This question already has an answer here:
Archaeology has found many dinosaur fossils. Does the Bible have anything to say about the existence of dinosaurs?
Some commentators (such as the Institute for Creation Research) have suggested that Leviathan (otherwise a Hapax Legomenon) in Job 41 is a dinosaur. Not all agree, but it is at least "out there" as a theory.
Prior to the 1820s, dinosaurs were unknown to (modern) man, so it is not surprising the are not mentioned in the Bible. (Indeed, the term would have had no meaning).
If the case is that Leviathan is a dinsoaur, then we read:
Basically, they are big and strong, but God is bigger.
: To be clear, most scientists believe that man was just a mouse during the age of the dinosaur, and even old earth Creationists suspect that the dinosaurs had died out in the "two days" before man. During the 1800s, I believe it was Paley who suggested that the dinosaurs must have died out shortly after the flood. A few die-hard Young Earthers (like the ICR) still advocate that, but for the most part "The Land of the Lost" is just that.
God's Word, although not directly mentioning dinosaurs, does not at all exclude the idea. Here is why: some scholars, historians, theologians, etc. agree that Adam lived approximately 6000 years ago. Most theologians teach that this is the same age of the universe and earth because Adam was created on the 6th day. But we have fossils of dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals dating millions of years old, obviously contradicting the teaching of 6000 years.
This does not prove that science and God's Word are incompatible. If God is real, then the author of the natural realm is also the author of the Bible. They would have to mesh, fit somehow, as God is incapable of falsehood (Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18, Numbers 23:19). I believe that what I'm about to unfold for you will enlighten your understanding of some time periods in God's Word that, for centuries, have been unclear and grossly misunderstood, misinterpreted, and mistaught, altogether misrepresenting who God is and how beautiful and symmetrical and accurate his Word is.
Consider a section in II Peter 3.
This Scripture is speaking of the fall of Lucifer which totally incapacitated Earth and decimated all life forms. The word "perished" (apollumi) means "utterly and finally ruined"
This is something greater than Noah's flood. So from this verse we see a key phrase: "the world that then was" That is a world of an earlier time.
Here is a second set. The word "now" (nun) means "the actually present time;even now; at this instant."
Later in II Peter 3 we see another piece of the puzzle.
This is the third heaven and earth mentioned. We have "the world that then was," "the heavens and earth, which are now," and lastly "new heavens and a new earth." Three in number.
Three heavens and earths- not in space but in time. One after the other. The third will be in the future, as Revelation 21:1 points out.
The word "first" that occurs here is not necessarily refereeing to the "world that then was" from II Peter 3:6. the word "first" is the word protos which in some cases does mean first, but here the meaning is former, which based on what we saw in II Peter 3 would be referring to the prior set, the second heaven and earth.
Going back to Genesis.
In Genesis 1:28 where the Word is summarizing the formation and fabrication of man, Adam, God's call for them is to "REplenish the earth."
There must have been some form of life that existed and ceased to exist before Adam and Eve and the lifeforms mentions in Genesis 1:20-25,
b. because the scripture says Adam and Eve were to REplenish the earth, to plenish it again.
Is it logical for a God of light, perfection, order, love, and beauty to work on creating a heavens and earth and the end result is without form, void, and dark?
The creation of Genesis 1:1 was not haphazard, sloppy, formless, dark, crooked, void, empty, etc. It was a perfect, harmonious, light, and beautiful creation.
The Word "was" following the word "earth" in Genesis 1:2 should have really been translated "became."
If we read the transition from Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 1:2 with the added understanding that the word "was" is really the word "became" it fits with what we would expect God to create.
To further substantiate this point, consider the vision of the prophet Isaiah as recorded in:
Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
the word "in vain" from the phrase " he created it not in vain" is the Hebrew word tohu which is the same word as "without form" from Genesis 1:2. Clearly God created the heaven and earth not in vain, he created it with form, he did not create it in the state that it was in in Genesis 1:2, formlessness, it became that way.
So just to frame this out even clearer: Genesis 1:1 is literally on its own compared to the rest of the chapter. Genesis 1:1 is the first heaven and earth, while Genesis 1:2 and onward is the second heaven and earth. the second heaven and earth is obviously the same rock, the same elements, from the first heaven and earth, just refashioned. If this were not the case we would not have the fossils and prehistoric evidence that have been discovered over the face of the earth.
So Genesis 1:3-2:4 is just a reframing,reorganizing, replenishing of what once was from the original of Genesis 1:1.
Between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 was eons of time. As far as we understand it was basically however much time is between the creation of matter, I know the scientific realm has approximate ages for this point, and the creation of Adam. So dinosaurs, cavemen, cave paintings, mammoths, all those things would have to fit within that expansive timezone unspoken of between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. We know time went by between those two verses even though nothing is specified. We know there was a war in heaven, and Lucifer fell;
and his fall racked and ruined that life on earth. Then God turns the lights back on and rebuilds, re-initiates his creation, with one difference, and enemy of God in the world, Satan. Then the Story unfolds from Genesis 1 and 2 and mankind then needs a redeemer, and Christ was that for us.
After the return, and reign of Christ, the third heaven and earth begins, which is the true restoration of "the world that then was" Paradise will be restored, and this time, with no adversary, no death, no crying, no fear. That is our hope.
Historians believe that dinosaurs lived before humans. Therefore dinosaurs could be simply mentioned during the 2 days when God created the animals. Gen 1:20-25
God could consider dinosaurs simply animals, and there would be no reason for him to explicitly mention them.
Technically it is paleontology and not archaeology that is concerned with prehistoric fossils.
There is a (mostly) good book that deals with creation and evolution (among other things) in a complimentary way: http://www.amazon.com/Science-God-Convergence-Scientific-Biblical/dp/1439129584
There is also the Six Dawns essay which does essentially the same thing from an Orthodox perspective: http://www.scribd.com/doc/75080212/The-Six-Dawns-by-Dr-Alexander-Kalomiros
Essentially, the focus is on this particular verse:
We now know from paleontology that some sea creatures evolved into amphibians and reptiles, and some reptiles into dinosaurs, and ultimately some dinosaurs into birds. So the entire age of the dinosaurs is glossed over in this one verse. One could argue that since dinosaurs were extinct by the time this passage was written, their inclusion would have been confusing at best to the people of the time.