Well based upon Christian beliefs, the world was created in 6 days.  This means that dinosaurs did not live 65 million years ago like scientist say.  Did dinosaurs live along side man?  The answer is yes.  Well where exactly does it say dinosaurs roamed the land in the bible?  Well it never exactly used the word dinosaur because, remember, the word dinosaurs wasn't created until the 1800's, so think of a creature that was revered as dangerous, big, and scary.  Think medieval times.  Large reptilian creature larger that life.  What what is the name for such a creature that all of the earth may know it's name?  If you guessed dragon you would be correct.   It mentions dragons all over the bible and even at a time gives a description of a dinosaur.    Job  40th chapter around the fifth verse it says something regarding a behemoth that was large, great in strength, a tail like cedar, bones like bronze, legs like iron, and the first of God's creations.  I don't have all the answers, but I have enough to back any questions.  I have enough to prove evolution wrong and to prove that all theories can be disproved by the bible.

I believe your statement is true. I think I'll look over that verse you mentioned. I don't recall ever hearing it interpreted that way. Oh and it took a lot of guts to post this, especially in a place that looks to be growing increasingly liberal. You're gonna get a lot of flak for it. I applaud you for it.

First off evolution is proven by science as in it really happened second off the bible was not meant to be fact it was meant to be a book of morals(more or less) my point is you can't prove non-fiction with fiction

you cant prove the vailidity of an object with the object in question, you need a foreign piece of proof, and as dragons arent real you cant prove it.

First you have to understand that evolution has a lot gaps to fill such as other animals living while their descendants are living.  Second you under stand the nature and creature of the dragon, and that almost all of the ancient stories of that valiant knight that slayed the dragon were based on true stories.  Third, if I remember correctly when the first dinosaur fossil was found in China, it was described by the Chinese as a dragon because the word dinosaur hadn't yet been created.  Last, you must scientist cover the truth in order to prove their theory suitable.  Every theory ever made can and has and will be disproved by the bible.

Well I don't understand that much myself. They say that god created the Earth- 7 days creating the sun, land, sea, creatures,etc. They ALSO say that dinosaurs existed BEFORE god descended onto Earth. It makes me wonder if both facts are really true since science proves that dinosaurs swam in oceans and flew and the air and everything.

DARKANINE : Many people are likely to take that into offense. I could go on and on about how the Bible is extremely likely to not be wrong. For the sake of argument, let's consider that the Bible is telling the truth.

warmaker : I'm sure he didn't mean all theories about science ever made. I'm sure pace was just talking about theories about how life was made.

catfight09 : They say that dinosaurs existed before God? That would be impossible because God was the beginning of everything. Can you provide a source for that claim?

mr.pace- I don't disagree with your statements. I remember hearing about that myself about Job. However, I don't think the answer would exactly be a dragon. No where in the Bible does it mention a creature that has scaley wings and spits fire. But didn't humans live during a time when great mammoths roamed the land before dying out some time in the last ice age? That itself could be very valid proof for the existance of a "great behemoth".

Not really, I mean I asked my bible studies teacher and that's what he told me. Something about the B.C. or A.D. thing.

DARKANINE : Although I disagree with the whole dinosaurs being around with man, your statement about evolution being proved is incorrect. I am a religious person who believes that evolution is correct (a simple genetics course alone can support it), but evolution is not proven. Evolution is and always will be a theory and you can't scientifically prove a theory. All you can do  is fail to disprove it, thereby giving it more support. There are plenty of studies out there that counter points brought up by the evolutionary theory. 

mr.pace. I think are taking the 6 days think too literally. It is widely believed that it was referring to 6 days in God's eyes. We see a day as 24 hours or the time it takes for the Earth to completely spin around one time. However, not all planets have the same length of day. As far as Earth is concerned, before the planet was created by God, there was no established time period of how long a day was because there was not Earth to spin. So the 6 days is 6 days in God's eyes, which likely spans over millions of years (as time itself is not a factor for God). As far as medieval dragons, those are about as mythological as Orcs and Fairies. There is no tangible evidence to show that the dragons described from that time period actually existed. As a matter of fact, it is illogical for a lizard that looked like the description and paintings to even fly. Just because it has wings, doesn't make it capable of flight. Wings positioned like that aren't actually functional in flight. These do not exist. There are plenty of large sized creatures present in the time of mans beginning that could fit the behemoth description. Besides, simple archaeological digging alone indicates that Dinosaurs died off long before man came around. First, depth of where remains are found is a good indicator of how long remains have been fossilized. The oldest human remains in comparison to dinosaur remains don't really match up in the depth of where they are found in respect to the location of which they are found. And although there are those who don't believe in carbon dating, more than enough there is more than enough support in it's accuracy to make it considered reliable. Most articles I read trying to counter carbon dating were very clearly made by people who don't fully understand carbon dating in the first place. Not all, but most. 

Someone70 : Well actually the bible does mention something about a seven headed dragon that spat fire. In Revelation 12 and after it speaks of a dragon. Also in Job starting at 40:15 all the way to the end of Job it speaks a bit more liberally about behemoth.  Also as I stated the word dinosaur hadn't yet been created, but the word dragon was greatly used, and it would absolutely absurd to render them just folklore and fairy-tales because all folklore and fairy-tales and other related story tell originated from a true source.  Meaning it had to happen before one could tell about the encounter.
catfight09 :   It states in the book of John Chapter 1 verses 1-3  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  The same was in the beginning with God.  All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.  And I say that God created the earth in 6 days because he rested on the 7th day.  Also there are tons of evidence supporting that dinosaurs existed more recently than you make think perhaps the greatest amount of evidence are living specimens.  Scientist brush off any possibility that they may be wrong and yet there very rare changes when they can ever logically support there theory.
warmaker :   In Genesis it states that God create the land and the animals of the land and he created the sky and the fouls of the sky meaning what was meant to stay on the ground was meant for ground and for the sky for the sky.  This states that no land creature could fly through any biological means which make the law of gravity sound rather redundant.  Also so when one says that we all originated from the ocean then why is it that we drown when sink?  Why aren't we beings with a common ancestor that can from the water suitable for life in the water.  Another thing to answer you question about which descendants live together, primates.  If we originated from one single common ancestor how can apes and humans live at the same time considering a species can only evolve into one thing and not multiple because all of the other creatures of that same species will evolve into the same creature as the other.

Also there is another prove to the matter.  Cave drawings.  Indian cave  drawings here in North America show the body of a sauropod dinosaur. Scientist brushed it off because that didn't want to be wrong.  Also tyrannosaur bones found with soft tissue and red blood cell.  Now how could that survive 65 million years.  And there is live evidence but of course it's a myth sited by 1,000's of people over the years but yet the scientist don't try to go to the area where recently sited and study and observe instead they simply brush it aside or if they do go on an expedition that purposely go to a place 100's of miles away form where sited.  I find science interest, but through it all scientist are ignorant and afraid of the world upon which they live and cover the truth of the matter entirely to much.

mr.pace- Don't see these paragraphs as me disputing your religion, because I am a Christian man myself. I think you might appreciate the last paragraph of this post. If not, at least it will assure you that I am not attempting to attack any of your beliefs, but simply find a way to coexist. 

You clearly need to take more biology courses. You bring up multiple things that have happened, but have no understanding whatsoever on how they work. The soft tissue of a dinosaur was not LIVING tissue or red blood cells. So it didn't survive for 65 million years. The find you are talking about was from a frozen specimen, and there was very little tissue left before it was frozen. It's no different than the infant mammoth that was found over 75% intact in a frozen state. 

Second, where in the world did you hear this story about scientists covering up a cave drawing to not be wrong. Seriously. Come on. The goal of science is not to avoid being proven wrong. It is to find the truth. Unless you can come up with a credible source to back up this cave drawing story (and not, some .com site online does NOT qualify as a credible source), that holds no merit. Any credible scientist trying to find evidence on the origin of life does not.

Next, saying that dragons are real because all folklore and fairy-tales originated from a true source is insane. Stories are often made up for entertainment. Are you saying that stories of pixies, nymphs, unicorns, genies have to have existed too? You are by saying that all folklore stems from truth. A lot of fairy tales are made to be children's stories. But if you want to make some logic out of dragons, couldn't it have just as easily been a child who saw a lizard that looked huge to him (as children tend to exaggerate) and constant retelling of this creature blew it up to a fire breathing monster that flies with a wing structure than we know now isn't even capable of creating a drift strong enough to lift up a creature supposedly weighing a few tons?

Next, birds flying in no way makes the laws of gravity redundant. All the law of gravity states is that there is a force pulling objects down. When a bird flies, it's lightweight due to hollow bones and the structure of their wings and their ability to create enough air resistance is able to create a lifting force that is stronger than force of gravity, allowing them to come off the ground. It is a simple example of one force being stronger than another.

Next, the common ancestor examples you brought up. As any genetics course can show you, when an organism has to adapt to new surroundings in order to compete to survive, it is no longer cost effective to keep the structures that worked in a different environment. When organisms are being out-competed in their environment, they have a few options. Develop methods to make you more efficient than your competitor, change your niche in such as surviving off of something that your competitors (this has been shown with the development of eating habits of many different finches that live in the same tree in response to the Lotka-Volterra equation statement), move to an area in which they are not being out competed, or die. In response to your "why do we drown when we sink" question. The first organisms to move from land to water (which was not just some quick process. It happens after many generations adapting to environments closer and closer to the shore line until it actually reaches the shore), it now has two separate niches, water and land. Other organisms begin to do the same thing. Eventually, some amphibians out compete others in the water, so it is no longer cost effective for them to compete in the water. When it gets to the point where they pretty much don't go in the water, it is now a waste of energy to focus on developing structures suitable for water when it no longer competes in the water. When that happens, it is no longer an aquatic organism, which is why non aquatic organisms drown. They were out competed in the water to the point where it is no longer an efficient use of energy to have water adaptations, which is shown in the Allocation Model. 

Lastly, your statement on why apes and humans live in the same period. It is a very common misconception stating that humans evolved from today's common ape. We can thank that stupid ape to man evolutionary chart for that one. The first Homo erectus (standing up on two legs) is proposed to have originated as a means of seeing over tall grass (like the giraffe having long necks to reach food out of reach to other organisms). Today's common ape is not going to one day evolve into humans. They simply lived in an environment in which it was not beneficial to stand up on two legs (which is why apes live in the jungle, and not in the prairie). The first Home erectus emerged in prairie environments (Likely what might be considered the Garden of Eden). It is just a matter of living in different areas in which standing up strait and developing the learning capacity to develop tools is not as much of a necessity in one area as it would be another. 

Like I have said before, which I restate now so people don't get the wrong impression of me, I am a religious person and believe in the Bible. I just am not going to brush off valid scientific study. Science and God should work together. God created the world somehow. Personal views on how God did it depends on how you interpret scripture. I interpret it as 6 days not meaning our literal 24 hour period as that is a very self centered point of view. As I stated in my last post, why assume what the amount of time it takes for the world to spin one time is what is a day in God's eye when there was no concept of a day for earth before it was created because there was no earth? The Bible said 6 days. Not 144 hours. It is a matter of scripture interpretation. I believe that the first organism all the way up to the the present day creatures all happened in the days of Genesis. The land started all as aquatic life. This is believed by scientists and stated in Genesis as the 5th day. The 6th day is when the land acquired animals. This is the same thing as science saying that aquatic animals adapting to live on land so they aren't out competed in the water. At the end of the 6th day, man is created. The evolution of aquatic animals to amphibians was the beginning of the 6th day. Later in the day, the amphibians that weren't doing well competing in water and adapted to purely life on land (reptiles). After the first Ice Age, the large reptiles (dinosaurs) could no longer survive due to being ectothermic and lower food supply. The smaller reptiles were able to survive because though they weren't best suited for cold, they were able to survive long enough because they didn't need as much food to survive as the giant dinosaurs. Those who could not live in the cold had find another means of temperature regulation, in which the body put more energy to endothermic heat regulation (mammals). Through further adaptations in response to changing environments and having to compete with other organisms, we have the variety of animals we have today (including man), which concludes the 6th day of genesis. Basically, Genesis and evolution only have to be seen as two different things if you decide to interpret the 6 day thing as what we perceive as six days. Otherwise, they are pretty much saying the exact same thing, but the Bible wasn't as specific about the details on how it all happened. The Bible shouldn't have to do into those details because those details are not the point of the Bible.

mr.pace :
rcarter2 :

Carter, you stole my thunder.  Well-played and I applaud you.  I also agree with you that we are not trying to disprove or disrupt believe in Christianity.  I will never challenge anyone's belief system though I do enjoy the debate on their points vs. my own.  You are correct in that we are not attacking Christianity.  We're simply providing alternate points of view. 

Your following points are also spot-on.  Drawings can be fiction.  Animals diverge from common ancestors based on traits that increase adaptability.  Soft tissues do exist, et al.


I have nothing more to add.  You did well, sir.

I actually found out that it's just a rumor. Some people believe that humans descended from dinosaurs.

catfight09 : just a little confused. What exactly were you referring to when you said you found out it's just a rumor? What is a rumor? A lot of points were brought up in this thread. Are you referring to the overall 'dinosaurs lived with humans according to the Bible"? 

time is a thing of humans to god 6 days could be 6 million years for all you know

Yes I mean the fact that dinosaurs existed was a rumor where scientists believe that the dinosaurs eventually evolved into humans or something to that effect.

How did humans survive what dino's did not that is the biggest question here. Only answer I can think of is noas ark and in order for that theory to make sense noas ark would have to be a dna bank on an alien spaceship. Isn't it a bit odd that noas ark had no dinos (at least not to my knowledge) nor any sea animals. To me that pretty much says these creatures on noas ark were not alive, they were in test tubes and inserted onto earth after someone killed the dinos. Flood or ice age some animals live in water and others can live in extremely cold temperatures so I don't believe neither a flood nor ice age killed everything. And some think a meteor killed dinos, if that is case how is it possible humans survived that?

If evolution did not exist neither would the bible. The bible is an idea which evolved from multiple minds in order to speculate who god is and how we came about. The bible has evolved over time and so has civilization and all creatures on earth. If we have not evolved, then anyone in ancient times would have had iphones and computers. Plus earth itself is evolution, look at the tectonic plates move, look at the weather patterns and landscapes change etc... You cannot deny evolution without discrediting all history and past civilizations. Some people look at evolution as monkey into man, but really its much simpler then that.

Knowledge is evolution, that is what science is. It's about discovering new things and "evolving" into something better. The bible is evolution, it went from god (supposably), to a human, to multiple humans, to an entire empire with millions in support of it. That is evolution.

No animal breathes fire, the storys of dragons say they do, and what they suposedly look like is documented,considering storys have them alive at the time of man funny there are no bones?
You have no more means of proving dragons true than you do the bible.
They called them dragon in china because
1. They though,oh lare mythical looking creature and
2. Because in chinese, you cant just make new words,its irelevant so i wont explain it.
I could have called it a pony, that dosent make it so.