Oopart dinosaurs? ideas please..

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

I have two images here, which appear to be dinosaurs..any explanations?
(these are good ones)..

Mesopotamian relief
page 2 of http://www.s8int.com
(5th image down page).

Bishop Bell’s brass behemoths!
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=12&t=459&m=1
the explanation on this forum is reasonable, so you'd extend the argument to mesopitamia?

 

[shernren]

Even if those pictures are genuine, evolution doesn't predict that dinosaurs and man cannot coexist.

 

[Mallon]

I don't know which Mesopotamian relief you're referring to, but I would really like to see a better image of Bishop Bell’s brass relief. That one is terrible. And while the creatures on his tomb do look superficially like sauropod dinosaurs, no sauropod known to date has single giant spines coming off the shoulders as depicted in the brass relief. I also think many of the comments made by the skeptics about bestiaries on the site you linked to are valid and should be dealt with.

I think it's imortant to keep mind not only shernren's point that a living dinosaur would in no way falsify evolution (just our conception as to how it played out historically), but also that a depiction of a genuine dinosaur would in no way prove that dinosaurs were in existence at the time. People have been finding dinosaur bones in the ground for thousands of years, and many cultures have fabricated elaborate stories around them.

 

[LittleNipper]

Evolution predicts higher and higher cooperation to form more and more complex social order & individual creature complexities. The Bible and my own observations tell me ans suggest that order is slowly becoming disorder and species are becoming weaker and headed for extinction.

 

[Mallon]

Evolution predicts higher and higher cooperation to form more and more complex social order & individual creature complexities.

No. It doesn't. That is a misconception among laymen.

 

[Molal]

Evolution predicts higher and higher cooperation to form more and more complex social order & individual creature complexities. The Bible and my own observations tell me ans suggest that order is slowly becoming disorder and species are becoming weaker and headed for extinction.

LittleNipper, to almost quote Mallon, no it doesn't. That's a misconception.

I am surprised you maintain that view since you have been shown to be incorrect on many occassions. So, in the face of overwhelming evidence, why do you hold this view?

 

[LittleNipper]

No. It doesn't. That is a misconception among laymen.

So, man is not the child of some long distant single celled organism from Billions and Billions of years ago? So you believe man was created on the sixth day from the dust and has been evolving ever since?

 

[LittleNipper]

LittleNipper, to almost quote Mallon, no it doesn't. That's a misconception.

I am surprised you maintain that view since you have been shown to be incorrect on many occassions. So, in the face of overwhelming evidence, why do you hold this view?

Well I'm glad you believe that each kind was the direct creation of GOD and that none of them share a common ancestor with the ameboa, nor that our society is linked in anyway to that of monkeys. Good for you!

 

[Molal]

Well I'm glad you believe that each kind was the direct creation of GOD and that none of them share a common ancestor with the ameboa, nor that our society is linked in anyway to that of monkeys. Good for you!

The comment was directed at you, not Mallon.

So, even when you see direct evidence that negates your view point, why do you hold this misconception?

 

[Mallon]

So, man is not the child of some long distant single celled organism from Billions and Billions of years ago?

You've misunderstood my point. My point is that evolution quite obviously does not act equally on all organisms, pushing them ever further towards increased intelligence and complexity, as you implied. If that were so, bacteria would not continue to outnumber humans.

So you believe man was created on the sixth day from the dust and has been evolving ever since?

No. I am not a concordist and see no reason to squeeze modern science into an ancient text.

 

[LittleNipper]

The comment was directed at you, not Mallon.

So, even when you see direct evidence that negates your view point, why do you hold this misconception?

Because I don't believe secular men know enough about GOD and HIS abilities to comprehend what they think they see. I strongly believe in the FLOOD. Jesus strongly asserted that the FLOOD was a matter of fact. The reason the FLOOD has been ignored by many today is because of a series of wrong interpretation of the FLOOD facts and an insistance to try to make natural predictions with regard to something that was rooted in the supernatural.

 

[Molal]

Because I don't believe secular men know enough about GOD and HIS abilities to comprehend what they think they see. I strongly believe in the FLOOD. Jesus strongly asserted that the FLOOD was a matter of fact. The reason the FLOOD has been ignored by many today is because of a series of wrong interpretation of the FLOOD facts and an insistance to try to make natural predictions with regard to something that was rooted in the supernatural.

But there are no flood facts - there is no evidence whatsoever of a global flood. None, zip, zero.

The only evidence you have is an interpretation of the Bible.

So, if you believe that a global flood happened, either provide the evidence that supports this assertion, or admit that your literalistic interpretation is based on faith (Hebrews 11:1).

 

[LittleNipper]

You've misunderstood my point. My point is that evolution quite obviously does not act equally on all organisms, pushing them ever further towards increased intelligence and complexity, as you implied. If that were so, bacteria would not continue to outnumber humans.


No. I am not a concordist and see no reason to squeeze modern science into an ancient text.

Well, for an evoutionist, evolution must needs to do exactly that, or there would be no multi-cellular living things. The ONLY thing I can agree with you on is the realization that no two of anything are exactly alike in every aspect, but that in no way means that there are no limits between kinds nor anything other than Designer similarites between them.

 

[LittleNipper]

But there are no flood facts - there is no evidence whatsoever of a global flood. None, zip, zero.

The only evidence you have is an interpretation of the Bible.

So, if you believe that a global flood happened, either provide the evidence that supports this assertion, or admit that your literalistic interpretation is based on faith (Hebrews 11:1).

The geologists all once said at one time there was plenty of evidence for the FLOOD. Lack of comprehensive Bible study along with any real experimentation and godly meditation slowly created the satanic mess they SEEMINGLY agree with today.

 

[Molal]

The geologists all once said at one time there was plenty of evidence for the FLOOD. Lack of comprehensive Bible study along with any real experimentation and godly meditation slowly created the satanic mess they SEEMINGLY agree with today.

But, the evidence does not fit a flood model. Period. In the oil and gas industry, if one were to use a flood model they would not find any oil and gas reserves beyond that expected stochastically.

So, where is your evidence of a global flood? What ould the geology look like if it was formed in a global flood?

 

[LittleNipper]

But, the evidence does not fit a flood model. Period. In the oil and gas industry, if one were to use a flood model they would not find any oil and gas reserves beyond that expected stochastically.

So, where is your evidence of a global flood? What ould the geology look like if it was formed in a global flood?

How do you know that ALL the oil and gas has anything to do with the FLOOD? GOD created minerals BEFORE the FLOOD, why not some oil and gas also? I do NOT believe that all diamonds are the result of the FLOOD. I do not believe that diversity of the species is the result of evolution. GOD created what HE wanted for reasons only HE knows/understands, in ways we can only presume upon. I assume nothing. GOD said HE created. GOD tells us there was a worldwide FLOOD. GOD speaks of precious gold and jewels. Some things HE created one way at one time and other's HE perhaps created later another way involving the FLOOD. You are far too ridged in your thinking and this is why people do not believe the FLOOD happened. There is PLENTY of real evidence, it is however not simple ---- cut and dry.

 

[Molal]

How do you know that ALL the oil and gas has anything to do with the FLOOD? GOD created minerals BEFORE the FLOOD, why not some oil and gas also? I do NOT believe that all diamonds are the result of the FLOOD. I do not believe that diversity of the species is the result of evolution. GOD created what HE wanted for reasons only HE knows/understands, in ways we can only presume upon. I assume nothing. GOD said HE created. GOD tells us there was a worldwide FLOOD. GOD speaks of precious gold and jewels. Some things HE created one way at one time and other's HE perhaps created later another way involving the FLOOD. You are far too ridged in your thinking and this is why people do not believe the FLOOD happened. There is PLENTY of real evidence, it is however not simple ---- cut and dry.

There is no evidence, none at all for a global flood. You have danced past the question.

1. What evidence is there for a global flood.
2. Describe what you would expect to see for a global flood.
3. What evidence is there for a literal interpretation of the bible?
4. Why do you hold onto an interpretation that is in direct opposition to the world God created? Why are you so dogmatic to this interpretation?

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

There is no evidence, none at all for a global flood. You have danced past the question.

1. What evidence is there for a global flood.
2. Describe what you would expect to see for a global flood.
3. What evidence is there for a literal interpretation of the bible?
4. Why do you hold onto an interpretation that is in direct opposition to the world God created? Why are you so dogmatic to this interpretation?

Can I just butt-in here. Has anyone read 'The Discovery of Noah's Ark' by David Fasold? And 'The Biblical Flood' by Davis A Young? Here we have two books that present contradictory evidence. In Fasold's book we are told that Noah's Ark is presently 6000 meters, on a hill in Turkey. And in Young's book we are told that a global flood is impossible, (it's a long story, but a good one)..
Fasold shows evidence such as drogue stones, that were discarded by the Ark and are still there, and makes a good case for the Ark being a giant reed ship covered in cement, with a hole in the middle. And what about Tehuanaco I think it's called, an odd city, that was once near the coast, at a great hight. And also 'Pangea' the land mass as it once was, suggesting 'catastrophism'. The descendants of Noah's family are listed, but they do not include the sub-saharan Africans or the Chinese. They are the indo-europeans-arians and semetic peoples, (Greeks, Libyans, Iranians etc.) So are we talking about an area-specific disaster, that wiped out.. not everyone? That seems to go against the Bible, because Jesus says that 'then the flood came, and washed them all away' or something like that.
Also you have to think about things like mosquitoes being carried on the Ark, which wouldn't have been able to survive in the sea, and tons of other evidence that a global flood is impossible. So what's the truth about it? It's beyond me.

 

[Molal]

Can I just butt-in here. Has anyone read 'The Discovery of Noah's Ark' by David Fasold? And 'The Biblical Flood' by Davis A Young? Here we have two books that present contradictory evidence. In Fasold's book we are told that Noah's Ark is presently 6000 meters, on a hill in Turkey. And in Young's book we are told that a global flood is impossible, (it's a long story, but a good one)..
Fasold shows evidence such as drogue stones, that were discarded by the Ark and are still there, and makes a good case for the Ark being a giant reed ship covered in cement, with a hole in the middle. And what about Tehuanaco I think it's called, an odd city, that was once near the coast, at a great hight. And also 'Pangea' the land mass as it once was, suggesting 'catastrophism'. The descendants of Noah's family are listed, but they do not include the sub-saharan Africans or the Chinese. They are the indo-europeans-arians and semetic peoples, (Greeks, Libyans, Iranians etc.) So are we talking about an area-specific disaster, that wiped out.. not everyone? That seems to go against the Bible, because Jesus says that 'then the flood came, and washed them all away' or something like that.
Also you have to think about things like mosquitoes being carried on the Ark, which wouldn't have been able to survive in the sea, and tons of other evidence that a global flood is impossible. So what's the truth about it? It's beyond me.

The great thing is that God created the earth and the earth (His creation) tells us a story. The story can be read by looking at the rocks and the diversity of life. It is only recently that we have come to understand these observations, previously the observation were not understood. Indeed, it is the lack of understanding and technology that enabled the literal biblical interpretation to become prevalent.

The truth is evidenced by God's creation. The theological truth of creation is embodied in the bible. Why is it so hard to put away an interpretation of genesis that is wrong?

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

ps. I haven't been able to track down a better picture of the dinosaurs with their heads wrapped around each other, but you'd think they'd list their source, I'll have to have a look again and see if I can find out. The depictions on the Bishops dinosaurs are more in line with current thinking, as the 'necks in the air dinosaurs' are not fashionable now. Is it reasonable to think that people were able to excavate a dinosaur fossil back then and then draw a picture of what it would have looked like when alive? Thinking about medieval fossil hunters or ancient Babylonians, perhaps it is. But the behemoth written of in the Bible does seem to me to be describing a dinosaur, and not a mythical beast.