Dinosaurs and the bible...

[Adam Knowlden]

For those interested here is an excellent research paper from a Creation standpoint! Enjoy!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...n2_extinct.pdf

[Venom]

Thanks bro. [img]/forum/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[Peter Jackson]

Dinosaurs in the bible eh? Didn't know you were in the bible OldSchool. Sorry, just joking, haven't slept much lately, feeling a little giddy.

[William Ustav]

Thank you, adam!!! [img]/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I've just recently started to dwell into the subject dinosaurs in the Bible, and it's really overwhelming how awesome it is! That behemoth in Job 40 is I guess the best example [img]/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

And on the more scientific bases, the finding of a tyrannosaurus rex bone with actual blood traces (or something) in the bones which could not have been able to preserve during millions of years, is also a pretty strong evidencial finding for the accuracy of the scripture.

[Omskakas]

Everybody sees what they want to see. [img]/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

But I find it fascinating that the article really says that the earth was bombarded with around 150 meteors during the flood. [img]/forum/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

Also, there were dinosaurs from size of a chicken to gargantuan size. I've always wondered why Noah didn't take a single pair on the ark with him... [img]/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/forum/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[Venom]

[ QUOTE ]
I've always wondered why Noah didn't take a single pair on the ark with him...

[/ QUOTE ]

You joking? [img]/forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] Yes he did.

[Omskakas]

[ QUOTE ]

You joking? [img]/forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] Yes he did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which species if I may ask?

[Venom]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You joking? [img]/forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] Yes he did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which species if I may ask?

[/ QUOTE ]

By now you should know it would not be species. But the created Kinds. [img]/forum/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] Read this article, Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?

[President Wilson]

[ QUOTE ]
Everybody sees what they want to see.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or put another way, it is our starting axioms which determine how we interpret the evidence.

One axiom might postulate that dinosaurs turned into birds.
However, the number one fossil in the world for this belief is regarded as 100 percent bird.

Feducia the top expert in the world on the subject states

<font color="green"> " The true origin of birds is still up in the air. " </font>

Why, Simply because the best fossil for evolution proves nothing, accept that Birds have always been birds. Here is what he has to say about the matter in the scientific journal science

Feduccia, A.; cited in V. Morell, 'Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of WormsScience 259(5096):764;65, 5 February, 1993


<font color="blue"> Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble'is going to change that
</font>

But what about experimental evidence, why does he state that Bird evolution is a mystery? I would say because it never happened! But he states why, according to the following evidence in the journal " Science "

"New research shows that birds lack the embryonic thumb that dinosaurs had, suggesting that it is 'almost impossible' for the species to be closely related."

Ann C. Burke and Alan Feduccia, 'Developmental Patterns and the Identification of Homologies in the Avian Hand, Science 278(5338):66624 October 1997, with a perspective by Richard Hinchliffe, 'The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaurs Halted?' on pp. ;7



Even by the evolutionists only method they admit, it couldnt have happened.

Now, the most outspoken scientific journal on evolution admits Bird evolution could not have taken place

<font color="blue"> K. Padian and L.M. Chiappe, The Origin of Birds and their Flight, Scientific American, 278(2), ;47, Feb. 1998; quote on p. 43

the proponents of this argument offer no animal whose lungs could have given rise to those in birds, which are extremely complex and are unlike the lungs of any living animal </font>

Scientific America, also admits the following in Last March's issue

by Richard Prum and Alan Brush, March 2003, pp. 84&amp;#8211;93

[ QUOTE ]
How did these incredibly strong, wonderfully lightweight, amazingly intricate appendages evolve? &amp;#8230; Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers.


[/ QUOTE ]

Translation

Though evolution can explain simple variation, they cannot explain increases in information which would lead to vertical evolution.

This is March 2003 and this is the " current " state of evolution.

What did that same issue say about evolutions most prized fossil evidence?

" Archaeopteryx offers no new insights on how feathers evolved, because its own feathers are nearly indistinguishable from those of today's birds "


Here is an alternative explanation. They didn't evolve, they were created, which is why they are quote " indistinguishable "


Creationists start with the Axiom that they were created.
We also believe that no vertical evolution has taken place, i.e. an increase in genetic information.

And our axiom also has to do with the Flood.

What do we see in the fossil record? Does it support catastrophism or evolutionary uniforminatriumism?

<font color="blue"> Gould, S. J. Paleobiology, 6(1), p. 120
</font>

He states

[ QUOTE ]
" The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;

2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed


[/ QUOTE ]


That is the evidence, how it is interpreted is another thing. It fits within a catastrophic frame work.

In fact much evidence regarding the Dinosaurs fits within a Flood frame work

For example, in a notable book by the Evolutionist
Allan change on page 150 of "A New Look At the Dinosaurs"

He states

[ QUOTE ]
'Now comes the important question. What caused all these extinctions at one particular point in time, approximately 65 million years ago? Dozens of reasons have been suggested, some serious and sensible, others quite crazy, and yet others merely as a joke. Every year people come up with new theories on this thorny problem. The trouble is that if we are to find just one reason to account for them all, it would have to explain the death, all at the same time, of animals living on land and of animals living in the sea; but, in both cases, of only some of those animals, for many of the land dwellers and many of the sea-dwellers went on living quite happily into the following period. Alas, no such one explanation exists'



[/ QUOTE ]

The flood model actually fits perfect with this and provides an explanation. As Ken Ham states

[ QUOTE ]
At the time of the Flood, many of the sea creatures died, but some survived. In addition, all of the land creatures outside the Ark died, but the representatives of all the kinds that survived on the Ark lived in the new world after the Flood. Those land animals (including dinosaurs) found the new world to be much different than the one before the Flood. Due to (1) competition for food that was no longer in abundance, (2) other catastrophes, (3) man killing for food (and perhaps for fun), and (4) the destruction of habitats, etc., many species of animals eventually died out. The group of animals we now call dinosaurs just happened to die out too. In fact, quite a number of animals be come extinct each year. Extinction seems to be the rule in Earth history (not the formation of new types of animals as you would expect from evolution).



[/ QUOTE ]

There are also several evidences which point to rapid stratification. And we have examples of rapid stratification today. A few of these evidences are
[*] polystrate fossils ;tree trunks, for example, running through strata supposedly representing many millions of years (these are common in coal) show that the strata must have been deposited in quick succession, otherwise the tops of the trunks would have rotted away.
[*] delicate surface features preserved on underlying rock units such as ripple marks and footprints indicate that there was no long time gap before the next unit was deposited.
[*] lack of fossilized soil layers in the rock strata, indicating no long time gaps.
[*] lack of erosion features in the rock layers or between the rock units (any significant time break would result in channels being formed in the exposed strata from the action of water or wind).


And there is evidence that man and dinosaurs co-existed
[*] Many historical accounts of living animals, which were known as 'dragons' are good descriptions of what we call dinosaurs
[*] Unmineralized 'unfossilized'dinosaur bones. How could these bones, some of which even have blood cells in them, be 65 million years or more old? It stretches the imagination to believe they are even many thousands of years old.

[*] Rocks bearing dinosaur fossils often contain very little plant material'in the Morrison formation in North America. This is another indication that the strata do not represent eras of life on earth. If the strata represent an age of dinosaurs, what did they eat? A large Apatosaurus would need over three tonnes of vegetation per day, yet there is no indication of significant vegetation in many of these dinosaur-bearing strata. In other words, we see buried dinosaurs, not buried ecosystems or an Age of Dinosaurs.


the flood model fits well with the evidences.