YEC and dinosaurs

[AllDay]

I was wondering where the dinosaurs fit in in YEC. Iv read someone called Ken Ham(not sure of name) who is a YEC say that Noah's ark carried dinosaurs aswell. Is there any evidence in ancient sources that say dinosaurs lived in their time? if not then what day were the dinosaurs made on?
thanks

For convenience ....
• Edited by a Moderator •

[SteveF]

In many areas of Siberia there are jumbles of mammoth bones. These formed during the last ice age (even YECs accept these as non flood deposits). Large accumulations of bones can result and we don't need a flood to explain them!

You might also want to ask how enough bones were preserved, evidently in a reasonable enough condition to build a large skeleton, by a flood that also managed to scour the entire world. Now I'm no expert on taphonomy, but if the flood was able to build mountains and carve out the grand canyon, I find it quite hard to believe that a few bones would have survived intact.

Modern geology accepts both slow events and catastrophe. This in contrary to flood geology with its rigid mindset; indeed because it invokes continual catastrophe, flood geology ironically ends up being uniformitarian in mind set

[Lion]

I'm a firm believer in the flood story as recorded in Gen 7and 8. As far as the bones in the far arctic are concerned, the freezing cold has preserved those bones without much mineralization so they appear fresh. There was s mammoth dug out of the snow a few years ago and lifted by helicopter to an ice cave on the Tamyr penninsula, The scientist wanted to see if he could clone a mammoth. Unfortuately, the DNA was too badly fragmented for cloning.

The Yukon valley is covered with permafrost about 8 or 9 feet thick. Dr. Hibben of the University of New Mexico made an expedition to the Tanana river mining area, looking for human remains. What he found were frozen carcasses of animals mostly bison. They had been torn apart, half a carcass here, half there, and when they thawed, they rotted and created a stench like the wreckage left after the tidal wave of Dec 26, 2004. I am firmly convinced that these animal remains are left from the flood.

[shunyadragon]

The dinosaur problem has a simple solution if you can divorce yourself from the evolutionary timeline and realize that the flood actually happened, not millions of years ago, but thousands. That said, I don’t know if any young dinosaurs were in the ark or not.

I visited the Dinosaur National Monument near Vernal, Utah. a few years ago. There is a museum in Vernal which has a huge skeleton that has been assembled from bones dug out of the quarry. The beast was about thirty feet long and at least ten feet tall. There were other animals on dsplay there, huge turtles, and many other creatures.

The scientists had constructed a building at the quarry so they could work out of the weather. The building was two stories tall and had lab space where they could clean the specimens, and some of the equipment was left to show how the men worked.

The building was about fifty feet square with glass sides but the building was against the hill where the bones were exposed.

The site was up a hill about 200 feet above the Green River, in a sandstone hill. The quarry itself was a jumble of huge bones on about a 60 degree slope. The scientists had dug out all the bones they wanted, but there were still lots of bones left, hundreds of them. There were leg bones five feet long, backbone parts perhaps six feet long, and many smaller bones.

I mention the location in some detail because the story the scientists tell is so bizarre it is hard for one who believes the flood story to comprehend.

The tale the scientists tell is essentially this: Dinosaurs were living down near the river and when they died the bones became fossilized and somehow they were carried up the hill and buried in a sand dune.

So this story is suspect from several standpoints. How did that jumble of bones get 200 feet above the river, and why were they buried all in one area not over 20 feet high and perhaps 50 feet across and perhaps 20 feet deep? If they were from single animals that died, why weren’t they scattered all around? That story doesn’t make sense.

I am a geologist and I have been to this site and others. The story is suspect for the main reason that it is false and not how science views this particular deposit of dinosaur bones. The problem is this deposit is one of many, deposited in many ways associated with different environments throughout thousands of feet of strata all over the world. None of them are associated with evidence of human activity or animals of other ages.

A more reasonable scenario would be for the animals to be overtaken by a common disaster, much like the recent tidal wave of Dec 26, 2004, in Asia. The Bible tells that a wind blew. (Gen 8:1) The dinosaurs were large animals and would not rot for some time. They floated for perhaps months. The wind blew them into a heap and sand covered them.

Actually your getting closser to the real scientific story concerning why these bones were deposited where they are in the manner of the deposit. The bones are flood deposited and not 'carried up the hill?'. The sand dunes which then covered them are common around river system then and today. The Geologic evidence indicates that this deposit is associated with a large meandering river that can be traced long distances in the existing formation. Remember this formation is one of many in strata and layers that do not reflect a catastrophic flood when taken as a whole. This is the far more reasonable scenario because it reflects the larger picture of the evidence and not tunnel vision one or a few sites trying to prove the rediculous scenario of a world flood.

That’s how they got gathered into one place two hundred feet above the present river bed. The water was about 200 feet deep and the carcasses just drifted into an eddy and were buried in sand. The chemical action of sand and water turned them into stone.

The reason they are where they are has nothing to do with the present river, topography or this age. There is clear evidence that this river system has cut down through and eroded these strata over a very long time. Olam olam! The processes of fossilization take far longer than the time span allowed for YEC. Another problem with the any argument that YEC may have for fossilization in a short period of time is that fossilized ancient bone material have been used a jewelry and other artifacts found with Stone Age people of the world.

My conclusion is that the disaster of the flood overtook them in much the same manner as the tidal wave in Sumatra and destroyed them.

This only confirms that local catastrophic events like river floods can explain this type of deposit. Local and regional catastrophic events are common in the geologic record and in recorded history. There is no evidence of a world flood event.

[Dr.GH]

• Edited by a Moderator •

[Lion]

Thank you SHUNYDRAGON for this quote
I am a geologist and I have been to this site and others. The story is suspect for the main reason that it is false and not how science views this particular deposit of dinosaur bones. The problem is this deposit is one of many, deposited in many ways associated with different environments throughout thousands of feet of strata all over the world. None of them are associated with evidence of human activity or animals of other ages.

Your comment illustrates the fact that three people viewing the same accident can come away with six or more different versions of what happened. It all depends on what your preconcieved notions are regarding the events in question. I happen to believe the Bible narrative while you choose to believe something else and neither of us can hope to persuade the other of the correctness of us our view. All a person can do is present his view and let the he reader decide which view is correct.

[wattsr1]

Gidday Lion,

To Shunydragon you wrote:-

Your comment illustrates the fact that three people viewing the same accident can come away with six or more different versions of what happened.

How true. And in actuality I agree with this part of your post. However, it is not so much with the reader of the differing stories I am interested in (which is the crux of your post), rather it is my argument and your argument.

Back in 1969, we all “witnessed” American astronauts landing on the moon – yet many who were there still refuse to believe that this actually happened.

So, is the idea that no men have landed on the moon just as likely as the idea that men have landed on the moon because “it all depends on preconceived notions”? Or is one idea better than the other and one has to examine preconceived notions, evidence, and argument in order to determine which is the more likely?


You also wrote:

I happen to believe the Bible narrative while you choose to believe something else and neither of us can hope to persuade the other of the correctness of us our view.

If you “happen to believe” something then it would appear that you have little more reason for believing it than its antithesis. That I chose my beleifs, I do not argue with – however a lot of thought did and does go into my acceptance of my belief systems and methodologies for accepting various ideas as opposed to other ideas. And while I do accept that it is very hard to convince opponents of one’s beleifs, namely because it often requires a change of world views, changing beliefs and world views does occur. If it did not (that is, it was impossible) then how do Christians become atheists, atheists become Christians, Christians become Buddhists, Flat earthers become spherical earthers etc?

IOW, whether you like it or not, Shunydragon’s and your claims are still out there to be argued about and it is more than just a matter of “happening to believe” – otherwise you really have little reason to believe.


Regards, Roland

[Dr.GH]

Your comment illustrates the fact that three people viewing the same accident can come away with six or more different versions of what happened. It all depends on what your preconcieved notions are regarding the events in question. I happen to believe the Bible narrative while you choose to believe something else and neither of us can hope to persuade the other of the correctness of us our view. All a person can do is present his view and let the he reader decide which view is correct.

And always keep in mind that creationist websites block information (c.f. my last deleted post) which exposes YEC lies. This issue can not be resolved here, or in any YEC controled media. They are too willing to lie while cloaked in self-righteous denial of the truth. The only slim chance at the truth is far far way from here.

[sylas]

And always keep in mind that creationist websites block information (c.f. my last deleted post) which exposes YEC lies. This issue can not be resolved here, or in any YEC controled media. They are too willing to lie while cloaked in self-righteous denial of the truth. The only slim chance at the truth is far far way from here.

Um. In my experience here, there is no problem if you are very careful to follow the rules. The rule of "argument by weblink" is not consistently applied; but there is a reasonable basis for having such a rule. Basically, if you respond to any point just by saying in effect "You are wrong, this link explains why"; then anyone who objects to your post for any reason can report the post as an argument by weblink, and it may get edited consistent with the forum rules. If I recall your post correctly, it was indeed subject to this rule.

The solution is to use a link as support or reference, but to have real pertinent substance included directly as text of your article.

I usually do this in one of two ways; by paraphrased summary, or by quoted extracts.

A pattern for the first form:

You are wrong, for the following reasons. (short self-contained summary/argument follows). More information is available at this link.

A pattern for the second form:

The article Citation/Title explains why you are wrong. Here are some selected extracts, which give a flavour for the real situation. (pertinent extracts follow) You can read the full paper at this link.

I'm not commenting here as a moderator, but as a debater interested in tactics to fit a particular circumstance.

I encourage you to repeat your edited article in a slightly expanded form, and keep a record of the article as well. If it is still deleted, then we have a problem. But I don't think we do have a serious problem when a post has more substance than only a link. Let's see!

Cheers -- Sylas

[Lion]

I appreciate Silas’s comment about how to get a website into an argument. That’s how to do it. That aside, I don’t appreciate arguments about origins being called lies.

The problem with origins is that nobody was there to see what happened. We have theories, but we don’t really know for sure what happened unless someone with some authority can tell what actually happened.

In the case of the flood, we have an eyewitness who was there and kept a log of what he saw. The only problem with that is that people don’t want to believe the written record. They dismiss his record as myth and folklore. They even say Noah he never existed. Sorry, he existed, and his grave has been found. Call me a liar if you want to, but I have a letter from the man who found his grave.

The problem with the story of the flood is not with the story. It is that there are two competing beliefs, the story in Genesis that God created the earth, and the belief in evolution, that things just evolved.

A couple of side notes: The reason the dinosaur and wooly mammoth bones appear fresh and not fossilized is because the climate in the arctic just isn’t conducive to fossilizing. The other is that I have an explanation for the frozen wooly mammoths.

[Didaktylos]

I appreciate Silas’s comment about how to get a website into an argument. That’s how to do it. That aside, I don’t appreciate arguments about origins being called lies.

The problem with origins is that nobody was there to see what happened. We have theories, but we don’t really know for sure what happened unless someone with some authority can tell what actually happened.

In the case of the flood, we have an eyewitness who was there and kept a log of what he saw. The only problem with that is that people don’t want to believe the written record. They dismiss his record as myth and folklore. They even say Noah he never existed. Sorry, he existed, and his grave has been found. Call me a liar if you want to, but I have a letter from the man who found his grave.

The problem with the story of the flood is not with the story. It is that there are two competing beliefs, the story in Genesis that God created the earth, and the belief in evolution, that things just evolved.

A couple of side notes: The reason the dinosaur and wooly mammoth bones appear fresh and not fossilized is because the climate in the arctic just isn’t conducive to fossilizing. The other is that I have an explanation for the frozen wooly mammoths.

The problem is that there are no less than 4 known versions of this particular Flood legend - Hebrew, Sumerian, Babylonian and Greek with no objective reason to consider any of them as being the original.

(edited to correct a formatting error)

[Soundsurfr]

None of these are good evidence at all. Hearsay, legends, ambiguous verses from ancient manuscripts and imaginative art don't really count, surely?

No no. Those are all good evidence. It's the fossil record that's not good evidence.

[sylas]

In the case of the flood, we have an eyewitness who was there and kept a log of what he saw. The only problem with that is that people don’t want to believe the written record. They dismiss his record as myth and folklore. They even say Noah he never existed. Sorry, he existed, and his grave has been found. Call me a liar if you want to, but I have a letter from the man who found his grave.

The man who found Noah's grave is an excellent illustration of the general point that eyewitness accounts are far less reliable that the forensic evidence of physical traces. I'll get back to this.

Where no other evidence is available, an eyewitness account is useful, but always dubious because it cannot be tested or confirmed.

When other evidence is available, the situation changes. Evidence can let us see whether or not the witness is reliable. If they confirm certain details of the account; then the whole gains in credibility and the extra detail in the account is very useful. If they are inconsistent with the account, then it shows the account is worthless. Physical evidence usually trumps an eyewitness, in law, in science, and indeed when there are arguments in a pub. Sure, some folks will trust their source no matter what; but in a debate if one side has an eye witness and the other have pertinent physical evidence which anyone can go and check for themselves, the one with the physical evidence is usually far more persuasive. And rightly so.

However, there is an even more basic problem here, and that is that the form of the story in the bible simply does not match that of a first person account. It is given in third person. That is, Noah is not identified as the author, and the way it is written is inconsistent with Noah being the author. Traditionally, authorship has been ascribed to Moses, but as far as the bible itself is concerned, it is an anonymous account, written looking back. There is absolutely nothing in the account to suggest it is an eyewitness log.

Many Christians consider that it essentially a story with a moral or theological purpose; and not history at all. Others disagree. The debate goes on.

But as to whether the flood occurred or not, the proper resolution is the physical traces which would most certainly be left by such a catastrophe. The physical evidence shows quite unambiguously that there has not ever been a global flood, at least over the last several hundred million years.

But back the guy who found Noah's grave. This is a reference to Ron Wyatt.

Ron Wyatt is a somewhat tragic figure. Whether fraud or simply deluded I don't know; but his claims are sheer fantasy. Here is a list of some of his claims, taken from Noah’s Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, and Ron Wyatt by Linda Gunderson.

• Noah's Ark (the Durupinar site, for which he has been the prime promoter)
• Stone sea anchors believed to be used by Noah to steer the vessel into the wind
• Petrified timbers from the Ark that were used as memorials in an Armenian graveyard
• Noah’s sacrifice area at the site
• A large stone carving near the Ark picturing 8 people coming out of the side, with a rainbow above the boat, and inscriptions in Summerian, Hurrian, and Urartian identifying this formation as the Ark of Noah
• Trainloads of petrified pre-flood wood that had no tree rings on the site
• Corroded metal fittings, found in rows, delineating the "ribs of the ship," as indicated by metal detectors and especially a "molecular frequency generator"
• A house that Noah built
• Stones on this house containing inscriptions that recorded details about the Deluge
• A pictograph of eight people leaving a large wave of water with a boat perched above it
• Noah's grave
• Mrs. Noah's grave (containing a fortune-her gold and jewelry)
• The Ark of the Covenant (under the exact spot where Jesus was crucified)
• The Menorah (a seven-branched candelabra), the Table of Shewbread, and the Golden Altar of Incense from the ancient Temple
• Christ’s blood, scraped off of the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant
• DNA analysis of the blood indicates that Christ was born of a virgin
• The true site of Christ’s crucifixion and the stone socket in which the cross was placed
• Verified the tomb of Christ was the actual tomb
• Claimed Jesus’ tomb was sealed with a Roman iron spike, still visible
• Moses' stone tablets containing the Ten Commandments, held together with golden hinges
• Solved the problem of the construction of the pyramids
• Also the problems in Egyptian chronology
• Discovered the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah
• Discovered sulfur balls from the same
• The true site of the Israelites' Red Sea crossing
• A stone monument near the site erected by Solomon, inscribed with the ancient Hebrew script
• Horse and human skeletons from Pharaoh's drowned army
• Gold covered chariot wheels and chariot parts
• The true Mount Sinai
• The 12 altars built by Moses in Exodus 24
• The actual rock Moses struck to release water at Kadesh
• The site of Korah's earthquake where the ground swallowed up Korah and his followers
• Knows how the Shroud of Turin was forged
• Has cracked the code of the Copper Scroll
• Claimed (on tape) that he can read any ancient inscription
• Discovered the pillars of Solomon
• The tomb of the Patriarchs, the cave of Machpelah
• Moses was known in Egyptian history as Thutmosa III
• Joseph was the builder of the first pyramid
• Storage bins Joseph used during the drought in Egypt
• Bones of giant pre-flood people
• Ancient Canaanite burial pots at Ashkelon

Ron died in 1999, and the world is a less colourful but more sane place as a result.

There are still people promoting Ron’s many bizarre discovered. There are two such groups (through they have had a falling out, it seems). There is Anchor Stones, which is a reference to his claimed find of the stones used to anchor the ark, and Wyatt Archaeological Research Inc..

The Anchor Stones site seems to have more on Noah’s ark, including what Ron identified as Noah’s house, and the graves of Noah and his wife; but the information is poorly organized. The grave in question is not there any longer. Extract from news letter 9:

Everyone was happy, that is, until Ron took them to see the tombstones and house he believed was Noah's and his wife's. When they got there, the house was now reduced to a pile of loose rock, and the tombstones were gone!. And right where they once had stood was a partially filled hole - the grave had been robbed! Ron was heartsick.

Someone with more patience than me may like to look through the site and see if there is more about the actual identification.

Ron’s identification of Noah’s ark itself is a well known geological formation at Durupinar. I link to a consideration of this site made by “Noah’s Ark Search”, a group that believes in a global flood and is apparently serious about looking for the Ark itself. They don’t think much of Ron Wyatt, however. See also Amazing ‘Ark’ exposé at Answers in Genesis. I’m deliberately giving creationist sites here, as you may be more inclined to trust them.

Cheers -- Sylas

[wattsr1]

Gidday Lion,

That aside, I don’t appreciate arguments about origins being called lies.

I do not see the point, or the reason for calling your side of the fence “liars”. There are two reasons for this:-
1) name calling merely inflames an argument and thereby achieves nothing and
2) most on your side of the fence hold to their ideas in good faith.

Nevertheless, my side of the fence finds it nearly impossible to stop your side from misrepresenting us. This comes not so much from the level of the layman such as yourself, but from the level of those scientists and researchers who work as YEC/OEC.

As laymen, you merely pass on what you hear and read in good faith.

And this presents you, as a layman, with a big problem that is generally resolved by one of two methods:-

1) continually arguing but never really addressing the points being discussed or
2) quietly disappearing when the falacies behind so much of YEC/OEC thinking are pointed out.

Only a very few adopt option 1). Most YEC/OECs adopt option 2). And who can blame them. When professionsal scientists who are also YECs, inform the lay YEC that we of the mainstream think such and such and that layperson comes onto a web site to inform us of what we think, only to find out that it is not so, what choice does that YEC have?

The problem with origins is that nobody was there to see what happened.

But most of science is like this. Did you ever see gravity keep the earth in its orbit? What about a meson holding the nucleus of the atom together. A photon evaporating a water molecule from a pond – see that? The centre of the sun – those fusion reactions, ever been there to see them?

We have theories, but we don’t really know for sure what happened unless someone with some authority can tell what actually happened.

And why can you be sure if someone with authority tells you what actually happened? What authority do you rely on and how sure are you that you are correct in your assesments of that authority? Is your attitude toward that authority based on faith? Or is is based on evidence? If the latter, then how good is your evidence and your associated argument which allows you to make your above quoted declaration?

IOW your attitudes towards your authority are also theoretical.

In the case of the flood, we have an eyewitness who was there and kept a log of what he saw.

See above.

The only problem with that is that people don’t want to believe the written record.

Do you always believe everything that is written? I will bet there are many “written record[s]” which you dismiss and which others claim with equal conviction to be authoritative.

They dismiss his record as myth and folklore.

There are many written records which others claim to be authoritative but which are dismissed by you (I suspect) for similar reasons that you claim I dismiss yours. So why is this a problem if I do no differently to you?

They even say Noah he never existed. Sorry, he existed, and his grave has been found. Call me a liar if you want to, but I have a letter from the man who found his grave.

You give me only choices – either accept what you are saying or call you a “liar”. That is really cheap logic Lion – something akin to that which Paul (I think) used – namely “Either Christ rose from the dead or we are liars.”

Lying has nothing to do with it. And I do not doubt that you have a letter from a man claiming to have found the grave of Noah. And I do not doubt that a man thinks he has found the grave.

On this web site I am talking to a person who claims that much of what he knows today, he was told by God while in the womb.

So would you accept his claim on face value or call him a liar?

That is the choice you offer.

I prefer to search for some other explanation? I do not accept his claim at all. But neither to I think he is lying. Putting it very, very crudely, I think he is kidding himself.

The problem with the story of the flood is not with the story.

Stories, like any evidence, constrain models. The problem is in part with the story if you are going to accept it on face value.

Ancient Babylonians believed that the cosmos and earth were created during some massive war between the gods.

If I were to offer that story as a version of reality and tell you that the problem is not with the story, what would you say?

It is that there are two competing beliefs, the story in Genesis that God created the earth, and the belief in evolution, that things just evolved.

What has evolution got to do with the Flood?

I have introduced another belief – see above. So are you going to give the ancient Babylonian story equal rights as well? Or are you going to wheel in new objections to ensure that this new story is not included?


Regards, Roland

[Lion]

Roland, from the tone of your post, I wonder if you really do know what you believe. You have so many caveats in your post you can't know what you believe. On the other hand I, with the apostle, Paul know in whom have believed. I have faith in the the Bible as the word of God and that what it says is true. I believe there was a WORLD WIDE flood that wiped out every land animal. Others may doubt the word of God, but not me. They may say it is a fable and folklore, but I believe it is true. There are stories of the flood in Babylonian folklore but those stories are so mixed up with gods warring itis unbeleivable. Jesus spoke of Noah and the flood as fact. Peter speaks of scoffers that walk after their own lust, and are willingly ignorant, meaning that they don't want to know,about the flood. But, Peter says, the earth will melt with great heat and the works in the earth will be burned up.