Do you believe that the dinosaurs died before the flood?

Oh no, not the canopy theory still!

Most of the main creationist groups have dropped this unworkable theory.

Rob

 

O.K. Craig, I'll bite, I believe there were dinosaurs on the ark and on the earth after the flood. I can't prove this of course and have no scientific evidence of it but I think it is a reasonable assumption. Given the dimensions of the ark and the number of species on earth there was more than enough room. I would assume that juvenile animals were taken on the ark rather than full grown ones.

There are many Biblical references to animals that could have been dinosaurs of some type (leviathan, behemoth)

Even more convincing to me is the fact that every culture on earth has legends of dragons. From China to England to Native Americans we have stories of many dragons of great variety. Some could fly, some could breath fire, some lived in the oceans. If all of the dinosaurs died off millions of years before man evolved and there was never any interaction between the two then where did these legends come from? Exactly what did Saint George kill? You know there are an awful lot of "eyewitness accounts" of this one.

We know that the native people of Alaska and Siberia hunted Mammoths and we have records of American Indians hunting giant sloths and other extinct animals. Why not dinosaurs too?

Now I could be wrong, and I don't see any theological implications from this. If dinosaurs died off before the flood, or before man was created, or even if they never existed at all then I don't see how that would affect any doctrines of scripture.

I am sure some will disagree with me and like I said this does not affect scripture and is not really worth fighting about so if you want a big argument about this your not going to get it from me.

 

Shucks, everybody knows the dinosaurs all died off 65 million years ago. Nothing connects living dinosaurs and living men together.

 

I believe the dinosaurs are still alive today!!

In 1841 Richard Owen coined the term "dinosaur" which means "terrible lizard". In the pre-flood world everything lived longer, in most cases hundreds of years, and therefore grew larger. Keep in mind that reptiles never stop growing.

http://www.creationseminar.net/meet_our_dinosaurs.htm

 

This is one of the problems with YE sources. Most people do not have much background in the sciences. When you come across something like what you posted and linked to, you are apt to believe them. I mean, why would a fellow Christian need to be dishonest with you on a subject where you already agree?

Well the truth of the matter is that your source was dishonest with you. There is no way that any modern reptiles could be any known reptiles. Dinosaurs belonged to a very special group of reptiles known as archosaurs. Archosaurs have some very specific physical traits that separate them from the other reptiles. But, without this knowledge, mistruths as you were told are hard to pick out.

I know of three major groups of animals that are / were archosaurs. The first were the dinosaurs. The second are the crocodiles and alligators. (NO, alligators are not dinosaurs!) The thrid that I know of are the birds. If you want to look for living dinosaurs then birds are your ONLY choice. There were also other, minor groups such as the pterosaurs.

Here are some of the morphological differences.

Read more...

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/archosauria.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/archomm.html

 

I thought it might be enlightening to look at some of the claims made on your link.

Let's first take the one about reptiles never stop growing. In a strict sense it is true for some reptiles. But, the growth is not constant. It slows greatly as the animals get older. So longer periods of growth would not form giants. In addition, most lizards do stop growing once they reach adult size. So the claim is misleading at best.

They then say

The Iguanadon was named based on a single tooth that looked like the tooth of a lizard. Iguana comes from Spanish for lizard and -don comes from the Greek root odont meaning tooth. So literally it meant lizard's tooth. If I am correct, the first nearly complete dinosaur excavated was a Hadrosaur not an iguanadon.

The page goes on to make similar assertions but offering no proof. Such as claiming a bearded dragon is a little anklyosaurus. That one even has a cute toy next to it.

This page could be the poster child for what is wrong with what passes for YE "science." They do not even attempt to get the basics correct. They draw completely unsupportable conclusions. And they do a great disservice to honest believers in the process. The sad thing is that most Christians that have gone through this country's educational system cannot even recognize such blatant problems.

It is generally quite easy to point out the mistakes on YE web sites. Not so with the real sciences of evolution, astronomy, biology, paleontology, geology, etc.

 

The real sciences of evolution???

I will side with the Creation Scientist who acknowledge God before I join sides with those who promote the antichrist teachings of evolution.

 

No need for question marks. Those listed are real sciences. They make theories, they make predicitions, they are testable, they are falsifiable. They are the truth.

So it did not bother you at all that the creation "scientists" at your link had misled and lied to you? Why would they need to do that if they were telling the truth?

Your first logical mistake is the false dilemma. Many good scientists also acknowledge God. A choice you discount is that perhaps your interpretation is incorrect. Look at all of the various interpretations and beliefs on various subjects within all of the demoinations of Christians. For that matter, narrow it to just Baptists and look at the variety of opinions on this very board. Everyone is not right about everything, though many think that they are.

Your second logical mistake is the ad hominem. Instead of supporting your assertions, you make a personal attack.

Now I will assert that it is the real scientists who are being closer to "Christ-like" than the creation "scientists." I make this assertion because the real scientists actually are interested in finding the truth in the matters in which they investigate while the so called creation "scientists" seem to have no problem will being untruthful.

 

I know what happened to the Dinosaurs - they died.

Thousands of species go extinct every year on the earth. Dinosaurs would not be immune.

As a matter of fact, if the Bible is true (which I believe it to be) and it's description of animal kinds is true... we would expect creatures to go extinct on a regular basis. Why? Because there is no natural way for matter to give rise to information. Code systems come from other code systems. As a species gets more and more specific, it looses genes. Specific traits are expressed, and you have a great deal of change. However, once you loose that information, you can't get it back again unless you mate with another creature that has that information. The more isolated a species get, the more genetic loss is free to occur. Eventually, you would have enough mutation to loose all the genetic information for a species all together. When the last that are left die, they go extinct.

If evolution were true, then natural selection should be able to "remold" a genetic system to "revive an extinct species". We should be able to see a re-building of the genetic losses that cause extinction within an isolated genome. We should be able to see animals adapt by adding new genetic information to their systems to adapt to changing environments.

Moreover, all over the world you see early peoples drawing pictures of dinosaurs just the same as they would any other animal they saw. For example, early american indians have drawings of dinosaurs mixed in with drawings of deer, buffalo, etc.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/AnswersBook/dinosaurs19.asp

Check out that AiG article. It's very good. It speaks specifically to this question of dinosaurs.

 

The evolutionist here will not go to AiG as a source, they would rather turn to the antichrist teachings of Darwin than to turn to a Christian source. I believe evolution to be the root sin of many of today's problems like abortion, euthenasia, etc.

I don't believe the author in my previous source lied, or misled, some just happen to disagree with him. I believe that the reptiles of today are related to the dinos of the past, and I believe the earth is between 6 and 10 thousand years old, there is not theory of evolution that can lead me to believe otherwise.

 

What!!!!

He said things that are not true and are not up for debate. Period.

Dinosaurs and other archosaurs have a different physical makeup than the reptiles of today. Did you not read the morphology material I provided you?!?

Can you defend the claims? If so, go for it. Show me that the physical differences between dinosaurs and the reptiles of today are not as I say. Make it so if you can.

But you cannot. For the claims were not just false, they are lies. They are indefensible. And they are an excellent example of what is wrong with YE. Their claims are built on feet of clay and crumble when a little pressure is applied.

 

Everything UTEOTW says is a demonstration of what is wrong with those who proclaim themselves to be the "real" scientists today. (quotes by UTEOTW)

They have a self-proclaimed intellectual superiority, they are soooo much smarter than us commoners.

They condemn every dissenting opinion as a lie.

They think we should believe their claims without question when they offer no supporting facts.

They are quick to poke holes in other men's theories but conveniently ignore the problems with their own.

They try to support their false assumptions with other sciences based on other false assumptions. They make claims like

When what they don't want to admit is that is the basics of their evolutionary ideology that we question. The basis of all science that claims an old earth. As a creationist I don't just have a problem with mainstream biology, but also geology, physics, chemistry, astronony, paleontology and the other sciences.


They proclaim their own truth with statements like

When the real truth is that there can be nothing but theories. They offer no predictions that are testable and no truth.

Here is a great example of where I am coming from UTEOTW. In my earlier post on this topic I made a statement about the possibility that dinosaurs never existed at all. The truth is that you cannot probe the existence of any dinosaurs. All you can prove is the existence of fossils. Now many scientists assume that these fossils represent the remains of earlier live dinosaurs but that is an assumption that cannot be proven. What if God never made dinosaurs, he just created fossils of dinosaurs. Now I don't necessarily believe that, but you cannot prove that it is false. You cannot prove any of your claims UTEOTW, it has to be taken on faith. That is why no post you have made on this topic or in this forum can carry any weight, you have no proof, only opinion and assumption and the bottom line comes down not to facts but belief and where you place your faith. Mine is with God's word. Yours is with the self proclaimed (but far from unanimous) scientific leadership of mankind.

 

Throwing down the gauntlet. Fun!

"They have a self-proclaimed intellectual superiority, they are soooo much smarter than us commoners."

And you can point to where I have said that I am smarter than you? No? This is an ad hominem and should be withdrawn. Such personal attacks do nothing to advance your posistion and the use of logical fallacies such as this only demonstrate the weakness of your opinion.

"They condemn every dissenting opinion as a lie."

No, ususally I just show them as wrong. Some are so obviously misrepresented as to be obvious that the author was not just wrong but deliberately wrong. I will not cease from calling a spade a spade. When these guys deliberately tell untruths trying to bolster their opinion they then give the appearance to the world that all Christians must resort to such tactics to support their faith. That is not true. Most Christians are honest. But these few do irreperable harm to our cause. You can go read many anecdotes of folks who never come to Christ or who have left the fold over this.

"They think we should believe their claims without question when they offer no supporting facts."

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/40.html#000006
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/archosauria.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/archomm.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/40.html#000007

These are posts on this thread or links I have provided to support mu claims. It is simply not true to say I have not offered any support.

"They are quick to poke holes in other men's theories but conveniently ignore the problems with their own."

I have yet to see anyone poke even attempt to poke a hole in what I have claimed. Let's repeat my claim here. There are physicl differences between the dinosaurs and the reptiles today that mean they cannot be the same things. These differenes are found from head to foot. No one has challenged this yet. If you think you can argue those facts instead of making an un-Christian personal attack on me then do so.

"They try to support their false assumptions with other sciences based on other false assumptions."

There are no assumptions here. You can look at the bones of the dinosaurs and the bones of the reptiles in question and see the physical differences. There are no assumptions and no interpretations to be made. It is like claiming that a triangle is not a square. There are shaped in fundamentally different ways. You can tell this by looking. No assumptions needed.

"When what they don't want to admit is that is the basics of their evolutionary ideology that we question. The basis of all science that claims an old earth. As a creationist I don't just have a problem with mainstream biology, but also geology, physics, chemistry, astronony, paleontology and the other sciences."

Then put your claims down in specific terms so we can examine your problems. While you are at it, we need a specific theory from you that explains all hte data we see in a testable theory, that makes predictions about what else we should find, and how this theory of your could be falsified. Until you can you are merely substituting personal attacks and unsubstantiated assertions for a real argument.

"When the real truth is that there can be nothing but theories. They offer no predictions that are testable and no truth."

Wrong. Just-Want-Peace made the same false claim a week or so ago. I detailed the answer for him. I have not heard back. Maybe you can point out specifically where the problems are or you can withdraw your claim.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/37/2.html#000016

"Here is a great example of where I am coming from UTEOTW. In my earlier post on this topic I made a statement about the possibility that dinosaurs never existed at all. The truth is that you cannot probe the existence of any dinosaurs. All you can prove is the existence of fossils. Now many scientists assume that these fossils represent the remains of earlier live dinosaurs but that is an assumption that cannot be proven. What if God never made dinosaurs, he just created fossils of dinosaurs."

Then you believe in a different god than the God I have faith in.

"That is why no post you have made on this topic or in this forum can carry any weight, you have no proof, only opinion and assumption and the bottom line comes down not to facts but belief and where you place your faith."

Sticking to the topic of the thread, looking at bones and pointing out obvious differences is factual. There are no assumptions or opinions or beliefs necessary. It is interesting that you chose not to challenge the facts in play with contradictory material but instead chose to make a personal attack and to make sweeping, unsubstantiated claims. Is you position really that weak? Your tactics would suggest both that it really is that weak and that you are aware of it.

"and the bottom line comes down not to facts but belief and where you place your faith. Mine is with God's word. Yours is with the self proclaimed (but far from unanimous) scientific leadership of mankind."

I guess that more more logical fallacy to complete your rant is appropriate. This time the false dilemma. You know that there are many of us who can accept both God's word as true and can accept what God has revealed to us in His creation. The two do not have to be separate. Yours is not the only interpretation and the striking manner with which your interpretation conflicts with God's own creation indicates that you are incorrect. I do not understand why you need to divide believers with such rhetoric.

 

North Carolina Tentmaker sez:

B-I-N-G-O!!!

 

UTEOTW:

I documented every allegation with multiple quotes

I have read your previous posts and I have yet to see a single bit of factual support that was not based on assumption and opinion.

I guess you wanted to stick to the topic of differences between dinosaurs and modern reptiles. Yea there are differences, there are also similarities. They are both reptiles. That's good enough for me.

I have to agree with you when you say

 

"I documented every allegation with multiple quotes"

Huh?

I see no quotes to show that I have ever claimed that I was smarter than you. I see no quotes to show that I call every dissenting opinion a "lie." (I do call some this, when the shoe fits, but that is differnt than your charge of "every dissenting opinion." To prove that you need to show that, well, I have called everyone that has ever disagreed with me a liar. Tough row for you.) I see no quotes that show that I have offered no support for my opinions. In fact I provided statements and links in this very thread. I see no quotes from you ppoking holes in my theories. I see nothing from you to support your claims of false assumptions. I see nothing from you support your reasons to dismiss all of "biology, [and] also geology, physics, chemistry, astronony, paleontology and the other sciences." I see nothing that counters my statements showing how evolution is a testable theory.

Just where are your statements and quotes supporting your allegations? I see none.

"I have read your previous posts and I have yet to see a single bit of factual support that was not based on assumption and opinion."

Let's just take one statement of mine at random.

So which parts about the observation of growth rates of reptiles are based only "assumption and opinion" and are not "factual?" Support your assertion!

"I guess you wanted to stick to the topic of differences between dinosaurs and modern reptiles. Yea there are differences, there are also similarities. They are both reptiles. That's good enough for me."

You have a low standard of proof. They are reptiles, of course there are similarities. But there are also key differences. These you are willing to ignore.

Dinosaurs and molizards are both part of a group of reptiles known as diapsids. Dinosaurs are part of a group of diapsids known as the sub-class Archosauria which is then subdivided into several orders. Lizards belong to a sub-class called Lepidosauria, an order called squamata and the sub-order Lacertilia. Let's look at the differences.

First the pelvis. "The most striking characteristic of the Archosauria is the triradiate pelvis. In the Lepidosauria (including lizards) the ilium extends dorsally, articulating with two, unfused, sacral vertebrae. The ischium and pubis are parallel to the ground surface, and fused in the midline. In the archosaurs (including dinosaurs), the ilium is expanded along its dorsal margin, and articulates with three or four fused vertebrae. The ischium extends posteroventrally and the pubis anteroventrally. The pubes and ischii are fused laterally for most of their length."

Let's look at the teeth. "The teeth in lepidosaurs are pleurordont. That is, they are set in a long groove in the jaws with a high outer and low inner wall. The individual teeth are fused to the outer wall of the groove without roots. In the archosaurs the teeth are thecodont. They are set in deep individual sockets which enclose the long, cylindrical root of the tooth. The lower jaw of the lepidosaurs (Romer, fig. 108, p. 208.) has a well developed coronoid process which forms the upper margin of the mandible behind the dentary bone, and both the surangular and articular bones participate in the jaw articulation. In the archosaurs the coronoid is confined to the inner surface of the mandible, below the surangular, which forms the upper margin of the mandible behind the dentary bone, and the jaw articulation is formed entirely by the articular bone."

The skulls are another area of strong difference. "In the lepidosaur skull the maxilla is firmly joined with the lachrimal and jugal bones and there is no anteorbital fenestra (opening in the skull in front of the eye). In the archosaurians the maxilla forms the anterior border and the lachrimal and jugal the posterior border of a large anteorbital fenestra. In the archosauria both the quadrate and quadratojugal bones form the jaw articulation, while in the lepidosaurs the quadrate forms the articulation. It is difficult to describe complex vertebrae without pictures. But look at the dorsal vertebrae of lepidosaurs vs archosaurs and you will see they are strikingly different. Compare the single headed ribs of a large monitor lizard (Varanus) with the double-headed ribs of a superficially similar dinosaur, like Thecodontosaurus.

"There are also substantial differences in terms of locomotion/posture. As a result of their skeletons, we believe dinosaurs had a pretty much upright stride, while a lizard’s limbs are sprawled out to the side. There is good evidence for differences in physiology as well. The dinosaurs appear to have a much more "hot blooded" metabolism than lizards. Lizards are unqualified ectotherms (without a way to make their own heat), growing slowly and taking years to reach sexual maturity. They do not deposit fibrolamellar bone, a dense, interwoven tissue indicative of fast growth and high basal metabolism. Lizards also do not form large amounts of Haversian canals (channels running through a bone in which blood vessels and nerves are located); which are another indicator, though not unambiguous, of higher metabolism and growth rates. Dinosaurs display them (especially evident in juvenile dinosaur bones)."

Now do you have some way of telling me how lizards could be little dinosaurs with such major differences in their morphology? I'll probably get that about as soon as I get a testable, falsifiable, predictive theory from you that explains what we observe or I get a factual set of reasons why evolution does not fit this mold or I get some factual reasons that you object to most of science.

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/reptiles/anatomy.htm

 

B-I-N-G-O!!! </font>[/QUOTE]Are you ever going to back this claim up by showing me how I am wrong in my claims that evolution offers a testable, falsifiable, predictive theory?

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/37/2.html#000016

Are you ever going to offer such a theory of your own?