• 158 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Avatar image for Stryder1212
Stryder1212

114

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#1 Stryder1212
Member since 2005 • 114 Posts

The other day in my Philosophy class my prof. was discussing the effect religion has on Evolutionary discoveries, things like how any new findings need to have concrete evidence to stand up to Creationist attacks. Little did I know, a Creationist was sitting in on the class, and not just a casual Intelligent Design enthusiast, but..

A rather militant Young Earth Creationist.

She actually stood up and interrupted my prof. with this: "If the THEORY of Evolution is so perfect, where do dinosaurs fit in the evolutionary chain?!"

That was actually funny at first, but then she began quoting all of these so-called studies that made the case against Evolution, oh, and of course (apparently) the atheist beliefs of Darwinism. When she at last closed her mouth, the entire class pelted her with proof of Evolution (you can guess what happened next). But I digress.

So, how well do Dinosaurs and God mesh? Discuss.

Avatar image for btaylor2404
btaylor2404

11353

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 35

User Lists: 0

#2 btaylor2404
Member since 2003 • 11353 Posts
To me that's always been a dent in the armor of the Bible.  Not a large one, but a dent nonetheless.  You would have thought that at some point in time they would have been mentioned, and they definitely dont mesh with the story of Genesis. 
Avatar image for ChiliDragon
ChiliDragon

8444

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 ChiliDragon
Member since 2006 • 8444 Posts
To me that's always been a dent in the armor of the Bible.  Not a large one, but a dent nonetheless.  You would have thought that at some point in time they would have been mentioned, and they definitely dont mesh with the story of Genesis.  btaylor2404
They drowned during that big flood ;)
Avatar image for Stryder1212
Stryder1212

114

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#4 Stryder1212
Member since 2005 • 114 Posts

To me that's always been a dent in the armor of the Bible. Not a large one, but a dent nonetheless. You would have thought that at some point in time they would have been mentioned, and they definitely dont mesh with the story of Genesis. btaylor2404

I've found some Christians who insist that Noah didn't allow them on his Ark.

Avatar image for ChiliDragon
ChiliDragon

8444

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 ChiliDragon
Member since 2006 • 8444 Posts
I always thought dinosaurs fit very nicely in the evolutionary chain, or rather they probably did before they were cut off from it, gradually removed from their niches by other species who bred faster, lived longer, and did a better job of adapting to changes in the world around them. The thing with the dinosaurs is that for them to be a problem, one has to assume a couple of things first. 1. The Bible's version of how the world was created is literally true, and the first chapters in Genesis are a factual account of the actual events. 2. If one assumes that 1. is true, then one can move on to assume that if something is not mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis, it never happened. If one assumes those two things are true, now dinosaurs become a little bit of a problem. But only a little one. After all, those chapters do not mention bacteria either, but bacteria exist in abundance in and around us. However, item two on my short list up there is hazy, to say the least. It is a well known fact that a single eyewitness account can never capture everything, and that two often contra-dict each other on some points. So for 2. to be true, 1. must be expanded to "a factual account of any and all of the actual events" which I would hope is too much of a stretch for anyone, especially given the number of things left out of the story. Then again, I have been wrong about people before... :) EDIT: Noah would allow cockroaches, centipedes, those horrible naked Chinese dogs, hornets, slugs, and scorpions, but not a triceratops? Someone needs to sit that guy down and explain to him about priorities....!
Avatar image for AlternatingCaps
AlternatingCaps

1714

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#6 AlternatingCaps
Member since 2007 • 1714 Posts

I'm sure many of us have read in other threads about how Lans and Mindstorm (correct me if I'm wrong, guys) believe dinosaurs and man coexisted because the Bible mentions dragons (to which dinosaurs would be the most similar things).

If that were indeed the case, early man would have fared about as well as Kramer did in the contest.

Avatar image for ChiliDragon
ChiliDragon

8444

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 ChiliDragon
Member since 2006 • 8444 Posts
I actually haven't, but I'm very new to this union, and almost as new to the OT forum. Not to mention, I usually only skim the religious threads in OT, since they tend to get boring very quickly. :) If the dragons of legend in fact where raptors and stegosaurus herds, that would be funny. The legends of breathing fire must obviously come from the results of the T-Rex never brushing his teeth, so as a result he had absolutely horrible breath. Dinosaurs as dragons would be cool, and I still think Noah should have saved them instead of the centipedes. I'm a bit tired today, so it is a bit harder than normal for me to stay serious and focused. :P
Avatar image for GabuEx
GabuEx

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#8 GabuEx
Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts

I always thought dinosaurs fit very nicely in the evolutionary chain, or rather they probably did before they were cut off from it, gradually removed from their niches by other species who bred faster, lived longer, and did a better job of adapting to changes in the world around them. The thing with the dinosaurs is that for them to be a problem, one has to assume a couple of things first.

1. The Bible's version of how the world was created is literally true, and the first chapters in Genesis are a factual account of the actual events.

2. If one assumes that 1. is true, then one can move on to assume that if something is not mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis, it never happened.

If one assumes those two things are true, now dinosaurs become a little bit of a problem. But only a little one. After all, those chapters do not mention bacteria either, but bacteria exist in abundance in and around us. However, item two on my short list up there is hazy, to say the least. It is a well known fact that a single eyewitness account can never capture everything, and that two often contra-dict each other on some points. So for 2. to be true, 1. must be expanded to "a factual account of any and all of the actual events" which I would hope is too much of a stretch for anyone, especially given the number of things left out of the story.ChiliDragon

Considering that the enumeration of generations in the Bible is what has led people to the fervent belief that the world is only six thousand years old, I would say that many do not find it a stretch at all to say that if it's not in the Old Testament it didn't happen.

Avatar image for ChiliDragon
ChiliDragon

8444

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 ChiliDragon
Member since 2006 • 8444 Posts

Considering that the enumeration of generations in the Bible is what has led people to the fervent belief that the world is only six thousand years old, I would say that many do not find it a stretch at all to say that if it's not in the Old Testament it didn't happen.

GabuEx
But..... then there never was an ancient China? They kept some good records, and they list a much larger number of generations. Are they wrong? Are they incorrect? Are they... OMG! Ancient Chinese civilization is an elaborate hoax! That's what the China Syndrome is! :shock:
Avatar image for SSBFan12
SSBFan12

11981

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 SSBFan12
Member since 2008 • 11981 Posts
[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]To me that's always been a dent in the armor of the Bible. Not a large one, but a dent nonetheless. You would have thought that at some point in time they would have been mentioned, and they definitely dont mesh with the story of Genesis. ChiliDragon
They drowned during that big flood ;)

I thought they got hit by an asteroid.
Avatar image for ChiliDragon
ChiliDragon

8444

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 ChiliDragon
Member since 2006 • 8444 Posts
[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"][QUOTE="btaylor2404"]To me that's always been a dent in the armor of the Bible. Not a large one, but a dent nonetheless. You would have thought that at some point in time they would have been mentioned, and they definitely dont mesh with the story of Genesis. SSBFan12
They drowned during that big flood ;)

I thought they got hit by an asteroid.

I am rethinking my earlier theory... they're a part of the Chinese Conspiracy!
Avatar image for Stryder1212
Stryder1212

114

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#12 Stryder1212
Member since 2005 • 114 Posts

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"][QUOTE="btaylor2404"]To me that's always been a dent in the armor of the Bible. Not a large one, but a dent nonetheless. You would have thought that at some point in time they would have been mentioned, and they definitely dont mesh with the story of Genesis. SSBFan12
They drowned during that big flood ;)

I thought they got hit by an asteroid.

Uhh.. The asteroid did hit, yes. But it was the subsequent environmental changes brought on by the asteroid's impact that caused the extinction of dinosaurs. The flood bit was a joke.

Avatar image for GabuEx
GabuEx

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#13 GabuEx
Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts

But..... then there never was an ancient China? They kept some good records, and they list a much larger number of generations. Are they wrong? Are they incorrect? Are they... OMG! Ancient Chinese civilization is an elaborate hoax! That's what the China Syndrome is! :shock:ChiliDragon

Don't ask me, I'm not the one who came to that conclusion. :P

Avatar image for ChiliDragon
ChiliDragon

8444

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 ChiliDragon
Member since 2006 • 8444 Posts

[QUOTE="SSBFan12"][QUOTE="ChiliDragon"][QUOTE="btaylor2404"]To me that's always been a dent in the armor of the Bible. Not a large one, but a dent nonetheless. You would have thought that at some point in time they would have been mentioned, and they definitely dont mesh with the story of Genesis. Stryder1212

They drowned during that big flood ;)

I thought they got hit by an asteroid.

Uhh.. The asteroid did hit, yes. But it was the subsequent environmental changes brought on by the asteroid's impact that caused the extinction of dinosaurs. The flood bit was a joke.

Very much a joke. As you might have noticed, I don't really take the whole creation story debate very seriously. ;)
Avatar image for Bourbons3
Bourbons3

24238

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#15 Bourbons3
Member since 2003 • 24238 Posts
I think most people would agree that the existence of dinosaurs is pretty major. So for the bible not to mention them once shows that is isn't a reliable source. Dinosaurs directly contradict the idea that the Earth is a few thousand years old, and to deny such is just ignorant.
Avatar image for 7guns
7guns

1449

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#16 7guns
Member since 2006 • 1449 Posts
Hmmm dinosaurs!!! It seems dinosaurs are getting a bit too much attention. They are not the only group of animals that existed before six thousand years in the past, right? Why are they so important anyway? Just because of their size?
Avatar image for ChiliDragon
ChiliDragon

8444

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17 ChiliDragon
Member since 2006 • 8444 Posts
[QUOTE="7guns"]Hmmm dinosaurs!!! It seems dinosaurs are getting a bit too much attention. They are not the only group of animals that existed before six thousand years in the past, right? Why are they so important anyway? Just because of their size?

More likely because their fossilized bones and teeth can be dated back to way before a few thousand years ago which, if true, essentially disproves the "young earth" theory of some creationist groups. But mostly it is because dinosaurs are cooler than ancient sea urchins and bacteria are. I mean... is this not a frightening and aswesome creature?
Avatar image for Teenaged
Teenaged

31764

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#18 Teenaged
Member since 2007 • 31764 Posts
I like dinosaurs! :D
Avatar image for domatron23
domatron23

6226

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#19 domatron23
Member since 2007 • 6226 Posts
Dinosaurs mesh just fine with God, religious doctrine on the other hand... not so much.
Avatar image for domatron23
domatron23

6226

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#20 domatron23
Member since 2007 • 6226 Posts

Hmmm dinosaurs!!! It seems dinosaurs are getting a bit too much attention. They are not the only group of animals that existed before six thousand years in the past, right? Why are they so important anyway? Just because of their size? 7guns

It's more the fact that a literal 6 day creation requires that they co-existed with man at some point and that they were taken on board the ark.

Avatar image for Alter_Ego
Alter_Ego

884

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 Alter_Ego
Member since 2002 • 884 Posts

I think most people would agree that the existence of dinosaurs is pretty major. So for the bible not to mention them once shows that is isn't a reliable source. Dinosaurs directly contradict the idea that the Earth is a few thousand years old, and to deny such is just ignorant.Bourbons3

The term "dinosaur" was not coined until 1842.  Do you also criticize the Bible for not mentioning Rattus norvegicus, Felis catus, Quercus, or Homo Sapiens?  The Bible does not use our 300-year or so old clas(s)fications of plants and animals because, well you do the math.  

Avatar image for GabuEx
GabuEx

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#22 GabuEx
Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts

The term "dinosaur" was not coined until 1842. Do you also criticize the Bible for not mentioning Rattus norvegicus, Felis catus, Quercus, or Homo Sapiens? The Bible does not use our 300-year or so old clas(s)fications of plants and animals because, well you do the math.

Alter_Ego

The term itself would be expected not to show up, but one would expect there to be historical records of people actually, you know, talking about these huge lizards going around and all that. You'd think there'd be a verse in Genesis that is like, "And Adam left the Garden of Eden, and he fathered Cain and Abel, and they were all like 'HOLY **** there's like HUGE BEASTS and they're just tearing everything up!!!!'"

I mean, hell, people worshipped the sun and volcano gods and stuff and the Native Americans thought the white men were gods when they first arrived in North America; why is there no historical record of people worshipping these huge beasts that towered over everything? The only thing people can produce is vague stick figures in caves in an attempt to prove that humans lived concurrent with dinosaurs.

Avatar image for Alter_Ego
Alter_Ego

884

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23 Alter_Ego
Member since 2002 • 884 Posts

The term itself would be expected not to show up, but one would expect there to be historical records of people actually, you know, talking about these huge lizards going around and all that. You'd think there'd be a verse in Genesis that is like, "And Adam left the Garden of Eden, and he fathered Cain and Abel, and they were all like 'HOLY **** there's like HUGE BEASTS and they're just tearing everything up!!!!'"

I mean, hell, people worshipped the sun and volcano gods and stuff and the Native Americans thought the white men were gods when they first arrived in North America; why is there no historical record of people worshipping these huge beasts that towered over everything? The only thing people can produce is vague stick figures in caves in an attempt to prove that humans lived concurrent with dinosaurs.

GabuEx

I'll address the two bolded sentences.  In Job 40, it describes a creature called Behemoth.  Some think it is an elephant or hippo being described, but how many do you know that have a tale like a cedar tree?  

As for the lack of historical records, it is generally agreed upon by Creationists that dinosaurs went extinct soon after the Flood, which would have been several centuries before written records started being produced.  There do extist oral traditions though among ancient civilizations, and tribal groups like the Aborigines, that describe creatures strangely similar to dinosaurs (and not just in dragon form).  But of course, dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, and it's just not possible for any human to have ever seen a live dinosaur.  These ignorant primative apemen groups were just hallucinating or something.  :P  As for why dinosaurs are not around anymore, Creationists generally agree that the reason dinosaurs went extinct was for the same reason other animals do: loss of habitat and over-hunting.  

 

 

Avatar image for domatron23
domatron23

6226

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#24 domatron23
Member since 2007 • 6226 Posts
Alter-Ego don't you think that there's a bit of poetic license going on in Job 40? I mean look at Job40:22. And right after it in Job 41:19-20 it talks about "Leviathan" who breathes fire
Avatar image for Bourbons3
Bourbons3

24238

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#27 Bourbons3
Member since 2003 • 24238 Posts
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

The term itself would be expected not to show up, but one would expect there to be historical records of people actually, you know, talking about these huge lizards going around and all that. You'd think there'd be a verse in Genesis that is like, "And Adam left the Garden of Eden, and he fathered Cain and Abel, and they were all like 'HOLY **** there's like HUGE BEASTS and they're just tearing everything up!!!!'"

I mean, hell, people worshipped the sun and volcano gods and stuff and the Native Americans thought the white men were gods when they first arrived in North America; why is there no historical record of people worshipping these huge beasts that towered over everything? The only thing people can produce is vague stick figures in caves in an attempt to prove that humans lived concurrent with dinosaurs.

Alter_Ego

I'll address the two bolded sentences.  In Job 40, it describes a creature called Behemoth.  Some think it is an elephant or hippo being described, but how many do you know that have a tale like a cedar tree?  

As for the lack of historical records, it is generally agreed upon by Creationists that dinosaurs went extinct soon after the Flood, which would have been several centuries before written records started being produced.  There do extist oral traditions though among ancient civilizations, and tribal groups like the Aborigines, that describe creatures strangely similar to dinosaurs (and not just in dragon form).  But of course, dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, and it's just not possible for any human to have ever seen a live dinosaur.  These ignorant primative apemen groups were just hallucinating or something.  :P  As for why dinosaurs are not around anymore, Creationists generally agree that the reason dinosaurs went extinct was for the same reason other animals do: loss of habitat and over-hunting.  

 

 

Based on the tree-like tail theory, it would be a Sauropod. But the Bible says it ate grass, and Sauropods don't have molar teeth, so they can't. Its just as likely that Behemoth was a regular animal of large size, just like Leviathan was probably just a whale, or even just a larger variety of crocodile.
Avatar image for Lansdowne5
Lansdowne5

6015

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#28 Lansdowne5
Member since 2008 • 6015 Posts
I've discussed this to death recently.....but.....dinosaurs fit perfectly with God. Seeing as they were part of His Creation, and once co-existed with us.
Avatar image for Lansdowne5
Lansdowne5

6015

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#29 Lansdowne5
Member since 2008 • 6015 Posts

Here's 15 pieces of archeological evidence in favour of human and dinosaur co-existence: (I've edited some of the information which was taken from a few different sources):

"1. On the walls of the Havasupai Canyon in Arizona, there is ancient Native American cave art (known as petroglyphs) which depict men and a variety of different animals including cattle, sheep, buffalo, oxen, and what looks like an Edmontosaurus.

Dr. Samuel Hubbard, who discovered it in the early 1900's, writes: "The fact that the animal is upright and balanced on its tail would seem to indicate that the prehistoric artist must have seen it alive."

2. In Utah, at the Natural Bridges National Monument they've also found ancient Native American cave art which depicts different animals. It is believed that they are attributed to the Anasazi Indians, who lived there approximately between the fifth and fourteenth centuries.

The rock is considerably weathered, but when outlined, there is an unmistakable representation of a sauropod dinosaur. Francis Barnes, a widely recognized authority on rock art (and evolutionist) writes: "There is a petroglyph in Natural Bridges National Monument that bears a startling resemblance to a dinosaur. . . . with long tail and neck, small head and all." 

3. At Angkor, Cambodia, which was built in the 12th century, there is a clear depiction of a stegosaurus on an ancient temple. It is found among other animals including pigs, monkeys, water buffalos, roosters, snakes, etc (i.e. – animals commonly seen by these ancient people).

4. In the 1940s, near El Toro mountain in Mexico, a German archaeologist named Waldemar Julsrud found a large number of ancient handcrafted ceramic and stone figurines that have been identified with the Pre-classical Chupicuaro Culture (dating from 800 BC to 200 AD).

Many of them are just typical Aztec figurines, but there are also a collection of highly detailed dinosaur-like ones. There have been over 30,000 more of these figurines found (from different sites) to this day. In an attempt to prove their authenticity, the owners had radiocarbon and thermo-luminescence dating methods done on them by both Isotopes Incorporated of New Jersey and the University of Pennsylvania.

The results certified that the pieces were certainly very old, and gave rough dates of between 4500 and 1100 B.C. (As you probably know, I have little confidence in most dating method, but what is conclusive is that these figurines are most definitely not recent). One thing to note is that some of them depict dinosaurs whose fossils were not actually discovered until many years after the El Toro discovery. Lots of the figurines have characteristics such as dermal frills, which were not discovered on sauropod dinosaurs until the 1990's.

5. In Ica, Peru, there have been over 15,000 burial stones found, approximately 1/3 of which depict different types of dinosaur.

The art form and location where they were found give them a date of between 500-1500AD, back to the time of the Inca Culture. The stones show scenes of man controlling, killing or being killed by dinosaurs.

There have been numerous stones forged in recent years for profit by locals, and sceptics quickly point to these reproductions as proof of a hoax. However, these stones cannot be so easily dismissed. Early Spanish reports (from 1500AD) tell of unusual stones with strange animals on them, and some of them were reported to be brought back to Spain by Conquistadors in 1562.

6. In Carlisle Cathedral, on Bishop Bell's tomb (from the 15th century), there are brass strips along the sides with various animals carved into them. Along with the common animals, there are some extremely unusual ones with long tails and necks that look much like sauropod dinosaurs.

7. There is also Mesopotamian cylinder seal dated around 3300 B.C. showing long-necked reptiles that again, look like sauropod dinosaurs.

8. There is a Roman mosaic from the second century AD, showing long necked creatures by the sea, they look remarkably similar to the Tanystropheus.

9. A wall painting that was discovered in Pompeii, Rome, and was buried by volcanic ash in 79 AD depicts some sort of creature trying to eat a person inside a boat. It has long legs, a narrow face, and a nose which points up, much like the coryphodon, toxodon, and entelodon. It also has a high dermal ridge, indicating that this is not a hippo or crocodile, as some suggest.

10. The Palestrina mosaic, which depicts the Nile from Ethiopia to the Mediterranean, dates back to around 100 AD and contains clear depictions of known animals, but also one that is unknown. The Greek lettering above it is literally translated, "crocodile-leopard". And, once more, it looks remarkably similar to some sort of dinosaur.

11. There's a dragon artefact from the Shang dynasty, 1766-1122B.C, which bares great resemblance to the Saurolophus. It has a scale-like pattern covering its body, a broad beak, dermal frill, and a headcrest.

12. A. Hyatt Verrill (the person who discovered the Coclé culture of Panama, which dates from A.D.1330-1520) discovered pterosaur-like representations on Coclé pottery. In the book 'Prehistoric Animals and their Stories, 1948' Verrill suggested that such drawings must have been based on "accurate descriptions, or even drawings or carvings". He comments on the description, saying it has "beak-like jaws armed with sharp teeth, wings with two curved claws, short, pointed tail, reptilian head crest or appendages, and strong hind feet with five-clawed toes on each. 

13. In Queensland, Australia, there are stories of a plesiosaur-like creature having been seen by aboriginal peoples, both around Lake Galilee and tribes farther up north.

They tell of a long-necked animal that had large body and flippers. This is a cave painting of the creature – http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/graphic/ancient8.jpg

14. In 1924, near Tucson, AZ, Roman ****lead artefacts were excavated. On page 331 of David Hatcher's book 'The Lost Cities of North & Central America' is the unique carvings on these implements. One in particular shows a clear dinosaur depiction on a sword, which the Arizona Historical Society still has. 

15. On some of the French chateaus built at the close of the Middle Ages (early 1500's) there are dramatic dragon illustrations carved into their walls, ceilings, and furniture. There are many similarities between these and the dinosaur Plateosaurus.

On the 'Château Azay-le-Rideau' there is a fascinating tapestry which depicts what looks to be a pterosaur fighting a lion. And on a tapestry at 'Château de Blois' there is a portrait of a dragon with gnarly horns, reminiscent of the dinosaur Dracorex hogwartsia."

Avatar image for Lansdowne5
Lansdowne5

6015

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#30 Lansdowne5
Member since 2008 • 6015 Posts

And right after it in Job 41:19-20 it talks about "Leviathan" who breathes firedomatron23

Can we determine from fossil evidence that dinosaurs could not breathe fire? It's interesting to note that the Leviathan isn't the only dinosaur-like creature in the Bible which can breathe fire, Isaiah talks of "firey flying serpents" as well.

Avatar image for domatron23
domatron23

6226

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#31 domatron23
Member since 2007 • 6226 Posts

[QUOTE="domatron23"]And right after it in Job 41:19-20 it talks about "Leviathan" who breathes fireLansdowne5

Can we determine from fossil evidence that dinosaurs could not breathe fire? It's interesting to note that the Leviathan isn't the only dinosaur-like creature in the Bible which can breathe fire, Isaiah talks of "firey flying serpents" as well.

I suppose you couldn't say on fossil evidence alone whether or not dinosaurs could breathe fire, although I did read a few creationist hypotheses on how dinosaurs might have done it and one was that their teeth were the source of ignition. Now if a dinosaur had teeth that were capable of sparking then maybe we should find fossil evidence of it.

Anyways I wont stop you claiming that the bible speaks of literal fire-breathing dinosaurs. In fact I'd encourage you to share that little tidbit more often.

Avatar image for domatron23
domatron23

6226

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#32 domatron23
Member since 2007 • 6226 Posts

Here's 15 pieces of archeological evidence in favour of human and dinosaur co-existence:

Lansdowne5

Lans it might interest you to know that people use the same method as you have used here to validate claims about the existence of ufo's. Check out this page for example http://www.crystalinks.com/ufohistory.html

Avatar image for Lansdowne5
Lansdowne5

6015

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#33 Lansdowne5
Member since 2008 • 6015 Posts

use the same method as you have used here to validate claims about the existence of ufo's.

domatron23

There is a difference, though. We know for a fact dinosaurs existed. We don't know for a fact UFOs do.

Look at the similarity between the dinosaur (right) and the dragon (left) here.

Avatar image for GabuEx
GabuEx

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#34 GabuEx
Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts

Look at the similarity between the dinosaur (right) and the dragon (left) here.

Lansdowne5

It also looks an awful lot like the Komodo dragon, but I suppose that wouldn't validate your conclusion as nicely. :P

Lizards do tend to look like, well, lizards.

If dinosaurs did live concurrent with humans in large enough numbers for humans all around the world to see them and draw pictures of them, then what was the point at which they died off? Presumably this was all after the Great Flood, considering that all of this archaelogical evidence is intact. But if they had populated the world enough after the Great Flood to be seen in pretty much every single habitated continent, then there must have been some sort of mass extinction that targeted only them, not any other form of life... and one which is not documented in any form of human history.

And why do we only have vague pictures? Why is there no historical document that chronicles giant lizards that are taller than trees? Presumably this would kind of be a rather big deal.

The fact of the matter is that this is a cIassic case of a conclusion looking for evidence.

Avatar image for Lansdowne5
Lansdowne5

6015

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#35 Lansdowne5
Member since 2008 • 6015 Posts

Question: if dinosaurs did live concurrent with humans in large enough numbers for humans all around the world to see them and draw pictures of them, then what was the point at which they died off? Presumably this was all after the Great Flood, considering that all of this archaelogical evidence is intact.

And why do we only have vague pictures? Why is there no historical document that chronicles giant lizards that are taller than trees? Presumably this would kind of be a rather big deal.

The fact of the matter is that this is a cIassic case of a conclusion looking for evidence.

GabuEx

Most died out soon after the Flood. Some survived, in few numbers, due to being hunted and the new post-flood environment. So there wasn't 'that' many left. But remember, not all of the depictions would be done by the people who actually saw them. Oral tradition could keep the details alive for centuries to come.

Oh, and I wouldn't call this "vague" -

 

Avatar image for GabuEx
GabuEx

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#36 GabuEx
Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts

Most died out soon after the Flood. Some survived, in few numbers, due to being hunted and the new post-flood environment. So there wasn't 'that' many left. But remember, not all of the depictions would be done by the people who actually saw them. Oral tradition could keep the details alive for centuries to come.

Lansdowne5

Your presented evidence shows alleged depictions of them in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Africa - pretty much all corners of the world. Yet, you claim that there were only a few left? And you simultaneously claim both that these depictions are accurate depictions of dinosaurs and yet that these were solely passed down through oral traditions? Your story is pretty much even internally inconsistent, without even considering its consistency with external evidence.

Again: if these depicted animals were real animals that had been seen and beheld by humans, why is there no literary record of these huge lizards? Why only pictures?

Perhaps these pictures are depictions either of more mundane commonplace animals or of mythical animals like gryphons and chimeras, a suggestion that would be completely consistent with all literary records, as opposed to the suggestion that they're dinosaurs, which runs against all literary records? If something does not mesh with pretty well all other existing evidence, then that's a good reason to treat it with scrutiny, not to accept it as definitely true and then just go "oh, well, you know, whatever" to all the evidence going against what you're asserting.

Oh, and I wouldn't call this "vague" -

Lansdowne5

Not exactly a spitting image. The head is way larger than a stegosaurus head. The legs are incorrectly the same length. The body is way fatter, shorter, and curved. The tail is way shorter, and has no spikes on it. The plates on the back aren't even remotely the shape of stegosaurus plates. It really bears no resemblance to a stegosaurus whatsoever, except for the plates running down the back - and the idea that those are intended to be part of the animal is dubious at best. Look at the curved rectangles running around the border of the carving - they're identical in every way in shape to the curved rectangles running along the back of the animal, but those obviously aren't part of any animal. It would thus make perfect sense to assert that those rectangles are simply decorative, not intended to be attached to the animal.

This is borne out by looking at other carvings from the same location, too:

Note the decorative stuff within the circle that is clearly not part of the animal being depicted.

And you said that this was found in Cambodia. That's interesting... considering that the places where stegosaurus fossils were found was the western United States and Portugal - about as far away from Cambodia as you can get. Which brings an obvious question: if that was indeed a carving that proves that the carver was aware of stegosauri, then why in the world were carvings found in Cambodia of all places, as opposed to, you know, places where stegosauri actually lived?

The real truth of the matter? This is either not a stegosaurus, or whoever carved it had absolutely no idea what a stegosaurus looked like. Considering that there is no evidence stegosauri ever lived anywhere remotely near Cambodia, I'm gonna go with the first one.

Avatar image for AlternatingCaps
AlternatingCaps

1714

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#37 AlternatingCaps
Member since 2007 • 1714 Posts

The question of how early humans could have survived against humongous (and apparently in some cases, fire-breathing) monsters still has yet to be answered. I mean, it's not like they would have had modern armored vehicles and air support, just spears and arrows.

How about the idea that humans just aren't that creative? I remember on the Cryptozoology episode of Penn & Teller: BS! that they compared ancient French and Chinese art depicting dragons and they were pretty similar. Mind you they were from before Marco Polo made East-West contact and trade routes were established.

Plus, I'd like to hear the YEC take on the documentation of Chinese history older than 6,000 years, but I suppose that's another question for another thread.

Avatar image for GabuEx
GabuEx

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#38 GabuEx
Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts

And as for this guy:

...it is, quite frankly, likely to be a hoax. Though fossils of plesiosaurs like the one pictured there were indeed found in Australia, there are a number of oddities if we are to assume that this is an actual piece of ancient Aboriginal artwork. First, it is believed that necks of Plesiosaurs were not flexible in the least, and certainly were not capable of bending in such an extreme manner. In addition to that, the standard medium for ancient Australian Aboriginal artwork was rock - and this alleged piece of Aboriginal artwork was not found on a rock. The medium of this guy - bark painting - did not first appear until the 1930s. In addition, this artwork was conveniently not "found" until it was known that plesiosaurs had existed near Australia, at which point it popped up and - hey presto - just the evidence creationists were looking for.

People can come to conclusions that they would like on actual authentic facts, but to be perfectly honest I hold a great deal of contempt for those who fabricate evidence in the hopes of bolstering their case, as they are violating a quote that I rather like (whose source is unfortunately unknown): "You are entitled to your own opinions, Sir, but not your own facts."

(That's not to say that you are consciously passing off this hoax as something authentic. But someone is. And I really, really wish he wouldn't. If you must lie in order to provide evidence in favor of your position, that is proof positive that your position is just flat-out untenable.)

Avatar image for domatron23
domatron23

6226

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#39 domatron23
Member since 2007 • 6226 Posts
Inb4piltdownman
Avatar image for GabuEx
GabuEx

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#40 GabuEx
Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts

Inb4piltdownmandomatron23

Ah, yes, a favorite hoax of many, and one that - and this is the part most miss - was exposed by scientists who critically examined it (as science compels us to do) and realized that it didn't fit the other evidence available. :P

Avatar image for Lansdowne5
Lansdowne5

6015

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#41 Lansdowne5
Member since 2008 • 6015 Posts

Your presented evidence shows alleged depictions of them in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Africa - pretty much all corners of the world. Yet, you claim that there were only a few left?

GabuEx

Yes. 

And you simultaneously claim both that these depictions are accurate depictions of dinosaurs and yet that these were solely passed down through oral traditions?

GabuEx

No. I never claimed they were accurate depictions. But they 'are' depictions, nonetheless. 

Your story is pretty much even internally inconsistent, without even considering its consistency with external evidence.

GabuEx

It's not a story. A better word would be "Truth". Do you honestly think it's just a coincidence that we happened to dream up this creature called a "dragon" which is almost identical to a creature that actually lived? They even named a dinosaur after a dragon in Harry Potter because it's so similar! :lol:

Again: if these depicted animals were real animals that had been seen and beheld by humans, why is there no literary record of these huge lizards? Why only pictures?

GabuEx

Who said there was only pictures? ;) There's hundreds of detailed records around the world of dragons and their encounters with people.

Perhaps these pictures are depictions either of more mundane commonplace animals or of mythical animals like gryphons and chimeras, a suggestion that would be completely consistent with all literary records, as opposed to the suggestion that they're dinosaurs, which runs against all literary records?

GabuEx

The word "dinosaur" wasn't used until the 19th century. So it's not too surprising that they use other words to describe the beasts. 


If something does not mesh with pretty well all other existing evidence, then that's a good reason to treat it with scrutiny, not to accept it as definitely true and then just go "oh, well, you know, whatever" to all the evidence going against what you're asserting.

GabuEx

It's a good job I'm not doing that, then. Unlike Evolutionary scientists.

Not exactly a spitting image. The head is way larger than a stegosaurus head. The legs are incorrectly the same length. The body is way fatter, shorter, and curved. The tail is way shorter, and has no spikes on it. The plates on the back aren't even remotely the shape of stegosaurus plates.

GabuEx

Why would it be? It's not like it was standing still for the guy to copy. He was doing it from memory, or more likely from descriptions which had been given to him by other people.

It really bears no resemblance to a stegosaurus whatsoever, except for the plates running down the back - and the idea that those are intended to be part of the animal is dubious at best.

GabuEx

Sorry? "It really bears no resemblance to a stegosaurus whatsoever"? Are you joking? And what else are the plates supposed to be, if not part of the animal?

Look at the curved rectangles running around the border of the carving - they're identical in every way in shape to the curved rectangles running along the back of the animal, but those obviously aren't part of any animal. It would thus make perfect sense to assert that those rectangles are simply decorative, not intended to be attached to the animal.

GabuEx

Sure they are, except for the fact that they're rectangles and the plates on the animal's pack are not..... :roll:

Note the decorative stuff within the circle that is clearly not part of the animal being depicted.

GabuEx

You mean the water? Like the clouds in the parrot carvings? Well it's more relevant to note that in the monkey, deer, and swan carvings there is nothing depicted but the animal. And that in the stegosaurus one, the plates which you claim are simply "decorative stuff" are done in the same way as the animal's body, just like the Buffalo's horns are.

 

And you said that this was found in Cambodia. That's interesting... considering that the places where stegosaurus fossils were found was the western United States and Portugal - about as far away from Cambodia as you can get. Which brings an obvious question: if that was indeed a carving that proves that the carver was aware of stegosauri, then why in the world were carvings found in Cambodia of all places, as opposed to, you know, places where stegosauri actually lived?

GabuEx

Just because fossils haven't been found in Cambodia yet, that doesn't mean they didn't actually live there.

  

The real truth of the matter? This is either not a stegosaurus, or whoever carved it had absolutely no idea what a stegosaurus looked like.

GabuEx

The real truth of the matter is this - God created everything less than 10,000 years ago, dinosaurs and humans included. There's the legend of a dragon in almost every culture around the world. I'm not exaggerating here. There is a legend of a dragon in almost EVERY culture that exists. It's not just a coincidence. It's because we co-existed with them and saw what they looked like. 

   

Considering that there is no evidence stegosauri ever lived anywhere remotely near Cambodia, I'm gonna go with the first one.

GabuEx

And I'm going to go with none of the above. ;)

Avatar image for Stryder1212
Stryder1212

114

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#42 Stryder1212
Member since 2005 • 114 Posts

Uh, I don't mean to be rude... But I find the prospect that humans lived alongside dinosaurs utterly laughable. As Bill Maher once said: "These are people who believe that The Flintstones actually happened!":lol:

Come now, surely human-dinosaur contact would have had a massive impact on human culture. Giant lizards? Really? You'd tell everyone, show everyone you could these scaly behemoths. And yet all that remains are these rare pictures of slightly dino-esque creatures? It simply defies logic.

Not to mention that dinosaurs' presence would have really unbalanced the ecosystem.

EDIT: This is related, sadly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd_ssolGNKc&feature=PlayList&p=F3C093DAE554C430&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=39

Avatar image for GabuEx
GabuEx

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#43 GabuEx
Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts

No. I never claimed they were accurate depictions. But they 'are' depictions, nonetheless.

Lansdowne5

If they are not accurate depictions, then you can't exactly claim that you know conclusively what they're depictions of.

It's not a story. A better word would be "Truth". Do you honestly think it's just a coincidence that we happened to dream up this creature called a "dragon" which is almost identical to a creature that actually lived? They even named a dinosaur after a dragon in Harry Potter because it's so similar! :lol:

Lansdowne5

Almost identical?

This is a painting of Zmey Gorynych, a dragon in Slavic mythology:

This is a painting depicting Saint George slaying the dragon:

This is a depiction of the Mesopotamian god Marduk and his dragon:

This is a Slovenian statue of a dragon:

This is a Chinese depiction of a dragon:

Western depictions of dragons are typically reptilian in nature, with wings on its back and with fire breath. Eastern depictions of dragons are typically more serpentine in nature, flying without the aid of wings. If we are to take these depictions as pertaining to the exact same creatures that existed in reality, it would seem rather strange both that they would be so different in nature and that they would all include such glaring anatomical inaccuracies when compared to dinosaur fossils.

Who said there was only pictures? ;) There's hundreds of detailed records around the world of dragons and their encounters with people.

Lansdowne5

Such as...

Why would it be? It's not like it was standing still for the guy to copy. He was doing it from memory, or more likely from descriptions which had been given to him by other people.

Lansdowne5

You're trying to say it's a stegosaurus, and yet you have no problem whatsoever with the fact that it looks nothing like a stegosaurus?

Sorry? "It really bears no resemblance to a stegosaurus whatsoever"? Are you joking?

Lansdowne5

The head bears no resemblance to a stegosaurus head.

The body bears no resemblance to a stegosaurus body.

The legs bear no resemblance to stegosaurus legs.

The tail bears no resemblance to a stegosaurus tail.

The plates - if they really are intended to be attached - bear no resemblance to stegosaurus plates.

It looks like a reptile, and it possibly has vague objects down its back. That's about the full extent of the resemblance. The reality is that you want it to be a stegosaurus, so you are willing to ignore every single anatomical inconsistency that would be highlighted through a truly rigorous analysis of it. This isn't a conscious effect, so of course you are not lying when you state quite confidently that you have done no such thing, but it's nonetheless what's happening. To be perfectly honest, the actual body itself - never mind the stuff by the back for a second - bears a much, much stronger resemblance to chameleons found in Cambodia:

Look at it. The head is right, right down to the protruding eye and the hump at the back of the head. The body shape is right. The legs are right, if they were extended. This chameleon even has ridges down its back, albeit not in the same proportion as the carving.

To say that this can only possibly be a stegosaurus is just plain not supported by the facts.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Look at the curved rectangles running around the border of the carving - they're identical in every way in shape to the curved rectangles running along the back of the animal, but those obviously aren't part of any animal. It would thus make perfect sense to assert that those rectangles are simply decorative, not intended to be attached to the animal.

Lansdowne5

Sure they are, except for the fact that they're rectangles and the plates on the animal's pack are not..... :roll:

Take a closer look.

If you honestly see no resemblance whatsoever, I don't know what to tell you.

Just because fossils haven't been found in Cambodia yet, that doesn't mean they didn't actually live there.

Lansdowne5

It makes it awfully likely. Is there something in the soil in Cambodia that makes fossilization not work? Because that's the only way you can explain it.

The real truth of the matter is this - God created everything less than 10,000 years ago, dinosaurs and humans included. There's the legend of a dragon in almost every culture around the world. I'm not exaggerating here. There is a legend of a dragon in almost EVERY culture that exists. It's not just a coincidence. It's because we co-existed with them and saw what they looked like.

Lansdowne5

I suppose that explains why the Western conception of a "dragon" is worlds apart from the Eastern conception of a "dragon"? And why they had wings on their back and breathed fire in the West, and were serpentine in the East? And why there is no evidence that any of these things were true of dinosaurs?

It's obviously likely that these animals were based off of some amalgam of animals that their creators saw. But the similarity between the Western conception of a dragon and the way dinosaurs actually were is largely only skin deep, in terms of them both being reptilian in nature - no dinosaur had wings protruding from its back, and there is no evidence any dinosaur breathed fire, either.

And there's also the issue of the etymology of the words that were originally used to refer to these mythical entities, too. In Germanic mythology, where the Western concept of the dragon originated, the word for "dragon" was wurm, which meant "snake" or "serpent". That same word also is present in Old English as wyrm and in Old Norse as ormr. All of these words mean "snake" or "serpent". Dinosaurs are most certainly not snakes or serpents. As a result, it's highly likely that dragons evolved out of the reverence for snakes and serpents seen in many parts of the world - not from dinosaurs.

And the similarity between the Eastern conception of a dragon and the way dinosaurs actually were? Flat-out nonexistent, basically, virtually a stake through the heart of the idea that dragons the perfect one-to-one mapping to dinosaurs that many would like to think they are. There are hundreds of dinosaurs whose fossils were found in Asia, and not a single one of them looks anything like the Eastern conception of a dragon.

The fact of the matter is that this is exactly what I've said in the past: a conclusion looking for evidence. When science came to the conclusion that animals evolved, that the world was billions of years old, and the dinosaurs died off millions of years ago, it did so based on the evidence that was available. If scientists happen to disproportionately not adhere to a literalist view of the Bible, that is because the evidence compels them to do so, as the entire foundation of the scientific method is beginning with the evidence and then reaching a conclusion.

The reason why you are so quick to believe that these things constitute evidence that dinosaurs walked among humans is the same reason why people were so quick to be taken in by the Piltdown Man hoax - it provided them something that they wanted to believe. If someone really, truly wants to believe something, then their entire view of the world will be colored by the assumption that that is true, and everything will naturally begin to look like evidence in its favor. This is a very well understood phenomenon, so much so that it even has a name in psychology - "confirmation bias", the observed tendency of humans to put everything they observe through the filter of their assumption that something is true.

I completely understand how important the belief is to you that the world was created only several thousand years ago and that the creation story as presented in Genesis is literally true, as I know very well that your entire faith is based on the assertion that every word of the Bible is intended to be read in a literal fashion. But, the fact of the matter is that holding so tightly to something that you want or even need to be true only serves to inflame confirmation bias and makes one unable to accept what is true. If something is true, you ought not to need to assert its truth in the face overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If something is true, the evidence in its favor ought to be persistent and consistent. God is not the author of confusion.

Avatar image for Funky_Llama
Funky_Llama

18428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#44 Funky_Llama
Member since 2006 • 18428 Posts

Almost identical?

This is a painting of Zmey Gorynych, a dragon in Slavic mythology:

This is a painting depicting Saint George slaying the dragon:

This is a depiction of the Mesopotamian god Marduk and his dragon:

GabuEx
I like the way you ordered the first three in descending order of patheticness. :P
Avatar image for Lansdowne5
Lansdowne5

6015

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#45 Lansdowne5
Member since 2008 • 6015 Posts

...it is, quite frankly, likely to be a hoax.

GabuEx

 

The creature depicted is called a "Yarru", or "Yarrba". And according to the elders of the kuku Yalanji aboriginal tribe, it is a creature which used to inhabit the rain forest water holes of Far North Queensland, Australia. The beast was a creature they both feared and hunted, and as such it is found frequently in their tribal legends. It is no hoax.

Though fossils of plesiosaurs like the one pictured there were indeed found in Australia, there are a number of oddities if we are to assume that this is an actual piece of ancient Aboriginal artwork. First, it is believed that necks of Plesiosaurs were not flexible in the least, and certainly were not capable of bending in such an extreme manner.

GabuEx

 

There are two possible explanations here, either a) The creator of the picture used artistic license and gave the creature a flexible neck even though in reality it did not have one, or b) what is believed about Plesiosaurs is wrong. 


In addition to that, the standard medium for ancient Australian Aboriginal artwork was rock - and this alleged piece of Aboriginal artwork was not found on a rock. The medium of this guy - bark painting - did not first appear until the 1930s. In addition, this artwork was conveniently not "found" until it was known that plesiosaurs had existed near Australia, at which point it popped up and - hey presto - just the evidence creationists were looking for.

GabuEx

 

Do you have a source for this picture not being found on rock? As far as 'I' was aware, it was.

 

People can come to conclusions that they would like on actual authentic facts, but to be perfectly honest I hold a great deal of contempt for those who fabricate evidence in the hopes of bolstering their case, as they are violating a quote that I rather like (whose source is unfortunately unknown): "You are entitled to your own opinions, Sir, but not your own facts."

GabuEx

 

This is not fabricated..... It is 100% real -

  

(That's not to say that you are consciously passing off this hoax as something authentic. But someone is. And I really, really wish he wouldn't. If you must lie in order to provide evidence in favor of your position, that is proof positive that your position is just flat-out untenable.)

GabuEx

You better have a word with the Aboriginals then......who started the "hoax" hundreds of years ago.

Avatar image for Lansdowne5
Lansdowne5

6015

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#46 Lansdowne5
Member since 2008 • 6015 Posts

If they are not accurate depictions, then you can't exactly claim that you know conclusively what they're depictions of.

GabuEx

You can "claim" anything, actually. But what we must remember, is that NOTHING is going to be 100% accurate. Especially when the art in question is hundreds to thousands of years old. Nonetheless, we have exaggerated pictures of monkeys, which are not 100% accurate either, but guess what? We still know they're monkeys. ;)

Almost identical?

GabuEx

Yes.

Western depictions of dragons are typically reptilian in nature, with wings on its back and with fire breath. Eastern depictions of dragons are typically more serpentine in nature, flying without the aid of wings. If we are to take these depictions as pertaining to the exact same creatures that existed in reality, it would seem rather strange both that they would be so different in nature and that they would all include such glaring anatomical inaccuracies when compared to dinosaur fossils.

GabuEx

They are all gigantic lizard-like creatures, with enormous teeth and claws. Some could fly, some could not. Remind you of anything? Oh, and while we're at it, what do you think Isaiah is referring to in 14:29 and 30:6?

Such as...

GabuEx

In Britain alone there are hundreds of recorded sightings and encounters (a minimum of 81 to be precise) with creatures resembling dragons. See link.

You're trying to say it's a stegosaurus, and yet you have no problem whatsoever with the fact that it looks nothing like a stegosaurus?

GabuEx

But it DOES look like a stegosaurus......what I'm saying is that he wouldn't necessarily have included the SPECIFIC details.


The head bears no resemblance to a stegosaurus head.

GabuEx

It does, actually. And as I've already said, it was never going to be 100% accurate.


The body bears no resemblance to a stegosaurus body.

GabuEx


You must be looking at something different to me......or maybe, you're looking at a picture of a stegosaurus skeleton.....and forgetting that the wall carving is of a living creature with flesh and muscle. 


The legs bear no resemblance to stegosaurus legs.

GabuEx

They do. If you look closely, you'll see that the back legs are much taller than the front ones.


The tail bears no resemblance to a stegosaurus tail.

GabuEx


It's a tail.....on the back of what is clearly a stegosaurus. Alright, maybe it's slightly different to 'our' artistic drawings of a stegosaurus tail, but bear in mind that the carver was doing this in stone. And regardless of this one feature, it is still obvious what he is depicting.


The plates - if they really are intended to be attached - bear no resemblance to stegosaurus plates.

GabuEx


Really? The plates seem pretty much identical to me -

 

It looks like a reptile, and it possibly has vague objects down its back. That's about the full extent of the resemblance. The reality is that you want it to be a stegosaurus, so you are willing to ignore every single anatomical inconsistency that would be highlighted through a truly rigorous analysis of it. This isn't a conscious effect, so of course you are not lying when you state quite confidently that you have done no such thing, but it's nonetheless what's happening. To be perfectly honest, the actual body itself - never mind the stuff by the back for a second - bears a much, much stronger resemblance to chameleons found in Cambodia:

GabuEx

 

Yeah! Except for the fact that the legs, eyes, tail, plates, head, and body shape are all completely different. :roll:

Take a closer look.

If you honestly see no resemblance whatsoever, I don't know what to tell you.

GabuEx

I already have. And what I notice is that the rectangles outside the circle are consistently....rectangular. Whereas the ones within the circle are not.

It makes it awfully likely. Is there something in the soil in Cambodia that makes fossilization not work? Because that's the only way you can explain it.

GabuEx

Quite possibly.

I suppose that explains why the Western conception of a "dragon" is worlds apart from the Eastern conception of a "dragon"?

GabuEx

Would it be correct to say that dinosaurs were all exactly the same? Did they not come in all shapes and sizes? Were some not "worlds apart" from each other?

It's obviously likely that these animals were based off of some amalgam of animals that their creators saw. But the similarity between the Western conception of a dragon and the way dinosaurs actually were is largely only skin deep, in terms of them both being reptilian in nature - no dinosaur had wings protruding from its back, and there is no evidence any dinosaur breathed fire, either.

GabuEx

We haven't discovered every type of dinosaur yet......and we cannot be certain from fossil evidence that they didn't actually breathe fire.

And there's also the issue of the etymology of the words that were originally used to refer to these mythical entities, too. In Germanic mythology, where the Western concept of the dragon originated, the word for "dragon" was wurm, which meant "snake" or "serpent". That same word also is present in Old English as wyrm and in Old Norse as ormr. All of these words mean "snake" or "serpent". Dinosaurs are most certainly not snakes or serpents. As a result, it's highly likely that dragons evolved out of the reverence for snakes and serpents seen in many parts of the world - not from dinosaurs.

GabuEx

Some dinosaurs do appear snake-like, though.....whether they really are or not is irrelevant.

 

And the similarity between the Eastern conception of a dragon and the way dinosaurs actually were? Flat-out nonexistent, basically, virtually a stake through the heart of the idea that dragons the perfect one-to-one mapping to dinosaurs that many would like to think they are. There are hundreds of dinosaurs whose fossils were found in Asia, and not a single one of them looks anything like the Eastern conception of a dragon.

GabuEx

No-one has claimed it was a perfect "mapping". The legends, no doubt, have been distorted over the last mellenia a great deal. 

  

The fact of the matter is that this is exactly what I've said in the past: a conclusion looking for evidence.

GabuEx

Scripture gives us the conclusion, and it itself is the evidence. :)

  

When science came to the conclusion that animals evolved, that the world was billions of years old, and the dinosaurs died off millions of years ago, it did so based on the evidence that was available.

GabuEx

No, SCIENTISTS came to those conclusions. Scientists who put faith in their own observations rather than God's revelation through His Written Word.

  

If scientists happen to disproportionately not adhere to a literalist view of the Bible, that is because the evidence compels them to do so, as the entire foundation of the scientific method is beginning with the evidence and then reaching a conclusion.

GabuEx

No...it is because they are in rebellion to God's Word. And if the conclusion is built on the evidence, how is it that the evidence has been wrong, in so many cases? Such as Lucy the chimp? ;)

   

The reason why you are so quick to believe that these things constitute evidence that dinosaurs walked among humans is the same reason why people were so quick to be taken in by the Piltdown Man hoax - it provided them something that they wanted to believe.

GabuEx

I'm not quick to believe anything like that. Because at the end of the day, I need nothing more than God's Word as confirmation. It itself is all the evidence I, and any other follower of God, needs. 

   

If someone really, truly wants to believe something, then their entire view of the world will be colored by the assumption that that is true, and everything will naturally begin to look like evidence in its favor. This is a very well understood phenomenon, so much so that it even has a name in psychology - "confirmation bias", the observed tendency of humans to put everything they observe through the filter of their assumption that something is true.

GabuEx

And an interesting phenomenon it is to. I remember seeing a TV program a few months ago about it. :)

   

I completely understand how important the belief is to you that the world was created only several thousand years ago and that the creation story as presented in Genesis is literally true, as I know very well that your entire faith is based on the assertion that every word of the Bible is intended to be read in a literal fashion.

GabuEx

Wait up. Who said that every word of the Bible is intended to be read in a literal fashion? I certainly didn't. 

  

But, the fact of the matter is that holding so tightly to something that you want or even need to be true only serves to inflame confirmation bias and makes one unable to accept what is true. If something is true, you ought not to need to assert its truth in the face overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If something is true, the evidence in its favor ought to be persistent and consistent. God is not the author of confusion.

GabuEx

The sad thing is, there is no "overwhelming" evidence to the contrary. If there was, there wouldn't be hundreds of (non-Christian) scientists around the world seeing through the lies of Evolutionary Theory and an Old-Earth. ;)

Oh, and you're right. God is not the author of confusion. We are, when we put our fallible and errant word above His.

Avatar image for AlternatingCaps
AlternatingCaps

1714

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#47 AlternatingCaps
Member since 2007 • 1714 Posts

In Britain alone there are hundreds of recorded sightings and encounters (a minimum of 81 to be precise) with creatures resembling dragons. See link.

Lansdowne5

 

Nice, unbiased website :roll:

Most likely just stories.

 

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

It makes it awfully likely. Is there something in the soil in Cambodia that makes fossilization not work? Because that's the only way you can explain it.

Lansdowne5

Quite possibly.

Whatever helps you sleep at night...

 

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I suppose that explains why the Western conception of a "dragon" is worlds apart from the Eastern conception of a "dragon"?

Lansdowne5

Would it be correct to say that dinosaurs were all exactly the same? Did they not come in all shapes and sizes? Were some not "worlds apart" from each other?

Alright, but different lizards/dogs/whatever animals from different continents still bear some resemblance. A terrier has characteristics that distinguish it from a shiba inu, but you can still tell they're both dogs. The difference isn't as radical as that between Asian and European dragons.


Scripture gives us the conclusion, and it itself is the evidence. :)

Lansdowne5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defeating_idea

And don't go ahead and say that I'm wrong because evolutionary naturalism and such is on there. So is the idea of sola scriptura. It's just a list of proposals of self-refutation, not proven examples. And I'm not trying to say that sola scriptura is wrong because it's on the list either if you were thinking I was (such miscommunication is easy on the Internet).

Oh, and if you go to the "Begging the question" page, "God exists because the Bible says so" is there under examples. You just can't use a proposition to support itself (I'll skip on the wheel of power).

 

No, SCIENTISTS came to those conclusions, scientists who put faith in their own observations rather than God's revelation through His Written Word.

Lansdowne5

Scientists who, in their search of answers to questions of the natural world, looked to the natural world instead of millenia-old dogma?

 

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]  

If scientists happen to disproportionately not adhere to a literalist view of the Bible, that is because the evidence compels them to do so, as the entire foundation of the scientific method is beginning with the evidence and then reaching a conclusion.

Lansdowne5

No... it is because they are in rebellion to God's word. And if the conclusion is built on the evidence, how is it that the evidence has been wrong in so many cases, such as Lucy the chimp? ;)

Yes, I'm sure every scientist is thinking to themselves, "Heh, take THAT, God!"


[QUOTE="GabuEx"]   

If someone really, truly wants to believe something, then their entire view of the world will be colored by the assumption that that is true, and everything will naturally begin to look like evidence in its favor. This is a very well understood phenomenon, so much so that it even has a name in psychology - "confirmation bias", the observed tendency of humans to put everything they observe through the filter of their assumption that something is true.

Lansdowne5

And an interesting phenomenon it is to. I remember seeing a TV program a few months ago about it. :)

And you didn't stop and think that maybe that might be you? Sorry, if I sound offensive, I have no such intention, but what makes the Bible more true (truer?) than Buddhist enlightenment or [insert other religion]?

This reminds me of a quote I learned in AP European History last year. Hitler's propaganda minister once said that "a lie, if repeated often enough, becomes true."

 

Wait up. Who said that every word of the Bible is intended to be read in a literal fashion? I certainly didn't.

Lansdowne5

Then how do you decide which parts to accept literally and which not to?

 

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]  

But, the fact of the matter is that holding so tightly to something that you want or even need to be true only serves to inflame confirmation bias and makes one unable to accept what is true. If something is true, you ought not to need to assert its truth in the face overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If something is true, the evidence in its favor ought to be persistent and consistent. God is not the author of confusion.

Lansdowne5

The sad thing is, there is no "overwhelming" evidence to the contrary. If there were, there wouldn't be hundreds of (non-Christian) scientists around the world seeing through the lies of Evolutionary Theory and an Old-Earth. ;)

Oh, and you're right. God is not the author of confusion, we are when we put our fallible and errant word above His.

There's no overwhelming evidence because you don't want there to be any...

And I hope you don't mind the various little grammatical fixes throughout. It's not that your grammar is particularly bad, it's just that I'm a nitpicker.

Avatar image for Bourbons3
Bourbons3

24238

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#48 Bourbons3
Member since 2003 • 24238 Posts

Uh, I don't mean to be rude... But I find the prospect that humans lived alongside dinosaurs utterly laughable. As Bill Maher once said: "These are people who believe that The Flintstones actually happened!":lol:

Come now, surely human-dinosaur contact would have had a massive impact on human culture. Giant lizards? Really? You'd tell everyone, show everyone you could these scaly behemoths. And yet all that remains are these rare pictures of slightly dino-esque creatures? It simply defies logic.

Not to mention that dinosaurs' presence would have really unbalanced the ecosystem.

EDIT: This is related, sadly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd_ssolGNKc&feature=PlayList&p=F3C093DAE554C430&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=39

Stryder1212
That's disturbing. One reason why I am against home-schooling in many cases.
Avatar image for Teenaged
Teenaged

31764

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#49 Teenaged
Member since 2007 • 31764 Posts

Wait up. Who said that every word of the Bible is intended to be read in a literal fashion? I certainly didn't.

Lansdowne5

I'll be using that in future reference if you dont mind. ;)

Oh and how come you and BR disagree on that? Can two Evangelists have so radically different views on the right way to read the Bible and still claim coherence and consistency in the message they receive from it and evangelise it?

Avatar image for Lansdowne5
Lansdowne5

6015

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#50 Lansdowne5
Member since 2008 • 6015 Posts
[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

Wait up. Who said that every word of the Bible is intended to be read in a literal fashion? I certainly didn't.

Teenaged

I'll be using that in future reference if you dont mind. ;)

Oh and how come you and BR disagree on that? Can two Evangelists have so radically different views on the right way to read the Bible and still claim coherence and consistency in the message they receive from it and evangelise it?

Blackregiment and I do not disagree. Genesis (specifically) is meant to be read in a literal fashion. But GENESIS =/= "every word of the Bible". Does it? ;)