Answering Silliness
On a post about dinosaur and human footprints occuring together, someone named Ray stopped by and left what may be the first true creationist comment I’ve seen on my blog. It’s worth reading what he wrote and reflecting on it.
Interesting discussion. The photographic evidence published on the web of various sites around the world of dino and human prints apparently together are of varying quality, though some are pretty startling. If that’s all they had it would not be so much, but I’ve seen a lot on ancient dino paintings on cave and rock walls - some in North America, ancient dino ceramic and terra cotta sculptures from Aztec and Mayan age cultures, and ancient Peruvian textiles with dinos embroidered on them. Plus the point that the word ‘dinosaur’ was not coined until 1841 when they started digging them up as fossils - before then they were usually called dragons. On the historical face of it, it is true that there are dragons in the histories of every culture, so it is hard to say they were merely mythical, though sometimes they exaggerate, like saying they could talk. Most of the accounts are presented as soberly recorded events. Chinese dragons, your English knight rides out on his horse to fight the dragon, Spanish dragons, the Vikings fought dragons, they are in the Greek and Roman histories. So, purportedly, commonly known until modern times. They say the body style of a dragon is the long neck, long tail, big bulbous body - it’s a stylized dinosaur. One site, genesispark.org has a lot of photos of dinos on ancient art, pottery, engravings and textiles.
Now I don’t want to be mean here to Ray. After all, he civilly left his comment, and I appreciate that. But he’s walking out on a limb that can’t support his weight. The idea that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, and that evidence of this exists in the form of human/dinosaur footprints, is a completely unsubstantiated claim. One can read all about it from people who’ve poured in time to carefully examine these claims. It’s easy enough to read material on both sides of the “debate” and see where the consensus lies, if one is truly interested. There’s no conspiracy, no scientists trying to surpress evidence. The consensus among mainstream scientists (and by all means, one can be liberal with the term mainstream) is universal. There isn’t a shred of evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.
As for the idea that all cultures having dragons provides solid evidence for the existance of dragons, by that line of reasoning ghosts must exist too. All cultures report them after all.
Mermaids are also a near certainty with their near universal origins amoung many different cultures.
Chupacabras become a very interesting case. While the whole story can be traced back to Puerto Rica circa 1992, as some have noted gargoyles of medeval Europe also look like Chupacabras, so they must have been around much earlier.
We might even have to rethink Leprechaun’s.
Ray’s standard of proving that dinosaurs and humans coexisted — namely drawing weak inferences from the mythology of past cultures — is simply not the way science works.
As for the site Ray pointed to, I don’t know whether to laugh at the claims it makes or feel sorry if one truly hinges their faith on this kind of material. I would encourage Ray to simply strive for the truth. Read everything he can find, look into people’s credentials, and weigh the support on both sides when something is in dispute.
This goes not only for dinosaur / human footprints, but more importantly and more broadly for science in general. When people claim that evolution is a theory with weak support in the scientific community, go see what scientists think. When someone claims alternative theories for the time and way that people first entered North America, go see what the debate is all about. (Here you’ll find a that there is not universal agreement and that new theories and new evidence are being evaluated. It’s a perfect example of science in action).
If we recognize all truth as God’s truth, we don’t need to jump through endless hoops on fire to try and claim with a straight face that the dinosaurs and humans walked the earth together. Rather we can appreciate the efforts that anyone makes, theist or not, to contribute to our knowledge of the world around us.
Thanks for the thoughty reply. It’s true that most scientists today affirm evolution, but, historically, that’s not a safe test for truth, and
in my opinion, the more science is learned the more difficult it is to hold to the evolution framework.
As to dino and human prints appearing to be genuine, maybe they aren’t, but looking at the shape, gait, depth, and the more
technical aspects, all I can say is that several examples look genuine to me. As to whether ghosts are real, maybe they are. That’s
outside my ability to deny, not just because it’s a universal negative, but, hey, there’s a lot of spiritual reality we don’t have a lock on. But
The physical historical evidence for dinosaurs as dragons is a lot better and more varied than that for ghosts or mermaids. Isn’t it
begging the question to say that my inferences are based on ‘mythology’ of past cultures? E.g. how could the Acambaro collection
(they started digging them up there in the ’40’s) present Iguanodon sculputures with the tail sticking straight out, when that feature did
not become known by paleontologists until a few years ago when they found fossil tendons that showed it? The other examples I
mentioned (cave paintings of dinos, dino images woven into ancient textiles) were not answered. Should a candid observer assume
mythology? If the Bible is right then the land animals, which would include dinosaurs, were created on day six, just before Adam, so
we would expect historical indications of their living at the same time as men. The above seems to be about what you would expect
Maybe I just have a fatalistic view of science because I am intimate with its inner workings, but I sometimes wonder if you put more stock in science than it actually deserves. You have to remember, scientists are people too
I’m not disagreeing with your assessment, or even our current understanding on dinos/people. But I am leary of ‘examining materials and see where the consensus lies’.
And this is just a general thought, perhaps rhetorical, what difference does it make? Who cares if dinos and humans walked the earth at the same time or not…does it make the message of the Bible any less relevent? Nope. Will the foundations of science (or even our current understanding of evolution) crumble? Not likely.
And hey, don’t be knocking cultural anthropology.
Good point that ’scientists are people too’. They have biases, they are limited in various ways. As to what difference it makes if
dinos and humans lived at the same time, it would falsify a broad portion of the literature on evolution, and bring in to question the
competency of the idea. It would line up with the biblical account, that dinosaurs were made “along with” [Job 40:15] the man. The
animal described there in Job appears to be a brontosaurus [apatosaurus] - it says ‘he swings his tail like a cedar tree’ - so it can’t be a
hippo or elephant or rhino because they have dinky tails. It says ‘he eats grass like a cow’ - so it can’t be an alligator or croc
because they are carnivores. It also indicates he lives around the river, is so big it doesn’t bother him when the river floods, and is
a relatively gentle animal - other animals can play around him. This last point seems to conflict, though, with the reports of natives
of Zaire, which say the animal zealously guards it’s territory, and drives off hippos [search ‘mokele-mbembe’, one of their names for it]
Kelley, et tu, Brute?
You misunderstand me if you think my view of scientists is that they are infallible. Some of them are good friends (you’re in that group), others can be quite cantankerous. Science is simply a way of knowing the world around us. Like any way of knowing, it has its strengths and its limitations. So while it might be able to explain the brain chemistry of love, it can’t explain why I love my wife or why I should love her and only her.
On my suggestions to see where consensus lies, I’m not sure I understand why you’re leary. Science is a consensus activity. Why do we study Newton’s and Einstein’s ideas on gravity instead of Aristotle’s? Or Darwin’s ideas of evolution instead of Lamarck’s? Because science has reached a consensus on these theories. The referee of science is consensus. I don’t see what’s wrong with this.
So too a consensus exists for the question of dinosaurs overlapping with humans. And science is the perfect tool to answer this question. What difference does this make? Well, as I’ve said before, it generally falsifies evolutionary theory. Kind of like a bowling ball falling faster than a feather in a vaccum would generally falsify our understanding of gravity and give credence to Aristotle’s ideas.
I’m not claiming that it makes a difference for our Biblical understanding. I’m certainly not claiming that it makes the Bible more or less relevant depending on it’s answer.
Ray showed up in the comments promoting the idea that good evidence exists that the two overlap. As a scientist, these kinds of questions are the type that we would find very interesting. Science doesn’t take the attitude of who cares. It’s interested in what we can learn about the world around us.
Ray, if you’re going to take the creation accounts as literal history, I’m curious as to which one. Genesis 1:1 - 2:3? Or Genesis 2:4 and following? They clearly tell different stories, you know. Here’s an old testament professor who explains it quite well, though these ideas are hardly his own. They’ve been around a good while.
You see, I love the creation stories for what they are — a statement of God’s happiness to create.
As for your interpretation of behemoth, many would find that quite a stretch. Once again, you should consider the type of literature. Behemoth may or may not be a real creature. Furthermore, there is disagreement on the word tail as some scholars consider the word trunk a better fit.
Claiming that the Biblical account is that dinosaurs walked the earth with man is a statement that vast numbers of Christian scholars would completely disagree with.
Jay:
I am just saying you cannot find the answers to all of life’s great mysteries and questions by merely looking to where the consensus of mainstream science lies.
Ray:
I am willing to bet that the acknowledgment of the behemoth and leviathan in Job is not for the purpose of documenting a coexistence of dinos and humans. In fact, that whole passage is about God comparing himself to those beasts. “No one is fierce enough to rouse him [leviathan]. Who then is able to stand against me?” (Job 41:10-11). You quoted earlier 40:15, “Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you…” I don’t personally believe that this only suggests that God is referring to the creation act. I think God is saying, “Look, I made both of you” or “I made behemoth, just like I made you…” That whole passage is about pride, Job questions and even antagonizes God. God replies basically saying, “who are you to question me!?” God tells Job to humble himself. Job, or other prideful people, cannot even domesticate the fierce behemoth/leviathan, which God made. In other words, “Job, don’t even think for one second that you are on the same level as God.”
And to that Kelley I completely agree!
My point was simply that the timelines of humans and dinosaurs is a question that has a consensus amoung scientists, and for good reason. If someone is truly interested in the question, they can learn all about it.
It’s ok to see science as a consensus activity, as long as we agree that science is a search, as distinct from revelation. That’s why
scientific consensus is changeable (hopefully more toward truth/revelation). Revelation doesn’t change, though sometimes our degree
of understanding of it does. Scientists deal with facts, but the interpretation of the facts is where they sometimes rub revelation the
wrong way. Issac Newton, a scientist, was (I believe is) a creationist, and interpreted the facts through that frame. So scientific
consensus is not as good a source for confidence as revelation. Science deals with observation of material phenomena, but material
phenomena can’t talk. Human language (the medium used by God with the Bible) is a far more plain means of communicating
truth. We can learn a lot from observing the material world, but it will never speak as clearly as if we had the Maker of that world to
tell us the infallible interpretation of what we observe, which I believe we have in the Bible.
…Jay, in my opinion the two creation accounts are of the same creation - the first being chronological, the second topical, elaborating
on the most important creation, humans. Good thought on God being happy at creation - we get a whiff of that when we create.
As to some scholars thinking Behemoth’s tail is a trunk, the same Hebrew word (’zanab’ - root ‘to wag’) is used unambiguously every
time in the Old Testament, e.g., Ex. 4.4 where Moses is told to pick up the snake by the tail, and Dt. 28.13 - ‘the Lord shall make
you the head and not the tail’, and Jg. 15.4 where Samson tied the foxes’ tails together.
…What are your thoughts on the dino images on the old Peruvian textiles?
…Kelley, you give a good sense to the Job passage, and it’s true that the beast being a dinosaur is incedental to God’s point - it’s
just that it becomes significant today because of the dino-man issue. Just like God to see the importance ahead of time
Here’s where you and I couldn’t be further apart. You’re using the Bible as though it were a science textbook — and one from God. Even from a cursory reading of the good book, I’m at a loss as to how one comes away thinking it’s authors are concerned with scientific questions.
I’ve failed to find information on gravity, Planck’s constant, or community ecology of the Davis Mountains in the Bible. Why do you think that is? You think that Genesis exists as an explanation of how God created the world. I disagree completely. I do not think that the point has anything to do with the mechanisms involved (the science of it all).
Touching upon this idea, what do you think of the shape of the earth? Is it flat? Is it round? From what else you’ve told me, it would certainly seem consistent for you to interpret the Bible as clearly stating that the earth is flat. How about plate techtonics? We can measure the continents move, even if an inch a year. The Bible seems to say that can’t happen. (See 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 104:5, Job 38:13).
You see, I don’t think the writers were ever concerned with this or writing with this in mind. Furthermore, I can only imagine that the authors views of the world they lived in were very different than our own. I have no problem with this. So what if they thought the earth was flat. Why wouldn’t they? That the Bible was written in a time and place and by an actual person doesn’t trouble me.
As far as the second chapter of Genesis, here too we disagree. Did you perhaps read the link I included above? I include a relevant excerpt.
I won’t touch upon your anthropomorphic sentiments… That’s a discussion which is difficult to have, because of the false dichotomy that some have created, wherein anybody who supports conservation must be a misanthrope. Let’s just say that here too I disagree with your interpretation of Genesis 2, and think that many verses exist supporting God’s pleasure with his creation. (Colossians 1:15-20 comes to mind).
As for the dinosaur images on Peruvian textiles, it’s telling that the only information Google turns up is a plethora of youth earth creationist sites. Can you point me to something in any sort of mainstream press or scientifc journal? If not, then I’m really not interested in trying to learn about every creationist conspiracy theory on the web.
True the Bible is not a science textbook, but it normally presents as factual description. Like any literature you have to allow the
author to speak in the mode of his mood. If the Bible is what it says it is, inspired by God, then we should take it that way, our job
being to rightly hear it. Let the context help. When, in Revelation 1.16 it says Jesus has a sword coming out of his mouth, we know he
is using a word picture to communicate how powerful were Jesus’ words. When, in Ecclesiastes 1.7 the author says, ‘All the rivers
run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again’, we see a succinct
description of the hydrologic cycle. God understands the universe perfectly, having engineered it, and, having made our mouths,
is able to talk, to communicate to the biblical writers truth about it. Which he does, though physical description of how it works is
not his usual purpose. True the biblical writers are ‘not concerned with scientific questions’, but that doesn’t keep them from
revealing many ‘prescientific’ realities in passing. So God is able to present a factual description of the creation and events following
- an historical narrative. We use the same variation of style in this blog. Job 26.7 says God ‘hangs the earth upon nothing’, an apt
description of the earth suspended in space by the invisible force of what we now call gravity. The biblical writers might speak freely
as we do today of the ‘four corners of the earth’ - let them speak as you would let anyone speak! We don’t get upset with the modern
meteorologist telling us when the sun will rise. Few ancients believed the earth was flat - you could observe a sailing mast slowly
disappear over the horizon and reappear. The word ‘dinosaur’ wasn’t coined until 1841 but that doesn’t mean he couldn’t describe one
under another name. Jay, your point on Genesis 2.19 is (I believe) answered by understanding that the Hebrew does properly bear
the translation ‘had formed’, so the animals were made before the man, and the second chapter is giving more details of certain
events of the sixth day. Conservationists are not necessarily misanthropes - God gave us dominion and we ought to be excellent
stewards. Re. the Peruvian textiles, to the scientific mind it doesn’t matter who talks about them - ‘the truth is the truth even from an
hellish mouth’. If the evidence is genuine, who cares?