Dinosaurs and the Bible

If that were the case, then why was the skeleton thrown back into the water. A plesiosaur skeleton would have been worth a lot more money to the crew than a full load of catch.

The fact that is was thrown overboard leaves the plesiosaur idea highly suspect. The scientific community would have happily paid millions for such a find.

 

On board was Michihiko Yano, a qualified biologist and an experienced crew. All of them were puzzled by what had been dredged up. Yano took five photos and pulled a few horny hairs off the edge of the front flipper, but the carcass had to be thrown back as it was feared that it might contaminate the whole catch.

 

Answers in Genesis has the following article online:

Further evidence that the Zuiyo-maru carcass was a basking shark, not a plesiosaur

SOURCE

 

The "marine biologist" would have recognized the monetary value of the find. But how many fishing trawlers have marine biologists aboard? As it turns out, Michihiko Yano wasn't a marine biolgist at all, but, a section chief for the Taiyo Fishery Company, who cartered the vessel. Yano's "marine biology" experience is merely in line with commercial fisherman.

 

How do you know Yano wasn't a marine biologist? I read (it might be wrong) that all Japenese trawlers had to have a marine biologist on board so that if they fished anything up that might contaminate the catch (such as a rotting pleisiosaur!), then it could be got rid of so as not to create a public health hazard! Also, the Japenese DID think it was a pleisiosaur - they even made a postage stamp of a plesiosaur to commemorate the occasion!

 

Scotland has had Nessie stamps, too, but the Loch Ness Monster is nothing but a figment of peoples' imaginations, combined with abondant hoax photos. The loch has been sonar scanned from one end to another numerous times, in minute detail, and has found nothing.

If a plesiosaur were indeed to have been discovered, do you not think that the scientific community would jump all over it like white on rice? It would indeed be welcomed. That would be the discovery of the century.

 

After much scouring, only heresay sites (sites that pick up what someone else said) refer to him as a marine biologist. Sites with more firsthand information don't refer to him as a marine biologist at all, but an employee of the company that chartered the catch. It appears that, somewhere along the line of information being passed, the phrase "marine biologist" was added to his description, likely to bolster support for the plesiosaur idea.

But as I said, had he been a bonafide marine biologist, and it were indeed a plesiosaur, he would have recognized it for the scientific importance that it was. A plesiosaur carcass would have monetarily been worth more than an entire boatload of fish. The fact that they tossed the carcass overboard lends credence to it NOT being anything of major importance.

 

All I got to say, if it was a plesiosaur, those fisherman were idiots. A boat load of fish . . . who cares!!! That thing would have been worth a fortune and made them all famous.

 

Exactly, Pete!

A plesiosaur carcass would have monetarily been worth more than an entire boatload of fish. The fact that they tossed the carcass overboard lends credence to it NOT being anything of major importance.

 

Johnv

Just responding to what you said earlier, while I agree that Job was probably written post flood you said

I would have to disagree with that. While Moses was the editor and writer of much of the Pentateuch I believe that there is sufficient evidence that he had earlier documents to work from if not copy. If you look at the Hebrew word towladah which is translated "Generations." (Strongs #08435) the book of Genesis is divided into 11 distinct divisions. This word occurs in Genesis 2:4, 5:1, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, 25:12, 25:19, 36:1, and 37:2. As I look at this it seems to indicate that portions of the book of Genesis were written by God himself, Adam, Noah, Shem, Terah, Ishmael, Esau, Isaac, and Jacob. This would answer many questions raised from how Moses could have known all he recorded (although oral telling and the inspiration of God could handle that as well).

The biggest problem I see raised by this theory is that some sections would predate the tower of Babel and the confusion of the languages. The obvious answer is that either God gave Moses the ability to read the original language of the earth, or that language was in fact Hebrew.

This is Henry Morris' position in his book Biblical Creationism and I have heard it from others as well. I think that was John Philips position as well but I will have to hunt my copy of Exploring Genesis to find out. (which I thought was a great book by the way)

I may well be in the minority with this opinion, what do you think?

 

I've always been of the opinion that the Pentateuch, wihch we attribute to either written by Moses (unlikely), or being authorized by Moses (more likely), were either compliations of writings or oral tradition that had been previously handed down from generation to generation. Of course, there's no conclusive proof of that, but the writing style certainly suggests that. So, presuming the flood to be literal, it's certainly reasonable to think that the Genesis-era material were stories that, while not compiled/documented until Mosos' time, were handed down, either in some written form or via oral tradition, from before the flood era. That's stictly supposition and my opinion, though.