Some Claim Dinosaurs Cannot Be Part Of Creationism

Reading one out of many reviews concerning a fairly new 27 million dollar Creationist Museum built in 2007  and located in Petersburg, Kentucky I couldn’t help noticed this commentary which some of it is used quite often…

“Driving into the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, the first thing we saw wasn’t biblical at all: two model dinosaurs guarding the front gates. In fact, there are dinosaurs everywhere.”

“There’s a “dinosaur dig site”; you can get your photo taken with dinosaurs; a bumper sticker tells the world that the Museum is “Taking Dinosaurs Back.” My favorite, an orange, diamond-shaped “T-Rex crossing” sign, reminds us that according to the Museum, humans and dinosaurs used to interact.”

Darwinists attempt to argue, dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Bible therefore not part of Creationism. Dinosaurs are very important for the militant evolutionist, because the interest of these remarkable creatures are being used as a tool to try and convince children of naturalism.

The term “dinosaur” was coined in way back in 1841, before that particular time period many referred to dinosaurs as “dragons.” As far as the Bible, it does indeed describe what we would call a “dinosaur.”

In Job 40:15-19, it states the following…

“Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.”

“His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.”

Behemoth was one of the largest animals ever created by God, “he is the chief of the ways of God.” Behemoth wasn’t an elephant or hippopotamus because those two animals do not have cedar-like tails so that is one indication it wasn’t one of those animals.

Another indication of this animal being a dinosaur is the fact that an elephant does not have a nose but a sauropod dinosaur most certainly does and has a cedar-like tail!  Behemoth was most likely a sauropod dinosaur.

The Bible uses the term “dragon” to describe Satan himself, but the Bible also uses the term “dragon” in referring to living creatures as well which matches the description of dinosaurs themselves.

Paleontologists have found numerous bones of dinosaurs, some of which have soft tissue. Now we don’t know for sure the exact appearance of these dinosaur findings because bones can only tell us so much. However,  finding such great animals certainly doesn’t mean these are anti-creationism discoveries but rather they are just part of the animal world in which God created.

Tom Stern
Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Some Claim Dinosaurs Cannot Be Part Of Creationism

  1. Here’s an interesting story on Owen, who coined the term ‘dinosaurs’:
    http://www.strangescience.net/owen.htm

    You say: “Darwinists attempt to argue, dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Bible therefore not part of Creationism.”
    I do not think ‘darwinists’ do that. There is an aweful lot of things not in the bible: quantum mechanics, DNA, general relativity, bacteria.
    So why point out the dinosaur in particular ?

    This I found also interesting:
    http://www.fallibleblogma.com/index.php/2009/03/04/why-do-catholics-believe-in-things-not-in-the-bible/

  2. Eelco,

    “I do not think ‘darwinists’ do that. There is an aweful lot of things not in the bible: quantum mechanics, DNA, general relativity, bacteria.
    So why point out the dinosaur in particular ?”

    For the most part, I agree. There are some “Darwinists” that do, but not many.

  3. Well, the biblical verse describes at least one characteristic of a behemoth that dinosaurs did no possess at all: “the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.”

    Dinosaurs most definitely did not have external testicles. Those came along later when mammals were … uh … created.

    Dino sorry. Behemoths must have been something else. Or, most likely, imaginary. Remember that the leopard got its name because the ancients thought it was a hybrid between a lion (leo) and a pard. Turned out the pard parent was imaginary.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s