<body>
Hip and Thigh: Smiting Theological Philistines with a Great Slaughter. Judges 15:8

Monday, November 08, 2010

Dinosaurs and Man

dinosaurrescue Evolutionary, deep time enthusiasts have to suffer with living in a world of hypocrisy. Anyone born and educated in an industrialized society has been taught, without any doubt, that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago before even the common ancestors of modern men had evolved from their lower mammalian kin. The entire dinosaur species was killed off by a massive comet impact some 65 million years ago that devastated the entire globe. This means that mankind, at no time, lived simultaneously with any dinosaur. I was taught this, along with everyone else in the late 20th century, as undeniable fact.

Yet, our pop culture, particular in the television and cinematic media, portray dinosaurs and men living together in many of their programs and movies. Entire generations of audiences have been raised watching cartoons, like the Flintstones, Sid and Marty Kroft’s, Land of the Lost, movies like the Godzilla series from Japan, 1,000,000 B.C., Jurassic Park, and Dinotopia. Such shows have to aggravate the atheist gatekeepers of societal “truth” over at the National Center for Science Education to no end.

Now my deep time detractors, both religious and irreligious, are going to say: “Now Fred. C’mon, everyone knows TV shows and movies are meant to be fantasy. You’re being ridiculous.” However, the idea of dinosaurs and men living together is not a modern day phenomena found only with children’s programming and blockbuster films. History is replete with eye witness stories of men seeing sea serpents and dragons. These creatures are found represented in bothgwangi literature and art work that goes back thousands of years in nearly every culture in the world. Of course, the typical response once again by deep time detractors is to say these mythical creatures merely represent the fancy imaginations of tall story tellers or drunk sailors. People were telling stories about monsters to scare kids to good behavior, or dead giant squids were being misidentified. Plus, they will add, none of these animals looked like what we know about dinosaurs from the fossil record.

But this is not entirely true. How does one explain the images of dinosaur-like animals found among such native Indian cultures as the Mayans and Incas in pictographs, on pottery, in carvings, and woven in textiles? Indian cultures generally did artistic renditions of animals they saw with their own eyes. Horses, buffalo, deer, bears, snakes, birds and other similar animals are visually represented in much of their artwork. So are dinosaur-like creatures. But again, the response by the “scientific” elite is to say they were either simpletons who didn’t know how to draw a proper alligator or barking mad young earth creationists are twisting the images to mean what they want them to mean. Both of those scenarios are a bit absurd seeing that ancient cultures made excellent visual representations of animals we see today and those animals in their art are easily identifiable. There are also some stunning details often overlooked and dismissed by modern critics.

dino2For example: consider the rock carvings of the Mongollon Indians who once inhabited the American Southwest. There are a few images on the rocks to the left. The most dominate two is what appears to be a deer or antelope on the right, but an odd looking creature on the left. It’s walking on all fours, has an elongated head, what appears to be a tail, and stripes down its body.

dino1

A person could say it’s just a bad etching of an armadillo; it is an animal native to the American Southwest. But, seeing that I have hit plenty of them with my car over the years, I find that hard to believe. Armadillos don’t have tall, slender legs, plus the big ears are missing. I don’t think an ancient Indian artist, no matter how prehistoric, would miss such obvious details. The image, however, does look an awful lot like a hadrosaur, the duck-billed species of dinosaur. The stripes running down the image’s body are a bit intriguing. In 2007, a mummified hadrosaur specimen was discovered in North Dakota. A portion of the animal’s skin had been fossilized, so a CT scan was performed on the remains at the Boeing aircraft facility in Seattle. The most interesting discover made by the scan is the skin had a striped camouflage pattern, which indicated the entire body of the dinosaur was striped similar to other modern day reptiles. If this happens to be an eye-witness of this animal, the striped pattern would be a significant detail.

hadro

Another group of cultures that feature “dragons” or dinosaurs in their art work is found among the Indians in Peru. For instance, note this carving found among the Wari’ Indians:

bronto

There are at least two “dinosaur” looking creatures placed in amongst other animals found in Peru like leopards and birds. In the top left corner, an odd animal that resembles a three-horned dinosaur, a Triceratops, and then next to it is a long necked sauropod animal like an Apatosaurus. The Apatosaurus carving is remarkable, because a distinct serpentine neck is visible, as is a long tail with its body being supported by four legs underneath it.

Now, the easy thing to do is declare all these carvings, pictographs, pottery, and other similar artifacts to be frauds or hoaxes. Especially when you have such a clear example of what appears to be dinosaurs. Perhaps there are some examples of fraud and outright hoaxing, but all of them? Really? It is also easy (more lazy, really) for creationist critics to claim anyone who sees “dinosaurs” is a crank. I stumbled across one website operated by some eccentric atheist woman who rebuilds harps and writes against creationists with the finesse of a Peter Ruckman. She has devoted a lot of her time arguing all creationists believing and teaching dinosaurs lived with men are con artists and liars. But the fact I personally know a few of these individuals she accuses of being professional liars, it is fairly clear to me the woman is working out her God issues in her rants. Yet, let us grant there are some muddled creationists seeing dinosaurs with some of these relics that aren't really there. Are all of those images being misidentified?

In addition to the ceramic art and pictures, the more stunning proof of dinosaurs and men living together is the forensic evidence being uncovered by evolutionary paleontologists. As I have noted on a few occasions over the last 4 years, viable dinosaur tissue is being extracted from supposed fossilized remains; enough so that protein and DNA can be identified and marked. How is this explained? Typically by sticking their fingers in their ears. Not even that kooky harp woman deals with it in any meaningful depth in her screeds against creationists.

At any rate, creationist critics will continue to say Christians are dumb to believe God created dinosaurs on the sixth day of creation, and will still complain bitterly of the Creation Museum is teaching junk science for having a model dinosaur that children can sit on (like practically every secular museum does). Meanwhile, artifacts will continue to be uncovered that exposes their folly. Ultimately, the outrage against creationists who believe men and dinosaurs lived together has nothing really to do with defending the truth. It has all to do with rejecting the history of the world the Bible reveals.

Labels: ,

20 Comments:

Blogger Derek said...

Sorry, none of the pictures or carvings I've seen look particularly dinosaur like, certainly nowhere no close enough to say "yeah, that's definitely a dinosaur!" the way we sometimes can with bison or deer or whatever.

And given the fact that we have never, ever, found actual physical dinosaur remains with human remains in modern strata, I'll remain skeptical that we coexisted. Humans and T-rex missed each other by more than sixty million years, and that's probably a good thing.

We have thousands upon thousands, maybe millions, of dinosaur fossils, and they don't extend past the K-T boundary. It's unlikely any survived. Could be possible, but even so it doesn't say anything against deep time.

8:39 AM, November 08, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Derek,
Of course your objection assumes the infallibility of modern secular geological constructs, dismisses and rejects a global flood as recorded in scripture, and totally blows past the forensic evidence being gathered in recent years. I also showed only two examples of what are thousands upon thousands examples of relics that can be found on the North American, South American and European continents.

The Bible and secular evolution present two entirely different stories about the history of the world. They can't, as much as TEs and other OEC wish to, be harmonized with each other. The question now is which authority do you accept as true and then explain the evidence accordingly: The one revealed by our creator or the one offered by fallible men who work under a bias against God and the Bible?

9:13 AM, November 08, 2010  
Blogger The Seeking Disciple said...

I agree with you Fred. I believe that man has lived with dinosaurs in the past before the flood. The flood of Genesis wiped out most of the dinosaurs and those lizards aboard the ark came out of the flood to find a world that was radically different than the prior one. The conditions no longer existed after the flood for dinosaurs to grow as large as they had before the flood.

When we accept the Bible as the first and foremost authority for all things, even dinosaurs and fossils must submit to its authority.

9:24 AM, November 08, 2010  
Blogger RD said...

Has anyone ever found any bones and teeth to go with these dinosaur relics?

11:35 AM, November 08, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Yes. In Mexico.
But a follow up question: Why would there need to be such things with pottery and artwork?

1:19 PM, November 08, 2010  
Blogger RD said...

The Mexico thing sounds interesting. Do you have a reference for this?

Why would there need to be such things with pottery and artwork?

Two reasons. First, it's easy enough to misinterpret ancient drawings, especially when you consider what the human imagination can produce. However, bones are bones. There is still a possibility of misidentification, but at least we know that we are not dealing with the imaginary.

Second, we have lots and lots of drawings of non-dinosaur mammals that were hunted and eaten (deer, mammoth, etc.) and we also have the bones and teeth of these species associated with human settlements. We can match the bones to the drawings, so we can be pretty certain what the drawings represented. In the case of dinosaurs, there are no bones to go with the drawings. Why not? If the drawings that you speak of are really drawings of dinosaurs, it's very odd that we don't have dinosaur bones in human settlements.

1:46 PM, November 08, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Google Dennis Swift. Most people claim him to be a crank because of their presuppositions.

A good portion of where these images exist are in Peru. The locals claim -- and of course this is their testimony -- that many of their ancient graves do contain the bones of these animals buried with people. The problem is they won't allow outsiders to examine the tombs and the tombs are in difficult to reach locations. Very convenient, as I am sure you are thinking.

Still, there isn't a need to find dinosaur remains with ancient settlements. There are lots of reasons why such wouldn't be. Dinosaurs probably weren't eaten or necessarily domesticated like other mammalian animals.

No comment about the forensics pertaining to dinosaur remains?

2:19 PM, November 08, 2010  
Blogger RD said...

“Google Dennis Swift. Most people claim him to be a crank because of their presuppositions.”

If he’s likely to be a crank, then why should I google him? Do you have a specific article that you’d like me to read? I’m guessing there won’t be anything peer-reviewed, but I’ll take a look at whatever you want me to look at. Just be specific, please.

“Very convenient, as I am sure you are thinking.”

Well, yes. Until you actually have the bones, you have nothing.

“Dinosaurs probably weren't eaten or necessarily domesticated like other mammalian animals.”

Why not? Humans eat modern reptiles. There are reptile bones at human habitation sites. If this is what is available as a source of meat, then you eat it. You don’t have to domesticate it, either. We also have the use of the bones of big mammals in tools and ceremonies. I would think that something like a big dinosaur is as likely to become incorporated into early religious practices as the mammals that we know are a part of these religions.

Just consider all of the known habitation sites for humans. There must be thousands and thousands of them documented by anthropologists and archeologists. No dinosaur bones. None. Stupendous numbers of modern mammal, bird and reptile bones associated with these sites, but no dinosaur bones. It’s a truly remarkable and inexplicable observation if dinosaurs and humans co-existed.

“No comment about the forensics pertaining to dinosaur remains?”

I don’t understand the question.

5:59 PM, November 08, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

If he’s likely to be a crank, then why should I google him?

Because he has a website documenting some of his findings, plus there are some videos.

I’m guessing there won’t be anything peer-reviewed,

Probably not, put peer-review is over rated and often problematic. Tends to marginalize those who think out of the magisterial box, as it were.

Why not? Humans eat modern reptiles. There are reptile bones at human habitation sites. If this is what is available as a source of meat, then you eat it. You don’t have to domesticate it, either. We also have the use of the bones of big mammals in tools and ceremonies. I would think that something like a big dinosaur is as likely to become incorporated into early religious practices as the mammals that we know are a part of these religions.

I personally think these items have been found to some degree, but are dismissed or explained away because they don't fit the accepted evolutionary paradigms.

I don’t understand the question.

The unfossilized dinosaur bones Jack Horner's team have been finding and cataloging. I link to a post I did on it that takes you to a CBS video on the subject.

6:47 PM, November 08, 2010  
Blogger Derek said...

The Bible and secular evolution present two entirely different stories about the history of the world. They can't, as much as TEs and other OEC wish to, be harmonized with each other.

I agree completely.

The question now is which authority do you accept as true and then explain the evidence accordingly: The one revealed by our creator or the one offered by fallible men who work under a bias against God and the Bible?

Here's the issue as I see it: there isn't really just one authority revealed by the creator, is there? There are actually two. The written word, and the created world. The problem the creationists face is that they contradict each other. Genesis, taken literally, says one thing...and the physical universe created by God says something entirely different.

And by the way, a heck of a lot of scientists are Christian, or some other religion. These people surely don't have a bias against God.

7:04 PM, November 08, 2010  
Blogger RD said...

“Because he has a website documenting some of his findings, plus there are some videos.”

Again, are there any specific papers that you’d like me to read? Any dinosaur bones from human settlements? If not, then all he has are some carved rocks that I’m betting were not found in situ in archeological sites. Given the complete absences of any geological layers containing both dinosaur and modern mammal fossils, this is very weak stuff.


“Probably not, put peer-review is over rated and often problematic. Tends to marginalize those who think out of the magisterial box, as it were.”

Peer review isn’t perfect, but it’s been quite effective as a means of quality control. Anyone can hold up some carved rocks and make claims, but without critical review, there is little credibility. Peer review is also part of a method that has been quite successful when it comes to explaining the natural world. It’s like democracy; it’s the worst form of government except for all of the other forms.

“I personally think these items have been found to some degree, but are dismissed or explained away because they don't fit the accepted evolutionary paradigms.”

Well, I think I need more than your opinion here. Some actual evidence would be nice.


"The unfossilized dinosaur bones Jack Horner's team have been finding and cataloging. I link to a post I did on it that takes you to a CBS video on the subject."

Any of these found in human habitation sites? Any found in association with any "unfossilized" modern vertebrate species?

Define “unfossilized”. What exactly does this term mean in this context?

A CBS video? How about something published in a scientific journal? One needs to read the primary literature to really understand what is going on. For example, if one wants to understand what "unfossilized" means, one should go to the place where the term is defined in technical detail by those who are doing the actual research.

7:55 PM, November 08, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

C'mon. Good grief, do I have to spoon feed you? GO check the other link in my article. It's toward the bottom. Here's just one article
The video at CBS, who is interviewing Horner (who by the way is an evolutionist), provides the back story.

What needs to be explained is how viable dinosaur tissue can remain intact for 80 million years. You do understand how long 80 million years is suppose to be right? In other words, these animals are not as old as conventional wisdom claims. It is irrelevant if they are found among human settlements, they are unfossilized.

8:17 PM, November 08, 2010  
Blogger RD said...

"What needs to be explained is how viable dinosaur tissue can remain intact for 80 million years. You do understand how long 80 million years is suppose to be right? In other words, these animals are not as old as conventional wisdom claims. It is irrelevant if they are found among human settlements, they are unfossilized."

You seemed to have changed the subject. I thought that the subject was the validity of all of these alleged carvings of dinosaurs. I thought that the subject was human-dinosaur interactions. I thought the question was whether or not humans carved dinosaurs after seeing real, live dinosaurs in the their backyards. Assuming that this is indeed the subject, the absence of dinosaur bones in human settlements is extremely relevant, and inexplicable.

However, now you apparently want to change the subject to the presence of very tough proteins like collagen preserved in dinosaur bones.

You keep saying “unfossilized”. I understand that you are referring to the collagen. But what about the bones within which the collagen was found? Were the bones fossilized?

I realize the young earth creationists get really excited about this, but I don’t see why. Some types of organic molecules are very durable and very stable. Under the right conditions, they might be preserved indefinitely. We’re not talking about enzymatic proteins here, we’re talking about tough, stringy structural elements. It’s a little surprising, but surprise is what science is all about.

The problem with young earth creationists is that they want to take one observation and hold it up like the holy grail while ignoring the extraordinarily large amount of evidence that both supports the conclusion that the collagen is indeed millions of years old and that dinosaurs and modern species did not live together. When formulating a theory, you have to consider ALL of the evidence.

On the one hand, you have some preserved collagen in dinosaur bones. On the other hand, you have the total absence of modern mammal, bird and reptile species from any layers with dinosaur bones, despite the fact that there are millions of dinosaur fossils found all over the earth. Despite the presence of bones from countless species in human settlements, there is a complete absence of dinosaur bones. And that’s just a tiny piece of the total pile of evidence against the co-existence of dinosaurs and modern mammals, including humans.

So, do we spend all of our time jumping up and down about the surprising collagen, or do you go with the massive pile of evidence?

8:55 PM, November 08, 2010  
Blogger Rupert said...

Does the term 'clutching at straws' mean anything to you?

"Meanwhile, artifacts will continue to be uncovered that exposes their folly" - er, no.

And in a wider sphere, any science that is refuted is refuted by....science.

9:36 PM, November 08, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Derek writes,
Here's the issue as I see it: there isn't really just one authority revealed by the creator, is there? There are actually two. The written word, and the created world.

No. There isn't. The Bible no where makes that distinction. The concept of NOMA, or a Non Overlapping Magisterial Authority is purely a man-made construct. There are not two competing, infallible sources of truth. There is only one.

The Bible proclaims that Christ is God and Lord over all things, including the world, and He is the one who invests it with meaning, because He is the creator.


Continuing,
The problem the creationists face is that they contradict each other. Genesis, taken literally, says one thing...and the physical universe created by God says something entirely different.

Genesis is historical narrative, you can't take it but literally. Just like the Gospel narratives. The language, genre, syntax, and all the other markers in the text clearly define it as real, literal history. Not an extended metaphor, not a piece of theological prose. Thus, to be faithful to the text and to what God has plain stated, it has to be read and interpreted as a literal narrative revealing to us true history. Thus, any conflict man-made interpretations of the fallen world has with the history of the Bible must be re-evaluated in light of it.

Continuing.
And by the way, a heck of a lot of scientists are Christian, or some other religion. These people surely don't have a bias against God.

You mean like the intellectual frauds over at Biologos? Yeah. They don't have a bias against God.

5:04 AM, November 09, 2010  
Blogger Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Hi Fred,

Do you know if Pastor John MacArthur has written anything about dinosaurs?

11:08 AM, November 09, 2010  
Blogger RealityCheck said...

"do I have to spoon feed you?"

Yes... you do... and boy do they find the truth bitter.

Personally, I find it delicious. Thanks.

1:55 AM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger RD said...

You stated that "viable dinosaur tissue is being extracted from supposed fossilized remains; enough so that protein and DNA can be identified and marked."

Has DNA been extracted from the fossils where collagen was found?

6:11 AM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

So RD, whose profile is conveniently void of any personal information...
You're not a certain atheist who formerly went by the name "David" whose profile was also conveniently void of any personal information, who has the annoying habit of hijacking comments and leading them down the rabbit trails of infinite regress, are you?

8:17 AM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger Sir Aaron said...

I think it's humorous that scientists who claim that dinosaurs went extinct eons ago, are searching for the loch ness monster.

Ok that was kinda from left field....

Fred, you could produce a archeological site littered with unfossilized humans and dinosaurs on top of one another and you'd still have atheists coming here to deny it. You have to wonder why they waste their few precious moments left alive.

10:00 AM, November 10, 2010  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home