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

Views: 92

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Terrance Egolf said:

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.

Thank you for the responce.
I didn't say dinos didn't exist but there is no actual dino division. they are just regular creatures after their kinds.
I don't accept modern classification systems at all. For example i insist marsupials are just placentals with modification in a post flood world. I insist water mammals are just ground creatures who adapted to a post flood world. I suggest bats are only a post flood adaptation.
Creationists should not accept anything that smells of opposition to biblical boundaries. Any classification system based on the evolution of creatures based on morphology should be dismissed. Dinos are case in point.

I don't see "dinos" as more impressive then other creatures. There were rhinos as big as the biggest dino.
I see rather the dragon story a result of the talking snke memory from Eden. The dragon is always snake like and surely the dino types would be more impressive to remember.
Jeannette, thanks, the article is very interesting.The material apparently is taken from the book "After the Flood" by Bill Cooper. An online version is available at: http://ldolphin.org/cooper (chapters 10+11)
Hey, Jeannette, thanks for your replies. I'll try to respond as briefly as I can.

You wrote: "I suspect that you have misconceptions about my “misconceptions”! :-D"
Well, you wrote that the only mutation would have been a base-pair gene so that the experiment does not count as evolution. In other words, you believe no new DNA has been inserted into the genome so it can't be counted as evolution. I'm not sure about the mutation that took place, but evolution isn't defined by an increase in DNA. Scientifically speaking, evolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies over subsequent generations. So, it doesn't matter if DNA is added, removed, or changed within the genome for evolution to happen.

Hope that clears things up a little bit for ya'. I can give an example of a mutation that resulted from a duplicated copy (mutation) of a gene causing an increase in the amount of DNA the bacteria had that resulted in a new trait. It has to do with nylon eating bacteria. You can read about it on wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria .

You wrote: "it cannot be tested,"
Sure it can. Not only can it be observed in the wild and in labs, it can also be falsified in a number of ways. For example, humans have 23 pairs chromosomes, all other apes have 24 pairs chromosomes. If we couldn't find a fusion point between two pairs of chromosomes, evolution would have been falsified. But sure enough, scientists found the fusion point on chromosome #2. Rabbit fossils in Precambrian rocks would falsify evolution as well.

You wrote: "cannot generate predictions"
Sure it does. Just for example, it predicted that organisms living in rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates; and it has been shown that they do. Also, remember that predictions don't always apply to the future. Evolution makes many predictions about what we should find in the past and where to look for them. The discovery of tiktaalik is one example. Scientists were looking for a transitional form between sea life and early tetrapods, and they knew exactly where to look. Lo and behold, they found their missing fossil.

You wrote: "and cannot provide the groundwork for producing new hypotheses"
Sure it does. Just as an example, it helped produced the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

You wrote: “Why do Evolutionary Biologists persist in believing, in the face of much evidence to the contrary, that life originated from inanimate organic matter, by gradual increase in complexity?"
Well, evolution doesn't deal with abiogenesis (the study of life from chemicals), it only deals with speciation or to quote Darwin, "the origin of the species." However, there are two things to keep in mind. First, let's say that for life to start, it takes an extremely unlikely series of events from chemicals bouncing off each other. So it's a bit like winning the lottery; chances are you're going to lose. However, there is always a winner in the lottery. Now in an entire ocean spanning 2/3 of the world's surface filled with organic molecules, there could be a lot of "chances" in a billion years. Eventually the right combination or "winning numbers" would arise.

The other thing I'll point out is that RNA molecules alone (non-life) has been observed to evolve in the laboratory. Many scientists believe early life was based on RNA instead of DNA.

From: http://www.suite101.com/content/darwinian-evolution-of-rna-molecule...

"After many replication cycles, new structural changes were identified in the predominant population of molecules. In similar experiments published by Sarah Voytek, the mutant molecules were biochemically characterized and shown to have acquired new functions that were likely responsible for their adaptation to, and natural selection in, the changed environment. Referring to Lincoln's experiments, principle investigator Gerald Joyce exclaimed, "This is the first example, outside of biology, of evolutionary adaptation in a molecular genetic system." The entire self-sustained evolutionary process was carried out in the absence of any proteins, DNA, lipids, or other biological materials."

Anyway, I hope that answers your questions. Have a good weekend.
- Kaitlyn
Not to beat a dead horse, but really, Jeannette, you should know your opponent's position. :/

You wrote: "Damage or removal of genetic material is not Evolution... Evolution requires totally new genetic material that arises spontaneously!"

Alright, let's look this up and see if any definition of evolution requires genetic material to arise spontaneously...

""In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

Wikipedia defines evolution as: "Evolution (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations."

as sourced by...
- Futuyma, Douglas J. (2005). Evolution. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc. ISBN 0-87893-187-2.

The non-scientific definition of evolution found in the dictionary is as follows:

"Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. "

"a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations "

"The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors."

And here's from the science dictionary on the same page:

"The process by which species of organisms arise from earlier life forms and undergo change over time through natural selection . The modern understanding of the origins of species is based on the theories of Charles Darwin combined with a modern knowledge of genetics based on the work of Gregor Mendel. Darwin observed there is a certain amount of variation of traits or characteristics among the different individuals belonging to a population. Some of these traits confer fitness—they allow the individual organism that possesses them to survive in their environment better than other individuals who do not possess them and to leave more offspring. The offspring then inherit the beneficial traits, and over time the adaptive trait spreads through the population. In twentieth century, the development of the the science of genetics helped explain the origin of the variation of the traits between individual organisms and the way in which they are passed from generation to generation. This basic model of evolution has since been further refined, and the role of genetic drift and sexual selection in the evolution of populations has been recognized. "

- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution

None of these definitions say evolution requires an increase in DNA. Hell, read the entire wikipedia page on evolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution. It even talks about things like genetic drift which has nothing to do with mutations at all.

No one says you need an increase in DNA for evolution to happen; this is what's known as a strawman argument. However, gene duplication can and does play a key role in evolution, which I'm sure you know about because you read my you last post in its entirety - particularly about the nylon-eating bacteria.

Anyway, my point isn't to argue that evolution is true or not; I really don't care about that. However, if you have any misconceptions about what scientists think about evolution, I do wish to help you understand if for no other reason than you'll have a better footing for defending creationism.

Anyway, sorry for the late reply; I volunteer all my time on the weekend to community groups, so I'm usually not on the computer. Have a good week ahead. :)
- Kaitlyn

PS: Michael J. Behe to which you linked to his blog earlier is indeed the champion of irreducible complexity, but he also wrote: "I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it." And, "For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives."

However, Behe's own biology department publicly opposes his views on irreducible complexity. Oh well, I found his ideas interesting.
My favorite dragon stories come from Beowulf. The book includes descriptions, fights, and hunts, although sometimes not in detail.

I would say that dragons had the fear of man on them, and stayed in the less civilized parts of the world (where they are still reported today). This kept them low in literature and art.
It depends on the definition of evolution. the ability to metabolize adifferent substrate can occur when the specificity of the enzyme is lost. It doesn't mean that a new gene was formed, which is required for real evolutionary progress.

Kaitlyn said:
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!"


Reply to Discussion


About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms

Homeschool Curriculum



Creation Conversations 2017

What's new @ CC for 2017? Stay tuned and keep checking back. More ask the experts, more creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2017   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service