Dinosaurs in the bible?

POSTED BY: midori
UPDATED: Friday, March 14, 2025 19:10
VIEWED: 14206
PAGE 3 of 7

Quote:

---

So, to scoff at people who believe that humans and dinosaurs may have lived at the same time, is to forget that occasionally, we are surprised by our ignorance. Certainly, there is no evidence that vast dinosaur populations roamed the earth at the same time as humans… but it is not outlandish to suggest that a few groups of 'extinct' creatures may have survived to perplex and frighten early man.

The Bible, incidentally, never speaks of a crypto-zoological creature more clearly, and with more detail, than is done in Job. Here is God, rattling off a list of real world creatures and creations… and he throws in some kind of sea-dwelling dragon. At the very least, Job himself was supposed to be familiar with this creature. It suggests that, at the time that the story was first told, humans believed that such creatures existed. That's not proof of their existence. It's just another clue that bears keeping in mind.

We just might not know everything yet.

--Anthony

---

I've been a paleontology nut since I was a kid. And as a young kid, it wasn't hard to group T.Rex, the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot into one basic group of really cool critters that no one sees alive. But as I grew older, studied more paleontology, became immersed in the evidence, the line of division between things that did exist and those that didn't became clearer.

We don't know EVERYTHING. But that's not the point. We never WILL. But we DO know a great deal more than we use to. And we can use what we DO know to put much into context as we try to uncover more information about our little planet and its history.

As for Crypto-Zoology, I have this to say. The oceans are vastly under explored, so revelations of unknown species should not surprise us much. Deep water critters are far more likely to reamin hidden to science. Squids are well known, so one which is really big shouldn't rock the scientific world all that much. Nor should the discovery of a Coelacanth. But a large aquatic animal in a confined area, say a Loch, is quite different.

Loch Ness was utterly covered by glaciers which retreated during the last ice age, 10-12,000 yrs ago. That's long after the Plesiosaurs ( which most believe Nessie of being ) became extinct. And as for Plesiosaurs, all the fossils we've found suggest they were fond of warm,salt water, not the deep, cold fresh waters of a Loch. Now, there might be a yet unknown animal which lives in or frequents Loch Ness which has no family ties to any Cretaceous species. That would be very interesting on its own right, but as yet, no such animal has been verified.

When it comes to land animals, the problem of concelement becomes much more difficult. Especially larger animals. All animals need to eat, mate and reproduce. For larger land animals, this requires lots of space. Much more space if the animal happens to be a carnivore.

And it must be pointed out that there wasn't a sudden shift in the flora and fauna from the Cretaceous to our modern day world. There is a history of 65+ MILLION years of strange and wonderful species arise and become extinct(?). For what ever reason, far fewer folks know much about what lived in this time period than of the 170+ million yrs which came before. But maybe it has something to do w/ what Paleontologist Dr. Robert Bakker said - " Dinosaurs are natures special effects ".

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Hilo- Your books misrepresent current scientific knowledge so thoroughly I don't even know where to start. I realize that you're resistant to real science and prolly aren't going to learn much from this post, but I'm going to take a stab at just a few of the more profound errors in your citations and hope that you grasp that the sources you cite are grossly misinformed.

The first thing I noticed was the dates on your "scientific" books: 1977, 1974, 1956. Unlike religion- which seeks to remain static- science marches on. These books are outdated and don't contain recent, compelling information from genetics studies and geology.

Dating rocks, fossils, and ice cores
Rocks, fossils and ice cores can be assigned absolute dates (as opposed to relative dates) based on radioactive decay and relative isoptope abundance respectively. The dates are accurate to within a few thousand years. Compared to geologic time (hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions of years) the range is insignificant. So- dates do not always depend on fossils, since absolute dates can be assigned at various points in the geologic record. Here is a little tutorial: www.geologyrocks.co.uk/tut.php?id=6

Mutations
All you have to do is look at the common cold virus or common bacteria to realize (1) mutations are common and (2) they do not cause organism's self-cancellation. If that were the case, we would never have to worry about getting sick again or developing ever-newer antibiotics to outsmart the little critters that manage to evolve about as fast as we manage to pursue them.
www.sci.sdsu.edu/~smaloy/MicrobialGenetics/topics/mutations/fluctuatio
n.html

Fossils
That old saw about human footprints found with dinosaur tracks has been disproven. BTW- I looked at photos from the various creation websites, and those tracks did not look consistently human. Most were way too large and some showed features- even to my untrained eye- that didn't look human. According to this person- who went back to the original sites- some of the "human" tracks (w/in one trail) showed three-toed digits which indicates their true origins. Pretty much ditto the same as hoofprints and dinosaur tracks. www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tsite.html

Spontaneous generation
I'm not a biologist, but I understand that this is an area of active discussion, not an area of "belief".


Science and religion
Religious like say that since science has not resolved of ALL questions science must "therefore" be flawed. But science is a process of discovering the natural world. It assumes that our understanding a flawed and incomplete but that we can approach better understanding by testing our ideas against the evidence of the real world.

In contrast, religion appears to be very much a closed system- particularly YOUR brand of religion which is a body of lore that seeks to remain static. There is no method of self-correction or even a way for new information to be validated and added.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

HILOHILO....have you seen this shocking news!!



http://www.nmsr.org/Archive.html



" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Come off it guys, don't be so harsh.
I say this because yes, I am one of them intelligent design people...
Ah, scoff not, friends!
Intelligent design puts forward the viewpoint that there is a great being above creation who made the universe. Through this, everything in nature can be explained. It makes up for the shortfalls of science. And yes, there are shortfalls, according to a recent textbook, and many biologist friends, evolution is not such solid fact.
So, it basically comes down to whether we believe that science has explained everything sufficiently, or not.

And like all arguments, there are three sides to it, yours, mine, and the right one...

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

We don't know EVERYTHING. But that's not the point. We never WILL. But we DO know a great deal more than we use to. And we can use what we DO know to put much into context as we try to uncover more information about our little planet and its history.

As for Crypto-Zoology, I have this to say. The oceans are vastly under explored, so relevations of unknown species should not surprise us much. Deep water critters are far more likely to reamin hidden to science. Squids are well known, so one which is really big shouldn't rock the scientific world all that much. Nor should the discovery of a Coelacanth. But a large aquatic animal in a confined area, say a Loch, is quite different.

---

Well, a couple of observations. One, Deep Water creatures ARE more likely to remain unknown to Science. I expect countless new discoveries in the years ahead, simply because we know so little about our Oceans.

That having been said, saying that a Giant Squid ought not to surprise us, is like saying that Giant Lizards or Giant Birds ought not to surprise us. They ought not to, but they do. Both Giant Lizards and Giant Birds have been objects of cryptozoological inquiry, and both have been scoffed at. So yes, giant versions of known animals surprise the bejeezus out of us. Anything previously unknown seems to.

Quote:

---

Loch Ness was utterly covered by glaciers which retreated during the last ice age, 10-12,000 yrs ago. That's long after the Plesiosaurs ( which most believe Nessie of being ) became extinct. And as for Plesiosaurs, all the fossils we've found suggest they were fond of warm,salt water, not the deep, cold fresh waters of a Loch. Now, there might be a yet unknown animal which lives in or frequents Loch Ness which has no family ties to any Cretaceous species. That would be very interesting on its own right, but as yet, no such animal has been verified.

---

And while something unexpected may yet turn up in the Loch, I don't expect it to. I threw in the Loch Ness monster as the sort of oft scoffed crypto-zoological creature that is usually accompanied with confirmed hoaxters. Bigfoot and the Abominable Snowman has been tainted the same way.

Quote:

---

When it comes to land animals, the problem of concelement becomes much more difficult. Especially larger animals. All animals need to eat, mate and reproduce. For larger land animals, this requires lots of space. Much more space if the animal happens to be a carnivore.

---

And yet, large land animals continue to be discovered by science long after humans have seen them. One of the premises of crypto-zoology is that people have seen the buggers, they just haven't been able to produce scientifically verifiable evidence of them. New Gorilla species are often reported by natives and locals before a scientist ever gets around to 'discovering' them. It's also notable that while much of our land has been explored... some of it hasn't, or has been so lightly explored as to remain much of a mystery. Crypto-zoologists rarely suggest marauding colonies of animals, but rather small groups of hold-overs and survivors, usually in secluded or lightly populated areas. And most obviously, crypto-zoologists deal with animals that have been seen, just not scientifically verified.

I will throw this timber on the fire as well, for those who tout Science's flexibility over Religion. Any scientist who has ever proposed a truly revolutionary idea will find, despite hard evidence to support his theory, that there is a great deal of Faith in the Evidence based world of Science and Scientists. New ideas tend to be resisted until they are irresistable, most especially by proponents of the Old ideas. Admittedly, this likely has more to do with human nature than the Scientific method.


--Anthony



"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME