Dinosaurs...and Noah's Ark....

[bkane]

IF you believe that the World is only about 10000 years old (Lit. 6 days of Creation), and you believe the Ark contained 2 of every animal around 6000 to 7000 years ago, why don't we see any dinasaurs living today? We see other large mammals, Giraffes, Elephants, and Hippos, etc, but no giant lizards. I think this silent arguement speaks the loudest evidence to suggest a much longer time frame must have taken place for them to cease to roam in just about every continent on the earth and then just disappear! What do you think???

 

[Alessandro]

Dinosaurs are extinct, just like many other creatures are today.

 

[bkane]

Yes of Course they are, but how? and more inportantly, When?

 

[bkane]

How could a comet destroy every dinosaur, and yet leave all (or even most) animals in plentiful numbers....

 

[bjh]

We do see large lizards. Are you familiar with the monitor lizards? Okay, 10 ft isn't huge, but it is larger than some of the smaller dinosaurs.

Maybe a comet didn't destroy the dinosaurs. Perhaps it was the atmospheric changes after the flood that did in the dinos. If Adam really lived 930 years and Methuselah really lived 969 years something was different before the flood. After the flood, perhaps the dinos died off because of the new atmosphere. Or, perhaps man killed them off.

How can we assume that the lack of co-existence today means that they never co-existed? After all, there are no Dodo birds in existence today. When did they die off? Surely not millions of years ago. They died off in the 17th century.

Too many people assume a silent argument. If you would accept the record of Job, what can you tell me about the Leviathan (Job 41, esp. v. 19-21) or the Behemoth (Job 40:15)? Looking at those descriptions, do they sound like any modern animals? Might they possibly be dinosaurs? If not, why not?

For the sake of argument, assume that man and dinosaurs co-existed. Would these descriptions accurately describe any modern animal, or would they be better suited for something that went the way of the dodo?

 

[notto]

Too many people assume a silent argument. If you would accept the record of Job, what can you tell me about the Leviathan (Job 41, esp. v. 19-21) or the Behemoth (Job 40:15)? Looking at those descriptions, do they sound like any modern animals? Might they possibly be dinosaurs? If not, why not?

Dinosaurs don't have navels.
Dinosaurs don't have external "stones".
Dinosaurs don't breath fire.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

How could a comet destroy every dinosaur, and yet leave all (or even most) animals in plentiful numbers....

It didn't. The fossil record immediately after the K/T boundary is appallingly scant, demonstrating that the world was seriously depopulated of animals in every group. - http://www.austmus.gov.au/exhibitions/dinosaur3.htm#9 points out that many different groups besides the dinosaurs became extinct at this time.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

We do see large lizards. Are you familiar with the monitor lizards? Okay, 10 ft isn't huge, but it is larger than some of the smaller dinosaurs.

Maybe a comet didn't destroy the dinosaurs. Perhaps it was the atmospheric changes after the flood that did in the dinos. If Adam really lived 930 years and Methuselah really lived 969 years something was different before the flood. After the flood, perhaps the dinos died off because of the new atmosphere. Or, perhaps man killed them off.

Presenting some evidence for this scenario would be an idea. What was different about the atmosphere? Do you know of any research that shows what atmosphere would allow humans to live for nearly a thousand years? If you do, please arrange to have a chamber filled with it for my use

How can we assume that the lack of co-existence today means that they never co-existed? After all, there are no Dodo birds in existence today. When did they die off? Surely not millions of years ago. They died off in the 17th century.

Earliest human fossils (depending on your definition of human) - around 1 million years old. Youngest dinosaur remains - around 65 million years old.

Too many people assume a silent argument. If you would accept the record of Job, what can you tell me about the Leviathan (Job 41, esp. v. 19-21) or the Behemoth (Job 40:15)? Looking at those descriptions, do they sound like any modern animals? Might they possibly be dinosaurs? If not, why not?

Because there were no dinosaurs around at this time. So Job can't be referring to them.

For the sake of argument, assume that man and dinosaurs co-existed. Would these descriptions accurately describe any modern animal, or would they be better suited for something that went the way of the dodo?

Nonsense in, nonsense out. Why assume something we know isn't true for the sake of an argument? "For the sake of argument, assume that the moon is made of green cheese. Now would the craters be mould or rind?"

 

[lucaspa]

Too many people assume a silent argument. If you would accept the record of Job, what can you tell me about the Leviathan (Job 41, esp. v. 19-21) or the Behemoth (Job 40:15)? Looking at those descriptions, do they sound like any modern animals? Might they possibly be dinosaurs? If not, why not?

For the sake of argument, assume that man and dinosaurs co-existed. Would these descriptions accurately describe any modern animal, or would they be better suited for something that went the way of the dodo?

They don't describe dinos. Leviathan bears no resemblance to any of the large reptilian species that lived in the water: plesiosaurs or ichthyosaurs. Behemoth doesn't match any known dinosaur order. Notto's comment about navels is particulary pertinent. Since dinos hatch from eggs, they don't have navels, do they? So Behemoth can't be describing a dinosaur.

Behemeth and Leviathan are descriptions of either: 1. mythical beasts (like the griffin or mantichore) or 2. garbled descriptions of living creatures (like a hippo for behemoth and crocodile for leviathan).

For the sake of argument, assume that man and dinosaurs co-existed: Why don't we find any drawings of them anywhere? Egyptians drew animals they knew, and those drawings are of known animals. The cave art in France depicts several extinct species of mammals, but no dinosaurs. But the herbivorous dinos would have been an excellent food source. Pudmuddle described the mammoth as a "walking grocery". Well, wouldn't Iguanodon (fossils found all over Europe) have been just as good and maybe better? Where are the drawings of Iguanodon among the paintings?

 

[lucaspa]

For the sake of argument, assume that man and dinosaurs co-existed. Would these descriptions accurately describe any modern animal, or would they be better suited for something that went the way of the dodo?

Nonsense in, nonsense out. Why assume something we know isn't true for the sake of an argument? "For the sake of argument, assume that the moon is made of green cheese. Now would the craters be mould or rind?"

Not really. What bjh is doing is the hypothetico-deductive method.

1. Make a hypothesis: man and dinos coexisted.
2. Assume the hypothesis is true. This step is essential for the method.
3. Make deductions from the statement: behemoth and leviathan describe dinos.
4. Test the deductions against observations.

bjh fell down on 3 and 4. bjh didn't make all the deductions he should have. He stopped at only 1. Not good.

Then bjh didn't really test his deduction at all. He didn't see whether the descriptions matched dinos. As notto pointed out, the description says behemoth has a navel. Well, dinos don't have navels. Observation contrary to the consequences of the hypothesis. Since true hypotheses can't have false consequences, bjh's hypothesis is false.

Notto, beautiful catch!

 

[pudmuddle]

They don't describe dinos. Leviathan bears no resemblance to any of the large reptilian species that lived in the water: plesiosaurs or ichthyosaurs. Behemoth doesn't match any known dinosaur order. Notto's comment about navels is particulary pertinent. Since dinos hatch from eggs, they don't have navels, do they? So Behemoth can't be describing a dinosaur.

Behemeth and Leviathan are descriptions of either: 1. mythical beasts (like the griffin or mantichore) or 2. garbled descriptions of living creatures (like a hippo for behemoth and crocodile for leviathan).

Why did the scientist who discovered the biggest dinosaur pathway say that behemeth and leviathan describe dinosaurs perfectly, then? Here we have someone who has spent time around the fossils and the knowledge to evaluate his finds directly contradicting common evoltion thought.

And just off the top of my head-tail like a cedar tree, legs like bars of iron...what other animal fits? Saying mythical beasts is a cop-out. What about the cave drawings of dinosaurs? Oh, yeah, those are mythical beasts, too.

 

[Vance]

Cave drawings of dinosaurs? Never heard that one either. I suppose if they came across some fairly complete fossils having been exposed by a flash-flood or something, they could have imagined what the real thing looked like, but I have never heard of any such thing anyway. A link or reference? And a reference for a non-Creationist scientist who believed that the Behemoth and Leviathan of the Bible referred to actual living dinosaurs?

My gosh, even the NIV translators and the Zondervan group which printed the closest bible I could grab assume they are talking about elephants, hippos or crocodiles. The Zondervan guys even point out that the language is highly poetic and hyberbolic, which means that it need not be taken literally.

It is this hanging onto highly improbable and thin "evidences" in the face of the masses of evidence on the other side which tend to discredit YEC'ism.

 

[lucaspa]

Why did the scientist who discovered the biggest dinosaur pathway say that behemeth and leviathan describe dinosaurs perfectly, then?

Can you give me a source? If this refers to the Paluxey tracks, then the individual referred to is not a scientist but a creationist.

Here we have someone who has spent time around the fossils and the knowledge to evaluate his finds directly contradicting common evoltion thought.

Argument from Authority. But it is anonymous authority. Who is this? Also, all claims get evaluated, even that of scientists. Are the claims accurate when compared with the bones and the text?

And just off the top of my head-tail like a cedar tree, legs like bars of iron...what other animal fits? Saying mythical beasts is a cop-out. What about the cave drawings of dinosaurs? Oh, yeah, those are mythical beasts, too.

What cave drawings of dinos? The whole point is that there aren't any! And there should be at least as many as we have of mammals.

Hippos fit. BTW, that "tail like a cedar" is a King James era euphemism for a large male reproductive organ.

Mythical beasts isn't a cop out. After all, we get nice descriptions of unicorns, griffins, mantichores, centaurs, pegasi, etc. in other ancient writings. All mythical. Why should the Bible be exempt? The point of the Job passages isn't a description of natural history; it's to tell Job that he has no right to question what God has done to him.

 

[notto]

And just off the top of my head-tail like a cedar tree, legs like bars of iron...what other animal fits? Saying mythical beasts is a cop-out. What about the cave drawings of dinosaurs? Oh, yeah, those are mythical beasts, too.

Do you believe that dinosaurs could breathe fire? Why or why not?

What do you believe a "stones" to be as referenced in the description of the animal immediately after referencing his "tail".

 

[pudmuddle]

Can you give me a source? If this refers to the Paluxey tracks, then the individual referred to is not a scientist but a creationist.


Argument from Authority. But it is anonymous authority. Who is this? Also, all claims get evaluated, even that of scientists. Are the claims accurate when compared with the bones and the text?


What cave drawings of dinos? The whole point is that there aren't any! And there should be at least as many as we have of mammals.

Hippos fit. BTW, that "tail like a cedar" is a King James era euphemism for a large male reproductive organ.

Mythical beasts isn't a cop out. After all, we get nice descriptions of unicorns, griffins, mantichores, centaurs, pegasi, etc. in other ancient writings. All mythical. Why should the Bible be exempt? The point of the Job passages isn't a description of natural history; it's to tell Job that he has no right to question what God has done to him.

A couple of example among many of cave drawings:
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/bernifal.html
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/native-american-dino-art.htm

 

[Vance]

Well, none of them look like dinosaurs to me. What is add is that one kind of looks a little bit like how we *thought* a T-Rex or Allosaur looked, but now know that they looked very different.

But, this is *exactly* what we get from YEC's: bits and pieces of inconclusive (to be generous) evidence, almost all of which can not stand up against any serious scrutiny. Compared to the vast amounts of evidence we have, from a variety of disciplines, to the contrary. Please see my post on the problems of Creation "Science".

 

[troodon]

This is a little late but....

We do see large lizards. Are you familiar with the monitor lizards? Okay, 10 ft isn't huge, but it is larger than some of the smaller dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs were nothing like lizards (this goes for the OP as well).

Maybe a comet didn't destroy the dinosaurs. Perhaps it was the atmospheric changes after the flood that did in the dinos. If Adam really lived 930 years and Methuselah really lived 969 years something was different before the flood. After the flood, perhaps the dinos died off because of the new atmosphere. Or, perhaps man killed them off.

What kind of atmospheric conditions would kill off all ~150 species of dinosaur and none of todays modern animals?

How can we assume that the lack of co-existence today means that they never co-existed? After all, there are no Dodo birds in existence today. When did they die off? Surely not millions of years ago. They died off in the 17th century.

Yes, and we actually have records of them. European princes kept them as pets.... not dinosaurs however (unless you agree that birds are dinosaurs).

Too many people assume a silent argument. If you would accept the record of Job, what can you tell me about the Leviathan (Job 41, esp. v. 19-21) or the Behemoth (Job 40:15)? Looking at those descriptions, do they sound like any modern animals? Might they possibly be dinosaurs? If not, why not?

lucaspa already explained the descriptions do not fit marine reptiles or dinosaurs.

 

[lucaspa]

A couple of example among many of cave drawings:
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/bernifal.html
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/native-american-dino-art.htm

I didn't ask for the cave drawings. I asked for the source of the non-creationist scientist who thought the descriptions of Behemoth and Leviathan matched perfectly what dinos looked like. You know, the one who discovered the longest dino trackway yet known?

Cuozzo is really kidding about the cave, right? He can't be serious with this: "My photograph entitled "The Confrontation" in figure 24 actually shows a dinosaur-like creature in head-to-head combat with a mammoth."

1. Where are the marks that the shapes were carved? I don't see anything but the natural curves in limestone left by water running over it.
2. Where are the tusks on the mammoth? All other cave paintings show the prominent mammoth tusks.
3. Where are the strokes that would represent the mammoth fur. Making parallel gouges that would look like the coarse fur of a mammoth is an obvious artistic idea.

Sorry, Pudmuddle, but this is just Cuozzo seeing what he wants to see. Complete with a nice conspiracy theory, I see.

Second site:

The first picture isn't even a carving! It's just a weathering pattern on the rock. Notice how it is not in color contrast to the rock like the picture of the man.

Second picture doesn't look like a carving either. It looks like the spalling pattern as rock pieces flake away. There are other more random spalls in the upper right of the photo.

The third picture is the funniest. They want to call the diagram of the 4 legged beastie a triceratops. It looks like a bison with exaggerated horns. But what is interesting are the figure they are ignoring. For instance, under the man's outstretched arm is a human with two large horns. Is that a real creature? Above the "triceratops" there are two humanoid figures. One has what appears to be 5 spikes/horns coming out of its head. The other has a head that looks like an elk's. Are these real? Why not? Why are they not saying these humanoids existed alongside the Indians? After all, the Indians drew them, didn't they, so they must be real beasties the Indians saw, right? Same argument they are using for the "triceratops". Sauce for the goose.

Let's try an alternative hypothesis that fits the data better: what we have here is mythic art depicting a mythic story that is forever lost to ous, but which involved fantastic creatures. One of them was a bison with exaggerated horns that desperate creationists want to be a "triceratops" and other desperate creationists are willing to believe.

 

[Alessandro]

The last so called dinosaur sightings were around the late-teen hundreds, some claim they still exist in uninhabited/unexplored areas, such as deep jungles etc.

 

[lucaspa]

From Cuozzo "Every cave that we visited and every decorated cave that the public is allowed to tour will "mammal" you to death. I mean all they will show you are mammals. This doesn’t mean that down some other passageway reptiles can’t be found. Where they take you there are no drawings or carvings of reptiles. It’s as reptiles never existed. We know that this is not true because we still have reptiles today. Snakes, lizards, turtles, alligators, and tuataras are all part of our modern fauna, but conspicuously absent from cave drawings. The cave painters and engravers surely had reptiles in their age."

Cuozzo apparently never noticed that the cave drawings are of prey animals. It never occurs to him that the large mammals are drawn because these are the animals hunted.

But, Pudmuddle, if mammoths are a "walking grocery" as you state, then Iguanodon is an even better grocery. And Iguanodon lived all thru Europe. So, why aren't there equal numbers of mammoth and Iguanodon pictures? Cuozzo's idea is that all the reptiles/dinos are in segregated areas down side passages? WHY?

Also, Cuozzo is looking at the the dirt thrown up by the several times DAILY use of the caves by internal combustion engines. He apparently doesn't consider that the cave art was done by one or two shamans only a couple of times a year or less. Only done when it was necessary to call the game when it had become scarce.

If Cuozzo makes dental diagnoses like he hypothesized here, I'd love to see what his malpractice insurance payments are! He must overlook hundreds of complications because he never considers alternate possibilities.

OTOH, it's possible that Cuozzo is very good at doublethink: he actually does make alternative hypotheses in his professional life but doesn't in his personal devotional life.