Dinosaurs

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Dinosaurs

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

See the link I put in your Kentucky museum thread. I think that pretty well covers it.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

You think Jesus rode the Dinosaurs!? Don't you fear for your children after teaching them something like that!?

--Ray

dilbert · Senior Member

For me it's an open question. The fossil record is there, and it has to be explained somehow. The most straightforward explanation is the one advocated by paleontologists. But I'm willing to wait until I have more information to draw firm conclusions. There are so many things that we do not know about the past. The only thing I'm absolutely certain about is that the fossil record does not prove that God does not exist and that the Bible is strictly a work of fiction.

Concerning this question, and the related question about the age of the earth, I wonder if this scripture applies:

D&C 101:32-34
32 Yea, verily I say unto you, in that ^aday when the Lord shall come, he shall ^breveal all things 33 Things which have passed, and ahidden things which no man knew, things of the bearth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof 34 Things most precious, things that are above, and things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, and upon the earth, and in heaven.
It would seem that "things that are in the earth" would include the fossils. So this seems to be promising that we will find out during the millenium. Sometimes I wonder if the phrase "hidden things which no man knew" is to be understood literally, and if that includes how the earth was made and things in the earth then does that mean that nobody is going to know the truth about that until the millenium? My sense of humor is twisted enough that I would find that rather funny if everyone in the evolution debate is wrong. biggrin

I enjoy speculating, and I hope several people post their theories on dinosaurs here. But I don't get very worked up about any particular theory. I don't mind waiting for the truth before drawing conclusions.

In the mean time I enjoy looking at dinosaur fossils in museums, reading about dinosaurs in books, and watching them eat people in movies.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Dilbert: I thought about that too... I suspect we're all wrong about it... and it just bugs some people not to have an explanation for everything... but I did have a funny thought as I was looking at the leaf-eating velociraptors eating peacefully next to the Mother Eve in the evangelical Museum of Creation (see other thread), that perhaps God these things are in the earth so that the atheists and the biblical literalists would fight a lot and stop killing his people, who were commanded not to get their panties in a bunch about the whole topic...

(I will turn their iniquities upon their own heads, type of a scripture...)

There's a little truth in all these places, and yet they're probably all wrong too... aww

--Ray

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

The best explanation for the fossil record that I have found is in the book "Earth: In The Beginning" by Eric Skousen. Check out:
http://deseretbook.com/store/product?product_id=100028498

"Tracing the earth's origins from long before it came into existence, this book explores in vivid detail each important event that occurred until mortality began for Adam and Eve. The author also examines the surprising and significant effects of the Fall on the earth itself.

"It was not until the original writings of Moses and Abraham were restored that modern students of the earth's creation story were in a position to begin assembling the illuminating facts that are resented in this book.

"For those who enjoy contemplating both the findings of science and the revelations of God, this will be an extremely stimulating and provocative study.

"Among the questions addressed and answered in this book are:

Where did the earth's creation take place? Who participated?

Did the creation take 6,000 years or millions of years?

How did life begin on the earth? How did it develop?

Where did the dinosaurs come from? Why were they here?

Did human beings live on the earth before the arrival of Adam and Eve?

What really happened in the Garden of Eden?

Are there evidences of God's handiwork in the rock record of the earth?

Are there answers to the unresolved questions of earth scientists in God's revealed record of the creation?

Why did the Fall have such important astronomical and geological implications for the earth?

And finally: What we hear in church about the creation doesn't always match what we learn in school--or does it?

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Some explanantions I've thought about:

We don't know how long the periods of creation were, just that there were seven distinct ones. Maybe the dates of the fossil records are actually pretty accurate--creation just took a lot longer than the thousand-year-blocks the Christian world likes to assume. So maybe dinosaurs were still part of creation.

Since we don't believe in creation ex nihilo, and that this world was rather organized from unorganized matter, maybe the fossils of dinosaurs were included in that unorganized matter--part of another world that had been disassembled for some reason.

Just some thoughts...

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

"It was not until the original writings of Moses and Abraham were restored that modern students of the earth's creation story were in a position to begin assembling the illuminating facts that are resented in this book.

Now that has got to be a typo!

My take, having a minor in Geology from BYU, is much like dilbert's and what is said in D&C 101:32-34. It would be interesting to know, but right now it obviously isn't pertinent to the core competency of our mortal existence or spiritual salvation. So, I personally don't worry too much about it.

-- Edited by Cat Herder at 07:14, 2007-06-09

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

I'll see your minor in geology and raise you common sense and a desire for non-pertinent knowledge.

I see it one of two ways--

1. The creation period (before the 6k yrs. of temporal existence) was a very, very long time.
2. The "stuff" earth was made from included bones, etc. from other worlds, a la roper's idea, and worlds that were probably much bigger diamter-wise. Just a hunch.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

There could be several different explanations for dinosaurs.

The first would be that their fossils were contained in the matter or building materials that were used to build the earth, perhaps leftover from some other planet.

2. The creative periods could have been millions of years long each thus making plenty of time for them when the animals were introduced. Perhaps some sort of evolutionary process actually did take place.

3. We don't know how long Adam and Eve actually were in the garden. The story we have is pretty condensed and makes it seem like it all happened pretty quick. It could have taken perhaps millions of years for that to happen.

It also could be some combonation of all of them.

Science cannot disprove the Biblical account or disprove the existence of God no matter how hard they try. That's because it takes faith.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I find the area just fascinating... but agree it's no biggie either way...

I was watching a "Walking with Dinosaurs" type special a while back and they had this guy traveling through time. He came to a time when the first blocks of life were theorized to be on the earth... even before plants, there were strange lifeforms, mostly of a sort of weird crustacean and such... And they said at the time that atmosphere itself was poisonous. This biomass was what formed the basics of breatheable are and cleared the atmosphere for the idyllic life we enjoy. I imagine God (or as Joseph Smith would say the Gods) might have used many of these primordial creatures to fulfill the work of the different "days" of creation.

It made me think of the period before plants in which God makes the stars and moon appear and day and night. I had to wonder if that wasn't just from an exterior perspective, but what if it was from the perspective of being on the earth... the atmosphere was being cleared so one could actually SEE the sun and moon and stars... etc...

Anyhow it was something interesting to me, where I saw no conflict between the evolutionary record and what I'd learned from revealed doctrine.

--Ray

arbilad · Head Chef

I see great conflict between evolutionary doctrine and revealed doctrine, but we've had that discussion.
I think that dinosaurs were called dragons in earlier times, and that certain of the smaller types of dinosaurs survived up until a few hundred years ago.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

3. We don't know how long Adam and Eve actually were in the garden. The story we have is pretty condensed and makes it seem like it all happened pretty quick. It could have taken perhaps millions of years for that to happen.
Actually, Joseph Smith gave a hint to how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden... or at least Adam, when he spoke of Adam living one thousand years. (dilbert, honey, can you help me with the source for that?) The bible indicates that Adam was 930 years old when he died (Genesis 5:5). So... it would seem from Joseph's statement, that Adam was in the Garden for 70 years before the fall.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Seventy years eating nothing but fruit... don't know how he did it.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

I'm confused. How is this political?

Organist · Senior Member

Dinosaurs aren't that tough to explain. 1931 1st presidency statement " Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research." Thus, I explain dinosaurs through scientific research.

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

fear of shiz wrote:
I'm confused. How is this political?

I was kind of wondering too... but since there are so many people running for president I was assuming a dino snuck in there and I missed it... biggrin

Ray, would you like me to move this to another section of the forum?

-- Edited by PollyAnna at 12:53, 2007-06-10

dilbert · Senior Member

Barney the Dinosaur in 2008!

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Another thing is that the words years and days as we have in our creation accounts could be references to much different time periods. We always seem to draw the conclusion that one day = one thousand years. Maybe even the earth's rotation on its axis and path around the sun could have been different than our modern understanding. Maybe our planet's (or solar system's for that matter) physical location in space was even different--the fall being a physical removal of the earth away from God's neighborhood into this part of space.

Lots of ideas. It will be interesting to get the whole picture some day.

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

dilbert wrote:
Barney

BARNEY??? Give me a break!!!

[non-political observation]

Yet ANOTHER candidate that I can't vote for!!!

[/non-political observation]

Valhalla · Profuse Pontificator

I have always felt that the dinos and other things were part of the creative process. Being that God is a God of order and that time is meaningless to God, this would make sense. For example, fossil fuels/coal are created from the carbon remains of plants and animals. In order to create this and make this available to man, it had to get there somehow.

I tend to think that the creative process was long underway before Adam showed up, or maybe God used the natural processes and sped them up through some sort of time dilation process.

arbilad · Head Chef

There is one theory (and I'll try to find the link) that much of the crude oil we find is not from fossils, but a result of natural geologic processes. There is actually quite a bit of support for this theory. For instance, many oil fields keep refilling after they were thought to be dry. Also, they're doing drilling below the sea floor, sometimes more than five miles deep. It's hard for me to believe that a large amount of fossil material found its way to five miles under the sea floor.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Not if you subscribe to the theory of plate tectonics. Not all sea floor is "virgin" crust created from the mid-oceanic spreading centers. Just as plate tectonics can cause ocean floor to be thrust upward miles into the sky to form mountains, land masses can be plunged into the depth of the sea and then covered by sediments (particularly if there is a delta nearby). The Book of Mormon even supports that.

I've heard the quasi-theory about the crude being the result of geologic process as well. And, it may well be a possibility. But, there hasn't been a lot of actual scientific support to validate it yet beyond most folks skepticism at the level of it being something similar to alchemy. Just personal opinion, if we believe that The Lord saying there is enough and to spare (of the resources on the earth), then this would certainly be more tenable than the idea that the substances were formed solely from decaying plants / animals and hence are finite.

arbilad · Head Chef

I have no problem with plate tectonics. I have a problem with believing that it deposited vast amounts of fossil material 5 miles under the sea floor. Mount Everest isn't even quite as tall as some of these oil wells are deep.
Actually the abiogenic theory of oil production is more than a quasi theory - it is a theory that has existed for over 200 years. Although there would seem to be a lot of evidence against it, there is at least enough evidence for it that at least some modern scientists are still proponents of it.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Interesting. I had only heard of the Thomas Gold publication, and had not heard that Russian and Ukrainian petroleum geologists had been studying it long before that. I had heard that the hypothesis started long ago as a way to explain where crude came from.

Valhalla · Profuse Pontificator

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crude_oil
Biogenic theory
Most geologists view crude oil and natural gas as the product of compression and heating of ancient organic materials over geological time. According to this theory, oil is formed from the preserved remains of prehistoric zooplankton and algae which have been settled to the sea (or lake) bottom in large quantities under anoxic conditions. Terrestrial plants, on the other hand, tend to form coal. Over geological time this organic matter, mixed with mud, is buried under heavy layers of sediment. The resulting high levels of heat and pressure cause the organic matter to chemically change during diagenesis, first into a waxy material known as kerogen which is found in various oil shales around the world, and then with more heat into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons in a process known as catagenesis. Because most hydrocarbons are lighter than rock or water, these sometimes migrate upward through adjacent rock layers until they become trapped beneath impermeable rocks, within porous rocks called reservoirs. Concentration of hydrocarbons in a trap forms an oil field, from which the liquid can be extracted by drilling and pumping. Geologists often refer to an "oil window" which is the temperature range that oil forms inbelow the minimum temperature oil remains trapped in the form of kerogen, and above the maximum temperature the oil is converted to natural gas through the process of thermal cracking. Though this happens at different depths in different locations around the world, a 'typical' depth for the oil window might be 46 km. Note that even if oil is formed at extreme depths, it may be trapped at much shallower depths, even if it is not formed there (the Athabasca Oil Sands is one example). Three conditions must be present for oil reservoirs to form: first, a source rock rich in organic material buried deep enough for subterranean heat to cook it into oil; second, a porous and permeable reservoir rock for it to accumulate in; and last a cap rock (seal) that prevents it from escaping to the surface.

The vast majority of oil that has been produced by the earth has long ago escaped to the surface and been biodegraded by oil-eating bacteria. Oil companies are looking for the small fraction that has been trapped by this rare combination of circumstances. Oil sands are reservoirs of partially biodegraded oil still in the process of escaping, but contain so much migrating oil that, although most of it has escaped, vast amounts are still present - more than can be found in conventional oil reservoirs. On the other hand, oil shales are source rocks that have never been buried deep enough to convert their trapped kerogen into oil.

The reactions that produce oil and natural gas are often modeled as first order breakdown reactions, where kerogen is broken down to oil and natural gas by a set of parallel reactions, and oil eventually breaks down to natural gas by another set of reactions. The first set was originally patented in 1694 under British Crown Patent No. 330 covering,

"a way to extract and make great quantityes of pitch, tarr, and oyle out of a sort of stone."

The latter set is regularly used in petrochemical plants and oil refineries.

[edit] Abiogenic theory
Main article: Abiogenic petroleum origin
The idea of abiogenic petroleum origin was championed in the Western world by astronomer Thomas Gold based on thoughts from Russia, mainly on studies of Nikolai Kudryavtsev. The idea proposes that hydrocarbons of purely geological origin exist in the planet. Hydrocarbons are less dense than aqueous pore fluids, and are proposed to migrate upward through deep fracture networks. Thermophilic, rock-dwelling microbial life-forms are proposed to be in part responsible for the biomarkers found in petroleum.

This theory is a minority opinion, especially amongst geologists; no oil companies are currently known to explore for oil based on this theory.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

These are all interesting theories but how do YOU explain dinosaurs to children?

--Ray

Pt314 · Senior Member

Organist wrote:

Dinosaurs aren't that tough to explain. 1931 1st presidency statement " Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research." Thus, I explain dinosaurs through scientific research.

Thats my view as well. However there are a lot of people who believe that these scientists are pushing an athistic agenda (undoubtably some are), and don't want anything to do with it.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I know how you feel PT.

So many atheists are just dying to be martyrs for their scientific pet theories, so they can crow about how they were right all along and say, "Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!" As if that one falsehood negates all truth...

The great thing about the LDS church is we have this concept called Apostasy. It explains so much about human understanding, the love of power and control, the failures in human understanding in general. Whether they be atheist, scientific, or religious, the same principle applies to all of them.

Now if only I could conquer my own nature... biggrin

--Ray

-- Edited by rayb at 12:14, 2007-06-12

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

rayb wrote:

These are all interesting theories but how do YOU explain dinosaurs to children?

--Ray

To my children, I just say these are fossilized bones (and I tell them that the bones were turned into stone) of animals that are dead and that there aren't anymore left alive on the earth.

So far, that has been enough for them. biggrin

Oh, and that Daddy got to work on extracting some bone from rock once as a volunteer at the museum at BYU before Mommy and Daddy got married, but that he did such a poor job of it he was afraid he ruined some of the fossils and was so embarrased he never went back... ashamed

arbilad · Head Chef

Pt314 wrote:

Organist wrote:

Dinosaurs aren't that tough to explain. 1931 1st presidency statement " Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research." Thus, I explain dinosaurs through scientific research.

Thats my view as well. However there are a lot of people who believe that these scientists are pushing an athistic agenda (undoubtably some are), and don't want anything to do with it.

While that is a great quote, I'm struggling to see how it relates to the current discussion. I don't think that any of us has proposed that the question of what happened to the dinosaurs is best left to a Sunday School lesson.

What I thought we were being asked was, "Given the knowledge available to us, what conclusions can you draw about the dinosaurs?" It seems obvious to use those facts known to us by science. To me, it isn't a complete answer to the question to say, "I'll use scientific research". Well, what else would you use? It's sort of like answering the question of "How much money do we have left in the budget" by answering, "Accounting is the answer to that question".

What we know is that dinosaurs existed, that we have found fossilized remains of them, and that they don't appear to be around anymore. Obviously, that is a short and simplistic summary. But isn't taking available facts, making conjectures, and seeing if they fit the available facts part of scientific research?

My belief that at least some dinosaurs existed still within the last thousand years is based off of various accounts, both ancient, and some only two to three hundred years old, of dinosaurs. I have read some of those accounts in the book, "Tornado in a Junkyard". At least the two I'm thinking of are drawn from newspaper articles of the time. Obviously they were fairly small dinosaurs, relatively speaking.

Also, most dismiss the tales of dragons from medieval times as mere fancy, or stories to entertain. But there's a type of science (Thor Hyerdahl was a proponent of this) that says that most myths or legends are based in fact. For instance, before he died he was looking into the possibility that the Norse mythos was based off of real people, and that Odin had been a real king. It's not a popular scientific theory, but there are scientists who are proponents of it. Plus, references to dragons are so numerous and spread across so many cultures that it seems more likely than some myths to have a basis in fact. Some of the medieval stories about them read more like news stories than fairy tales. Plus, there's the many similarities between dragons and dinosaurs. A dinosaur was even recently named with a Harry Potter theme because of its similarity to the fantasy dragon in the movies.

Our understanding of dinosaurs is constantly changing as we get more info (you don't find anything close to 100% agreement about dinosaurs amongst scientists), but this is basically how I've explained things to my son.

Organist · Senior Member

As a child I really loved the dinosaur books, the pictures and descriptions of each dinosaur. Depending on how old my kids were, I would just tell them that dinosaurs were the kings of the earth for 160 million years, becoming extinct about 65 million years ago, way before humans. I'd probably tell them that the blue whale is bigger than any dinosaur was. I'd tell them that crocidiles and some other animals and trees and plants were around during dinosaur times and still exist today.

If they asked about cavemen and the Flintstones, I would say talk about neanderthals, that they were began about 350,000 years ago and died off 24,000 years ago, which means they coexisted with homo sapiens. I would try to get them to understand the magnititude of these time differences (10s of thousands of years compared to millions).

To further stress the magnitude of time, I would tell them that for the first 3 billion years on earth, there were only prokaryotic organisms, like bacteria and archea. Eukaryotes didn't come around till later, and all plants and animals are eukarytoes.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Origani...

Whatchyou talkin bout!?

--Ray

Organist · Senior Member

Here's what I'm talking bout, Willis.

There are special times in boys lives that are best taught by the father, like birds and the bees or the magnitude of time or the difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Haven't you had "the talk" with your sons?

A good background is important to understanding and discussing the world around us, otherwise misunderstandings and demogogery can occur. I misunderstoods lengths of time all through highschool and thus couldn't really understand science. I also misunderstand concepts of size, both cells and atoms were smaller than I could see, and I couldn't quite integrate what I had learned about them. The background was missing. I'm going to teach background information as much as I can. Everything else will grow from that.

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

I can't wait to hear what Ray's "son" thinks of ANY discussion with daddy right now...

*pppppsssssttttttt Jason...* ...he is still a baby...

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

rayb wrote:
These are all interesting theories but how do YOU explain dinosaurs to children?

Here is where the "Polly-version of parenting" comes in handy... I ask them to explain stuff I don't understand to ME... Their ideas make as much sense usually as mine do...

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

You could always tell a child this:

Dinosaurs was a terrible show back in the 90s that got cancelled because it stank worse than a dead skunk on an Arizona Highway in July.

arbilad · Head Chef

Didn't that show use Disneyland style animated puppets?

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

But...but...I liked that show! "Not the Momma!"

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

But... The Simpsons won the contest for pushing the envelope by use of animated / puppeted dysfunctional family.

Sorry, a fat dim-witted lazy bald guy was funnier than some dinosaur guy getting smacked on the head by a baby with a frying pan.

"I'm the baby
Got to love me
Big purple eyes
And very cuddley
Don't you think that every
Home should have one of me? Or three!"

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

Just because I like See's doesn't mean I can't like Hershey too.

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

"A dinosaur made me do it..." (That was Son1's excuse for hitting his little sister for at least a year!)

"Mommy, I need candy for a snack... My dinosaur is hungry" (Son2 at about 4)

"Brother's dinosaur messed up my room"... (Daughter, for a few years... at about 3-7?)

Dinosaurs can be SO helpful, when it comes to excuses!

arbilad · Head Chef

Abiogenic theory
Main article: Abiogenic petroleum origin

This theory is a minority opinion, especially amongst geologists; no oil companies are currently known to explore for oil based on this theory.
This last statement, that no oil companies are currently known to explore for oil based on the abiogenic theory, has been bothering me. It's a logical fallacy called "appeal to authority". Basically, what it's saying is that the theory can't be right because the people that should know don't appear to believe that it's true.
The theory should stand on its own. Either it is right for scientific reasons, or it is wrong for scientific reasons. The quoted statement (which is from Wikipedia I believe) assumes that oil companies would be the ones with the best science and theories on the subject because they make more money if they find more oil. This isn't necessarily true. Oil companies make a lot of money based off of perceived rarity of oil. The perceived rarity of oil allows them to charge a higher price. Then again, you could argue that the more reserves they have, the better profit they could make as the world thirst for oil grows. It's a complex subject, but that only helps me prove my point - it is not a given that oil companies would explore for oil based on the theory with the most factual support. Heck, when they were trying to find new trade routes into Asia sailors made the assumption that the world was flat. They could have made much more money if they had only realized that the world is round.
My point is that the abiogenic theory is true or not true based on its own merits, and not whether large corporations believe it to be true.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Well, you have a point there Arbilad. But, if it is a fact that no oil companies explore for source based of the theory, then that is a fact.

Maybe there just isn't enough knowledge or technology available to explore based off anything other than the status quo. And until there is an compelling economic reason or incentive for them to develop those methods, they won't reinvent the wheel.