Did dinosaurs exist in "bible times"?

[Assassin X]

Ok, as always when I make a post in this section I ask that we IGNORE our diffrences on "GOD doesn't exist" or "The bible isn't real"....etc. Just play along and answer the question or give you thoughts (without bashing).

Ok, did dinosaurs exist during bible times?

Now supposely I have heard a few times from diffrent people. Some say the bible mentions things, while not specificly, that sound like there were some form of "dinosaurs" at that time. I wonder if they were, at the least, the "water" kind.

Another thing I heard is supposedly the dinosaurs that did exist then were wiped out during the flood. Although in either case I wonder where the bones are.

Lastly I also heard god wiped out the dinosaurs. Which makes me question "the flood". Did he wipe them out with that? Because if you go by our time period, "time" hasn't been around for millions of years. So not all that long ago dinosaurs were around and at some point they were wiped out by something.

And if you think about it supposedly before the flood there was no "rain". People had only known the clear sky and never seen such a thing.

So it brings up alot of questions if you just stay in the "bible themed" and era state of mind.

[Skynet12]

I wouldn't put any large sums of money on them being around, thats for sure.

[lycanox]

Trying to kill water dino's by flooding them?, God must be getting old.

Technically dinosaurs still exist, birds have clearly evolved from some of the survivors.
Ofcourse this doenst count much here. I think the bible was mistaken common animals like the commode dragon, crocodiles or large snakes.

The flood mentioned by the bible also whipped out the human population at that time, so far there hasn't been any human fossils found in an timescale even close to the dino fossils.
So its safe to conclude are talking about 2 separate historical events here.
Namingly the extinctions of the dinosaurs and the creation of the black sea after massive flooding of an large area of lowlands by the bosporus. The event that sparked the Noah myth.

[borderline]

Ok, as always when I make a post in this section I ask that we IGNORE our diffrences on "GOD doesn't exist" or "The bible isn't real"....etc. Just play along and answer the question or give you thoughts (without bashing).

Ok, did dinosaurs exist during bible times?

Now supposely I have heard a few times from diffrent people. Some say the bible mentions things, while not specificly, that sound like there were some form of "dinosaurs" at that time. I wonder if they were, at the least, the "water" kind.

Another thing I heard is supposedly the dinosaurs that did exist then were wiped out during the flood. Although in either case I wonder where the bones are.

Lastly I also heard god wiped out the dinosaurs. Which makes me question "the flood". Did he wipe them out with that? Because if you go by our time period, "time" hasn't been around for millions of years. So not all that long ago dinosaurs were around and at some point they were wiped out by something.

And if you think about it supposedly before the flood there was no "rain". People had only known the clear sky and never seen such a thing.

So it brings up alot of questions if you just stay in the "bible themed" and era state of mind.



Its well established as to dating periods for rock formations, even the simplest form of sedimentary detrital shale made from clay and silt takes at least 5 million years to form.

So if the Dinosaur period is debated as coinciding with biblical times, the minimum possible time for fossil creation of 5 million years would have to considered as a realistic jump off point for debating time factors.

[Assassin X]

BTW Aren't crocs considered dinos? I always call them that. Really them seem just to be "smaller" version of their exact older cousins.

[lycanox]

I Remember hearing they were around back then. Wouldn't be that strange, Appearently the E.L.E. wasn't as strong as they suggest.
I think that the resulting irreversible drop of the oxygen levels did most of the larger animals in.
There are several species that survived the slaughter, like rodents and sharks. All of them are the size of the animals we see today, and no super large animal has evolved since then.

[loganosborne]

BTW Aren't crocs considered dinos?
There related but there not actual dinosaurs. They belong to the Crocodilia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodilia) order.

[jeffweeder]

Ok, did dinosaurs exist during bible times?

Of course they did.-JOB 40- 41

Well if done a littlle digging through the cultures, to see what stories one would come up with.
Just like flood culture, where the stories are remarkabley similiar about an ancient flood. This is what i find;

A Sumerian story dating back to 2,000 B.C. or more tells of a hero named Gilgamesh, who, when he went to fell cedars in a remote forest, encountered a huge vicious dragon which he slew, cutting off its head as a trophy.

When Alexander the Great (c. 330 B.C.) and his soldiers marched into India, they found that the Indians worshipped huge hissing reptiles that they kept in caves.

China is renowned for its dragon stories, and dragons are prominent on Chinese pottery, embroidery and carvings.

England has its story of St George, who slew a dragon that lived in a cave.
There is the story of a 10th century Irishman who wrote of his encounter with what appears to have been a Stegosaurus.

In the 1500s, a European scientific book, Historia Animalium, listed several animals that we would call dinosaurs, as still alive.
A well-known naturalist of the time, Ulysses Aldrovandus, recorded an encounter between a peasant named Baptista and a dragon whose description fits that of the small dinosaur Tanystropheus. The encounter was on 13 May 1572, near Bologna in Italy, and the peasant killed the dragon.

Petroglyphs (drawings carved on rock) of dinosaur-like creatures have also been found.39


Ancient Indian rock drawings, like this one of a sauropod dinosaur from White River Canyon, Utah, show that dinosaurs coexisted with man.[IMG]
Ancient Indian rock drawings, like this one of a sauropod dinosaur from White River Canyon, Utah, show that dinosaurs coexisted with man.




Summary: People down through the ages have been very familiar with dragons. The descriptions of these animals fit with what we know about dinosaurs. The Bible mentions such creatures, even ones that lived in the sea and flew in the air. There is a tremendous amount of other historical evidence that such creatures have lived beside people.

[Skynet12]

...and also a lot against. 'Mum, Im' just going to the coffee shop. You want anything?' "yes please, son- half a pint of pterasaur milk and don't forget the dino repellent."

[jeffweeder]

What about a boiled egg for a whole family, and a t-bone steak for the community festival.....

I mean it is wearing a little thin this long age pre-supposition, and to keep disregarding recorded history- when -ever an act of god is said to have taken place. Why guess at / and favour unrecorded history, when we have consistent stories, held by ancestors of all breeds, regarding giant beasts, or catastrophic events?- that line up in their similarities?

Ans- We were taught-(with good money), by modern humans, to base it all on assumption.

Listen to the past.

[autryn2]

jeffweeder wrote: "Of course they did.-JOB 40- 41"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don't agree... if you actually read Job 40-41, you'll understand that God was telling Job what Job DIDN't know... like creating the earth, etc... at no time does God actually say that either the Behemoth or Leviathan are currently living. He said "whom I created with you" which means He DID create them and they DID exist at one time between the creation of our world and Job's time, but does not mean they are existing at the time that God is schooling Job.

You know, Job was a good man, and it says VOLUMES about God when Job says "now that I see you, I despise myself in ashes and dust..."
How great God must be!

[B.NyeTheUruk-Hai]

Why guess at / and favour unrecorded history, when we have consistent stories, held by ancestors of all breeds, regarding giant beasts, or catastrophic events?- that line up in their similarities? Just apply Santa Claus to your "rationale", Jeff, and you'll realize just how seriously you should consider ancestral stories...


A Sumerian story dating back to 2,000 B.C. or more tells of a hero named Gilgamesh, who, when he went to fell cedars in a remote forest, encountered a huge vicious dragon which he slew, cutting off its head as a trophy.

When Alexander the Great (c. 330 B.C.) and his soldiers marched into India, they found that the Indians worshipped huge hissing reptiles that they kept in caves.

China is renowned for its dragon stories, and dragons are prominent on Chinese pottery, embroidery and carvings.

England has its story of St George, who slew a dragon that lived in a cave.
There is the story of a 10th century Irishman who wrote of his encounter with what appears to have been a Stegosaurus. YES! I see now! And there was this story from a few decades ago of a muscular Austrian who went to Mars ( "Getch yuh ass too Maahs" ) and he actually met a woman with THREE BOOBS! I'm not kidding! THREE BOOBS! And he also met this little disfigured freak baby named Quattro Pro growing out of this guy's stomach and he just kept saying "Open your miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiind!" over and over again until he got his brains blown out by this bad-ass Richter scale guy who lost BOTH of his arms later on and couldn't make it to the party later even after Randy Quaid said "See yoo at duh paahty, Richtuh!" It's all true! I've got it on DVD...

[Smoke]

AHHHHHHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHA... wow.... hahaha

speechleessssss.....

[Assassin X]

I know this is taking something off TV. But what about the "Super Crocs" that supposedly existed during the time of the dinosaurs? They found a skeleton of one. If it existed during that time wouldn't that make it a dino?

What about sharks? Ancient killers (dinos)? Or just cousins?

I think no matter what you believe....asteroids, floods....etc, that you have to wonder if "some" form of a dinosaurs made it through this planets "wiping" out of the dinosaurs. Especially if it was a water dinosaur. Even in the extreme case of peoples belief in the asteroid scenario. Even if the whole earth was scorched couldn't a water dinosaurs still live if it was at the very depths of the Mariana Trench for instance and there was water still there?

Just a theory. Or was water totaly scorched. Sorry I for some reason forgot what science says happen to the planets water.

[loganosborne]

If it existed during that time wouldn't that make it a dino?
No. Have a look on the link I posted earlier.

What about sharks? Ancient killers (dinos)? Or just cousins?
Please tell me your joking. Sharks are fish not reptiles and there they fail the test of being a dinosaur or related. Plus they been round much longer than dinosaurs. Also dinosaurs didn't live in the sea only marine reptiles did.

that you have to wonder if "some" form of a dinosaurs made it through this planets "wiping" out of the dinosaurs.
Some might have done but couldn't adapt to the new environment and died off quickly.

[Assassin X]

If nothing survived such horrible conditions can some one explain ancient things like "Lawyers'?

[lycanox]

Some might have done but couldn't adapt to the new environment and died off quickly.

Actually they did survived, But they evolved into birds.

[loganosborne]

Actually they did survived, But they evolved into birds.
Ah yeah I forgot about the whole bird thing. But thats only from theropod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theropod) dinosaurs. As I said quite a few dinosaurs which survived died off quick apart from a few theropod dinosaurs which may have evolved into birds.

[Cartesiantheater]

I used to own a velociraptor......



.......O Chomper, Chomper! wherefore art thou Chomper...... :bncry:

[lycanox]

OK I did it......
I sold Chomper to an Chinese restaurant.

Happy now?


stay on topic, please?

[Cartesiantheater]

OK I did it......
I sold Chomper to an Chinese restaurant.

Happy now?


stay on topic, please?
..hehe...sorry.......................... :crtmn:


Why do we classify all the dinosaurs in the same group?
There are some that are clearly much closer to birds than to reptiles.

Why are they all jumbled together? Is that a mistake? Or is there some specific taxonomical reason that I'm ignorant of?

[Beatnik Bob]

no super large animal has evolved since then.

Care to revize your hypothesis?

http://steelturman.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/fat_people.JPG

[Cartesiantheater]

I Remember hearing they were around back then. Wouldn't be that strange, Appearently the E.L.E. wasn't as strong as they suggest.
I think that the resulting irreversible drop of the oxygen levels did most of the larger animals in.
There are several species that survived the slaughter, like rodents and sharks. All of them are the size of the animals we see today, and no super large animal has evolved since then.
Well, except for WHALES, which evolved more recently from a common ancestor of the hippo, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_whales) according to recent biology (well, my source is from the 90's [aside from wikipedia, that is], so it may have been refuted...)

see also, Cetartiodactyla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetartiodactyla)


Later molecular analyses included a wider sampling of artiodactyls and produced a more complete tale. Hippos were determined to be the closest relative of whales, ruminants were related to a whale/hippo clade, and pigs were more distant. In addition to producing the controversial whale/hippo clade, these analyses suggested that hippos and pigs were not closely related. This had been a popular taxonomic hypothesis (Suiformes) based on similarities in morphological (physical) characteristics.

And more on DNA evidence...


This hypothesis has been tested with DNA sequences from a host of genes: the complete mitochondrial genome (as well as several of its genes independently), beta-casein, kappa-casein, von Willebrand factor, breast cancer 1, recombination activating genes 1 and 2, cannabinoid receptor 1, and several others. These sequence data and the transposons converge on the same conclusion that hippos and whales are more closely related to one another than either is to other artiodactyls.

and of course, can any creationist here explain this? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atavism)


hind legs have been found on whales, including baleen whales, humpback whales, and in many specimens of sperm whales. Most of these are of whales with femurs, tibia, and fibulae; however, some even include feet with complete digits.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

and of course, can any creationist here explain this?

... Hell, I can explain that. It's a birth defect. More remarkable than a cleft palate, but still along the same lines.

[Cartesiantheater]

... Hell, I can explain that. It's a birth defect. More remarkable than a cleft palate, but still along the same lines.
A complet limb with feet, toes and all? As a birth defect? ...on an animal that has no legs...hmm... strange indeed....... I think dormant DNA explains it better, but hmm... who knows....

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Note I'm not saying that's at all likely, but we're going from a creationist viewpoint here. Maybe God's just fucking with us.

[Cartesiantheater]

Note I'm not saying that's at all likely, but we're going from a creationist viewpoint here. Maybe God's just fucking with us.
hahahaha! That's what I was thinking all along!

hehe...

You know, I'm surprised that I've never heard the argument that perhaps Lucifer is causing these sort of things, and that he planted the fossil record, and that he screwed with DNA to make it look like evolution happened...

That would make a lot more sense than the traditional argument that God designed the universe to have the appearance of age...

[MapMan]

I had a childrens bible that had pictures of Dinosaurs in!

[nrj]

Note I'm not saying that's at all likely, but we're going from a creationist viewpoint here. Maybe God's just fucking with us. If so, they would have to present scientific evidence to refute scientific evidence.

[Sammy56]

I had a childrens bible that had pictures of Dinosaurs in!I guess that proves it! :D

[Cartesiantheater]

If so, they would have to present scientific evidence to refute scientific evidence.

ExACTly... good call...:bondage:

[MapMan]

I guess that proves it! :D

I can't ever remember questioning the dinosaurs as a young child even though there is no mention of them in the creation story. I was really into dinosaurs and just enjoyed looking at the pictures! However, I didn't know that dinosaurs were around before man and so I had no reason to question the logic.

:0.02: :

As with anything as old as the bible, we have to appreciate that thousands of years ago, people didn't know what we now know about the past. If you have no concept of evolution then it is entirely plausible that you create a theory based on the reverse of population expansion (i.e. as you look backwards in time, the population gets smaller into there are just 2 people, 'Adam' & 'Eve'). It's perfect logic. If you can't explain where these 2 people came from then the obvious thing is to say that 'God did it'. We do the same thing nowadays but use a secular explanation. If it can't be explained then it is some sort of hallucination, or figment of imagination or a mental illness. If that doesn't work then we set a team of scientists to create as watertight a thoery as they possibly can and then we teach it in schools. Eventually the theories are adapted to fit new occurences or abandonned completely - religion does this too!

[Goldmoon]

Quote from "Job" in the bible:

"15 Take a look at the mighty behemoth. (1) I made it, just as I made you. It eats grass like an ox.
16 See its powerful loins and the muscles of its belly.
17 Its tail is as straight as a cedar. The sinews of its thighs are tightly knit together.
18 Its bones are tubes of bronze. Its limbs are like bars of iron.
19 It is a prime example of God's amazing handiwork. Only its Creator can threaten it.
20 The mountains offer it their best food, where all the wild animals play.
21 It lies down under the lotus plants, hidden by the reeds.
22 The lotus plants give it shade among the willows beside the stream.
23 It is not disturbed by raging rivers, not even when the swelling Jordan rushes down upon it.
24 No one can catch it off guard or put a ring in its nose and lead it away."

Those verses reveal that at least some dinosaurs existed sometime at the same time as man.

Carbon Dating Problems:
<Link to this Article> (http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html)


Many people are under the false impression that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs and other extinct animals lived millions of years ago. What many do not realize is that carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs.

The reason? Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years. So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way.

But there is the problem. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says). They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion.

What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated? - At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.

This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead.

This is common practice.

They then use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again.

They do this many times, using a different dating method each time. The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other! - how’s that for an "exact" science?

They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be (based upon the Geologic column).

So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion.

Their assumptions dictate their conclusions.

So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts?

Unbiased science changes the theory to support the facts. They should not change the facts to fit the theory.


A Dinosaur carbon dated at 9,890 and 16,000 years old NOT millions of years old like evolutionists claim

I have documentation of an Allosaurus bone that was sent to The University of Arizona to be carbon dated. The results were 9,890 +/- 60 years and 16,120 +/- 220 years.

[DontBeAfraid]

Those verses reveal that at least some dinosaurs existed sometime at the same time as man.No they dont you fucking retard! They prove that large elephants lived within the past 10000 years.


Carbon Dating Problems:... some bullshit...There are more ways to radiometrically date something than just carbon14! C14 dating is good about 60000 years back and then we get into OTHER isotopes. And guess what! YOU CANT CARBON DATE SOMETHING THAT DOESNT HAVE ANY FUCKING CARBON IN IT! This includes ALL FOSSILS!

[cupowar]

No they dont you fucking retard! They prove that large elephants lived within the past 10000 years.

There are more ways to radiometrically date something than just carbon14! C14 dating is good about 60000 years back and then we get into OTHER isotopes. And guess what! YOU CANT CARBON DATE SOMETHING THAT DOESNT HAVE ANY FUCKING CARBON IN IT! This includes ALL FOSSILS!

Jesus Christ, dude. Does someone shit in your cereal every morning. You've got to be the angriest person on AO.


Back on topic:

I've heard theories that dinoaurs where a part of god's "6 days of creation", whose only purpose is providing fossil fuels for man all these years later.

My favorite theory involves aliens using earth as a large zoo and putting dinosaurs here in order to view them safely.

[DontBeAfraid]

Jesus Christ, dude. Does someone shit in your cereal every morning. You've got to be the angriest person on AO.Its just that DESPITE, all this bullshit being disproved, debunked, torn down, and properly explained again and again and again and again here at AO we still have fucking retards who believe in it and post the SAME EXACT bullshit...

You cant carbon date something that doesnt have any FUCKING CARBON IN IT!

[cupowar]

Its just that DESPITE, all this bullshit being disproved, debunked, torn down, and properly explained again and again and again and again here at AO we still have fucking retards who believe in it and post the SAME EXACT bullshit...

You cant carbon date something that doesnt have any FUCKING CARBON IN IT!

Okay, I agree with you, but all it takes is an explaination in your response without all the name-calling, which detracts from your comment.

[MaximumPain]

DBA is correct I just think he needs to get laid or something.

[DontBeAfraid]

I get laid EVERY DAY! That doesnt cancel out EVERY DAY that stupid shit is posted here.... Maybe if I got laid every time something stupidly ignorant of evolution was posted here at AO I might come off as "more gentle"... But if that were the case I would never have time to even read the stupid shit.

[Godsgifttomankind]

Hello Cartesiantheater and thank-you for your challenge,

and of course, can any creationist here explain this? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atavism)

This question has been asked before and I have answered it but I will explain it again for the benefit of those that were not here in ancient history.

What is seen as Atavism can be explained using alternate logical explanations.



hind legs have been found on whales, including baleen whales, humpback whales, and in many specimens of sperm whales. Most of these are of whales with femurs, tibia, and fibulae; however, some even include feet with complete digits.

Most representations of Atavisms can be related to a process of sexual reproduction, in the case of the whales mentioned above as with other examples, what is seen as vestigial, coccygeal and caudal can all be shown to have very significant purposes. In the case of these whales the legs play an important part in coitus and without them would be almost impossible.

I can draw you a picture if it would help!

I suggest that you look more closely at Baleens to see the beauty of these so called Atavisms, specifically those related to the birthing of young. There is masked within this process a hidden wonder that speaks loudly of the intricate organization of the creator.

[lycanox]

Hello Cartesiantheater and thank-you for your challenge,


Most representations of Atavisms can be related to a process of sexual reproduction, in the case of the whales mentioned above as with other examples, what is seen as vestigial, coccygeal and caudal can all be shown to have very significant purposes. In the case of these whales the legs play an important part in coitus and without them would be almost impossible.

I can draw you a picture if it would help!

I suggest that you look more closely at Baleens to see the beauty of these so called Atavisms, specifically those related to the birthing of young. There is masked within this process a hidden wonder that speaks loudly of the intricate organization of the creator.
You mean an old trait being reused for a different purpose. Like explained in evolution?

And if the whales were created. Why would they even need such weird feature. And why don't all whales have it?

[Cartesiantheater]

Hello Cartesiantheater and thank-you for your challenge,


This question has been asked before and I have answered it but I will explain it again for the benefit of those that were not here in ancient history.

What is seen as Atavism can be explained using alternate logical explanations.




Most representations of Atavisms can be related to a process of sexual reproduction, in the case of the whales mentioned above as with other examples, what is seen as vestigial, coccygeal and caudal can all be shown to have very significant purposes. In the case of these whales the legs play an important part in coitus and without them would be almost impossible.

I can draw you a picture if it would help!

I suggest that you look more closely at Baleens to see the beauty of these so called Atavisms, specifically those related to the birthing of young. There is masked within this process a hidden wonder that speaks loudly of the intricate organization of the creator.

Uh... why, thanks for responding to a post that is over a year old my friend...





But you didn't really explain away the problem, you see.

A.) In the case of whales, I'm not talking about little stubs. I'm talking about entire feet complete with digits. These are not normally on whales. Why are they on ancient whales?

B.) The entire TRADEMARK of evolution is OLD organs used for NOVEL functions. All you have done with your rebut is explained why so called "Irreducible Complexity" is not so irreducible. Old organs used for previous functions can be adapted to take on new ones as the creature evolves.

C.) With your clever stroke you didn't explain vestigial organs and atavism in other creatures. Like this:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=mutant-chicken-grows-alli

A chicken with alligator-like teeth. Why, GGTMK, why would a chicken be sprouting alligator-like teeth?

You can't just pick and chose, my friend. If you think there is no evidence for long dormant genes found in ancient ancestors, then you have to explain ALL of them? What is the use of a chicken sprouting alligator teeth if it KILLS it prior to hatching?


Further, through genetic manipulation, we can coerce chickens to develop teeth as well. So, they get alligator teeth NATURALLY (and die- clear evidence that there is no useful function for them ==> evidence FOR evolution), or they can get teeth because we turn on dormant genes within them (note- we do NOT add "teeth" genes to these creatures. The genes are already there. We simply turn them on, by "mimicking" the molecular signals that "tell" the tooth gene to turn on. ) Why does this happen? Why would there be a dormant alligator-like tooth gene in chickens?


While you're at it, why is there possibly some genetic similarities between chickens and Tyrannosaurus Rex? (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-04-24-trex-chicken-dna_N.htm) (based on protein analysis, there is definitely a match. What is yet to be determined is how statistically significant this is- in other words, evidence points to the relationship, but more evidence is needed at this time.)

Why are their ancient dinosaurs with feathers?

Etc.

Why is it that so much of the available evidence points to birds descending from dinosaurs? Is this all one mad coincidence? Is there a genuine relationship like the evidence suggests, or is God just fucking with us?

[Freddy]

I can certainly understand DBA's frustration with those who post here and provide no evidence for their assertions.

Quote by cupowar:
"Back on topic:

I've heard theories that dinoaurs where a part of god's "6 days of creation", whose only purpose is providing fossil fuels for man all these years later.

My favorite theory involves aliens using earth as a large zoo and putting dinosaurs here in order to view them safely."

Did any of the proponents of these "theories" that you have heard of provide any empirical evidence to support them?

[Goldmoon]

In evolutionary theory, dinosaurs being some of the first lifeforms on earth, how did they become so big when evolving from mere bacteria? Did they have more time to evolve than humans did? And if so, why are humans so much more advanced?

Now, in a mindset that the full concept of evolution is truth, would it be possible for a creator race to have evolved things elsewhere, then taken the DNA and planted lifeforms here on earth to adapt further?

In that case, it would be a matter of whether you want to ally with your creators, and meet them, or go to war with them.

[Freddy]

In evolutionary theory, dinosaurs being some of the first lifeforms on earth, how did they become so big when evolving from mere bacteria? Did they have more time to evolve than humans did? And if so, why are humans so much more advanced?

First, life on earth began about 3.7 billion years ago and dinosaurs did not appear until after 3.47 years after life had begun on earth. This hardly makes dinosaurs "some of the first lifeforms on earth".

From Wiki:
Dinosaurs (Greek δεινόσαυρος, deinosauros) were the dominant vertebrate animals of terrestrial ecosystems for over 160 million years, from the late Triassic period (about 230 million years ago) until the end of the Cretaceous period (65 million years ago), when most of them became extinct in the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event

[Goldmoon]

First, life on earth began about 3.7 billion years ago and dinosaurs did not appear until after 3.47 years after life had begun on earth. This hardly makes dinosaurs "some of the first lifeforms on earth".

At least, thats what the sacred "Textbooks" say. From my experience, and philosophy, I don't buy into their crap. The earth would have been a different distance from the sun if it were that long ago. I think it went down differently, maybe some things developed, then the earth was broken in half in the "Tiamat" collision.

[DontBeAfraid]

In evolutionary theory, dinosaurs being some of the first lifeforms on earthNO! YOU FAIL! ffs

[Goldmoon]

Ok, chill, I know there were bacteria, fish, then amphibians apparently... But dinosaurs were the first large land animals/reptiles.

But I still think things were "seeded" here, and rightly so.

[Freddy]

At least, thats what the sacred "Textbooks" say. From my experience, and philosophy, I don't buy into their crap. The earth would have been a different distance from the sun if it were that long ago. Let alone not broken in half yet.
And your evidence is?
From the link:

When did the dinosaurs first appear on Earth?

The oldest dinosaur types are known from rocks in Argentina and Brazil and are about 230 million years old. The most primitive of these types, Eoraptor, was a small meat-eating dinosaur. Because Eoraptor's skeleton shows some advanced skeletal features, older dinosaurs may yet be found.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dinosaurs/when.html

[Godsgifttomankind]

Hello Cartesiantheater and thank-you for your objection,

Uh... why, thanks for responding to a post that is over a year old my friend...

While I did not bounce this thread, it is well worth another good look!


But you didn't really explain away the problem, you see.

You are very right and I am very willing to examine all challenges that you have to put forth in this matter and believe that the evidence will speak for itself.


A.) In the case of whales, I'm not talking about little stubs. I'm talking about entire feet complete with digits. These are not normally on whales. Why are they on ancient whales?

My apologies for having misunderstood that this reference was to ancient whales and not a present day phenomena that you were presenting. I have now done my homework on this matter and after looking at the finds of Prof Philip Gingerich have come to the conclusion that this is in fact not a whale but an entirely different animal that has become extinct. Gingerich has been searching the world over to find a fossil to fulfill this presumed missing link and when he found it, he did not even like what he had found and had to rethink his entire theory. This only proves to me that we all need to step back and take a good look at what it is that we are looking for because there are certain things that no matter how hard we look we are not going to find and the future of DNA examination is going to show us many thing that we may not be quite ready to accept.


B.) The entire TRADEMARK of evolution is OLD organs used for NOVEL functions. All you have done with your rebut is explained why so called "Irreducible Complexity" is not so irreducible. Old organs used for previous functions can be adapted to take on new ones as the creature evolves.

You are right and so it would be good if we focus on the real question and that is of understanding the laws of innate development and how that relates to DNA manipulation.


C.) With your clever stroke you didn't explain vestigial organs and atavism in other creatures.

So true and yet the world has not ended so there is still time for some evolution in our understanding.


Like this:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=mutant-chicken-grows-alli

A chicken with alligator-like teeth. Why, GGTMK, why would a chicken be sprouting alligator-like teeth?

My first thought would relate to the possibility of the need being similar to that of the Baleen young that develop teeth just prior to birth, so that the offspring is able to chew open the birth sac and free itself, since this is impossible for the parent to do, after the birth the teeth are reabsorbed. This is a very plausible explanation with the chick as it is required to break itself free of the membranes and chalaza, at which point it is able to peck through the shell of the egg.


You can't just pick and chose, my friend. If you think there is no evidence for long dormant genes found in ancient ancestors, then you have to explain ALL of them? What is the use of a chicken sprouting alligator teeth if it KILLS it prior to hatching?

We are making the assumption that it was the teeth that caused the side effect of death and not another effect of the manipulation that caused the death.


Further, through genetic manipulation, we can coerce chickens to develop teeth as well. So, they get alligator teeth NATURALLY (and die- clear evidence that there is no useful function for them ==> evidence FOR evolution), or they can get teeth because we turn on dormant genes within them (note- we do NOT add "teeth" genes to these creatures. The genes are already there. We simply turn them on, by "mimicking" the molecular signals that "tell" the tooth gene to turn on. ) Why does this happen? Why would there be a dormant alligator-like tooth gene in chickens?

Matthew Harris was able to create a virus that caused teeth to grow that were later reabsorbed into the beak and thus it is clear that teeth are a latent characteristic within the gene of the chicken. While you state that this is Atavism, my understanding of the matter is that these and other latent characteristics are there to facilitate the survival of the species, in many diverse ways, they are the very means by which species are able to overcome their environment.



While you're at it, why is there possibly some genetic similarities between chickens and Tyrannosaurus Rex? (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-04-24-trex-chicken-dna_N.htm) (based on protein analysis, there is definitely a match. What is yet to be determined is how statistically significant this is- in other words, evidence points to the relationship, but more evidence is needed at this time.)

While this is a very interesting point, humans have hair and there are many other creatures that have hair and while this is significant it does not prove any greater connection but time and further DNA analysis will give us all a better understanding.


Why are their ancient dinosaurs with feathers?

See above answer.


Why is it that so much of the available evidence points to birds descending from dinosaurs? Is this all one mad coincidence? Is there a genuine relationship like the evidence suggests, or is God just fucking with us?

The answer I would say that is more suited is that we have yet to fully understand all that is involved with this and at the present we are struggling to find relationships in areas that relationships may not even exist.

[Traveler]

Going back to the original question. Here is one.


Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
Job 40:16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
Job 40:17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his male organs are wrapped together.
Job 40:18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
Job 40:19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach him.
Job 40:20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
Job 40:21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
Job 40:22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook encompass him.
Job 40:23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
Job 40:24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

It would seem from the context that this creature was still on the earth at the time this book was written and was known to Job

[Cartesiantheater]

GGTMK, in ALL cases in which the chicks developed teeth NATURALLY via mutation, they died.

The only times the LIVED and had teeth was when genetic engineers injected the viruses to mimic what was going on when the chicks naturally mutated (engineered without the nasty side effect of death, of course).



Which brings up an interesting question, the one that seems most pertinent to your beliefs:

(since this is the religion section I will go there)

Why is it that, for you, in order for God to be real each and every part of a creature must have a current practical use? Did it not occur to you that occasional useless or even detrimental attributes to a creature were NECESSARY in order for the Creator to have a universe that allows for free will? After all, if the Creator's hand is in EVERYTHING to the last detail, there is no possible way for free will to exist, logically speaking, as far as I can tell. Randomness and even accidents, if we suppose there is any intentionality in the universe, (a direct consequence of randomness) are required in any universe in which all things are not determined purely by causality (i.e. a universe in which it is possible for free will to exist).

So why so strongly do you oppose features in created creatures that have no pertinent value to the creature, other than if the creature didn't have that feature it wouldn't exist (because it HAS the feature only BECAUSE of the evolutionary lineage it has)?


If we're to have a discussion about God and evolution, before any science is discussed these philosophical things must be examined, I think.

[Godsgifttomankind]

Hello Cartesiantheater and thank-you for your rurp,

GGTMK, in ALL cases in which the chicks developed teeth NATURALLY via mutation, they died.

The only times the LIVED and had teeth was when genetic engineers injected the viruses to mimic what was going on when the chicks naturally mutated (engineered without the nasty side effect of death, of course).

In the first case it would seem that these could not live because they did not fit within the natural order of things and in the second case it shows us that there is an allowance for a temporary existence of teeth.


Which brings up an interesting question, the one that seems most pertinent to your beliefs:

(since this is the religion section I will go there)

Why is it that, for you, in order for God to be real each and every part of a creature must have a current practical use?

The God that I believe in is a God of order and not of disorder, if in the universe there was one point that was impractical then such would not be the case.


Did it not occur to you that occasional useless or even detrimental attributes to a creature were NECESSARY in order for the Creator to have a universe that allows for free will? After all, if the Creator's hand is in EVERYTHING to the last detail, there is no possible way for free will to exist, logically speaking, as far as I can tell.

You have presented a very interesting argument and with it the opportunity to examine the potentials for freewill, for if we truly examine the world around us there are certain aspects that become very obvious. When we examine the natural order of things, there is clearly only one real choice, that is to say there are other choices but the consequences of those other choices are deadly. It is like jumping out of a plane without a parachute believing that your freewill will allow you to overcome gravity.


Randomness and even accidents, if we suppose there is any intentionality in the universe, (a direct consequence of randomness) are required in any universe in which all things are not determined purely by causality (i.e. a universe in which it is possible for free will to exist).

Science and scientific measure is all about causality and the quantification of it, the more we examine the more we come to understand this. The question then is how can such order exist and still allow freewill? The answer comes in understanding the difference between man and every other creature and that is the ability to reason and completely change direction if we are willing. The world that we live in is based upon many diverse understandings, understandings based upon a mixture of Truth and error all mixed in together and we are all free to believe what ever we want to. While this is true the only thing really worth believing in is the Truth and this can only happen if we are willing to make the effort to examine the evidence to find the Truth and thus the example of the freewill offering.


So why so strongly do you oppose features in created creatures that have no pertinent value to the creature, other than if the creature didn't have that feature it wouldn't exist (because it HAS the feature only BECAUSE of the evolutionary lineage it has)?

The existence of non pertinent items would mean that there is no logical order to the world of existence and without order this would be equivalent to non existence, that everything is fairytales and vain imaginings. It is order that allows for logic and reason to be used and randomness has no provision for logic and thus for us to seek logic is to seek order.


If we're to have a discussion about God and evolution, before any science is discussed these philosophical things must be examined, I think.

You are right it is imparative that we understand these issues for without logic and order there is no real point in any discussion, only disordered chaos.

[Cartesiantheater]

Hello Cartesiantheater and thank-you for your rurp,

What is a rurp?



In the first case it would seem that these could not live because they did not fit within the natural order of things and in the second case it shows us that there is an allowance for a temporary existence of teeth.

The first case however, also could be interpreted to suggest that there may be a genealogical link between chickens and dinosaurs. In any case it is evidence that is consistent with the the genetic view of evolution- i.e. it is a prediction of the genetic view of evolution confirmed by observation.



The God that I believe in is a God of order and not of disorder, if in the universe there was one point that was impractical then such would not be the case.

Why should the conclusion follow from the premise?

Take an entertaining video game for example. It is a creation of order intended for the purpose of entertainment. But the designer adds in a randomness to the game in order to make it less predictable, thereby maximizing the entertainment value (if you knew exactly what would happen every time you played it, why would you play it at all?). This is a perfect example of a creation made from a logical and ordered being (at least when the game was being designed) in which disorder was intentionally added to the game to make it better.




You have presented a very interesting argument and with it the opportunity to examine the potentials for freewill, for if we truly examine the world around us there are certain aspects that become very obvious. When we examine the natural order of things, there is clearly only one real choice, that is to say there are other choices but the consequences of those other choices are deadly. It is like jumping out of a plane without a parachute believing that your freewill will allow you to overcome gravity.

So, you prefer a universal that is entirely ruled by causation? Like Einstein desired, for example? Interesting.





Science and scientific measure is all about causality and the quantification of it, the more we examine the more we come to understand this.

The only problem with your conclusion is that science in the 20th century has found with near absolute certainty that the very fabric of the universe itself is NOT entirely causal but is instead intimately connected to randomness. When you look at things on the large scale, it appears that the universe is run by causality. But when you look at what the large scale is made of, the basic building blocks of existence, it becomes clear that the true nature of the universe has a purely random element to it.

Two of the very pillars that the universe is founded upon is probability and as a consequence uncertainty. This is near undeniable. It comes directly from the fact that matter has a wave nature. It isn't because when we examine something we change it. The uncertainty we find in nature comes directly from the fact that there is a wave nature to... well... nature.

I cannot stress this enough: The Uncertainty Principle DOES NOT ARISE from the fact that our measurement of something disturbs it and so as a consequence there is uncertainty in our measurement (although by observing something we DO disturb it and ADD to the uncertainty of the measurement). Uncertainty in the sense discussed in quantum mechanics comes from the nature of matter itself, NOT from the nature of our methods of observation. The nature of our measurements has NOTHING to do with the Uncertainty Principle. *if we assume that matter has a wave nature to it, that is. This, however, has been confirmed in experiments with at least one sub atomic particle (electrons). There may be more, but I cannot recall.



This, in a nutshell, means that the universe itself comes built in with a degree of randomness. We don't see this wildness on the large scale because probability waves cancel as your "magnifying glass" becomes less powerful, but the basic building blocks of the universe have inherently random aspects.

This seems to present a problem to your definition of an ordered universe, so I predict that you will deny the true nature of the Uncertainty Principle.






The question then is how can such order exist and still allow freewill? The answer comes in understanding the difference between man and every other creature and that is the ability to reason and completely change direction if we are willing. The world that we live in is based upon many diverse understandings, understandings based upon a mixture of Truth and error all mixed in together and we are all free to believe what ever we want to. While this is true the only thing really worth believing in is the Truth and this can only happen if we are willing to make the effort to examine the evidence to find the Truth and thus the example of the freewill offering.

Yes, but in a truly causal universe all of the magic of consciousness is simply the zoomed out perspective of purely mechanical processes going on in the electrical machines we call our brains.




The existence of non pertinent items would mean that there is no logical order to the world of existence and without order this would be equivalent to non existence, that everything is fairytales and vain imaginings. It is order that allows for logic and reason to be used and randomness has no provision for logic and thus for us to seek logic is to seek order.

I do not agree that your conclusion follows from your initial premise. My video game example is my rebut to you on this issue so far. We'll see where it goes from here.







Rather than denying the reality of the universe (including its inherent randomness), I think you should just modify and expand your close minded view on what constitutes a purposeful universe (in terms of a Creator). Unfortunately however, I do not think you are ready to do so at this time, so the discussion will continue.

Of course, I could be wrong, lol. :bounce:






EDIT- As an aside, sorry to bring this up again.

About the connection between dinosaurs and birds.

Is THIS (http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/prehistoric/velociraptor-mongoliensis.html) just coincidence?

or This (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070920145402.htm)?

And here's a wiki about Microraptor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microraptor


Velociraptor highlights many of the numerous similarities between dinosaurs and birds, which go far beyond the skin-deep appearance of feathers. Like birds, Velociraptor had hollow bones, tended nests of eggs, and probably behaved in similar ways.

and


[...] said Mark Norell, a Curator in the Division of Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History and co-author on the study. "Both have wishbones, brooded their nests, possess hollow bones, and were covered in feathers. If animals like velociraptor were alive today our first impression would be that they were just very unusual looking birds". [...]

So, Velociraptor mongoliensis had feathers like a bird (according to new findings). It had hollow bones like a bird. It tended nests of eggs like a bird, its bone structure is similar to birds, etc. Yet you are saying any ancestral relationship between birds and dinosaurs is not supported by the evidence? Not to be an asshole, but this highlights a very important mistake creationists tend to make: they can point to one piece of evidence being not all that conclusive about what it means, and so conclude that evolution is wrong, but at the same time they then ignore the myriad of other supporting evidence! It's not like the protein correlation between T. Rex and chickens is the only evidence linking birds and dinosaurs. There is so much more evidence that suggests the link! But by expressing that ONE PARTICULAR piece of evidence isn't conclusive, you assume you have therefore shown that the conclusion that dinosaurs and birds are related is unreasonable. How is this justified?

[Godsgifttomankind]

Hello Cartesiantheater and thank-you for your consternation,

What is a rurp?

It is the acronym for Released Ultimate Reality Piton, the piton is the pointed tool that is used for mountain climbing.

It would seem that the mountain that we are climbing here is the Truth, see you at the top!


The first case however, also could be interpreted to suggest that there may be a genealogical link between chickens and dinosaurs. In any case it is evidence that is consistent with the the genetic view of evolution- i.e. it is a prediction of the genetic view of evolution confirmed by observation.

You are very correct that it could be and is interpreted in just that way and it is also true that many things are lost in translation and that only through an indepth anaylysis is it possible to come to an understanding of the truth.


Why should the conclusion follow from the premise?

In a logical argument the conclusion is always balanced with the premise and the body of evidence is in the middle, when such is not the case then what is presented is not logical.


Take an entertaining video game for example. It is a creation of order intended for the purpose of entertainment. But the designer adds in a randomness to the game in order to make it less predictable, thereby maximizing the entertainment value (if you knew exactly what would happen every time you played it, why would you play it at all?). This is a perfect example of a creation made from a logical and ordered being (at least when the game was being designed) in which disorder was intentionally added to the game to make it better.

What you are calling randomness is a calculated program that is designed to return a specific value based upon a specific criteria and while the game allows for differentiation it is still locked within specific parameters, that of the limitations of the program. Thus what appears to be randomness is in fact controlled and could be and will be duplicated many times over.


So, you prefer a universal that is entirely ruled by causation? Like Einstein desired, for example? Interesting.

This is very interesting, for when we understand the causation it is possible to have more than just a random effect and at the same understand how relative that everything is.


The only problem with your conclusion is that science in the 20th century has found with near absolute certainty that the very fabric of the universe itself is NOT entirely causal but is instead intimately connected to randomness.

Looking at it, it is also possible that what science is seeing as random is so complex that while appearing random, it is in fact ordered. The evidence is the final qualifier and as our ability to examine that evidence increases so does our awareness and understanding.


When you look at things on the large scale, it appears that the universe is run by causality. But when you look at what the large scale is made of, the basic building blocks of existence, it becomes clear that the true nature of the universe has a purely random element to it.

Then you will have to show me this randomness, so that I can see it for myself.


Two of the very pillars that the universe is founded upon is probability and as a consequence uncertainty. This is near undeniable. It comes directly from the fact that matter has a wave nature. It isn't because when we examine something we change it. The uncertainty we find in nature comes directly from the fact that there is a wave nature to... well... nature.

Waves are caused by one body acting upon another, it is when we study and understand this nature that causation becomes clearer and what we saw as the probability of something happening gives way to happening.


I cannot stress this enough: The Uncertainty Principle DOES NOT ARISE from the fact that our measurement of something disturbs it and so as a consequence there is uncertainty in our measurement (although by observing something we DO disturb it and ADD to the uncertainty of the measurement). Uncertainty in the sense discussed in quantum mechanics comes from the nature of matter itself, NOT from the nature of our methods of observation. The nature of our measurements has NOTHING to do with the Uncertainty Principle. *if we assume that matter has a wave nature to it, that is. This, however, has been confirmed in experiments with at least one sub atomic particle (electrons). There may be more, but I cannot recall.

You are entirely correct, the uncertainty arises from the very nature of the means by which we calculate more than the observation itself and thus when we take into account the vary nature of that which we observe and allow our calculations to reflect this our results become much clearer. The problem is that most people think in linear terms because the equational complexity is far to great for the average mind to allow.


This, in a nutshell, means that the universe itself comes built in with a degree of randomness. We don't see this wildness on the large scale because probability waves cancel as your "magnifying glass" becomes less powerful, but the basic building blocks of the universe have inherently random aspects.

It would just as easily be said that as the magnifying glass becomes more and more focused that probability is eliminated and an even greater order is seen.


This seems to present a problem to your definition of an ordered universe, so I predict that you will deny the true nature of the Uncertainty Principle.

On the contrary I have no problem with the Uncertainty Principle for it is clearly the next evolution in that which was started by Heisenberg and if we do not allow for uncertainty in our calculations then we will never attain to the truth of the matter.


Yes, but in a truly causal universe all of the magic of consciousness is simply the zoomed out perspective of purely mechanical processes going on in the electrical machines we call our brains.

I see so now you believe in magic, is not magic just an illusion, a clever deception from what is really happening, a creative misleading effort to hide the ordered nature of reality?


I do not agree that your conclusion follows from your initial premise. My video game example is my rebut to you on this issue so far. We'll see where it goes from here.


I played your video game and while it was interesting, it was also very predictable, so maybe now it is time to look at the game of life and look at this thread from a similar but different perspective.

Was the Word of God around while the dinosaurs lived?


Rather than denying the reality of the universe (including its inherent randomness), I think you should just modify and expand your close minded view on what constitutes a purposeful universe (in terms of a Creator). Unfortunately however, I do not think you are ready to do so at this time, so the discussion will continue.

Then please be so kind as to inform me as to the purpose of this universe, so that by that information my mind may be opened!!


Of course, I could be wrong, lol. :bounce:

The interesting thing is that I see a purpose in every aspect of this Universe, there is not one aspect of it that I see as Atavistic and yet I clearly am the one that needs to have my mind opened for it is very clear that I am nothing more than a PUTZ, which in Yiddish means a useless piece of skin. You see I believe that many Hebrews also believe in Atavism that the foreskin has no practical purpose and as such needed to be removed!

All humor a side, I look forward to your response and thank-you again for taking the time to share your perspective.

[Goldmoon]

I appreciate the time you take to examine and explain each individual point Cartesian and Godsgift. Thanks. I would give rep if I could, but 24 hours haven't passed.

And thanks traveler, for posting the Behemoth verses.

[Cyranothe2nd]

In evolutionary theory, dinosaurs being some of the first lifeforms on earth, how did they become so big when evolving from mere bacteria? Did they have more time to evolve than humans did? And if so, why are humans so much more advanced?


In this post you asked how evolutionary theory explains dinosaurs and when someone pointed out how your time line was off according to evolutionary theory, you answer :

At least, thats what the sacred "Textbooks" say. From my experience, and philosophy, I don't buy into their crap.

Didn't you ASK about evolutionary theory? So why in the very next post do you automatically discount what someone says about evolution? :ohmy:

In answer to your question:
1. How did dinosaurs get so bid when evolving from mere bacteria? They didn't evolve from bacteria.
2. Did they have more time to evolve than humans did? Yes. And in answer to the automatic next question "Why then aren't they more advanced than humans?" Just because they never built cities doesn't mean that they weren't just as fit to survive. Evolution is about survival, not the creation of intelligence or society. Evolution doesn't have an "end"--we aren't the end product. We are only a single product of evolution, no more favored than any other. Our intelligence was an advantage and so it was kept but we are weaker than many other species. Our intelligence evens out the scales and allowed us to survive but it doesn't mean that intelligence is the only means of survival or fitness. Being the biggest or toughest can also do the trick.
3. Why are humans so much more advanced? There are many reasons posited for this (this list is by no means comprehensive). First, humans have a much more complex brain than dinosaurs did. Second, we have hands capable of making tools. Third, we are social creatures. Fourth, we developed language. For all of these reasons we are much more advanced than other animals.

[Goldmoon]

I believe there is evolution, I just don't believe everything evolved "Here"

[Beatnik Bob]

No they dont you fucking retard! They prove that large elephants lived within the past 10000 years.
Well, I dont know if I agree with the passage, BUT, I DO know that if it were an elephant it would be called an elephant, as is the case in many other parts of the bible.

I might also note that an elephant never has had a "tail like a cedar tree."

Not that it really matters.. just my 2 pennies. :D

[Cartesiantheater]

Okay, but back to the original question:

"Did dinos live in Biblical times?"

Well, first of all, what is the definition of dinosaur? Because quite frankly their progeny DID exist in Biblical times and does today!

Lo! Modern dinosaurs! (from the theropods):


http://www.gotouring.com/razzledazzle/images/cockfight12.jpg

(note: I'm against cockfighting, but this pic shows the dynamics of what ancient dinosaur combat might have resembled)




Based upon new fossils like these, we know that the theropod dinosaurs had feathers

http://notexactlyrocketscience.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/800px-microraptor_fossil1.jpg
^^ microraptor


It just so happens that the theropod dinosaurs had many more physical features in line with birds than reptiles. And mircroraptor probably actually flew! Or at least glided in trees (after all, it had wings- 2 sets, to be precise). And NO it wasn't a "bird" in the sense that humans usually define them. This was a genuine dinosaur. It had teeth and various other "velociraptor-like" features. (although it's size was comparable to modern birds) The problem, of course, is that there isn't really a huge difference between some of the theropods and todays Aves class! Why? Because they are very closely related.










So,basically, YES dinosaurs lived in Biblical times. They just had beaks instead of teeth.

[Beatnik Bob]

But the descriptions of leviathan and behemoth ARE uncannily like a dinosaur not a chicken.

[Cartesiantheater]

But the descriptions of leviathan and behemoth ARE uncannily like a dinosaur not a chicken.

Do you believe fire breathing dragons existed too? What about flying serpentine dragons in Asia? I suppose those were real, right, since there are ancient descriptions of them?


But there WERE very very large birds that lived even recently:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Giantbirds.png

The purple one is a bird that went extinct only a few hundred years ago. Of course, these creatures didn't eat people... but I imagine they beat the shit out of them if they got too close to their eggs or territory. I mean... that is one LARGE turkey...


Could you imagine being chased by one of those sonsamabiches?


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/Aepyornis_maximus_01_L.D..jpg

^^ "Don't fuck with me son... I'll bite your nether regions off..."




Yeah, that beast would fuck up your world if you didn't have ten dudes with spears...

[Beatnik Bob]

Do you believe fire breathing dragons existed too? What about flying serpentine dragons in Asia? I suppose those were real, right, since there are ancient descriptions of them?

Yes, but there are no bones of them, Cart. Unless you can produce a dragon skeleton I wont be convinced...


The purple one is a bird that went extinct only a few hundred years ago. Of course, these creatures didn't eat people... but I imagine they beat the shit out of them if they got too close to their eggs or territory. I mean... that is one LARGE turkey...


Could you imagine being chased by one of those sonsamabiches?
Yes, an explorer to Madagascar actually reported seeing recent skeletons of these giant birds, and seeing their nests...I think he was a bit to scared to actually search out the real thing tho once he got a look at their huge feathers laying about :grin

[Cartesiantheater]

Yes, but there are no bones of them, Cart. Unless you can produce a dragon skeleton I wont be convinced...

Yeah, but there isn't a description of dinosaurs in the Bible. (oh, and dinosaur skeletons look remarkably like dragon skeletons might look, don't you think?...)






This


Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
Job 40:16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
Job 40:17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his male organs are wrapped together.
Job 40:18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
Job 40:19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach him.
Job 40:20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
Job 40:21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
Job 40:22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook encompass him.
Job 40:23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
Job 40:24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

Is not a description of a dinosaur.


It is probably based on a description of an elephant. mammoth or a mastodon (as described in oral tales passed on- they had long hairy tails like "cedar"). Some of these suckers lived to about 4000 BC, so it isn't too much of a stretch to assume that scripture, if it is based on reality, is describing something like a mastodon. (of course, you would then have to assume that there was migration from the Americas to the Old World prior to recorded history but after the original migration to the New World by the Inuit, etc). But some mammoths also lived further than the usual 10000 BC cut off most people give them. Regardless, and elephant would be a large enough beast to fit most of the description.

But all you need is for some people to have seen something like a Mastodon and for their testimony to become oral legend... the PRESTO, you have, after a couple thousand years of exaggeration, the behemoth. (hell, don't even need that... an elephant would do the trick just fine)






There is ZERO reason to believe that any description in the Bible is referring to a dinosaur. There is only creationist propaganda for that.





Oh, one more thing. Some scholars believe the phrase "tail like cedar" was actually a euphemism for penis.


The "tail like a cedar," which creationists think indicates a large dinosaur, is not even a real tail. "Tail" was used as a euphemism in the King James version. A more likely translation for the phrase is, "His penis stiffens like a cedar" (Mitchell 1987). The behemoth was probably a bull, and the cedar comparison referred to its virility.


1. Mitchell, 1987. The Book of Job. San Francisco: North Point Press. Cited in R. T. Pennock, 1999, Tower of Babel, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, p. 217.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH711.html

But yeah, even a freakin erect Rhino would do...







Yes, an explorer to Madagascar actually reported seeing recent skeletons of these giant birds, and seeing their nests...I think he was a bit to scared to actually search out the real thing tho once he got a look at their huge feathers laying about

You have a source for that? Because that would be too fucking awesome...

[Beatnik Bob]

Yeah, but there isn't a description of dinosaurs in the Bible. (oh, and dinosaur skeletons look remarkably like dragon skeletons might look, don't you think?...)
I've thought this for awhile. Dragons dont exist, but I am convinced that they are a mythicalized (is that a word? It should be...) version of a dinosaur.


Oh, may I also mention the Nazca stones which show T-Rexes. Maybe the Bible doesnt indicate that giant ferocious reptiles lived alongside humans at one time, but I am still convinced that they did.


It is probably based on a description of an elephant.....
Alright, so an X through the behemoth...But what about the biblical leviathan? The dino of the sea?


You have a source for that? Because that would be too fucking awesome...
Glad you liked that. :D
http://www.wildmadagascar.org/wildlife/birds.html
They were hunted to extinction in the last few hundred years tho. Though my source says they stood over 10 feet tall, the explorer (cant put my finger on his name, meh, ill try to nab it later) says he saw evidence of much larger birds, 15 -20 feet.
Either way, the Madagascar birds were huge, a ferocious 10 feet is sufficient enough to scare anyone into thinking its 20ft.

Madagascar has always been a mysterious island though. In fact, the original mainland AFRICAN name for Madigascar actually meant "land of the man eating trees."

Which that leads me into another account, where there was a British explorer I read about in another book (I believe it was called "undiscovered species" or something? Cant remember, a great random Barns and Noble finds, though)
And he said natives were worshipping a particular tree there that could eat humans. The natives apparently had a ritual when he was there where they offered a member of their tribe to the "almighty" tree. He came back to britian with this story and no one believed him, so he went back to gather evidence and pictures etc.
Needless to say, he never came back to Britain after that trip.

Madagascar is a mysterious place.