Dinosaurs

Didn't I read something once (a decade or so ago) about a human footprint next to a dinosaur footprint in Texas or something? Not that I'm trying to argue or anything. I'm far to ignorant in this area to even attempt any such thing.

Calminian said:

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!

Click to expand...

They weren't so small, actually. At any rate, the Bible specifies an animal and it's mate, so they would have to be at least at a mating age.

marciebaby said:

Didn't I read something once (a decade or so ago) about a human footprint next to a dinosaur footprint in Texas or something? Not that I'm trying to argue or anything. I'm far to ignorant in this area to even attempt any such thing.

Click to expand...

Yes. This is what you heard about.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC101.html

bdfoster said:

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just didn't understand what I was saying.

Click to expand...

That's very big of you. I wish I could say I never misunderstand, but history has proven me wrong.

bdfoster said:

Otherwise that is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard. There are countless extra-biblical "accounts". Almost all are in disagreement.

Click to expand...

Er, almost all are in disagreement about what? If you're talking about the existence of large reptilian beasts, then I would disagree.

bdfoster said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well you of course need to understand the audience of that time to understand various idioms and metaphors, but you certainly don't want to dismiss clear passages because it doesn't jive with other accounts or modern theories.

bdfoster said:

Evidence from outside the Bible includes scientific observations as well as historic accounts. It is intellectual hypocracy to deny scientific evidence that is inconsistent 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".

Click to expand...

And I would simply ask why not? (this is based on an assumption you're making that I'll point out toward the end of the post) The Job account corroborates other dragon legends of the world. When looking at a body of evidence you may have components that don't fit with the rest. What I know from scripture alone is behemoth was not a hippo. But I can use extra biblical accounts to speculate that it may have been a dragon, probably a sauropod.

bdfoster said:

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!

Click to expand...

No that's not it. I believe the Bible has demonstrated itself to be a collection of reliable witnesses, Christ being the best witness of all. And since it says God created the heavens and earth in six literal days using the work week in Ex. 20 as a frame of reference, I have to conclude it teaches dinosaurs coexisted with man.

bdfoster said:

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.

Click to expand...

No this must be where you've misread me. The Job account, in and of itself, played no role in my rejection of long ages. That comes from a myriad of other passages in other books.

bdfoster said:

But you interpret the Job account as a dinosaur because you don't believe the naturalistic theory about the age of dinosaurs. But...

Click to expand...

This mistake stems from your above mistake. I believe the creature in Job is a dinosaur because that would be compatible with other books in the bible (which say all land creatures and man were created on the same day), as well as with extra bible accounts that say man and dragons coexisted with man, as well as with fossil evidence that reveal how large these creatures were. Remember behemoth was the largest of God's creatures. Put all that together and it's the naturalistic theory of evolution and long ages that has to be wrong. Hope that clears things up.

DailyBlessings said:

They weren't so small, actually.

Click to expand...

Really? How big were diplodocus eggs??

DailyBlessings said:

At any rate, the Bible specifies an animal and it's mate, so they would have to be at least at a mating age.

Click to expand...

Sorry DB, that's not what it says at all. It says two of every kind shall enter the ark but says nothing about them being current mating partners. If that were the case, all the females would have been pregnant on the ark and most if not all the offspring would have been born on the ark. Clearly the animals were intended to mate after they got off the ark. In fact, it's more logical that God would have chosen pairs of animals not fully mature to make sure they wouldn't mate during their year long stay. So there are actually logical flaws with the position that all the animals were full grown.

Calminian, do you really, honestly and truly believe that dinosaurs were on the ark?

Calminian said:

Really? How big were diplodocus eggs??

Click to expand...

About the size of a football. I guess one shouldn't make jokes on Origins theology... Everything is serious...

Sorry DB, that's not what it says at all. It says two of every kind shall enter the ark but says nothing about them being current mating partners. If that were the case, all the females would have been pregnant on the ark and most if not all the offspring would have been born on the ark. Clearly the animals were intended to mate after they got off the ark. In fact, it's more logical that God would have chosen pairs of animals not fully mature to make sure they wouldn't mate during their year long stay. So there are actually logical flaws with the position that all the animals were full grown.

Click to expand...

You're arguing that hundreds of thousands of animals plus their feed could fit on a tiny ark, and I'm being illogical? The Bible does say "the male and its mate", several times. Anyways, how did the little Joeys manage to hop all the way to the Middle East? Oops, joking again. Perhaps I should stay out of this area...

Vance said:

Calminian, do you really, honestly and truly believe that dinosaurs were on the ark?

Click to expand...

I believe everything that's written in my Bible. I even believe the part about genuine leather!

DailyBlessings said:

About the size of a football. I guess one shouldn't make jokes on Origins theology... Everything is serious...

Click to expand...

Nah, a little joking is always welcome. Er, I don't know maybe it's the delivery. Maybe it’s me. More likely the latter. I’ll just have to get used to your humor. Problem is many ask the same questions and are serious.

DailyBlessings said:

You're arguing that hundreds of thousands of animals plus their feed could fit on a tiny ark, and I'm being illogical?

Click to expand...

No not hundreds of thousands. Probably more like sixteen thousand kinds or animal families. For more information go here.
How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?
by Jonathan Sarfati

DailyBlessings said:

The Bible does say "the male and its mate", several times.

Click to expand...

I see the NIV used the word "mate." I looked at several versions and couldn't find it. Most versions just translate it "female." At any rate I realize now you were just joking.

DailyBlessings said:

Anyways, how did the little Joeys manage to hop all the way to the Middle East? Oops, joking again. Perhaps I should stay out of this area...

Click to expand...

But believe it or not many ask the same question seriously. For the sake of those, I suppose land bridges and centuries to migrate is a possible short answer. For more answers go here.

How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia?
By Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati and Carl Wieland, Ed. Don Batten

Of course, AiG had to about-face, and adopt a form of hyper-inflation to allow for the divsersity of species we have now to develop in the VERY short period of time since the flood. The fact that we don't see that anywhere NEAR that rate of evolutionary change now is besides the fact, I guess.

And what about all the species which we have fossil records of which are entirely different than any we have now? Did they all die off just since the flood? And coincidentally, their fossils all happen to be laid in stratigraphic layers lower (earlier) than all the species which look more like the ones we have now? Everywhere?

No, the flood geology just doesn't work.

Calminian said:

Nah, a little joking is always welcome. Er, I don't know maybe it's the delivery. Maybe it’s me. More likely the latter. I’ll just have to get used to your humor. Problem is many ask the same questions and are serious.

Click to expand...

My brand of humor does take some getting used to.

No not hundreds of thousands. Probably more like sixteen thousand kinds or animal families. For more information go here.
How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?
by Jonathan Sarfati

But believe it or not many ask the same question seriously. For the sake of those, I suppose land bridges and centuries to migrate is a possible short answer. For more answers go here.

How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia?
By Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati and Carl Wieland, Ed. Don Batten

Click to expand...

Well, okay. Thank you for the level-headed response, and for sticking to your guns despite my sarcasm. And apologies for the NIV "mate" thing, I should have checked my King James before posting.

However, the article you gave also makes a few serious mistakes. Even if it were possible that two individuals could possess the entire variability of a genus (And this I highly doubt- Creationists ask me to show them an amoeba giving birth to a walrus, then turn right around and claim that tigers can turn into lions?), there are more genera than they concede. Also, they contradict scripture in the claim that "Noah did not need to take plants either—many could have survived as seeds, and others could have survived on floating mats of vegetation." Genesis 6:21 states that Noah was required to bring every kind of food that is eaten, and this means all plants. We're back into the hundreds of thousands now. After all, many species and even "kinds" have very specific dietary requirements, you couldn't just feed everyone grain.

One thing that occurs to me is that we are calling in some amazing miracles here. The animals somehow all migrate to the right spot, agree to get on a boat, suddenly change their diet, and for that matter stop eating each other. If God can do all this, what does He need the boat for? Why wouldn't He just save the animals by his own means?

I don't think a literal global flood is necessary for the scripture to be spiritually true. Indeed, look at the distraction it causes. Here incredible amounts of time and energy and money are going into trying to prove this very leaky case... It could be used to serve the church in so many other ways than trying to prove ancient flood stories. The tenacity of the folks at AiG amazes me. Perhaps I am wrong about the flood, but it isn't as though anyone's salvation is at stake over a single story in Genesis. How silly is this debate going to seem, in the long run?

Calminian said:

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

Click to expand...

It wasn't a joke. That tail and stones used together in the same sentence might be a euphamism isn't something that I came up with. It is a researched and accepted possibility that the translation of the King James bible is the origin of this euphamism.

Nice shot though. Most third graders understand that there is no physical evidence that man ever lived with dinosaurs, witty or not.

Calminian said:

No that's not it. I believe the Bible has demonstrated itself to be a collection of reliable witnesses, Christ being the best witness of all. And since it says God created the heavens and earth in six literal days using the work week in Ex. 20 as a frame of reference, I have to conclude it teaches dinosaurs coexisted with man.

Click to expand...

So you believe that dinosaurs and humans coexisted based on a literal reading of scripture. You refuse to let extra-biblical evidence that is inconsistent with that belief influence your interpretation of these passages. And yet you do let much weaker extra-biblical evidence influence your interpretation of Job 40?

Calminian said:

No this must be where you've misread me. The Job account, in and of itself, played no role in my rejection of long ages. That comes from a myriad of other passages in other books.

Click to expand...

I misread you because of what you said in reply to the original question of when the dinosaurs were around.

Calminian said:

Hey BD. If you take scripture literally, before and after. Behemoth was a creature described in Job chapter 40 after the flood. This was an animal of tremendous size that had a tail like a tree and ate grass like an ox. I personally believe that dinosaurs are really the dragons we here about in legends found all over the world. They're not around because men probably killed them off.

Click to expand...

From this it seems that you are using the conclusion that Behemoth is a dinosaur to argue that dinosaurs were around after the flood. That must not be it because the conclusion that Behemoth is a dinosaur is based, in part, on your belief that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. There’s more to it than that (dragon legends, the description itself) but the belief that dinosaurs and humans coexisted is a central assumption because it would be impossible if it were not true. Also see your quote below. So be careful you don’t use this conclusion to argue that that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. That would be circular reasoning. Or as Johnny Cochran would say, “Assumes facts not in evidence”. The assumption is that dinosaurs and humans co-existed, which is not proven. That was the original question, and the assumption is based on a literal reading of scripture that is not acceptable to many folks. That leads to a whirlpool of circular reasoning where you use the questionable assumption to conclude that Behemoth is a dinosaur, so you can argue that dinosaurs and humans co-existed, so you can…

Calminian said:

...I believe the creature in Job is a dinosaur because that would be compatible with other books in the bible (which say all land creatures and man were created on the same day), as well as with extra bible accounts that say man and dragons coexisted with man...

Click to expand...

You explicitly state here that your conclusion that behemoth is a dinosaur is based in large part on the belief of dinosaur/human coexistance.

DailyBlessings said:

However, the article you gave also makes a few serious mistakes. Even if it were possible that two individuals could possess the entire variability of a genus (And this I highly doubt- Creationists ask me to show them an amoeba giving birth to a walrus, then turn right around and claim that tigers can turn into lions?), there are more genera than they concede.

Click to expand...

Not being a scientist I'm very inadequate here. But the fact that lions and tigers can interbreed and create ligers seems pretty powerful evidence to me they are of the same general family. When you really think about it, they’re no different from one another than some humans are. And if I'm not mistaken, dog breeds can be formed very quickly.

Keep in mind also creationists don't believe tigers turn into lions via evolution. (the terminology of micro vs. macro evolution is being abandoned as it is too confusing) According to them the changes that take place are a result of a loss of genetic information which ends up benefiting that particular animal somehow. The concept of evolution (adding information) doesn’t not occur even on a micro scale. Changes yes, but not new information.

Now I admit the whole concept of information theory is way over my head. But here are quite a few technical and non-technical articles that you might want to browse: information

DailyBlessings said:

Also, they contradict scripture in the claim that "Noah did not need to take plants either—many could have survived as seeds, and others could have survived on floating mats of vegetation." Genesis 6:21 states that Noah was required to bring every kind of food that is eaten, and this means all plants. We're back into the hundreds of thousands now. After all, many species and even "kinds" have very specific dietary requirements, you couldn't just feed everyone grain.

Click to expand...

This really doesn’t seem like a problem. Just as many animals start out small and take up little room, plants start out even smaller and most stay small. I can’t see why this should cause me to rethink the flood account.

DailyBlessings said:

One thing that occurs to me is that we are calling in some amazing miracles here.

Click to expand...

Well the flood was an amazing multifaceted miracle. The text conveys it was caused supernaturally and there were obviously many additions to natural processes. Perhaps this is why I don’t struggle with it the way some do. The creation, the flood, the post fall modifications in men, plants and animals after the fall, the tower of Babel, etc. were all supernatural interventions. This is what the text conveys so that’s where I start from. It’s no harder for me to believe these miracles than the parting of the Red Sea, virgin birth, water to wine, walking on water, or Resurrection.

DailyBlessings said:

The animals somehow all migrate to the right spot, agree to get on a boat, suddenly change their diet, and for that matter stop eating each other. If God can do all this, what does He need the boat for? Why wouldn't He just save the animals by his own means?

Click to expand...

Yes but this could be said about the entire creation itself. God being omniscient could have skipped the entire process of human history. Why create Adam knowing he would fall? In essence it seems you’re saying you don’t believe the account of the flood because you don’t understand God’s reasonings. If I did that, there would be very little in scripture I would believe.

DailyBlessings said:

I don't think a literal global flood is necessary for the scripture to be spiritually true. Indeed, look at the distraction it causes. Here incredible amounts of time and energy and money are going into trying to prove this very leaky case... It could be used to serve the church in so many other ways than trying to prove ancient flood stories. The tenacity of the folks at AiG amazes me. Perhaps I am wrong about the flood, but it isn't as though anyone's salvation is at stake over a single story in Genesis. How silly is this debate going to seem, in the long run?

Click to expand...

There are many theological issue that are vigorously argued over that aren't’ essential (i.e. a salvation issue). And many of them can get silly if the participants aren’t careful. I have wrestled with the question of how important this one is and whether it is any different than other non essential theological debates? I believe it is. The creation debate is the only debate I know that allows extra biblical naturalistic theories to shape (and reinterpret) clear passages of scripture. IMO it cause scripture to become so flexible that can be compatible with anything we wan. It looses its ability to tell us about the world because now it’s the world that tells us about it. It’s a very dangerous slippery slope. I don’t see this danger in other theological issues I’m at odds with. I also believe this new hermeneutic places scripture on an equal level with other religious books. Any problems come up, just interpret it as figurative. With that type of approach any book can be proven divine.

Personally I thank God for AiG and ICR. They’ve shown me the limitations of scientific investigation regarding supernatural events. If my only options were day-age, gap theory and framework hypothesis my faith would definitely struggle. I just can’t look at passages like Ex. 20:11 and see anything but the obviously intended message.

1. The Bible is not there to tell us about the natural world other than to tell us God made it and we are responsible for it. The rest is theological and spiritual statements about God and His relationship with Mankind, IMO.

2. "Clear" means clear to you. When I read Genesis 1 and 2, I do not see literal history AT ALL. It doesn't sound like ANY historical account anywhere. It sounds like poetry and symbolism and typology and "true-myth" as C.S. Lewis would put it. So, to me, and to many others, these texts are clearly NOT strict literal history. When I read Exodus 20:11, I just see a reference to the same non-literal telling of the Creation. God told it in the 6/1 framework that He did for a reason, so that people would use it just as they did: as a teaching that God wanted them to rest on on the Sabbath. God also used this SAME 6/1 ratio to tell farmers to rest their fields in each seventh YEAR, thus using the same creation framework. That is a very good clue for us. If the ratio can equally apply to days or years, then we know it is the framework that is important, not the length of time. Let's put it this way. If Jesus in a later teaching, referred back to the Good Samaritan, and did it in a way that would be exactly how He would refer to a actual person ("When the Samaritan helped the man on the road, he was doing God's work" or some such), would that mean that the parable was actual history?

3. As for the slippery slope, here is my general take on that. Let's say you are at the top of a slope and you realize that the actual "truth" is not exactly at the top, but somewhere down the slope. Now, the bottom of the slope is "error" in a bad way. Do you just stay at the top, where you know you do not have the best answer, but are sure not to fall into error? Or do you head down the slope in search of the best answer? I say head down the slope, just make sure you have boots with good traction!

bdfoster said:

So you believe that dinosaurs and humans coexisted based on a literal reading of scripture. You refuse to let extra-biblical evidence that is inconsistent with that belief influence your interpretation of these passages. And yet you do let much weaker extra-biblical evidence influence your interpretation of Job 40?

Click to expand...

It's not quite that simple. The Bible has proven to me it's a reliable source of information about our world. Christ has proven to be to be a reliable source of info. Contemporary theories, considering their transitory nature, have not demonstrated to me they are a reliable enough source to override the Bible, or even to cause me to spiritualize portions of it.

bdfoster said:

From this it seems that you are using the conclusion that Behemoth is a dinosaur to argue that dinosaurs were around after the flood. That must not be it because the conclusion that Behemoth is a dinosaur is based, in part, on your belief that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. There’s more to it than that (dragon legends, the description itself) but the belief that dinosaurs and humans coexisted is a central assumption because it would be impossible if it were not true. Also see your quote below. So be careful you don’t use this conclusion to argue that that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. That would be circular reasoning. Or as Johnny Cochran would say, “Assumes facts not in evidence”. The assumption is that dinosaurs and humans co-existed, which is not proven. That was the original question, and the assumption is based on a literal reading of scripture that is not acceptable to many folks. That leads to a whirlpool of circular reasoning where you use the questionable assumption to conclude that Behemoth is a dinosaur, so you can argue that dinosaurs and humans co-existed, so you can

Click to expand...

I can't say I'm totally following but I think I am a little. I realize the scripture is not acceptable to many folks but I'm not one of them. I'm critical of the current naturalistic theories about origins. Now as far as behemoth, the Bible does not say he was a sauropod, but the description it gives matches what we see in the fossils in the museums, and dragon legends of men and large reptilian beasts further corroborate the story.

BTW here an interesting article from ethical atheist. If OECs and TEs would just say something like this I could respect it.

BEHOLD THE BEHEMOTH

But those who persist in saying a hippo matches the description are just destroying their own credibility IMHO.

bdfoster said:

That would be circular reasoning. Or as Johnny Cochran would say, “Assumes facts not in evidence”.

Click to expand...

BTW when I posted this this afternoon I had no idea that Johnny Cochran had died today. That would have been in very bad taste.

bdfoster said:

BTW when I posted this this afternoon I had no idea that Johnny Cochran had died today. That would have been in very bad taste.

Click to expand...

Yeah I know. I just saw it on Drudge right before I saw your post. Didn't even know he was ill. But no worries I figured you hadn't seen the news yet.

Why does a "reliable source" have to be a literal/historic/scientific source? Is Scripture about science and strict history, or about spiritual truths and God's relationship with Mankind?

Vance said:

Why does a "reliable source" have to be a literal/historic/scientific source? Is Scripture about science and strict history, or about spiritual truths and God's relationship with Mankind?

Click to expand...

Scripture certainly is about revealing spiritual truth. But the author (author by inspiration) also knew history and science perfectly. So while His aim wasn't to inform us about the universe and history per se, we certainly wouldn't expect Him to make mistakes in those areas either. And BTW I would think you agree with this also. TEs don't claim that God made a bunch of scientific mistakes in Genesis. Rather they claim men are just interpreting the book wrongly. If historical and scientific mistakes were okay, they wouldn't even bother.