I have an honest question for religious people

According to my Bible -- and everyone else -- God created the earth and all living things on it.

How do we explain dinsaurs? There is no mention of them in the bible I read, yet we have physical evidence that they did exist.

I am not trying to start anything so please keep it civil, I'm just asking an honest question.

Dinosaurs are mentioned twice in Job.

The majority of dinosaurs probably died out after the flood. Since only one book (Genesis and maybe Job) covers the time before the flood, it's not surprising that we don't see more mentions of dinosaurs.

Here is a great site that can answer most of your questions: http://www.answersingenesis.org/

There are dinosaurs in all ancient societies, as well as giants. Google the words nephilum, leviathan, and behemoth.
Dinosaurs actually lived among men, as the Bible points to and ancient societies have written about. Dragon stories are not all fables.

Just as apoint of interest. notice the climate change of the world before and after the flood. the face of the earth has changed a good deal.

God did create the dinosaurs. The word dinosaur isn't mentioned in the Bible b/c back then they didn't have that word in their vocabulary...but the did refer to dinosaurs as dragons sometimes. They really did exist before the flood. After the flood, the living arrangements weren't good enough for them to survive.

Hmmmmm..Dinosaurs have been around 200 million + years..yet the only human fossil is estimated to be 6 million and that is not even a true human....and the oldest rock is around 5 billion years old...what was god doing for all those years in between....there may be a divine power...but the bible can't convince me it is a true timetable...

Well as we all know not all living things came into existence at the same time. Does that mean that God did not create them? No I don't think it does but thats just me.

hummm so the great flood drowned all the dinosaurs...what about the ones that were amphibious ..it only rain forty days and forty nights and there are far worst conditions than that during hurricane season and the amphibious dinosaurs would have been feasting on the dead carcasses of the land dinosaurs plus there were plenty of fish in the oceans for them to feast on ..anyway the dragons the bible were most likely referring to was probably the komodo dragons or monitor lizards

The earth used to be watered from the ground. This caused a green house effect in which the dinosours and large reptiles could inhabit. There was a climate change as it had never rained before the flood occured. The details are not ALL there but history and most pre-new testament societies have recorded 'dragons' and beasts of that nature. As far as your timeline goes. The carbon dating is a presumtive tool and another form of circular reasoning proven to be highly flawed.

There are NO mentions of dinosaurs in Job. This is an utter falsity that is so clearly false it could easily be put into the category of a purposeful misrepresentation of the Bible, and we all know what that is!

The only mention I found in Job of ‘Dragons’ was the single following verse,…



And this was Job himself describing how he felt. He wasn’t referring to the existence of any dinosaurs.

For some strange reason the Easy English Bible has translated the word “dragons” to a jackal. They have clearly interpreted this verse abstractly to mean that Job was wailing a lot in emotional and physical turmoil (Howling like a beast and hooting like an owl).

One could argue quite a bit with the Easy English translation. However, to suggest that this is a reference to dinosaurs is utterly absurd. References to dragons could be just that. People in those days believed in dragons (at least as mythical creatures if nothing else). Just like we do today.

There are many mentions of dragons and dens of dragons throughout the Bible. However, most of these references appear to be referencing the actual mythical creatures of dragons as we understand them today. In many cases the phrasing is such that it says, “like a dragon”, which can simply be meant to conjure up a picture of a mythical dragon for comparison.

However, in other places in the Bible it actually states that there will be dragons living among men, and it describes this as not being good. However, those references are prophecies for the future, not references to the past!

So perhaps we have real dragons in our future?

What about the stories of ridiculous radiocarbon dates?

A number of stories are commonly circulated about a shell, or a piece of coal, or some other sample which supposedly yielded a radiocarbon date which could not possibly be correct. Such stories misrepresent the truth and do a disservice to science and public knowlege. Presented here are a few examples, exposing the truth about these stories.
Example 1: "Pennsylvanian" Coal

Coal from Russia from the "Pennsylvanian", supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Ham et al., page 73.)

Dr. Aardsma investigated this claim and noted:

A brief look at the original reference [Vinogradov et al., page 319.]...immediately reveals that the sample was not Pennsylvanian coal at all. This is evident first of all by the fact that it is part of a date list which is broken into three parts: "geologic samples", "archaeological samples", and "fossil animals". Clearly, Pennsylvanian coal would be listed as a geologic sample, but this sample of "coal" is listed as an archaeological sample.

... In the original reference the sample is described as "scattered coals in a loamy rock in deposits of a 26-m [river] terrace". This Radiocarbon reference must originally have been translated from Russian and it is not unreasonable to suppose that there was some loss of descriptive clarity as a result. But it seems pretty clear that what is being described here is certainly not "Pennsylvanian coal". There is, in fact, no indication anywhere in the original reference that these samples were from the "Pennyslvanian"; nor is there any hint that they were expected to be "300 million years old"; these appear to be purely apocryphal embellishments to the original account. Surely, what the Russians intended to convey (and what nearly everybody would understand), is that these samples were charcoal from a not too ancient campfire. (Aardsma, 1994, page 2.)

Dr. Aardsma also noted that the date on these samples was in line with the archaeologists' expectations. The radiocarbon date, in this instance, was in no way unreasonable.
Example 2: Natural Gas

Natural gas from Alabama and Mississippi (Cretaceous and Eocene, respectively) should have been 50 million to 135 million years old, yet 14C gave dates of 30,000 to 34,000 years, respectively. (Ham et al., page 73.)

Dr. Aardsma investigated this claim also, and noted:

The original reference [Trautman and Willis, page 200.] in the second case (natural gas) immediately reveals that both Whitelaw and The Answers Book have, unfortunately, neglected several very important ">" (strictly greater than) signs. The "dates" in this case are given in the original publication as ">30,000" and ">34,000". Thus, these natural gas samples were not dated to "30,000 to 34,000 years" at all. In fact, the original reference plainly notes "infinite age as expected". (Aardsma, 1994, page 2.)

The sensitivity of the equipment used to make the radiocarbon measurements on these natural gas samples was limited to 30,000 to 34,000 years---the equipment was unable to measure back further. Here again the radiocarbon dates were as expected.
Example 3: Living clams which died 2,000 years ago?

In this example, old radiocarbon dates from living clams or snails are given as evidence which discredits the reliability of radiocarbon dating. Dr. Aardsma addressed this issue in a 1989 article:

The shells of freshwater clams can, and often do, give anomalous radiocarbon results. However, the reason for this is understood and the problem is restricted to only a few special cases, of which freshwater clams are the best-known example. It is not correct to state or imply from this evidence that the radiocarbon dating technique is thus shown to be generally invalid.

The problem with freshwater clams arises because these organisms derive the carbon atoms which they use to build their shells from the water in their environment. If this water is in contact with significant quantities of limestone, it will contain many carbon atoms from dissolved limestone. Since limestone contains very little, if any, radiocarbon, clam shells will contain less radiocarbon then would have been the case if they had gotten their carbon atoms from the air. This gives the clam shell an artificially old radiocarbon age.

This problem, known as the "reservoir effect", is not of very great practical importance for radiocarbon dating since most of the artifacts which are useful for radiocarbon dating purposes and are of interest to archaeology derive from terrestrial organisms which ultimately obtain their carbon atoms from the air, not the water. (Aardsma, 1989, page 2.)

Conclusion

Other such stories have been circulated, but these examples make clear the nature of such stories. The truth is that radiocarbon dating is a very effective and valuable tool in the hands of competent chronologists. As with any physical measurement, things can go wrong and mistakes can be made. But this just means that one should not hang their whole confidence on a lone radiocarbon date. In actual practice, it is the amassed evidence of multiple radiocarbon dates, generally on different materials by different investigators using different measurement apparatus, which is applied to a given chronological question. Stories of the sort above, which are obviously meant simply to discredit radiocarbon dating, are very far from the truth.
References:

1. Aardsma, Gerald E. "Myths Regarding Radiocarbon Dating" Impact No. 189 El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research. 1989.
2. Aardsma, Gerald E. "A Search for Radiocarbon in Coal" Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism. Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, Inc. 1994.
3. Ham, Ken; Andrew Snelling; and Carl Weiland. The Answers Book El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1992.
4. Trautman, Milton A. and Eric H. Willis, "Isoptopes, Inc. radiocarbon measurements V", Radiocarbon 8 (1966) 161-203 [sample #s I-1149 & I-1150, page 200].
5. Vinogradov, A. P.; A. L. Devirts; E. I. Dobinka; and N. G. Markova. "Radiocarbon Dating in the Vernadasky Institute I-IV" Radiocarbon 8 (1966) 292-323 [sample # Mo-334, page 319].




http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/c14_results.php

well they can also carbon date Noah's Ark ....oh I forgot...Noah's Ark also vanished along with the Dinosaurs

This is totally untrue.

What is true is that it is a complex measurement, and some individual scientists have made mistakes in their measurements. Ah,… but guess what? It was other scientists who pointed out their mistakes!!!

This is the beauty of science and why it can be trust with impeccable integrity. Scientists are actually eager to challenge the work of the very own peers! Scientists are the most skeptical people on earth, and they are skeptical of each other’s work.

Every scientist dreams of being able to prove the work of another scientist to be wrong! This is what scientists DO!

So radical fanaticals point to these few errors and then start screaming that the whole system is flawed. :laugh;

In truth, what is actually flawed is the irrational reasoning of these uneducated radical fanaticals.

Moreover, there are many independent methods that have confirmed the fundamental timelines that we now know today as clear and undeniable truths. Only radical fanaticals with specific agendas to support their specific interpretations of ancient mythological stories question these truths. There is no sane reason to question these scientific conclusions.

In order to denounce these timelines a person would need to do a whole lot more than reject carbon dating. They would need to basically reject all of physics, astronomy, geology and paleontology.

In other words, to believe the absurd claims to radical fanaticals a person basically needs to reject all of science and confess that the very computer they are typing on doesn’t really work because physics is all wrong.

Yes, if you want to become a radical fanatical you need to become both radical, and fanatical.

Job mentions a giant reptile in the Nile called "Leviathan". "Leviathan" is so large and heavily armored that it cannot be hurt by weapons and it breaths fire. Since Crocs don't breath fire and were harvested for their skins, it's clear that the creature in question isn't a crocodile. Job also mentions Behemoth, a huge creature with a tail like a cedar. This creature is said to eat grass and have strong loins and bones like iron. The strong loins / bones part is interesting, because scientists have recently realized that sauropods had extremely strong loins and hind leg bones. Sauropods were able to stand on their hind legs to reach higher up into the trees. Both Leviathan and Behemoth are dinosaurs.

And before you go off crying "LOL Spider believes some dinosaurs breathed fire!", look at the fact that every ancient culture had stories of "dragons" and they always were said to breath fire. The fact that ancient people on two different sides of the planet describe the same creature should be given strong consideration. There are beetles that can shoot steam, smoke and sparks out of their rear end, is a creature that could produce smoke and sparks from it's front end so unreasonable?

Since the 1940's the US government has been aware of a boat-like structure on top of Mount Ararat. They call it the Ararat Anomaly.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/noahs_ark_010823-1.html

The object is more than 600 feet long and it's shaped similar to how the Ark is described. It might be the Ark and it might not be, I have no idea. But what I do know is that wood has a tendency to rot away. So if you are basing your rejection of the Bible on the fact that a boat built 3500 years ago isn't still around...I would say you might want to rethink that decision.

Spider, to claim that the words Leviathan and Behemoth are referring to dinosaurs is absurd. Both of these terms simply mean “Large Beast”, they are generic abstract terms and don’t refer to any specific animals.

You’re getting to the point with your biblical “interpretations” that you’ve gone beyond writing your own version of the Bible and have started creating entirely new mythologies.

You’re silliness has grown beyond the hilarious.

What ever happened to spirituality?

That seems to have gotten totally overshadowed by your obsession to contort the Bible into technicalities that can be warped in perverted ways to try to match up with observations of the real world.

Seriously Spider, with all due respect I humbly suggest that you step back and take a deep breath and ask yourself,…. “What is Spirituality?”

Have you gotten so lost in trying to defend a verbatim interpretation of a book that you’ve forgotten entirely what the book was supposed to be about in the first place?

The real meaning of the Bible can only be found in its parables. If you attempt to try to turn the parables into a literally correct scientific textbook then you will have lost the spirit of their words entirely.

Ask Voileazur for help. This is his area of expertise. He can help you find the spiritual meaning of the words.

Have you actually read about Leviathan and Behemoth? No, you haven't. You will claim to have, but if you actually read the descriptions there is no doubt from the wording or context that God is speaking to Job of actual creatures. Creatures of which Job was aware.

Asking Voil about the spiritual would be like...asking you about the spiritual. "Hey blind guy, what color is this flower?"

ok spidercmb so it's a boat-like structure..you mean just like that image on Mars that looks like an alien basking in the sun like structure that been in the news recently ....the point is just because it looks like a boat like structure doesn't mean it actually is a boat

it's so many assumptions in the religion and this is one that can clearly be proved by simply going to check.....millions of the religious have died for their belief but not one can climb a mountain to check ...

Well of course he was. I never questioned that. In fact I said that those words referred to “large beast” generically.

The author was simply saying, “I have created the large beasts that you see around you”

That’s a perfectly legitimate interpretation right there.

There is absolutely no reason to suggest that he was in any way referring to dinosaurs. There are a lot of large beasts in the world. Certainly elephants, rhinos, giraffed and such, and most people would even consider things like bears, crocodiles, and lions to be ‘large beasts’.

If you lived among those wild creatures and were ever confronted by one or attacked by one, you would report back that the beast was VERY LARGE indeed!

There is absolutely nothing in the "context" of these verses that is even remotely suggestive that these terms are referring to dinosaurs.

So your claim that these verses refer to dinosaurs is totally unwarranted. And appealing to the argument that it's in the overall context of the story is equally aburd.

Yeah, I don't think you got my point. It doesn't matter if it's the Ark or not. Show me a 3500 year old boat. They don't exist, because wood doesn't last that long without some sort of preservation. So if it's not the Ark, it proves nothing. If it is the Ark, it proves nothing. If they proved it was a boat, 1/2 the people in the forums would be saying how some morons built the boat up there and used it as a house / barn. When your mind is closed to all evidence, then nothing will suffice. If the absence of a 3500 year old wooden boat causes you to reject the Bible, then the existance of a 3500 year old wooden boat wouldn't make you accept the Bible.

A thousand years is but a day in the Lord

I do believe there is a word for great lizard in the bible.