A Serious Question: A Bone to Pick

Originally posted by Halitose
LOTR doesn't even have a cave drawing and has never been considered anything but fantasy. C'mon no1, surely you would have a little more substance than that to toss.

I'm not sure that the original tellers of the Genesis creation stories did not think that they were "fantasy"--actually, mythology is a better term here. I suspect that folks used to have a stronger sense of, and respect for, mythology and its symbolism. And that goes to other creation/foundation stories as well. To decide that Genesis is not mythology seems to me to be an a priori decision that informs the rest of your reading. The same for deciding that it's mythology--except that it seems to fit with the structure of other world mythologies.

Tolkein scholar Tom Shippey argues that Tolkein created the first cohesive mytholgy for the British Isles out of the various strands of Celtic, Saxon-Germanic, etc.

Originally posted by bbarr
No, no, no! I am not endorsing these fanciful interpretations of the evidence. I take the evidence provided by the images literally. Clearly, these images show that the dinosaurs were wiped out by the uberflood. Those people who say that dinosaurs existed after the flood aren't true Christians. How, after all, would Noah fit dinosaurs on the Ark!

the answer to that question was given to me by a young earther:
Noah only took BABY dinosaurs.

Originally posted by sonhouse
the answer to that question was given to me by a young earther:
Noah only took BABY dinosaurs.

Yes, one pink and one blue according to Dr. Dino.

Originally posted by sonhouse
the answer to that question was given to me by a young earther:
Noah only took BABY dinosaurs.

Nah, they wuz still eggs. (I reached this conclusion independently of YE so it must be true).

I think it were Mrs Noah's cooking that done 'em in. Got the dinosaur & chicken eggs confused...but that omelette lasted 40 days & 40 nights!

Originally posted by sonhouse
the answer to that question was given to me by a young earther:
Noah only took BABY dinosaurs.

More than likely not babies, but young since the goal was to multiply
and spread upon the planet after the ark landed.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
More than likely not babies, but young since the goal was to multiply
and spread upon the planet after the ark landed.
Kelly

Now, was there greater bio-diversity in the Garden of Eden or in the world after the Flood?

Originally posted by KellyJay
More than likely not babies, but young since the goal was to multiply
and spread upon the planet after the ark landed.
Kelly

But how do you fit millions of baby animals onto the ark. And how can Noah and his family possibly take care of them all. Also, I've always wondered: What do the carnivors eat?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Noah only took BABY dinosaurs.

yep, the male and his mate

were there seven or one pairs of each "kind" of dinosaur?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Now, was there greater bio-diversity in the Garden of Eden or in the world after the Flood?

After I imagine, due to the changes within species as they all fell
into the various niche around the world.
Kelly

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
But how do you fit millions of baby animals onto the ark. And how can Noah and his family possibly take care of them all. Also, I've always wondered: What do the carnivors eat?

There wasn't a need to take millions, only different kinds from
there you'd get the various species we see today. The example
I most use would be the dog kind, you would not need every
type of dog, only two from there you could split into all the
various dog kinds there are today. Now how that worked out
as far as what makes up a kind, I don't know. We do believe
even now many of our animals are related and within families,
so I don't think it is a stretch to suggest they all started from
a smaller group of animals. Even evolutionist believe every
thing is related, I just believe we had a larger pool of creatures
at the beginning fully developed than the evolutionist believes
in.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
There wasn't a need to take millions, only different kinds from
there you'd get the various species we see today. The example
I most use would be the dog kind, you would not need every
type of dog, only two from there you could split into all the
various dog kinds there are today. Now how that worked out
as far as what makes up a kind, I don't know. ...[text shortened]... r pool of creatures
at the beginning fully developed than the evolutionist believes
in.
Kelly

So it would be your contention that, say, from various proto-types,
variants arose, correct?

How general would this be? From proto-big-cat comes tiger, lion,
leopard, cougar, and cheetah? Or were these individual big cats
already spontaneously created?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
How general would this be? From proto-big-cat comes tiger, lion,
leopard, cougar, and cheetah? Or were these individual big cats
already spontaneously created?

Nemesio

As I understand it there was a single ur-beast for each kind: all felines, canines, etc. Not to mention dinosaurs. So the fauna we are familiar with today would not have been present in the Garden of Eden. Species proliferated after the flood.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
As I understand it there was a single ur-beast for each kind: all felines, canines, etc. Not to mention dinosaurs. So the fauna we are familiar with today would not have been present in the Garden of Eden. Species proliferated after the flood.

The big problem is dating the flood. One big flood happened in
the pliocene, Ca 6,000,000 BC. That was the making of the
Mediterrainian Sea. By the narrows near Gibralter used to be a
small mountain chain, there was very little water in the med ATT.
The Atlantic ocean finally broke through there and caused what
is thought to be the largest flood ever seen on earth. It lasted
over 100,000 years and was hundreds of times greater volume
than Niagra. Its interesting that the first proto-humans were around
ATT, the flood story may be an indication of myths, legends or facts
passed down for millions of years, maybe even non-verbally, I am
thinking in terms of some "racial" memory, perhaps in our very
DNA ( lots of 'junk' DNA with no discernable purpose).

This is the best thread ever, for it means The Flintstones is true!
Fred and Wilma had Christmas, how did they know? It's a miracle.
Thanks guys.

This is an unsatisfactory response I received on dinosaurs...I was expecting more, but......

I received your question on dinosaurs and thought I would throw some information your way. As a ministry we don't take any official stance on dinosaurs and where they fit into the creation but there is a lot of really good evidence that they did indeed exist with mankind.

Of course, we see evidence for this in the bible:

Job 40:14-24 speaks of a behemoth which cannot be explained as anything other then a dinosaur. Some who do not believe in the truth of God's word have tried to say that it is describing an elephant or a hippo, however a close examination will show that this is not the case. The tail is described to be like a cedar (rhinos and elephants have very short tails).

This of course does not explain when Dinosaurs fit into the picture, but it certainly does seem to acknowledge their existence. There are many things in the physical world today that testify to the existence of dinosaurs during the time of man. Much work has been done by Kent Hovind (www.drdino.com) and although his style is fairly abrasive but he has the most information of anyone I know on this subject.

Other evidence includes Acambaro. Both of these are recorded cased where artifacts were found that depicted drawings and sculptures of dinosaurs. They are in some cases thousands of years old and are drawn and sculpted in great detail (sometimes even depicting the markings on the skin). For someone to do this several thousand years ago, it would have been impossible to imagine up so many creatures (that we now know really existed) unless they actually lived with them. For information on Acambaro you can go to:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-acambaro.htm

The Insitute for Creation Research has some good articles on dinosaurs and you can access their website by going to:

http://www.icr.org/

There is of course a lot of dispute over this issue as it would unravel a lot of evolutionary thinking and scientists are not about to give up any ground in this matter.

Please let me know if you have anymore questions, I would love to help where I can.