Dinosaurs and Man Living Together?

[Duke Guilmon]

I know I talked about this before but here is a more detailed responses on dinosaurs and man. Enjoy.

Creationist of the Christian caliber claim that Dinosaurs lived with man. As we know this claim has no evidence. So lets see what "evidence" creationist have for this.


1. Behemoth in the book of job.

The most popular creationist claim for dinosaurs being biblical is when job describes behemoth. Here is the verses in question.

Job 40:15-24
King James Version (KJV)
15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.

21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.

23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

Now Verse 17 is the most popular out of all of them. This is of course where creationist quote mine their own book in order to make it fit their needs. Creationist will say the verse 17 as "Tail like a cedar" to imply that it was thick and sturdy. However when you added the word moveth to it the whole idea is ruined.

Now let us give are creationist friends a vantage point by saying that the dinosaur was a sauropod and that this sauropod was one like Diplodocus. As we know Diplodocus can whip its tail. However even if adding this there is still a problem. The movement of the tail. Diplodocus would use its tail like a whip, however a cedar tree,like any other tree, moves in the wind in a swaying motion. Diplodocus could move its tail around and around and move it like you can move your finger when it comes to directions. Try it move your finger. When you are done try to think of a tail that can move even better. Case and point is that a cedar tree is the worst description of a sauropods tail.

But that is not all, the bible verse also defeats the fact that it could have been a sauropod at all. Well let me rephrase that there is one but it will contradict our creationist, but I am getting ahead of myself. The big impressive sauropods that creationist try to push can't sit under a tree. Let me show you what I mean.

21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.

Now could Diplodocus or most other sauropods sit under a tree, much less get covered by their shadows.

But there is one little sauropod and I mean little. Europasaurus1. This guy could actually sit under a tree. But is there a cheer from creationist now? Well now lets go to that contradiction. Our little friend Europasaurus can't move his tail like a cedar because it was for balance. That is normal in Camarasauromorpha2. So if we let this dinosaur be behemoth than the tail could not move at all. If we choose to use any other sauropod then we have a animal to big for a tree to sit under. So we have no sauropod that can fit every thing of behemoth.

To make things worst the verse actually destroys all hope of what trees we can put there. The bible gives us a idea of where we are. Let see the verse.

23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

So the area we are in is Jordan.3 So no tree there can really cover an animal that has a cedar tail. Well it can. But unfortunately it is not our a sauropod. It is most likely a mixture of animals. Most likely a combination of a hippo and a cattle. Now how can we tell what this animal is? Paintings. Thats right, what creationist like Ken don't tell you is that people had and used art to give a idea for the beast. Here are two. One with leviathan, and the other with leviathan and the Ziz bird.





So even history and the ideas of humans about the creature don't show it being a sauropod. So that is one nail in the coffin for the using the bible for dinosaurs.

2. Dinosaurs are dragons.

Dragons are another excuse that creationist have for dinosaurs being in the bible is well that they are dragons. This part will be short as I don't need the bible this time. Instead I will compare dragons with dinosaurs.

Traits that dragons have:

Elemental powers

Linguistic abilities

Some able to fly with or without wings

Can read

Some wiser and smarter than humans

These are some dragon traits. Now lets see the dinosaur traits.

Traits that dinosaurs have:

in the skull, a supratemporal fossa (excavation) is present in front of the supratemporal fenestra, the main opening in the rear skull roof

epipophyses, obliquely backward pointing processes on the rear top corners, present in the anterior (front) neck vertebrae behind the atlas and axis, the first two neck vertebrae

apex of deltopectoral crest (a projection on which the deltopectoral muscles attach) located at or more than 30% down the length of the humerus (upper arm bone)

radius, a lower arm bone, shorter than 80% of humerus length
fourth trochanter (projection where the caudofemoralis muscle attaches on the inner rear shaft) on the femur (thighbone) is a sharp flange
fourth trochanter asymmetrical, with distal, lower, margin forming a steeper angle to the shaft

on the astragalus and calcaneum, upper ankle bones, the proximal articular facet, the top connecting surface, for the fibula occupies less than 30% of the transverse width of the element

exocciptials (bones at the back of the skull) do not meet along the midline on the floor of the endocranial cavity, the inner space of the braincase
in the pelvis, the proximal articular surfaces of the ischium with the ilium and the pubis are separated by a large concave surface (on the upper side of the ischium a part of the open hip joint is located between the contacts with the pubic bone and the ilium)

cnemial crest on the tibia (protruding part of the top surface of the shinbone) arcs anterolaterally (curves to the front and the outer side)
distinct proximodistally oriented (vertical) ridge present on the posterior face of the distal end of the tibia (the rear surface of the lower end of the shinbone)

Concave articular surface for the fibula of the calcaneum (the top surface of the calcaneum, where it touches the fibula, has a hollow profile)

Dinosaurs have none of the dragon traits. But that is not all. Lets look at the depictions of dragons.






So those are dragons. Now lets see some dinosaurs.








So the dragons bare very little resemblance to our dinosaurs. Even the bipedal ones stand more like humans then they do dinosaurs. So dinosaurs were not dragons, and vice versa.

3.Dinosaur artifacts.

Creationist like to push off one thing and that is dinosaur statues and artifacts. But are they artifacts. Lets go over one.



Truthingenesis is kind enough to give a picture of our first one. This is supposed to be a sauropod. But lets look at it. First look at the angle of the tails. The curl up. Second the feet. Now the feet have little lines in the feet. What is the problem with that? Now sauropods have feet more like a elephants, in which no one would give lines like that to. Also it has ears. But the biggest give away is the head. Take a look at a sauropod head, then look at are artifact. Now you will see that it has a strange cat like muzzle. In fact its ears are cat like, and the lines on its feet look like something a non-artistic person would use to draw the areas where the claws retract on a cat. Also the tails of sauropods don't raise up like that, there bones reveal that it can't happen. But a cat can do it. So in other words these are really long necked cats. But what cat is it? The lion. That is right. This artifact came from Mesopotamia, and the animal matches a lion, take a look at this picture of a lion and you will see.



So our sauropod is just a lion with a long neck and tail.

So if that is just an animal what other supposed dinosaur statues? Some are animals that creationist jump to the conclusion as dinosaurs others are hoaxes.

A hoax was the dinosaur inca stones.



How were they hoaxes. The were recently made as water was still found in them. In fact some actually were said to have been made and artificial dated. Even creationist admit that these are fakes.

There is one more point to address. And it is my favorite non-sequitur.

4. CONSPIRACY

This is what most creationist run to when they realize that they have nothing else to turn to. They use this so they can still believe in this and even keep the evidence for it. So how do you deal with this. Well there is two. Lets go over the first. SATAN!

Satan of course is really nothing, but lets not get into that. When they well Satan there is one trump card. EVIDENCE! When you ask for evidence they will claim either a non-sequitur like the president is evil (which is a opinion statement) and a bible phrase. When they quote the bible explain that it is just a claim and that they will need evidence. This will go to the non-sequitur like a conspiracy theory. In fact that is our second part.

That the world to them is evil. Of course this really proves nothing. Just because George Bush didn't do every thing good that doesn't mean that the underworld is killing and destroying every evidence for creationism. Also that when something the bible mentions turns out to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you guys wave it like a flag. So it is either you have evidence for you bible, or all of it is hidden. I mean why would any government show something that proves the bible but then hide another thing that proves the bible. What kind of evil organisation is that unorganized.

If you made it this far, GOOD JOB!!!



So in conclusion, did dinosaurs live with man? Yes. Wait what?????? Ya dinosaurs did live with man, but they aren't your sauropods or tyrannosaurs. In fact if you live on the north east part of the united states, there should be a group of dinosaurs that
can fly in every direction and love sweet nectar and sugar water. We call them, the Ruby-Throated Hummingbird.



Thanks for reading.:thumbsup:

1. http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/herbivorou...saurus.htm

2. http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/spec...aurus.html

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_River

[Foxaèr]

Creationist of the Christian caliber claim

The problem is that theists in general are too fond of making unsubstantiated claims.

[Duke Guilmon]

Creationist of the Christian caliber claim

The problem is that theists in general are too fond of making unsubstantiated claims.

Indeed, that is why we should address them in a way where they will have to think and be intellectually honest.

[Foxaèr]

Indeed, that is why we should address them in a way where they will have to think and be intellectually honest.

We can try as we might.

Unfortunately, most of them will always prefer the comfortable lie over the harsh truth.

[Duke Guilmon]

Indeed, that is why we should address them in a way where they will have to think and be intellectually honest.

We can try as we might.

Unfortunately, most of them will always prefer the comfortable lie over the harsh truth.

It is indeed sad. Though I wouldn't lose hope, I mean many atheist here were in fact like that once. So maybe if we try we can reach out.

[Foxaèr]

Though I wouldn't lose hope, I mean many atheist here were in fact like that once. So maybe if we try we can reach out.

True.

[CapnAwesome]

Is someone that believes Dinosaurs and Man lived together really going to care about how well backed up an argument is? Some people are just a lost cause.

[Duke Guilmon]

Is someone that believes Dinosaurs and Man lived together really going to care about how well backed up an argument is? Some people are just a lost cause.

Maybe the Kents and Kens of creationism who make money off of it, or the sheep who were scared by it so bad they can't leave. The rest will follow. I am more towards getting rid of creationism than religion.

[truthBtold]

Humans had to live with dinosaurs.. because we have people with dinosaur breath... how do u explain that...??.

[CapnAwesome]

Is someone that believes Dinosaurs and Man lived together really going to care about how well backed up an argument is? Some people are just a lost cause.

Maybe the Kents and Kens of creationism who make money off of it, or the sheep who were scared by it so bad they can't leave. The rest will follow. I am more towards getting rid of creationism than religion.

I think the problem is that you are addressing an audience that doesn't care about evidence. That's why they believe that the bible is valid evidence in the first place. You could present all of this and they'd go 'So what? It's my faith and that's more important than your evidence." If that wasn't their thought process they would never believe that dinosaurs and man co-existed in the first place. So your whole process for approaching someone with such an out of place worldview doesn't seem very practical.

In fact I'd be very concerned with legitimizing the bible as meaning anything in terms of scientific evidence. If you say that the description for dragons in the bible doesn't match up with dinosaurs, so man didn't live with dinosaurs, can't a creationist legitimately believe in dragons because they are in the bible?