Why Aren't Dinosaurs In The Bible?

inspector, perhaps you should glance at this page before spouting your opinions on talkorigins.org:

http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/plesios.htm

Here's a couple snippits:

1977 Carcass Known Sample of basking
Amino Acid Sample Shark Elastoidin

4-Hydroxyproline 45 45
Aspartic/acid 54 55
Threonine 25 25
Serine 39 40
Glutamic acid 80 80
Proline 130 125
Glycine 291 290
Alanine 109 110
Cystine (1/2) 7 6
Valine 25 24
Methionine 10 10
Isoleucine 20 20
Leucine 19 19
Tyrosine 43 41
Phenylalanine 12 12
Hydroxylysine 5 6
Lysine 25 26
Histidine 11 13
Arginine 51 53
(Amide-N) (57) (62)

Table 1. Results of Gross Amino Acid Analysis on the Horny Fiber from the 1977 Zuiyo-maru Carcass and Known Elastoidin of a basking Shark (residues/1000 residues). Composition was determined by JLC-3BC liquid chromatography (JEOL Co. Ltd.). Both samples had been treated with NaClO. (Kimura, Fujii, and others 1978).

-- At the existing degree of decomposition, a plesiosaur would probably have retained its upper jaws and teeth (Hasegawa and Uyeno 1978, p 63), but no teeth were reported in the specimen carcass (Obata and Tomoda 1978, p 48). A basking shark, however, is known to easily loose both jaws, and even if it retained the upper jaw, its extremely tiny teeth could be more easily overlooked.

-- Photographs and witnesses confirm the presence of fin rays, which are possessed by most fish, including sharks. In contrast, plesiosaurs had bony phalanges as flipper supports, which were not seen in the carcass (Obata and Tomoda 1978, p 51). The limb bones shown in Yano's drawing were evidently based on presumption or pro-plesiosaur bias rather than observation (Omura and others 1978, p 56; Obata and Tomoda 1978, p 49).

-- The carcass sketch showed six neck vertebrae, viewed as "seven or so" by Obata and Tomoda (1978), which is reasonably consistent with Yano's measurements of neck length (150 cm) and individual vertebra diameter (20 cm). It is also consistent with sharks. However, 6 to 7 cervical vertebrae is not consistent with plesiosaurs and other marine reptiles. Even the pliosaurs, also known as "short-necked" plesiosaurs, have at least 13 neck vertebrae; the "long necked" plesiosaurs have far more. (Obata and Tomoda, 1978, p 46).

Does this mean it was a shark? Perhaps. Point is, don't label informative sites as 'dumbing down' people just because their views don't match your own.
 
Originally posted by inspector
This is yet more proof, at talkorigins, of intellectuals 'dumbing down' their followers in a feeble attempt to maintain the integrity of geo-paleo-science through a flawed fossil record and geologic column.

This is the second time you've metioned a flawed geological record, how isit flawed? And what is the truth?
 
worried about inspector

slightly off topic here...sorry...

inspector...this is really serious, because i am a bit worried about you.

I'm really curious , since personally I think you are doing the most dangerous thing anyone can do to their mental freedom...and this is why...

you quote things from certain specific sources as the 'truth' and being examples of 'proof'.

The only thing these sources have in common is that they originate from 'creationists.' If you would put all these stories together they would never make a coherent view on the world. The only thing they have in common is that They are all separist stories aimed to undermine an idea some religious faction doesn't like.

Now...why do i think this is dangerous. Because it seems you lost all capability for individual reason and thought. When i look at science papers and books I NEVER agree with all of them. I sift through the data and sometimes come to the conclusion...how interesting, but this is bullshit data. I will only accept 'input' after personal consideration of the validity of the data.

I never sensed anything of this in your posts. And that is why I feel worried about you. You are not using the greatest gift you ever got and that is your brain... it is capable of more than just accept authority. It is a creative instrument. So i am really wondering how you feel about this...
 
Please don't worry about me, monkey. I am in good Hands. Only those who are blinded by the sin of arrogance and pride (those who place their 'faith' in science for naturalistic explanations of this universe) are the individuals who are really in need of help. Regardless, thanks for the concern, and good luck on your narcissistic journey.

><>
 
Originally posted by bbcboy
Don't wanna start a fight! (yet!) but can anyone explain why, if genesis is to be believed. There's no mention of Tyranosaurus Rex in the bible?:confused:

Might have something to do with the fact the the bible is concerned with teaching mankind to be better humans. What are we to learn from dinosaurs about being human.
 
Please don't worry about me, monkey. I am in good Hands. Only those who are blinded by the sin of arrogance and pride (those who place their 'faith' in science for naturalistic explanations of this universe) are the individuals who are really in need of help. Regardless, thanks for the concern, and good luck on your narcissistic journey.

Inspector, no offense intended, but I'd be more worried about people who believe that, because a hunk of badly decayed flesh sort of resembles a dinosaur when placed in a certain position, the theory of evolution is rubbish. talkorigins is not dumbing-down anyone, it's the creation 'scientists' who are and the article I've posted (as well as the article at talkorigins) shows this quite clearly. Unless you can prove it really was a plesiosaur, but that will be quite difficult considering the tests done on the tissue samples clearly show a huge similarity between the carcass and a basking shark.
 
dinos not in the bible? not too difficult; how about those who wrote the various parts of the bible had never seen/heard about dinosaurs? some truth is not difficult . . . .:)
 
I find it strange that Genesis describes the formation of Earth itself, the plants on it, the animals inhabiting it and us humans, yet fails to mention either the dinosaurs or the massive extinction level event that wiped them out. No one of that time would have heard about dinosaurs, so it would make sense that they are not mentioned in the Bible if it were written only by 'mere men'. However, God knew about dinosaurs, and considering they inhabited Earth for many millions of years he'd have done well to at least mention them clearly instead of referring to a 'behemoth' which could very well be an elephant and a 'leviathan' which sounds an aweful lot like a whale.

Genesis quite clearly outlines how we got here, first the sun, then Earth, then the plants, then the animals, then man. It does not mention a large percentage of the animals of the time (reptiles) being killed off to make room for mammals. Just doesn't really fit the story ya know?
 
Originally posted by inspector
Please don't worry about me, monkey. I am in good Hands. Only those who are blinded by the sin of arrogance and pride (those who place their 'faith' in science for naturalistic explanations of this universe) are the individuals who are really in need of help. Regardless, thanks for the concern, and good luck on your narcissistic journey.

><>

ok then...

i'm quite sure that i am blinded in some sense since the human brain is severly limited in its abilities (but i am not quite sure i am competely blind in this respect).
anyhoo...
no worries mate...we now know where we stand
 
Xelios; Genesis (and the Bible) was written by man in an attempt to explain and guide our existence -- from that perspective; other beliefs have done the same -- from their perspective. Much of these writings are done in parables to preserve the meaning, and you only need to learn how to read them to understand what is being preserved. Genesis is about the beginning; not the beginning of the universe, the sun, the earth or plants or animals in general -- but about the beginning of man, or more precisely the beginning of a quality of man (who had been around long looooonnnnggg before the time of "Genesis") that differentiated mankind from common animals. The Bible, Koran and Talmud are all decendents of the teaching of Moses and, on a scale, represent this same condition of mankind that offers greater possibilities for man. Possibilities that do not exist for common animals and plants. Find what that is, and you will begin to understand much about yourself and others . . . .
 
Kangaroos and koalas

What about the contemporary animals like why aren't there any kangaroos and wombats, koalas, possums, platypuses and echidas the bible?
 
:) this is the start of good, and useful (to you) thinking. Keep questioning all that is put in front of you, and look for the truth in everything. Unrelated, but I have spent some really wonderful time in Australia -- why are not these wonderful creatures found in the Bible? Well, think about it -- if the bible was truly the word of the "creator", they would not be left out . . . . Now do not allow yourself the freedom of saying that "therefore it is all (sic) bullshit" because you do not have to be a scholar to recognize what is truth (in the Bible, for example, and many other great works) and what is simply. for example, a parable (to be unwound in the future by someone who "knows"). Stepping back to your animal "friends", could it be true that they are not in the Bible is because no one, at that time/place "knew" about them??? Come on, you're thinking is good at this point, don't let it fall away . . . .
Dave :cool:
 
Originally posted by adj
Stepping back to your animal "friends", could it be true that they are not in the Bible is because no one, at that time/place "knew" about them???

By that logic, everyone knew about the ones mentioned, such as the behemoth. So why is it not documented elsewhere as an observed beast?
 
Looking for proof of dinos existing or not in the bible sounds like a pretty silly thing to do. If the bible doesn't mention them it's certainly not proof that none existed at that time. And some vauge passage about a "large animal" in the bible certainly doesn't even come remotly close to even begining to prove they existed at the same time.
 
Originally posted by spacemanspiff
Looking for proof of dinos existing or not in the bible sounds like a pretty silly thing to do. If the bible doesn't mention them it's certainly not proof that none existed at that time. And some vauge passage about a "large animal" in the bible certainly doesn't even come remotly close to even begining to prove they existed at the same time.
The point is really simple; if you take the "magical" out of the Bible (and other similar writings) and look for the truth in it, you can only reach one logical conclusion about the Creation (Genesis) -- IT DIDN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY. It is probable that Genesis may be an allegory or parable to something else (it is). Written by man of the era, with all of their wisdom (going back to early Greece if not before), it is only possible to write about either what is known or imagined. Dinosaurs, even though it may have been possible for some skeletons to have been observable somewhere in the world, were unknown to those who wrote the Bible. They existed waaaaay earlier, as you very well know . . . .:)
 
The Teachings of Moses?

Originally posted by adj
The Bible, Koran and Talmud are all decendents of the teaching of Moses . . .
Do you really think so? What possible reason might you have to believe that Moses was any less mythic than the Ark or the Exodus? For example:
  1. Sargon, the mighty king of Agade, am I.
  2. My mother was a lowley; my father I knew not.
  3. The brothers of my father loved the mountain.
  4. My city is Azupiranu, which is situated on the bank of the Euphrates.
  5. My lowley mother conceived me, in secret she brought me fort.
  6. She placed me in a basked of reeds, she closed my entrance with bitumen,
  7. She case me upon the river, which did not overflow me.

- see Sargon
 
Originally posted by bbcboy
Don't wanna start a fight! (yet!)


That might not be difficult here with your topic because there are so few Creationists, but whenever they are around that is not possible.

but can anyone explain why, if genesis is to be believed.

It contains many truthes, but should not be taken as scientifically and historically accurate.

There's no mention of Tyranosaurus Rex in the bible?:confused:

Because it was an understanding of the Creation of the world written by a group of people with next to no knowledge of science.
 
Originally posted by inspector
There is an obvious and valid explanation that many evolutionary biologists, paleontologists and archaeologicsts do not want you to know about.

And what obvious and valid explanation would this be?
 
Originally posted by inspector
See, also, the Tuba City dinosaur tracks at www.rae.org (under the dinosaur subsection) for more enlightening, valid information.

For those humanists wanting to explain away yet even more evidence refuting the fallacy of macro-evolution, see talkorigins for a limited, naturalistic hypothesis. ;-)

><>

I thought even most creationists admitted that those were not real. You have to be far out there to be even nuttier than creationists. I guess even the fringes have fringes.:rolleyes:
 
Back
Top