The Dreaded Dinosaurs Debate

k.miles · Nov 13, 2010

It is funny that people get so hung up about the bible not mentioning dinosaurs but big deal. The bible also does not mention black holes, calculus, nor warn us that people would have terrible fashion sense in the 70's! However, I don't expect the bible to have to discuss everything that has existed or will exist in the future. The bible would be a much thicker book if that were true.

You took the words right out of my mouth. I totally agree.

Chris81 · Nov 13, 2010

Janitrol said:
Now you see, the problem with these kinds of "codes" is that you can find them in nearly any book of reasonable size. They found one in Moby Dick, so I'm sure there are some real zingers in War and Peace, but that does not make them anything more than coincidental.

Really, wow I have always been told that Moby Dick was a great read, now I learn that it possesses divine revelation!

Willtor · Nov 13, 2010

k.miles said:
You took the words right out of my mouth. I totally agree.

But you said the Bible _does_ mention dinosaurs.

Two questions:

1. Why was this code not discovered until after dinosaurs had been discovered?

2. What other things that will be discovered in the future are also mentioned in code in the Bible?

juvenissun · Nov 13, 2010

Dark_Lite said:
There are many ways for fossilization to happen. I'm sure Wikipedia has a nice overview on the different ways it happens.

No. If there was a global flood, every dinosaur would be in the same layer in the rock strata. This is not the case. There are very clear lines of distinction. This isn't even considering the numerous other bits of evidence against a global flood. A global flood did not happen, and it couldn't have happened.

Most likely not. A global flood will not create only one layer of sediments.

k.miles · Nov 13, 2010

But you said the Bible _does_ mention dinosaurs.

Two questions:

1. Why was this code not discovered until after dinosaurs had been discovered?

2. What other things that will be discovered in the future are also mentioned in code in the Bible? __________________
I never said the Bible mentions dinosaurs. I said it mentions a global disaster that took place before Noah's flood. I myself am saying that this first disaster could be when the dinosaurs became extinct. This code is not of a future prediction but of a past event that already happened.

solarwave · Nov 13, 2010

Dinosaurs have nothing to do with atheism. I am Christian and I think dinosaurs existed millions of years before humans.

Janitrol · Nov 13, 2010

k.miles said:
Now you see, the problem with these kinds of "codes" is that you can find them in nearly any book of reasonable size. They found one in Moby Dick, so I'm sure there are some real zingers in War and Peace, but that does not make them anything more than coincidental.

Prove it. Read the book for yourself and then decide.

It's not that kind of code. Do some research.

k.miles · Nov 13, 2010

I've done mine already, apparently you need to do some.

znr · Nov 14, 2010

Chris81 said:
It is funny that people get so hung up about the bible not mentioning dinosaurs but big deal. The bible also does not mention black holes, calculus, nor warn us that people would have terrible fashion sense in the 70's! However, I don't expect the bible to have to discuss everything that has existed or will exist in the future. The bible would be a much thicker book if that were true.

The bible doesn't address 80s Big Hair either, come to think about it. But everyone knows it's just wrong.

tmanz12 · Nov 14, 2010

The Bible talks about dragons, the word dinosaur wasn't invented in the 1800s meaning terrible lizard. So you wouldn't find the word dinosaur in the bible. Leviathan and Behemoth are the two named.

The flood actually explains a lot of things, and if you think it would only form one layer of sediment you've obviously never seen any flood aftermath pictures. Living right next to a river I see them every year by the farms around. All the fossils would be sorted by how quickly they were covered up and which animals would float the longest.

The creationist view is that a meteor or commit hit the earth and caused the crust to burst forth with the waters of the deep. Causing the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.

gluadys · Nov 15, 2010

tmanz12 said:
The Bible talks about dragons, the word dinosaur wasn't invented in the 1800s meaning terrible lizard. So you wouldn't find the word dinosaur in the bible. Leviathan and Behemoth are the two named.

The flood actually explains a lot of things, and if you think it would only form one layer of sediment you've obviously never seen any flood aftermath pictures. Living right next to a river I see them every year by the farms around. All the fossils would be sorted by how quickly they were covered up and which animals would float the longest.

The creationist view is that a meteor or commit hit the earth and caused the crust to burst forth with the waters of the deep. Causing the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.

However neither the description of Leviathan nor the description of Behemoth fits the description of a dinosaur.

Nor are the fossils generally arranged as they would be in a flood. We have plenty of examples of how floods arrange fossils and that does not match the overall arrangement of fossils in the fossil record. The fossil record matches better with a series of different scenarios (including quiet marine environments, desert and forest environments, riverine environments, and sometimes floods), not one single global flood.

theFijian · Nov 15, 2010

What do you call a blind dinosaur? Do-you-think-he-saurus!!

miamited · Nov 15, 2010

Hi Glaudys,

You wrote:
However neither the description of Leviathan nor the description of Behemoth fits the description of a dinosaur.

That's not completely true. Here is the desciption of the behemoth as found in the writings of Job:
"Look at the behemoth,http://www.christianforums.com/#fn-descriptionAnchor-a which I madehttp://www.christianforums.com/#cr-descriptionAnchor-25 along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox.http://www.christianforums.com/#cr-descriptionAnchor-26 What strengthhttp://www.christianforums.com/#cr-descriptionAnchor-27 he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly!http://www.christianforums.com/#cr-descriptionAnchor-28 His tailhttp://www.christianforums.com/#fn-descriptionAnchor-b sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.http://www.christianforums.com/#cr-descriptionAnchor-29 His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbshttp://www.christianforums.com/#cr-descriptionAnchor-30 like rods of iron.http://www.christianforums.com/#cr-descriptionAnchor-31 He ranks first among the works of God,http://www.christianforums.com/#cr-descriptionAnchor-32 yet his Makerhttp://www.christianforums.com/#cr-descriptionAnchor-33 can approach him with his sword.

Now, there are many bible scholars who claim that this account seems to be speaking of an elephant or perhaps the wooly mammoth, but let's look closely. God seems to give the distinct impression that we should marvel at this huge creature that, while obviously having the strength to crush us, eats only on grasses. He points out the creatures great strength and how the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. That the power in even his belly area is great. However, He then makes mention of a physical feature of this creature which would separate it from any creature that we have any historical or current data of any matching creature that has ever lived. He tells us that his tail is like a swaying cedar.

Now, I don't know if you've ever seen an elephant or our historically recreated pictures of woolly mammoths, but neither of them fit this particular description. They are certainly huge and they eat grasses. Their bellies do seem to have great power, but their tails are little tiny things in comparison to their bodies. The only creature that we know of that fully fits all and every descriptor of this creature is the towering dinosaur, now known as sauropods. the largest known sauropods had massive necks and muscular bellies that would allow them to stand on their hind legs and counterbalance their great weight with a similarly massive tail. A tail, that at its connection to the body would have looked much like the trunk of a great cedar and swayed much like a cat's tail, but dragging on the ground, as it moved about.

My friend, if you take this description and measure it against any currently living or historically known creature, there is only one which meets every descriptor. Notice also that God tells Job that he created this behemoth along with man.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.

Papias · Nov 15, 2010

tmaz wrote:

The creationist view is that a meteor or commit hit the earth and caused the crust to burst forth with the waters of the deep. Causing the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.

We have Christians saying things like this, and then we turn around and wonder why so many people today think Christianity is made up of uninformed, scientifically illiterate people who are too arrogant to recognized their own ignorance in comparison to the experts in the field.

I mean, I can point out to potential convert that the Hindu story of the earth resting on a turtle is silly if taken literally, but then they point to statements like that above, and the conversation is over.

No wonder saving souls is such an uphill battle.

Papias

tmanz12 · Nov 15, 2010

Papias said:
tmaz wrote:

We have Christians saying things like this, and then we turn around and wonder why so many people today think Christianity is made up of uninformed, scientifically illiterate people who are too arrogant to recognized their own ignorance in comparison to the experts in the field.

I mean, I can point out to potential convert that the Hindu story of the earth resting on a turtle is silly if taken literally, but then they point to statements like that above, and the conversation is over.

No wonder saving souls is such an uphill battle.

Papias

That doesn't really apply here. The bible talks of the circle of the earth and how it hangs on nothing. No turtles, No giant gods holding it up. The Hebrews didn't have a word for sphere so they use the same one as they use for circle. The earth being flat was an European idea that weeded itself into the church and is in no way supported by the bible or Tanakh.

Papias · Nov 15, 2010

tmanz wrote:

That doesn't really apply here. The bible talks of the circle of the earth and how it hangs on nothing. No turtles, No giant gods holding it up.

First, you'll note that I wasn't saying anything about the Bible saying that the earth was flat, but rather was pointing out how silly it is to claim that the mid atlantic ridge is an impact structure, or that an extraterrestrial impact in historical times caused a global flood.

Now that you mention it, the view of the earth given by a literal reading of the Bible is silly too - most bibles describe a flat earth. Remember, scripture interprets scripture, and many other verses confirm that view. Read some of the other threads, it's discussed here quite a bit.

The Hebrews didn't have a word for sphere so they use the same one as they use for circle.

Hmmm. That's odd, because the ancient hebrew word for "sphere" is "duwr", which is used in the Bible when a sphere is meant, such as in Isaiah 22:18. The word used in Isaiah 40:22, which you are referring to, is "chuwg", which means a flat, drawn circle, like you'd get from using a drafter's compass.

The earth being flat was an European idea that weeded itself into the church and is in no way supported by the bible or Tanakh.

There are many verses in most Bibles (yours or mine) that describe the earth as flat,and zero that describe a spherical earth. The Bibles even states that the earth is held up by pillars, and is unmovable. I'll agree that pillars are a little better than a turtle, but not much.

Papias

lucaspa · Nov 15, 2010

miamited said:
I'm assured the dinosaurs lived with man.

By whom.

It is thought that, much like the blue whale, the population of the larger and some more dangerous dinos were relatively few in number.

That's not true. Trackways evidence and the number of nests of such dinos as Maiasaura suggest populations in the millions.

As far as the age of the dinosaurs, well, we do actually have bones from dinosaurs and bone matter is organic and given enough time will break up.

Sorry, but bone is not totally organic. In fact, 60% of bone is rock. Hydroxyapatite to be specific. In fossilization the 40% of organic matter (90% type I collagen) is also replaced by rock.

There is supporting evidence that within a hundred years a human body would decompose to nothing but dust, if left to the elements.

But not if buried. Then the bones last for thousands of years.

How is it that we have actual dinosaur bones that are supposedly millions or billions of years old?

Just tens of millions. Have you ever heard of fossilization? I suggest you do a Google search and some reading.

Now, I don't mean to confuse this with petrified material, but just a dinosaur that laid down and died in the woods laying on top of the soil to decompose under the elements.

True. but we aren't talking about bones on the surface. We are talking about bones buried by local floods (like the one responsible for the deposits at Dinosaur National Monument in Utah), or volcanic eruptions, or sinking into a swamp. We are talking about "petrified material".

Well, guess what? The catastrophic flood of some 5,000 years ago would give us some explanation as to how they have remained this long. Instead of the creatures dying on top of the soil and decomposing in a normal fashion, many may have been buried under tons of sediment.

But that catastrophic flood doesn't explain the dino nests with eggs found in Montana. The flood you are describing would wash such nests away and break the eggs. Ted, scientists tried the idea of a catastrophic flood. They falsified it as an explanation for any geological feature by 1831. The first quote in my signature was the Christian response to finding out that a global flood never happened.

lucaspa · Nov 15, 2010

miamited said:
That's not completely true. Here is the desciption of the behemoth as found in the writings of Job:
"Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God, yet his Maker can approach him with his sword."

You need to understand the language. "tail sways like a cedar" does not mean a "tail". "Tail" was used in King James' time as a euphemism for penis. The text is saying that behemoth has a big dick.

Behemoth is also found in Babylonian literature (which the writers of Job would be familiar with) and is a mythical creature.

Also, we need to look at the context. The context is an argument with Job over whether God was just to cause all the misfortunes to befall Job. Job says not. God says yes. In context God is claiming to knowledge of a beast that Job has never seen (and never will).

Notice also that God tells Job that he created this behemoth along with man.

Click to expand...

But again, that's for the argument. God's Creation says that humans and dinos never co-existed. Why are you forcing God into a lie?

Mallon · Nov 15, 2010

miamited said:
However, He then makes mention of a physical feature of this creature which would separate it from any creature that we have any historical or current data of any matching creature that has ever lived. He tells us that his tail is like a swaying cedar.

Is it the size of the tail that's being compared to a cedar, though, or the movement of the tail (assuming, of course, that "tail" is not a euphemism for penis)? The passage in Job gives me the impression that the tail's movement is what's being compared to a cedar, swaying in the breeze. Not its size.

Moreover, if the Behemoth really is a sauropod, why is there no mention of its greatest attribute: its long neck? Odd that such a thing should go unmentioned. Job also describes the Behemoth as hiding in the reeds. How does an animal 85 feet long and 30 tall conceal itself in reeds?

I don't think the Behemoth is a dinosaur.

tmanz12 · Nov 15, 2010

There are many trinkets, drawings, carvings, sculptures, and temples built and dedicated to "dragons"(dinosaurs). They're in every ancient civilization almost. There have been human tracks crossing and following dinosaur tracks found in Texas.

Many people believe that not all dinosaurs have died off. There are people who claim that there are still pterosaurs still alive off of New Guinea. There are also stories of things like champ and the lock-ness monster that date back to only 50 years ago. There are also many parts of the rain forests left undiscovered that some small dinosaurs could still be living in.

The Dreaded Dinosaurs Debate

Newbie

Servant to Christ

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

... and God saw that it was good.

Newbie

solarwave

Guest

Newbie

Newbie

Report THIS.

Newbie

Legend

Well-Known Member

Ted

Listening to TW4

Newbie

Listening to TW4

Legend

Legend

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency