Dinosaurs: A Conjecture

[LanceCohen]

I have this notion that when the Nephilim were on the earth, either they or their fathers, the "sons of God", or both, tinkered with the creatures God had made and created monsters, such as dinosaurs and the other "mythological" creatures, like Cyclops and centaurs, etc, just as the sexual union of the "sons of God" and human flesh created the Nephilim, giants in themselves.

And only those animals uncorrupted were saved in the Ark, just as only Noah and his sons and their wives were saved.

If you read Genesis 6, but this time with additional images of gigantic dinosaurs and monsters roaming the earth, there is no contradiction, and it gives you a greater sense of corruption that is happening on the earth. (And Peter said that these end days will be like in the days of Noah.)

Now archaeologically you cannot tell if a chicken came from a T-Rex or a T-Rex from a chicken. If someday some chicken fossils were found to predate T-Rex, evolutionists would just redraw the evolution tree, and evolution marches on, which is another example of the infalsibility of the evolution hypothesis.

Any thoughts on this, or anyone have found research or written material with the same conjecture?

 

[judechild]

Yes, I do have a thought.

Fossils are not a matter of digging down and supposing that one buried 2000 feet below the surface, and one buried 200 feet below the surface are the same age; Paleontology can help to give relative dating. You will not find a chicken fossil at the depth of a dinosaur fossil (in fact, you will find no chicken fossils at all; they are too new). From that, one can say that the dinosaur did not evolve from the chicken. To say that the two cannot be relatively dated is to misunderstand paleontology.

 

[LanceCohen]

We will not find a chicken fossil or have not found one?

Suppose you find one, just suppose, one day you found some chicken bones earlier than T-Rex, would you still say chickens are "new" and that the chicken came from T-Rex? Or it is "new" only because you have so drawn the evolutionary tree as such, until you find a new bone tomorrow?

And I did not say they cannot be relatively dated. Of course you can.

But of course I am just making a conjecture. You need not say anything until you have found the chicken bone that predate T Rex.

 

[Papias]

Hi Lance, and welcome to Christians Forums!

I hope you have a good time and learn a lot here.


Lance wrote:

Any thoughts on this, or anyone have found research or written material with the same conjecture?

With all due respect, I think you might first want to step back and learn about what is already known about that time. There is a huge amount of knowledge, based on solid evidence, about what happened and how things were in a wide span of times, and any guesses about past events need to at least first be consistent with what we already know about that time.

For instance, if I were to make a guess that pharoah Khufu built his pyrmid using trilithium deisel engines, borrowed from Alexander the Great, and carried to him by F. D. Roosevelt, it behooves me to first check things like when deisel engines were invented, how good FDR was at carrying things, and whether or not Alex lived when Khufu lived.

To learn about the world from 10,000 BC to 1,000 BC, there are community college courses, books, and so on. The same goes for geology, paleontology, and the dinosaurs. Many can be found at www.teach12.com.

Specifically, it may be useful to remove references to the flood as an actual, global event. Christian Geologists concluded by 1850 that no such flood happened, and geology since then has confirmed that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Simlarly, your idea has dinosaurs living at the same time as humans - but dinosaurs (other than the birds, which are technically dinosaurs) died out 63 million years before humans were around. And so on.

I'm sure you have a creative and inquisitive mind, and may be able to contribute to figuring out some historical puzzles. So I hope you take the time to establish some background, so you can make meaningful contributions.

Again, welcome to the forums!

Papias

 

[judechild]

In my layman's perspective, no, you will not find a chicken fossil; If they haven't found one yet, they probably aren't going to find it, considering that chickens are very... reproductive. To base a theory on a hypothetical discovery is not a good idea.

 

[LanceCohen]

To base a theory on a hypothetical discovery is not a good idea.

Not necessarily.

And to Papias, I am of course not seeking textbook knowledge or else there is no need for this.

 

[Mallon]

I have this notion that when the Nephilim were on the earth, either they or their fathers, the "sons of God", or both, tinkered with the creatures God had made and created monsters, such as dinosaurs and the other "mythological" creatures, like Cyclops and centaurs, etc, just as the sexual union of the "sons of God" and human flesh created the Nephilim, giants in themselves.

And only those animals uncorrupted were saved in the Ark, just as only Noah and his sons and their wives were saved.

If you read Genesis 6, but this time with additional images of gigantic dinosaurs and monsters roaming the earth, there is no contradiction, and it gives you a greater sense of corruption that is happening on the earth. (And Peter said that these end days will be like in the days of Noah.)

Now archaeologically you cannot tell if a chicken came from a T-Rex or a T-Rex from a chicken. If someday some chicken fossils were found to predate T-Rex, evolutionists would just redraw the evolution tree, and evolution marches on, which is another example of the infalsibility of the evolution hypothesis.

Any thoughts on this, or anyone have found research or written material with the same conjecture?

So how would you falsify your hypothesis?

 

[Papias]

Lance wrote:

And to Papias, I am of course not seeking textbook knowledge or else there is no need for this.

Hmmm....

OK, then. Lance, the information that is in those textbooks - how do you think it got there? Could you describe what you see as the process by which those ideas get into textbooks? How does that compare to an idea that was just made up wholecloth today?

*******************

While writing my earlier post, a little voice nagged me in my head, saying "this is not a good use of your time, people will learn on their own if they want to, and if they don't, then your note won't make a difference. Some people will prefer to be ignorant.", to which I thought "OK, maybe so - but let's not take such a cynical view of people - people have inherent value, and their minds should not be discarded just to save you 10 minutes. Have some hope in our youth, who are the people who will help forge the future of Christianity!"






*Sigh.*

 

[philadiddle]

And to Papias, I am of course not seeking textbook knowledge or else there is no need for this.

So then what do you hope to find?

Also, I would like to echo the earlier question and ask; how could you falsify your conjecture?

 

[LanceCohen]

So then what do you hope to find?

Also, I would like to echo the earlier question and ask; how could you falsify your conjecture?

Just what I said:

Any thoughts on this, or anyone have found research or written material with the same conjecture?

Preferably non trivial ones.

For sure it is not a theory yet, just a tentative jumping off point. Perhaps there are others who have thought and worked further along such lines. I cannot as yet answer its falsibility.

 

[Mallon]

I guess pointing to the fact that centaurs and cyclopses don't actually exist might be a good way to falsify your hypothesis.

 

[philadiddle]

Just what I said:

Any thoughts on this, or anyone have found research or written material with the same conjecture?

Sorry could you please clarify this for me? You said you were not seeking textbook knowledge, yet you are looking for research or written material. What's the difference?

 

[LanceCohen]

Sorry could you please clarify this for me? You said you were not seeking textbook knowledge, yet you are looking for research or written material. What's the difference?

Oh dear, I dont suppose whatever I am writing here is getting into some textbook, is it?
But if all that I am seeking are already in the textbook then so be it. Thanks for telling me.

 

[philadiddle]

Oh dear, I dont suppose whatever I am writing here is getting into some textbook, is it?
But if all that I am seeking are already in the textbook then so be it. Thanks for telling me.

You're not answering my question. What are you looking for? More vague conjecture to support a vague conjecture? Or are you looking for actual research?