How does the dinosaur era fit in with the bible?

Answer 1

Have you considered evolution?

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Version 2.87
Copyright © 1999-2006 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
[Last Update: March 29, 2006]
Permission is granted to copy and print these pages in total for non-profit personal, educational, research, or critical purposes.

Introduction
Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).
Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.
This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.
Outline
Introduction
•Universal Common Descent Defined
•Evidence for Common Descent is Independent of Mechanism
•What Counts as Scientific Evidence
•Other Explanations for the Biology
•How to Cite This Document
Scientific Evidence and the Scientific Method
Phylogenetics introduction
•Figure 1: A consensus universal phylogeny
•Cladistics and phylogenetic reconstruction
oMaximum parsimony
oMaximum likelihood
oDistance matrix methods
•Statistical support for phylogenies
•Does phylogenetic inference find correct trees?
•Caveats with determining phylogenetic trees
Part I. A unique, historical phylogenetic tree
1.Unity of life
2.Nested hierarchies
3.Convergence of independent phylogenies
oStatistics of incongruent phylogenies
4.Transitional forms
oReptile-birds
oReptile-mammals
oApe-humans
oLegged whales
oLegged seacows
5.Chronology of common ancestors
Part 2. Past history
1.Anatomical vestiges
2.Atavisms
oWhales with hindlimbs
oHumans tails
3.Molecular vestiges
4.Ontogeny and developmental biology
oMammalian ear bones, reptilian jaws
oPharyngeal pouches, branchial arches
oSnake embryos with legs
oEmbryonic human tail
oMarsupial eggshell and caruncle
5.Present biogeography
6.Past biogeography
oMarsupials
oHorses
oApes and humans

Part 3. Evolutionary opportunism
1.Anatomical parahomology
2.Molecular parahomology
3.Anatomical convergence
4.Molecular convergence
5.Anatomical suboptimal function
6.Molecular suboptimal function
Part 4. Molecular evidence
1.Protein functional redundancy
2.DNA functional redundancy
3.Transposons
4.Redundant pseudogenes
5.Endogenous retroviruses
Part 5. Change
1.Genetic
2.Morphological
3.Functional
4.The strange past
5.Stages of speciation
6.Speciation events
7.Morphological rates
8.Genetic rates
Closing remarks

Other Links:
A Critique of Douglas Theobald's "29 Evidences for Macroevolution"
Lawyer, Churches of Christ minister, and young-earth creationist Ashby Camp argues that the evidence is insufficient to establish that all organisms share the same biological ancestor.
Theobald Responds to Ashby Camp's "Critique"
The author of this essay has written a response to Camp.
Search this FAQ



What is Universal Common Descent?
niversal common descent is the hypothesis that all living, terrestrial organisms are genealogically related. All existing species originated gradually by biological, reproductive processes on a geological timescale. Modern organisms are the genetic descendants of one original species or communal gene pool. Genetical "gradualness", a much misunderstood term, is a mode of biological change that is dependent on population phenomena; it is not a statement about the rate or tempo of evolution. Truly genetically gradual events are changes within the range of biological variation expected between two consecutive generations. Morphological change may appear fast, geologically speaking, yet still be genetically gradual (Darwin 1872, pp. 312-317; Dawkins 1996, p.241; Gould 2002, pp. 150-152; Mayr 1991, pp. 42-47; Rhodes 1983). Though gradualness is not a mechanism of evolutionary change, it imposes severe constraints on possible macroevolutionary events. Likewise, the requirement of gradualness necessarily restricts the possible mechanisms of common descent and adaptation, briefly discussed below.
Common Descent Can Be Tested Independently of Mechanistic Theories
In this essay, universal common descent alone is specifically considered and weighed against the scientific evidence. In general, separate "microevolutionary" theories are left unaddressed. Microevolutionary theories are gradualistic explanatory mechanisms that biologists use to account for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation. The fundamentals of genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and geology are assumed to be fundamentally correct—especially those that do not directly purport to explain adaptation. However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open.
Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless.
Furthermore, because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this discussion of macroevolution: abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis. In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin. All scientific theories have their respective, specific explanatory domains; no scientific theory proposes to explain everything. Quantum mechanics does not explain the ultimate origin of particles and energy, even though nothing in that theory could work without particles and energy. Neither Newton's theory of universal gravitation nor the general theory of relativity attempt to explain the origin of matter or gravity, even though both theories would be meaningless without the a priori existence of gravity and matter. Similarly, universal common descent is restricted to the biological patterns found in the Earth's biota; it does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of life.
What is Meant by "Scientific Evidence" for Common Descent?
Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.
As a clear example of an untestable, unscientific, hypothesis that is perfectly consistent with empirical observations, consider solipsism. The so-called hypothesis of solipsism holds that all of reality is the product of your mind. What experiments could be performed, what observations could be made, that could demonstrate that solipsism is wrong? Even though it is logically consistent with the data, solipsism cannot be tested by independent researchers. Any and all evidence is consistent with solipsism. Solipsism is unscientific precisely because no possible evidence could stand in contradiction to its predictions. For those interested, a brief explication of the scientific method and scientific philosophy has been included, such as what is meant by "scientific evidence", "falsification", and "testability".
In the following list of evidences, 30 major predictions of the hypothesis of common descent are enumerated and discussed. Under each point is a demonstration of how the prediction fares against actual biological testing. Each point lists a few examples of evolutionary confirmations followed by potential falsifications. Since one fundamental concept generates all of these predictions, most of them are interrelated. So that the logic will be easy to follow, related predictions are grouped into five separate subdivisions. Each subdivision has a paragraph or two introducing the main idea that unites the various predictions in that section. There are many in-text references given for each point. As will be seen, universal common descent makes many specific predictions about what should and what should not be observed in the biological world, and it has fared very well against empirically-obtained observations from the past 140+ years of intense scientific investigation.
It must be stressed that this approach to demonstrating the scientific support for macroevolution is not a circular argument: the truth of macroevolution is not assumed a priori in this discussion. Simply put, the theory of universal common descent, combined with modern biological knowledge, is used to deduce predictions. These predictions are then compared to the real world in order see how the theory fares in light of the observable evidence. In every example, it is quite possible that the predictions could be contradicted by the empirical evidence. In fact, if universal common descent were not accurrate, it is highly probable that these predictions would fail. These empirically validated predictions present such strong evidence for common descent for precisely this reason. The few examples given for each prediction are meant to represent general trends. By no means do I purport to state all predictions or potential falsifications; there are many more out there for the inquiring soul to uncover.
Are There Other Scientifically Valid Explanations?
The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; NAS 2003; NCSE 2003; Working Group 2001). No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.
When evaluating the scientific evidence provided in the following pages, please consider alternate explanations. Most importantly, for each piece of evidence, critically consider what potential observations, if found, would be incompatible with a given alternate explanation. If none exist, that alternate explanation is not scientific. As explained above, a hypothesis that is simply compatible with certain empirical observations cannot use those observations as supporting scientific evidence.
How to Cite This Document
Many people have asked how to cite this work in formal research papers and academic articles. This work is an online publication, published by the Talk.Origins archive. There are standard academic procedures for citing online publications. For example, if you last accessed this page on January 12, 2004, and used version 2.83, here is a reference in formal MLA style:
Theobald, Douglas L. "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent." The Talk.Origins Archive. Vers. 2.83. 2004. 12 Jan, 2004
For more information about citing online sources, including MLA, APA, Chicago, and CBE styles, see the formal style guidelines given in the book Online!: a reference guide to using internet sources.
"... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd.
I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. "
- Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988),
from the introductory lecture on quantum mechanics reproduced in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Feynman 1985).

Next

References
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990) Science for All Americans. http://www.project2061.org/tools/sfaaol/sfaatoc.htm
Darwin, C. (1872) The Origin of Species. Sixth Edition. The Modern Library, New York.
Dawkins, R. (1996) The Blind Watchmaker. New York, Norton.
Feynman, R. P. (1985) QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Freeman, S. and Herron, J. C. (2004) Evolutionary analysis Third edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Futuyma, D. (1998) Evolutionary Biology. Third edition. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
Geological Society of America (2001) "Evolution." http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position.htm
Gould, S. J. (2002) The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Mayr, E. (1991) One Long Argument. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
National Academy of Sciences. (2003) multiple statements. http://www7.nationalacademies.org/evolution/nas.html
National Center for Science Education. (2003) "Voices for Evolution: Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations."
A compilation of statements from 47 of the world's largest and most prestigious societies of professional research scientists, on the importance of evolutionary theory.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3053_statements_from_scientific_and_12_19_2002.asp
Rhodes, F. H. T. (1983) "Gradualism, punctuated equilibria, and the origin of species." Nature 305: 269-272.
Ridley, M. (1993) Evolution. Boston: Blackwell Scientific.

Answer 2

The story in Genesis starts long after the dinosaur era is over. In the Genesis account, the cosmos is tuhuvabohu in the Hebrew, which refers to a chaotic mass of disorganized material, probably that which was left after the catastrophic end to the previous age.

Some who study the bible suggest a theory called gap theory, ie that there is space of millions of years indicated between the first two verses of the Bible. However, this theory is not supported by the Hebrew grammar.

It is feasible to account for previous eras of earth history by understanding that Genesis is not claiming a creation out of nothingness, but out of the tohuvabohu.

Science shows that there have been several different phases in earth history. Before the dinosaurs were here, creatures call the Gorgons were in existence. They died out, giving rise to the dinosaurs. A book called Gorgons describes theories behind these extinctions.

Answer 3

Well the word dinosaur is a new word it means old bones, they lost the real names of these animals because they became extinct but in the Bible in Job 40:15- 19 say that this behemoth ate grass and its tail was like a cedar tree. Now what animal has a tail that big, many say that it was a hippo, know hippo eat seaweed and its tail is as small as a twig.

Answer 4

Is far as christians were concerned it doesn't.To them dinosaurs never existed.That man was the first thing on this earth bottomline.So tell me this...why are they not pulling up jesus bones somewhere and putting them in a museum,but yet we have millions of artifacts of cavemen and dinosaurs?

by the way....an answer that is 10 pages long is not going to get you those precious 10 points!

Answer 5

There is actually some verse or part in the bible that talks about some big creatures, I guessed that might mean dinosaurs lived back then.

Answer 6

it doesnt....it is one of the many biblical contreversies because according to the bible god made humans before there would of been a chance for the time of dinosaurs. because god made earth in 6 days. 6 human days. because when he made day and night that established the length of a human day and therefore the was one or two days between when god made animals and humans....also in the bible it describes animals that are around today and with when the begining those animals litterally would not be the same they are today because of evoultion a proven process. so theres your answer.

Answer 7

There are 3 earth ages (II Pet.3:5-7), same earth but different ages. We are now in the 2nd earth age. Between Gen.1:1 and Gen.1:2 is a vast amount of time, if time existed. Between these 2 verses is Satan’s rebellion (Rev.12:3-4) and “his tail” drew 1/3 of God’s children. Between these 2 verses also belongs all fossils and remains, such as Dinosaurs.

In Gen.1:2 we have the of the end of the 1st earth age and the beginning of the 2nd. For clarity Gen.1:2 needs to be divided (see below).

(A) Gen.1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

(B) Gen.1:2 And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

In (A) Gen.1:2 the first occurrence of the word “was” has been corrupted and is “became”. It reads “And the earth became without form, and void”. The end of the 1st earth age.

In (B) Gen.1:2 we have the beginning of 2nd earth age, the one we live in now. Man did not exist in flesh till this earth age.

Between (A & B) Gen.1:2 is also a vast amount of time, if time existed. Between (A & B) Gen.1:2 is; a global flood (not Noah’s which was a local flood), the destruction of Atlantis, the breakup of Gondwana Land, and the Ice Age.

Time means nothing to our Father. He is very patient and loves His children. Instead of destroying Satan and 1/3 of His children, He destroyed that first earth age. Now in this 2nd earth age we all are born innocent in the flesh. Father came in the flesh Himself, Jesus Christ, and paid the price for all. Father defeated Satin, that is death, legally. So now His children have a decision, to choose life or to choose death. It’s your decision. Choose life!!

Answer 8

Easy: Science says that dinosaurs lived millions of years before humans came. The Bible says that God created man on the 6th day. I believe that one day to God is far, far more then one day to us. Both science and religion can peacefully coexist.

Answer 9

The great flood, destoryed the Land dinosaurs. Noah's ark could not bring in such large animals.

Genesis1:
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

God gave man dominion over all animals. The dating methods for telling the age of Dinosaurs, may not be trust worthy.

Everyone was a vegetarian according to the bible, Man & Beast.
Man had dominion over God's Creatures so it could have been a peaceful living.

Genesis 1:29
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat:

Job 40:
15"Behold, Be'hemoth, which I made as I made you; he eats grass like an ox. 16 Behold, his strength in his loins, and his power in the muscles of his belly. 17 He makes his tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together. 18 His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like bars of iron. 19 "He is the first of the works of God; let him who made him bring near his sword! 20 For the mountains yield food for him where all the wild beasts play. 21 Under the lotus plants he lies, in the covert of the reeds and in the marsh. 22 For his shade the lotus trees cover him; the willows of the brook surround him. 23 Behold, if the river is turbulent he is not frightened; he is confident though Jordan rushes against his mouth. 24 Can one take him with hooks, or pierce his nose with a snare?

Job 41:1 - Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?

Psalms 74:14 - Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.

Isaiah 27:1 - In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.

Psalms104:
25 So is this great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts. 26 There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein.

Answer 10

The Gap Theory. MainWorry Explains this Theory Really well. If he answers, you should choose his as the best answer.

Answer 11

dk dont care