Dinosaurs after the flood

[seangoh]

I posted this in another thread but didn't get much of a christian POV, so here it is.

"In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; 14They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. 15And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. " Gen 5:13-15

So it says that every beast went in and i would assume that includes the dinosaurs. (If anyone has another interpretation pls tell me.) Thus, the question is what happened to the dinosaurs since they were "saved" from the flood?

 

[missiondocsda]

Senior member 2582 blessing Seangoh,
Every kind of the species made by the hands of God thus saved by entering the ark, except those few meant to be food inside the ark during that year.

These included many extinct species like mammoth, which died nation-wide about more than 3500 years ago.

However, I have learnt that dinosaurs were real, but they were not really saved by God. 2 mystiques here. First, explanation saying that these animals were made by God, no doubt even they were carnivores to great extent, flesh eaters, because lions and dogs are carnivores, why couldn't God made giant carnivore dinosaurs? Second part is contratory to the first explanation, found in SOP, that these were animals not intended by God. What in sense? God never made them? They were blended by the work of wicked men before flood? {believing they were capable to do such tech beyond cloning or any hint of genetics knowledge we have today} Even so, men were foreseen incapable to control animals as such strength and size, it would be dramatic tragedy to human races.

Therefore, dinosaurs in generals were not invited to the ark. They perished entirely without any trial to climate change, continant shift, etc.

 

[Ark-Guy]

Some dinosaurs survived the flood as evidenced by biblical and human history.

The book of Job in chapter 41 mentions the Behemoth. There it describes an incredible animal that fits the definition of a dinosaur. Was it a dino? Who knows, but as I mentioned it reads as if it certainly could be.

Dragons in our history may have been some of the post-flood dinosaur that were left overs and hunted by dragon slayers into extinction. Many cultures around the world tell these tales.
Even the Chinese zodiac contains all currently extanct animals and 1 extinct animal....a dino or dragon.

Ancient depictions in stones show art work on cave walls that resemble dinosaurs.
Rock carving with depictions of dinosaur like animals have been found along with pottery and toys containing dinosaur like depictions.

click here for the information
click here for more information

Sure, some of the depictions you may be able to say, eh, and shrug your shoulders, but some of them really make you wonder.

If you havenÕt clicked on the link above I strongly suggest that you take the ten minutes and do so. YouÕll be amazed.

If the archeologist had only a few examples the concept of dinosaurs and man living together would be pretty weak. This is not the case. There is a lot of evidence that STRONGLY suggest man and dinosaurs did actually live at the same time.

The best argument the evolutionist have is that it obvious lt can't be true because we all have been taught that dinosaurs went extinct 65 MY ago. This is followed up with "we know man came on the scene much later". The evidence from the two sites presented above challenges that statement.

Other arguments is that the depictions are of other animals and just appear as dinosaurs. Perhaps for one or two of the crude cave drawings or a rough figurines they may have a point, but this isn't the case for all of them. Some of them depict dinosaurs in pretty close resemblance.

Still we may hear that the artist found bones and recreated what they may have looked like on the cave walls or lines on old pottery, but as before, there is way to many examples to refute that claim. I also believe the time period that the dinosaur depictions were created in and the wide geographic spread of the artist coupled with the required technology to obtain all the different fossils severly cripples that notion.

Of course we all know the last evolutionist refute. That is they are all fakes. If that is the case the evolutionist now have to present the evidence for all of the artifacts. Sure somewhere along the line you may find a forgery, but this doesn't discount the other artifacts.

Just the volume alone of the artifacts speaks loudly for the strong indication that man and dinosaur once shared the planet.

 

[missiondocsda]

Let's me touch on the records of few incidents where 'resembles' of dinosaurs were mentioned, but we cannot be sure, these few verses from Jobs, can proove all of the are dinosaurs. If one or two or so, we acknowledge the existance of dinosuars, and they co-existance with men as well.

However, we cannot rely on the account of legends as well as any extent of the cave painting, or primitive arts. I can make up a thesis that the men of the new world/ ancient period, actually inherited the story of depiction of such creatures, passing down from their forefathers, or they just simply stayed with the dinosaurs the same time, before flood. Meaning to say the cave paintings could be done before flood. Just an idea here, resembles, look like what we think it is, may be even something extinct without our slight hint of pre- or post flood story. There were so many flooded away from our records of knowledge and they may not be in the phylum of dinosaurs.

Scientists may accept some degree of the creditability of the flood and the cause-effect of the flood. However, the focul point here is, what happened to dinosaurs after flood, an assumption clearly that they survived the flood. I raised the attention, they might not have survived the flood for it was not the intention to have dino after the flood: the size of men dwarfed, the capability lessened, the vulnebility increased in mankinds, etc, losing the command on the giantic living creatures which highly not the intention of God, accountable for their existance, assuming it was the people of the ancient world before the flood, propagated in their superb intellectual ability.

 

[Dewi Sant]

How could Noah have brought all the dinosaurs onto the ark? All animals start small and as such dinosaurs could be brought on as eggs.
In many cultures dinosaurs are referred to as Dragons and these appear most places around the world, Saint George, Chinese Dragons etc.. (Loch ness)
After a while these dragons proved a nuisance and people thought they were evil so people killed the dinosaurs/dragons, few remain today.
I would like to give more information but my mind has gone a little blank on this topic.

 

[Talcos Stormweaver]

I know what this will lead to, and forgive me, but:

Is it not also possible that the flood was local, and that Noah saved those animals in the region in which humanity flourished (as opposed to a global flood)? That allows for the survival of whatever species, keeps the flood in record with history and geology, solves a wide variety of logical flaws, as well as matching up to the global population as is.

Oh, by the way, I have not posted in awhile, I just noticed. I have been reading much, but saying little..

 

[Ark-Guy]

Talcos Stormweaver, you can claim the flood was local all you want...but, that is not what the bible nor scientific evidence indicates.

Just the topograph of the mid-east flood zone is not set up for a local flood but rather a very extensive flood. Remember water seeks its own level.

If the flood was as small and local as you seem to be indicating...why build an ark? Why not just herd the animals away from the flood zone?

 

[Ark-Guy]

Let's me touch on the records of few incidents where 'resembles' of dinosaurs were mentioned, but we cannot be sure, these few verses from Jobs, can proove all of the are dinosaurs. If one or two or so, we acknowledge the existance of dinosuars, and they co-existance with men as well.

I would venture to say that thhere is more evidence for dino's and humans living together than for evolutionism.....yet the evos deny this possibility.

 

[seangoh]

Newbie blessings 15,

First, explanation saying that these animals were made by God, no doubt even they were carnivores to great extent, flesh eaters, because lions and dogs are carnivores, why couldn't God made giant carnivore dinosaurs?

I have read a reasonable situation. That God made the dinosaurs but they were all vegetarians that fed on plants. The same went to all the animals made by God. It was only after the flood that God changed the appetites of these animals and that he allowed man to eat meat. This change is because of practical reasons as there are no plants then.

Second part is contratory to the first explanation, found in SOP, that these were animals not intended by God. What in sense? God never made them? They were blended by the work of wicked men before flood?

I have to ask which part of SOP are you quoting from?

 

[Bushido216]

Talcos Stormweaver, you can claim the flood was local all you want...but, that is not what the bible nor scientific evidence indicates.

Just the topograph of the mid-east flood zone is not set up for a local flood but rather a very extensive flood. Remember water seeks its own level.

If the flood was as small and local as you seem to be indicating...why build an ark? Why not just herd the animals away from the flood zone?

Yeah... the Flood occured around the Black Sea. Water did seek its own level, but since it was in a basin, no place to go, is there?

 

[seangoh]

Thanks for the links Ark-Guy.
In fact, i have the same viewpoint as you, that dinosaurs did live after the flood but drastically died off. I have a couple of questions.
Why does it seem that ONLY the dinosaurs died off due to bad environment? Could it be possible that they got extinct BEFORE the flood?

 

[Bushido216]

It's much more likely that the Flood is an adapted story from the Sumerians, which was adapted for the purpose of telling theological truths while converting others to their Faith.

 

[Ark-Guy]

Yeah... the Flood occured around the Black Sea. Water did seek its own level, but since it was in a basin, no place to go, is there?

Sooooooooooooo, tell me how the mountains of that area can be covered as per the witness of Genesis...and the water stay in this basin you speak of.

 

[Ark-Guy]

Thanks for the links Ark-Guy.
In fact, i have the same viewpoint as you, that dinosaurs did live after the flood but drastically died off. I have a couple of questions.
Why does it seem that ONLY the dinosaurs died off due to bad environment? Could it be possible that they got extinct BEFORE the flood?

If they went extinct prior to the flood they would not have been captured in the geological column that was deposited by the flood of Noah.

 

[Ark-Guy]

It's much more likely that the Flood is an adapted story from the Sumerians, which was adapted for the purpose of telling theological truths while converting others to their Faith.

The truth be that it is more than likely that the Sumerians adapted the account of the flood from Genesis.

 

[missiondocsda]

I have 10 minutes left before the library closes. Sean, remember the quarter lesson last year, it did mention about that, many should have read that as well, check with them. I do know where to find the animals are all vegetarians, we are studying in our GE class now, but some atheists mocked it. I don't nullify her statement, may be she meant something else. The changes took place in the entity of digestive system is an enormous project. This project can fit into mankind, i have not been eating fleshes since college cafe is my life, but give everyone time to digest the idea, how the dino transformed the structure of teethes, down the way to everything relative. I have bit time here.


The irony of argueing where was the flood was distinctive, that why should we focus on black sea where water is everywhere today? I am sure you don't mention the flood took place in your body ever since you have 70% water, right?

Okay, now,{If one or two or so, we acknowledge the existance of dinosuars, and they co-existance with men as well.}I do acknowledge there might be the occurance where the mankind was staying close with dinosaurs, before flood, and the relative cave paintings, if really referring to the dinosaurs, should be considered the work before the flood. There is no hint supporting evo or what. if there was dinosaurs saved in the ark, what's the point we don't have a single lasted and struggled with mammoths as well? Mammoths have a big family(more than 30 species), but they were all wiped out. What about dinosaurs? We can't even trace them, except the time period of the flood.

Meanwhile, may read what I just typed before I attempt to come back to you sometime later. God bless.

 

[AndrewJames]

rarrrrrr im a dinosaur!!

 

[JohnCJ]

I love you all here but.

Dinosaurs died out 65,000,000 years before man even existed. Man did evolve from apes and the flood is probably a parabale about the mass-extinction that took place 10,000 years ago that man would have been a wittness of.
sorry had to get that off my chest

I don't think people telling lies because they don't know better is a sin, so continue on with your illogical posulateing and theorizing.

 

[troodon]

I am going to be up sooooo late responding to this.

The book of Job in chapter 41 mentions the Behemoth. There it describes an incredible animal that fits the definition of a dinosaur.

No, it doesn't.

Firstly, behemoth is in chapter 40 (learn your Bible! ).

"and which feeds on grass like an ox"

I could be silly and say that grass hadn't evolved by the time dinosaurs were around but I'll be nice. Sauropods did not have teeth that could process grass, let alone like an ox.

Nothing like the teeth of an ox and nothing like the teeth of anything that would dream of eating grass. The same goes for other herbivorous dinosaurs. Ceratopsians and iguanodontids had horny beak-like snouts, not something that would be effective for eating grass. Hadrosaurs had toothless premaxilla, again not something we would see in grass eaters. The only dinosaurs that had a chewing assemblage reasonable for eating grass were stegosaurs and some ankylosaurs.

"and his tail sways like a cedar"

This quote, often cited as a basis for the animal being a sauropod (which it can't be), if used in the same way, rains doubt on the possibility that the creature was a stegosaur, ankylosaur, hadrosaur, iguanodontid, or marginocephalian. They did not have tails the size of cedars; not by a longshot.

"his bones are tubes of bronze"

Dinosaurian bones were made of calcium and phosphorous just like yours and mine; they were not made of bronze otherwise they would not fossilize. (JOKE)

"under the lotus plants he lies, hidden among the reeds in the marsh"

Behemoth was semi-aquatic. Sauropods could not have been semi-aquatic as their feet had far too little surface area for supporting their massive weight on soft, muddy earth. Stegosaurs, ceratopsians, and ankylosaurs all had their heads very close to the ground, negating any reasonable possibility that they could remain in the water for any length of time. Hadrosaurs and iguanodontids could have boths stood up in the water, but wouldn't have been lying underneath it.

If you like I'll talk about how leviathan (the creature that IS in Job 41) cannot be a prehistoric, aquatic reptile as well. You're not the first person I've had to educate on this topic

Dragons in our history may have been some of the post-flood dinosaur that were left overs and hunted by dragon slayers into extinction. Many cultures around the world tell these tales.
Even the Chinese zodiac contains all currently extanct animals and 1 extinct animal....a dino or dragon.

No traditional dragon (western or eastern) looks like any type dinosaur. Here:

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~dbarrett/nevederia.jpg
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~dbarrett/yelinak.jpg
http://www.socal.com/goldfish/easterng.jpg

these look like no dinosaur. If you know of a type of dinosaur these even remotely resemble please inform me.

click here for the information

The "dinosaur" in the first example is not distinguishible in the picture they provide. The file name of the next picture actually calls it a horse, so forgive me for doubting its "dinosaurian" nature. The picture doesn't enlarge so I can't get a good look at it for further comment. The next picture is also small and poor in resolution. It certainly does show bipedal creatures with long tails, as well as what I'd call a floating centipede in between the creature on the left and the hunter dudes. Primitive art sure is surreal, isn't it? Next picture seems to show a creature with the skull of a dinosaur (instead of a the head of a dinosaur as the site claims). If so this seems to provide evidence that earlier cultures were finding dinosaur bones and putting them into (and onto!) their mythical creatures. In regards to the next picture, tell me how a flying, limbless reptile resembles a dinosaur or even a mosasaur?

The next picture is actually very reasonable. It's the sort of thing that I would actually expect to see if early cultures had contact with dinosaurs. It is not vague, it looks like what it's supposed to look like, and it cannot be dismissed as some other animal. I am very impressed with it. The problem is that if dinosaurs really didn't coexist with man I would expect many more examples of these types of pieces of art. One vase, showing what does appear to be sauropods, is not sufficient evidence for me to throw away the mountains of evidence supporting dinosaurian extinction 65 million years ago.

They have to be joking with the next picture. It looks more like a guy in a space helmet than a plesiosaur. The next picture is too small resolution for me to see anything. Is it just me or does it look like there is a second, much bulkier head coming out of each of the creatures in the next picture? I don't know where they get the "web-footed" thing for Tanystropheus as the reptile has no known water adaptations, let alone something that would be made entirely of soft tissue. Can't say much else about that one. For the next picture, the only websites I can find that mention the Krokodilopardalis allegedly shown here are this website and one other that says the exact same thing (s8int.com/dinolit2.html ). One wonders why Greeks would call a dinosaur a "crocodile-leopard".

The next picture is plain funny in that I never knew Native Americans drew smiley faces on their cave painted animals. To me it looks more like a snake with an amorpheous area in the midsection where the people in charge of the website imagine a torso and limbs. Heh, actually, if you stare at the midsection long enough, it looks like there's a snake and then a miniature elephant facing the opposite direction. Anyone else see it? with the trunk?

They really have a big imagination with the next one. There is no evidence indicating that that is a picture of an animal at all, it could very well just be a symbol like the picture above it very clearly appears to be. They don't provide a source for the next picture so as far as I know they drew it themselves. The next pair of pictures looks like a flying bird or bat and an ostrich to me, anyone else? Next picture again has too low of resolution to clearly distintuish what things are. They don't privide a source for the next picture either, they just discribe a picture that they don't show (how convenient). All I have to say about the next picture is I wonder how pterosaurs could have set a village on fire. That's all. Next they call a dragon from 1691 (how were they supposed to have lived that long in Europe, exactly?) a "Rhamphorhynchoid pterosaur" which is patently absurd.

Terrifying, isn't it?

Next picture looks like some large lizards, which are not exactly rare in islands surrounding Australia or in Australia itself if you look at the recent fossil record. Next picture looks as much like a dog as it does like any dinosaur. Next picture is a drawing of a sword with a dinosaur on it. Neato and yet unconvincing. Next pair of pictures are too low of resolution. With regards to the next set of pictures, see here.

Next picture sort of looks like a turtle to me. And don't say the head's too large for a turtle, it's even more too large (proportionately) for a sauropod. Next pair of pictures shows the same set I earlier said looked like good candidates for a real depiction of living dinosaurs. Now if only we could find more examples.... The next 3 pictures are not even worth mentioning. The very last picture looks sort of cool but it's at an odd angle (coincidence?) and is low resolution so I can't comment further.

click here for more information

This seems to be completely about those Mexican figurines. I addressed that above with the link. I find it funny that they use radiometric dating to show authenticity, maybe these guys probably never read those pesky verses about hypocrites? Who knows? If the figurines are authentic then I will stand by the link I provide which shows that at least some look nothing like dinosaurs, merely like made-up creatures.

Sure, some of the depictions you may be able to say, eh, and shrug your shoulders, but some of them really make you wonder.

2 do. 2 is not enough evidence for me to even think seriously about mesopotamians seeing living dinosaurs. And even if sufficient evidence were brought to bear I would be many times more likely to believe it were a type of dinosaur whose lineage survived for 65 million years than to believe that the YEC take on things (seeing as YEC has been thorougly, thoroughly falsified).

YouÕll be amazed.

Nah

If the archeologist had only a few examples the concept of dinosaurs and man living together would be pretty weak.

I see I have your agreement on this point.

This is not the case.

Yeah it is

Eh, I'm done.

 

[JohnCJ]

I am going to be up sooooo late responding to this. No, it doesn't.

Firstly, behemoth is in chapter 40 (learn your Bible! ).

The behmoth could have been post-ice age mega fuana too...