Were there Dinosaurs in the Bible?

Scripture also alludes to the sky being a tent with holes through which the stars shine through.In other words, I'm not particularly impressed that the Bible mentions a large beast; nor that nature's creativity often beats human imagination to the punch.

Ok, well, then, hopefully this isn't too "twitty" for you:How can dinosaurs be mentioned in the Bible when the last dinosaur died 65 million years or so before the Bible was even written?

Obviously the Bible doesn't mention one, as they would have been extinct for millions of years by the time the Bible was written.

Which dinosaur?At any rate, it sounds like an elephant to me.

Within the proper parameters for its employment radiocarbon dating is actually as exact a science as using a yardstick, and just that accurate, too.Of course, when you measure things that are outside the proper purview of carbon dating, you get weird results. But that's true of any test.At any rate, the fossils we're talking about are too old to use radiocarbon dating.

Multiple, converging lines of evidence including stratiography, cladistics, molecular phylogenetics, and radiometric dating.

As you prove later in your sentence: That's a siginificantly greater standard of evidence than I'm sure you require of any other endeavor. I'm not impressed by your blatant double standard.

They didn't all become extinct. Stop by your zoo's aviary and you can see what's left of the dinosaurs. Shave a gorilla and you'd have something that looks like a human. Does that prove that Adam was an ape to you? Somehow I doubt it.There are significant differences between crocodiles and dinosaurs, not the least of which is the fact that dinosaurs were warm-blooded while crocs are not; as well, crocs predate dinosaurs by millions of years. Plenty of mammals lay eggs, as do birds. Egg-laying is not unique to reptiles.

Dinosaurs aren't reptiles, Buz. For one thing, no reptile is warm-blooded.Endothermia isn't just a matter of hooking up a space heater, Buz. That takes considerable metabolic and hormonal machinery to accomplish and take advantage of.Humans and chimpanzees, for example, are considerably more similar than any dinosaur is to a reptile. As I said, not all dinoaurs were wiped out. The small ones survived. Ultimately, as their environments were encroached by the much more successful mammals, the only dinosaurs who survived were the ones who enjoyed the advantages of feathers and flight. Well, you did attempt to employ it to classify dinosaurs as reptiles. Since you agree that oviparity is not unique to reptiles, how could that be evidence that dinosaurs are reptiles?

Because it's not fallacious, it's true. Dinosaurs are not reptiles. Reptiles are cold-blooded; dinosaurs are not. As I recall, you abandonded the thread where we were "going over this". Ned, to my knowledge, has not disagreed. Dinosaurs are not reptiles. Actually it's a conclusion substantiated by a wieght of evidence from taxonomy and molecular phylogenetics.What molecular evidence do you have for your conjecture?

They weren't, though.No more than birds and mammals are reptiles, or mammals, reptiles, and birds are all invertebrates.Birds and dinosaurs are archosaurs.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 08-18-2004 11:28 AM

Of course, the biggest problem with your conjecture is that it's contradicted by the evidence.If God changed all the dinosaurs into today's reptiles, why are there dinosaur fossils?If God cursed the dinosaurs into today's reptiles, why would that curse involve two additional toes?

I hadn't seen that post yet. Reptilia is not the same taxa as "reptile". Those terms are not, according to my wife's molecular phylogenetics book, congruent.Dinosaurs are certainly members of class Reptilia, but they are not, to my knowledge, reptiles. They're dinosaurs.

The fact that they were warm-blooded (and a number of other differences) makes them not reptiles.They were dinosaurs. What you're proposing is as coherent as insisting that "mammals are just warm-blooded reptiles with fur and titties."Reptiles are reptiles. Mammals are mammals. Dinosaurs are dinosaurs. Why is this so hard to accept?By what criteria would you suggest that dinosaurs be classified as reptiles? Show me the criteria for belonging to the group "reptile" (not class Reptilia, which is different) and I'll tell you if dinosaurs qualify.And you didn't answer my other question. If God changed all the dinosaurs into reptiles, why are there dinosaur fossils?

But, I predict, you'll refuse to show me how and simply retreat from the discussion. It's not surprising for the dictionary and Google to miss some of the finer points of biological classification. I was certainly surprised myself when I learned that dinosaurs were not reptiles; however, my wife assures me that this is not a controversial position among biologists. It's fine for Ned to take whatever position he likes. I'm sure that, like me, he's motivated to defend the truth no matter what side that puts him on, or whom his ideological bedmates might be.Lord knows I've been on your side plenty, Buz, when you're on the right side.But none of that changes the fact that "reptile" refers to a category of creatures, the critera of which exclude dinosaurs as members. It's just that simple. "Reptile" means something specific that doesn't apply to dinosaurs.You're free to disagree, but you need to explain how dinosaurs are reptiles instead of just asserting that they are.