Where do the dinosaurs fit into the Bible?

You do realize humans share 98% of their DNA with chimps?

Is this:
(a) A huge coincidence
(b) "speciation"
(c) evolution
(d) b is the same dang thing as c except as time continues, speciation becomes more pronounced.

I've always been curious and whenever I've asked I tend to be either ignored or looked at in a funny way but... Why do people believe that the Bible is literally true?

I'm not looking for a scientific proof or anything like that, just your personal reasons.

Unsubstantiable lies! DNA is a made up fairy story; have you ever seen any? Nope, nor I, therefore it does not exist.

I will mock your blashphemous suffering in hell from the side of my Father in Heaven (ya know how some dads take their children to monster truck pulls? this is sorta God's "Sunday out with the kids" - just whatever you do, don't whine about the noise, He hates that!)

The idea that fossils of stone take a long period of time is not exactly cutting edge science. There have been cases that stone fossils are created in less than 100 years. Here is one example

Aren't you proving my point exactly with the above paragraph? Majority (or those in authority / influential positions) does not equal correct...

So, you are saying that because the hypothesis is theistic in nature it discounts any scientific information they may afford? If you would like a list of their credentials, it is openly available.

While I would presume that there are more studies by non-creationist on record, I would certainly disagree that there is only 1 research study that bears out this fact. Further, the trees in the studies below were the 'Bristlecone Pine'.

According to Harold Gladwin (197, the growth patterns of the bristlecone trees are too erratic for dating.
Lammerts (1983) found extra rings after studying the development of bristlecone saplings.

From here.
So, is it possible that meteoric phenomena transpired during other catastrophic events that would have surpassed mention of such? There are theories of such.

If it is evolution, why then did the chimps and apes not evolve too? Generally wouldn't evolution require a species to improve because of environmental need and the "un-improved" version dies out? Survival of the fittest? I think it's how it's meant to be. Apes and chips have a lot of similar traits as humans and so their DNA should be similar, yet that 2% is the difference between the two. Margarine also has a chemical composition that is just 1 or 2 atoms away from plastic.

Does that change anything? Are you saying that once a species is 'created' that it remains the same forever, or is it more likely that they 'evolved' to meet conditions from one period to the next. Would you not agree that people today are taller that people of yester year?

That is why it is good to reference the original language. I am not a linguist, but we all have a healthy amount of commentary of the original language.

Very true. However, generally speaking, if the language is known, context bears out what was meant. To translate the colloquialism of the day, often times one can refer to other referenced texts that would know of such to get the meaning.

True.

Again, while I may not have an expertise in the original language, there have been many before me that did, and they left a wealth of knowledge on the subject for all to peruse.

This is not necessary true. I will give you God to man, but there are enough scholars that have poured over the material in the original language for me to dissect. Not all of them agree on all things, that is why it is good to read many sources on the subject. To take a look at the original yourself. To put it into context on your own. Pray to God about it (yes, I know, this is going to get some comments). Combine all of these to get the meaning.

Faith is in what the Bible says, not the Bible itself.

Why would God need to explain Himself to us? There is nowhere that I have found that He explained the specific points of creation. Why would He? Would we as humans not try to reproduce such and call ourselves gods? I think we have and are trying that even now, without having the slightest clue to what we are doing. There is so much in science that we know, but there is much more that we haven't even scraped the surface on.

Science is a very good thing. The problem I have is that people (scientist) want to believe that they know how something works. The want to disprove (to a large degree in my mind) that the church, who repressed so many for so long, is wrong about most things. This also includes disproving the Bible by definition. While I don't agree with what organized religion has done time and time again, I think it is reprehensible that creation scientists with sound work are automatically called buffoons because they select a different axiom to start their studies, and thus come to different conclusions.

waves to Kurgan....The Bible, Job 34:3 NIV: Bible Quotes
The ear tests words as the tongue tastes food.

I find the Noah's Ark story to be so incredibly absurd it blows my mind that anyone could take it as literal truth. It's irrational in the extreme. Even if you could fit two of every animal (or is it seven?) in the ark (which is laughable), there's no way they could have been collected as they would have ranged over the entire planet and modes of transportation were a bit limited then, and it was all supposed to have been accomplished by Noah and his family in a rather short period of time. So, even if the ark was capable of holding and transporting them all, they all had to have gotten to the ark in the first place without the aid of an ark! A slight logistical problem ya think?

Not if you believe that God is an all powerful Deity...He could have caused all animals to migrate toward the area(After all He created them)...and by the way...Noah took years to build the ark and preached the entire time to all who would listen...but no one did....and they perished when the rains came. The Ark was not steerable, it was not a boat/ship...it was only a floating hotel/stable for it's inhabitants. Huge in size...and built to devine specs. It worked. *there have been stories of physical sightings of this wonderful miracle on Discovery Channel, the History Channel, PBS, Major Networks, Newsweek...the New York Times.....on and on and on.......*

Ahhhh, I see. So god made all the animals who couldn't swim able to swim or fly temporarily so they could cross the oceans to get to the ark? Wouldn't that have made them immune to the flood so they really wouldn't have needed the ark in the first place?

what's more absurd to me is that people can't imagine that the small area around the middle east could have flooded and that people would have reacted accordingly to survive it, and then told stories of it in the only way they could understand if everything they knew was underwater. what's laughable is missing the entire point of some of the ancient scriptures by taking them literally.

nah.....silly....He made some dude float them accross on rafts...He manipulates minds and steers those of His that believe.....and the animals...they made it to Noah.

((OH my, if you think about it, perhaps Lindens are like a God...and manipulates us to create this world for them...ohhh wait...the monkey theory has been posted before)) but do you sorta see the parable here....?

Oh, well why didn't you say so earlier? It's all so believable now!

Well, I have an e

e) Part of God's creation. Let me splain (from here):

Humans share 66.7% of our chain with corn.
Horses share 63.7% or their chain with corn.
Ergo the difference between humans and horses is 3%. No way you say?

Hmmm. Interesting. Lot's more fun at that link

Here is another fun one by Richard Dawkins:
But who is Richard Dawkins? Professor Richard Dawkins is the first holder of the newly endowed Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford. (most likely known for "The Blind Watchmaker"

But who could host creationistic (did I just make up another word? Chip, help me out here man ) ideas? Charles Simonyi

Who is Charles Simonyi? Dr Charles Simonyi, the benefactor of the Simonyi Professorship at the University of Oxford, is an internationally renowned computer scientist who has been one of the most influential figures behind the development of the personal computer revolution.

Chip, I know you will disagree with me, but I must state it anyway....

God has no boundaries. If God can say, let there be light (not to mention the heavens and the Earth), and there was, why on Earth would you think He could not get the animals to the ark?

I believe the word you're looking for is "mythological"

This begs the question, why the hell did he need the ark at all then? hmmm? Noah was had!

Hiro, sorry, I just saw the title of one of your posts:

this post bases arguments on the assumption of the existance of god / higher power

I will go farther than that:

My posts base arguments with the Bible being correct and literal. That God created everything. Feel free to disagree, but that is what my posts are based on.

I don't know, but then I can not give you a firm answer of why God needs us in the first place.

My guess would be that Noah needed to prove himself. Maybe it was a lesson designed for both Noah and the rest of us.

Why did God create the rainbow as a covenant that the world would never be destroyed by flooding again?

Noah was given His life, His families life by proving His devotion, faith and belief! How is that being had? Noah coulda quit at anytime. God gives us free will. God would have had a plan "B" all in place had Noah quit too!

Or just further proof, that if he does indeed exist, he's a bit of a dick.

it is a visual proof scientifically, the sunlight shining through the misty air displaying the prism of color for all to see....there by indicating....(the Son shines)

Well it amounts to this: once you have stated "I beleive the bible literally", then you have taken the element of falisifiability from your creationist hypothesis, and ths robbed it of scientific merit.

Scientists don not start with the notion of "I know this to be true and there for I will make it so, ignoring any inconsistent data and glossing over discrepancies" this is writing fiction.
A scientist says "here is a theory, let us test it against known observations and try to explain why it might be right, or identifiy why it is wrong." A SCIENTIFIC THEORY has no definitive conclusion and is subject to testing and revision as better testing comes along. Creationism has one basic premise and that is to etablish that the bible is right-not might be right, but is right. Thus the creationist must discard whole bodies of science-like carbon dating and geology just make his theory fit.

Its not just evolution that is assualted by creationists, it is all of science. For the dinosaurs to have lived 6000 years ago, our funadamnetal understanding of chemistry must be wrong. As must our fundamental understanding of geology. Eveolution onn the other hand seeks to reconcile out knowlege and observations from other disciplines to make a theor of life that is consistent with known observations throughout the world.

Creationsim does not bear out peer review, it does not meet the accepted criteria for a science. It is not even admissible as scientific evidence in court, undert the much borader legal acceptance of science.

A scientist ivestigates to understand and reconcile, a creationsit simply seeks to prove. And ultimately the creationist does not seek to prove the truth of whether evolution is wrong, but rather they need intelligent desing to prove to themselves and to the world that god exists.

Christians are funny like that-they work so hard to prove they are right and the world is wrong. As a buddhist I feel no challenge from science. I recognize the l;imts, and to an extent the fruitlessness of scientif inquiry as a process. To me science is like describing a brownie by itemizing its content. Yes it is true, but it misses the point of the brownie entirely.

And no religion is not advancing science. At this point, the funadmentalists are the only people who beleive religion is making any progress. And Wathicng the christians in america I must be nervous, because my faith, Buddhism, is not going to by high on the list of tolerated beleifs, should the christisn push thier agenda to fruition.

But really, for the the most interesting fact about this whole debate this the christians simply don't get that to most of the world, the bible, and its creation story, is just another work of fiction. Evolution has a universally recognized basis. Creationsim postulate a stroy in a bible from a religion that is not my own, nor is it the religion of over 3/5ths of the worlds population.