• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Did dinosaurs ever exist?

Discussion in 'Creation & Theistic Evolution' started by shernren, Jun 17, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Melethiel

    Melethiel Miserere mei, Domine Supporter

    +826
    Lutheran
    Married
    Hippo, croc

    You don't prove negatives.
     
  2. chesslord243

    chesslord243 Member

    257
    +8
    Lutheran
    the Bible never said anything about amoebas existing, but they do exist. besides, we have bones of dinosaurs!!!:p
     
  3. Mallon

    Mallon Senior Veteran

    +291
    Lutheran
    Private
    Dinosaurs probably would have been slightly more noticeable to those ancient Hebrews.
     
  4. steen

    steen Lie Detector

    +64
    Christian
    Married
  5. xpiotosaves

    xpiotosaves New Member

    95
    +1
    Non-Denom
  6. xpiotosaves

    xpiotosaves New Member

    95
    +1
    Non-Denom
    The bible doesn't mention many animals. What is it supposed to say?
    "And God said to Noah 'Gather 2 pandas, 2 kangaroos, 2 sloth, 14 lambs, 2 Edmontosaurus'" :confused:
     
  7. Mallon

    Mallon Senior Veteran

    +291
    Lutheran
    Private
    And 2 unicorns -- don't forget they're in Revelation!

    Unless we interpret "unicorn" as "rhinoceros", and "leviathan" and "behemoth" as "crocodile" and "hippopotamus", which would likely make more common sense.
     
  8. Smidlee

    Smidlee Veteran

    +734
    Baptist
    Married
    I didn't know rhinos had two horns since clearly the unicorn mention in the KJV did. Also in the KJV the lefted "leviathan" untranslated since it's not so obvious exactly what it was. Then some believe behemoth could be an elephant. For all we know it could have been a dinosaur.
    It's better not to be too dogmatic when it not necessary.
     
  9. Mallon

    Mallon Senior Veteran

    +291
    Lutheran
    Private
    So do rhinoceros:
    [​IMG]
    Not that I give a hoot for the KJV, anyway. But we've thoroughly analyzed the behemoth/leviathan issue before (even recently) in these threads. I think the argument for either one of these creatures being prehistoric dinosaurian beasts is weak at best.
     
  10. Smidlee

    Smidlee Veteran

    +734
    Baptist
    Married
    I forgot rhinos had the smaller horn above the huge one. My mistake. Some had suggust a unicorn was a wild ox.

    I totally agree there creatures wasn't prehistoric dinos. :) But if they did have dinos in Job days behemoth and leviathon does fit the bill. This is the same about passage in scripture which could be describing a modern nuclear war. I wouldn't say dogmaticly this is what the scriptures are saying but if someone was to describe a nuclear war in ancient times I would expect it read like what Zechariah wrote "And this shall be the plague wherewith the Lord will smite all the people that have fought againest Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth."
     
  11. Mallon

    Mallon Senior Veteran

    +291
    Lutheran
    Private
    It very well may be. One thing we can agree on, however, is that if the passage you cited was making reference to a real animal, it was not some flying horse with a horn coming out of its head. It was in reference to some extant animal that would have been known to the New Testament community. If we believe this to be true, then we can certainly come to see the description of Leviathan and Behemoth in a new light, knowing that the authors of the Bible had a tendency for the dramatic in their descriptions of God's creatures.
    Then again, maybe the passage was refering to a mythical flying horse and wasn't meant to be taken literally. ;)
     
  12. johnd

    johnd Well-Known Member

    +376
    Messianic
    Married
    There are several good Christian resources about what we call today "dino-saurs." Many of them are a bit dry in reading or hearing the lectures on... at least for me.

    Most of them by rights ought to be in renowned science journals the world over, but political correctness dictates that any who oppose macro-evolution are to be silenced, excluded, hidden away... you know kind of like the pro-life Democrats are in the Democratic party in America.

    The concept of dragons is in both the Bible and other ancient documents and history giving credence to the fact that dragons (which today we call dinosaurs) did exist. The Bible also refers to behemoth and leviathan. Modern "scholars" whose personal prejudices are against the accuracy and historicity of the Bible have tried to say the Bible was referring to elephants and alligators by these names. But the Bible describes behemoth as having a tail like a cedar tree, and leviathan has a mouth that can swallow a river.

    This clearly undoes what these "scholars" have tried to impose on the facts about the bible and dinosaurs. This is not to mention the numerous outright frauds perpetrated on the public by so-called scholarship who saw the need to bolster their belief system with deceit. Piltdown man, Nebraska Family, even "Lucy" was shown to be a composite of fossils from different strata and different dates.

    It is in these hands and in this kind of social and would-be scientific mores that we have entrusted society. Scary stuff. These people who have risen to prominence refuse to believe there is a Supreme Being beyond the point of absurdity to the point of fraud.

    There was a recent discovery in the mountains of Iran that may well turn out to be the remains of Noah's ark. www.baseinstitute.org But because of the curtain of darkness imposed on anything biblical, it got very little press. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2133311&page=1

    The Bible mentions that7 of every clean kind and 2 of every unclean kind of animal was to be brought onbaord the ark. The ark itself is believed to have been the size of a World War II aircraft carrier and that the number of species today are variations on base types or kinds that were on the ark and have since micro-evolved within that type or kind. For example, the dog varieties probably came from a pair of wolves in Noah's day. And for all that diversity in the canine type, they are all without exception canine. None became feline for example.

    The late Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (who had 3 earned PhD's) wrote and lectured extensively on not only the existence of dinosaurs in the Bible, their coexistence with man, but also how they became extinct. He also exposed the old age of the universe / earth for the mathematical supposition / speculation that it is. www.wildersmith.org/library.htm

    Further the Institute For Creation Reserach is another treasure trove of young earth / biblically based / truth on the subject of dinosaurs and man.

    [​IMG]

    Note the human foot print to the left three steps up from the bottom of the image. There were similar tracks in Cedar Park, Texas which I saw for myself.

    More on this at:
    http://paleo.cc/paluxy/onheel.htm

     
  13. steen

    steen Lie Detector

    +64
    Christian
    Married
    Well, go for it. Start showing proof instead of just making unsubstantiated claims.

    I couldn't care less. I merely object when you make false claims about Science.

    Well, you were shown to have no evidence, only speculation that you want us to perceive as facts. Not my fault that you don't know what evidence actually is.
     
  14. steen

    steen Lie Detector

    +64
    Christian
    Married
    So all you have are "just because I say so" postulations and pictures from Paluxy:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC101.html

    And this, from a creationist site:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
    ....
    “Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.”

    Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artifacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs.....
     
  15. Mallon

    Mallon Senior Veteran

    +291
    Lutheran
    Private
    What makes you say that? Can you give one single instance when, say, a paper refuting macroevolution was rejected from a journal for any reason besides poor science?
    Did unicorns and fairies exist, too? They're widely cited creatures as well.
    Why have we not found a single dinosaur skeleton that looks remotely like anything depicted in those ancient myths?
    Do you find it easier to make a convincing argument by calling your opponents "prejudiced"?
    See previous threads in this forum that give plausible, alternative interpretations to these passages.
    (I, for one, know of no dinosaur that could have been capable of swallowing a river.)
    Even if "Lucy" were a fraud (which she is not -- your argument is based on faulty second-hand knowledge of the find), would the other dozens of associated specimens mean nothing to you?
    Not all scientists are athiests. Many people who subscribe to evolution, such as myself, fully believe in the Lord Almighty.
    This is, like, the fourth ark they've found so far. Which one are we supposed to believe? As the story goes, never cry wolf.
    Can you qualify that? I bet you can't! No single creationist has been able to so far.
    Stawman. No credible scientists makes that claim.
    What do you make of that image? Are you familiar with the research on eroded theropod trackways?
     
  16. johnd

    johnd Well-Known Member

    +376
    Messianic
    Married
    By the way, it is believed that dinosaurs did ride aboard Noah's ark. The full grown ones would not be rounded up, but the smaller immature ones would have been... average size of a sheep.

    And besides being hunted down by man or their opponent dino-predators, changes in the earth's atmosphere (post-flood) hindered their life span. Biblical science theorizes that these reptiles were simply of immense age. A 900 year old lizard would be a dinosaur. And post flood nothing lived so long.

    It is a fascinating study of facts that coincide with the biblical narrative and an interesting expose' of just how dishonest people can be to try to keep the light of biblical truth from the masses.
     
  17. Mallon

    Mallon Senior Veteran

    +291
    Lutheran
    Private
    Do you have any empircal science to back that up? Your arguments mean nothing unless they are rooted in science.
    Wrong. Dinosaurs are not just big lizards. Here is a generic lizard skull:
    [​IMG]
    Here is a generic archosaur skull:
    [​IMG]

    Dinosaurs were archosaurs. Note that the latter picture demonstrates an antoribital fenetra (in red). Dinosaurs, no matter what age, had these. Lizards don't. They're not archosaurs. Therefore, dinosaurs are NOT simply overgrown lizards.
    But you haven't cited any "facts" yet. You've just made a bunch of bald assertions without supporting any of them with evidence.
     
  18. Dannager

    Dannager Back in Town

    +453
    Catholic
    US-Democrat
    Sorry, I haven't read through much of the previous discussion, but has johnd dealt with the food/waste problem yet?
    ...changes in the earth's atmosphere? Do you have, oh, I don't know...evidence for this? Because - and I'm just saying this to warn you - it sounds like utter nonsense.
    Or a pile of rubbish that doesn't have the barest of evidence to support it. In my rather substantial experience with this debate, dishonesty lies very heavily on the side of creationists. On the rare occasion that actual scientists lie, other scientists expose that lie, just as they're supposed to.
     
  19. Dannager

    Dannager Back in Town

    +453
    Catholic
    US-Democrat
    Many of which have already been conclusively proven false.
     
  20. steen

    steen Lie Detector

    +64
    Christian
    Married
    Sure it is "believed." But a belief is not evidence of anything but personal conviction. So what?

    Please provide evidence of any dinosaur EVER having been hunted by man.

    Hmm, so there should be evidence of them as well. No?

    How so? What are these changes you are talking about? What factor is it dinosaurs needed that other life doesn't, and which is no longer present?

    Or are you merely trying to speculate wildly and misrepresent it as facts?

    Really? there is such a thing? And it is subject to the Scientific Method? I would love to see documentation for this.

    And what scientific evidence do you have as foundation for this "theory"?

    Nope/ This is a false claim.

    Well, we have trees that are almost 6000 years old. On the other hand, we have no evidence of any animal life living 900 years at any time in the past either. So your claim is nonsense on many levels.

    What facts are you talking about? When will you present these "facts"?

    AH, "coincide" eh? So these "facts" that you have forgotten to present are merely coinciding with the Bible. That's as good as the number of pirates being inversely related to global warming (See the Flying Spaghetti Monster)

    Ah, so the "light" whatever it is, somehow is being stopped for reaching the masses because in these days, there are no communication possible to these "masses"? That sounds downright paranoid.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...