The standard evolutionary argument is that dinosaurs are spearated from modern humans by a span of about 60 million years. If that were true, we could predict that no modern human has ever seen a dinosaur. Opponents of Christianity have even used this as a criticism of the Bible; you may have heard critics say something like, “If people and dinosaurs lived together, why doesn't the Bible mention dinosaurs?” The fact of the matter is the Bible does describe animals that resemble dinosaurs – though it doesn't use the word “dinosaur,” which is a term coined relatively recently. The Bible, for example, frequently uses the term, “dragons,” which some have proposed is a reference to dinosaurs.
Besides the Bible, other books of antiquity have made references to dragons. Pliny the Elder was a naturalist who wrote about many animals, most of which are rather mundane. However, in several places, he refers to “dragons” and describes them as enormous creatures who can actually fight (and usually kill) elephants! From Pliny's description of dragons though, I suspect he is actually describing very large snakes – perhaps as long as 120' in length (which is still very impressive).
There are many other historical references which I've read over the years. However, I came across still another account that was very interesting. It is from The Travels of Marco Polo the Venetian:
I was struck by the great care with which the author describes this creature: It is “10 paces in length” (30 feet) and “10 spans in the girt of the body” (about 7 feet thick, assuming a “span” is 8 inches). The use of the word “serpent” suggests the beast had some reptilian features – maybe they were hairless and had scaly hides. It certainly wasn't a snake since the creature had legs. Though it doesn't say specifically that the creature has four legs, it does describe the forelimbs as being “short” and having “three claws.” When you throw in jaws “wide enough to swallow a man,” it sure sounds to me like a good description of a large, bipedal dinosaur.
Of course, others will reject my opinion. I would direct your attention to the editor's footnotes where he says, “This distorted account of an alligator or crocodile is less creditable to our author's fidelity than any other of his natural history descriptions.” In other words, “Polo is usually pretty good at describing animals but he really blew it when describing this alligator.”
Maybe the account isn't distorted at all. Maybe it's a good description of a dinosaur. Alligators and crocodiles have five toes and these creatures are specifically described as having three. Given that these animals are further said to lurk in caverns during the day, hunt terrestrial animals, and then have to go to the river to drink, they're certainly not crocodiles. It's also rather silly to suppose that Marco Polo, an ocean voyager and naturalist extraordinaire, wasn't familiar enough with crocodiles to describe them accurately!
Another interesting item gleaned from this account is how Polo describes the way these terrifying beasts were hunted.
By their motion in this way along the shore, and their vast weight, they make a deep depression, as if a heavy beam had been drawn along the sands. Those whose employment is to hunt them observe the track by which they are most frequently accustomed to go, and fix into the ground several pieces of wood armed with sharp iron spikes, which they cover with the sand in such a manner as not to be perceptible. When therefore the animals make their way towards the places they usually haunt, they are wounded by these instruments, and speedily killed.
Some people have suggested Polo is describing these beasts as dragging their bellies in the sand – thus, they sprawl like crocodiles. However, the word belly isn't mentioned in the text. It merely says the critters frequent the same paths and their great weight makes depressions. My dogs wear paths in my backyard because they are always following the same routes. Anyway, the locals would place spikes along these well travelled paths which would wound the beasts – then they would kill them.
Another criticism often used against creation is that if men and dinos lived together, then dinosaurs would eat the people. That's a laugh. Humans are the top predators on the planet. Even using “primitive” weapons like spears and arrows, people have hunted elephants, hippos, rhinos, bears, and whales. Wherever humans and dinos might interact, it would be the dinos who get killed. Here we seen another example of human cunning. A 30 foot long animal with sharp teeth and jaws big enough to swallow a man is still no match for human intelligence.
Now, in spite of having said all of this, I will admit I'm not certain what species of creature Polo saw. I'm not saying it is a dinosaur; I'm saying it could be a dinosaur. Evolutionists, on the other hand, practically fall all over themselves insisting it's not a dinosaur – regardless of how much it sounds like a dinosaur. It's rather hilarious because even if modern humans saw a dinosaur, it's not “proof” against evolution. If a living dinosaur were found today, it wouldn't necessarily disprove evolution. But it doesn't help it either. Indeed, it would be very problematic for the theory. So, instead of going wherever the evidence leads, evolutionists insist that what seems to be a very good description of a dinosaur is actually a very poor description of an alligator.
The world is what it is and theories are attempts to describe it. The Bible says land animals (which would include dinosaurs) and man are contemporaries. The theory of evolution says dinosaurs became extinct millions of years before humans appeared. When we have accounts that seem to describe dinosaurs and people living together, it comports much better with the Bible.
No comments:
Post a Comment