Dinosaurs

Calminian · Mar 26, 2005

notto said:
No, Pegasus had wings and unicorns had a horn. They were not just majical horses, they were physically different than any known horse - just like dragons are physically different than any known dinosaur. They were mythical creatures.

Which makes my point. Horses and dragons with wings (6 appendages) were mythical. Horses and dragons were not.

notto said:
Fire emitting beetle? Not quite. Nice try though.

What do you mean not quite? I simply asked what if we read about fire emitting beetles? What if the bombardier Beetle was extinct today? Surely the ancients would have referred to it as a fire emitting beetle. Would you have believed them? Same thing with a fire emitting eel (as I doubt they would have had a term for electricity). Even we today refer to cold light emitting bugs as Fireflies.

notto said:
It seems interesting that will all of the mythology about dragons and hunting them and what not, that not one bold hunter ever saved a bone, skin, skull, etc of a dinosaur when they did this for all of the other things they hunted. They made clothing, jewelry, trophies, etc. out of parts of all the other animals they hunted, yet never once made one out of a 'dragon' or dinosaur they killed or found dead.

This is an area I don't know much about. I do know that the chinese claimed to grind up dragon bones for medicine and they claimed to have dragon like animals pull carriages. And do we have 6,000 year old trophies that have been preserved today? Do we have 6,000 year old trophies of all large predatorsalligators, bears, lions, etc.?

notto · Mar 26, 2005

Calminian said:
Which makes my point. Horses and dragons with wings (6 appendages) were mythical. Horses and dragons were not.

So why couldn't dragons simply be extensions of other lizards that lived at the time. Why dinosaurs? Why not crocodiles, aligators, snakes, and other large lizards. If we an give horses wings and unicorns horns, why can't mythology give crocodiles wings and praise the hippo for his big 'stones'?

What do you mean not quite? I simply asked what if we read about fire emitting beetles? What if the bombardier Beetle was extinct today? Surely the ancients would have referred to it as a fire emitting beetle. Would you have believed them? Same thing with a fire emitting eel (as I doubt they would have had a term for electricity). Even we today refer to cold light emitting bugs as Fireflies.

Fire breathing and chemical spitting are two very different things. Claims of dragons breathing fire included heat and actual ignition of materials. These are things that no animal can do. It makes for a good story though. I guess by your logic, maybe dragon legends came from adding mythological extensions to poisonous snakes. If we can add wings to a horse, why not change venemous snakes into firebreathing snakes and dragons?

This is an area I don't know much about. I do know that the chinese claimed to grind up dragon bones for medicine and they claimed to have dragon like animals pull carriages. And do we have 6,000 year old trophies that have been preserved today? Do we have 6,000 year old trophies of all large predatorsalligators, bears, lions, etc.?

We have lots of ancient artifacts made out of animals - alligators, bears, lions. We have none made of dinosaurs.

We have as much evidence for mermaids and hydras as we do for dragons. Should we accept that they exist as well?

There is no physical evidence that man ever lived with dinosaurs.

Calminian · Mar 26, 2005

notto said:
So why couldn't dragons simply be extensions of other lizards that lived at the time. Why dinosaurs?

I guess the main difference is dinos and dragons aren't belly-crawlers.

notto said:
Why not crocodiles, aligators, snakes, and other large lizards. If we an give horses wings and unicorns horns, why can't mythology give crocodiles wings and praise the hippo for his big 'stones'?

I don't know why the ancients didn't give wings to those animals in their stories. For some reason they only gave them to horses, dragons and I think I recall winged lions. But I don't know of any winged crocodiles or snakes. But it is possible.

notto said:
Fire breathing and chemical spitting are two very different things.

So you really believe the ancients would have referred to these as "chemical spitting beetles."

notto said:
Claims of dragons breathing fire included heat and actual ignition of materials.

How silly. If a dinosaur could do what the bombardier beetle does he surely would have been thought of as fire breathing.

notto said:
We have lots of ancient artifacts made out of animals - alligators, bears, lions.

How ancient? Remember dinosaurs were of the first species to go extinct. Do we have artifacts of all early mammalsSaber Tooth Tigers, Mammoths, etc.? I mean these all lived with man, right?

notto · Mar 26, 2005

Calminian said:
How ancient? Remember dinosaurs were of the first species to go extinct. Do we have artifacts of all early mammalsSaber Tooth Tigers, Mammoths, etc.? I mean these all lived with man, right?

We have evidence of mammoths being hunted and eaten. We have bones with spears still stickin in them. We have the bones of saber tooth tigers, mammoths, and other extinct mammals found in the same locations and in the same strata. We have these mammals bones in fire pits of early humans.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/07/0722_020722_clovis.html

Yep, dinosaurs went extinct - long before man was around. There is no physical evidence that man and dinosaurs ever lived together.

Calminian · Mar 26, 2005

notto said:
We have evidence of mammoths being hunted and eaten. We have bones with spears still stickin in them. We have the bones of saber tooth tigers, mammoths, and other extinct mammals found in the same locations and in the same strata. We have these mammals bones in fire pits of early humans.

But do we have trophies? You know, Mammoth head on a plack, Sabar Tooth rug etc.? Do we have artifacts?

notto · Mar 26, 2005

car

Calminian said:
But do we have trophies? You know, Mammoth head on a plack, Sabar Tooth rug etc.? Do we have artifacts?

We have trophies of animals from places like England from the same time as the supposed dragons were seen and hunted. That is the point about trophies. Why don't we have any trophies or clothes from dragons when we have them from the same time of lions, elephants, etc. Why no dinosaur?

We do have bones, crude jewelry, and other things found in excavations made from mammoth and other extinct mammals. We also know that they lived at the same time as man because we find their bones in the same locations and in the fire pits of ancient man. There is plenty of physical evidence that man existed with these extinct mammals. Why can't we find any dinosaur bones or relics among ANY human settlement or near the time of ANY human occupaion if the claims of dragons are of dinosaurs?

There is no physical evidence that man and dinosaurs ever lived together.

Brain Damage · Mar 26, 2005

gluadys said:
As long as you understand that it is a story. It never happened in history.

What makes you think it's just a story and not an actual event ?

Calminian · Mar 26, 2005

notto said:
We have trophies of animals from places like England from the same time as the supposed dragons were seen and hunted. That is the point about trophies. Why don't we have any trophies or clothes from dragons when we have them from the same time of lions, elephants, etc. Why no dinosaur?

I don't know anything about this. Can you cite your sources so I can get more details. Dragons were a rare animal according to literature of that time. So the fact that there are trophies of animals that were not rare doesn't make your case. In fact I would predict that there are no trophies of any rare animals of that time.

Remember creationists believe that dragons didn't endure too well immediately after the flood. They were not the invincible indestructible creatures as the ones depicted in modern movies.

notto · Mar 26, 2005

Calminian said:
I don't know anything about this. Can you cite your sources so I can get more details. Dragons were a rare animal according to literature of that time. So the fact that there are trophies of animals that were not rare doesn't make your case. In fact I would predict that there are no trophies of any rare animals of that time.

Remember creationists believe that dragons didn't endure too well immediately after the flood. They were not the invincible indestructible creatures as the ones depicted in modern movies.

There is no physical evidence of dinosaurs ever living with man. We have absolutely no remains, no bones, no evidence what so ever that they lived anywhere near recent time. The same cannot be said for mammoths, elephants, lions, crocodiles, hippos, giraffes, gila monsters, snakes, etc - all of which mythology has used. Name an animal and I will show you physical evidence that it lived at the same time as man. If you can't do the same for dinosaurs, then I understand. It would be hard to do because it doesn't exist. We have no physical remains or physical evidence of dinosaurs from any timeframe even close to man. We have tall tails about dragons collecting gold, stealing mens souls, hording virgins, and living in caves.

gluadys · Mar 26, 2005

Brain Damage said:
What makes you think it's just a story and not an actual event ?

Read some of the links I gave you.

There is ample evidence that if Noah encountered a flood, it was a relatively local event.

It was confirmed by geologists (most of them Christian and creationist) nearly 200 years ago that no flood was ever global.

Calminian · Mar 26, 2005

notto said:
There is no physical evidence of dinosaurs ever living with man. We have absolutely no remains, no bones, no evidence what so ever that they lived anywhere near recent time. The same cannot be said for mammoths, elephants, lions, crocodiles, hippos, giraffes, gila monsters, snakes, etc - all of which mythology has used. Name an animal and I will show you physical evidence that it lived at the same time as man. If you can't do the same for dinosaurs, then I understand. It would be hard to do because it doesn't exist. We have no physical remains or physical evidence of dinosaurs from any timeframe even close to man.

Well we have an account in Job where an animal of tremendous size is described with a tail-like a tree (not a little rope tail like a hippo or elephant) and that eats grass like an ox. And BTW I forgot who brought this up but the word for stones in the Hebrew is thighs and navel does not appear in the Hebrew. I suggest looking at some modern translations.

We also have accounts from practically every culture on earth of large reptilian creatures.

And now it looks like we have soft dino tissue.

Do we have the kind of physical evidence as we have with other animals? No. What does that prove? That we don't have physical evidence yet. Doesn't prove they didn't exist along with man. Is that enough for me to doubt the Bible. Not a chance.

notto said:
We have tall tails about dragons collecting gold, stealing mens souls, hording virgins, and living in caves.

As if this proves something. We also have stories of wolves posing as grandmothers, pigs building houses and chickens going to tell the king of the falling sky.

notto · Mar 26, 2005

Calminian said:
Well we have an account in Job where an animal of tremendous size is described with a tail-like a tree (not a little rope tail like a hippo or elephant) and that eats grass like an ox. And BTW I forgot who brought this up but the word for stones in the Hebrew is thighs and navel does not appear in the Hebrew. I suggest looking at some modern translations.

We also have accounts from practically every culture on earth of large reptilian creatures.

And now it looks like we have soft dino tissue.

Do we have the kind of physical evidence as we have with other animals? No. What does that prove? That we don't have physical evidence yet. Doesn't prove they didn't exist along with man. Is that enough for me to doubt the Bible. Not a chance.

As if this proves something. We also have stories of wolves posing as grandmothers, pigs building houses and chickens going to tell the king of the falling sky.

The story in Job is about a hippopautomas. Eats grass, hangs out in rivers, has large 'stones' and thighs and one of the largest 'tails' in the animal kingdom. Not that the tail has to be large, the verse never comments on the size of the tail, only its movement. The hippo likes to stick just his nose and eyes above the river, and we know that it existed in the area and time the verses were written. If you think it is a dinosaur, then it would be up to you to provide physical evidence that they ever lived with man. I'll just stick with hippo because well, it fits the description, there are other stories about them from that time, and well, it simply makes the most sense.

If there is no physical evidence from dinosaurs, then there is no proof that they existed with men. That is my point. No need to doubt your bible. The bible doesn't say anything about dinosaurs. All you are doing is making a statement that has little evidence and directly contradicts all available evidence. I don't think we need to do that and the Bible is still in tact and from my opinion, has more credibility, not less.

Calminian · Mar 26, 2005

notto said:
The story in Job is about a hippopautomas. Eats grass, hangs out in rivers, has large 'stones' and thighs and one of the largest 'tails' in the animal kingdom. Not that the tail has to be large, the verse never comments on the size of the tail, only its movement. The hippo likes to stick just his nose and eyes above the river, and we know that it existed in the area and time the verses were written.

Now this is the kind of stuff that makes bible believing christians wary. What does a cedar tree tell us about the movement of a Hippos tail? This is just forcing the text to fit evolutionary assumptions. And you keep mentioning stones as if it were separate from the word thighs. Obviously you haven't look carefully at the passage.

notto said:
If you think it is a dinosaur, then it would be up to you to provide physical evidence that they ever lived with man. I'll just stick with hippo because well, it fits the description, there are other stories about them from that time, and well, it simply makes the most sense.

That's quite an admission. So basically nothing in the Bible can be believed unless it fits with modern naturalistic ideas. Once we find the evidence, then it will be okay. I can't go for that.

notto said:
If there is no physical evidence from dinosaurs, then there is no proof that they existed with men. That is my point. No need to doubt your bible. The bible doesn't say anything about dinosaurs.

No, but that's because the word didn't exist at the time. But the description doesn't fit any animals we have today. The only animal that we know of that works is a sauropod or other large plant eating dinosaur. I realize this doesn't fit with your assumptions but I can't let naturalism supercede scripture.

notto said:
All you are doing is making a statement that has little evidence and directly contradicts all available evidence.

That's the key qualifier. Sometimes there isn't other available evidence to support biblical truths.

notto said:
I don't think we need to do that and the Bible is still in tact and from my opinion, has more credibility, not less.

Of course. Because you are willing to reinterpret it to mean whatever fits naturalism. Anyone could do this with any religious book and call it divine.

notto · Mar 26, 2005

Calminian said:
Now this is the kind of stuff that makes bible believing christians wary. What does a cedar tree tell us about the movement of a Hippos tail?

That the hippo has a big PENIS and BALLS ('tail' and 'stones').

Calminian · Mar 28, 2005

Nice notto. I see you have the wit of no less than a third grader. Im sure youre making your TE friends proud.

bdfoster · Mar 28, 2005

When you say the account in Job is describing a dinosaur you are engaging in the same kind of naturalistic theorizing as those who say it is a hippo or anything else. But a dinosaur is not within the realm of possible candidates for this creature, whereas a hippo is. Extra-biblical evidence clearly shows that dinosaurs were not around at the time of Job. And you can't deny the validity of extra-biblical evidence, and then affirm it when you cite the "...accounts from practically every culture on earth of large reptilian creatures".

Calminian · Mar 28, 2005

bdfoster said:
When you say the account in Job is describing a dinosaur you are engaging in the same kind of naturalistic theorizing as those who say it is a hippo or anything else. But a dinosaur is not within the realm of possible candidates for this creature, whereas a hippo is. Extra-biblical evidence clearly shows that dinosaurs were not around at the time of Job. And you can't deny the validity of extra-biblical evidence, and then affirm it when you cite the "...accounts from practically every culture on earth of large reptilian creatures".

How silly. There are extra-biblical accounts that are even in disagreement with each other. By your logic we would have to either accept or reject all extra-biblical accounts.

But job is a biblical account. It says there was a creature called behemoth that only fits with a dinosaur. Hippos do not have tails like cedar trees. Thus, for this reason and others, I believe the naturalistic theory about the age of dinosaurs is wrong.

DailyBlessings · Mar 28, 2005

Brain Damage said:
We know they existed as we have their remains , but when did they exist ?...before the flood or after ?

I'm guessing that it was before the flood because they are no longer around.

Now i can understand Noah not wanting to bring on board a T-Rex for obvious reasons , so why did God bother to create them ?...

Wait a second... I assume that you are disucssing a literal interpretation of the Bible here. In that case, all creatures were created before the flood, and all were saved on the ark. So your answer would have to be both.

I see this as a problem with the story, for one. You'd be hard pressed to fit a single pair of diplodocus on an 300-cubit ark, much less seven pairs if they happened to be "clean animals".

Calminian · Mar 28, 2005

DailyBlessings said:
I see this as a problem with the story, for one. You'd be hard pressed to fit a single pair of diplodocus on an 300-cubit ark, much less seven pairs if they happened to be "clean animals".

Hmmm. Yep! One thing about those Diplodocus: The BIG ones were really BIG. But here's something you may not have thought of. The SMALL ones were really SMALL!

bdfoster · Mar 28, 2005

Calminian said:
How silly. There are extra-biblical accounts that are even in disagreement with each other. By your logic we would have to either accept or reject all extra-biblical accounts.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just didn't understand what I was saying. Otherwise that is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard. There are countless extra-biblical "accounts". Almost all are in disagreement. There is nothing in my logic that requires acceptance or rejection of all of them. My comment was on the validity of extra-biblical evidence in general. There are those who claim that any evidence from outside the Bible should not be used to shape biblical interpretation. Evidence from outside the Bible includes scientific observations as well as historic accounts. It is intellectual hypocracy to deny scientific evidence that is inconsistant with dinosaurs in Job's time because you "can't let naturalism supercede scripture", and then affirm spurious "...accounts from practically every culture on earth of large reptilian creatures".

Calminian said:
But job is a biblical account. It says there was a creature called behemoth that only fits with a dinosaur. Hippos do not have tails like cedar trees.

I agree that the Job account may not be a hippo. But the mere lack of certainty that it is a hippo does not mean that it is a dinosaur. The description in Job far to general to conclude on that basis alone that it has to be a dinosaur. The only reson to think that it describes a dinosaur in the face of all the evidence that it couldn't be, is that you want to prove that dinosaurs and humans co-existed!

Calminian said:
Thus, for this reason and others, I believe the naturalistic theory about the age of dinosaurs is wrong.

Don't you see what you are doing here? You believe that the naturalistic theory about the age of dinosaurs is wrong because of the Job account. But you interpret the Job account as a dinosaur because you don't believe the naturalistic theory about the age of dinosaurs. But...

Dinosaurs

Senior Veteran

Legend

Senior Veteran

Legend

Senior Veteran

Legend

Generally Medicated

Senior Veteran

Legend

Legend

Senior Veteran

Legend

Senior Veteran

Legend

Senior Veteran

Brent

Senior Veteran

O Christianos Cryptos; Amor Vincit Omnia!

Senior Veteran

Brent

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency