Were there Dinosaurs in the Bible?

Dinosaurs were/are reptiles, of course. Just as humans and apes are mammals.What you need to be pointing out is that crocodillia aren't dinosaurs however they are both in the same class and are fairly closely related. They aren't as closely related as humans and the great apes though.

Well, he did , unfortunately Buz doesn't understand that I'm not agreeing with him either. He managed to miss that.We have two classes (right?) mammals and reptiles. Within those we have lower taxa. Dinosaurs and crocs are closely related within the reptillia.

quote:

---

...birds and crocodiles are more closely related to each other than they are to lepidosaurs (snakes and lizards...

---

(from ADW: Reptilia: INFORMATION )So if Buz thinks that a snake is a cursed dinosaur then he has humans and apes being much closer together than that.

And the whole thing is worse for you than anyone Buz. If dinosaurs and crocs (or is it dinosaurs to snakes) are close then we are even closer to apes.

It appears I read too quickly and got it wrong Crash. Thanks.

Oh, this sounds like you have some doubts about the dating. Is that the case? If so why aren't you posting to some of the dating threads? It seems to me that the dating and age of the earth is a fundamental issue. Heck, even I would doubt the ToE if I thought the earth was only 6,000 years old.If you think it is "doctrine" then you must think you can show how it is wrong. Why don't you drop in on:
Age Correlations and an Old Earth
or
Carbon Dating DOESN'T work beyond 4500 years
or
What is the YEC answer to the lack of shorter lived isotopes?
or
YEC Challenge: Hawaiian IslandsIt is amusing that various YEC'ers drop comments about dates and ages but don't seem to want to tackle these issues. It maybe because the various creationist sources avoid them too.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-20-2004 01:13 AM

Of course, it is hard to keep up with all the possible threads here. And you are entitled to pick those that interest you.It is, in general, amusing that very few seem to have the time to take on such a core issue and they all give up rather quickly. As I noted it is such a basic issue to the argument that you'd think it would be more interesting to deal with. In fact, even in the creationist camp the issue splits the OEC'ers from the YEC'ers so it is obviously more important than just how dinosaurs should be classified or I would think so anyway.I've seen enough examples here to think that there may be a general tendancy among the literalists. I agree that it is not a large enough sample to count as real "research" on their attitudes or capabilities.If by research you mean on the dating questions then you are mistaken. It is possible I know the creationist arguements better than you do.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-20-2004 10:25 AM

True enough. We'll see.

I'd say what makes them mythological is no evidence other than the writings to suggest that the creatures exist or existed. Are you suggesting that everything mentioned in any cultures writings qualify as potentially real?I think most of us would accept that some such creatures may be based on stories of real animals but there would have to be some real evidence for anything beyond that.