Dinosaurs after the flood

[missiondocsda]

Okay, as for Trodoon, give me some time to figure out the story.

All in all the highly magnificent speculation/manipulation would have to come back to the simplest form of answers. They were extinct. We were not before the flood and after the flood,that we have not the slightest hint of the entire family, morphology, termilogy, etc, of dinosaurs. Meaning to say, we do not know the gene pool of the extinct nation, and of course the reason why they happened to be in the beginning. We are truly assuming to very high degree of confidence.

Let's fathom these simple questions: Why didn't they survive after the flood and not alive for any further if we allowed the idea of being alive after the flood was over?
In what basis we build the family of such and such is his nephew, niece, uncle, daddy, etc, without the first hand knowledge of the genetics materials with us today?
Fossils do help us to see all the dead in the past, can we conclude this piece of bone belongs to such and such dinosaur and we expound from that point? What if it belongs to another kind of animals we never had any knowledge about, rare species even before the flood, and today we are so intellectual to say that this is the reason and that is the ansewer?

If we are so confident they were allowed to live after the flood, what can't they be allowed to stay until now like pigs to clean our planet surface? What is the function we do not know? I believe God has a reason to make each thing and said,' it is good'.

I am sure all could go on and on to talk about this trend. Let's me just go back to the very first questions and add few more. Before the flood, there were creatures not intended by God, they happened to be there because of men's invention, may be large proportion of dinosaurs, I said large proportion, not all. Even those made by God, could be controlld by the mankind of the time before flood, the people with larger size and higher capacity commanded/control these enormous animals, including other enormous animals we might not know until now, remember, not all bones and fossils found are all the living creatures existed in the ancient time. We lack of too much information. We conclude life and all others according to what we see today, dull our mind of perceiving what may be true, and creative. But as we try to expand our mind, we might have to admit there are questions we cannot answer on ourselves, even as the entity of human races. These enormous animals, including dinosaurs, assuming there were other families we do not know at all, drown by the flood, not saved: they were too much, huge, for any sinful dwarf man to control today, they will cause great tragedy today. And of course, animals not intended by God, destroyed by the flood the same time as the act of sin of the wicked people, flushed away with them too. They didn't roam around the surface of earth after the flood. Others, survived, struggled, found to be unfit to the new changing environments, died out. Dinosaurs seemed to us, died much earlier than any we know, and they did drown in the flood.

As for man's art work on their painting, stories, could be passed down from the survived people, and that's why we have these primitive art work. Even if they were painting animals they saw in their time, may be animals resembles dinosaurs we never know before at all, and we simply call them lost cousins of dinosaurs.

As for the quest of animals eating grass/vege/nuts, beside flesh, within the garden of eden, before sin, could be accepted by faith alone. The changes took place, even in plants, thorns, prickles, brickles, and other plant's defence machanism, after sin, we accepted the same manner as for the animals eating nutrient, beside flesh. For God is almighty enough to feed the people with Manna at the wilderness, etc etc etc, we just trust in God, alright? I cannot, and no one else could figure out why this digestive system could transform in animals. We accept the plants, let's accept the animals too, no discrimination

After the ark hit on the top of the mountain(assuming it was so, a mountain top or your house backyard if you like), animals scattered around. Plants sprout from the rich soils, remember God was leading this dramatic historic scenario, don't miss him out. And life went on, for the sake of the plan of redemption, Genesis went on very quickly to the lostness and foundness of mankind.

I am spending too much time here. Hope to help as a friend to men and a servant to God.

 

[Bushido216]

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

Yes, but if your Adam and Eve story is correct, then the only people in the world should have been Jews? Why did Judaism have to re-invent itself later on?

 

[troodon]

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

Yes

Okay, as for Trodoon, give me some time to figure out the story.

There was no global flood. Dinosaurs died off 65 million years ago, right around the time the Chicxulub impact crator was made. Whether or not the impact event that created the crator was responsible in some way for their extinction is probable but at the moment not provable.

As for man's art work on their painting, stories, could be passed down from the survived people, and that's why we have these primitive art work.

That's possible for a few examples (the Australian one for instance).

As for the quest of animals eating grass/vege/nuts, beside flesh, within the garden of eden, before sin, could be accepted by faith alone. The changes took place, even in plants, thorns, prickles, brickles, and other plant's defence machanism, after sin, we accepted the same manner as for the animals eating nutrient, beside flesh. For God is almighty enough to feed the people with Manna at the wilderness, etc etc etc, we just trust in God, alright? I cannot, and no one else could figure out why this digestive system could transform in animals. We accept the plants, let's accept the animals too, no discrimination

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. If dinosaurian morphology changed after The Fall then we would never know because nothing was supposed to have died before The Fall, correct? If so then what does this have to do with dinosaur skeletons being completely inept at grass digestion?

 

[Ark-Guy]

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.

missiondocsda,
I think any cave painting prior to the flood would have been destroyed by the flood.

 

[Ark-Guy]

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.

Well JohnC, that's a nice statement...but you didn't explain why humans made ancient dino depictions....visit the links in my first post of this thread.

 

[Bushido216]

Probably for the same reasons they made ancient depictions of dogs with three heads, minotaurs, gods with half-animal bodies, and varying pantheons.

 

[Ark-Guy]

Nice try troodon...but you are way off base. No one is claiming that the behemoth had teeth like an ox...only that like an ox, it too ate grass.
Next, the tails were like cedars...I have personally seen cedars that would fit nicely with the description in the bible. Now did it look exactly like a cedar tree as you claim? I don't think so...but the reasonable person gets the idea of what Job is talking about.
Then you tried to refute the bones...OF COURSE THEY ARE NOT BRONZ.....sheeze troodon, I find my self wondering why I am even responding to your post. Maybe some one should tell you the bones = bronz is in reference to their strength and such.

As far as the Sauropods being semi-aquatic, this is a reality. Or this is what the evo sites teach when you do a google on the Sauropods. Perhaps you should done a bit more research prior to posting your post.

You'll excuse me if I don't waste my time with your dragon pictures.

Anyway, that's enough for now....I think everyone gets my point

 

[Ark-Guy]

Probably for the same reasons they made ancient depictions of dogs with three heads, minotaurs, gods with half-animal bodies, and varying pantheons.

You forgot to mention scenarios of men evolving from ape-like creatures....it's all make believe

 

[Bushido216]

You're shifting the goal posts. The point is that I roundly shot down your hypothesis.

 

[JohnCJ]

Large post Ice age mega-fauna could have been what he seen they are mammals and are in no way dinosaurs.

 

[JohnCJ]

Well JohnC, that's a nice statement...but you didn't explain why humans made ancient dino depictions....visit the links in my first post of this thread.

Those are nice pictures, you are wrong about creation but thats ok God will still love you and accept you even if you don't understand anything at all about science.

 

[troodon]

Nice try troodon...

Thank you.

but you are way off base.

Dang

No one is claiming that the behemoth had teeth like an ox...only that like an ox, it too ate grass.

Explain then how those teeth operated in the process of digesting grass. They are widely spaced, pencil-like teeth. These teeth could not have cut sufficient quantities of grass quickly enough to satisfy the creatures' enormous energy requirements. Look at the teeth and explain to me how those could have cut grass efficiently.

Next, the tails were like cedars...I have personally seen cedars that would fit nicely with the description in the bible. Now did it look exactly like a cedar tree as you claim? I don't think so...but the reasonable person gets the idea of what Job is talking about.

You obviously did not read my post very closely. I said nothing about the cedar tree part refuting the possibility of the animal being a sauropod. I said it refuted the possibility that behemoth was a "stegosaur, ankylosaur, hadrosaur, iguanodontid, or marginocephalian." The first part of my post was a more-or-less thorough refutation of behemoth being ANY dinosaur, not just a sauropod. The parts about eating grass and being semi aquatic refute the sauropod hypothesis sufficiently.

Then you tried to refute the bones...OF COURSE THEY ARE NOT BRONZ.....sheeze troodon, I find my self wondering why I am even responding to your post. Maybe some one should tell you the bones = bronz is in reference to their strength and such.

My goodness, you have now proven to everybody that you did not read the post thoroughly. Otherwise you would have seen the "(JOKE)" that immediately followed that line. Thank you. Before you said this I could only assume that you skimmed my post; I now have proof.

As far as the Sauropods being semi-aquatic, this is a reality. Or this is what the evo sites teach when you do a google on the Sauropods. Perhaps you should done a bit more research prior to posting your post.

Now I'm sort of angry. I have studied dinosaurs my entire life and plan on spending the rest of it devoted to the study of them. I am not a novice on this topic and I have learned the vast majority of my knowledge on the subject by reading books and scientific papers, the internet has added, proportionately, very little to my knowledge base regarding dinosaurs. I'm sorry if you haven't seen a sauropod drawing done since the 1940s but it has been known since the 70s (at least!) that they were not semi-aquatic. Old pictures of sauropods breathing through their nostrils while completely submerged are physiologically impossible due to the water pressure involved (and Job very clearly describes the creature hiding underneath the water surface). Sauropods could not have even spent much time non-fully submerged in the water because, as I stated earlier, the ground could not have supported their MASSIVE bulk on their relatively small feet. I'm sorry if YOU do nothing but learn your "facts" about dinosaurs from YEC websites, and if you'll please excuse me I'm going to take the word of people who spend their entire lives living and breathing dinosaurs, who do studies and perform actual experiments to arrive at the truth, and will strive to do the same.

Sorry for being harsh with that, but the truth hurts Ark-Guy. Don't think I don't love ya

You'll excuse me if I don't waste my time with your dragon pictures.

Ok, so you can't point me to any type of dinosaur that could have served as a source for dragons? Glad we got that cleared up.

Anyway, that's enough for now....I think everyone gets my point

Yes, we understand that you are right so you don't have to actually read posts. We also understand taht you can make rediculous, condescending remarks acting like you know more about certain animals than people who have soaked in every bit of information they can get their hands on for 15 or so years. I, at least, certainly get your point.

 

[missiondocsda]

Try as much as focusing on thhe theme of {dinosaur after flood}.

Troodon, no one happened to be there in the beginning, seeing dinosaurs walked and smited out all in a sudden in the pre-historic record. I chose to have faith in the flood, since it is relative to the bible and other biblical accounts are very rich to me personally. I don't reinforce the idea/faith on others, and I believe this is not a forum to argue evo and creation, young earth theory or so on.

Yes, troodon, we should have no idea exactly what took place in the beginning, as i said, we see the world as what see, not what it is. Somehow I don't know who would laugh at us for being so intellectually narrow-minded. There should have something at least die/stay alive,( this is tedious details we should not attempt to answer for God), and the diet came in as a plus of the simple entire summary at that time.

Ark-guy, no one can proove to be the one who painted or saw or etc etc etc, why can't such a painting exist? Why should things happen the way we think it is? None of us was there in the beginning. By the short Genesis account, we draw a conclusion fits our limited minds. Even so, the painting, as I mentioned also, could be drawn after the flood, by one of the descendants who saw, or heard from close family members, may be, or may be they drew sth else and we insist,'huh, this is dinosaurs.'

Who is mumbling illogical posulateing and theorizing? What is logic to the norm of what we perceive as the truth? We decide the norm? This is a bunch of christian faith here, believing the whole world might not accept at all. In christianity, to be in the illogical divine, allow to be slapped the other side of your face, what logic, brother? Science is not the most accurate eye lens to see the world. Normally the world is what we think, not what it is. Your culture is better than anyone else's, etc, so is here...respect the choice of faith. Faith in science, faith in gods, faith in Jesus, etc. Okay?

As a scientist, as a christian,etc, just dull our creativity for we persist. Some people, 2+2=4 and doubt, some 2+2=6 and insist, where are we? We are in deep trouble for not knowing where we are, who we are, but knowing and acknowledging Jesus, and all the accounts of His word, that at least the faith I and many holdfast to. if any other thing secure your questioning minds, no one pushes you away, no one accept totally, the degree of liberation should be in our consideration in daily basis, keep doing justly, loving mercy and walking humbly with the Lord.

I hope to share this piece with all in the brotherhood/sisterhood of the same destiny. Thanks.

 

[TheScottsMen]

The Dino question is answered by the Gap Theory.

 

[TheScottsMen]

IT also explains carbon dating and much more.

 

[seangoh]

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.

Ok, for last quarter's lesson, u referring to John?Jonah?or Hebrews? Please check for me because i don't believe the SOP states about this funny inter-breeding. One of us has got to be wrong..

 

[UberLutheran]

1) The Bible is infallible; which means the world was created in seven literal days in October, 4004 BC.

2) Evidence from science (fossils, geology, paleontology, carbon dating, evolution) and other cultures (Sumarian -- or going way back, Neandertals and Cro-Magnons) show distinct evidence in variance with Biblical stories, including the fact that humans and pre-humans were walking the face of the earth 24,000 to 1.3 million years before the Genesis stories were written down.

3) Therefore, that evidence has to be altered to "fit" with the Genesis story, because the Bible is infallible.

4) In order to get the evidence to "fit", we are discussing how (and which) dinosaurs were on the Ark, what the dinosaurs ate, the process of digestion within dinosaurs and whether or not dinosaurs were herbivores or carnivores (or both) and fitting that against stories in Job and Jonah (neither of which was ever intended to be read literally) -- even though dinosaurs became extinct some 65 million years ago when a large asteroid hit Earth.

5) All of this, while we neatly disregard the fact that the Bible was never intended to be a scientific textbook!

And fundamentalists and creation science folks wonder why we non-fundamentalists feel so frustrated whenever we try to dialogue with them!

 

[missiondocsda]

i wish #33 was my last contribution on this extinct animals. there are ideas in each, try to rip it apart and form the concept your own.

For this SOP materials, I remembered it was last year certainly. I raised this same question to one phD, there were people who worked on the quarter came to college church and I had the privilege to ask again, etc. To assure the knowledge of SOP on this extinct animals, I asked again another Phd, I can repeat this concept again. Remember, this is just a piece of knowledge, with this, no one can go anywhere. It's just a piece of knowledge, you publish it, no one would give you a credit at all. It is part of the religion and belief, salvation alone does not depend on it highly. Whether the pioneers of the scripture knowledge knew about it 100 or 200 years ago, they were not saved leanning on this small piece of information.

Alright, in the beginning, it was believed animals, including dinosaurs which many believe they were relevant animals on this issue, were destroyed during the flood. They were the invention of the work of wicked men without the fear of God, and these creatures were weird, fit not into the framework of God's creation. They were not intended by God, are you with me? As I said, some may be some of the dinosaurs. The problem here, many might think all dinosaurs were not from God therefore destroyed or all dinosaurs were from God, but not saved due to the size etc. The key we need to remember is no specific animals were mentioned at all!!! Therefore we give some degree of freedom of confidence to the 'animals'. I never mentioned about inter-breeding at all, Sean. The work of invention was far away from our imagination, and the people, in the ancient time, was very intellectual capable to do things we wonder today. And keep in mind, I never mention interbreeding, and they didn't us, SOP didn't mention inter-breeding, applied to dinosaurs.

These animals were to be destroyed immediately when the rain started to fall throughout the year. They perished. May be their bones, beside dinosaurs, were never found again, we, may not know what was the entity family of the animals unintended by God. We are not God but God is. leave this headche to God. He knows what the best we need today, for redemption and salvation.

I don't even bother which unclean animals were eated by Noah, though recorded, unclean animals slaughtered and eaten in the bible!!For something never mentioned, leave it as short as possible, it doesn't mean we are very stupid. We just do not know sure 100% in all and all.

 

[seangoh]

It's just a piece of knowledge, you publish it, no one would give you a credit at all. It is part of the religion and belief, salvation alone does not depend on it highly. Whether the pioneers of the scripture knowledge knew about it 100 or 200 years ago, they were not saved leanning on this small piece of information.

True that this piece of information doesn't save us. However, this does not mean we are to brush away this topic to one corner whenever it crops up. If it be so, this would demonstrate that christians are non-thinkers and people with blind faith. The Bible's main theme is Jesus and that He saves us. However, there are many topics in the Bible placed specially for us to study and to potentially develop our mental capacities. It gives us warning, correction and what's right. And if the salvation message is just enough for us, why didn't God just have man to write 1 book instead of 66 books? OR why did He want to confuse us so much with all the details interwoven within the salvation message? WHY?? I believe it's there for us to be responsible students and to study God's Word. Salvation is still the heart of the issue, but it doesn't mean the rest are non-important. Studying such other topics gives us answers to life's questions. If salvation is all that christians know of, then it's awfully sad because the Bible is not only God's book, it is a science book, a sociology book, a psychology book, a philosophical book, a geography book, a historical book and an economics book.

Restricting Christianity to only contain Salvation to me doesn't give me the answers i want in life. If it doesn't give answers, many people wouldn't be attracted to it.

 

[Ark-Guy]

troondon, would you please make up your mind.

You seem to choose the extreme and present it as the norm. Take the teeth for example.....you seem to claim that the bible says that the behemoth eats only grass when it just mentions that the behemoth EATS grass. You presented your whole refute on this error of yours.

Now whether or not the behemoth was a saurapod or not is not the real topic. The point is..pointy teeth or not (the behomoth wasn't restricted to just grass in the bible) the behemoth was somethign extraordinary and unlike anu animal extant today.