Are dinosaurs a hoax?

Did dinos walk the earth?

  • Yaas

  • Nah


Results are only viewable after voting.

Pilgrim

Pigeon
The war is real. This lead me to buy a Bible.

Though I personally don't believe the Earth is flat, I am heartened that so many people who do have been drawn to Scripture through FE. My only reservation is that if they then at some point cease to believe in FE, it might damage their faith if it was founded on FE.

I'd actually quite like the Earth to turn out to be flat, if only to burst the bubble of modern scientism.

The one problem I've never heard answered satisfactorily by FE people is how the sky in northern latitudes can revolve about a different pole from the sky in southern latitudes. I can't see how flat earth theory could explain this.
 

Aurini

Ostrich
Though I personally don't believe the Earth is flat, I am heartened that so many people who do have been drawn to Scripture through FE. My only reservation is that if they then at some point cease to believe in FE, it might damage their faith if it was founded on FE.

I'd actually quite like the Earth to turn out to be flat, if only to burst the bubble of modern scientism.

The one problem I've never heard answered satisfactorily by FE people is how the sky in northern latitudes can revolve about a different pole from the sky in southern latitudes. I can't see how flat earth theory could explain this.
I'm the opposite. Inverted foolishness is not wisdom. I'm worried they're coming to the faith for all the wrong reasons - hubris rather than humbleness - and that error will affect how they manifest it.

The greatest argument against Christianity is the behaviour of some Christians.
 

Johnnyvee

Ostrich
Does the existence of dinosaurs, and all the history of life prior to human civilization, in any way disprove or go against God though? Genesis might be seen more as a parable than a literal explanation as to how life and everything came into existence. God may simply have poured his spirit into man as he came to a certain stage in his evolution. These things are hard to reconcile I know, but I`m not about to throw out all the data that is out there, and that is quite solid, (in more than one way) as to the existence of a long history of life and development prior to the advent of modern man and certainly civilization.

I don`t buy into the idea that evolution and faith are mutually exclusive in other words. I see it more as an incredible richness of creation, and maybe God only intervenes at certain rare stages or moments in the universe that he started in the first place. That would make it a bit easier to understand at least.
 

tier9

Woodpecker
Does the existence of dinosaurs, and all the history of life prior to human civilization, in any way disprove or go against God though?

I don`t buy into the idea that evolution and faith are mutually exclusive in other words. I see it more as an incredible richness of creation, and maybe God only intervenes at certain rare stages or moments in the universe that he started in the first place. That would make it a bit easier to understand at least.

This is what I've always believed as well.

On the subject of dinosaurs, I think it's amazing we have some creatures that are still around from when the dinosaurs were around. You have to be pretty bad ass to survive hundreds of millions of years like crocodiles.

Knowing about dinosaurs also makes me incredibly grateful that we are at the top of the food chain. Imagine living in a world where creatures could eat you and actively hunted you down as their #1 preferred food source. Scary to think about.
 
No, they are real. Some still exist in very remote regions. They almost became extinct because of over hunting, just like what happened to the whales.
They are not a species that became extinct millions of years ago, that’s the hoax.
 

typtre

Robin
Though I personally don't believe the Earth is flat, I am heartened that so many people who do have been drawn to Scripture through FE. My only reservation is that if they then at some point cease to believe in FE, it might damage their faith if it was founded on FE.

I'd actually quite like the Earth to turn out to be flat, if only to burst the bubble of modern scientism.

The one problem I've never heard answered satisfactorily by FE people is how the sky in northern latitudes can revolve about a different pole from the sky in southern latitudes. I can't see how flat earth theory could explain this.

sgu-from-pole-to-pole-pe-half-1200-cp9.jpg




I think what you are looking for is here. But as he states, it's highly recommended to read previous posts first.
 
Last edited:

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
Does the existence of dinosaurs, and all the history of life prior to human civilization, in any way disprove or go against God though? Genesis might be seen more as a parable than a literal explanation as to how life and everything came into existence. God may simply have poured his spirit into man as he came to a certain stage in his evolution. These things are hard to reconcile I know, but I`m not about to throw out all the data that is out there, and that is quite solid, (in more than one way) as to the existence of a long history of life and development prior to the advent of modern man and certainly civilization.

I don`t buy into the idea that evolution and faith are mutually exclusive in other words. I see it more as an incredible richness of creation, and maybe God only intervenes at certain rare stages or moments in the universe that he started in the first place. That would make it a bit easier to understand at least.


None of the Church Fathers took anything in Genesis as 'metaphor' or 'allegory'. that's a modern kind of cope. believe in God's Revelation or don't. On the other hand, none of them believed in a 'literal' reading either, because there is no such thing. There is no such thing as a literal description of the world because descriptions are made with words, and words are symbols meant to represent reality, but they are not reality. Words are like a map, they point towards reality, they represent reality, but they are not reality itself: they are by necessity a reduction of the real to something more palatable. Thus there is no such thing as a literal description of anything. That does not make the description less true, or the events and things it is describing less true. It merely means that, just like with science and technology, modern man is again fooled into overestimating the power of his own invention. Medieval man did not believe in literal readings, it is modern man that does. It is for this reason he cannot comprehend even the most basic distinction between map and reality – and this applies both to his reading of the Bible as to scientific descriptions, with the exception that he tends to think the words in the Bible do not describe anything real whereas the words of the journalists and the scientists are the same as the reality they are attempting to describe.

The Biblical story requires MUCH LESS faith than the scientific descriptions, due to the large amount of people involved in the latter versus the former. To believe the Bible you only have to have faith in God, the writers and the church. To believe soyence you have to have faith in a gigantic network of people, many organizations, institutions and motives, from the scientists themselves to the journalists. And I have no such faith. I am highly skeptical of humans and their enterprises. I have faith in God and His enterprise.

But again, that is a very different thing from a 'literal' reading in the way that people use that word. Now, some things are exactly as described, like Jesus's words. That is not difficult to describe. Creation or the resurrection on the other hand, we have no words to capture something like that, it is something that happened only once, and it defies the normal laws of the universe (that is the point of it), so it will always be described in insufficient ways, it will never be literal because we have no words and letters (where the word literal comes from) to describe it. That does not make it any less true. Have you tried explaining in words your love for your wife? It is very difficult and you will only be able to get an approximation, because love is much more than words can describe. There are things beyond words. Belief in 'literal' descriptions is another way of elevating ourselves and our products above God. We are so in love with our inventions (in this case, language) that we think they can capture the world that God created, but not only that, God himself. That is pure hubris - and of course it leads to aberrant understandings and then to loss of faith. But that's only because it is expected to provide something that cannot be provided: a purely human understanding of God's mystery.

God does have the view from above, the complete view, but He chose to give us a map using a human tool, language. It does not however mean that the map can be confused with the view from above. And so when we read the Bible, for example Genesis 1:1 «In the beginning God created heaven, and earth» we can have only an approximate idea of what it means. While some descriptions in the Bible, especially with regards to the historical comings and goings of Israel and the nations they come into contact with both in the Old and the New Testament, are precise and easy to understand, such monumental and supernatural events as Creation, the Fall, the Incarnation or Resurrection of Christ must necessarily remain mysterious, because they are speaking of events that can never be understood purely from a human view, and hence a purely human construction such as language can never provide an entirely satisfactory description and must resort, by necessity, to poetic language.

Like the question of whether it was 6 days or not is ridiculous. Of course it was 6 days, that's what it says. A totally different question is if the duration of those days is the same as ours. From my readings it seems to me that the world was totally different both when created, then after the fall, and then again after the flood. So we have no idea how long the days were - were they 24 hours? And if so, what are hours or days for a being such as God? Does it even matter? More importantly, God can create instantly and this is what is described, actually, so the more important question is not how many days, or how long they were, but what the days MEAN. But again, to begin to think of it, you have to discard all the materialistic notions that you've been indoctrinated with since first grade (maybe before).

Similarly with the resurrection, what does it MEAN? We have never died, so we don't know the first part of it, at least not fully. We also don't know exactly what happens to the soul after death. But even if we did, we are not talking of an ordinary soul, but Christ's soul. So how do we even begin to understand what the resurrection was?

We don't. It's a mystery. Yet, the story is true, Christ resurrected. Just because we can't fully understand or describe monumental events like these, that does not mean they are not true - in the same way you cannot understand or describe fully your love for your wife. But also it doesn't mean things are literally as described, because they cannot even begin to be described properly with human words.
 
@ilostabet Beautiful post. I wish I could like it, instead I give you praise in more than a symbol. Our languages changed for the worse in the past centuries because only God knows why the mystique, spirit, and metaphorical significance of language has been eroded. The earliest alphabets were symbols and pictures, to represent more than the sign itself. By having a liturgical language that is still in use after millenia, we are connected to this very holiness language contains. As my priest told me: "Language is the greatest distinction between man and animal. Language is spirit", and I do add language contains the essence of God's Spirit.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
Inspiring post indeed.
The only (minor) disagreement I would have is with the following :
None of the Church Fathers took anything in Genesis as 'metaphor' or 'allegory'. that's a modern kind of cope. believe in God's Revelation or don't.

It is true in a sense, but it fails to capture that besides the gap between faith and faithlessness, there is also degrees in faith and conviction. My impression from reading texts by ancient authors is that, while today's and yesterday's faithful believe in essentially the same things, the latter are far more articulate about it, and unlike us, they are not often dumbfounded, confused, or engaging now and then in a small bout of fideism.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
Inspiring post indeed.
The only (minor) disagreement I would have is with the following :


It is true in a sense, but it fails to capture that besides the gap between faith and faithlessness, there is also degrees in faith and conviction. My impression from reading texts by ancient authors is that, while today's and yesterday's faithful believe in essentially the same things, the latter are far more articulate about it, and unlike us, they are not often dumbfounded, confused, or engaging now and then in a small bout of fideism.

The Fathers are far from not engaging in discussion and accusing others of insufficient faith (and even of trying to destroy the faith) . Most of their writings were addressing ideas they considered either wrong, unclear or, more often than not, heretical. This is how the faith was established to a large degree. Because we know quite well now from the lessons of the Reformation that anything and everything can be argued from Scripture, if one is twisted enough. And insofar as I can tell, even modern ideas like evolution are not more than new versions of early heresies which were argued against and utterly destroyed more than a thousand years ago.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
The attitude some Christian evolutionists have that if we add God to evolution, then all is well seems to me to be particularly dangerous, even more so than the random chance hypothesis (which is absurd), precisely because it is so appeasing and appealing to Christians. But the fact remains that evolution is a narrative, and it clashes directly with God's revelation to men. Adding God to it is another form of Deism, which is antithetical to Christianity, ultimately. To believe God put evolution in motion we have to disbelieve a whole lot about what Scripture says and what the traditional Christian understanding of it is, all of it quite important to the faith. The fact that there is no consistent scientific proof for any of it is to me even beside the point. It is a philosophical question above all. And either one has the right philosophy (theology) or we accept the naturalistic philosophy of science, which presupposes that an experimental method can reveal ultimate truths about reality, not just observe its processes. Ultimately, it is no different than trying to fit other modern sensibilities (like the buddy 'jesus') into Christianity, which most here would obviously reject. But for some reason, evolution still holds as the foundational myth, even above what is explicit in the Scriptures. But just because you add God to evolution, it changes nothing. You can add God to anything and make it stick. 'the demons also believe, and tremble'.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
The fact that there is no consistent scientific proof for any of it is to me even beside the point.

All the more so as the evolution ideology continually redefines itself. The current cliché that "evolution is due to random mutations" is completely unscientific, even though many scientists are too blinded to notice or too afraid to say. If a phenomenon is "random" it's not part of science until you discover a law that transcends it, it's just uninterpreted data.

Idolatry of science is already bad enough.
The sad thing is, in most cases today (and especially in the "evolution" field) we don't even have scientists, we just have ideologues pretending to be scientists.
 

Aurini

Ostrich
None of the Church Fathers took anything in Genesis as 'metaphor' or 'allegory'. that's a modern kind of cope. believe in God's Revelation or don't. On the other hand, none of them believed in a 'literal' reading either, because there is no such thing. There is no such thing as a literal description of the world because descriptions are made with words, and words are symbols meant to represent reality, but they are not reality. Words are like a map, they point towards reality, they represent reality, but they are not reality itself: they are by necessity a reduction of the real to something more palatable. Thus there is no such thing as a literal description of anything. That does not make the description less true, or the events and things it is describing less true. It merely means that, just like with science and technology, modern man is again fooled into overestimating the power of his own invention. Medieval man did not believe in literal readings, it is modern man that does. It is for this reason he cannot comprehend even the most basic distinction between map and reality – and this applies both to his reading of the Bible as to scientific descriptions, with the exception that he tends to think the words in the Bible do not describe anything real whereas the words of the journalists and the scientists are the same as the reality they are attempting to describe.

The Biblical story requires MUCH LESS faith than the scientific descriptions, due to the large amount of people involved in the latter versus the former. To believe the Bible you only have to have faith in God, the writers and the church. To believe soyence you have to have faith in a gigantic network of people, many organizations, institutions and motives, from the scientists themselves to the journalists. And I have no such faith. I am highly skeptical of humans and their enterprises. I have faith in God and His enterprise.

But again, that is a very different thing from a 'literal' reading in the way that people use that word. Now, some things are exactly as described, like Jesus's words. That is not difficult to describe. Creation or the resurrection on the other hand, we have no words to capture something like that, it is something that happened only once, and it defies the normal laws of the universe (that is the point of it), so it will always be described in insufficient ways, it will never be literal because we have no words and letters (where the word literal comes from) to describe it. That does not make it any less true. Have you tried explaining in words your love for your wife? It is very difficult and you will only be able to get an approximation, because love is much more than words can describe. There are things beyond words. Belief in 'literal' descriptions is another way of elevating ourselves and our products above God. We are so in love with our inventions (in this case, language) that we think they can capture the world that God created, but not only that, God himself. That is pure hubris - and of course it leads to aberrant understandings and then to loss of faith. But that's only because it is expected to provide something that cannot be provided: a purely human understanding of God's mystery.

God does have the view from above, the complete view, but He chose to give us a map using a human tool, language. It does not however mean that the map can be confused with the view from above. And so when we read the Bible, for example Genesis 1:1 «In the beginning God created heaven, and earth» we can have only an approximate idea of what it means. While some descriptions in the Bible, especially with regards to the historical comings and goings of Israel and the nations they come into contact with both in the Old and the New Testament, are precise and easy to understand, such monumental and supernatural events as Creation, the Fall, the Incarnation or Resurrection of Christ must necessarily remain mysterious, because they are speaking of events that can never be understood purely from a human view, and hence a purely human construction such as language can never provide an entirely satisfactory description and must resort, by necessity, to poetic language.

Like the question of whether it was 6 days or not is ridiculous. Of course it was 6 days, that's what it says. A totally different question is if the duration of those days is the same as ours. From my readings it seems to me that the world was totally different both when created, then after the fall, and then again after the flood. So we have no idea how long the days were - were they 24 hours? And if so, what are hours or days for a being such as God? Does it even matter? More importantly, God can create instantly and this is what is described, actually, so the more important question is not how many days, or how long they were, but what the days MEAN. But again, to begin to think of it, you have to discard all the materialistic notions that you've been indoctrinated with since first grade (maybe before).

Similarly with the resurrection, what does it MEAN? We have never died, so we don't know the first part of it, at least not fully. We also don't know exactly what happens to the soul after death. But even if we did, we are not talking of an ordinary soul, but Christ's soul. So how do we even begin to understand what the resurrection was?

We don't. It's a mystery. Yet, the story is true, Christ resurrected. Just because we can't fully understand or describe monumental events like these, that does not mean they are not true - in the same way you cannot understand or describe fully your love for your wife. But also it doesn't mean things are literally as described, because they cannot even begin to be described properly with human words.
I'm a big science guy - as in, actual science and philosophy, not the clown-show that peer reviewed journals and science popularizers are. Keep that in mind when I recommend this slide show - I believe it was Roosh who originally tweeted it out - it's not short, give it about 20 minnutes, but it's remarkable how current science matches Genesis when considered in a logarithmic scale. https://sixdayscience.com/six-days-2/

Not 'proof' - consider it an interpretation of poetry. And keep in mind that poetry is a lot more significant than thermodynamics.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
I'm a big science guy - as in, actual science and philosophy, not the clown-show that peer reviewed journals and science popularizers are. Keep that in mind when I recommend this slide show - I believe it was Roosh who originally tweeted it out - it's not short, give it about 20 minnutes, but it's remarkable how current science matches Genesis when considered in a logarithmic scale. https://sixdayscience.com/six-days-2/

Not 'proof' - consider it an interpretation of poetry. And keep in mind that poetry is a lot more significant than thermodynamics.

I didn't finish it. I am not a big science guy though I kept your advice in mind. I understand the temptation behind trying to fit Genesis into modern hypothesis, whatever they are. No one wants to be considered a rube and compared to some of the evangelical fundamentalists.

But I have to admit (being a rube) I am highly skeptical and prejudiced against things like this. The purpose is always to fit Genesis into whatever science currently says, which is always changing. This to me is a bad attitude to have. The scale of value is clear, and it's not Scripture which comes on top. And if for some reason the scientific consensus turns around, the same people would run hastily to try to fit Genesis into that. There's a difference between a desire to know and an obsession with 'staying with the times'. Meanwhile, the words of Scripture remain the same and so do the writings of the Church Fathers on them.

For my part, I know nothing about physics (and I have no capacity, and thus no interest). From the geology/paleontology side the 'evidence' for the earth being billions of years old is not very strong at all. In fact, quite the opposite: the evidence is laughably weak and sometimes quite fraudulent. It's only because modern scientists want to believe in an old earth (mainly to conform with darwinism) that all the flaws and errors and inconsistencies in results in all the testing systems are ignored, and all the required assumptions for those systems to work, are made without a second thought.

I understand what the authors of the slides are trying to prove. And they are very careful to thread a non-heretical line. But to me, that's all the more proof where their heart truly lies (with the scientific consensus, not Scripture). And if they are correct, which they may be, I don't see how that gives us more edification than simply reading Scripture or understanding them in a traditional way. The only thing it does is proudly elevate man: we are great, we discovered the mysteries of God and the Universe and Everything through our own means, and not by what God gave us. I think nothing good ever came of this.
 

PhatEarf

Sparrow
I voted Nah because I think it's funny like Flat Earth. If dinosaurs were fake, or the earth flat, I'd just find it hilarious rather than mind shattering. I think scientists are finding real things. I think the stories they make up about them is where they run into error. Think of the "kid's show" (total psyop) Dino Dana. Man, my kids love that show, but it is so totally fake. What it does is it gets kids more excited about dinosaurs than the Bible. Unless you're a boy. Then reading Joshua and Judges is pretty bad ace. Then as kids get older they are told they have to choose between dinosaurs (which they love) and science or the Bible and 6 24 hour days of Creation. I think both can exist along with dragons (the kids love that idea). The sixdayscience slideshow was pretty cool. I don't know enough about mathematics and the big bang to know whether that's an epic win or not, but modern scientists are definitely going to reject it out of hand because of their jaded hearts and reprobate minds. I personally doubt the world wide flood because the evidence on the earth seems to support plat tectonics more. I do believe there was a localized flood somewhere in Central Asia, or maybe an event following the retreating ice sheets from the last ice age. There are a number of possibilities that could tie to the myth of Atlantis. Science without myth is dead and boring. Science with myth and the Bible is infinitely more interesting, and I think it makes for more interesting people. I love reading people's posts on this topic way more than something from Sam Harris or Bill Nye.
 

AndrewPP

Chicken
The author Adrienne Mayer has gone through ancient literature looking for such evidence and believes legends in various places reflect the fossils found there. For instance Protoceratops fossils are found around the Black Sea and the gryphon originated in the land of the Scythian according to Ancient Greek authors such as Aeschylus and Aelian. Also she believes Mammoth skeletons were mistaken for giants in some places too.
 
Top