaxed. Go get some good hosting and prove to the world your all-knowing intellect of nothingness... ;)

Fundamentals? Yeah, you look like a bunch of fundamentals... LOL!

Yeah, keep up the good work, as you beckon for corrections at all times, which is good work for the, uh, commentators... No offense, of course... :D


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London Author

Wow, you're really not dropping it are you?

Grammar is

a. The study of how words and their component parts combine to form sentences.

You don't need to know what the definitiosn of words are, just how they are put together to make sentences. You only need to know what kind of word they are, noun, adjective etc. :)

In Japanese, the grammar dictates that you say sentece in the order of: Subject - object - verb. In English, it is subject-verb-object.

I know that from studying grammar, where did I need the definitions of words in Japanese to know that? :)

Pahah what an embarrassment, have a good day :)


dagger 4 years ago

You are just disproving God with what man knows. What if God's timeline is different from what we have. I truly believe on one of the Bible verses

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD."

-Isaiah 55:8

We, are merely humans and we can never fully understand God's will.


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London Author

@Dagger,

Perhaps that's possible, or perhaps that verse in the Bible (which was written by 40 people), was included to cover up the many inconsistencies, fallacies and atrocities that later came to light.

Using what we know is called rationality.

Yes, what you say might be "possible" but to alter your lifestyle on the basis of something that you don't know is lunacy.

You also don't know that Allah or Godzilla don't exist, yet you don't devote any time of your life to worshipping them! (I hope)

Thank you,

Philanthropy,


dagger 4 years ago

You actually have a point. But please remember that some things need not to be proven through physical things. Immaterial things such as love, hope and faith cannot be understood by science and other physical criteria that you are talking.

During my college years, I realized that the most important things in this life aren't really things. Try reading and understanding different philosophical views like Spinoza, C.S. Lewis etc. This will surely expand yourself as a human and not just a man who exists without reason.

Thanks!


Glenn Stok profile image

Glenn Stok 3 years ago from Long Island, NY

Not only do we have fossils to study and to learn the progression of evolution, but geology also unravels a lot of mysteries. Rocks hold an enormous treasure of information about the Earth's existence millions of years ago. Humans have been on this planet for a very short time in relation to the entire timeline of the Earth's existence. And we will be gone very soon to as compared to the timeline remaining.

I enjoyed reading your hub. It gave me a lot to think about, and the comments from your readers were interesting as well. Voted up.


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 3 years ago from London Author

Thanks a lot Glenn Stok, if only everyone was as understanding.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working