What About Dinosaurs?

[Maria Billingsley]

I'm thinking there is something small that we're missing, something that we were probably supposed to miss, something that would explain the whole thing.

I think its common sense.
Blessings

 

[LiquidCat]

Dinosaur fossils are frequently found incomplete but some are found completely intact.



Some were. Your point being?



That is quite a dramatic claim. Can you substantiate it?

Fine , show me evidence of dinosaur fossil at least 70% of it

I don't expect a reply cuz there is none and you will not find it but you made a claim so burden of proof is on you

 

[miamited]

Human colonization of our world certainly took time --- we first left Africa 60-100K YBP but by 50K YBP Europe and Asia and Australia were all reached and by 12K YBP the Americas were as well. New Zealand was just 1000 YBP and Hawaii just 600 YBP. We reached the moon 50 years ago but didn't stay to colonize.

Hi jack,

Thanks for your response. I believe that is the understanding that man's science leads us to conclude, however, as I wrote, when I see contradictions between what God seems to clearly say and what man seems to clearly say, I'm going with God every time. God was there. No man alive today was and so all of his understanding is based on how he might understand evidences left behind. He doesn't have a single eyewitness to confirm any of his understanding.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[JackRT]

Fine , show me evidence of dinosaur fossil at least 70% of it

I don't expect a reply cuz there is none and you will not find it but you made a claim so burden of proof is on you

https://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/en/online/askexpert/life_sci/have-any-fossilized-whole-skulls-dinosaurs-ever-been-found
Currently it is estimated that around 2,100 “good skeletons” have been found, and the number of known species is several hundred (300-500). Therefore, even without an entire skeleton, but with other skeletons from the same species, we have a good chance of completing the full picture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_(dinosaur)
Previously discovered T. rex skeletons were usually missing over half of their bones.[8] It was later determined that Sue was a record 90 percent complete by bulk,[9] and 73% complete counting the elements.[10] Of the 360 known T. rex bones, around 250 have been recovered.[1] Scientists believe that this specimen was covered by water and mud soon after its death, which prevented other animals from carrying away the bones.[11] Additionally, the rushing water mixed the skeleton together. When the fossil was found the hip bones were above the skull and the leg bones were intertwined with the ribs. The large size and the excellent condition of the bones were also surprising. The skull was 1,394 mm (54.9 in) long, and most of the teeth were still intact.

 

[klutedavid]

One reason I believe but have some doubt about the bible is because man found dinosaur fossils and other things that confirm the Earth is older than the bible says. So if the bible is true, why doesn't it mention Dinosaurs? If it's true, then why does it say the earth is only thousands of years old?

The Old Testament is all about the history of the nation of Israel. That is why Abraham dominates half of the book of Genesis. Abraham incidentally is the father of the Jews.

The next book after Genesis is Exodus and this book concerns the next great person in Israel's history; Moses.

The book of Genesis was never written as a history of the cosmos or of life on this planet, that is not it's purpose.

Genesis is a very Jewish text and is documenting God's interaction with mankind for the sole purpose of revealing ultimately the Christ.

To even attempt to scientifically examine Genesis is very much missing the whole point of Genesis.

There is no doubt that Abraham and Moses existed. Israel's religion and nation is based on these two people. Israel's temple and it's laws culminated from Moses and his interaction with God at Mt Sinai.

Genesis is a Jewish record of the history of the nation of Israel, nothing more and nothing less.

 

[JackRT]

He doesn't have a single eyewitness to confirm any of his understanding.

Any criminal trial judge will tell you that eyewitness accounts are frequently unreliable and contradictory and that forensics (evidence) is much more reliable.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

...God seems to clearly say

That is where the debate begins since things are not always as clear as they seem. That is especially true when taking Genesis literally.

 

[JacksBratt]

This is the NIV... but... what animal is this?

If not a dinosaur?

Job 40:15-24 New International Version (NIV)
15 “Look at Behemoth,
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16 What strength it has in its loins,
what power in the muscles of its belly!
17 Its tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.
18 Its bones are tubes of bronze,
its limbs like rods of iron.
19 It ranks first among the works of God,
yet its Maker can approach it with his sword.
20 The hills bring it their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby.
21 Under the lotus plants it lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
22 The lotuses conceal it in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround it.
23 A raging river does not alarm it;
it is secure, though the Jordan should surge against its mouth.
24 Can anyone capture it by the eyes,
or trap it and pierce its nose?

 

[Kenny'sID]

I think its common sense.
Blessings

Referring to what in particular?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Dinosaurs are mostly man-made , there was never found full skeleton of dinosaur like you find skeletons of dog or antelope .

That's simply not true. Full skeletons have been discovered on multiple occasions.

Animals were large back then so lizards , rhinos , giraffee ect were bigger.

Well, no. There have been very large animals in the past, but the largest animal to ever live is one that lives today, it's the blue whale. Though the largest land animals to have ever lived were the sauropods. But there have also always been smaller animals.

The non-avian dinosaurs were a highly diverse group of animals that filled all kinds of ecological niches, and so their sizes and shapes were likewise highly diverse. Many were enormous, most weren't. Many were no bigger than a house cat or a chicken.

And much more recently there were all kinds of now extinct mammalian megafauna, such as the megaloceros or Irish Elk, the largest species of deer to have ever lived, the giant ground sloths, etc. But many of the most recent megafauna died off during the end of the last ice age between; there's some debate as to whether their extinction was primarily caused by over-hunting by humans or changing climate--or possibly a combination of both.

What scientism does today is find 1 tooth and made full skeleton of dinosaur in 3d with skin on it from it lol

Sometimes we discover nothing more than a tooth, but the tooth is of a particular size, shape, and can be compared to similar teeth and so certain things can be inferred about the animal's size, diet, habitat--and from this a rough idea of what it might have looked like can be suggested.

Your dismissal of fossil evidence, and seeming complete lack of the sorts of fossil evidence that does exist, only demonstrates your own lack of familiarity with the subject matter you are attempting to talk about.

I would encourage you to learn more about these subjects.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is the NIV... but... what animal is this?

If not a dinosaur?

Job 40:15-24 New International Version (NIV)
15 “Look at Behemoth,
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16 What strength it has in its loins,
what power in the muscles of its belly!
17 Its tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.
18 Its bones are tubes of bronze,
its limbs like rods of iron.
19 It ranks first among the works of God,
yet its Maker can approach it with his sword.
20 The hills bring it their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby.
21 Under the lotus plants it lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
22 The lotuses conceal it in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround it.
23 A raging river does not alarm it;
it is secure, though the Jordan should surge against its mouth.
24 Can anyone capture it by the eyes,
or trap it and pierce its nose?

If it's a real animal at all, it is most likely an elephant, the word described as a "tail" in Hebrew doesn't necessarily mean "tail". In its basic sense the word simply means "extremity", as such it might be describing the trunk of an elephant. One interpretation, in fact, is that this is a reference to the animal's...well...penis.

It's also possible that the behemoth and leviathan are both legendary beasts. Jewish folklore recognizes three great legendary creatures, the behemoth, the leviathan, and the ziz. The ziz is not mentioned in Job, but is possibly mentioned here in Psalm 50:11,

"I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the [ziz] of the field is mine."

The word is sometimes translated as "wild beasts" or "all that moves"; but is possibly a reference to the mythical ziz (the word is itself right there in the text after all), and is mentioned alongside birds.

In this case behemoth isn't a reference to a real animal, but to a legendary/mythological creature which was readily familiar. It's the same way that the use of "dragon" gets used in the Bible, not to literal dragons which do not and never have existed, but which were well known mythological creatures and thus could be utilized for literary purposes. The behemoth and the leviathan, therefore, are used in Job as grand expressions of God's creative power; it places God above even the mightiest and most fearsome creatures of human imagination. After all, God declares, "Where were you when I created the heavens and the earth?" Thus the point in Job, as wisdom literature, is to extol the proper fear of God, the almightiness of God in all things. Job, after all, isn't history, but wisdom--like Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JacksBratt]

If it's a real animal at all, it is most likely an elephant, the word described as a "tail" in Hebrew doesn't necessarily mean "tail". In its basic sense the word simply means "extremity", as such it might be describing the trunk of an elephant. One interpretation, in fact, is that this is a reference to the animal's...well...penis.

It's also possible that the behemoth and leviathan are both legendary beasts. Jewish folklore recognizes three great legendary creatures, the behemoth, the leviathan, and the ziz. The ziz is not mentioned in Job, but is possibly mentioned here in Psalm 50:11,

"I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the [ziz] of the field is mine."

The word is sometimes translated as "wild beasts" or "all that moves"; but is possibly a reference to the mythical ziz (the word is itself right there in the text after all), and is mentioned alongside birds.

In this case behemoth isn't a reference to a real animal, but to a legendary/mythological creature which was readily familiar. It's the same way that the use of "dragon" gets used in the Bible, not to literal dragons which do not and never have existed, but which were well known mythological creatures and thus could be utilized for literary purposes. The behemoth and the leviathan, therefore, are used in Job as grand expressions of God's creative power; it places God above even the mightiest and most fearsome creatures of human imagination. After all, God declares, "Where were you when I created the heavens and the earth?" Thus the point in Job, as wisdom literature, is to extol the proper fear of God, the almightiness of God in all things. Job, after all, isn't history, but wisdom--like Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.

-CryptoLutheran

Oh ..... please...

I guess.. when Christ made wine it was just juice and the blind guy just had some dust in his eye...

Oh ya and He never really came back.. the disciples just made that up..

Really? If your going to start spinning and dismissing actual scripture... you might as well deny the whole gospel.... or the whole bible for that matter..

NO... it was not an elephant... it had a tail.. like a cedar.... It's a (what they used to call anyway) a brontosaurus.........

One question...... why can it NOT be? Because some guy, probably and atheist.... in a white coat... said it couldn't be? Bet that guy doesn't think that Christ walked on water either...

Choose who you base your truth in..... wisely.

I'll take the bible... thanks.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Oh ..... please...

I guess.. when Christ made wine it was just juice and the blind guy just had some dust in his eye...

Oh ya and He never really came back.. the disciples just made that up..

Really? If your going to start spinning and dismissing actual scripture... you might as well deny the whole gospel.... or the whole bible for that matter..

NO... it was not an elephant... it had a tail.. like a cedar.... It's a (what they used to call anyway) a brontosaurus.........

One question...... why can it NOT be? Because some guy, probably and atheist.... in a white coat... said it couldn't be? Bet that guy doesn't think that Christ walked on water either...

Choose who you base your truth in..... wisely.

I'll take the bible... thanks.

If you don't have anything better to do than falsely accuse me of not believing in the Gospel, then how about this, I'll wipe the dust off my shoes and go about the rest of my day.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JackRT]

If it's a real animal at all, it is most likely an elephant, the word described as a "tail" in Hebrew doesn't necessarily mean "tail". In its basic sense the word simply means "extremity", as such it might be describing the trunk of an elephant. One interpretation, in fact, is that this is a reference to the animal's...well...penis.

When our oldest daughter was about 5 we took her to the zoo. At the elephant enclosure she looked up to me and asked "Why does that elephant have five legs?" The Hebrews were somewhat prudish in that they lacked terms for sexual body parts. They resorted to the use of euphemisms --- like "thigh" for penis or "stones" for testicles or "knew her" for sexual intercourse. I think it is likely the word "tail" is being used in the same way.

 

[JacksBratt]

If you don't have anything better to do than falsely accuse me of not believing in the Gospel, then how about this, I'll wipe the dust off my shoes and go about the rest of my day.

-CryptoLutheran

I'm sorry... did I say that? Nope.. My point was that you "DO" believe the gospel... but don't believe other scripture..

But.. if you want to spin what I say too...... go ahead...

 

[Going_Nowhere]

 

[expos4ever]

The Bible is true, it is science who is lying about evolution, the earth being a globe, and the existence of an outer space where planets, suns/stars, moons. etc.. exist in infinite space moving at thousands of mile an hour. Just one big satanic/science lie.

Wow, unbelievable.

 

[expos4ever]

I'm sorry... did I say that? Nope.. My point was that you "DO" believe the gospel... but don't believe other scripture..

But.. if you want to spin what I say too...... go ahead...

Ya right.

We all know what you were saying, we are not stupid.

 

[mindlight]

One reason I believe but have some doubt about the bible is because man found dinosaur fossils and other things that confirm the Earth is older than the bible says. So if the bible is true, why doesn't it mention Dinosaurs? If it's true, then why does it say the earth is only thousands of years old?

Noone really knows how old the universe is. The 4 big myths of our age are Big Bang, Ancient universe, chemical emergence of life, macro evolution none of which are provable by proper science but rather only by analogous rationalisations. We know there were dinosaurs cause we have the bones, we speculate that because they are found in certain geological layers they are x years old. Radiometric dating is a crucial test looking at decay of parent - daughter isotopes but we have no way of knowing if that is accurate over millennia let alone millions of years.

It is possible that the bible could allow for an ancient universe but we did not evolve, we are special creations. When we focus on what we definitely know both scripture and verifiable science leave a lot unknown.

The point about being a Christian is to trust God. Dinosaurs do not matter for salvation and we should not be swept along by people who claim to know stuff they cannot verify and might not be verifiable at all and which is mainly irrelevant to the important choices of our life.

 

[d taylor]

Wow, unbelievable.

I do not know what i was thinking, I mean a believer actually believing the Bible, how dumb of me.