Did dinosaurs ever exist?

[laptoppop]

Thanks for the correction. I was wrong -- I was talking about Eve based on a mental recollection of the end of I Tim 2 -- where the actual message is all together different than what I remembered.

Thanks for sending me back to the Word!
-lee-

 

[Starcrystal]

I've never figured out why the aquatic ones would have drowned.

I don't beleive they all did. Some died off gradually after the climactic changes that occured after the flood. Some like Crocodiles (that could theoretically swim for months in the flood) and sharks, paddlefish, and Coelacanth fishes are still with us totay... and I won't even speculate about Nessie and other plesiasaur sightings since they haven't a physical specimine of those to show us... but yes, there are "prehistoric" sea creatures more than there are land creatures.

Now the OP talking about the fossils being remains of demonic counterfiets.... I've given thought to that and I beleive at least some dinosaurs were evil, but I don't think all were.

 

[ondaball]

I'm typing this now, ain't I???

 

[3kixintehead]

What reasons do YECs have to believe that dinosaurs exist? After all,

1. dinosaurs are not mentioned in Scripture
2. a dinosaur is literally a "terrible lizard", and far be it from God who is a good God and a perfect Designer to create creatures which can only be named "terrible"
3. the extinction of the dinosaurs would imply that God is unable to sustain and keep in existence what He created and designed
4. nobody has ever seen a dinosaur, so you have to accept fossils "on faith", while ignoring other viewpoints such as that fossils were manufactured by Satan during the Fall in order to trick modern Christians into believing that the earth is old, that God would create monstrosities, and that God would let any of His creatures go extinct.

I think a medieval theologian (assuming s/he knew about fossils, of course) would be horrified at the fact that creationists today believe that these fossils were actually real creatures instead of demonic counterfeits, and they would seem like they had been compromised by modern science and brainwashed into believing the existence of dinosaurs without any evidence for them.

1. Yes it does. True I cannot remember any specific passages, but there is somehting described in Job tht closely fits the definition of Dino. There is also another but alas it is very late and I cannot remember.
2. I dont think the Romans (I think Dinosaur is derived from latin)were thinking about God when they invented the name.
3. God made physical laws and let them work. Its not like he said "Oh gosh! There's a meteor comeing! Whatever am I to do?" Besides. Dinos werent made in his image. We were. He could have been setting the stage for us.
4. This argument is completely irrelevant. No one has ever seen a dinosaur because they are extinct. Fossils do exist and people have seen them so it is not "on faith". Why would God trick (or let satan take such leiway on his creation as to allow him to plant dinosaur bones? They are not monstrosities unless you also think all reptiles are monstrous. And finally, creatures Go extinct all the time. If extinction in any way proved God being evil then we have plenty of proof to say he is.

 

[Mallon]

1. Yes it does. True I cannot remember any specific passages, but there is somehting described in Job tht closely fits the definition of Dino.

The Leviathan and Behemoth also closely fit the description of a hippo and croc -- both of which are found near Egypt. We've had this discussion here before.

2. I dont think the Romans (I think Dinosaur is derived from latin)were thinking about God when they invented the name.

They didn't invent the name. Sir Richard Owen did in the mid-19th century.

3. God made physical laws and let them work.

Except evolution, right?

Why would God trick (or let satan take such leiway on his creation as to allow him to plant dinosaur bones?

For the same reason that YECs claim He created a universe with the appearance of age?

 

[steen]

1. Yes it does. True I cannot remember any specific passages, but there is somehting described in Job tht closely fits the definition of Dino. There is also another but alas it is very late and I cannot remember.

Ah, so you are talking about INTERPRETING scripture to fit your politics? yeah, whatever.

2. I dont think the Romans (I think Dinosaur is derived from latin)were thinking about God when they invented the name.

Romans didn't name the dinosaurs. This was done 150-200 years ago in England, AFAIR. Science uses latin for nomenclature, but that doesn't mean that the names came from the Romans.

3. God made physical laws and let them work.

Like the processes of Evolution, like the nature of the light arriving from galaxies anbd suns 10 bill lightyears away, like the constant rate of radioactive decay etc. yup. Sure.

Its not like he said "Oh gosh! There's a meteor comeing! Whatever am I to do?"

?????

Besides. Dinos werent made in his image. We were. He could have been setting the stage for us.

Non-sequitor.

4. This argument is completely irrelevant. No one has ever seen a dinosaur because they are extinct.[/q1uote]Ahem, that thing outside on your bird feeder....

Fossils do exist and people have seen them so it is not "on faith".

And science has done the research on them, yes. There is quite a bit published on dinosaurs by now. fascinating stuff.

Why would God trick (or let satan take such leiway on his creation as to allow him to plant dinosaur bones?

Indeed. hence, the scientific research findings seem to be the correct way of lookign at the dinosaurs.

They are not monstrosities unless you also think all reptiles are monstrous. And finally, creatures Go extinct all the time. If extinction in any way proved God being evil then we have plenty of proof to say he is.

You have been "reverse-poe'd" Congratulations.

 

[Dannager]

1. Yes it does. True I cannot remember any specific passages, but there is somehting described in Job tht closely fits the definition of Dino. There is also another but alas it is very late and I cannot remember.

These passages refer to the hippopotamus and crocodile, respectively. They describe the behemoth as having a navel, which no dinosaurs had (they hatched from eggs).

 

[Starcrystal]

The Leviathan and Behemoth also closely fit the description of a hippo and croc -- both of which are found near Egypt. We've had this discussion here before.

It is so obvious those creatures are not Hippos and Crocs.... Does a Hippo have a tail like a Cedar? No it has a small little tail. A Sauropod (Brachiosaurus, Apatosaurus, Diplodocus, etc) has a tail like a cedar. It also has giants legs which are mentioned in the Behemoth description. Hippos legs are rather small in proportion to its body. A few people try interpreting the Behemoth asd an Elephant but there are still problems with that one... namely the tail. Someone actually suggested the verse means the Elephants trunk.... first of all the Elephants trunk is nothing like a Cedar, but most important... don't you think God knows the difference between the nose and the tail of a creature he created...

The Leviathan.... some similarities to Crocs but you can spear Crocs and they can be defeated in battle more easily than that description gives. Also the Croc does not spit firey sparks but some scientists suggest that some dino's had glands that could produce chemical reactions similar to the Bombadier beetles and create sparks - probably also where the legends of "fire breathing dragons" came from.

 

[Starcrystal]

These passages refer to the hippopotamus and crocodile, respectively. They describe the behemoth as having a navel, which no dinosaurs had (they hatched from eggs).

Some may have live birthed... also how can you be so sure a large Dino didn't have a navel from where the yolk sac connected? Have you seen the belly of a dinosaur, can you tell us with 100% certainty there is no navel there?

Woops, we shouldn't even be having this discussion... what was the original Hebrew word that was translated navel? I just looked it up. It is shariyr which means "sinew, muscle." It is derived from two root words, one of which is shor which means "umbilical cord, navel, navel-string." So the word used in Job talks about muscles, not belly buttons.

Brachiosaurus is what it was.

 

[gluadys]

It is so obvious those creatures are not Hippos and Crocs.... Does a Hippo have a tail like a Cedar? No it has a small little tail. A Sauropod (Brachiosaurus, Apatosaurus, Diplodocus, etc) has a tail like a cedar.

But does the comparison refer to size? Two translations (Jerusalem Bible and NRSV) translate the verse as "it makes its tail stiff like a cedar". So the key element is stiffness, not size.

Also a propos is that "tail" here may be a euphemism for male genitalia. That would be appropriate if one is talking about "stiffness" rather than size. It would also make sense of the KJV rendering of the second half of this couplet, which refers to Behemoth's "stones". In Hebrew poetry, the second half of a couplet often echoes the first.

Most translations say "thighs" rather than "stones". But again, "thighs" was a common euphemism for male genitalia.

It also has giants legs which are mentioned in the Behemoth description. Hippos legs are rather small in proportion to its body.

Could you cite the reference to the size of the legs? I don't see it. The closest is a reference to the strength of its bones. That doesn't seem to have much to do with size or proportion.

 

[Mallon]

It is so obvious those creatures are not Hippos and Crocs.... Does a Hippo have a tail like a Cedar?

You tell me. In a poetic sense, what does it mean to have a tail like a cedar? Perhaps the tail swayed in the wind, much like a cedar does...

Also the Croc does not spit firey sparks but some scientists suggest that some dino's had glands that could produce chemical reactions similar to the Bombadier beetles and create sparks - probably also where the legends of "fire breathing dragons" came from.

No. No scientist has ever suggested that dinosaurs had the capacity to breathe fire. This is yet another falsehood pushed by YECs to play retroactive apologetics with their literalist interpretation of the Bible.

Some may have live birthed

None did. Every major dinosaurian clade we know of laid eggs. We have the fossils to back it up.

 

[FallingWaters]

What reasons do YECs have to believe that dinosaurs exist? After all,

1. dinosaurs are not mentioned in Scripture
2. a dinosaur is literally a "terrible lizard", and far be it from God who is a good God and a perfect Designer to create creatures which can only be named "terrible"
3. the extinction of the dinosaurs would imply that God is unable to sustain and keep in existence what He created and designed
4. nobody has ever seen a dinosaur, so you have to accept fossils "on faith", while ignoring other viewpoints such as that fossils were manufactured by Satan during the Fall in order to trick modern Christians into believing that the earth is old, that God would create monstrosities, and that God would let any of His creatures go extinct.

I think a medieval theologian (assuming s/he knew about fossils, of course) would be horrified at the fact that creationists today believe that these fossils were actually real creatures instead of demonic counterfeits, and they would seem like they had been compromised by modern science and brainwashed into believing the existence of dinosaurs without any evidence for them.

I believe dinosaurs still exist because living people have seen them.

 

[steen]

I believe dinosaurs still exist because living people have seen them.

Well, the birds at your bird feeder, sure.

Or are you talking about the Loch Ness monster myth?

 

[Dannager]

I believe dinosaurs still exist because living people have seen them.

Er...wow, that's a rather startling announcement to make. You sure?

 

[Redneck Crow]

Does a Hippo have a tail like a Cedar?

Has any woman ever had breasts that are like two young roes that are twins? Boy, would that be a sight!

The Bible is employs plenty of literary device, and in the case of the young aformentioned woman, it can get downright unusual. Crocs, BTW, have a rather substantial tail, the Nile croc's looks a heck of a lot like a tree trunk. The love of a language that is rich and full of imagery and similie seems to be universal among cultures.

 

[Redneck Crow]

I don't beleive they all did. Some died off gradually after the climactic changes that occured after the flood. Some like Crocodiles (that could theoretically swim for months in the flood) and sharks, paddlefish, and Coelacanth fishes are still with us totay... and I won't even speculate about Nessie and other plesiasaur sightings since they haven't a physical specimine of those to show us... but yes, there are "prehistoric" sea creatures more than there are land creatures.

Now the OP talking about the fossils being remains of demonic counterfiets.... I've given thought to that and I beleive at least some dinosaurs were evil, but I don't think all were.

Starcrystal, not one of the known existant creatures you have mentioned is a dinosaur. The only known things on this earth today that could be plausibly be argued to be dinosaurs are birds. We don't have any "prehistoric" life on earth at this time. What we have is existant life that has remained in the same for nearly the same form for millions of years, which is not suprising. If their form was well suited to the environment they wouldn't likely change much.

How would an animal be evil? Because it's a carnivore?

 

[FallingWaters]

The fossil record is fact. How we interpret it is not.
-lee-

What HE said.

 

[Willtor]

What HE said.

When I was young and naiive, I used to think that scientists had gone out into the world and made an awful discovery: "OH NO! This proves there IS no God!" But now I realize differently. FIRST a scientist says in his heart "There is no God", and THEN goes out into the world, and interprets the evidence the way they want to, based on that foundation.

Since there IS a God, their foundation is faulty, and so are their conclusions.

I'm a scientist and I resent that.

 

[Mallon]

FIRST a scientist says in his heart "There is no God", and THEN goes out into the world, and interprets the evidence the way they want to, based on that foundation.

As a Christian scientist, I resent that, too.

 

[FallingWaters]

I'm terribly sorry to have offended you. I apologize.