[_ Old Earth _] Dinosaurs Were There, You Just Have To Be Fair

[YehwehPaladin]

Welcome back friends. Today I'm going to speak on a topic that has perplexed many christians. Why aren't dinosaurs in the bible? First of all they are, and I'll show you the verse in a moment. I would like to say that it didn't take me long to discover several theories. I would like to share a couple of them with you along with a few interesting facts. I did take several paragraphs from other websites so if you notice some go word for word with other sites, that's why.

Here is the verse where dinosaurs are mentioned...

Genesis 1:24-25 (NIV)

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Now, you may be saying. "Wait a second! That's the most vague answer you could have possibly given!" But wait with me a moment and I'll explain.

First some facts...

One man was quoted saying:

"The ancient Cave Paintings by Man shows only animals that are still around today. If Man and Dinosaur were in fact contemporary, then Cave Paintings should have shown Dinosaurs. The lack of dinosaurs in carvings would suggest that the two species were not contemporary."


He was responded to with this comment:

By that reasoning the lack of paintings of chickens in caves prove man never lived with chickens.

The amazing thing is there is no evidence to support the belief that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. In fact, the physical evidence contradicts this very idea. Contrary to what you may have been told, dinosaur bones are not carbon dated. They are "assigned" an age based on how old someone thinks they are, based upon the geologic column.

There was recently an Allosaurus bone which is alleged to be 140 million years old; it was carbon dated at only 16 Thousand years old! And carbon dating has even been proven to be inaccurate by often over calculating the age! (Scientists currently have no plausible theory as to how an Allosaurus bone could be so "young".)

So by these facts man did see dinosaurs. I know you're anxious to find out why dinosaurs aren't specifically recorded in the Bible or other ancient works but let me give you a few more theories first.

Paleontologists (those who study the fossil record) have not been without serious mistakes. For instance, one of the most famous dinosaurs, Brontosaurus (small head and huge body) that has been used to promote dinosaur interest never even existed. Brontosaurus' picture has been seen in just about every dinosaur book and museum for the last hundred years. The original discovery of Brontosaurus lacked the head. A skull located about four miles away was placed on the skeleton to make it complete. The skull actually belonged to Apatosaurus and the skeleton was a Diplodocus. Some scientists have made complete pictures of dinosaurs based on just a single bone or tooth. From such minuscule evidence, they have "reconstructed" great creatures, down to the color of their eyes and skin.

Some have suggested a great meteorite colliding with the earth killed all the dinosaurs or they all simply evolved into birds and reptiles. In fact, there have been many guesses. The evolutionary scientists, for the most part, will not even consider the possibility that the Genesis flood caused the extinction of such large animals called dinosaurs by man. The Genesis' flood was the greatest disaster known to the earth. One would expect to find billions of dead creatures buried by water in mud and sand (now hardened to rock). Guess what? That is exactly what scientists find around the world. Thousands of dinosaur bones are found where they were deposited and washed together by violent floodwaters and buried under mud, sand, and rock. Hence, the fossil record that we have today. The ideal elements for fossilization are quick burial, the right amount of water, and the suitable materials. Such a global flood as is described in Genesis six through nine would have produced such fossils and in the same manner. Also, such fossilization would have taken a short time, instead of the millions of years as indicated by the stratum (normal processes). Dinosaurs probably lived only a few centuries after the flood, but simply did not survive. The postdiluvian world is a very different world and such animals as dinosaurs were probably unable to adapt. Man also has typically played a major role in the extinction of a species.

Also, there are biblical references to unknown animals. For instance, a creature called "behemoth" is described in Job 40: 15-24. Behemoth (gigantic, Hebrew) is a massive animal. Some have attempted to say the elephant or hippopotamus is meant. However, the elephant and hippopotamus do not have a tail "like a cedar" (vs. 17). The book of Job is an ancient book, about 4000 years old. Behemoth could have been what scientists call Diplodocus, a huge plant-eater. Another apparently extinct animal is described in Job 41. It is called Leviathan (vs. 1). The description fits what scientists call Kronosaurus, one of the greatest animals to ever swim the seas. Leviathan was still around as late as the time of Psalms 104 (see vs. 26). Leviathan is said to have been in the oceans where the ships traveled (the alligator or crocodile does not satisfy the description of Leviathan).

To the point, dinosaurs were not recorded because there was no need to record them. Penguins, Killer Whales, and Dodo Birds weren't mentioned in any ancient text either, does that mean they never existed? Of course not! Then you might say, "Wouldn't man record a mass extinction of large animals?" If you go with the flood theory then no, because only Noah and his family were left. They would say "God brought the animals to us to save and we took off." In ancient times when they recorded history it was based on making rulers look good. Nothing else, because that's all that mattered. Who knows how many species died off before man started keeping track? In ancient times (from the beginning up until about one century B.C.) man didn't care about recording anything but themselves and what happened to them. Even after they started recording it was patchy and mostly unreliable.

One last thing. Dragons have appeared in cultures all over the globe, on at least three continents that had no way to communicate with each other at that time. Don't you think it's possible that those drawings and stories could be embellished remembrances of dinosaurs?

Sorry for the length and wordiness of this post. I hope I've given you something to think about.

(The Case for a Creator, I have not read but it is written by the same man who wrote "Case for Christ" and "Case for Faith". You will very likely find many of your answers there.)

 

[jwu]

By that reasoning the lack of paintings of chickens in caves prove man never lived with chickens.

Chicken however don't look nearly as impressive, and they indeed apparently weren't domesticized until quite late. There aren't any cave paintings of chicken because chicken were introduced from southeast asia not earlier than about 1300 BC.

Contrary to what you may have been told, dinosaur bones are not carbon dated. They are "assigned" an age based on how old someone thinks they are, based upon the geologic column.

If someone tells that dinosaur bones are carbon dated, then that person has no idea what he is talking about. Carbon dating is only suitable for terrestrial organic matter that is no older than about 70,000 years. Fossils are not organic matter, and typically older. Besides, these ages are not guesses but based on measurements.

There was recently an Allosaurus bone which is alleged to be 140 million years old; it was carbon dated at only 16 Thousand years old! And carbon dating has even been proven to be inaccurate by often over calculating the age! (Scientists currently have no plausible theory as to how an Allosaurus bone could be so "young".)

Do you have a reference? Applying carbon dating to fossils (non-organic matter) is a misapplication of the method and one even expects to get bad results then. Either way, individual incidents of failure of a dating method sometimes occur, e.g. due to contamination. This does not explain the overall agreement of different and independent dating methods.

Some scientists have made complete pictures of dinosaurs based on just a single bone or tooth.

Reference?

Some have suggested a great meteorite colliding with the earth killed all the dinosaurs or they all simply evolved into birds and reptiles. In fact, there have been many guesses.

Neither is an accurate depiction of the theories that are being held. Some dinosaur species evolved into birds, the majority was wiped out by the Chixculub impact. The actual crater has been identified, as well as the global residues of the impact ejecta.

The evolutionary scientists, for the most part, will not even consider the possibility that the Genesis flood caused the extinction of such large animals called dinosaurs by man. The Genesis' flood was the greatest disaster known to the earth.

Because it's utterly disproven by geology that such an event happened in the recent history.

One would expect to find billions of dead creatures buried by water in mud and sand (now hardened to rock). Guess what? That is exactly what scientists find around the world. Thousands of dinosaur bones are found where they were deposited and washed together by violent floodwaters and buried under mud, sand, and rock. Hence, the fossil record that we have today. The ideal elements for fossilization are quick burial, the right amount of water, and the suitable materials. Such a global flood as is described in Genesis six through nine would have produced such fossils and in the same manner.

Why don't we find bunny or horse bones intermingled with the dinosaur ones then?

Some have attempted to say the elephant or hippopotamus is meant. However, the elephant and hippopotamus do not have a tail "like a cedar" (vs. 17).

Neither does a dinosaur. "Tail" and "stones" are euphemisms for penis and testicles...which dinos didn't have, they laid eggs.

Another apparently extinct animal is described in Job 41. It is called Leviathan (vs. 1).

Isn't Leviathan described to have a navel? Dinos didn't have navels either, as they were not mammals.

Penguins, Killer Whales, and Dodo Birds weren't mentioned in any ancient text either, does that mean they never existed?

They happen not to live in places where those ancient people who left records lived though.

One last thing. Dragons have appeared in cultures all over the globe, on at least three continents that had no way to communicate with each other at that time. Don't you think it's possible that those drawings and stories could be embellished remembrances of dinosaurs?

...or people just found dinosaur fossils and thought about what that animal might have looked like. That'd also explain why e.g. european and chinese dragons look so different.

 

[Lewis]

The 40th chapter of Job man.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Neither does a dinosaur. "Tail" and "stones" are euphemisms for penis and testicles...which dinos didn't have, they laid eggs.

*cough* Um, they certainly did have genitalia.

Penguins, Killer Whales, and Dodo Birds weren't mentioned in any ancient text either, does that mean hey never existed?

Actually in certain cultures you will find records on the order of the age of the bible that indicate the existence of at least Killer Whales, probably some varieties of penguins as well.

One last thing. Dragons have appeared in cultures all over the globe, on at least three continents that had no way to communicate with each other at that time. Don't you think it's possible that those drawings and stories could be embellished remembrances of dinosaurs?

I'm afraid that is the very same shaky ground which you point out here:

"The ancient Cave Paintings by Man shows only animals that are still around today. If Man and Dinosaur were in fact contemporary, then Cave Paintings should have shown Dinosaurs. The lack of dinosaurs in carvings would suggest that the two species were not contemporary."

Unless you have sufficient evidence to call into question large swaths of geology, then you really haven't a leg to stand on here. There is no evidence of any major flood event that caused large scale die-offs in the geological record, at least nothing particularly big. Major floods happen and the ice caps recede from time to time, but never to the level that you biblical literalists claim. Certainly nothing like ice cap melting occurred during the age when the bible was being written. Major floods? Certainly. The cradle of civilization has a lot of rivers and during that period had a LOT of floods. But nothing in the story is present universally for all humanity, as it necessarily would have to be if all of humanity was descended from Noah. Furthermore there is far more genetic diversity than can be accounted for by someone living a few thousand years ago siring the entire human species.

 

[jwu]

Neither does a dinosaur. "Tail" and "stones" are euphemisms for penis and testicles...which dinos didn't have, they laid eggs.

*cough* Um, they certainly did have genitalia.

I didn't say that they did not have genitalia at all. They however did not have a penis and testicles like mammals, but something more akin to the cloaca of modern birds, reptiles and amphibians.

 

[YehwehPaladin]

Please keep in mind that I didn't write most of this. I just copied it.

 

[Packrat]

I think carbon dating is also only suitable for creatures which eat photosynthetic plants or which eat other creatures that eat photosynthetic plants. Photosynthetic plants can also be carbon dated reliably with the common restrictions observed. If a modern deep sea creature eats only chemosynthetic life, then that creature will appear to be extremely old (i.e. millions or billions of years perhaps) if carbon dated.

If some thousands of years ago creatures relied heavily or entirely on chemosynthetic plants (for whatever reason) for their diet, and we dated them today with carbon dating, then we'd come up with crazily old dates.

At any rate, it's been a while since last I've researched the topic, so I apologize for any false assumptions or wild numbers in my post. However, I really don't think I'm too far into the clouds with the information I presented.