Did Dinosaurs co exist with Man?

That is my position as well

 

While I don't agree with the almost cult like stance of the Creation Institute I do find much of their evidence compelling. I lean toward a younger earth so I have no problem with humans and the dinosaurs co-existing together.

 

Don"t forget guys (gals) you are supposed to afford the minority with special rights and privileges.

 

Makes Sense to Me!

I have no doubt that the dino's could have roamed the land prior to the flood. The Bible may not be clear on this, but, there is no other explanation.

Great OP.

Pastor Paul :type:

 

Well, to me, it's obvious that dinosaurs once existed due to all the bones and fossils being found. But, I don't believe the earth is over 6-7,000 years old, so I guess they had to exist at the same time man did.

 

Some of the more compelling evidence that is now coming forth are "fossils" that contain viable DNA evidence.

Most remarkable among these recent discoveries is the "68 million-year-old T-Rex blood sample that was found.

Really? :laugh:

Not that a blood sample was found, we might expect that. But that the dating was 68 MILLION years for the sample... I recall P.T. Barnum's famous line about one being born every minute. :wavey:

 

FYI

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html?device=other&c=y

 

The concluding paragraphs of the link:
Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”

By definition, there is a lot that scientists don’t know, because the whole point of science is to explore the unknown. By being clear that scientists haven’t explained everything, Schweitzer leaves room for other explanations. “I think that we’re always wise to leave certain doors open,” she says.

But schweitzer’s interest in the long-term preservation of molecules and cells does have an otherworldly dimension: she’s collaborating with NASA scientists on the search for evidence of possible past life on Mars, Saturn’s moon Titan, and other heavenly bodies. (Scientists announced this spring, for instance, that Saturn’s tiny moon Enceladus appears to have liquid water, a probable precondition for life.)



Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html#ixzz1QCc5X6RD

 

Can someone explain why God would create this creature on (24 hour) Day 6 with fangs, teeth, and claws in order to eat vegetation?

How much vegetation would T-Rex need to eat in a day to sustain itself?

 

I'm not sure... How much vegetation would a brontosaurus, that is 5X the size have to eat?

 

Interesting article from my favorite weekly email publication:

http://www.tothesource.org/6_22_2011/6_22_2011.htm

 

First understand the canopy theory, the theory that a vapor canopy was surrounding the earth, making the vegetation high in oxygen content and very high in nutrients in a way like a green house surounding the earth. With the high nutrient content in the food not as much was required to sustain life so he wouldn't have eaten as much as you think. This also would account for the longevity of mankind in those preflood generations.

 

REV, honest question. I thought most (if not all) YE were strongly against the idea of predation at the early moments of creation. Doesnt seem to me that a vegetarian would need to be so "well equipped". Oh and the "canopy theory" (which I find interesting) is as much a theory as any position held by anyone of the OE position.

 

This presents an interesting conundrum... The rocks are dated to 68 million years because they have geological features, including fossils that date to 68 million years. The fossils are dated to 68 million years because they are in a rock layer that is dated to 68 million years. It all works out to be rather circular, but that never seems to daunt the secular geologists.

 

We (collectively) have made many assumptions concerning certain "design" characteristics of animals and humans. Words like "vestigial," "junk," and other connotations, such as "meat eater," etc., have often proven wrong once the issues at hand are more fully understood.

I am not saying that such is true for T-rex, but I am saying that we probably don't know God's original design parameter before Genesis 3, but it was likely not a meat eater. Other large reptiles (and we do know that reptiles continue to grow -- seemingly without limits -- as they age and with long life spans of early creation, many critters that we have specially called dinosaurs may just have been largely grown reptiles of one sort or another) are demonstrably plant eaters and the roundish peg-type teeth of many of the reptiles purportedly meat eaters work equally well to strip leaves from trees. In fact, the lack of forward appendages (stunted) may be a greater call to tree stripping behavior than meat harvesting, which would have been cumbersome at the very least.

Oh, and how do we know the coloration and more so, the noise these critters made?

 

God made the earth for the benefit of all but knew that man would fall and the judgement of the flood would come. Thus the canopy was there for man's protection and judgement, God works in some very mysterious way. The canopy provided and nourished while God burst it to bring the terential rain from above coupled with the waters coming from below to flood the entire earth. Then the Promise of no more flood. God could have just as easily placed a new canopy over the earth had He so willed but He didn't instead He promised no more judgement of the flood.

 

Exactly. Clearly a 68 , million year old soft tissue sample is preposterous. However, the secular scientist who discovered it, is so blinded by her brainwashing that she cannot see the truth.

BTW: does anyone else here understand how the dating process works? They found a T-Rex specimen, and therefore determined a range of possible dates. They then test the samples, using only radiometric methods which will yield ages in that range. For instance, Carbon 14 dating would not be used, even though Carbon 14 is present in the sample, because it would yield a date that is outside the "acceptable" range for the evolutionary time scale.

In such a world, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get a dinosaur that does not date millions of years old, even if it was found with a saddle on it. The Geologists would call it an "anomaly" and would date it with methods that would yield results in the appropriate age range.

 

But we do know what every creature ate prior to the flood.

Genesis 1: 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Then after the flood God commanded Noah in

Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

This verse explains a lot to us pre-flood the animals had no reason to fear mankind and so they readily came with Noah into the Ark. Pre-flood man had no fear of the animals for they ate the herbs and fruit from trees and plants. After the judgement of sin at the flood this changed. The only animals that died pre-flood were those offered in sacrifice to God as we see in
Genesis 4:3And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
4And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

 

I am certain the article may have been "casually" written not intending to of the professional peer reviewed level so as to be enjoyed by those of non-science backgrounds. I know tht YOU have a science background (if memory serves me correctly) nevertheless here is a great article written by a believing christian concerning scientific methods of investigation. I know it is unconvincing to you, but perhaps you may take something from it.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

To me, the important detail here is that we in the believing community to not point fingers and cast dispersions toward one another over "this issue". We should (IMHO) be of the frame of mind to honestly seek truth. To be sure, there are great numbers of scientists who are "agenda driven", the same could be said of theologians. We should approach sceince, faith, and theology with humility and all recognize that none of us have all the correct answers to the quiz.

 

Fruit bats also have fangs, teeth and claws. They are extremely useful for tearing into the fleshy parts of fruit.

Likewise, claws are not just useful for tearing flesh; they are also useful for tearing bark, and stripping certain types of plants, as well as gripping on slick surfaces. Sharp teeth are more useful than blunt teeth for eating fruits, melons, and such.