“Real environmentalists live in cities, and they visit what's left of the wilderness as gently and respectfully as possible.” — Donna Moulton, letter to the editor, Tucson Weekly, published on August 23, 2001
I love science... it was always one of my favourite subjects as a child and still is. Nowhere did I get the message that I can't believe in both science or god. I also happen to enjoy evolutionary science.
But it does seem that historically people haven't let the two subjects remain separate. Religious texts are not supposed to be science texts. The religious community has been offended by science before... They put Galileo on trial and almost killed him for saying the Earth moved around the sun... wtf. But Galileo said he wasn't wrong. He said he believed in God, and he didn't let his knowledge weaken his faith. He said during his trial that if the bible conflicts with science, then maybe you're interpreting the bible wrong and that's what he believed was right, that was his faith. God still existed and science wasn't bad or evil.
Sometimes people in the science field are not atheist... but they still feel the religious community is an obstacle.
Last edited by SheWolf; 03-06-11 at 10:16 PM.
Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.
Furthermore, the large fossil record does provide evidence for common descent.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent
Don't join that forum. None of us are qualified to post there.
"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu
I'm biased in that regard, too. Despite my career choice, I still consider myself a mathematician, as that is what my original grad degree is in, and that makes me prefer quantized science.
Give a man a fish, or he will destroy the only existing vial of antidote.
We have nothing else but fossilized bone and maybe skin etc to tell us anything, so I disagree.
An educated guess, is still a guess.
Last edited by Black Dog; 03-06-11 at 11:01 PM.
No Lives Matter
Anyway, the references are in Job chapters 40 and 41. As someone who grew up learning about dinosaurs (I liked quizzing people on how to spell 'Pterodactyl' in grade school, for example) it always seemed striking to me some of the similarities. The Behemoth is described as a monstrous herbivore whose strength is in his stomach and whose tail moves like a cedar (huge long tree). It speaks of it lying in the shade of trees near the reeds by the water, and how it 'drinks up rivers'.
In chapter 41, it describes the leviathan, a huge underwater creature actually said to have air-tight scales (vv. 15-17). It describes him leaving an odd wake behind him, similar to the squid (vv. 31-32). In Psalms 104:26 it was said to disturb ships. It emphasizes neck strength (v. 23). What differs from the account of dinosaurs though is the extensive mention of fire breathing (vv. 18-21) which is mentioned repeatedly to avoid leaving doubt about the meaning. Further unusual is the reference in Isaiah 27:1 suggesting it won't go extinct until the end of days.
Anyway, those 2 chapters provide the best possibility I'm aware of of mention of dinosaurs in the Bible, both land and sea versions. They do seem to provide the possibility of definite archaic mention by what is possibly the oldest book in the Bible.
The other thing to realize with some of the YECs is they don't necessarily believe the dinos went extinct. I've seen them claim the water canopy theory as a way reptiles grew larger, and that with the collapse of such a firmament, dinosaurs simply became smaller versions in the same way that humans began living shorter lives after the flood according to the Biblical genealogies. I haven't examined the theory too seriously yet myself, but I do mention it as an alternative possibility in relation to the statement previously made that YECs have no way to reconcile the fossil record with their beliefs.
Again, with that whole parent species, microevolution stuff that Creationists believe in, they'd actually believe in faster adaptation to the environment occurring on a quicker time scale, but only within species, not between them.
EDIT: This is just one of the many articles out there suggesting a Greenhouse Effect by such a water canopy, in relation to the mention of a firmament in Genesis not mentioned later after the flood. Basically it's hypothesis that reptiles grew larger under such a system. I never followed up on it, I just noticed it a few years ago and generally ignored it. I keep it in the back of my mind as one of the alternatives to consider, as I found the idea intriguing. Anyway, if that were true, dinosaurs wouldn't have gone extinct, just adapted to a post-flood world and grown smaller just as human lifespans decreased with the former growing conditions caused by such a canopy destroyed. Personally, I always found the possibility humorous that the Iguana in someone's cage could be descended from the fearsome dinos.
Last edited by Jzyehoshua; 03-06-11 at 11:04 PM.
Dinosaurs didn't go extinct. They evolved into birds.
Can't we just turn Congress off and then turn it back on again?
I think there are of course exceptions, so it's hard to say "yes" so absolutely. But given the other choice is "no" so absolutely, I'd have to say yes.