The Dinosaurs

Originally posted by Nygdan

Remember, the bible was made for us to know about God and his mercy on such a corrupt world.

Then why use it to make paleontological conclusions? Also, that passage above has been addressed several times in this thread, why are you just repeating stuff that other people have already said and ignoring the questions about it? Is it because you know that its not actually refering to a dinosaur or because you are concerned that it might not be?

"Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for lost faith in ourselves."
-Eric Hoffer
Well... that's easy to understand considering current course of mankind.


"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means."
-George Bernard Shaw

Here's little reading about these claimed human footprints with dinosaurs footprints.
www.bibleandscience.com...
www.talkorigins.org...

Originally posted by HowardRoark
LOL.

know1edge720, ow is it that we have never found any evidence of people existing at the same time as dinosaurs?


Wooly mamoths, cave bears, mastodons, wooly rhinos, cave lions, Elasmotherium sibiricus (with a 6 foot tusk). These existed at the same time as humans, but dinosaurs? not hardly.

Ok, the game is name that animal.

Out of all the animals you named which, has a trunk the size of a cedar tree trunk?

Originally posted by know1edge720
Out of all the animals you named which, has a trunk the size of a cedar tree trunk?

'
A mammoth would have a trunk, but it doesn't really matter since it doesn't say that it 'has a trunk the size of a cedar' or a tail or anything like that. It says that its like a cedar, or that it sways like a cedar, and that its a muscle around the belly, and its strenght is in its loins. (hint hint, they aren't talking about tails, and there isn't much of a case for apatosaur schlongs out there either)

Perhaps I can help shed some perspective on the question relative to God at least, for there certainly seems to be evidence that dinosaurs did exist. if God created them, then the creation theory is in play, and so is the story of Noah who is commanded to take specimens of every living thing into the ark, a three storey high vessel.

A cubit is suspected to be anywhere from 18 to 20 inches, so for the sake of argument we apply the generous 20. The ark's dimensions were: L300cu; W50cu; H30cu. Converted to feet they would be: L500'; W84'; H50' or for our metric system friends: H152.4m; W25.60m: H15.24m.

We know that dinosaur bones have been discovered in the eastern hemisphere, proof of their existence. The brachiosaurus stood 39.4' high by 75' in length or, 12m X23m. Obviously, the three stories could not have been implemented throughout the vessel to accommodate the height, and the length would accommodate no more than 5 dinosaurs the size of brachiosaurus; the width I would guess no more than 8 across. Filling a one storey ark then with just these gargantuans would mean that a maximum of 40 sailed and everything else, such as elephants, mastodons, buffalo, crammed in. At 2 of each, or was it 7 each now God may have made the dinosaurs but they must have missed the boat, and so did that lovely creature the unicorn.

[edit on 10/27/04 by SomewhereinBetween]

Here's more about this flood and Noah's ark

Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped.

Could animals have all lived near Noah? Some creationists suggest that the animals need not have traveled far to reach the Ark; a moderate climate could have made it possible for all of them to live nearby all along...
There is a reason why Gila monsters, yaks, and quetzals don't all live together in a temperate climate. They can't survive there, at least not for long without special care. Organisms have preferred environments outside of which they are at a deadly disadvantage. Most extinctions are caused by destroying the organisms' preferred environments.

www.talkorigins.org...

What about the other religious scriptures?

The original poster wrote in the format religious scriptures and God/s. So far the Bible has been brought up, but there are loads more religions the world over.

Any mention of dinos in the Koran, Bhagavat Gita, Tao Te Ching, Satanic Bible, and whatever else there is out there?

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Perhaps I can help shed some perspective on the question relative to God at least, for there certainly seems to be evidence that dinosaurs did exist. if God created them, then the creation theory is in play, and so is the story of Noah

But there is no evidence of a worldwide flood or man cohabitating with dinosaurs

We know that dinosaur bones have been discovered in the eastern hemisphere, proof of their existence.

There are dinosaur fossils from all over the world, no one is questioning their existence here.

At 2 of each, or was it 7 each now

A pair of each unclean and 7 of each clean. There is no room on the ark for all the species of animals alive today, let alone all the fossil animals. Also, how did australian animals manage to walk to the ark? WOuldn't some have died along the way? WOuldn't it require a large migrating population? Shouldn't one find fossils or caracasses of these animals leading to the ark site? How did koalas, which only eat one plant, survive the journey? What did the flesh eating animals eat? How did the salt water fish survive all that fresh water rain?

God may have made the dinosaurs but they must have missed the boat, and so did that lovely creature the unicorn.

But god commaned all species be put into the boat. Why aren't there man and dinosaur fossils found together? Why is there a structure to the fossil record over all, if its mostly from the flood? What about the dinosaurs that could fit on the ark, or the synapsids or giant amphibian genera and other extinct reptiles?



[edit on 27-10-2004 by Nygdan]

I can just picture Noah trying to get a pair of T-Rex's onto the Ark! hehehe

Originally posted by NygdanBut there is no evidence of a worldwide flood or man cohabitating with dinosaurs...There are dinosaur fossils from all over the world, no one is questioning their existence here.

I didn't say there was, I said there is evidence dinosaurs existed. Although I believe some cave carvings suggest man lived at the same time as dinosaurs, but I could be wrong. And you are correct, no one is questioning their existence, that was not the question as posed.

A pair of each unclean and 7 of each clean.

Well that depends on how you read it. Noah was first told that that he should take two of each of all that lives, water dwellers not mentioned, then he was specifically told two of each shall come to him. Then he was told to go into the ark, and of every clean animal take seven pairs, and unclean 2 pairs. So there is a conflict as to exactly what was to be taken in, but aside from that, there is a bigger issue here, in that Noah was also told to take everything needed for food, which can only be assumed to be plant life, unless of course Noah had a way of preserving meat for close to 300 days, but more importantly, it was not until Moses' day that God pronounced what was clean and unclean. Hopefuly, none of the beheamoths were considered clean =).

Also, how did australian animals manage to walk to the ark? ... Shouldn't one find fossils or caracasses of these animals leading to the ark site? What did the flesh eating animals eat? How did the salt water fish survive all that fresh water rain?

Tossing aside for a moment, whether the story is true or not, there are theories that the land masses as we know them today were different eons ago, accounting for migration of animals and people to the various continents. So from that stand point it is possible, (perhaps not probable as to the specific landscape of Noah's habitat, when considering that penguins and polar bears), that all the various creatures could have existed in one region. Since the ark has not been discovered, then it cannot be said that there are no fossils leading to the ark site. 40 days and nights of rain might affect the sea salt content, but whether it would have an impact on marine life, I don't know. But a very good question is, what did the carnivores eat, that takes faith to believe that God made them subsist by his power, I leave that to the individual to decide.

The ark story in my opinion is just a myth passed on through the various generations and like any other myth changed over time. It is filled with illogical statements, such as the dove's story and its returning after its second journey seven days later with a "plucked" olive leaf. The flood itself though, is likely a magnified version of river flooding common to the area. The story was adopted by a group of people wanting to lay claim to a provenance and superiority, and the fables started from there.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Tossing aside for a moment, whether the story is true or not, there are theories that the land masses as we know them today were different eons ago, accounting for migration of animals and people to the various continents.

The theory of continental drift is whta I think you are talking about, however it happens over long time scales. Also, it ends up leaving organisms on either side.

Since the ark has not been discovered, then it cannot be said that there are no fossils leading to the ark site.

Yes, but we still don't find trails of animals mass migrating from china to israel/turkey or south africa to the levant or anything like that.

40 days and nights of rain might affect the sea salt content, but whether it would have an impact on marine life, I don't know.

Don't you think it would have to tho? If you radically change the salt content, then lots of salt adapted organisms are going to die.

The ark story in my opinion is just a myth passed

Ah, I had thought that you were arguing for it having actually occured as told in the bible.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
The flood itself though, is likely a magnified version of river flooding common to the area. .

Or it could be an oral history of a post glacial flood (the link is for a North American flood, I have no doubt that there were similar ones in Europe.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Or it could be an oral history of a post glacial flood (the link is for a North American flood, I have no doubt that there were similar ones in Europe.

It could be I suppose, except I would expect the story to be told about migration, not a massive swelling of waters.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
expect the story to be told about migration, not a massive swelling of waters.

Why would people have to migrate if there were a destructive flood? The nile floods and makes the land more fertile. Surely similar things happened to the people who wrote the bible and most other cultures. Civilizations tended to start around rivers, so its natural to expect them all to have devastating floods in their deep past.

Hey, guys, i'm new
first off, i'd like to say WOW, lot of deep thinking...but some overly "faith based" thinking... so here's my 2 feng.

[beginrant="true"]
In Mesopatamia, there was some pretty bad flooding that occured sporadically throughout the year, much different from the gradual and regular flooding of the nile that left deposits of mineral rich soil. When this flooding occured, it hit hard, fast, and flooded the whole river basin for a while, and when this happened, it SEEMED like the whole world was flooded because thats the extent at which you could view. Anyone heard of the ancient story Gilgamesh ? I believe it was mentioned in there.

Also, you cant really use Evolution as an argument against God, they are NOT necesarilly related. For all we know they could both be right, or even a third option may be right. Heck aliens might have seeded earth. We just dont know, and we cant prove it either.

Also, if God could have made the animals on the not eat, then wouldnt he have the power to just make them temporarilly amphibious? or divert water flow away from animal habitats? humans can be killed in many, many ways, so why pick a way that potentially destroys all higher life, including animals and plants that dont have the capacity to sin and are innocent? they're just doing as God made them to do.
[endrant="true"]

Originally posted by ZetaGundam007
Also, you cant really use Evolution as an argument against God, they are NOT necesarilly related.

Has anyone been doing that tho?

For all we know they could both be right, or even a third option may be right. Heck aliens might have seeded earth. We just dont know, and we cant prove it either.

While the alien idea and the god idea can't be demonstrated, evolution can. It is a testable scientific idea. Its been tested, its been found to work.

Also, if God could have made the animals on the not eat, then wouldnt he have the power to just make them temporarilly amphibious?

The problem with this is that one ends up requiring undemonstrable miracles every step of the way, and must also I suppose require a miracle to explain why these other miracles get left out.

Originally posted by Nygdan

For all we know they could both be right, or even a third option may be right. Heck aliens might have seeded earth. We just dont know, and we cant prove it either.

While the alien idea and the god idea can't be demonstrated, evolution can. It is a testable scientific idea. Its been tested, its been found to work.

not tested, all thats been observed is that in fossillized remains there is a gradual change in body plans within those layered sediments. You can never TEST evolution, but you can see the gradual survival of the fittest happening.

I was too lazy to search through all 6 pages of this thread, so I hope I'm not repeating someone else.

My mother, of all people, has a thoery about where the dinosaurs themselves came from. She believes they never actually lived on this planet, but were living on other planets for millions of years before Earth was created. Then, either in some cataclysmic intergalactic event, or as an act of The Creator or something, the planet Earth was formed, using pieces of planets that had since expired in one way or another.

Perhaps these dinosaurs that had died had fossilized into the rocks of other planets, those planets exploded or something, then the pieces were molded together somehow to form this planet. Then, a few million years later, humans discover the remains of these extra-terrestrial-creatures-become-terrestrial-fossils, and automatically assumed these creatures once roamed our very planet. Maybe they were right. Maybe they weren't.

I think I kind of got off-topic, although I forgot what the original topic was as usual. I think it had something to do with God creating dinosaurs, right?

Well, maybe these other planets that the "extra-terrestrial" dinosaurs lived on were planets created by OTHER deities. "Assuming there is more than one God, if there even is one). Or maybe those other planets were prototypes/tests for the final product: earth. Or maybe we're NOT the final product...