Dinosaurs on the Ark: How It Was Possible

[Job 33:6]

You don't even have Mesozoic on that list.

The Mesozoic encompasses Triassic through Cretaceous.

 

[ViaCrucis]

This one might be new to me. I'd like to learn more.

There's nothing to learn.

This is the full extent of what is said,

"To Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided, and his brother's name was Joktan." - Genesis 10:25

"To Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg (for in his days the earth was divided), and his brother's name was Joktan." - 1 Chronicles 1:19

Certain YECs have attempted to argue "the earth was divided" to refer to a break up of continents. It's a position that is invented from thin air.

The text is referring to the division of nations, which can be attested to from literally all ancient commentary sources, from 2nd Temple literature such as the Book of Jubilees, to the works of Flavius Josephus, Jewish rabbinical and Christian patristic commentaries.

"And in the sixth year thereof, she bare him son, and he called his name Peleg; for in the days when he was born the children of Noah began to divide the earth amongst themselves: for this reason he called his name Peleg." - Jubilees 8:8

"Shem, the third son of Noah, had five sons, who inhabited the land that began at Euphrates, and reached to the Indian Ocean. For Elam left behind him the Elamites, the ancestors of the Persians. Ashur lived at the city Nineve; and named his subjects Assyrians, who became the most fortunate nation, beyond others. Arphaxad named the Arphaxadites, who are now called Chaldeans. Aram had the Aramites, which the Greeks called Syrians; as Laud founded the Laudites, which are now called Lydians. Of the four sons of Aram, Uz founded Trachonitis and Damascus: this country lies between Palestine and Celesyria. Ul founded Armenia; and Gather the Bactrians; and Mesa the Mesaneans; it is now called Charax Spasini. Sala was the son of Arphaxad; and his son was Heber, from whom they originally called the Jews Hebrews. Heber begat Joetan and Phaleg: he was called Phaleg, because he was born at the dispersion of the nations to their several countries; for Phaleg among the Hebrews signifies division. Now Joctan, one of the sons of Heber, had these sons, Elmodad, Saleph, Asermoth, Jera, Adoram, Aizel, Decla, Ebal, Abimael, Sabeus, Ophir, Euilat, and Jobab. These inhabited from Cophen, an Indian river, and in part of Asia adjoining to it. And this shall suffice concerning the sons of Shem." - Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book I, Chapter 6, Paragraph 4

"In the time of Phaleg, however, arose the dispersion of nations. Now these nations were 72, corresponding with the number of Abraham’s children" - St. Hippolytus of Rome, Refutation of All Heresies, Book X, ch. 25

And so on.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Job 33:6]

The Mesozoic encompasses Triassic through Cretaceous.

For reference.

 

[AV1611VET]

That was an interesting read. I'd always heard from YEC that the continents likely shifted apart during the tumultuous global flood. What do you think about this AIG article in reply to the Peleg split? Did the Continents Split Apart in the Days of Peleg?

Well, my money is with Peleg, but that article is certainly a convincing one.

Either way, in Noah's time or in Peleg's time, the earth was broken up into continents.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well, my money is with Peleg, but that article is certainly a convincing one.

Either way, in Noah's time or in Peleg's time, the earth was broken up into continents.

I didn't think the article was convincing at all. At one point, in an effort to rebuke modern archaeology, the author asked the question of what animals would eat while traveling across the Bering straight or why they would travel there.

Perhaps he isn't familiar with the fact that grass and other plants grow in Alaska and Russia that are eaten by grazing animals. He appeared to be perplexed by this idea that grazing animals might migrate or that hunters, including people and feline species, might follow grazing animals and eat them as well. What would a whooly mammoths eat? Grass. What would a hunter eat? Whooly mammoth/whooly rhino etc. And he seemed to reject the possibility that people in the past could also use boats to travel across islands, such as those of Micronesia. Even though boats most certainly were used by prehistoric indigenous people as is common knowledge in archaeology.

The author seems to think that perhaps there was no grass for mammoths to eat because the straight was covered in hundreds of feet of ice, however anyone remotely familiar with late cenozoic ice ages knows that evidence of glaciation such as till, drop stones and striations, suggests that there were times where the Bering straight was not covered with ice even during these ice ages.

The author is wrong to assume that the occurance of an ice age mandates coverage of the entire planet with ice. But rather much like in today's world, we have polar regions where there is ice and polar regions where there is not ice. Just as in an ice age, there were areas with ice and areas without. The author also seems to think that perhaps there was only one ice age, but evidence suggests that there were dozens (just in recent times alone), if not hundreds (going back into the Mesozoic) or perhaps even thousands of ice ages throughout earth history.

 

[AV1611VET]

I didn't think the article was convincing at all.

Interesting.

Thanks for the info.

To be honest, I was surprised that Answers-in-Genesis took a stance against the breakup being in Peleg's time.

But in any case, and as my pastor always says, we'll find out when we get to Heaven.

 

[coffee4u]

"Kind" is just an ancient term, today we use species which is more precise.

If you do not agree that kind = species, define kind, then.

A kind was the original type of each animal. From the original male and female kind came many species.

 

[Astrophile]

Jesus knew things no normal man could. He read minds. He certainly knew the stories were true, because he was there when they happened. He was there at creation.

He also 'knew' that mental illnesses were caused by possession by demons or evil spirits and that exorcising the demons would cure the illness.

 

[renniks]

There's the Human side of Jesus and the God, Christ aspect that is not of the physical body. The infinite and finite. A place where spirit and matter meet. The Infinite is the Love and Compassion (Truth) part. Jesus, the person, was limited as a Human Being.

And how do you decide that? Walking on water, raising the dead.. doesn't seem very limited to me.

 

[renniks]

Only he didn't. He literally said Moses spoke the truth. Not that Moses used some nice metaphors.

It's an interesting coincidence that Jesus used those stories in His preaching in exactly the same way as a liberal preacher would do who didn't believe in literal inerrancy.

 

[renniks]

He confirmed the point of those stories, not the stories being literal and without any allegories.

He spoke about them as actually happening. Why would you attempt to turn what was clearly meant as literal into an allegory?

 

[ViaCrucis]

A kind was the original type of each animal. From the original male and female kind came many species. It was not the same as a genus but very similar.

There was no rigid taxonomical definition for מִין, it simply means "sort", or "kind". In Hebrew the word has been used to denote different sorts of plants and animals, but also has other uses, for example this word is also used to describe a heretic in Judaism.

A מִין is not a "unit" of biology, it's simply a way to say, "that's one kind of thing" or "that's another sort of thing". Thus a horse is a "kind", distinct from say, a zebra, or a donkey, or a cow, or an apple tree.

Attempting to read backward onto מִין with a modernistic understanding of biology and taxonomical definitions is pure anachronism. That simply wasn't how the ancients understood this word, that's not how they used it.

Further, even talking about our modern taxonomical definitions, these are not hardcoded objective truths about reality--they are simply subjective ways we as humans have attempted to sort living things. And how we sort living things has changed over the centuries since the introduction to taxonomical classification.

For example, we refer to something as a "species" when, as a general rule, we are talking about a population of organisms that can produce viable offspring with one another, but not with other related groups. So, for example, the species of "horse" and the species of "donkey" are both equids, but they cannot produce viable offspring, their offspring are infertile. However, this rule of them is not always true, which makes species a very fluid concept.

And the word "species" is simply taken from Latin, it simply means "kind". Hence one of the major reforms which Jan Hus desired, and which also became one of the major reforms advocated by Luther and the other Reformers, that the Eucharist be celebrated sub utraque specie, "under both kinds". Species or "kinds" here referring to the bread and the wine, these are the two "species" of the Eucharist.

It's literally a borrowing of the word "kind" form Latin to speak of "kinds" of animals; in this case "kinds" of animals which can only produce viable offspring with themselves. Whereas a genus means something like "race", related to words like "generation", referring to a group of descendants with a common ancestor in modern taxonomy. Familia, classis, ordo, are likewise Latin terms that, refer to related groups, kinds, sorts. A classis, is simply an order, kind, or sort of something; an ordo is simply "rank" or "arrangement". Phylum comes from Greek meaning "tribe" or "race".

Our taxonomical structures are anthropogenic, we came up with them. They aren't prescriptive for how life is, they are descriptive of our best attempts to catalogue and categorize living things, arranging them based on our observations, study, tests, etc of living things.

Hence house cats are grouped with other felines,
and felines are grouped with other felids,
and felids are grouped with other feliaforms,
and feliaforms are grouped with other carnivora,
and carnivora are grouped with other placentiasl,
and placentials are grouped with other eutherians,
and eutherians are grouped with other mammals,
and mammals are grouped with other mammiliaforms,
and mammiliaforms are grouped with other therapsids,
and therapsids are grouped with other synapsids,
and synapsids are grouped with other amniotes,
and amniotes are grouped with other tetrapods,
and tetrapods are grouped with other sarcopterygians,
and sarcopterygians are grouped with other chordata,
and chordata are grouped with bilaterians,
and bilaterians are grouped with other animalia,
and animalia are grouped with other eukaryotes.

When you start looking at taxonomical and cladistic categories, one will immediately notice that there are all kinds of sub-orders, super-families, infra-orders, etc. Because our standard taxonomic classifications aren't exhaustive, sub-groupings and super-groupings becomes necessary even when they don't fit into the neat little standard taxonomical categories which we came up with.

The truth of the matter is that there are no hard edges in life, there is only the fluidity of living things. The lines are fuzzy, blurry, they mingle together like colors on a color wheel.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

He spoke about them as actually happening. Why would you attempt to turn what was clearly meant as literal into an allegory?

Literal and allegory aren't the only options.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[renniks]

He also 'knew' that mental illnesses were caused by possession by demons or evil spirits and that exorcising the demons would cure the illness.

Mental illness and demon possession aren't always the same thing. Both are real.

 

[sjastro]

Mental illness and demon possession aren't always the same thing. Both are real.

What's the DSM-5 classification for demon possession?

 

[AV1611VET]

What's the DSM-5 classification for demon possession?

666

 

[coffee4u]

There was no rigid taxonomical definition for מִין, it simply means "sort", or "kind". In Hebrew the word has been used to denote different sorts of plants and animals, but also has other uses, for example this word is also used to describe a heretic in Judaism.

A מִין is not a "unit" of biology, it's simply a way to say, "that's one kind of thing" or "that's another sort of thing". Thus a horse is a "kind", distinct from say, a zebra, or a donkey, or a cow, or an apple tree.

Attempting to read backward onto מִין with a modernistic understanding of biology and taxonomical definitions is pure anachronism. That simply wasn't how the ancients understood this word, that's not how they used it.

Further, even talking about our modern taxonomical definitions, these are not hardcoded objective truths about reality--they are simply subjective ways we as humans have attempted to sort living things. And how we sort living things has changed over the centuries since the introduction to taxonomical classification.

For example, we refer to something as a "species" when, as a general rule, we are talking about a population of organisms that can produce viable offspring with one another, but not with other related groups. So, for example, the species of "horse" and the species of "donkey" are both equids, but they cannot produce viable offspring, their offspring are infertile. However, this rule of them is not always true, which makes species a very fluid concept.

And the word "species" is simply taken from Latin, it simply means "kind". Hence one of the major reforms which Jan Hus desired, and which also became one of the major reforms advocated by Luther and the other Reformers, that the Eucharist be celebrated sub utraque specie, "under both kinds". Species or "kinds" here referring to the bread and the wine, these are the two "species" of the Eucharist.

It's literally a borrowing of the word "kind" form Latin to speak of "kinds" of animals; in this case "kinds" of animals which can only produce viable offspring with themselves. Whereas a genus means something like "race", related to words like "generation", referring to a group of descendants with a common ancestor in modern taxonomy. Familia, classis, ordo, are likewise Latin terms that, refer to related groups, kinds, sorts. A classis, is simply an order, kind, or sort of something; an ordo is simply "rank" or "arrangement". Phylum comes from Greek meaning "tribe" or "race".

Our taxonomical structures are anthropogenic, we came up with them. They aren't prescriptive for how life is, they are descriptive of our best attempts to catalogue and categorize living things, arranging them based on our observations, study, tests, etc of living things.

Hence house cats are grouped with other felines,
and felines are grouped with other felids,
and felids are grouped with other feliaforms,
and feliaforms are grouped with other carnivora,
and carnivora are grouped with other placentiasl,
and placentials are grouped with other eutherians,
and eutherians are grouped with other mammals,
and mammals are grouped with other mammiliaforms,
and mammiliaforms are grouped with other therapsids,
and therapsids are grouped with other synapsids,
and synapsids are grouped with other amniotes,
and amniotes are grouped with other tetrapods,
and tetrapods are grouped with other sarcopterygians,
and sarcopterygians are grouped with other chordata,
and chordata are grouped with bilaterians,
and bilaterians are grouped with other animalia,
and animalia are grouped with other eukaryotes.

When you start looking at taxonomical and cladistic categories, one will immediately notice that there are all kinds of sub-orders, super-families, infra-orders, etc. Because our standard taxonomic classifications aren't exhaustive, sub-groupings and super-groupings becomes necessary even when they don't fit into the neat little standard taxonomical categories which we came up with.

The truth of the matter is that there are no hard edges in life, there is only the fluidity of living things. The lines are fuzzy, blurry, they mingle together like colors on a color wheel.

-CryptoLutheran

How science classifies animals does not necessarily correlate to what the original kinds were.
The original kind had many genes that got isolated, mutated, got lost until you have distinct groups.
Just because science has placed house cats into felines with all other cats does not mean they are the same kind that God originally created. There may have been a large cat kind and a small cat kind.

Adam was not naming every species just the general kinds.
Genesis 2
19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
One man naming 8 million species is ridiculous- that's because there weren't any species. He could name each kind that God passed before him because there were a reasonable number that a man could name. It was still a sizable job, but not a ridiculous one.

Species would have been far too numerous and came later. The animals that went onto the ark were the kinds that Adam named at creation.

We are given the dimensions of the ark, we know how much room there was.
genesis 6
14 So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. 15 This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high.
This compares to a large cruise ship. Large enough for general kinds, not large enough for 8 million species.

It doesn't matter how much things are hard coded now, the animals we have now are not the same as they were at creation. God changed the laws governing the animals at the fall and again at the flood.

 

[ViaCrucis]

How science classifies animals does not necessarily correlate to what the original kinds were.
The original kind had many genes that got isolated, mutated, got lost until you have distinct groups.
Just because science has placed house cats into felines with all other cats does not mean they are the same kind that God originally created. There may have been a large cat kind and a small cat kind.

Adam was not naming every species just the general kinds.
Genesis 2
19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
One man naming 8 million species is ridiculous- that's because there weren't any species. He could name each kind that God passed before him because there were a reasonable number that a man could name. It was still a sizable job, but not a ridiculous one.

Species would have been far too numerous and came later. The animals that went onto the ark were the kinds that Adam named at creation.

We are given the dimensions of the ark, we know how much room there was.
genesis 6
14 So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. 15 This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high.
This compares to a large cruise ship. Large enough for general kinds, not large enough for 8 million species.

It doesn't matter how much things are hard coded now, the animals we have now are not the same as they were at creation. God changed the laws governing the animals at the fall and again at the flood.

"Just because science has placed house cats into felines with all other cats does not mean they are the same kind that God originally created. There may have been a large cat kind and a small cat kind."

By that same token there may have been only one kind, the life kind, from which all other kinds have come. What we might call LUCA--the last universal common ancestor.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[coffee4u]

"Just because science has placed house cats into felines with all other cats does not mean they are the same kind that God originally created. There may have been a large cat kind and a small cat kind."

By that same token there may have been only one kind, the life kind, from which all other kinds have come. What we might call LUCA--the last universal common ancestor.

-CryptoLutheran

Obviously not, the Bible indicates different kinds at creation.

The new Testament says that there are four types of flesh.
1 Corinthians 15:39
Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.

Then Genesis names 3 groups within the flesh of animals.
24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I mean, this is one of those things I want to be true because I've been mad I can't own a pet pterodactyl since I was five.

Hah! You would still be out of luck. Pterodactyls were not dinosaurs, they were lizards.