Did dinosaurs ever exist?

[Proselyte]

Modern YECs typically do not have any problem with the existence of dinosaurs. It demonstrates the incredible variety of life that the Creator put on this planet.

Similarly, extinction is a fact we can all agree on as well. We do not always understand everything -- but remember, we are in a fallen world, with sickness and death as well. There's no problem here for YECs.

Teaching about various animals (including dinosaurs) in school? Sure, no problem.

The only real issue here is *when*. A YEC would claim that dinosaurs existed contemporaneously with humans, in a much more recent past. In that context, overlapping human and dino footprints are no problem. Scriptural references, like the ones cited in Job above, are no problem. Worldwide legends about huge creatures, like dragons, are no problem -- but are one more piece of evidence that dinos and man lived at the same time.

God is truly amazingly creative in the variety of His creation.
-lee-

Excellent!

 

[steen]

Why?

 

[xpiotosaves]

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

And what exactly are these FALSE claims?

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.

It is not my fault that you don't know what sarcasm actually is

 

[steen]

And what exactly are these FALSE claims?

Start at the top and go down:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

 

[johnd]

wrong...

<edited>

You show me artists' renderings and I can do the same thing too:

So what?​

You suppose todays' version of species you cite are the same as they were 100 years ago, much less 5000 years ago.​

The Bible has shown itself to be historically accurate (even in the realm of [now] future history). You cannot discredit such an eyewitness account for logically flawed modern interpolation of the past... at least not without exposing your predisposition to believe hook, line, and sinker what you have blind faith in.​

You were exposed to the drivel taught by people whose ultimate philosophy is "I don't know how the darned thing got here (meaning the universe) but I know God didn't do it..."​

When you get done tracking down that which purports to be imperical evidence to its source, you will find it is nothing more than these folks quoting each other as authoritative with nothing else to back it on... except maybe a few more artist's conceptions...​

"That's all, folks!"







​

 

[Mallon]

edited for consistency

So, if you have admittedly forgotten everything about the subject which you so vehemently oppose, why should I or anyone else pay your arguments any mind? "I don't know why, but evolution is wrong" is an argument that doesn't hold much water with me.

edited for consistency.

You evidently have no idea what my point of view is since I do not worship evolution any more than I worship a hammer. I worship God alone. But that doesn't make evolutionary science or a hammer any less useful, and it doesn't make me any less of a Christian for thinking so.

edited for consistency

My charges are rooted in science, as examplified by my (and others') previous posts. The only one who's arguments are left baseless are your own. Your refusal to answer any of the questions and challenges proposed to you thus far attests loudly to this fact.

You show me artists' renderings and I can do the same thing too

Instead of mocking the rendering itself, you ought to be attacking the science behind it. Your unwillingness to do so suggests to me that you are incapable of doing so. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, however, and present two photographs (rather than illustrations) of the two types of skulls I was talking about:
Lizard skull:

Archosaur skull:

Again, note the hole in front of the orbit (eye socket) in the second picture. This is the antorbital fenestra. Lizards do not have this dinosaurian feature (among many others, including an erect posture).

You suppose todays' version of species you cite are the same as they were 100 years ago, much less 5000 years ago.

If you believe otherwise, the onus is on you to show it using science instead of the baseless claims you've made so far.

The Bible has shown itself to be historically accurate (even in the realm of [now] future history). You cannot discredit such an eyewitness account for logically flawed modern interpolation of the past... at least not without exposing your predisposition to believe hook, line, and sinker what you have blind faith in.

My understanding of the theory of evolution is quite obviously not blind, given that I have refuted you with words and pictures. Again, rather than attacking my faith, you ought to be attacking my science.

You were exposed to the drivel taught by people whose ultimate philosophy is "I don't know how the darned thing got here (meaning the universe) but I know God didn't do it..."

Do you have a logical reason for this claim, as well? Your attitude thus far certainly hasn't been very honest, caring or Christlike. I expect more from a self-professed Christian. Again, I challenge you to debate me on the science rather than mock my faith and education, for I am well-grounded in both.

 

[johnd]

yaddah yaddah yaddah

Mal, pal, read some of the people and ministries I listed. Most of them were brought up through the same brain washing educational system that led you to believe you could marry theology and evolution. Certainly Wilder-Smith was one who started out that way.

See what you conclude then.

 

[Mallon]

Mal, pal, read some of the people and ministries I listed. Most of them were brought up through the same brain washing educational system that led you to believe you could marry theology and evolution. Certainly Wilder-Smith was one who started out that way.

See what you conclude then.

And with that, you just excluded yourself from the debate. You won't even defend any of the rhetoric you posted above. Instead, you're going to pass me along and have me read some websites that have been refuted here so many countless times. I take that as a forfeit.
I would also sincerely appreciate it if you would stop insinuating that I'm brainwashed. It makes me laugh when someone who doesn't even bother opening themselves up to continued education tells me that I'm brainwashed. I think my refutations of your arguments here and your inability to counterpoint has laid that one to rest. I would think a brainwashed person is someone who is incapable of changing their mind when the evidence is laid on the table.
Please don't bother replying unless you're going to counter the evidence I presented rather than insult my intelligence, johnd.

 

[steen]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Mallon again.

 

[XTE]

Mal, pal, read some of the people and ministries I listed. Most of them were brought up through the same brain washing educational system that led you to believe you could marry theology and evolution. Certainly Wilder-Smith was one who started out that way.

See what you conclude then.

Yeah, it's funny when people resort to the argument that there is this huge conspiracy out to get you and they happen to be part of the minority that dodged it. Give me a break, heheheh.

Brain Washing......

 

[shernren]

I think this thread is an excellent showcase of what I would call "YEC amnesia". It's almost as if YECs have no recollection of what their YEC forebears had to say about creation and creationism, other than that it happened quickly and it happened not too long ago. Is this an ad hom attack on the early creationists? By no means! What I am trying to demonstrate is that modern YECs should not cite the medievals because their thought processes are very different.

For one, the impossibility of extinction follows directly from the argument for design. If God designed His creatures to perfectly suit their environment, why would He not design them to indefinitely survive in their environment? Why would He not design them to adapt well to their environment? The fact that He didn't poses severe problems for the Paley design argument, which many creationists don't seem to pick up today because they are content to quote medieval theology without understanding how it worked.

The fact that many mass extinctions have their effects delineated by biochronology worsens the scenario. What I mean by this is that many animals occupy the same niches today as the niches occupied during mass extinctions by those animals which went extinct. For example, the niche of the lion or tiger today might be well occupied by, say, the Deinonychus or Velociraptor. The niche of the large land herbivores could be replaced by the large sauropods. Since mass extinctions basically remove the viability of certain niches, why would they spare some members of a niche while causing others to go extinct? The answer is of course that the animals we see today occupying those niches were not around to go extinct. The K-T impact didn't kill the lions along with the raptors because there were no lions to kill back then. But the creationist hypotheses have only one possible mechanism of mass extinction: the Flood. The Flood must have equally wiped out all niches, and later on created niches equally accessible to both dinosaurian and mammalian life. Why then are mammals more predominant than dinosaurs? Is it because dinosaurs were less well adapted? But if God perfectly designed all creatures, how can some creatures be less well adapted to their niches than others?

Extinction poses a serious problem to the Paley design argument. The fact that creationists don't see this shows how modern their thinking is, and how unjustified they are to cite the Church Fathers in their support.

 

[Starcrystal]

Round and round and round we go. I love reading the debate back and forth. There's almost nothing I can add.... it's all been said already.

Just one point about the "human" footprint next to the Dino's. There were real ones based on the depth of the impressions and the arches, then people wanted to chisel them out and sell, and some folk made some fake ones which were easily identified because there was no weight distribution and the prints were rather flat.
Then there was the theory that some of the bigger "human" tracks were of a giant Sloth or a primate.... but wait - even if so that would mean large mammals and dinosaurs coexisted.
I don't buy the erosion theory. You mean to tell me some were almost completely eradicated while some right next to them are intact. Where is the erosion evidence of water or wind scouring only over the prints that look human? hmmmm..

 

[crumbs2000]

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 acceApt 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.

Is this what some think? Did dinosaurs exist? Terrible lizards!
So are people suggesting that satan was somehow involved with the creation of the dinosaur? Dinosaurs without any evidence of them? Wow! never thought dinosaurs as a new "crops in farms a hoax" theory!