• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Nope. Not real big and they never were as big as elephants. Crocodiles get very big, but they are not lizards. There used to be bigger crocodiles and huge sharks, but no longer.

What do you make of Job 40 and 41? Do they describe any creature we see today?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Dinosaurs are fake.

Because you say so?

They are nothing more than the name implies, lizards, terrible perhaps, but mainly large lizards.

So they do exist?

Not gigantic as told in fables.

I don't know... Behemoth and Leviathan are pretty big creatures... "Tail like a cedar" and "strength dwells in his neck" don't sound like very small creatures...

Not as big as elephants, which were the biggest creatures on the ark.

Do you think that only adult animals were brought onto the ark?

Why couldn't God have brought juvenile animals on the ark instead?

Spoiler

How Big Were the Ark Animals?
People often wonder how all the animals could have fit in the ark, particularly when considering the massive dinosaurs. We see so many illustrations of large creatures packed tightly into a little boat. But this image is inaccurate. Noah’s ark was much larger than it is usually depicted, and many of the animals were probably smaller than shown in popular pictures.

Noah’s ark was much larger than it is usually depicted, and many of the animals were probably smaller than shown in popular pictures.
It makes more sense to think that God would have sent to Noah juveniles or smaller varieties within the same kind. Consider the following advantages of bringing juveniles or smaller versions of a creature:

They take up less space.
They eat less.
They create less waste.
They are often easier to manage.
They are generally more resilient.
In the case of juveniles, they would have more time to reproduce after the flood.
Indeed, even when the giant dinosaurs and elephant-sized creatures are factored in, the ark animals were probably much smaller than is frequently assumed. According to Ark Encounter estimates, it is projected only 15 percent of ark animals would have achieved an average adult mass over 22 pounds (10 kg). This means that the vast majority of ark animals were smaller than a beagle, with most of those being much smaller. Starting with a mass category of 0.035–0.35 oz. (1–10 g), the animal groups were distributed into eight logarithmically increasing size classes. Amazingly, the size range with the highest projected number of ark animals was 0.35–3.5 oz. (10–100 g).




There were no giant lizards on the ark.

Your average dinosaur was about the size of a sheep. Only the ones that lived long would have been much larger.

They all died in the flood.

All of them?

Why couldn't the smaller ones fit on the ark?

Dinosaurs are a fake atheistic fable.

Did dinosaurs exist? or didn't they?

Your argument keeps switching between them existing and their existence being made up. Which is it?
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
What do you make of Job 40 and 41? Do they describe any creature we see today?
Concerning Leviathan and bathmoth, they are large creatures God refers to but not fictional creatures like dinosaurs. The l leviathan is a crocodile and a big one. The video I posted in my op has a good explanation for these biblical passages.
Please don't accommodate the dinosaur nonsense with scripture. Let the heathens have thier obscene fantasies.
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Because you say so?



So they do exist?



I don't know... Behemoth and Leviathan are pretty big creatures... "Tail like a cedar" and "strength dwells in his neck" don't sound like very small creatures...



Do you think that only adult animals were brought onto the ark?

Why couldn't God have brought juvenile animals on the ark instead?

Spoiler

How Big Were the Ark Animals?
People often wonder how all the animals could have fit in the ark, particularly when considering the massive dinosaurs. We see so many illustrations of large creatures packed tightly into a little boat. But this image is inaccurate. Noah’s ark was much larger than it is usually depicted, and many of the animals were probably smaller than shown in popular pictures.

Noah’s ark was much larger than it is usually depicted, and many of the animals were probably smaller than shown in popular pictures.
It makes more sense to think that God would have sent to Noah juveniles or smaller varieties within the same kind. Consider the following advantages of bringing juveniles or smaller versions of a creature:

They take up less space.
They eat less.
They create less waste.
They are often easier to manage.
They are generally more resilient.
In the case of juveniles, they would have more time to reproduce after the flood.
Indeed, even when the giant dinosaurs and elephant-sized creatures are factored in, the ark animals were probably much smaller than is frequently assumed. According to Ark Encounter estimates, it is projected only 15 percent of ark animals would have achieved an average adult mass over 22 pounds (10 kg). This means that the vast majority of ark animals were smaller than a beagle, with most of those being much smaller. Starting with a mass category of 0.035–0.35 oz. (1–10 g), the animal groups were distributed into eight logarithmically increasing size classes. Amazingly, the size range with the highest projected number of ark animals was 0.35–3.5 oz. (10–100 g).






Your average dinosaur was about the size of a sheep. Only the ones that lived long would have been much larger.



All of them?

Why couldn't the smaller ones fit on the ark?



Did dinosaurs exist? or didn't they?

Your argument keeps switching between them existing and their existence being made up. Which is it?
I know where you are coming from because I've read the same arguments. I choose not to believe in dinosaurs because of what is said in my second link, too much for me to write out here.
I think most of the big animals in the ark were babies.
But none were dinosaurs because they never existed until imagined by evolutionists.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Concerning Leviathan and bathmoth,

Behemoth.

they are large creatures God refers to but not fictional creatures like dinosaurs.

Larger creatures

The l leviathan is a crocodile and a big one.

What makes you think that leviathan was a croc?

The video I posted in my op has a good explanation for these biblical passages.

Would you mind providing a brief summary of the points presented in that video?

Please don't accommodate the dinosaur nonsense with scripture.

Why not?

Let the heathens have thier obscene fantasies.

What's obscene about dinosaurs?

If they did exist, then wouldn't that put you in the wrong for believing that they didn't?

Which is more likely?
That dinosaurs never existed despite the existence of full skeletons, tissues, and now apparently, according to the link above, "skin and organs," intact, and most importantly, Dinosaur soft tissue that CANNOT survive for hundreds of thousands of years, let alone millions of years

OR

That dinosaurs do exist, and atheists are wrong for misappropriating them for their religion, and that Ktoyou is wrong for taking too extreme of a stance in opposition to atheists?

I assert that the latter is true.
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Anytime anyone refuses to even consider a contrary view to the popularly-held beliefs, you should highly question that view having any validity whatsoever, even more than other views. Valid viewpoints take both sides of an argument with equal weight and accept any potential new information and test it without bias against an overarching hypothesis. However, it is usually the views that cannot be supported by evidence that choose to take more of an ad-hominem attack by questioning the person's character rather than the evidence presented.

Also remember that very, very few people, probably a total of mere thousands of people out of the entire world population, have ever done any actual work on the dinosaur religion , most take on faith dispite it's implications.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I know where you are coming from because I've read the same arguments.


I choose not to believe in dinosaurs because of what is said in my second link, too much for me to write out here.

I'll address the points in the order presented:

10: Argument does not apply to the Hydroplate theory, which is the theory I hold to, which allows for the existence of dinosaurs. The flood is what killed all life on earth (except that which is specified by the Bible, and those on the Ark),
9: Argument does not apply to the HPT. God created a lush world for His creation to live in, thus there would have been plenty of food for ALL creatures, including dinosaurs.
8: This one I kind of get, but the evidence (bones, soft tissue, fossils, etc.) says they do exist. So far, you (Ktoyou) haven't really presented any convincing evidence that they did not.
7: This one has a valid point..... for very large dinosaurs. But as I mentioned in my previous post, the average size of a dinosaur was about the size of a sheep, well within the weight restrictions. Creatures like Behemoth, on the other hand, are described as being very large, with "strength in his hips" and "power in his stomach muscles," a "tail like a cedar" and the "sinews in his thighs are tightly knit," "bones like beams of bronze" and "ribs like bars of iron."
6: Does not apply to the Hydroplate theory, or at all, really. Most of the fossils we have today of ancient creatures were formed in the flood, not by creatures being buried over thousands or millions of years. Have you seen how quickly roadkill decays? Yeah, don't expect dead creatures to last more than a few years at most, let alone millions...
5: This is an argument IN FAVOR of the HPT, and against naturalistic theories. In fact, there is C-14 found in many fossils. Here's more on C-14 being everywhere it shouldn't be.
4: Again, I point to Job 40 and 41. But either way, So what? Also, the author of the article is making an argument from silence here, in addition to a false dichotomy. Just because we don't find any reference to dinosaurs in mythology doesn't mean that such references NEVER existed, let alone that the creatures themselves never existed, and who knows, maybe the last of the dinosaurs died out shortly after the flood (perhaps around Job's lifetime), long before they could have become well known enough to have myths and legends created about them.
3: Simply false. There are plenty of full or mostly complete skeletons of dinosaurs that have been discovered, most which are discovered in the ground as if they had been buried there after having their flesh and organs removed. (NOTE: I'm NOT saying that they were buried there by human hands recently, but simply emphasizing that such skeletons are usually found as a set in the shape of the creature they belonged to. The fact that they WERE buried there is a result of the Flood, not man's hands.)
2: I'd like to see the evidence he has for some of the things he says here. Until such evidence is presented, there's nothing to say.
1: Does not apply to the Hydroplate theory.

I think most of the big animals in the ark were babies. But none were dinosaurs because they never existed until imagined by evolutionists.

Because you say so?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Anytime anyone refuses to even consider a contrary view to the popularly-held beliefs, you should highly question that view having any validity whatsoever, even more than other views.

The problem is that the view has already been established to be true, based on the evidence that exists.

Denying the evidence is usually something cults do (not saying your a member of a cult).

God says that two or three witnesses establishes a matter.

There's far more than 3 witnesses (I've mentioned some here in this thread) in favor of dinosaurs existing.

Valid viewpoints take both sides of an argument with equal weight and accept any potential new information and test it without bias against an overarching hypothesis.

See my previous post.

However, it is usually the views that cannot be supported by evidence that choose to take more of an ad-hominem attack by questioning the person's character rather than the evidence presented.

When such a person is against evidence presented, should we mock them for denying reality?

Also remember that very, very few people, probably a total of mere thousands of people out of the entire world population, have ever done any actual work on the dinosaur religion, most take on faith dispite it's implications.

The problem you face, Kat, is that there are more than two positions to be had in this discussion, and you're failing to address one of them, while simultaneously lumping in that third position into the one you oppose.

I'm not an atheist, Ktoyou. I'm a Christian. I believe the Bible is God's inspired word, and that Christ died for my sins. I also believe that dinosaurs not only existed, but were created by God 7,000 years ago during the creation week where He also created man, and everything else that exists, I hold to the Hydroplate theory, which is consistent with the Bible.

You seem to be going all out against atheists for making up the idea of dinosaurs, but what about those of us in the Body of Christ who are convinced that dinosaurs exist based on the evidence that exists, regardless of what atheists want you to believe about their history?
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
You make some good arguments here and fair rebuttal. Glad you participated in this thread JudgeRightly.
The main point I see is why believe in dinosaurs at all since their creators say they did live millions of years ago. Why incorporate them into your world view? Because they have evidence in models of beasts that have been constructed? Not one dinosaur skeleton was the complete beast. They are all filled in with other materials and lots of imagination.
The second thing, the laughable idea that an astroide killed them off, yet mammals were able to survive? At least if they held that God had not created real animals yet, I might understand, but they assume the dinosaurs evolved from the lower species as so, the animals and of course, us.
I think all the dinosaur nonsense is no more than an atheist way to get people to believe in an old earth and evolution.
Thanks for adding to the debate and taking it serious. I simply do not believe in dinosaurs for practical reasons.
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame



You seem to be going all out against atheists for making up the idea of dinosaurs, but what about those of us in the Body of Christ who are convinced that dinosaurs exist based on the evidence that exists, regardless of what atheists want you to believe about their history?
I would never doubt your faith, I don't even doubt Robert Pate's faith. (Not to make any comparison). I know your a true person in the Body of Christ.
I also know you do not believe in the crazy idea that animals evolve. I cannot imagine man evolving from a dinosaur, yet that us what most paleontologist insist, we have common ancestors.
So I assume you believe God created dinosaurs because only God can account for real beings.
I think God thought of us while creating the world and made animals for our purpose. I see no reason for beasts we can't have dominion over and how could we manage such beasts?
 

User Name

Well-known member
I never seen rocks shaped like bones around here? I've seen little plant images in rocks.
Well, rocks come in all shapes and sizes, right? So why should we be surprised to find some rocks that are in the shape of bones and skeletons?
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Well, rocks come in all shapes and sizes, right? So why should we be surprised to find some rocks that are in the shape of bones and skeletons?
I dont know, I skipped and collected lots of rocks as a kid, but to me, they looked like rocks. Maybe you have more imagination?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
The main point I see is why believe in dinosaurs at all since their creators say they did live millions of years ago.

I think you're conflating the two issues.

"Did dinosaurs exist" is a different question than "When did dinosaurs exist."

I reject that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, because creation didn't exist millions of years ago. But it doesn't follow that since they didn't exist millions of years ago, that they didn't exist at all.

Why incorporate them into your world view?

Because of the evidence that they not only existed, but lived alongside man.

Because they have evidence in models of beasts that have been constructed?

Because the fossilized bones we've found, that can only be made in global flood conditions.

Not one dinosaur skeleton was the complete beast.

So?

The fact that we have the skeletons (fossilized, of course) at all is proof they existed.

They are all filled in with other materials and lots of imagination.

Well, sure, artist renderings are representations of what the creatures MIGHT have looked like.

We don't know exactly what they looked like, but based on bone structure, we can get a pretty good idea. This is true not just of dinosaurs, but for humans too.

The fact of the matter is that the rest of the creature has decayed, just like roadkill decays and disappears after a day or so.

The second thing, the laughable idea that an asteroid killed them off, yet mammals were able to survive?

The theory atheists present is that it killed the dinosaurs off because reptiles are cold-blooded, and needed the sun to warm them to survive. A theory which is questionable at best, but that's not enough of a reason to dismiss the existence of dinosaurs, and it wouldn't follow if you did.

At least if they held that God had not created real animals yet, I might understand, but they assume the dinosaurs evolved from the lower species as so, the animals and of course, us.

I can't speak to atheist delusions, and it would be pointless for me to try to defend them since I'm not beholden to their ideas.

I think all the dinosaur nonsense is no more than an atheist way to get people to believe in an old earth and evolution.

Sorry, but you haven't presented a compelling enough case to tie the existence of dinosaurs to the delusions of those who have rejected God.

In fact, some of the evidence that says they DO exist, does so in a way that atheists CANNOT explain, such as Carbon-14 in at least 10 different dinosaurs that have been found.

Thanks for adding to the debate and taking it serious. I simply do not believe in dinosaurs for practical reasons.

Such as?

I also know you do not believe in the crazy idea that animals evolve. I cannot imagine man evolving from a dinosaur, yet that us what most paleontologist insist, we have common ancestors.

I hate defending atheists, but if you're going to attack their beliefs, at least don't beat up a straw man.

They don't insist that we evolved from dinosaurs. They insist we evolved from ape-like creatures.

So I assume you believe God created dinosaurs because only God can account for real beings.

Yes.

I think God thought of us while creating the world and made animals for our purpose. I see no reason for beasts we can't have dominion over and how could we manage such beasts?

First you need to establish that we couldn't have dominion over dinosaurs, and show that we couldn't manage them. THEN and ONLY THEN can you make the argument that there is no purpose for such creatures. And even then, that STILL wouldn't be a good argument that they did not exist.

What you're up against? That God created all creatures to be vegetarians, and it wasn't until after the Flood that creatures began to fear man. And THAT'S scriptural.
 
Top