-8

I find it hard to believe that dinosaurs ever existed. They were never mentioned and totally skipped in the holy books (Old Testament, New Testament, Qur'an) although these books do contain stories as old as it gets (to Adam and Eve, Noah, The Great Flood, and Ibrahim). How can we know dinosaurs existed?

Sklivvz
  • 78,578
  • 29
  • 321
  • 428
TheTechGuy
  • 2,772
  • 6
  • 26
  • 37
  • 1
    What about the behemoth? The wikipedia article mentions "Behemoth is commonly identified as possibly being a sauropod dinosaur" See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behemoth – Paul Apr 11 '12 at 02:39
  • 4
    I know of nobody who claims that dinosaurs did not exist. Please find a notable example of this claim in order to make this an appropriate question. – DJClayworth Apr 11 '12 at 02:55
  • @DJClayworth the claim is "dinosaurs existed" and the OP is skeptical of that. See [If a claim is commonly accepted, does questioning it require a notable counter-claim?](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1406/if-a-claim-is-commonly-accepted-does-questioning-it-require-a-notable-counter-c) – Sam I Am Apr 11 '12 at 03:06
  • 14
    If I'd seen that question I'd have voted against it. It opens up the door to questions like "Is there really a country called Spain?"; "Did Richard Nixon exist?"; "Is Obama a Christian?". – DJClayworth Apr 11 '12 at 03:16
  • @Believer: If you believe the scientific evidence for dinosaurs, then presumably you don't believe the *literal* truth for the contradicting stories of Adam and Eve and the Great Flood. So, it is odd to see them being offered as evidence as "old stories". Also, dinosaurs were around long before the "as old as it gets" biblical stories. – Oddthinking Apr 11 '12 at 03:38
  • @Oddthinking maybe Believer is just unfamiliar with the scientific evidence of the existence of dinosaurs, or that there is physical evidence, that we do have fossils and soft tissues of dinosaurs. – Sam I Am Apr 11 '12 at 03:45
  • 1
    @SamIAm: Indubitably. I'm waiting for someone with a better grasp of that evidence answers before I try. I'm just trying to clumsily explain that Believer's counter-evidence has a bit of a mismatch with the theory, leading to non-sequiturs. – Oddthinking Apr 11 '12 at 04:07
  • @Oddthnking I'd like to see Believer reply here in comments. The problem with discussing religion is not literalists but non-literalists. If you allow me to believe in only something **like** Genesis then I can pick and choose a buffet of beliefs that approaches self-consistency. But such a person could still espouse that if its not mentioned in the Bible, maybe it did not really exist... – Paul Apr 11 '12 at 04:12
  • Science, typically. – Rusty Apr 11 '12 at 06:22
  • 1
    Dinosaurs only existed in Australia. The bible doesn't mention marsupials or monotremes either. Joking aside, do you regard the fossil record as bogus? – Andrew Grimm Apr 11 '12 at 07:42
  • My only problem is of course religious books otherwise I have no problem believing. Either one of them is true, dinosaurs or religion not both. BTW I have seen fossils myself, have done extensive search on dinosaurs, been to dinosaurs museum. Even step on their foot print left 70 million years ago. – TheTechGuy Apr 11 '12 at 12:03
  • @Believer Your views are in the minority (to the point of being unique), even among ardent adherents to the literal truth of religious texts. See http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html#wp1614541 – DJClayworth Apr 11 '12 at 13:31
  • Believer's comments above indicate to me that he does in fact personally believe in dinosaurs. So that makes this a non-question. – DJClayworth Apr 11 '12 at 13:33
  • I want to believe in it but I have a hard time. – TheTechGuy Apr 11 '12 at 14:54
  • 1
    If you've seen dinosaur fossils, stepped on their footprints, yet still have a hard time believing, then I don't see what evidence could possibly persuade you. What are you expecting us to say? – DJClayworth Apr 12 '12 at 14:36
  • I am thinking something like an answer to "Is the earth 6000 years old?" or something that is just really convincing – TheTechGuy Apr 12 '12 at 14:41
  • 7
    The existence of thousands of dinosaur skeletons is incredibly convincing. What evidence could you imagine that would be more convincing? – DJClayworth Apr 12 '12 at 15:07

1 Answers1

19

There is a whole science dedicated to the study of fossils, which we know puzzled mankind at least since 500bc:

In ancient times Xenophanes (570-480 BC) wrote about fossil sea shells indicating that land was once under water

Dinosaurs is a very broad term and refers to a group of animals of which we have bones and entire skeletons.

Dinosaurs are a diverse group of animals of the clade Dinosauria. They first appeared during the Triassic period, approximately 230 million years ago, and became the dominant terrestrial vertebrates for 135 million years, from the beginning of the Jurassic (about 200 million years ago) until the end of the Cretaceous (65.5 million years ago), when the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event led to the extinction of most dinosaur groups at the close of the Mesozoic era. The fossil record indicates that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs during the Jurassic, and consequently they are considered a type of dinosaur in modern classification systems.

Oxford Dino
I own copyright for the photo

You can visit most museums and see or touch some fossils them if that convinces you.

Sklivvz
  • 78,578
  • 29
  • 321
  • 428
  • 3
    But Wikipedia is not a sufficiently reliable source to be solely used in meeting Skeptics Exchange standards for a well-referenced answer. Could you please add references that are not wikipedia? :-) – Paul Apr 11 '12 at 06:38
  • @Paul: I think the 154 references on that Wikipedia page are very sufficient. – nico Apr 11 '12 at 06:51
  • 3
    Wikipedia is good enough for [high school level](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/5/faq-must-all-answers-be-referenced) claims. These are all (I would defend) primary school* level... *According to my son who is in primary school and loves dinosaurs. – Sklivvz Apr 11 '12 at 06:56
  • I still think one could argue that Dinosaurs are indeed mentioned in the holy books, nullifying the concern the Dinosaurs alleged absence causes the OP. See http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml – Paul Apr 11 '12 at 07:07
  • 1
    I have touched dinosaurs footprint embedded in rock, have gone to museuem. I just have hard time believing it. For me it if I want to believe in it I must quit my religion. – TheTechGuy Apr 11 '12 at 14:59
  • @Believer Catholics have no problems with dinosaurs, big bang and evolution, and they are clearly Christians. One could say, they are The Real Christians™. – Sklivvz Apr 11 '12 at 16:12
  • 1
    @Sklivvz for info I am Muslim. For me it is either Dinosaurs or Islam. – TheTechGuy Apr 11 '12 at 16:16
  • 1
    @Believer Ok, other [Muslims](http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7584) don't really have a problem with that. Also, many Muslims of the past. Maybe you can speak with some different Muslim Imam about it? – Sklivvz Apr 11 '12 at 16:21
  • 4
    @Believer: Can you find any mention of cats in the Koran or Bible? – Henry Apr 12 '12 at 13:29
  • 3
    @Henry, Dinosaurs is the equation changer. It invalidates everything Quran and bible says. Because they lived for millions of years. If that is true, the Islamic theory of evolution (derived form Christianity) falls flat and almost everything it says is then wrong. Does it make sense? – TheTechGuy Apr 12 '12 at 13:45
  • 2
    @Believer It seems to me that your question isn't really whether dinosaurs exist, but whether it is possible to reconcile the existence of dinosaurs with Islam. [The answer appears to be "yes", for most Muslims.](http://www.islamfortoday.com/emerick16.htm) – DJClayworth Apr 12 '12 at 14:42
  • 10
    "I just have hard time believing it. For me it if I want to believe in it I must quit my religion." You are committing the "[appeal to consequences](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences)" fallacy. Just because you don't like the consequences of a claim is not a reason to accept or reject it. You should base your decision on the preponderance of evidence. – Oddthinking Apr 13 '12 at 00:41