This kind of goes along with the creation vs evolution post a little bit before this. I thought this was a little different so I'm making a new post.
So, earlier today I was talking with my sister about God and whatnot. (She is not a believer) We ended up on the topic of where dinosaurs fit in if God created everything. As she was referring to the "research/evidence of dinosaurs done by scientists/whoever".
Bwaaahahahaha! You picked my like, favourite subject...
Having excavated dinosaurs and dinosaur tracks in several states and provinces, I can say they provide *excellent* evidence for the flood of Noah.
First, the word "dinosaur" was not invented until the mid-1800's, by a creationist, surprisingly. It was Richard Owen, who started the British Museum of Natural history. Before that, they were called dragons. In fact, if you go into the basement of the British Museum, you will see dinosaurs still in their plaster jackets from being excavated, with "dragon" written on the side of it.
Dragons are mentioned throughout the Bible.
Also, the "unicorn" of the Bible was probably a dinosaur; not the mythical horse with a horn stuck out of its head. Read the descriptions of it for yourself.
Job's Behemoth and Leviathan are both definitely dinosaurs, and those were *after* the flood, affirming that yes, dinosaurs were brought on Noah's ark. BTW - watch out; much to my annoyance, some translations of Job 40 & 41 have replaced the words Behemoth and Leviathan with "Crocodile" and "hippopotamus."
The Behemoth had a tail like a cedar tree - believe it or not, I have heard some people try to say leviathan was an aroused Donkey, and the "tail" like a cedar tree was... well, never mind.
Uhh, no, it's not...
Noah brought baby dinosaurs on the ark - this makes sense when you think about it: they're small, don't eat much, don't drink much, sleep lots, get off the boat with a full reproductive lifespan ahead of them to repopulate the earth. That population has been slowly dying off into extinction, but there are probably dinosaurs still alive.
There's way more to this than I can type here - if anybody wants to know more, message me and I'll send you a link to a wack of videos on line, once I verify that you're not a scammer, stalker, axe murderer, etc... :excited:
Hey Miss Christie - I wuz gonna send you the link to those videos, but I can't message you cause I'm outa your age range. Drop me a line if you want the link, I think I can "reply" to an email from you.
i have heard that dinosaurs were large reptiles that were made large due to the insane ammount of oxygen in the air before the flood. anyone else heard this? anyone heard of the pterodacyl sighting in Utah?
It's possible oxygen played a role - but oxygen by itself is not enough. It would also require things like increased atmospheric pressure. That's a one hour lecture I do on that subject alone, soooo, obviously I won't be writing that here :rolleyes:
As far as pterodactyl sitings in Utah, believe it or don't, I investigate such reports, and much to my surprise, I know of more reports of possible living pterodactyls in North America than any other place on earth! Specifically, Arizona, Texas, Utah, and Mexico. But I don't know if you caught this report of a "bird" the "size of a cessna airplane" that half of Anchorage Alaska saw about three years ago. Do an internet search, you'll find the reports.
Why - do you think you may have seen something in Utah? Message me privately if you did and are afraid of sounding crazy.
When I talk on this subject - especially in the south west, I often have people who come up afterwards to say that ya - they saw what they thought was a pterodactyl; but they wrote it off, figuring it was their imagination or something. Then they found out others had seen the same thing.
Then there's other reports, for example, of Mokele Mbembe in the African congos - what appears to be a long-necked dinosaur. That was originally investigated by evolutionists in the 70's - namely Roy Mackal from the U of Chicago.
The pterodactyls aren't the only sightings we gotta deal with.
Wow! Ian, that is too cool! I've always believed that Dinasours did exist (I mean, come on, how else can you explain the massive skeletons, right?) but I'd never actually heard about evidence like you've talked about - wow. I'm so excited!
Hey proverbslady; if you're interested, drop me a line - I know yer not an axe murderer (you aren't, are you?) and if you're interested, I'll give you a link to some videos on the subject. I can't email you because I'm outside of your age range, but I can reply to you.
I tend to offend atheists and non-believers when this type of topic comes up. I guess it's just my way.
The underlying assumption here is that inductive science can somehow provide a certain, or reasonably certain statement about the timeframe of the earth's pre-history. Well, the problem is induction cannot be certain, so it can't be treated with certainty. That means it's uncertain, and cannot be treated as if it were otherwise. Even if all the evidence points to one single answer, the logical format still has a lot of room for error and assumption outside that format. This is the nature of induction.
So while science might indicate that dinosaurs existed X years ago, that year is a vague guess based on imprecise tools that measure variables that are extremely complex, so why treat it as conclusive? Let's be honest here. If we base observations on an inductive line of thought, we can never be sure our observations have any measure of validity to them, because validity is outside the range of our induction. We're left only with probabilities and possibilities that have a measure of strength, but a measure of strength is no substitute for concrete facts.
no i haven't seen a pterodactyl, but wish i had. i had heard a report on the news written off as like a UFO sighting or something of that nature and wanted to find out more about it. it's really cool that dinosaurs are still being seen today!
