Sunday, January 30, 2011

Who Needs Christ?

The question has a very simple answer.  Every person who ever came into the world needs Christ.  But to many, the doctrine of Christ is alien and strange.  It is not because Christianity is strange, but because there exist in their lives some debilitating sin or another than blinds them and keeps them from profitably seeking redemption in Christ Jesus.

As such, for those of us in the world who would hope to effectively evangelize those around us who reject Christ, it is expedient to start at the beginning.  In the beginning God formed man and one of the endowments he bestowed upon us was the conscience, the law written on the hearts of every man, the Natural Law.

Deep down, we know when we sin from when we do good, because our conscience either accuses or defends our actions.

We should not start by quoting the dogmas of the Church to infidels and heretics who are loaded with sins against morality, because these sins blind them and render them unfit to receive the truth, having been sent the operation of error, to believe lying.

Besides, when infidels and heretics hear "No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church" from men and women who live as they themselves do, rioting, drinking with abandon, defiling their dignity with unseemly speech, or tolerating or approving all these things, it matters little the weight of the truth behind the words.

Instead, we ought, rather, to shine as examples of Christian morality that they might see how Providence favours those who conduct themselves in humility, honesty, diligence and piety; who will not so much as permit themselves to utter a "white lie"; who will not suffer themselves to listen to or encourage gossip; who use the things of this world as is necessary and within reason, but never unreasonably or with abandon; whose speech is measured and chaste and who refuse to give ear to vulgarities, profanities or blasphemies, etc.  And we should admonish those who do such things in our presence.

When infidels and heretics see this in us, when they see at least that we strive day by day to live as such, then they will become interested in WHY.  They will ask questions, and for the love of God and of their souls, we ought to answer rightly.

What Must You Do To Get to Heaven?

4th Sunday After Epiphany, The Providence of God

The following is not from a Missal, but is taken from a book by Fr. Leonard Goffine.

Please also read: St. Augustine on Evil

Saturday, January 29, 2011

"But I need to read the Bible in the original languages"

This is the common cry of heretics far and wide, who would deny practically every doctrine of Christ, in the name of private interpretation and understanding of the Scriptures.  But there are a great number of problems with this position.

Before I get into what these problems are, I will state right at the beginning that I realize that heretics who feel this way, for the most part will probably not acknowledge these problems, or at the very least they will trivialize them, and will say that my arguments from Scripture "may or may not" be valid, since they have yet to read them in the original language.  Indeed their position is one of arbitrariness, in which they can reject anything and profess anything they want to, because "who really knows" if the original language texts they are looking at are truly authentic?  They can hold off on believing anything at all, so long as they can claim that they do not believe the verse or passage of Scripture quoted to present the same meaning as it did originally.

The problem with "but I need to read the Bible in the original languages" is that it inevitably leads to private interpretation of Scripture, which although not altogether forbidden by the Church, is definitely forbidden insofar as such interpretation would contradict those doctrines and dogmas that the Church has authoritatively settled and declared (Council of Trent, Session the Fourth).

So when these people privately interpret such and such a passage contrary to the sense that Holy Mother Church held and holds, they are indeed contradicting the very Scriptures themselves, wherein it is written:

2nd Thessalonians 2:14: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."

This passage would be meaningless if one were permitted to reject the doctrinal traditions handed down by the Apostles and their successors in the Church.

But too many heretics allow themselves to be blinded by sin and wind up misapplying the words of the same Apostle, who said also:

Colossians 2:8: "Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ:"

He was evidently not contradicting himself, as anyone who is intellectually honest will recognize, but rather he was stating that those traditions which contradict the ones he referred to in 2nd Thessalonians are to be rejected as being not according to Christ.

He is so adamant about the traditions of the Apostles and their successors that he even goes so far as to exhort the faithful to have nothing to do with anyone who should withdraw from or reject these Apostolic traditions:

2nd Thessalonians 3:6: "And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us."

Therefore it can be easily concluded that one of the traditions of men, which the Apostle warned against was that of complaining "but I need to read the Bible in the ORIGINAL languages" and rejecting the doctrine of the Church under this pretense.

2nd St. Peter 1:20: "Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation."

2nd St. Peter 3:16: "As also in all his [St. Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction."

There is no hope of any degree of unity of Faith (Ephesians 4:5, 1 Corinthians 12:25, Romans 15:5-6, etc.) when men take license to reinterpret the Scriptures according to what they believe are the original texts.  In doing this, they nullify centuries of constant Catholic doctrine, including that of the Fathers of the Church, who learned from the Apostles themselves, favouring of their own inventions.  They ignore the fact that world renowned scholars and saints have already dedicated their lives to this work - and this ages before our present day - and they did this very well according to well reasoned, wise and prudent methodologies.

Essentially, those who make the claim that the Church's duly approved translations of the Scriptures are insufficient or inadequate for teaching and defending the true meaning of the supernatural revelation of God, are stating that right doctrine not only cannot now be known from these same translations, but even that great early Christian scholars and philosophers such as Saints Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Augustine, Jerome, etc. (who had access to the original languages) not only failed to grasp and convey the true meaning of Scripture in their writings, but have even (unanimously!) perverted it.

Yes, it is completely absurd, but it is the only position they can take if they want to argue against the plain and simple truth that the Bible teaches what the Catholic Church teaches.

In the end, "but I need to read the Bible in original languages", is just another way of saying "I'm better and smarter than all the Christians of the early Church and throughout the ages".  That is pride and it is of the devil and by it you will dive head first into hell.

Sunday, January 23, 2011

“Did The Catholic Church Give Us The Bible?”

Please also read:

This is the question posed at a self styled “Christian” website.  The article makes several claims and assertions in an attempt to detract from the authority given to the Church by God, and we shall deal with the most important of these claims and assertions below.

Let it be noted first, however, that the website making the claims evidently has not discerned the difference between the true Catholic religion and the counterfeit "church" that has been raised up in Rome in these last days, and which fulfills many prophecies given in the book of the Apocalypse (Revelation).

I will present all of my supporting quotations using the Douay Rheims English translation of the Bible for several reasons:

1)      It predates the subversive King James English version by several years,
2)      The King James version has already been used to prove a Catholic doctrine that Protestants reject (so there is no further need to use it rather than a true and duly approved Bible)

“Catholics contend that the whole world is indebted to the Roman Catholic church for the existence of the Bible. This is another of their attempts to exalt the church as an authority in addition to the Bible.”

Catholics attribute nothing more to the Church than does Jesus Christ Himself, in the very Scriptures that the website mentioned above claims to believe in.

St. Matthew 18:17: “And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican”

"If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere mention the Catholic Church?"

The constitution of the Church was established by Jesus Christ, even if the exact terminology that would later be used was not yet developed.  Such is the case with the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity, which is also proposed in Scripture, yet (if you are not blind beyond comprehension) you would never reject the term "Trinity" in reference to God.

Acts of the Apostles 11:26: " And they conversed there in the church a whole year; and they taught a great multitude, so that at Antioch the disciples were first named Christians."

How fitting it is, then, that at Antioch, Christians were first called Catholics:

Ignatius of Antioch was Bishop of Syria about 75-110 AD, and is one of the Apostolic Fathers of the Catholic Church. He followed St. Peter and Evodius as the third Bishop of Antioch, and served just after the time Matthew wrote his Gospel there. Tradition has it St. Peter, on his trip to Antioch to meet St. Paul (Galatians 2:11), designated Ignatius to become Bishop. St. Ignatius was the first to use the term "Catholic Church" in his Letter to the Smyrneans (8:2):

St. Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2: "Wherever the bishop appears let the congregation be present;  just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

"Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order?"

The constitution of the Church includes the offices of bishops and the pope and presbyters.  Nuns are those whose lives are dedicated to poverty and the service of God.  A great example of such can be found (not by name, but in practice) in St. Luke 2:37.

"If the Bible is a Catholic book, why is auricular confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, left out of it?"

The topic of praying to and venerating Saints, images and relics has already been amply addressed and it is beyond the scope of this article to rehash the topic.

"If the Bible is a Catholic book, how can Catholics account for the passage, "A bishop then, must be blameless, married but once, reserved, prudent, of good conduct, hospitable, a teacher...He should rule well his own household, keeping his children under control and perfectly respectful. For if a man cannot rule his own household, how is he to take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5). The Catholic Church does not allow a bishop to marry, while the Bible says "he must be married." 

1) This is not to say that a bishop must be married, but that if he be married he must have remained faithful for the duration of his marriage, that is that he must not have been an adulterer.  It is clear from the context of St. Paul's own words that this is the proper understanding:

1 Corinthians 7:8: " But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I."

St. Paul was never married and he was a bishop.  So evidently the  long question above is completely out of context and attributing inconsistency and hypocrisy to the holy St. Paul.  Furthermore, the office of bishop is very much like that of husband, only more solemn, hence it is fitting that if a married man be chosen as bishop, only a man who had been faithful should be eligible.

Ephesians 5:23: "Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body."

"Furthermore, if the Bible is a Catholic book, why did they write the Bible as it is, and feel the necessity of putting footnotes at the bottom of the page in effort to keep their subject from believing what is in the text?"

 2nd St. Peter 3:16: "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction."

Acts of the Apostles 8:30-31: "And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me?"

"Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6)"

St. Matthew 23:5-7: "And all their works they do for to be seen of men. For they make their phylacteries broad, and enlarge their fringes. And they love the first places at feasts, and the first chairs in the synagogues, And salutations in the market place, and to be called by men, Rabbi."

The above passage has nothing to do with clerical dress, but rather it condemns the pride of the Pharisees who would use their office as a means of seeking their own glory.

"Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28)"

The question above is deceptive.  Only God may be adored, but, as has been demonstrated in the article concerning venerating and praying to Saints, it is not only permissible, but laudable and praiseworthy to invoke them.  This is not adoration, the form of honour reserved for God, but a type of veneration that we would offer to a public official or to other superiors for the sake of God (1st St. Peter 2:13).

St. Luke 11:27-28: "And it came to pass, as he spoke these things, a certain woman from the crowd, lifting up her voice, said to him: Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck. But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it."

It ought to be understood in the context of Luke's own Gospel.  Who is "full of grace"?  It is the most holy Mary (St. Luke 1:28).  Who shall be called blessed in all generations, whose is the most profound humility and who has had the greatest favours done to her by God?  It is the Mother of God, the Blessed Virgin Mary (St. Luke 1:46-50).

Therefore, St. Luke 11:27-28 ought to be understood as follows:  My mother is not to be honoured on account solely that she gave Me birth, but rather that by her humble hearing and keeping of My word did she deserve this great gift of bearing Me in her body.  Honour her thus."Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11) Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9). Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11). Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5). 

"Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27)"

It is a true blindness indeed that would interpret such a passage as contradicting the primacy of St. Peter.  Behold:

St. Luke 22:24-32: "And there was also a strife amongst them, which of them should seem to be the greater.  And he said to them: The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and they that have power over them, are called beneficent.  But you not so: but he that is the greater among you, let him become as the younger; and he that is the leader, as he that serveth.  For which is greater, he that sitteth at table, or he that serveth? Is it not he that sitteth at table? But I am in the midst of you, as he that serveth:  And you are they who have continued with me in my temptations:  And I dispose to you, as my Father hath disposed to me, a kingdom;  That you may eat and drink at my table, in my kingdom: and may sit upon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren."

"but he that is the greater among you, let him become as the younger; and he that is the leader, as he that serveth"  He does not say that none is greater, but exhorts him rather to be a servant.

"But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren"  He specifically singles out Peter to "confirm the brethren", that is to be a servant to all His fellow Christians.

There could hardly be a more striking example of support for the primacy of the Holy Apostle St. Peter.

"Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26)"

It is nonsense to say that the story of Lazareth and the rich man opposes Purgatory.  The doctrine of Purgatory does NOT state that all people go there.

"Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?

Again, the authors of the above questions are either not trying very hard to discern the truth, or they are blinded by some sin.  The Bible contains, either explicitly, or implicitly in context, support or permission for all of the elements mentioned in this last question.

Infant Baptism

Romans 5:12: " Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned."

St. John 3:5: " Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

St. Matthew 19:14: " But Jesus said to them: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such."

Instrumental Music in Worship

Psalm 32:2: " Give praise to the Lord on the harp; sing to him with the psaltery, the instrument of ten strings."

Psalm 42:5: "To thee, O God my God, I will give praise upon the harp: why art thou sad, O my soul? and why dost thou disquiet me?"

Psalm 150:4: " Praise him with timbrel and choir: praise him with strings and organs."

 Indulgences (see again the article on Purgatory)

 Confession to a Priest

The Rosary

The Rosary falls under the same category as praying to and venerating Saints, which has already been defended and mentioned in several place in this article.  At this point let us get more specific and show by common sense how important and powerful such a devotion to the Mother of God is when it is prayed with the right dispositions.

The Mass

3rd Sunday after Epiphany

The following is not from a Missal, but is taken from a book by Fr. Leonard Goffine.

Please read also:
How to Combine due Care for a Good Reputation with Humility
Sunday Within the Octave of the Epiphany (obedience)
Heretic (priests) will drag you to Hell, "Imposing" or Not

Thursday, January 20, 2011

St. Augustine on Evil

The following is a condensation of a very good article I found that helps to explain the  often perplexing co-existence of the good and all-powerful God with evil, and which draws upon the keen intellect and profound faith of St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo ( AD 430, age 75).

Augustine's approach was not just brilliant; it was practical. His insight is intellectually credible and emotionally satisfying in that it gives hope and offers meaning to the Christian trying to make sense out of life in a fallen world.

Two Aspects of the Problem

The problem of evil can be phrased in several ways. One approach addresses the origin of evil, prompting the syllogism (a series of statements that form a reasoned argument): 1) God created all things; 2) evil is a thing; 3) therefore, God created evil. If the first two premises are true, the conclusion is inescapable.

This formulation, if sustained, is devastating for Christianity; God would not be good if He actively created evil. 

Augustine realized that the solution was tied to the question: What is evil? The argument above depends on the idea that evil is a thing (note the second premise). But what if evil is not a "thing" in that sense? Then evil did not need creating. If so, our search for the source of evil will take us in a another direction Augustine approached the problem from a different angle. He asked: Do we have any convincing evidence that a good God exists? If independent evidence leads us to conclude that God exists and is good, then He would be incapable of creating evil. Something else, then, must be its source.

If Augustine's approach is fair, it prompts a pair of syllogisms that lead to a different conclusion. 

First: 1) All things that God created are good; 2) evil is not good; 3) therefore, evil was not created by God.

Second: 1) God created every thing; 2) God did not create evil; 3) therefore, evil is not a thing.

The key to success here, is the truthfulness of two premises. If Augustine can offer evidence through natural theology that God exists as Creator and also that God is good, making everything He created also good, then the conclusion--evil is not a thing--automatically follows.

This is Augustine's strategy. If evil is not a thing, then the case against Christianity stated in the original syllogism is unsound because one of its premises is false. The critical question is: What is evil?

Digging a Hole in Goodness

Central to Augustine's idea of goodness (and, consequently, evil) was the notion of being. To Augustine, anything that had being was good. God as the ground of being was perfectly good, along with everything he brought into being. This goodness was a property that came in varying degrees.

With this foundation Augustine was now prepared to answer the key issue: "Where is evil then, and whence, and how crept it in hither? What is its root, and what its seed? Or hath it no being?" (Augustine, Confessions, VII: [V] 7.) To this Augustine answered: "Evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name 'evil.'" (Augustine, The City of God, XI, CHAP. 9)

Augustine observed that evil always injures, and such injury is a deprivation of good. If there were no deprivation, there would be no injury. Since all things were made with goodness, evil must be the privation of goodness: "All which is corrupted is deprived of good." (Augustine, Confessions, VII: [XII] 18)

The diminution of the property of goodness is what's called evil. Good has substantial being; evil does not. It is like a moral hole, a nothingness that results when goodness is removed. Just as a shadow is no more than a "hole" in light, evil is a hole in goodness.

To say that something is evil, then, is a shorthand way of saying it either lacks goodness, or is a lower order of goodness than what ought to have been. But the question remains: "Whence and how crept it in hither?"

Augustine observed that evil could not be chosen because there is no evil thing to choose. One can only turn away from the good, that is from a greater good to a lesser good (in Augustine's hierarchy) since all things are good. "For when the will abandons what is above itself, and turns to what is lower, it becomes evil--not because that is evil to which it turns, but because the turning itself is wicked." (Augustine, City of God, XII, CHAP. 6)

Evil, then, is the act itself of choosing the lesser good. To Augustine the source of evil is in the free will of persons: "And I strained to perceive what I now heard, that free-will was the cause of our doing ill."(Augustine, Confessions VII: [III] 5) Evil was a "perversion of the will, turned aside from...God" to lesser things. (Augustine, Confessions VII [XVI] 22)

Augustine's solution has not been satisfying to some.  

The Substance of the Objection

Isn't it possible that God could have created man immutable in his goodness, yet still have the opportunity to freely choose in other areas? Won't man have immutable goodness in heaven? And will he not also have freedom to choose among certain options? Why not here on earth? Couldn't God construct man's nature such that evil simply was not an option?

Overcoming the Objection

God could have created such a world. Freedom in the larger sense (the ability to make choices) does not require freedom in the narrow sense (the ability to make moral choices).

They miss the big picture, though: God would not have accomplished a second purpose. He not only wanted free creatures; He also wanted plenitude, that is, the greatest good possible. Plenitude--the highest good, the best of all possible worlds--requires more than just general freedom; it requires moral freedom, and that necessarily entails the possibility of evil.

Since all that God made is good, even those things which appear evil only appear that way because of a limited context or perspective. When viewed as a whole, that which appears to be evil ultimately contributes to the greater good.

For example, certain virtues couldn't exist without evil: courage, mercy, forgiveness, patience, the giving of comfort, heroism, perseverance, faithfulness, self-control, long-suffering, submission and obedience, to name a few. These are not virtues in the abstract, but elements of character that can only be had by moral souls. Just as evil is a result of acts of will, so is virtue. Acts of moral choice accomplish both.

The Best of All Worlds

A world that had never been touched by evil would be a good place, but it wouldn't be the best place possible. The best of all worlds would be a place where evil facilitated the development of virtues that are only able to exist where evil flourishes for a time. This would produce a world populated by souls that were refined by overcoming evil with good. The evil is momentary. The good that results is eternal.

What good comes out of a drive-by killing, someone might ask, or the death of a teenager through overdose, or a daughter's rape, or child abuse? The answer is that a commensurate good doesn't always come perceptibly out of those individual situations, though God is certainly capable of redeeming any tragedy. Rather, the greater good results from having a world in which there is moral freedom, and moral freedom makes moral tragedies like these possible.

A Heavenly Twist

 This observation reveals an interesting twist in this problem. If morality freely chosen can only happen in a world where evil is possible, then heaven will be a place where there will be no moral growth, where moral choices will not be possible because all the inhabitants of heaven will be immutably good. Growth of the soul only possible and available to inhabitants of a fallen world.

Two Scriptural observations lend credibility to this view. First, in recounting the great heroes of faith, the writer of Hebrews mentions that some were rescued by faith, but others endured by faith " order that they might obtain a better resurrection." (Heb. 11:35) Second, St. Paul tells St. Timothy that "...godliness is profitable for all things, since it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come." (1 Tim. 4:8)

Both of these verses indicate that conditions in this life affect conditions in the next. Bearing up under evil in this life improves our resurrection in the next. Godliness in this life brings profit in the next. These benefits are not available after this life or there would be little urgency to grow now; all eternity would be left in which to catch up.

A deeper, more profound good results when virtue is won by free, moral souls struggling with evil, rather than simply granted to them as an element of their constitution.

Spoiled Goodness

Augustine knew that evil was real. Independent evidence (natural theology) was enough to convince him that God existed and that everything He created would be good. Evil, then, must be something real, but not a "thing" in the conventional sense. Evil is not a created thing, but spoiled goodness made possible by the free moral agency of rational creatures. Evil is not something present, but something missing, a privation.

The challenge that God could have created a world of free-will creatures immutable in their goodness is answered by the notion of plenitude, the greatest good. The possibility of evil also makes a greater good possible. God made a world in which true moral decision-making and development of virtues is possible in humans, manifest by persons whose character is formed through growth and struggle.

There's a sound reason why God has allowed man the freedom to choose evil. It doesn't conflict with His goodness. God is neither the author of evil, nor its helpless victim. Rather, precisely because of His goodness He chooses to co-exist with evil for a time, that His goodness may be all the more manifest in those who overcome it by freely choosing to do good and avoid evil.

Romans 8:28: "And we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints."

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Dinosaurs, Humans and a Young Earth

The following is mostly taken from an article I read.  It is excellent information, but sadly comes from an anti-Catholic Protestant group who, ironically enough, recognize that John Paul II and also Vatican II contradict what has been professed of old by the true Catholic religion, yet they do not recognize that the Bible teaches what the Church teaches.  I have omitted the name of the group because they are evil and leading souls to hell, and far be it from me to send people there, despite their good research into creation related issues.

Note: Knowledge of dinosaurs stems primarily from fossils, and not generally from whole skeletons.  As such there is a certain amount of artistic license that scientists necessarily allow themselves in depicting these creatures.  Some of their depictions may be mostly accurate, while others may be way off the mark (as in for example "Brontosaurus" [Apatosaurus], whose nearly complete skeleton was found missing a skull, and which is now agreed by most  scientists to have been depicted in the media for many years wearing the wrong head!).

Some modifications and additions have been made to the article, which appears below:

Why is it so difficult for people to accept that dinosaurs and humans once lived together? No doubt one of the reasons is due to the fact that for many years, we have been inundated with information—on television, in books, in classrooms, in movies, in magazines, and on all sorts of paraphernalia—suggesting that dinosaurs and humans are separated by 60+ million years of geologic time. Thus, evolutionary scientists (and those who accept their timeline) have constructed a barrier that must be broken down in order to get people to consider the coexistence of dinosaurs and humans.

A second reason why people are uneasy about the idea of dinosaurs and humans living contemporaneously on Earth is that in the twenty-first century, mankind is accustomed to thinking that almost all dinosaurs were enormous killing machines. Geologist John Clayton has suggested, for example: (1) “It is ludicrous to suggest that man cohabited with the dinosaurs in an Alley Oop kind of world” (1991, p. 37); and (2) “Man could not have lived in a world full of dinosaurs, so by the time God created Adam the dinosaurs were gone” (1990, p. 14).

People apparently seem to think that dinosaurs would have killed all of the humans by biting them in half with their super-sized teeth, or by hunting them down and cutting them open with five-inch long, sickle-like claws. People think that the large plant eaters would have crushed humans with their massive feet, or smashed them with their huge tails. Humans are just too small, dumb, and scrawny to have lived during the time of the dinosaurs. At least that seems to be the way evolutionary scientists, movie makers, book writers, and magazine editors portray these “terrible lizards.”

Truly, dinosaurs were remarkable creatures. Some were extremely large. Others were smaller, but with sharp teeth and long claws. Some had big heads, some had giant tails, and some had both. Others were covered with spikes or armored plates. People in general seem to think of them as being almost invincible—animals that lived during a time in which man simply could not have survived. They would have been unapproachable, and certainly, untamable. Right? Just how is it that creationists can reasonably believe that dinosaurs and humans once lived on this Earth together at the same time?


Most people today, it seems, are constantly on the go. Whether man or woman, young or old, with children or without, we (especially in America) are a busy people. Time seems to leave us before we realize we had it. We go to school, attend classes, and learn what we are told. We work hard, and we play hard. But how often do people step back from the hustle and bustle of life, take a deep breath, and think outside of the proverbial box? Consider the topic of dinosaurs. Rather than thinking critically about the possibility of humans and dinosaurs coexisting on Earth at one time in the past, most students are content to swallow everything a high school teacher or college professor tells them about the “wild world” of dinosaurs. In the classrooms of evolutionary scientists, thinking outside the “evolutionary box” (e.g., questioning whether it is logical to believe in the cohabitation of dinosaurs and humans) is not acceptable conduct.

The truth is, humans live in a world that is home to many incredible creatures. Numerous large animals, some of which are very intimidating, cohabit this Earth with humanity, and have for thousands of years. Man generally shies away from some of these animals. Others, however, he has been able to nurture and tame.

Komodo Dragons are the world’s largest lizards. They can grow to be 10 feet long (almost twice the length of an average human) and can weigh as much as 275 pounds. Still, their short, stocky legs can carry them 15 miles per hour (as fast as most dogs run). After stalking and killing deer, wild boar, and other prey, they devour their dinner in a matter of minutes. Furthermore, these amazing creatures can consume up to 80% of their own weight. A 100-pound Komodo can eat 80 pounds of food in one meal! And, as if that is not enough “bad news” about an animal with which we share this planet, millions of deadly bacteria grow inside its mouth, and make any bite poisonous and potentially fatal. Yet despite its size, sharp teeth, speed, power, poison, and digestive habits, neither this animal, nor any other large reptile (e.g., the anaconda), has kept man from flourishing on Earth.
While continuing to think outside of the “dangerous dinosaur” box, consider the world’s largest land animal with which we share the Earth today—the imperial elephant. With somewhat amusing features (like long “noses” and big ears), these awesome animals can reach weights of up to 11 tons (22,000 pounds!). One elephant easily could kill a man just by stepping on him with one foot, or by striking him with its powerful trunk. Yet, for thousands of years, humans have been known to live with, and even tame, these massive beasts. Over 2,200 years ago, the empire of Carthage, led by its infamous general, Hannibal, used tame African elephants to cross the Swiss Alps and battle the Romans. Today, many elephants still are being controlled by man. Tamed elephants are used in various Asian countries in religious ceremonies, or to do physical labor like hauling lumber or transporting people from place to place. Elephants also are frequently seen performing at circuses. Amazing, is it not, that humans have trained these creatures, which can outweigh them by as much as 20,000 pounds—to perform some of the same tricks we train dogs to perform?

Humans have been able to live alongside elephants for thousands of years. Some humans and elephants even have become very good “friends.” Why, then, is it so hard for people to think of humans living together with some of the large dinosaurs? Yes, some dinosaurs like Brachiosaurus grew to be about four times larger than the largest elephants. Surely we would all agree, however, that if man can work, play, and go to battle alongside (or on top of!) elephants, it certainly is not absurd to think that humans did similar things with certain dinosaurs—especially when you consider that the average dinosaur (about the size of a large cow—see Horner and Lessem, 1993, p. 124) was reasonably smaller than the average elephant.

Whales are the largest animals of which we are aware that have ever existed on Earth—larger than any shark, elephant, or dinosaur. Blue whales have been known to weigh as much as 400,000 pounds (200 tons!), possess a heart the size of a Volkswagen Beetle®, and have a tongue large enough to hold 50 people. Yet, humans have hunted many species of whales for centuries. Furthermore, whale researchers and photographers have been able to get close enough to touch these massive creatures in the open ocean.
Killer whales (also called orcas) are another one of God’s magnificent creatures with which we live on the Earth. Orcas are one of the oceans’ fiercest predators, able even to kill much larger whales, including blue whales, when swimming in packs (referred to as “pods”). They hunt so well that very few animals can escape their predatory practices. Orcas eat hundreds of thousands of pounds of mammal and fish meat every year. Seals, sea lions, walruses, otters, polar bears, and even a moose have all been found in the stomachs of these ferocious creatures.

Amazingly, these incredible “killing machines” (weighing up to 11,000 pounds!) can be captured, tamed, and trained to do all sorts of things. The famous orcas living at Sea World in Orlando, Florida, occasionally take their trainers for rides on their backs. Trainers of orcas even have been known to stick their heads inside the whales’ mouths (which usually hold about 40-56 large, 3-inch-long teeth) without fear of getting bitten.
How can a mere 150-pound man teach a 10,000-pound whale to jump hurdles, ring bells, and perform other tricks—without being harmed? The answer is found in the fact that God made man in His own image, and gave him the ability to have dominance over the lower creation. As early as Genesis chapter one we read:
And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.  (Genesis 1:26-28).
Regarding this supremacy that God gave mankind over His creation, the Psalmist added:
What is man that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him? Thou hast made him a little less than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour: And hast set him over the works of thy hands. Thou hast subjected all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen: moreover the beasts also of the fields. The birds of the air, and the fishes of the sea, that pass through the paths of the sea. O Lord our Lord, how admirable is thy name in all the earth! (Psalm 8:4-9).
The reason man can tame and/or live with even the largest and most vicious creatures on Earth is because God created man higher than the animals, and gave him the ability to rule them and have dominion over them. If man, in the twenty-first century, can live with (and tame) such amazing creatures as the Komodo Dragon, the elephant, the blue whale, and the killer whale, as well as lions (“the king of all beasts”), tigers, and bears, it should not be difficult to accept that man once lived and interacted with dinosaurs. St. James wrote: “For every nature of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of the rest, is tamed, and hath been tamed, by the nature of man: ” (St. James 3:7).


Most people likely are unaware that the word “dinosaur” was not coined until the 1800s. Thus, if these creatures lived alongside humans prior to that time (and the evidence indicates that they did—see Thompson and Harrub, 2003, pp. 197-226), they were not called dinosaurs. So what were they called? 

Dragons. Notwithstanding the undeniable references to these magnificent creatures contained in the Holy Bible itself, numerous cultures throughout the world possess ancient stories about “dragons” that closely resemble what we today would call dinosaurs (which is to be expected if dinosaurs and humans actually lived together). From ancient texts in Mesopotamia, China, and Europe, creatures with scaly skin, slender necks, and long tails are described.

In far-eastern countries such as China, dragons often are described in ancient writings. Some of them are said to have been domesticated, and even were used to pull the chariots of Chinese rulers. Also, many of the ancient Chinese people are said to have used “dragon bones” for special medicines and potions. While visiting the continent of Asia in the 1200s, Italian explorer Marco Polo said that he saw long reptiles called Lindworms that easily ran as fast as a horse! In the British Isles, hundreds of dragon stories have come down to the present day. One account told of an animal with a crested head, teeth like a saw, and a long tail. Also, in 1449 in England, it was reported that two huge reptiles were seen fighting on the banks of the river Stour.

The epic poem Beowulf describes a battle in Denmark between a man named Beowulf and a terrible monster called Grendel. Beowulf was a real person. He lived from A.D. 495 to 583, and was king of a group of people known as the Geatingas. Grendel was a bipedal creature that possessed large, powerful jaws, and had small, weak forearms. (Beowulf slew him, you may recall, by tearing off one of those arms.) As Bill Cooper inquired:
Is there a predatory animal from the fossil record known to us, who had two massive hindlegs and two comparatively puny forelimbs? There is indeed.... I doubt that the reader needs to be guided by me as to which particular species of predatory dinosaur the details of his physical description fit best (1995, pp. 159,160).
Could it be—Tyrannosaurus rex?! Why not? The description of Grendel, recorded sometime before the tenth century A.D. (over nine centuries before the relatively recent discovery of dinosaur fossils), more closely resembles a Tyrannosaurus rex than any animal alive today. (NOTE: There is no indication that either Beowulf or Grendel was mythical in nature.)

If humans today can manipulate animals that are 100 times their own size (e.g., the elephant), that have a mouthful of 3-inch-long, dagger-like teeth (e.g., the killer whale), or that have claws that could be used to rip human beings apart (e.g., lions, tigers, and bears), why is it so difficult to believe that humans and dinosaurs once inhabited this Earth at the same time? Admittedly, many human lives likely were lost to certain species of dinosaurs for various reasons. But, for thousands of years, people also have lost their lives to animals that still inhabit the Earth today (like sharks, tigers, lions, poisonous reptiles, bears, elephants, etc.). Although we probably will never know exactly which details of the countless number of dragon stories are fact or fantasy, the simple truth is that the huge lizards in them sound very much like some of the dinosaurs we know once existed. Ancient paintings, figurines, rock carvings, and other such illustrations also have been found throughout the world that point to a time when dinosaurs and humans once roamed this Earth together. One cannot help but wonder, if they never did coexist (as evolutionists would have us believe), what logical explanation can be given for the existence of hundreds of dragon legends, and the thousands of artifacts that either describe or depict these creatures hundreds or thousands of years before modern man began learning about dinosaurs as a result of the fossil record?

Ancient Peruvian Ica Stones
The above picture shows several artifacts from Peru, which contain carvings depicting various scenes of nature that the native Peruvians would have been witness to.  These include depictions of animals known by modern day paleontologists as stegosaurus (top left and bottom left), triceratops (top middle), even a human being locked in conflict with a type of therapod dinosaur (such as Tyrannosaurus Rex or Allosaurus, at center), among other various scenes, some more mundane.

Sadly, however, it is not just evolutionists who take issue with the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. In a book he authored in 1998 titled The Genesis Question, well-known progressive creationist Hugh Ross ridiculed the concept that the biblical creatures, behemoth and leviathan, were dinosaurs or dinosaur-like animals. According to Ross, “No creatures on Earth, alive or extinct, fit the literal descriptions” of the animals that God described to the patriarch Job in Job 40:15-41:34. Furthermore, “No dinosaur...ever breathed fire or smoke or had bones of iron and brass” (p. 48). Ross has chosen to believe that the magnificent creatures described by God in His second speech to Job were the hippopotamus and the crocodile.

Like so many professed Christians who have tried to amalgamate the long evolutionary ages with the biblical account of Creation, Ross’s reservations to accept the likelihood of behemoth being a dinosaur and leviathan being a dinosaur-like, water-living reptile are not the result of a sensible, judicious exegesis of the biblical text. A man who believes that dinosaurs “dominated the Earth’s land and sea life from 250 million to 65 million years ago” (p. 48), and that “no credible evidence whatever suggests the coexistence of primates and the great dinosaurs” (p. 49), obviously will have a difficult time accepting that behemoth and leviathan (which existed at the same time as Job) were dinosaurs or dinosaur-like animals. [For additional information on the cohabitation of humans and dinosaurs, see Thompson and Harrub, 2003. For a discussion on the reality and the identity of behemoth and leviathan, see Lyons, 2001.]

Two of the main reasons Ross gives for rejecting the dinosaur-like features of these creatures are: (1) “no creatures on Earth, alive or extinct, fit the literal descriptions;” and (2) “no dinosaur...ever breathed fire or smoke.” According to Ross, such “facts” present a problem when Bible students understand these creatures as being dinosaurs.

We wonder if Ross could answer two questions for us. First, although admittedly no creature alive today fits the “literal descriptions” of leviathan and behemoth, how can Ross confidently assert that no extinct animal resembles the description of behemoth or leviathan? How does Ross know the description of every creature that has lived on the Earth? How does he know what feats they were capable of performing? Ross might suggest: “But common sense tells us that no creature had ribs of ‘iron’ or bones of ‘brass’ ” (cf. Job 40:18). True. But when God employed such metaphors and similes, any reasonable Bible student can understand that He was stressing the fact that behemoth’s bones were incredibly solid—like they were made of solid metal. Interestingly, although dinosaurs had the largest, most massive bones of any known animal that has ever walked the Earth (e.g., one fossilized Argentinosaurus vertebra was five feet high and five feet wide—see Meyer, 2002), and even though they are known to have the most massive tails of any animal ever known (e.g., the 40-foot-long tail of Diplodocus), which could reasonably be likened to a “cedar” (Job 40:17), Ross has chosen rather to believe that behemoth was a hippo—an animal with a tail shorter than many dogs and cats.

A second question we would appreciate Hugh Ross answering for us is how he can be so certain that “no dinosaur...ever breathed fire or smoke.” By his own candid admission, Ross never has seen a dinosaur (since he believes they became extinct 65+ million years ago), and thus he obviously never has observed every dinosaur that walked on land (or dinosaur-like reptile that swam in the oceans). As Henry M. Morris observed in his book, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science: “To say that the leviathan could not have breathed fire is to say much more than we know about leviathans (or water dragons or sea serpents)” (1984, p. 359, parenthetical item in orig.). When a person considers that electric eels can produce enough electricity (500-600 volts) to stun a horse without ever shocking itself, that anglerfish and fireflies can manufacture “light,” that the Komodo dragon can store deadly bacteria inside its own mouth, and that bombardier beetles can produce a caustic, noxious fluid that can be expelled from their bodies at a temperature of 212 degrees Fahrenheit, it is not difficult to accept the possibility that certain dinosaurs or dinosaur-like, water-living reptiles were capable of expelling certain hot gaseous fumes that might ignite.

Hugh Ross, it seems, has forgotten that all animals, including the dinosaurs, were designed and created by God on days five and six of Creation. If God wanted to create one or more dinosaurs that could expel fire, smoke, or some deadly chemical out of their mouths without harming themselves, He certainly could have done so. Bearing in mind the way that God described leviathan to Job in Job 41:10-12, and considering that many secular stories have circulated for millennia that describe “fiery dragons,” it is logical to conclude that He did create such creatures. It seems fitting to ask Dr. Ross the same rhetorical question God asked Abraham long ago: “Is there any thing hard to God?” (Genesis 18:14). Who is Hugh Ross to say that “no dinosaur...ever breathed fire”?


Although evolutionists are quick to discount anything that the Bible has to say about the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs, anyone who claims to be a Christian (and thus trusts the Bible to be God’s revelation to man) must accept whatever information they find in the Bible to be accurate. In regard to the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs, many modern-day “Bible believers” either have rejected what the Bible has to say on the subject, or else they never have given it much thought in light of various Bible passages. According to the Scriptures, the whole of God’s earthly creation was brought into existence within six days. Exodus 20:11 states: “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day” (cf. also Exodus 31:17). The apostle St. John declared that “all things were made by Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made” (St. John 1:3). If God created the Earth, the heavens, the seas, and everything in them in six days, what does that omit? It omits absolutely nothing! [NOTE: Genesis 1:31 records that the Creation was “very good,” and Genesis 2:1 states that it was “finished.”]

The Genesis record goes on to inform us that no animals were created before day five, at which time God created sea-dwelling creatures and birds (Genesis 1:20-23). On the sixth day of Creation, Genesis chapters 1 and 2 indicate that God made all of the land animals, as well as the first two humans, Adam and Eve. According to Genesis 2:19-20,
And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name. And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field: but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself.
God brought all land dwelling creatures to Adam in order that he might give them names, and also realize that his mate had not yet been created by God. A Christian cannot reasonably reject the view that dinosaurs (as land-dwelling animals) and humans once lived together, because Adam lived alongside dinosaurs. He even gave them names. Just as Adam lived on the Earth as a contemporary with such “intimidating” animals as lions, bears, rhinoceroses, hippopotami, and elephants, the inescapable conclusion is that he also lived with dinosaurs. [NOTE: Through the years, attempts have been made to introduce into the Biblical record the concept of an old Earth so that evolutionary concepts (such as the separation of men and dinosaurs by millions of years) could be made acceptable to Bible believers. These attempts (generally known as the Day-Age Theory and the Gap Theory) have failed, because the premises upon which they were developed are false. For an in-depth refutation of these theories (and others), see Thompson, 2000.]

Bible believers who question the possibility of humans being able to cohabitate the Earth with dinosaurs should consider the types of creatures with which Noah and his family cohabited for more than 365 days while on the ark. Genesis 7:13-16 states:
In the selfsame day Noe, and Sem, and Cham, and Japheth his sons: his wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, went into the ark: They and every beast according to its kind, and all the cattle in their kind, and every thing that moveth upon the earth according to its kind, and every fowl according to its kind, all birds, and all that fly, Went in to Noe into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein was the breath of life. And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the Lord shut him in on the outside.
Representatives of all kinds of the land animals of the Earth were on the ark. Earlier, God had instructed Noah, saying:
And of every living creature of all flesh, thou shalt bring two of a sort into the ark, that they may live with thee: of the male sex, and the female. Of fowls according to their kind, and of beasts in their kind, and of every thing that creepeth on the earth according to its kind; two of every sort shall go in with thee, that they may live. (Genesis 6:19-20)
Similar to how God “brought” the animals to Adam centuries earlier in order to be named, He told Noah that all of the animals he was to take on the ark would “come to” him. Animals of all kinds migrated to where Noah lived, and joined him and his family on the ark. For a little over one year, Noah and his seven family members lived on a boat with bears, bats, alligators, gorillas, lions, tigers, and many other animals that humans normally try to avoid. Also included in this list of land animals would have been dinosaurs (since by definition dinosaurs are land-living animals). If dinosaurs were living during the time of Noah (and there is overwhelming evidence that they must have been, since humans after that time have encountered dinosaurs), the simple truth is that they were on the ark.

Sadly, it is very unpopular to teach that mankind once coexisted with dinosaurs. The average person has been programmed by his or her environment to think that humans and dinosaurs never could have lived together. Not only are we told that dinosaurs became extinct over 60 million years ago, but the mindset of most people seems to be that even if this alleged 60-million-year gap of time did not exist, these creatures would have been far too dangerous for us to exist along with them. Even many professed Christians have a difficult time accepting the idea of humans and dinosaurs cohabiting the Earth at the same time. For some reason, when these people read the Creation account or rehearse the story of Noah and the Flood, they rarely consider these accounts in light of the many kinds of animals that have since become extinct.

Draw a human standing next to a dinosaur (except for cartoonish purposes), and prepare to be ridiculed. Draw a human riding a small dinosaur, and you likely will be labeled eccentric. Few people seem to care that ancient art depicts Indians riding these creatures, or that certain ancient Chinese writings mention dinosaur-like creatures pulling the chariots of Chinese rulers. Even many “Bible believers” seem to dismiss the historical and biblical evidence of humans and dinosaurs living at the same time and within close proximity to each other.

But draw a picture of a man riding on the back of a 20,000-pound elephant, and no one has a problem with it. Write an article about the woman you saw at Sea World riding on the back of an 8,000 pound killer whale, or about how she stuck her head inside the whale’s massive mouth, and everyone understands these stories as being acceptable observations of reality. Tell a friend about the man at the circus who has tamed lions, tigers, and bears, and that is nothing but old news. Just refrain from telling people about the evidence for man’s coexistence with dinosaurs, because “that is absurd”—or so we are told.

If man can tame many types of dangerous and ferocious animals that live on the earth today, why is it so difficult to think of man being capable of surviving alongside dinosaurs? Ancient man was able to build pyramids that stood nearly 500 feet high. He constructed the Great Pyramid with over two million blocks of stone that had to be cut, transported, and assembled to create the almost six-million-ton structure. To this day, modern man still does not know exactly how the Egyptians built these great pyramids. More than one thousand years before astronomers discovered that the length of a year was precisely 365.2422 days, ancient man (without any help from computers or modern measuring devices) calculated the length of a year as 365.2420 days long. He also figured the orbital period of Venus to be 584 days, when current science shows it at 583.92 days. Our early forefathers were capable of tunneling through rock in order to mine precious metals from deep within the Earth (Job 28). Humans formed tools out of bronze and iron (Genesis 4:22). And a man named Noah even built an ark thousands of years ago that was larger than many ships of today (Genesis 6-8).

Our forefathers were not the ignorant, unlearned nitwits that many evolutionists today make them out to be. Rather, our ancestors were intelligent individuals who were more than capable of surviving alongside dinosaurs. They were made in the image of God, and given dominion over every living thing that moves on the earth - including the dinosaurs.


But if dinosaurs and humans did once live as contemporaries on Earth, why is it that human fossils have not been found alongside, near, or in the same strata as dinosaur fossils? If they lived together and died together, shouldn’t there be evidence from the fossil record of their coexistence?

Admittedly, at times questions like these appear somewhat puzzling. We know from the biblical record that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. Furthermore, various ancient paintings, figurines, rock carvings, and historical references confirm they were contemporaries upon the Earth. Why, then, at first glance, does the fossil record seem not to corroborate this information?

First, fossils are rare. Not every living plant, animal, or human fossilizes after death. In fact, it is extremely rare for things once living to fossilize. Dead animals lying in a field or on the side of the road do not fossilize. In order for something to become fossilized, it must be buried rapidly in just the right place. Consider as an example all the bison that were slaughtered and left to rot on the prairies of the Old West. In those days, you could buy a seat on a train, pull up to a herd of bison, and keep shooting out of the window until you were either out of bullets or your barrel overheated. When everyone had enough, the train would move on, leaving the dead and dying animals behind. By 1885, millions of bison had been reduced to just 500 (Jones, n.d.). What happened to all of their remains? We do not see them on the prairies today. Why? Because their bones and flesh were scavenged by worms, birds, insects, and other animals. The smallest portions were digested by bacteria, fungi, and enzymatic degradation until the buffalo remains were gone. Even oxygen plays a part in breaking down the chemicals that make up the living body. Evolutionary scientist James Powell described another situation where a rather large population of animals died. He wrote:
[I]n the winter after the great Yellowstone fires of 1988, thousands of elk perished from extreme cold coupled with lack of food. Late the following spring, their carcasses were strewn everywhere. Yet only a few years later, bones from the great elk kill are scarce. The odds that a single one will be preserved so that it can be found 65 million years from now approach zero. At best we can expect to find fossil evidence of only a tiny fraction of the animals that once lived. The earth’s normal processes destroy or hide most of the clues (1998, p. xv).
Normally, as Powell indicated, living things do not fossilize. Under normal conditions, living things decay and rot. It is atypical for plants and animals to fossilize, because they must avoid even the tiniest of scavengers, bacteria, fungi, etc. For bones to fossilize, they must be buried—the deeper and sooner the better. Fine sediments, like mud and silt, are good because they block out oxygen. In this “protected” environment, bones and teeth may last long enough to mineralize. But, normally, carcasses do not find themselves in such environments.

Second, although dinosaur graveyards have been discovered in various countries around the world (e.g., Tanzania, Africa; Jenson, Utah [USA]) where thousands of dinosaur bones are jumbled together (obviously due to some sort of catastrophe—e.g., a flood), most people are unaware of the fact that, in museums, “in spite of the intense popular and scientific interest in the dinosaurs and the well-publicized efforts of generations of dinosaur hunters, only about 2,100 articulated dinosaur bones (two or more aligned in the same position as in life)” exist (Powell, 1998, p. xv, parenthetical comment in orig.; see also Dodson, 1990, 87:7608; Lewin, 1990). Furthermore, in an article in the October 1990 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Peter Dodson of the University of Pennsylvania reported that almost half (45.3%) of all dinosaur genera are based on a single specimen, and 74% are represented by five specimens or less (p. 7608). Even some of the most famous dinosaurs are based on a fraction of what they were originally. For example, the 120-foot-long Argentinosaurus replica (housed in the Fernbank Museum o Natural History in Atlanta, Georgia) is based on only 10 percent of its remains (a dozen backbone vertebrae, a few limb bones and part of the hips) [Meyer, 2002]. Truthfully, although dinosaurs have captured the attention of scientists for more than 150 years, their fossilized remains are not as prevalent as many would think.

Third, humans make up an infinitesimal portion of the fossil record. Due to the number of drawings of our alleged human ancestors that appear in the news on a regular basis, one might get the feeling that hominoid and human fossils are ubiquitous. But such is not the case. More than two decades ago, in an article in New Scientist, John Reader wrote: “The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table (1981, 89:802).

One year later, Lyall Watson similarly stated: “The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin” (1982, 90:44, emp. added). It is true, of course, that additional alleged hominid fossils have been discovered since Watson and Reader made their comments, but none qualifies as a legitimate human ancestor (see Harrub and Thompson, 2003, pp. 14ff.). In a conversation with James Powell, president and director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, renowned evolutionary paleoanthropologist Meave Leakey gave some insight into her frustrations in searching for hominid (or human) fossils when she described her “nearly futile hunt for human bone in a new field area as four years of hard work producing only three nondescript scraps” (see Powell, 1998, p. xv, emp. added). More recently, David Begun concluded an article in Science titled “The Earliest Hominins—Is Less More?,” by admitting: “[T]he level of uncertainty in the available direct evidence at this time renders irreconcilable differences of opinion inevitable. The solution is in the mantra of all paleontologists: We need more fossils!” (2004, 303:1479-1480, emp. added). Although hominid/human fossils are the most sought-after fossils in the world, scientists readily admit that few such fossils have been found.

As you can see, the question “Why don’t we find dinosaur and human fossils together?” is extremely misleading. The truth is, fossils themselves are rare. And, of all those things that do fossilize, it appears that less than 1% are vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, or mammals) [see Snelling, 1991, p. 30]. Furthermore, human fossils make up a microscopic part of the fossil record. Searching for one is like trying to find the one proverbial needle in a haystack. The real question then, is not, “Why don’t we find dinosaur and human fossils together?,” but, “Where are all of the human fossils?”

Simply because human fossils apparently have not been found with dinosaur fossils does not make the case for the coexistence of dinosaurs and humans any less credible. Think about it. Where are the human fossils that have been found with the recently extinct Pyrenean Ibex? Can we prove that Dodo birds and humans once lived together by observing their fossilized remains together in a particular layer of rock? We know that they once coexisted, but can a person point to the fossil record for such information? The chance of finding human fossils is rare. The chance of finding exactly the combination of fossils for which one is searching (in this case, dinosaurs and humans) is even less likely.

Fourth, considering that sedimentary rocks (the sort of rocks in which fossils are most likely to be found) cover two-thirds of the continents and are over a mile thick on average, even if there are dinosaur and human remains fossilized in the same rock, the chance of them being exposed, discovered, recognized, and reported together is very improbable. They might be exposed somewhere in the world today (like in a mine, road cutting, or a cliff), but unless they are discovered before the wind, Sun, and rain reduce them to dust, such exposure is useless to scientists.

Furthermore, it may very well be the case that these bones have been discovered together in times past, but for at least two reasons, were not reported. First, someone who might have found these bones in a quarry, could react by saying, “Hey look guys, it’s a bunch of old bones. But quick, pass me another stick of dynamite so we can get the next ton of coal out of here.” The proof that men and dinosaurs were fossilized together may have gone up in smoke years ago. 

Second, it may be possible that human bones have been found by scientists alongside dinosaur fossils, yet simply have not been reported widely. By saying this, we do not mean to accuse all evolutionary researchers of dishonesty. Rather, we simply believe they are afflicted with presuppositions that have affected their judgment. It is evolutionary geologists and paleontologists who are doing most of the research in this area. If they did happen upon human fossils and dinosaur fossils in the same strata, is it not possible that they would think to themselves, “Oh, these human fossils are an anomaly; they cannot have actually existed in this time period because evolution is true”? If evolutionists can “confuse” a dolphin’s rib for a human collarbone (Anderson, 1983, p. 199), or an extinct pig’s tooth for a human tooth (e.g., Nebraska Man; see Harrub and Thompson, 2003, pp. 88-89), then similar mistakes could easily be made concerning human and dinosaur fossils. If one ever has been found with another, scientists could have misinterpreted the “anomaly.” Because (from an evolutionary perspective) human fossils “shouldn’t be where they are,” they might very well not get reported as being where they are!

Additionally, we find a number of evidences in the fossil record which clearly refute the evolutionary notion that humans and other large mammals were not present during the “age of the reptiles.” Evolutionary timelines present mammals as having evolved from reptiles. Raven and Johnson, in their college text, Biology, wrote: “During the Mesozoic Era, the reptiles, which had evolved earlier from the amphibians, became dominant and in turn gave rise to the mammals and the birds” (1989, p. 432). George Gaylord Simpson and his co-authors contended that no “advanced mammals” were present during the age of the dinosaurs. Why not? The dinosaurs allegedly became extinct in the Cretaceous Period, and the only mammals that had evolved up to that point were “small, mostly about mouse-sized, and rare” (1957, p. 797, emp. added). This is a logical explanation if one contends that mammals evolved from reptiles, because that scenario require mammals to appear much later in the picture.

But therein lies the problem. A significant discovery, reported in the January 13, 2005 issue of Nature, has challenged everything evolutionists have ever maintained regarding the cohabitation of dinosaurs and mammals. The Associated Press noted:
Villagers digging in China’s rich fossil beds have uncovered the preserved remains of a tiny dinosaur in the belly of a mammal, a startling discovery for scientists who have long believed early mammals couldn’t possibly attack and eat a dinosaur (Verrengia, 2005).
Not only is there substantial proof of large mammals coexisting with dinosaurs, but now we also have scientific evidence of a large mammal eating a dinosaur! Scientists discovered the fossil remains of two different mammals. One (Repenomamus giganticus) was 50% larger than mammals previously considered to be living alongside dinosaurs. The other, Repenomamus robustus, was fully intact—and had a dinosaur in its stomach. Yaoming Hu and his co-authors wrote in Nature:
During preparation of the specimen, a patch of small bones was revealed within the ribcage, on the ventral sides of the posterior left thoracic ribs and vertebrae, where the stomach is positioned in extant mammals. Unduplicated dentition [teeth—EL/BT], limb bones and phalanges [bones of the toes or “fingers”—EL/BT] in the patch confirm that these bones belong to a juvenile individual of Psittacosaurus, an herbivorous dinosaur that is common in Jehol Biota. The serrated teeth in the patched skeleton are typical of juvenile Psittacosaurus. The skull and most of the skeleton of the juvenile Psittacosaurus are broken, disarticulated and displaced, in contrast to the preservation of the R. robustus skeleton, which is essentially in its original anatomical relation. Although fragmentary, the bones of the Psittacosaurus are packed in a restricted area. These conditions indicate that the juvenile skeleton ofPsittacosaurus is the remaining stomach contents of the mammal (Hu, et al., 2005, 433:151).
In discussing this amazing find, Nature writer Anne Weil observed: “Discoveries of large, carnivorous mammals from the Cretaceous challenge the long-held view that primitive mammals were small and uninteresting. Have paleontologists been asking the wrong question?” (2005, 433:116, emp. added). Maybe a better question would be: Have paleontologists been analyzing the data via evolutionary presuppositions?

It may be that dinosaur and human fossils will never be found together. But, regardless of whether they are or not, the evidence for the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs at one time in the past is undeniable to the unbiased truth seeker. Human footprints in coal veins that are allegedly 250 million years old, human artifacts buried in limestone dated at 135 million years old, clay figurines of dinosaurs from an ancient civilization in Mexico, ancient dinosaur petroglyphs, and much, much more, all point to a conclusion that evolutionists will not accept—dinosaurs and humans once lived on Earth together.


Anderson, I. (1983), “Humanoid Collarbone Exposed as Dolphin’s Rib,” New Scientist, April 28.
Begun, David (2004), “The Earliest Hominins—Is Less More?,” Science, 3003:1478-1480, March 5.
Clayton, John N. (1990), Dinosaurs—One of God’s More Interesting and Useful Creations (South Bend, IN: Privately published by the author).
Clayton, John N. (1991), Does God Exist? Christian Evidences Intermediate Course Teacher’s Guide (South Bend, IN: Privately published by the author).
Cooper, Bill (1995), After the Flood (Chicester, England: New Wine Press).
Dodson, Peter (1990), “Counting Dinosaurs: How Many Kinds Were There?,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 87:7608-7612, October.
Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2003), The Truth About Human Origins (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Horner, John R. and Don Lessem (1993), The Complete T. rex: How Stunning New Discoveries are Changing Our Understanding of the World’s Most Famous Dinosaur (New York: Simon & Schuster).
Hu, Yaoming, Jin Meng, Yuanqing Wang, and Chuankui Li (2005), “Large Mesozoic Mammals Fed on Young Dinosaurs,” Nature, 433:149-152, January 13.
Jones, Alvin T. (no date), “The American Bison,” [On-line], URL: http://www.texasbi
Lewin, Roger (1990), “Science: Dinosaur Count Reveals Surprisingly Few Species,” New Scientist Archive, 128[1745], December, [On-line], URL: secure/article/article.jsp?rp=1&id=mg 12817452.700.
Lyons, Eric (2001), “Behemoth and Leviathan—Creatures of Controversy,” Reason & Revelation, 21:1-7, January.
Meyer, Pedro (2002), “Does the Original Matter?,”, [On-line], URL:
Morris, Henry M. (1984), The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Powell, James Lawrence (1998), Night Comes to the Cretaceous (New York: Harcourt Brace & Company).
Raven, Peter H. and George B. Johnson (1989), Biology, (St. Louis, MO: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishing), second edition.
Reader, John (1981), “Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus?,” New Scientist, 89:802, March 26.
Ross, Hugh (1998) The Genesis Question (Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress).
Simpson, George Gaylord, C.S. Pittendrigh and L.H. Tiffany (1957), Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company).
Snelling, Andrew (1991), “Where are All the Human Fossils?,” Creation Ex Nihilo, 14[1]:28-33, December 1991-February 1992.
Thompson, Bert (2000), Creation Compromises (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), second edition.
Thompson Bert and Brad Harrub (2003), Investigating Christian Evidences (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Verrengia, Joseph (2005), “Fossils Show a Mammal Turned Tables, Devoured Dinosaur for Last Meal,” [On-line], URL: http://www. 112/g011204A.html.
Watson, Lyall (1982), “The Water People,” Science Digest, 90[5]:44, May.
Weil, Anne (2005), “Living Large in the Cretaceous,” Nature, 433:116, January 13.