Dinosaurs are not on the ark as we all know. But what do creationist say that show dinosaurs were on the ark? Well I will explain.
First and foremost is the dinosaurs a dragons excuse. First evidence that disproves this is the early depiction of dragons. Like these.
![[Image: 7757633852_14d2633afe.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=farm9.static.flickr.com%2F8292%2F7757633852_14d2633afe.jpg)
![[Image: ART360002.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.artres.com%2FDoc%2FART%2FMedia%2FTR3%2FS%2F3%2FC%2FL%2FART360002.jpg)
![[Image: carving2.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.dragonsinn.net%2FHistory%2Fwest%2Fcarving2.jpg)
Now compare these pictures to those of dinosaurs.
![[Image: groupShot.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-pfnJ_sEg_t4%2FUbd4Qt3-aEI%2FAAAAAAAAAug%2FexU2-G5NQmU%2Fs1600%2FgroupShot.png)
Said dragons look more like lizards and a mixture of extant animals than they do dinosaurs.
Others like to point out statues of other beast to prove their point, but lets take a look.
![[Image: meso-dino-large.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=s8int.com%2Fimages3%2Fmeso-dino-large.jpg)
Here is the picture of a sauropod.
![[Image: Euhelopus-wikimedia.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=img2.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20130620002116%2Fdinosaurs%2Fimages%2F3%2F38%2FEuhelopus-wikimedia.jpg)
The long neck and tail make it look like one but look at the head. The head looks like the head of a lion.
![[Image: 20355.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.desibucket.com%2Fdb2%2F01%2F20355%2F20355.jpg)
Also that art found that looks as if they drew influence from a sauropod was from Mesopotamia. What makes it worst is that no sauropod fossils were yet to be found there.
Another evidence for this is behemoth. Like the dragons lets look what behemoth was depicted as before the creationist movement.
![[Image: Lev-Beh-Ziz.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=upload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F5%2F5a%2FLev-Beh-Ziz.jpg)
![[Image: Behemoth_and_Leviathan_Butts_set.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=upload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F9%2F92%2FBehemoth_and_Leviathan_Butts_set.jpg)
Take a look at what behemoth did look like before creationist movement.
However the animal is said by creationist to be a sauropod. So even though it was a sauropod for years behemoth was thought of as hippo or bos like creature, but then it changed into a sauropod after realizing that unless they want they bible to not know something they have to make up something. So behemoth even without knowing that behemoth ate grass and could lay under a tree, the early depictions of this legendary monster was more of a mammal like a hippo or cattle. So that is out.
So if dinosaurs didn't exist in the bible then what indication do we have that they were on the ark? One can say they existed anyway, but there is no evidence they existed with humans. Another can say conspiracy but that is actually a intellectual cop out. Instead of coinciding that you have no evidence and that your claim may be wrong, you use conspiracy in order to keep you belief despite evidence. They can claim satan but they will need evidence that satan was there to plant evidence(or lack there of).
Point no dinosaurs on the ark, for there is no evidence for it. The absence of evidence is the evidence of absence, and claims that can be made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
First and foremost is the dinosaurs a dragons excuse. First evidence that disproves this is the early depiction of dragons. Like these.
![[Image: 7757633852_14d2633afe.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=farm9.static.flickr.com%2F8292%2F7757633852_14d2633afe.jpg)
![[Image: ART360002.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.artres.com%2FDoc%2FART%2FMedia%2FTR3%2FS%2F3%2FC%2FL%2FART360002.jpg)
![[Image: carving2.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.dragonsinn.net%2FHistory%2Fwest%2Fcarving2.jpg)
Now compare these pictures to those of dinosaurs.
![[Image: groupShot.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-pfnJ_sEg_t4%2FUbd4Qt3-aEI%2FAAAAAAAAAug%2FexU2-G5NQmU%2Fs1600%2FgroupShot.png)
Said dragons look more like lizards and a mixture of extant animals than they do dinosaurs.
Others like to point out statues of other beast to prove their point, but lets take a look.
![[Image: meso-dino-large.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=s8int.com%2Fimages3%2Fmeso-dino-large.jpg)
Here is the picture of a sauropod.
![[Image: Euhelopus-wikimedia.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=img2.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20130620002116%2Fdinosaurs%2Fimages%2F3%2F38%2FEuhelopus-wikimedia.jpg)
The long neck and tail make it look like one but look at the head. The head looks like the head of a lion.
![[Image: 20355.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.desibucket.com%2Fdb2%2F01%2F20355%2F20355.jpg)
Also that art found that looks as if they drew influence from a sauropod was from Mesopotamia. What makes it worst is that no sauropod fossils were yet to be found there.
Another evidence for this is behemoth. Like the dragons lets look what behemoth was depicted as before the creationist movement.
![[Image: Lev-Beh-Ziz.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=upload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F5%2F5a%2FLev-Beh-Ziz.jpg)
![[Image: Behemoth_and_Leviathan_Butts_set.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=upload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F9%2F92%2FBehemoth_and_Leviathan_Butts_set.jpg)
Take a look at what behemoth did look like before creationist movement.
However the animal is said by creationist to be a sauropod. So even though it was a sauropod for years behemoth was thought of as hippo or bos like creature, but then it changed into a sauropod after realizing that unless they want they bible to not know something they have to make up something. So behemoth even without knowing that behemoth ate grass and could lay under a tree, the early depictions of this legendary monster was more of a mammal like a hippo or cattle. So that is out.
So if dinosaurs didn't exist in the bible then what indication do we have that they were on the ark? One can say they existed anyway, but there is no evidence they existed with humans. Another can say conspiracy but that is actually a intellectual cop out. Instead of coinciding that you have no evidence and that your claim may be wrong, you use conspiracy in order to keep you belief despite evidence. They can claim satan but they will need evidence that satan was there to plant evidence(or lack there of).
Point no dinosaurs on the ark, for there is no evidence for it. The absence of evidence is the evidence of absence, and claims that can be made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
![[Image: guilmon_evolution_by_davidgtm3-d4gb5rp.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=orig15.deviantart.net%2F1dbf%2Ff%2F2011%2F319%2F3%2F3%2Fguilmon_evolution_by_davidgtm3-d4gb5rp.gif)