in , , ,

Do Dinosaurs Fit into the Bible? Looking at God, The Universe and Dinosaurs

How do dinosaurs and similar extinct creatures fit into the Bible? While some people may think they don’t and while the Bible does not say “dinosaurs” specifically, I don’t think this means that they are incompatible either. Why would we expect the Bible to talk about everything that exists or existed? As far as I know, it does not talk about giraffes, octopuses and protozoa. In other words, silence on such matters does not mean that God did not make them or they do not fit in the Bible.

However, with this said, I do think they not only all fit into the Bible quite well, but also the Bible does talk about them. For this article, let me lay out a big backdrop about God and creation in general and then I’ll talk about the dinosaur, and like creatures, issue.

God is Creator, and He’s No Liar

If one believes the Bible, God ultimately is the “uncaused-first-cause”. This obviously raises another question, who made God? But as said, he is “uncaused”, thus he never was made and that would mean he always existed. Also, since he is the “uncaused-first-cause”, in some ultimate sense, would have to mean that God caused everything else to come into existence, including life. Whether he caused specific kinds of creatures to come into existence or he created a mechanism that he used to make everything come into existence, he still was the final cause.

Advertisement Below:

However, my view is quite simple on how God did this: I think God did what he said he did. I don’t think this position is radical. If I draw a cartoon kangaroo, it would be only rational to believe me when I explain how it was drawn, especially if I was a honest chap.

It seems to me that if God really is God, he would have told us the truth. By pure definition, the biblical God does not lie. And if the biblical God really is God, he should know how he created.

Now, we may know more about the natural world than past peoples because of our advanced science and technology. This does not mean, however, that God did not tell the truth to the ancients on how he made everything. It is totally reasonable that God did not give every detail to those who could not totally comprehend it. However, I don’t think that would point to God misrepresenting how he made everything. So I think the big picture he painted for us in the Bible is true.

Next step, the Universe

We also need to address another big issue: the universe as a whole. I don’t think the Biblical record is that much different from what we have found through science, when talking about the universe. The biblical account opens with the origin of the universe. It says that at a specific time in the past God created everything. Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” It goes on in that chapter to to say that he spoke order into the system, or we could say he “infused it with information”. The biblical writer says simply “And God said…” and things came to be.

If this is true, I would think we could at least validated parts of this opening salvo, and I think we can. While there is disagreement on the age of the universe, as a scientific body, we all know the universe started to exist at a specific time in the past. Really, who does not believe that now?

The Bible also validates our find that we live in a finely tuned universe. Just like harps, harpsichords and bass guitars need fine tuning to be useful, so is the universe finely tuned. Not only is it finely tuned so that it exists, but it is tuned so that specific areas can support life.

The biblical account does not stop at the creation of the universe. It goes on to say that God infused information into some mater to make life too, he spoke life into existence, including microbes and man. Thus it is not surprising to find life infused with meaningful, usefully and complex information, much like the information we create. Again, I think it is fair to believe God when he told us how he made everything.

Advertisement Below:

I also don’t doubt it when he says he made the different kinds of organisms, or we could say different families of organisms, in the beginning. However, contrary to many evolutionary creationist’s positions, it never says all of life came from a single ancestor.

So what about them Dinosaurs?

With this foundation, I think it may be obvious now what I think about the dinosaurs and the other like creatures. I think God created dinosaurs when he created all of life. If the biblical account is correct, then God would have created the dinosaurs when he created pigs, pigeons and even people. In today’s milieu this may sound off kilter. However, in ancient times this would not have sounded crazy. What I’m referring to here is the idea that dinosaurs were created alongside of all of life, including people.

The reason why I think the ancients would be friendly to this is because there are many, many independent accounts across the globe of something called “dragons”. Now, some my say these were all fictional, and more than likely many were, but sometimes these were used in the context of living alongside of other common animals. Just a quick and superficial search brings up many descriptions of large serpentine and lizard type creatures.

Many have noted that many of the so called mythical dragons really do remind us a lot of the dinosaur. This should not surprise us, we have to remember that the word “dinosaur” is a fairly new word, coined in the mid 19th century.

What I’m saying should not surprise us, here is why. Think of the so called “mythical” animal, the unicorn, surprise, surprise, it was not at all mythical. Now the horse with a horn is fictional. However, there was a one horned rhino that matches the description quite well. This is the extinct Siberian unicorn that was probably the bases of this “mythical” creature. It does have one horn, but it also had much more of a bison and horse like look than other rhinos. Plus, there are a couple of contemporary rhino species today that have only one horn.

Back to the dinosaur issue. Strangely enough there does seem to be biblical descriptions of couple animals that really do seem like they could be some sort of dinosaur type creature. In one of the oldest books of the Bible, the book of Job, we find the accounts of such creatures.

Job, chapters 40 and 41 notes couple animals God brought to Job’s attention: Leviathan and Behemoth. Some may say these were fictional animals, and they could be. However, other real creatures are mentioned in the text too, so the fictional claim is questionable in my mind. Others may say these were just hippos and crocodiles or the like, and again that could be true. However, the characteristics don’t seem to match those animals, rather they are more dinosaur like.

More could be said about dinosaurs, however, all in all, I think God made them in the beginning when he said he made all of the different kinds of life.

Advertisement Below:

Please tell us your thoughts below!

Written by Daniel Currier

Daniel Currier is a biologist with a technology and design background. He speaks and writes on apologetics in the areas that deal with the interaction between Christianity, science, and technology at the iApologia.com.
To book Daniel Currier as a speaker, please click here to go to his speaking page.
Please subscribe to his latest posts at iApologia blog by clicking here.
If you would like to read more of his articles click here to visit iApologia.com.

Advertisement Below:

Comments

Leave a Reply
  1. There are several well-known areas where cave drawings have been discovered featuring numerous animal and bird species – many of which are extant today.( as far as I am aware)
    As a biologist, why do you think none of these examples feature dinosaurs? (the ones we have recovered fossils for)
    Surely, it would seem at the very least odd that cavemen would draw bison, rhinos, deer, birds etc yet not consider massive animals such as T-Rex, Apatosaurus, Stegosaurus, Pterodactyl, or Dipolodocus even worth a sketch? After all,they could hardly have been missed if they roamed the same time as humans.
    From a scientific perspective, how would you account for this?

    • The lack of a cave drawing does not strike me as great evidence for them not being created by God at the beginning, when he created everything else. Do the cave drawings depicted ever other extant animals today? How about plants? I’m no cave drawing expert, but my guess would be that they don’t have every known animal painted.

      Second, some do claim that cave paintings of dinosaur like creatures have been found. For example, this site thinks so http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/.

      But again, lets say the above site is all wrong, and all the animals are not dinosaur like creatures. Great. I’m back to my first point. Just because a drawing is lacking does not prove their non-existence with humans. Again, God told us he created all the animal kinds at the beginning, if God is God and if he tells the truth (which I affirm), then that seems to be quite compelling evidence for me.

  2. I think it a fair assertion that one could hardly miss a 12 metre 8 metric ton Tyrannosaurus Rex and paleontologists have recovered several thousand dinosaur fossils to date and 700 species have been identified and estimates of the numbers of animals run in the millions. According to your worldview they would have all coexisted, thus if ancient cavemen felt the need to record other species why do you think they did not record a single dinosaur species; neither land sea or air?

    Again I am not saying it proves their non-existence with humans ( although even to the layman such as me it seems highly suspect) , but it does suggest something might be amiss that not a single dinosaur is represented in a single drawing.

    So as you are a biologist, from a scientific perspective what do you beleive is the reason for this?

  3. Yes, you offered an answer but it came across as more of a hand wave rather than addressing it in an honest and open fashion. We are talking about the largest land animals ever to walk the planet, and in many cases the most ferocious as well.

    Why do you consider it reasonable that with the huge variety of these gigantic creatures living cheek to jowl with not only human beings but also with lions, tigers, giraffes, bison,buffalo, rhino, pigs mammoth, birds, deer etc etc, many of which were depicted in cave paintings, including hunting scenes, and yet, not a single representation of a known dinosaur was ever depicted, let alone depicted alongside the other animals that, especially in the case of dinosaurs such as the sauropods and other herbivores, would certainly have grazed with.

    What reasonable(logical?) reason can you provide for such a glaring omission?

    • Not only did I offer a reasonable and logical explanation, which is what you wanted, but I even pointed you to a source that you could look at…a source that claims what you claim did not happen (feel free to contact the source if you have concerns or questions). So, if those two items I gave are not enough, well sorry. Maybe someone else would want to weigh in on the conversation. Either way, have a great day!

      • I visited the site in question and the explanations and especially the drawings offered up are all ambiguous.

        You mention that giraffes are not featured as a reasonable explanation for why dinosaurs were also not represented in cave drawings. On the face of it I might agree. However, giraffes (as we know them certainly) did not roam in Europe – while dinosaurs most certainly did. In fact, there are over five hundred known dinosaurs ( from fossil evidence ) that roamed in France, where the most famous cave drawings have been found, if memory serves? But as a biologist, you must be aware of these facts surely?

        My concern is why you as a biologist, which obviously indicates a scientific background, wish to simply dismiss the evidence?
        A group of fauna that must have that numbered in the thousands of species, if not hundreds of thousands which, according to your worldview, would have all existed at the same time are totally absent from any record, including archaeological, that feature numerous mammalian species.

        To use an analogy, it would be like looking at Van Gogh’s painting titled Sunflowers and there being no sunflowers.

        Are you able to offer a less theological perspective and rather restrict your answer to biology/science, please?

        • Great, I’m glad you visited the site. However, if those drawings are real (which I’m going to assume for the sake of argument), just to say they are ambiguous is unsettling to me in such a dialogue. I provided a source for you, what you requested. First you ignored it and they you just waved it off as not true. Many of the cave drawings don’t look ambiguous, they look as ambiguous as other cave drawings of extant animals. Again, I’m not defending the drawings and the conclusions of the article, I’m just saying there are people who have claimed to have risen to your question. Also, I’m not defending the article nor did I write it, if you have specific concerns with it, you would need to contact the writer of that article.

          “You mention that giraffes are not featured as a reasonable explanation for why dinosaurs were also not represented in cave drawings.”

          I’m not sure if I even said that…

          “However, giraffes (as we know them certainly) did not roam in Europe – while dinosaurs most certainly did.”

          The context was the Biblical text. The biblical writers were most familiar with the middle east, since that was their homeland (for most of them). They did travel to Europe and Africa, however.

          “In fact, there are over five hundred known dinosaurs ( from fossil evidence ) that roamed in France, where the most famous cave drawings have been found, if memory serves?” And “A group of fauna that must have that numbered in the thousands of species, if not hundreds of thousands which, according to your worldview, would have all existed at the same time are totally absent from any record, including archaeological, that feature numerous mammalian species.”

          Yes, I already answered this already.

          “Are you able to offer a less theological perspective and rather restrict your answer to biology/science, please?”

          If you read my article, you will notice that the discussion revolves around Dinosaurs, theology and the Bible, thus the title “Do Dinosaurs Fit into the Bible? Looking at God, The Universe and Dinosaurs”. If that is not to your liking, sorry. But that is the topic focus. If you would like to read others who have discussed this issue from various scientific perspectives, I’d be more than happy to try to search for some articles.

          Also, I did want to correct your assertion that this is a biological topic. While it is to some extent, it really falls more or less under anthropological and archaeological issues. Those are not my field of study at this time.

          I’ve given my thoughts on this topic already, so I’m not sure what else I can add. What I have given, you either have ignored, or waved away. So I’m not sure where this conversation is even going.

          • Your comments seem to be asserting the old absence of evidence ….. etc trope.

            Namely, just because there are no depictions of dinosaurs alongside animals featured in a single known cave painting doesn’t meant they did not co-exist with these animals and humans.

            While in effect this could well be true, perhaps every neanderthal and aboriginal across the planet was so overawed they simply could not bring themselves to paint a single dinosaur alongside representations of other animals, one would surely have to ask why you would believe anything of this nature or any other reason, especially as the number of identified dinosaur species number in the thousands and fossils have been uncovered across the globe.
            Which tells us that, following the YEC model there would have very likely been hundreds of thousands if not millions of dinosaurs, and herd animals would have naturally congregated together, as such modern animals do today. Consider the Serengeti as a perfect example or the once vast herds of bison on the American plains.

            Cave paintings have been discovered in several countries Africa, Australia, Bulgaria and France and also in the US
            See this interesting link.
            http://www.touropia.com/prehistoric-cave-paintings/
            As a Young Earth Creationist I acknowledge that you will dismiss the dating of these paintings, but, nonetheless, not one of them features anything that could remotely be considered to be a dinosaur.

            So, it is eminently reasonable to expect that early hunters would have depicted at least some of these dinosaurs in their cave paintings.
            I remind you once again, a 30 foot Tyrannosaurus Rex or a huge Diplodocus could hardly hide behind a tree and not be noticed, now could they?
            Likewise, the sky would have been teeming with pterosaurs with wingspans of nearly 4 metres!
            And yet, with every likelihood that there were millions of these creatures, many massive some small, spread across the planet ( as we know from the fossil evidence) not a single depiction of these creatures in any cave painting found anywhere on earth.

            So, I would please ask, once again, rather than dismiss my comment with an almost offhand, ”I addressed this”, do you have a reasonable , non theological response to support your claim of co-existence and the complete absence of representation in any cave painting where we would most certainly expect to see such?
            Thanks.

    • There is much you say that I agree with, but on the subject of time, or times of mankind and the times of God. There is scripture that tells us that God is eternal, thus, His time is also, eternal.” This time of God existed before the universe and mankind were created, and I believe that mankind steps over a line when they think they have God all figured out. In Isaiah 55:7-9 we read; “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

      To me, this means that the thoughts of the smartest (and that does not always mean intelligent) man on earth could not reach the lowest level of God’s thoughts, let alone God’s highest thoughts. But on the subject of time, the same is implied; mankind can never really understand eternity because he has never experienced it. But to get down to biblical explanations of time where God is concerned, David wrote; “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men. For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.”

      In the New Testament, Peter weighs in with; “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” I call your attention to; “be not ignorant of this one thing,” which means, know this without doubt! Then, this same length of time is brought forth again in Revelation 20:6; “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.” And to confuse others more, I tell people to consider verse 7, and tell me what you think; “And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,”

      However, I study a lot of books, but none as much as I do the Bible, and from what I get from these studies, as lengthy as it is, follows below.

      Natural or scientific observations cannot be reconciled with heathenism or even polytheism, for scientific observations demand the assumption of one universal law. Solomon expressed this law thus;

      “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done:” (Ecclesiastes 1:9)

      The actual language of science, as expressed by Professor Thiele, a leading Continental astronomer in the early 1900’s, states that;

      “Everything that exists, and everything that happens, exists or happens as a necessary consequence of a previous state of things. If a state of things is repeated in every detail, it must lead to exactly the same consequences. Any difference between the results of causes that are in part the same must be explainable by some difference in the other part of the causes.”

      The law stated in the above words has been called the Law of Causality. It is used in Engineering and many other scientific occupations. It cannot be proved, but must be believed; in the same way as we believe the fundamental assumptions of religion, with which it is closely and intimately connected. The law of causality forces itself upon our belief. It may be denied in theory, but not in practice. Any person who denies it, will, if he is watchful enough, catch himself constantly asking himself, if no one else, why this has happened, and not that. But in that very question he bears witness to the law of causality. If we are consistently to deny the law of causality, we must repudiate all observation, and particularly all prediction based on past experience, as useless and misleading.

      If we could imagine for an instant that the same complete combination of causes could have a definite number of different consequences, however small that number might be, and that among these the occurrence of the actual consequence was, in the old sense of the word, accidental, no observation would ever be of any particular value.

      But, as Professor Thiele goes on to say–

      “If the law of causality is acknowledged to be an assumption
      which always holds good, then every observation gives us a
      revelation which, when correctly appraised and compared with
      others, teaches us the laws by which God rules the world.”

      By what means have the modern scientists arrived at a position so different from that of the heathen? It cannot have been by any process of natural evolution that the intellectual standpoint which has made scientific observation possible should be derived from the spiritual standpoint of polytheism which rendered all scientific observation not only profane but useless.

      In the old days the heathen in general regarded the heavenly host and the heavenly bodies as the heathen do today. However, by one man, Abraham, God created a nation, that being Israel, the home of the Jews (Hebrews), God related the startling truth that–

      “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”

      This was preserved in the first words of the writings of Moses, their Law giver, and David declared, due to those writings;

      “All the gods of the people are idols: but the Lord made the Heavens.” (Psalms 96:5)

      From Moses the Law giver, the watchword was;

      “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord.”

      From these words the Hebrews not only learned a great spiritual truth, but derived intellectual freedom. For by these words they were taught that all the host of heaven and of earth were created things—merely “things,” not divinities–and not only that, but that the Creator was One God, not many gods; that there was but one law-giver; therefore there could be no conflict of laws. These first words of Genesis, then, may be called the charter of all the physical sciences, for by them is conferred freedom from all the bonds of unscientific superstition, and by them also do men know that consistent law holds throughout the whole universe. If the truth be told, it is the intellectual freedom of the Bible that the scientist of today inherits. They may not be able to rise to the spiritual standpoint of the teaching of the Bible, and consciously acknowledge that;

      “Thou, even Thou, art Lord alone; Thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and Thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth Thee.” (Nehemiah 9:6)

      But they must at least unconsciously assent to it, for it is on the first great fundamental assumption of a complete religion as stated in the first chapters of Genesis, that the fundamental assumption of all his scientific reasoning depends. There are other stories of the creation, but none as complete as that of Genesis. But problems with science will always remain in the mind of mankind. Why?

      Science indeed can only consider the universe as a great machine which is in “working order,” and it concerns itself with the relations which some parts of the machine bear to other parts, and with the laws and manner of the “working” of the machine in those parts. The relations of the various parts, one to the other, and the way in which they work together, may afford some idea of the design and purpose of the machine, but it can give no information as to how the material of which it is composed came into existence, nor as to the method by which it was originally constructed. This includes the “Cell”, the “Atom” and all the parts and counterparts that have been discovered through research. Like the Universe, the body of mankind is a machine, though that may offend many, nevertheless, it is the truth. Once started, the machine comes under the scrutiny of science, but the actual starting lies outside its scope. And here we find a great difference between the science of God, and the science of man. God has the far greater power of understanding that man cannot comprehend, because God knows how to perform cosmic scientific creation as easily as folding a piece of material (Hebrews 1:12)

      Men therefore cannot find out for themselves how the worlds were originally made, how the worlds were first moved, or how the spirit of man was first formed within him; and this, not merely because these beginnings of things were of necessity outside his experience, but also because beginnings, as such, must lie outside the law by which he reasons. By no process of research, therefore, can man find out for himself the facts that are stated in the first chapter of Genesis. They have been revealed, but science cannot inquire into them for the purpose of checking their accuracy; it must accept them, as it accepts the fundamental law that governs its own working, without the possibility of proof.

      And this is what has been revealed to man:–that the heaven and the earth were not self-existent from all eternity, but were in their first beginning created by God. As the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews expresses it: “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” And a further fact was revealed that man could not have found out for himself; is that this creation was made and finished in six acts, comprised in what the narrative denominates “days.” It has not been revealed whether the duration of these “days” can be expressed in any astronomical units of time as man understands it.

      Since under these conditions science can afford no information, it is not to be wondered at that the hypotheses that have been framed from time to time to “explain” the first chapter of Genesis, or to express it in scientific terms, are not wholly satisfactory. At one time the chapter was interpreted to mean that the entire universe was called into existence about 6,000 years ago, in six days of twenty-four hours each. Later it was recognized that both geology and astronomy seemed to indicate the existence of matter for untold millions of years instead of some six thousand. It was then pointed out that, so far as the narrative was concerned, there was more than likely a period of duration that is impossible for man to examine between its first verse and its fourth; and some have suggested that the six days of creation were six days of twenty-four hours each, in which, after some great cataclysm of time between each ended 6,000 years ago, in which God shaped the face of the earth and replenished it for the habitation of man, the preceding geological ages being left entirely unnoticed. However, we have some that say man was in parts of the world more than 6,000 years ago.

      Some writers have confined the cataclysm and renewal to a small portion of the earth’s surface–to “Eden,” and its neighborhood. Other commentators have laid stress on the truth revealed in Scripture that “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day,” and have urged the argument that the six days of creation were really vast periods of time, during which the earth’s geological changes and the creation of its varied forms of life were running their course. Others, again, have urged that the six days of creation were six literal days, but instead of being consecutive were, as stated above, separated by long ages. And yet again, as no man was present during the creation period, save Adam, it has been suggested that the Divine revelation of it was given to Moses in seven successive visions or dreams, which constituted the “six days” in which the chief facts of creation were set forth, and a seventh day on which God rested.

      So, until we can answer the above questions with facts instead of assumptions, we will never be able to completely understand the global warming and cooling that brings Ice ages, any more than we can understand the ways of God (Isaiah 55:8-9). All I can say with any known certainty is that God never changes (Malachi 3:6), but man is always chasing Change.

  4. Up until this point every thing was ok
    “However, my view is quite simple on how God did this: I think God did what he said he did. I don’t think this position is radical. If I draw a cartoon kangaroo, it would be only rational to believe me when I explain how it was drawn, especially if I was a honest chap.

    It seems to me that if God really is God, he would have told us the truth. By pure definition, the biblical God does not lie. And if the biblical God really is God, he should know how he created”
    After this the whole article is built on a tower of assumption that is quite clear based on your language if, I think
    And your uncaused prime mover = bible god
    Fine tuned universe shows the Bible God is quite the leap. You haven’t proven how bible god = god

    “However, other real creatures are mentioned in the text too, so the fictional claim is questionable in my mind. ” this seems dishonest as saying real creatures are in the text those that are considered fictional are not all that fictional and you also said

    “dragons. Now, some my say these were all fictional, and more than likely many were”
    Acknowledging the likelihood that dragon at least some representation even though most places were they are mentioned also mentioned some real creatures you don’t see this as enough reason to say that these representations of dragons are not fictional

    “I think God did what he said he did. ” where did god say anything. As you are using the bible, this statement is actually “I think what the human authors of the bible wrote about what god said and did is actually what he said and did”
    “As far as I know, it does not talk about giraffes, octopuses and protozoa” the answer is quite simple the writers of the Bible had no such knowledge

    How did you move from unproven if, I think, the bible is correct and is what the prime mover said to
    “More could be said about dinosaurs, however, all in all, I think God made them in the beginning when he said he made all of the different kinds of life”
    I don’t see how you really answered Douglas Pearce question

    • “And your uncaused prime mover = bible god” and “Fine tuned universe shows the Bible God is quite the leap. You haven’t proven how bible god = god”.

      I’m not sure if one can even prove it to be true. To be quite frank, anyone who knows anything about philosophy, including philosophy of science, knows that there are only a very limited things that can be proven, such as mathematical equations. Did I give evidence? Yes. Did I reference a previous article where I expanded upon this? Yes. That should be sufficient for the reasonable person, even if he or she disagrees with my conclusion.

      “this seems dishonest as saying real creatures are in the text those that are considered fictional are not all that fictional…”

      Your writing, throughout your whole responses, is quite confusing, but let me try to see if I got what you said here correct. If I’m understanding you here, I don’t think you are following my line of argumentation. Known animals are presented in context as if they were real and not fictional. However, my point is that these creatures that are in question are also presented and considered real, with in the same text and context.

      “Acknowledging the likelihood that dragon at least some representation even though most places were they are mentioned also mentioned some real creatures you don’t see this as enough reason to say that these representations of dragons are not fictional”

      Again, your text is quite unclear. Please rewrite you comment in cogent English. I really have the slightest idea what you are saying here.

      “where did god say anything. As you are using the bible, this statement is actually “I think what the human authors of the bible wrote about what god said and did is actually what he said and did””

      Yes, I consider the Bible as an authoritative source, even if you don’t. Second, I do not mean what you say I mean. That is illegitimately putting words into my mouth.

      “the answer is quite simple the writers of the Bible had no such knowledge”

      Protozoa, maybe. But octopus and giraffes? The people of the Bible time did much sailing it would be quite curious if they never encountered a cephalopod over the period of thousands of years. In addition, the middle eastern people did much trade and travel with Africa…they more than likely had seen or meet people would would have seen the giraffe. By the way, I don’t think the Bible talks about hippos, zebras and even crocodiles too! So?

  5. Your comments seem to be asserting the old absence of evidence ….. etc trope.

    Namely, just because there are no depictions of dinosaurs alongside animals featured in a single known cave painting doesn’t meant they did not co-exist with these animals and humans.

    While in effect this could well be true, perhaps every neanderthal and aboriginal across the planet was so overawed they simply could not bring themselves to paint a single dinosaur alongside representations of other animals, one would surely have to ask why you would believe anything of this nature or any other reason, especially as the number of identified dinosaur species number in the thousands and fossils have been uncovered across the globe.
    Which tells us that, following the YEC model there would have very likely been hundreds of thousands if not millions of dinosaurs, and herd animals would have naturally congregated together, as such modern animals do today. Consider the Serengeti as a perfect example or the once vast herds of bison on the American plains.

    Cave paintings have been discovered in several countries Africa, Australia, Bulgaria and France and also in the US
    See this interesting link.
    http://www.touropia.com/prehistoric-cave-paintings/
    As a Young Earth Creationist I acknowledge that you will dismiss the dating of these paintings, but, nonetheless, not one of them features anything that could remotely be considered to be a dinosaur.

    So, it is eminently reasonable to expect that early hunters would have depicted at least some of these dinosaurs in their cave paintings.
    I remind you once again, a 30 foot Tyrannosaurus Rex or a huge Diplodocus could hardly hide behind a tree and not be noticed, now could they?
    Likewise, the sky would have been teeming with pterosaurs with wingspans of nearly 4 metres!
    And yet, with every likelihood that there were millions of these creatures, many massive some small, spread across the planet ( as we know from the fossil evidence) not a single depiction of these creatures in any cave painting found anywhere on earth.

    So, I would please ask, once again, rather than dismiss my comment with an almost offhand, ”I addressed this”, do you have a reasonable , non theological response to support your claim of co-existence and the complete absence of representation in any cave painting where we would most certainly expect to see such?
    Thanks.

    • I was reading through the article and came across this comment. I don’t know if Mr. Pierce is still around, but I thought I’d give a brief answer to his questions for the benefit of anyone reading. First, the article being referenced (by Dave Woetzel) gives several examples of petroglyphs that appear to depict dinosaurs. Naturally, due to their assumption that dinosaurs went extinct about 65 mya, mainstream researchers reject this interpretation and try to find alternative explanations. None of these alternatives, however, are really plausible.

      Mr. Pierce seems to argue that, since we find thousands of dinosaur fossils, it follows that natives would have seen thousands of dinosaurs, and of course, if they saw so many, surely there would be abundant drawings of them. The problem, of course, is that these fossils are from Flood layers; those thousands of species only existed before the Flood. A few dinosaurs were brought over on the Ark, but it seems likely that they could not cope well with the altered environment, and hence they began to die out. For this reason, dinosaurs were probably a rare sight for ancients after the Flood. There are still many potential depictions of dinosaurs across the globe. They are not all cave drawings; many take the form of carved figurines and ornamental embellishments. The article by Mr. Woetzel gives examples of many of these. However, dinosaurs were likely quite elusive, and drawings of them would be much less frequent than of the more common animals we see in those areas today.

      So, in conclusion, Mr. Pierce gives no reason for rejecting the ostensible dinosaur depictions that have been found, and his reasons for expecting “hundreds of thousands if not millions of dinosaurs” in post-Flood times, and equally common drawings of them, are based on flawed logic and a misunderstanding of the YEC position.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading…

0
Advertisement Below:
Advertisement Below:

Orphan Genes Part 2: Evolutionists’ Response

Exploring The Nose | David Rives