Dinosaurs after the flood

[Ark-Guy]

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

Actually six literal days. The seventh day was a day of rest.
As far as October, 4004BC goes....you forgot to mention that it was Sunday 23 October, 4004BC....... Ussher.

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.

Sounds like SPECULATION to me.

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

Now think about it just a litttle bit.....the bible says Adam was formed from the dust the Eve was made from Adams side.....Looks like it is the Evos that need to fit their evidence (round peg--square hole)

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.

Do you have any proof that they were not to have been taken as literal? You see I can present verse after verse where they ARE presented as literal. can you present one verse that shows they are not literal and just allegorical or mythical?

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

No one ever claims it was. The bible says Jesus turned water into wine...of course we all know that this was not true because the bible is not a textbook.

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

what????

 

[missiondocsda]

{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.}

I appreciate you brought your mind up upon nature of quest in us, the desire to know more and more. This statement doesn't encourage anyone to brush away the quest. But it is a matter what you holdfast to as it is your business alone with God, sometime may be helpful for the fresh souls to understand the fundamental basic.

I wanted to share, this is not to brag. 1 year before I really baptized, I had bible studies few times, a week, throughtout the year.So far I have been sharing things I learnt during time. I had to approach the bible from historic aspect, archeologically, theologically, scientifically, etc etc etc. It's merely head message. 5 years, I have the privilege to have the kind of christian walk, 5 years, the 'true education' was practically life. I stood before somebody shouted at me, slammed the door before me, scorned me, mocked me, accused me falsely, etc etc etc. And coming back to God again, this life I want to be a friend to men and a servant to God, each day i devote to Him, everyday of the rest of my life, is His.

I have shown that I truly seek the word, and I emphasized practical christian life. I encourage both. But if anyone, really wants to be like 'to drill like the top of bull horn,' christians are not going anywhere. Reasons may be argumentative statements. Arguments may be qurrels when too hot. My point is supporting the least detail less and focus more practical life, that you experience trials, harship, developing characters, and characters to hope. Along the journey, is love, the leading factors.

Indeed His 66 books have only one theme, salvation by love. God doesn't dictate 66 books for us as the referene for the details we intend to make up. 66 books were compiled by men. To me, it is one book. And I, don't restrict, anyone not to explore anything, but in my sharing here, explore the bible in life more, go out the room, and experience quality of life, where you begin your life here, yours in heaven starts as well.

 

[Jeszaramuhamadarthamusrex]

How did humans survive t rex attacks after the flood? If all animals coexisted, why are dinosaurs extinct. The Bible references sheep, oxen, etc. But they had to have lived with the dinosaurs too, right? How? I have also heard it said that dinosaurs and all animals were vegetarians before the flood. How?

 

[Ark-Guy]

How did humans survive t rex attacks after the flood? If all animals coexisted, why are dinosaurs extinct. The Bible references sheep, oxen, etc. But they had to have lived with the dinosaurs too, right? How? I have also heard it said that dinosaurs and all animals were vegetarians before the flood. How?

The same way we survive living with black bears....we keep away from them.

Actually I think they were vegetarians prior to the fall of man in the garden.

 

[Jeszaramuhamadarthamusrex]

How and when did the dinosaurs become extinct?

 

[Ark-Guy]

The same way black bears almost went extinct.....for the most part they were hunted into extinction.

 

[Jeszaramuhamadarthamusrex]

Why were the dinosaurs hunted into extinction? This doen't make any sense. If there were dinosaurs then, not all of their species would have been killed away, we'd still have some around. I'd think the dinosaurs would have an advantage over us, since we weren't the smartest hunters then, well humans didn't have guns then. I couldn't imagine a man killing a raptor with a spear. Man wouldn't be eating dionosaurs for lunch, man would be the dinosaurs lunch.

 

[notto]

The suggestion that the over 1300 identified species of dinosaurs that are know to have exist where hunted at all, much less hunted to extinction is a poorly reasoned argument.

Why were they hunted? How? From the largest to the smallest, the majority would not make a very good kill if it was for food and would not need to be hunted out of defense because they would not be a threat.

Where is the evidence of these hunts? We can find evidence for primitive mans hunts in the trophies buried with them, the use of the animal hides and bones in clothing and tools, and other evidence in fire pits and living areas. Not a single piece of physical evidence links man to hunting dinosaurs (and expecially on the level needed to suggest that many hunted millions of creatures from 1300 species to extinction). Where are the hides, bones, trophies, etc that we can find that shows us what man hunted and how?

Why don't you start with some valid physical evidence that man and dinosaurs existed at the same time, and then try to build a case that man hunted them.

The suggestion that man hunted dinosaurs to extinction seems to put the cart before the horse.

 

[LilAngelHeart]

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?

God only sent to the ark the animals that He wanted saved. Dinosaurs were not made by God so He didn't need to put them in the ark. Besides, I thought the dinosaurs were extinct by the time Adam & Eve were created. God destroyed them in the ice age.

 

[AlaskanDan]

First, dinosaurs were on the ark. God created everything, and since He created everything, dinosaurs were part of His creation. For Noah to get a pair of dinosaurs on the ark, all he would have to do is find 2 baby ones, nothing big, easy to fit inside there. But due to their abnormally small nostrils, and the lack of oxygen for their small nostrils and small lungs, they eventually couldnt handle the environment after the flood. So...could dinosaurs actually be still living? There are some seminars out by Dr Kent Hovind, he explains a lot of the early creation in detail, and what could of happened. I suggest looking into these details a little more before actually making your opinion. Remember, not all of earth has been explored yet!


Notto stated:
"Why don't you start with some valid physical evidence that man and dinosaurs existed at the same time, and then try to build a case that man hunted them."

There was a river bed in texas that flooded and dried up, eroding much of the bank. That revealed severl dinosaur footprints, and right along side of them, and a lot of the time, even inside the dinosaur footprints, were large human footprints. I believe that man and dinosaurs walked together, before the flood, God gave man all the herbs and seed to eat. Genesis 1:29 "...every tree whose fruit yields seeds; to you it shall be for food."

It wasnt until after the flood, Genesis 9:3, that God told Noah "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you." So, if there were many more dinosaurs before the flood, i dont see any reason that there would be a need to hunt them, if they didnt eat them. Once again go see Dr Kent Hovind's stuff on this topic.

 

[AlaskanDan]

 

[notto]

Notto stated:
"Why don't you start with some valid physical evidence that man and dinosaurs existed at the same time, and then try to build a case that man hunted them."

There was a river bed in texas that flooded and dried up, eroding much of the bank. That revealed severl dinosaur footprints, and right along side of them, and a lot of the time, even inside the dinosaur footprints, were large human footprints. I believe that man and dinosaurs walked together, before the flood, God gave man all the herbs and seed to eat. Genesis 1:29 "...every tree whose fruit yields seeds; to you it shall be for food."

It wasnt until after the flood, Genesis 9:3, that God told Noah "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you." So, if there were many more dinosaurs before the flood, i dont see any reason that there would be a need to hunt them, if they didnt eat them. Once again go see Dr Kent Hovind's stuff on this topic.

Even the most respected Creationist ministries acknowledge that the footprints in Texas are not human footprints or that the evidence is not conclusive and that they are most likely eroded dinosaur prints as well.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-151.htm

 

[AlaskanDan]

How are you able to explain the extreme similarities in the general shape of the footprint of a human nowadays and the shape of those prints? Also, how can you explain cave drawings etc. where it has man with a "dragon" or beter known today as a dinosaur. Surely thousands of years ago they didnt have archeology, and surely they had to have at least seen a beast like that. I am just saying, dont rule out the posibility that there might actually still be dinosaurs living today, the world is vast, and we are not in every place at every time!

Also, it depends on what kind of creationist you are talking about. All the young earth creationist i have ever read believe that man and dinosaurs could have posibly lived together at the same time.

You know...there were human skeletons found that were 13 feet tall? One of those people could have easily made a footprint that large inside a dinosaurs footprint.

 

[notto]

How are you able to explain the extreme similarities in the general shape of the footprint of a human nowadays and the shape of those prints? Also, how can you explain cave drawings etc. where it has man with a "dragon" or beter known today as a dinosaur. Surely thousands of years ago they didnt have archeology, and surely they had to have at least seen a beast like that. I am just saying, dont rule out the posibility that there might actually still be dinosaurs living today, the world is vast, and we are not in every place at every time!

Also, it depends on what kind of creationist you are talking about. All the young earth creationist i have ever read believe that man and dinosaurs could have posibly lived together at the same time.

You know...there were human skeletons found that were 13 feet tall? One of those people could have easily made a footprint that large inside a dinosaurs footprint.

The dinosaur tracks at paluxy have eroded further and are now showing claw marks similar to the other tracks. They were filled in dinosaur tracks.
They may look like human footprints by size, but the study of them has revealed that they are not. They were made by a creature much heavier than a human, and they do not show signs that they are human tracks inside dinosaur tracks.

The mythology of dragons may have certainly come from people finding dinosaur fossils similar to how the myth of the cyclops is believed to come from people finding elephant skulls.

Dragons are often portrayed as having four legs PLUS wings and breathing fire. I really don't see a similarity between dragons and dinosaurs. Do you think that there were dinosaurs that had four legs PLUS wings? We certainly haven't found any fossils that match this description. Do you think that dinosaurs could breathe fire?

Again, why no bones, hides, heads, etc from these hunted dragons? The people from the times of these dragon stories kept trophies of their other hunts, why not the dragons? They also have stories of hunting minotaurs, and conversing with the Gods of war. Do you accept all of the mythology from the era that produced these dragon stories as fact?

Again, there is no plausible physical evidence that man and dinosaurs have lived together. If we accept mythology and stories as being evidence, then we must also accept that hydras, goblins, leprecans, and pixies are real as well.

 

[AlaskanDan]

First, i think a 13 foot human is slightly larger than our average 6 foot human now. Creating a deeper impression on the prints. Also, the word dinosaur wasnt added to our dictionary until the 1800's, people used the word dragon before then to describe the same beast. You never saw the point. If you are to find an elephant skull, the could have been from a rescent kill, still residing on the surface of the earth, you have to dig for dinosaur bones. In very very few places could you ever find dinosaur bones on the surface, and even if you could, that wouldn't proove evolution, because there are supposed to be the infamous rock layers.

Why would you keep the bones of a dragon? If you hunt...you know that you do not keep the bones of the animal you kill, you leave the carcus there. The skull is merely a prize. But, non-fossilized bones can deteriorate, same with hides.

The biggest most important part...we can argue all night long about this. Science is a testable hypothesis, a theory has no testable hypothesis. Evolution cannot be tested, therefor it is not science, it is a mere theory. Creation is a theory also, a theory that i believe holds much more validity than evolution. I believe that if we teach science, we should teach science, and give theories, but theories are not science, so dont revolve science around one theory that has never been proven and never will be!

 

[notto]

First, i think a 13 foot human is slightly larger than our average 6 foot human now. Creating a deeper impression on the prints. Also, the word dinosaur wasnt added to our dictionary until the 1800's, people used the word dragon before then to describe the same beast. You never saw the point. If you are to find an elephant skull, the could have been from a rescent kill, still residing on the surface of the earth, you have to dig for dinosaur bones. In very very few places could you ever find dinosaur bones on the surface, and even if you could, that wouldn't proove evolution, because there are supposed to be the infamous rock layers.

Why would you keep the bones of a dragon? If you hunt...you know that you do not keep the bones of the animal you kill, you leave the carcus there. The skull is merely a prize. But, non-fossilized bones can deteriorate, same with hides.

The biggest most important part...we can argue all night long about this. Science is a testable hypothesis, a theory has no testable hypothesis. Evolution cannot be tested, therefor it is not science, it is a mere theory. Creation is a theory also, a theory that i believe holds much more validity than evolution. I believe that if we teach science, we should teach science, and give theories, but theories are not science, so dont revolve science around one theory that has never been proven and never will be!

You seem to have a poor understanding of science. Evolution is a theory that has been tested and has yet to be falsified. Special creation is falsified by several independent lines of evidence.

You didn't answer my questions about 4 legged dragons with wings and the fire breathing or how we determine what mythology is fact and what isn't. Do you think that dinosaurs had four legs PLUS wings and breathed fire? If the stories of dragons are eyewitness testimony and are correct, the descriptions of dragons do not match any descriptions or fossils of dinosaurs we have found.

We have to dig to find dinsaur bones. We do not find them in caves or in the soil near the surface like other contemporary animals that we know exist or even ones that have recently gone extinct like mammoths.

Why don't we find dinosaur bones, hides, etc in the same condition that we find those of mammoths, saber toothed cats, etc. Why no dinosaurs in the tar pits or in the permafrost? Why don't we find mammal bones along with dinosaurs in the sediment or on the most recent layers of sediment.

The argument that dinosaurs and man lived together cannot be backed by physical evidence or science. Your argument has already appealed to mythology and sketch stories or cave paintings. This is the same evidence that is used by those that think that UFO's and ghosts are legitimate and frequent occurances. If we accept the evidence you have presented as valid, there is no reason to not accept the same level of evidence for UFO's an ghosts.

 

[AlaskanDan]

Once again, there very well could be fire breathing dinosaurs, there is a beetle that uses chemically produced fire from inside it's body to defend itself from predators, why wouldnt dinosaurs? There has been dinosaurs found along the surface, Northerm Alaska, on the tundra. Colorado creek has been known for the fossils that have been found there.

I dont see how you can believe that evolution has not been falsified, i know you read the other posts that i have written, and once again i will state that spontaneous generation is a mathematical impossibility, there is no validity for evolution. There are still stories from the congo and from the amazon that some "dinosaur like" creatures still exist. I would like you to tell the natives around those places that they are extinct!

 

[notto]

Once again, there very well could be fire breathing dinosaurs, there is a beetle that uses chemically produced fire from inside it's body to defend itself from predators, why wouldnt dinosaurs? There has been dinosaurs found along the surface, Northerm Alaska, on the tundra. Colorado creek has been known for the fossils that have been found there.

I dont see how you can believe that evolution has not been falsified, i know you read the other posts that i have written, and once again i will state that spontaneous generation is a mathematical impossibility, there is no validity for evolution. There are still stories from the congo and from the amazon that some "dinosaur like" creatures still exist. I would like you to tell the natives around those places that they are extinct!

The beetle in question does not produce fire. You are incorrect. There is a difference between heat and fire.

Arguments of probability have no bearing on evolution and you are discussing abiogenesis, not evolution. Probability arguments only work if there is only one known solution and only show the probability of something happening exactly the same way. This is certainly not the case with abiogenesis or evolution. The probability of you existing is impossible by these standards (what is the probability that your parents met?).

The stories from the congo interestingly enough did not come about until missionaries brought books containing pictures of dinos with them. More mythology (even if it is recent) without any physical evidence. Can these natives produce a bone, hide, or skull? Do the dinos that are alive today ever die? Why don't we find their fresh remains?

 

[AlaskanDan]

would you want to attack a dinosaur?

 

[notto]

would you want to attack a dinosaur?

Who said anything about attacking them? If these natives live where the dinosaurs do, you would think that they would run across a carcass (which, being as big as the stories suggest, would be around for awhile), dung, footprints, beds, evidence of what they eat, etc. None of this physical evidence has been found or verified.