The Myth of Dinosaurs

Posted by Worldview Warriors On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 2 comments

I’m going to openly contradict a statement that I made in an earlier blog post: DINOSAURS WERE NEVER REAL!!! Before you think that the cheese finally fell out of my sandwich, hear me out.

The existence of dinosaurs was verified upon the discovery of fossils and bones buried in the earth. When they were uncovered, scientists concluded that these were creatures that had never been seen by human eyes. Through much speculation, these scientists concluded that “dinosaurs” (a word coined in 1841) existed hundreds of thousands of years ago and eventually expanded that notion into tens of millions of years. But I’m a young earth creationist…I don’t believe the earth existed hundreds of thousands of years ago!

I do not deny the existence of fossils and what they represent, but what they represent did not live before mankind existed. What the fossils represent are a multitude of creatures that were swept up in the great flood described in Genesis and preserved for modern eyes to see. Call them dinosaurs if you must, because they were “terrible lizards” as their title suggests. History has a different name for them: Dragons.

I remember reading in a book that despite the fact that dinosaurs and dragons resemble one another, the key difference between the two is that dinosaurs were real and dragons were not. Do you realize the absurdity of this statement? Despite the fact that they could concede the similarities between dragons and dinosaurs, they could not concede that they were indeed the same type of creature because of their presupposition that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago. What if history reveals that these creatures did not live millions of years ago? Here are some real life, historic accounts of dragons:

Roman historian Ammianus Marcellius, from the fourth century B.C., recorded,

Among Egyptian birds, the variety of which is countless, the ibis is sacred, harmless and beloved for the reason that by carrying the eggs of serpents to its nestlings for food it destroys and makes fewer of those destructive pests. The same birds meet winged armies of snakes which issue from the marches of Arabia, producing deadly poisons before they leave their own lands… (Book 22 (XXII) chapter 15 verse 25-26a).

Famous traveler Marco Polo wrote,

In this province are found snakes and great serpents of such vast size as to strike fear into those who see them…some of them are ten paces in length, some are more and some less. And in bulk they are equal to a great cask, for the bigger ones are about ten palms in girth. They have two forelegs near the head, but for foot nothing but a claw like the claw of a hawk or a lion. The head is very big, and the eyes are bigger than a great loaf of bread. The mouth is large enough to swallow a man whole… (The Travels of Marco Polo, Doubleday, Garden City, NY 1948).

What other beasts could these people have been describing? These were not mythological tales that were meant to entertain, but descriptions that were meant to inform. Ammianus Marcellus was actually describing the habits of a particular “sacred” Egyptian bird and happened to mention how they devoured winged serpents. Marco Polo was describing some of the marvelous creatures that he saw while he was on one of his adventures. The creatures they were describing were not entirely unknown by the people of their day.

Many other accounts exist concerning dragons that greatly resemble what we call dinosaurs. Perhaps the most fascinating stories, though, are preserved in the ancient pieces of art that reveal the creatures in detail! A dragon brandishes the wall of the Ishtar gate in Babylon. A Native American Petroglyph in Utah clearly depicts a creature that resembles an Apatosaurus. Peruvian pottery from around the 1500’s A.D. portray dragons that resemble triceratops, ankylosaurus, and a four-limbed winged serpent. Is it possible that these pieces of pottery were depicting creatures that truly existed? Could it be that these creatures are the same as those that were fossilized and buried in the ground?

I believe in dragons! Across cultures and throughout history, accounts of dragons have regularly been reported. People from all sorts of different walks of life have recorded their encounters with these remarkable beasts. What is more, their descriptions of these animals fit the attributes of many of the creatures whose fossils have been dug up from the ground. So, why should we call them dinosaurs any longer? After all, mankind has never seen dinosaurs, but they have seen dragons.

(Citations from Bodie Hodge and Laura Welch, Dragons: Legends and lore about dinosaurs (Master books, 2011)).


Anonymous said...

I'm somewhat speechless when it comes to this blog. I am no history buff so, bare with me...trying to understand and find the correlation with the Bible.

A few questions...

People claim that dinosaur’s existed before humans, but your thoughts are that this can't be the case because...?

You said:

"What the fossils represent are a multitude of creatures that were swept up in the great flood described in Genesis and preserved for modern eyes to see."

Is this statement true? I haven't really read Genesis in depth, but I would be interested to read this section in the Bible.

***Just a side note....I am still not fully convinced of dragons being real. Maybe this Marco Polo guy wasn't all there mentally.***

Bill Seng said...

To start off, I have to commend you for your respectful response in relation to my post. I am actually thrilled to see that you would like to have an honest discussion about this topic. Just thought it was necessary to give you kudos for being one of those rare individuals who would approach a position like mine respectfully.

To address your questions:

1. My perspective on when dinosaurs existed (as well as those who take the opposite perspective) is strictly a matter of worldview. I understand the arguments from the perspectives of geology and radiocarbon dating, but I respectfully disagree with the idea that geology can be used to determine the age of the earth or of fossils. In fact, radiocarbon dating is not a method used to determine the age of ancient fossils at all because it is assumed they are too old to date (even though certain people have attempted to carbon date dinosaur bones and have actually yielded a date that did not correlate with the presupposed age of dinosaurs).

I have no problem basing my belief that dinosaurs and humans co-existed based on a literal reading of the Bible that would imply that the earth is approximately only 6,000 years old. Modern science approaches geology with the perspective that the world had to have evolved over many millions, billions, even trillions of years, in order for it to have arrived to the state it is in today.

Also, I would like you to consider the question "what is a dragon?" and "are there any creatures today that we call 'dragons'" and "Why?"

2. In all do respect, is my statement true? I would say yes, but I believe that everyone ought to investigate the data for his or her self to answer this question. I'm not stating that what I said was written in the Bible. because it does not say that any specific animals were killed in the flood, simply that all life that was not on the ark was destroyed. Therefore I believe that dragons, or dinosaurs, survived the flood to some extent.

There is actually a Biblical basis for my claims that "dragons" existed before the flood, though. On the fifth day when it says that God created the whales, the word for whales in Hebrew is "taninim." A literal translation for this word is actually "dragons." Now, my guess is that this word was summing up the multitude of enormous sea creatures and the standard by which it was comparing them all to were the great dragons of the deep. So the Bible does actually acknowledge the existence of dragons in Genesis and in several other places in the Bible as being real creatures. Most modern translations have chosen to translate it as jackals in other references because the words are only different by one letter (even though the spelling in just about every instance agrees with dragons).

3. I think that your criticism of Marco Polo is justifiable. I couldn't tell you that Marco Polo saw dragons, but I also could not tell you that he didn't because I do not know Marco Polo nor have I spoken with someone who knows him. His credibility, therefore, is in question. But I do know that he wrote about dragons on his journeys and so did Alexander the Great (as if mentioning him helps my case).

Once again I appreciate the respectful reply and if you are interested in the details of this topic I would encourage you to check out Answers in Genesis because they detail these arguments. Also check out, creation today, and ICR. Thanks and blessings.