What's new

Whatever happen to the Dinosaurs?

I have been told that the LDS explanation for dinosaurs is that they were never on this planet. When god made this earth he took parts from other planets and that's how we got dinosaur bones. I'm guessing that isn't Mormon canon but just a common theory.

Sent from my 0PM92 using Tapatalk
 
I have been told that the LDS explanation for dinosaurs is that they were never on this planet. When god made this earth he took parts from other planets and that's how we got dinosaur bones. I'm guessing that isn't Mormon canon but just a common theory.

Sent from my 0PM92 using Tapatalk
This explanation is almost (but not quite) as stupid and lazy as CJ's link to this article, which he only believes supports his position because he did not read any further than the title.
 
This explanation is almost (but not quite) as stupid and lazy as CJ's link to this article, which he only believes supports his position because he did not read any further than the title.
I agree, it's not my opinion at all. Just throwing some wood in the fire.

Sent from my 0PM92 using Tapatalk
 
This explanation is almost (but not quite) as stupid and lazy as CJ's link to this article, which he only believes supports his position because he did not read any further than the title.

While I agree that this is a poor (i.e. provably incorrect) explanation of the existence of dinosaurs, the idea that the Earth, as a whole, is an amalgam of older and previously independent parts is cosmologically true. Some Mormon historians have traced this notion back to the early ideas about what it means to organize as a community, and to the development of the concept of 'Zion' -- so it's both cosmological and existential (i.e. cool). And, relative to other Christianities, this notion has provided a substantial amount of conceptual freedom with respect to thinking about the physics of matter -- since there is no inherent contradiction at the idea of 4.3 billion year old rocks. (Paging Colton and babe).

In my youth I was exposed to this explanation of dinosaurs by two different elder Mormon gentlemen. One was trying to use it as a way to quickly disprove a theory of the earth that conflicted with his narrow one. He was defensive, trying to brush something off. The other gentleman used it as a springboard for thinking about the inherent independence of all things, and the temporary, highly contingent nature of our contemporaneity. In other words, the latter was letting the notion radicalize nature -- a move that I profoundly respect -- while the former repeated a move that you see not only in the majority of religious believers, but in a staggering number of scientists who dogmatically hold to what is "True".

Nature always goes beyond our laws and recognitions. A good rendering of Nature is to regard it as Supernatural.

The point of this post is to tell you that some Mormons have used this "stupid explanation" in ways that are highly constructive -- even if they've discarded it as inadequate for the specific case at hand (dinosaurs) -- using it to move into conceptual terrain well ahead of their time. But, sure, condescend.
 
Last edited:
While I agree that this is a poor (i.e. provably incorrect) explanation of the existence of dinosaurs, the idea that the Earth, as a whole, is an amalgam of older and previously independent parts is cosmologically true.

Hmmm. While I don't disagree, that statement applies to literally everything in existence. It would be an absurd explanation for dinosaur bones even if we knew nothing of the history of life on Earth, simply given the mechanics of said amalgamation.
 
Hmmm. While I don't disagree, that statement applies to literally everything in existence. It would be an absurd explanation for dinosaur bones even if we knew nothing of the history of life on Earth, simply given the mechanics of said amalgamation.

You can say that now. And I agree. But that view hasn't always been held, and it still cuts across the common sense way we ontologize things. When this view was put together by Mormons in the 1840s, the idea that the Earth was constructed of independent things of various ages was a fringe belief, and nothing was known of the mechanics of Earthly accretion. In fact, the geology taught at Universities was still totally dominated by a Biblical model of time that dated the Earth to about 6,000 years old.
 
Hmmm. While I don't disagree, that statement applies to literally everything in existence. It would be an absurd explanation for dinosaur bones even if we knew nothing of the history of life on Earth, simply given the mechanics of said amalgamation.
Did NAOS actually say that the idea that dinosaur fossils came from other planets is both provably incorrect and cosmological true? A fossil is not an atom which was once part of a fossil. A dinosaur fossil is an actual fossilized bone. There are millions of them on earth. They did not come from other planets. End of story.
 
I think dinosaurs were doing pretty great for a while, then they started getting into hip hop and tatting themselves up. After that they were "never much on thinking.....spent most of [their] time chasing women and drinking!"
 
Did NAOS actually say that the idea that dinosaur fossils came from other planets is both provably incorrect and cosmological true? A fossil is not an atom which was once part of a fossil. A dinosaur fossil is an actual fossilized bone. There are millions of them on earth. They did not come from other planets. End of story.

He's saying that it is true that the Earth (and the rest of the solar system) was created from the remains of a previous star system. He obviously doesn't think fossils came from a different planet. He's making a point about static dogmas that get you nowhere, versus more robust conceptualization that allows for more dynamic and evolving explanations.

I do have a philosophical disagreement with that sentiment, as I believe the process with which you arrive at explanations is at least as important as the models you use to get there. Consequently, I think the Mormon explanation that NAOS mentions is only incidentally ahead of its time compared to the Biblical model, and thus not meaningfully so.

But I guess that discussion is better left for a different topic.
 
He's saying that it is true that the Earth (and the rest of the solar system) was created from the remains of a previous star system. He obviously doesn't think fossils came from a different planet. He's making a point about static dogmas that get you nowhere, versus more robust conceptualization that allows for more dynamic and evolving explanations.

I do have a philosophical disagreement with that sentiment, as I believe the process with which you arrive at explanations is at least as important as the models you use to get there. Consequently, I think the Mormon explanation that NAOS mentions is only incidentally ahead of its time compared to the Biblical model, and thus not meaningfully so.

But I guess that discussion is better left for a different topic.

Can we act dinosaurs did come from another planet? THe thought of there being a dinosaur planet is fun.
 
I think dinosaurs were doing pretty great for a while, then they started getting into hip hop and tatting themselves up. After that they were "never much on thinking.....spent most of [their] time chasing women and drinking!"

LOL! Didn't that one Jazz center have a tattoo of a dinosaur on his ankle or calf? Or is that Tim Duncan? Ostertag is the center I'm thinking about!
 
This explanation is almost (but not quite) as stupid and lazy as CJ's link to this article, which he only believes supports his position because he did not read any further than the title.

Hey,lighten up, donuts! (Or go eat another one!) We all have a soft spot in our hearts for Dinosaurs! "Jurassic Park" is a top 10 movie of all time...and one I'm sure you own a DVD of!
 
In fact, the geology taught at Universities was still totally dominated by a Biblical model of time that dated the Earth to about 6,000 years old.

If Universities ever taught or believed the earth was 6,000 years old, they didn't get it from the Bible! The first verse of Genesis simply says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” If we take this to mean the creation of the starry heavens, the galaxies, and the solar system of which the earth is a part, we are talking about events that preceded the first creative day.

The description of the earth’s condition in verse*2 also precedes the first day. Not until verses*3 to 5 do we enter upon the activity of the first day of creation.

So no matter how long the days might prove to be, verses*1 and 2 describe things already accomplished, and they fall outside any time frame encompassing the creative days. If geologists want to say that the earth is 4*billion years old, or astronomers want to make the universe 20*billion years old, the Bible student has no quarrel with them. The Bible simply does not indicate the time of those events.
 
Back
Top