Asimis

Answers in Genesis tells us how this was possible.

Go to: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...ws4-3-2000.asp

I wonder how they dealed with such big animals moving around the ark...

Mageth

Well, you see, they were all BABY dinosaurs, and they all slept when it rained...

ChadD

"However, the more we research the historical literature, the more we realize there is overwhelming evidence that dragons were real beasts, much like our modern reconstructions of dinosaurs, and that their existence has been recorded by many different people, even just hundreds of years ago."

Reading historical literature = overwhelming evidence that dragons were real beasts. ...well, anyhow...:

Out of curiosity, I would at least be interested in reading some of this ancient literature speaking of dragons as real creatures. Does anyone know where I might find such references?

If they are only willing to accept part of the evidence, and call scientists liars and deceivers regarding the parts that conflict with their beliefs, perhaps they should get out of the business entirely.

I have a difficult time believing that they are blind to their owndishonesty.

What I find even worse is the picture that they paint of creationists as holy fighters for Christianity.

cheetah

Even if there is ancient literature about dinosaurs aka dragons, what does this mean? They found some skeletons centuries ago and we didn't know? It certainly doesn't mean that humans and dinosaurs (in the traditional sense, from the Triassic or Jurassic period) existed contemporaneously with humans! They didn't! So, either they were on the ark or we were. Not both!

MOJO-JOJO

In light of last week's tragedy, it's actually pretty disturbing to realize how many fools walk around with these wacko religious ideas (ie; clueless).

Right of the bat, the article says,
<STRONG>The story we have all heard from movies, television, newspapers, and most magazines and textbooks</STRONG>

er...not to mention thousands of research scientists and the geologic record itself....

<STRONG>is that dinosaurs ‘ruled the Earth’ for 140 million years, died out 65 million years ago, and therefore weren’t around when Noah
and company set sail on the Ark around 4300 years ago.</STRONG>

They had a sail? oh that's right...you were there, I forgot. Please continue Gilligan...

<STRONG>However, the Bible gives a completely different view of Earth </STRONG>

Golly jeepers...you're kidding!! Is it maybe because they, like you, were totally clueless to scientific observation and reality?

<STRONG>(and therefore, dinosaur) history. As God’s written Word to us, we can trust it to tell the truth about the past.</STRONG>

Oops! I forgot that one little important piece of superstitious reasoning...the Argument from the Bible. How silly we are to question it....

Now.....could you also please tell me about Santa Claus and the tooth fairy? Or how about Christ's earlier "coincidental" parallel, Mithra??

Amos

There were no dinosours in the ark, but "one of each of the animals" and therefore not two because the number two requires the faculty of reason needed to count beyond one.

No animals were named because the naming of animals also requires our faculty of reason. Since the ark was the unstructured space of our subconscious mind, reason was not part of the ark . . . wherefore there was only one of each to prove that sanity would return when dry land was found, so the allegory continues.

Amos

MortalWombat

Uh.... OK

Amos

If you read the story in the bible you will find that the animals are not named and that it does not say one pair of each (this would be a mistranslation if it did) because of my reason given above.

Amos

nonplused

Complicated obstructification does not a reasonable argument make. If it doesn’t make sense, it’s nonsense.

Xtopher

Amos,

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious. I thought you were joking about how creationists can't count past two, but then....????

What do they say on the X-files -- Obfuscation is policy?