Hi to everyone, I'm new here and maybe this came up before...

 

Assuming that humans and dinosaurs once lived together one would expect them to impact the culture of their day.

Now, I'm aware of dragon legends etc., but would be interested in knowing whether there are more specific instances in art and literature that bear witness of encounters with dinos (descriptions, fights, hunting, depictions, artwork,...)

Actually Leviathan and Behemoth in the Bible may fit such a requirement (and there might be a few rare examples in the pagan/secular culture), but overall it seems there aren't many traces left.

Or maybe I am not aware of them. Does anybody know of such instances? Any thoughts?

 

Thanks & Rgds,

Marco, from Italy

Tags: Dinosaurs

Views: 53

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hello Marco,
There are indeed numerous art depictions from all over the world of dinosaurs, rendered in petroglyph's, pictograph's, cave paintings, and mosaic's (the wall surrounding the Ishtar Gate in Babylon is a good example of this). You can also check with Answersingenesis.org; the ICR website; and Dr.Dino.com to name but a few who can provide you with links to research these images. As do I'm sure the majority of Creationist Christian's who post on this site, I too believe in a recent, literal, six day creation, occuring about 6,000 years ago in which the earth, cosmos, and all they contain were spoken into existance by God the LORD. There is no question (in my mind anyway) that man and diinosaur have lived as contemporaries, so certainly there would be artistic depictions of them spread throughout nearly every culture on earth. It is no small coincidence that nearly every culture on earth that has been around for at least several centuries has a DRAGON legend in one form or another. And, in nearly every language, the word used by those peoples translates straight across as "Dragon", or some similar description of a creature that could not be mistaken for any thing other than a gigantic lizard of sorts. Moreover, numerous fossil footprints have been unearthed showing the footprints of men (wearing sandals no less) walking across and parallel to dinosaur tracks. Great examples of this can be seen at the Creation Evidences Museum in/near Glen Rose, Texas. Dr. Carl Baugh has been among the chief researchers of these evidences. He has also participated in several expiditions to Papua, New Guinea in search of what some believe to be a living example of a Pterosaur, such as a pteranodon. There are of course also the now well-known tales of "Mokele' M'bembe" and similar creatures seen by natives and locals in the Tele Swamp of Congo and other locations in remote, un-explored, un-inhabited areas of the world. Some of these sightings and legends may fall under the pervue of what is called "Crypto-Zoology", (the study of unknown animals), but this is argueably a preudo-science; depending on whom you talk to. Good Luck in your search, (only a phrase--I don't believe in luck, but the providence of God), and let me know what you find; I know there's lot's of material out there on the subject. D.Ron Craig

Paul Iacono said:
Somewhere further down on this board someone posted a link to pics of prehistoric depictions of dinos. Not sure who, but just scroll through and you'll find it. The Anasazi brontosaurus is pretty sketchy and looks like a probable fake, but the stegasaurus from Ankgor Wat is just remarkable!@!#
Touche' Jeannette!

Myself and others have expressed these and other such arguments/ideas 'ad nauseum' to the athiests that visit here, that are overwhelmingly ignored or disregarded or "poo--pooed" as "creation myth", etc. .

But as I heard Bill Jack put it just the other night, just as the evolutionist mocks and scoffs at the idea of creation; we the Bible believing christian should laugh at the evolutionist and ask, "How could you believe in such a stupid theory?!?". And for those who are disinclined to accept it, evolution is in fact not even a true theory, it has Nothing to do with and is no part of science. It is an unsubstantiated speculation dealing with origins and speciation. I've said it already a hundred times and I'll say it again; belief in evolution has not one thing to do with evidence, mainly because the interpretations are weak and contrived at best. . . the evolutionist believes as they do because they CHOOSE to, not because there is a shred of overwhelming evidence.

In a thread I responded to the other day, I told someone that creationism / catastrophism best fits the evidence because of what one would expect to find in the wake of a worldwide flood; but because I didn't elaborate, they asked 'What would you expect to find?". So I will answer that here...If there was a global flood, (and there was), one would expect to find billions of dead things, laid down in sedimentary layers of rock, having been carried and deposited there by water, all over the world. And, lo and behold! That is exactly what we see! And those are but a drop in the bucket where physical evidences are concerned...but as I said, someone who chooses to not believe in God or the creation and flood will not be convinced no matter how compelling the evidence. We could argue semantics and vain philosophies all day, but in the end, it will get nowhere. Because they are just exactly that. . . philosophical semantics.

The lion's share of the arguments and hypothetical scenarios and philosophies given by the athiests here so far, as I have read, are nearly completely devoid of sense or logic. In fact, several responses that I've given weren't even answered because, I believe, they would rather continue bandying back and forth with meaningless philosophical debates that lead nowhere.

I'll grant such debates can be entertaining, and good exercise for the thinking muscle; but in the final anaylisis are empty and fruitless. Nevertheless, I feel like I'll somehow continue to allow myself to get caught up in them.
Oh well, if someone stands even the smallest chance of benefitting from them, and is forced by way of reason to actually consider that God is, and that He created and judged, then it will have been worth it.

Jeannette Parry said:
Paul Iacono said:

'Ron, I'd be careful about the human/dinosaur footprints reference. I think even AiG now lists that among its "Arguments Creationists Shouldn't Use".'

There's also an article entitled "12 arguments Evolutionists shouldn't use" Check it out!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/arguments-evol...

For example:

Argument 1: Evolution is a fact. (Who says? Evolutionists say, Why do they say it? Because they believe it. Why do they believe it? Because they do!)

Argument 3: Overwhelming evidence in all fields of science supports evolution. (You can interpret the evidence as supporting Evolution; but it supports the Biblical account even better!)

Argument 5 Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat (The BIBLE indicates the earth is round and "hangs upon nothing")

Argument 7 Natural selection is evolution (this is the one that annoys me the most because it's so foolish even from a scientific point of view! It neither is, nor does it provide a mechanism for evolution in the progressive sense)

Argument 8 Common design means common ancestry. (common ancestry is an assumption. You may as well say that cakes, pizza and bread made by the same baker had a common ancestry because they all contain flour, salt and fat)

Argument 9 Sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity
("Sedimentary layers show one thing: sedimentary layers.")

Argument 12 Science vs. religion. (Actually it's the belief that the Biblical account in Genesis is historically untrue vs the belief that it is historically true )
Jeannette Parry wrote:
""There's also an article entitled "12 arguments Evolutionists shouldn't use" Check it out! http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/arguments-evol...
For example:

Argument 1: Evolution is a fact. (Who says? Evolutionists say, Why do they say it? Because they believe it. Why do they believe it? Because they do!)"

You should be careful citing "scientific" information from AIG.They are not a credited scientific journal or organization in any way. Just for example, I'll take on the first argument you posted. Evolution is a fact; more specifically it is a fact and a theory in the scientific sense.It is a scientific fact because it has been observed in the laboratory. It's a theory because it's an explanation based on the laws and evidence biological science has to offer. Right or wrong, it's both.

I'm not advocating evolutionary theory, I'm just saying AIG should have done a little bit more homework.

Ron Craig wrote...
"If there was a global flood, (and there was), one would expect to find billions of dead things, laid down in sedimentary layers of rock, having been carried and deposited there by water, all over the world. And, lo and behold! That is exactly what we see!"

And the creator was kind enough to sort the order of the fossils from least complex to most complex as the layers increase. Makes the work of the paleontologist much easier. :)

Anyway, have a good day everyone. I'm pretty well-read when it comes to the theory of evolution, so if you have any questions or objections, feel free to ask.
Evolution has been observed in a laboratory?!?! I think not! Please tell me the scientific journal or treatise where I can see that experiment and subsequent conclusion with my own two eyes!

Secondly, Kaitlyn, you state that; "Evolution is a fact, more specifically it is a fact and theory in the scientific sense." This statement begs a couple of questions : 1. Is it a "Fact" or a "Theory"? I'm not so sure it can be both, as facts are used to substantiate theorys. And 2. What do you consider to be the "Scientific Sense"? If by science you mean--an inductive study whereby the scientist or other inquiring mind asks the "who, what, where, when, why, and how questions and given the available evidences comes to conclusions using tried and true experimentally reproducable methods; then yes, this would fall under the classification of true science. Evolution however is none of these. It comes under the heading of what is considered "Historical Science"; something that has occured in the past, and by virtue of that is unobservable...and unprovable.

And as to how an institution receives "accreditation" ; I don't know. I would ask though, who is it that gives or approves such accreditation? Like-minded individuals within the scholastic community? Wholly unbiased scientists maybe? There ain't no such animal! As has been repeated over, and over, and over in these threads, EVERYONE has a presuppositional worldview. Either religious or secular in nature. There are no in-betweens!

So, if you consider AiG to be un-accredited as an organization, you might in fairness at least consider that as an organization that stands for Biblical accuracy and authority, they have on permanent staff a host of Ph.D's in nearly every scientific discipline. Such as Dr. Georgia Purdom, with a Ph.D in molecular genetics; she has served as professor of biology at Mt. Vernon Nazarene University in Ohio, been published in the Journal of Neuroscience, the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research and the Journal of Leukocyte Biology, as well as being a member of the American Society for Microbiology, and American Society for Cell Biology.
And she believes in a recent, literal, six-day creation by God!

If those aren't some impressive credentials, I'm not sure what are!

Or Dr. Jason Lisle, Ph.D in Astrophysics, just to name two. And they employ numerous other top-ranked scientists in many disciplines...ALL of whom believe in, and lend their respective talents to proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that earth was recently created and subsequently destroyed by a global flood.

The "majority" of credentialed scientist's don't necessarily believe in evolution. A great many; from all around the world believe in creation. Even if the overwhelming majority did believe in evolution, would it by necessity follow that the majority is correct? History has shown over and again that the majority has often been in fact wrong. Even catastrophically wrong! If you doubt that, allow me to remind you of the nations of Germany and Italy at the outset of WWII. By the way, Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini were staunch believers in evolution...and look how greatly the world benefitted from their leadership!

What it all cooks down to Kaitlyn, once again, is that you're allowing biases to stand in the way of an honest weighing of the evidence from BOTH sides. You may say that you have looked at the debate from both perspectives, and I would not be so presumptuous to doubt you; but if you were looking with an un-biased, un-contaminated view, then one could not help but see only the creation account makes the most sense most of the time in most every area of scientific principle it touches.

I will continue to pray that you can and will see the truth of creation and the horrible fallacy of evolution.

As always, the Best ta ya, Ron

Kaitlyn said:
Jeannette Parry wrote:
""There's also an article entitled "12 arguments Evolutionists shouldn't use" Check it out! http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/arguments-evol...
For example:

Argument 1: Evolution is a fact. (Who says? Evolutionists say, Why do they say it? Because they believe it. Why do they believe it? Because they do!)"

You should be careful citing "scientific" information from AIG.They are not a credited scientific journal or organization in any way. Just for example, I'll take on the first argument you posted. Evolution is a fact; more specifically it is a fact and a theory in the scientific sense.It is a scientific fact because it has been observed in the laboratory. It's a theory because it's an explanation based on the laws and evidence biological science has to offer. Right or wrong, it's both.

I'm not advocating evolutionary theory, I'm just saying AIG should have done a little bit more homework.

Ron Craig wrote...
"If there was a global flood, (and there was), one would expect to find billions of dead things, laid down in sedimentary layers of rock, having been carried and deposited there by water, all over the world. And, lo and behold! That is exactly what we see!"

And the creator was kind enough to sort the order of the fossils from least complex to most complex as the layers increase. Makes the work of the paleontologist much easier. :)

Anyway, have a good day everyone. I'm pretty well-read when it comes to the theory of evolution, so if you have any questions or objections, feel free to ask.
This creationist doesn't see dinosaurs surviving many centuries after the flood. They were minor creatures in reality and remembered for their size which actually was common for many creatures.
There were many large and strange creatures in the fossil record and no reason to see pictures or stories as representing dinos. Unlikely.
Actually there are no such things as dinos. there are only kinds of creatures. No divisions. Dinos as a group is a evolutionary concept. they are related because of this or that attribute. Yet they are not related.
I see the story of the dragon as really a corruption of the important story of the serpent in its dealings with Adam.
A important story to early people. not a rememberance of dinos.
Robert,

Even though large vertebrate fossils such as those called dinosaurs compose an extremely small percentage of all fossil samples, there are many complete or virtually complete skeletons. So their former existence is affirmed, unless you doubt all fossil evidence as figments of our imaginations. Fossil animals are classified in a similar way as living creatures, using a variant of the Linnaean classification system. Now, I'm no fan of the contemporary influence of molecular biology on taxonomy, but the underlying principle of classification by morphology is valid and is a proper aspect of biblical dominion. Even if you subscribe to baraminology, you still have to assign creatures into smaller taxa to make it work.

After the Fall, I believe that members of many orders of vertebrates, not just those we call dinosaurs, moved from being herbivores into omnivory, and ultimately into carnivory, or they became necrophage scavengers, all by natural selection. They likely contributed to the violence in the earth spoken of in Genesis 6:12, 13. While representatives of the dinosaur kinds were preserved on the Ark, they likely never attained after the Flood the numbers they enjoyed before the Flood because of either climatic conditions or that the necessary food base was insufficient to support them before they went extinct.

I agree that dragon legends are probably racial memories of dinosaurs, and perhaps there is a cultural connection between the Serpent in the Garden, dragons, and dinosaurs. Interestingly, the Greek word for 'dragon' in Revelation is the same word that the Septuagint translators used to speak of serpents and sea monsters in the Old Testament.

Back to the OP, many years ago I recall viewing a painting from Medieval Europe showing a noblewoman walking a large (~6-8 ft long) reptilian creature on a leash. The painting was notable for its accurate attention to detail, perspective, and proportion. A comment on the painting noted that the the reptilian creature was very similar to reconstructions of an amphibian dinosaur (not a crocodile or alligator). I wish I could remember where I saw this painting. The presence of such a creature in the household of a nobleman suggests that some dinosaurs may have survived the Middle Ages. This would agree with the other evidences cited above, such as a stegosaurus being immortalized in the bas relief carvings of 12th-century Angkor Wat.
I thouroughly concur Terrance.

Terrance Egolf said:
Robert,

Even though large vertebrate fossils such as those called dinosaurs compose an extremely small percentage of all fossil samples, there are many complete or virtually complete skeletons. So their former existence is affirmed, unless you doubt all fossil evidence as figments of our imaginations. Fossil animals are classified in a similar way as living creatures, using a variant of the Linnaean classification system. Now, I'm no fan of the contemporary influence of molecular biology on taxonomy, but the underlying principle of classification by morphology is valid and is a proper aspect of biblical dominion. Even if you subscribe to baraminology, you still have to assign creatures into smaller taxa to make it work.

After the Fall, I believe that members of many orders of vertebrates, not just those we call dinosaurs, moved from being herbivores into omnivory, and ultimately into carnivory, or they became necrophage scavengers, all by natural selection. They likely contributed to the violence in the earth spoken of in Genesis 6:12, 13. While representatives of the dinosaur kinds were preserved on the Ark, they likely never attained after the Flood the numbers they enjoyed before the Flood because of either climatic conditions or that the necessary food base was insufficient to support them before they went extinct.

I agree that dragon legends are probably racial memories of dinosaurs, and perhaps there is a cultural connection between the Serpent in the Garden, dragons, and dinosaurs. Interestingly, the Greek word for 'dragon' in Revelation is the same word that the Septuagint translators used to speak of serpents and sea monsters in the Old Testament.

Back to the OP, many years ago I recall viewing a painting from Medieval Europe showing a noblewoman walking a large (~6-8 ft long) reptilian creature on a leash. The painting was notable for its accurate attention to detail, perspective, and proportion. A comment on the painting noted that the the reptilian creature was very similar to reconstructions of an amphibian dinosaur (not a crocodile or alligator). I wish I could remember where I saw this painting. The presence of such a creature in the household of a nobleman suggests that some dinosaurs may have survived the Middle Ages. This would agree with the other evidences cited above, such as a stegosaurus being immortalized in the bas relief carvings of 12th-century Angkor Wat.
Ron Craig wrote: "Evolution has been observed in a laboratory?!?! I think not! Please tell me the scientific journal or treatise where I can see that experiment and subsequent conclusion with my own two eyes!"

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evo...
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/1997,%20Nature,%20Sniegowski%20e...
Alright, alright. I give up. I'm not here to defend evolution. :)
Thanks all for your replies. I found the comments by Paul, Ron and Terrance particularly helpful and relevant to the topic. Remains of dino art are not plentiful, but the cases that are known are nonetheless amazing! An interesting list is, for example, at: http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

If dinos were still around in the Middle Ages (see the Angkor Stegsaur or the brass Behemoth in the Carlisle Cathedral), I would have expected them to have a much larger impact on culture and arts (as there is plenty of material from that period). But, of course, it's also possible that only a small number was left by then, confined to remote areas.
Jeannette Parry wrote:
"Sorry, was I too hard on you?"
No, not at all. Your commentary was well received. It's just... I really don't want to get into an argument over evolution especially on a creationist site. I'm not a biologist, and evolution is just another theory. It doesn't make much difference to me if it's right or wrong This sort of discussion is best settled by peer-review and maybe the courts when creationism is attempted to be injected into the curriculum. I noticed you have some misconceptions of how evolution works, but it's not important. :)

Jeannette Parry wrote:
"But I hope you see that there are at least valid scientific reasons for believing in creation rather than evolution."

Maybe. I have to think about this one seeing as how over the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that creationism or intelligent design are not scientific because it cannot be tested, cannot generate predictions, and cannot provide the groundwork for producing new hypotheses.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=25

Thank you, and I certainly understand your viewpoint though.
- Kaitlyn

PS: If you have any questions regarding evolution, I may be able to answer them; and if not, I can forward the question to an evolutionary biologist.
Kaitlyn,

I wouldn't want creationism "injected into the curriculum." At least not as a mandatory topic. Secular/atheist teachers couldn't get it right and they would have to misrepresent it to be faithful to their worldview. This is not an issue that can be settled by the courts, except to allow the subject to be discussed in a public school if it comes up in a classroom without fear of retribution and lawsuit.

Unfortunately, after camping out in some atheist forums, it is scary how uncivil and hateful those folks can be toward the principles we hold dear. To them, creationists are the scum of the earth and do not deserve even basic civility or the protections of the US Constitution. It's like we were the Taliban or something.

Terry

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Resources

follow us on Twitter

© 2014   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service