Category Dinosaurs and the Bible

God Created in Six Literal Days; He Did Not Use Evolution (Video)

 

If God really created via evolution then why does God say that He created everything in only six days? Are those days literal days or are they really indefinite periods of time as Progressive Creationism claims? We know dinosaurs were real; when did God create them if He created in six, literal days only thousands of years ago. The answers to these questions are plainly laid out in Scripture. Ancient commentators, both Jewish and Christian, all agreed that the Bible taught a literal, six day creation only thousands of years ago.


Douglas Hamp’s work The First Six Days is a much needed contribution to settle the question of days or ages. As a Hebrew language specialist trained at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, he demonstrates convincingly from the pages of Scripture that the days of the Genesis creation account are literal days. He also carefully clarifies some misrepresentations of what day means in Hebrew. This is followed up by a stimulating review of the literal, six-day position held by ancient Jewish and Christian interpreters as well as

The First Six Days: Confronting the God-Plus-Evolution Myth

The First Six Days: Confronting the God-Plus-Evolution Myth

archaeological corroboration of the biblical record.”

– Dr. John Morris, President Institute for Creation Research

The Day God Created Dinosaurs

According to evolutionary time scales, the dinosaurs lived hundreds of millions of years ago and died out about 65 million years ago.  Holding to a literal interpretation of Genesis and accepting the record of the dinosaurs, however, would seem to be diametrically opposed. Therefore what are we to do with the dinosaurs if we also hold to a literal, six-day creation only several thousand years ago?

 

Dinosaurs Were Real

Some believers in the inerrancy of the Bible have simply dismissed the dinosaurs as having never existed almost as a knee-jerk-reaction to the controversy concerning the supposed missing links of human ancestry.[i]  The collection of dinosaur bones, however, is a completely different question from that of man’s supposed early ancestors, and hence their existence should not be in question.

 

The number of dinosaur bones that has been discovered is staggering.  They have been found all over the world in large quantities, and sometimes entire skeletons have been found intact.  There should be no doubt among young earth creationists that dinosaurs were real creatures that existed in great quantities in the past.  The big question at hand is: when did they exist?  The Bible-believing adherents of an old earth see the reality of dinosaurs as one more reason that evolutionary timescales must be true and must have taken place over millions of years.  Indeed, we have been told so many times that dinosaurs died out around 65 millions years ago, that men and dinosaurs never coexisted, and that holding to a literal creation of six, 24-hour days of creation a few thousand years ago would seem to pose some problems.  It is only a problem, however, until we realize that the Bible actually speaks of dinosaurs being created during the first six days and coexisting with men.

 

Where Are the Dinosaurs in the Bible?

So just where in the Bible are dinosaurs mentioned?  The word dinosaur, per se, is never mentioned in the Bible.  The word was not coined until 1841, twenty years after a British doctor, Dr. Mantell, discovered some teeth and bones in a quarry.  They were so different from the bones and teeth of known lizards that they were eventually given a new name by another British scientist, Dr. Owen, who called them dinosaurs, meaning terrible lizards.  Given that the name itself was not coined until the 1800’s, we would not expect to find it in the Bible as such.  But that does not mean that the Bible doesn’t mention them by another name.

 

There are, in fact, dozens of verses that speak of dinosaurs sometimes as actual living physical creatures and sometimes as either physical or symbolic creatures.[ii]  We will look at the three main words in Hebrew, תנינם tanninim, בהמות behemoth, and לויתן Leviathan, which designate dinosaurs of various types.  Though there are other words such as Rahab and nahash, which some people suggest refer to dinosaurs, their designation as dinosaurs is speculative.  Therefore, we will focus on the large number of strong examples that we already have to work with.

Tanninim

The first word, tanninim, is found in Genesis 1:21, the fifth day of creation: “So God created great sea creatures [תנינם tanninim] and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.”  The word tanninim appears 27 times in the Hebrew Old Testament, 21 of which have been translated as dragon (or dragons) in the King James Version (KJV), three times as serpent (and serpents), once as monster, and twice as whale (and whales).[iii]  Thus, we don’t actually see the word dinosaur written in the text of an English Bible, but it is lying below the surface in the original language.  Just how are we to understand this word though?  Is this word referring to great whales as the KJV translates it here or as great sea creatures or great sea monsters as we see in other versions?  Is it simply understood in a generic sense of a big creature or more specifically as a dinosaur-dragon-type creature?

 

The Origin of the Word

The origin of the word is not absolutely certain.  The most accepted Hebrew lexicon, Brown Driver Briggs, suggests the following meanings: 1) dragon, serpent, sea monster 1a) dragon or dinosaur 1b) sea or river monster 1c) serpent, venomous snake, though it suggests that tanninim may be related to a more primitive root of tan meaning to howl, and hence, by implication, jackal.  This latter suggestion is questioned by many scholars due to linguistic considerations.  The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible states regarding the origin of this word:

 

AARTUN has revived the proposal […] that Tannin is derived from a geminate root TNN, “to smoke, ascension of smoke”, leading to the Ugaritic “the dragon, (sea) monster, snake (stretching out/moving forward like smoke).” (Van Der Toorn et al 1999: 834)

 

Three Root Letters

Semitic languages are fascinating in that (almost) every word consists of three root letters that serve as the foundation of the word.  By adding prefixes, suffixes, and changing the vowels, the application (and implication) of the word changes, but the essential meaning remains the same.  This idea can be seen in English, although it is still slightly different, in some words like save, savior, and salvation.  These three words are all related with the common meaning of save, though they obviously have different roles.

 

In Hebrew and all Semitic languages, there are three principal letters which give a word its essential meaning.  tanninim consists of the three-root letters tav, nun, nun or TNN.  Just as there are Spanish, French, and Italian words that are practically the same (such as gato, chat, and gatto, respectively meaning cat), the same is true of Semitic languages where a word in one language can be almost identical to that in another language.  Thus, to find that the root TNN appears with a similar meaning in an ancient language called Ugaritic, which was spoken around approximately 1400 B.C. in what is today Lebanon, greatly helps us narrow down the search for the meaning.

 

According to R. E. Whitaker, A Concordance of the Ugaritic Literature, the word appears eight times (Whitaker 1972: 619).  Six of those are couched in mythological texts, and three of those are concerning tunnanu, the great sea monsters.  J.C.L. Gibson translates a particular text as “In the sea are Arsh and the dragon” (Gibson 1977: 81).  The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible notes that the ideogram, which is a type of written picture, for tunnanu, is that of a snake (Van Der Toorn et al 1999: 835).  Thus comparing the Hebrew word tanninim with the Ugaritic, we find that the word was indeed related to a creature, though associated with the Ugaritic gods, that was, nonetheless, a type of aquatic dragon which may have also breathed fire.

 

Dragons in the Septuagint

We should also consider the testimony of the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures done in approximately 270 B.C. by Alexandrian Jews.  Therein we can gain an insight into an ancient understanding of the word.  The Septuagint translates the word in Genesis 1:21 as κητη (kete) which means monster.  However, the majority of the occurrences of the word tanninim are translated as δρaκων (drakon), which is the origin of the English word dragon.  There are many references to dragons in Greek literature.  They were snake-like monsters (though often with feet) that were guardians of important places; they were not merely whales.  Hence, the Greek translation of the word points in the direction that this class of creatures that God created on the fifth day was indeed a dragon or, in modern language, a type of  sea “dinosaur”[iv].

Behemoth

The next word is behemoth found in Job 40:15.  Behemoth is the plural of the feminine noun behema, which simply means beast.  It is curious to note here that behemoth, though plural, takes a singular and masculine verb (in Hebrew the number and gender of nouns and verbs must agree) thereby signifying not beasts, but a specific type of creature.  Thus, the word behemoth here is not just a plural form, but a completely different creature or beast.

 

God’s Description of Behemoth

In this passage, God comes, per Job’s request, to testify that He is altogether above man’s understanding and challenges Job to consider His creations, “Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you…” (Job 40:15)  Notice how God declares that He made the behemoth along with Job.  But even more importantly is the command “look now” – a clear statement that this creature was created at the same time and apparently lived contemporarily with Job, or he would not have had a clue what God was talking about and certainly would not have been able to “look” at what God was talking about.[v]  God then lists many of the attributes of this creature that we will look at to get the best picture possible of what kind of animal this truly was.

 

Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you;

He eats grass like an ox.

See now, his strength is in his hips,

And his power is in his stomach muscles.

He moves his tail like a cedar;

The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.

His bones are like beams of bronze,

His ribs like bars of iron.

He is the first of the ways of God;

Only He who made him can bring near His sword.

Surely the mountains yield food for him,

And all the beasts of the field play there.

He lies under the lotus trees,

In a covert of reeds and marsh.

The lotus trees cover him with their shade;

The willows by the brook surround him.

Indeed the river may rage,

Yet he is not disturbed;

He is confident, though the Jordan gushes into his mouth,

Though he takes it in his eyes,

Or one pierces his nose with a snare. (Job 40:15-24, emphasis mine)

 

God says that “He eats grass like an ox.”  To say that the creature is like an ox in the food it eats means that it is not an ox, but rather it is only similar in the way that they both eat grass.  There have been three main explanations as to what known animal this could be: elephant, crocodile, or hippopotamus.  Both elephants and hippos are known to eat grass, while crocodiles, on the other hand, eat only meat (frogs, insects, or larger animals), but never grass.  We can safely conclude that this creature is not a crocodile just from its diet.

 

Elephant or Hippo?

Could it be either an elephant or a hippo?  Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic theologian of the 13th century, suggested that behemoth is in fact an elephant (Jackson 2005).  This animal could possibly be an elephant in that they both eat grass, but what about the other characteristics?  Do they really fit those of an elephant?  “See now, his strength is in his hips, And his power is in his stomach muscles” (Job 40:16).  The strength of an elephant is in its trunk, shoulders, and head.  Its hips and stomach, though not weak compared to ours, are certainly not its outstanding characteristics.  God then continues describing the animal, “He moves his tail like a cedar…” (Job 40:17).

 

Just how big is a cedar tree?  According to one source, a Lebanon cedar tree (assuming that is what Job would have

Cedar of Lebanon

understood) typically grows to around 81 feet tall and 112 inches (9.33 ft) in diameter.  The tail of an adult male elephant measures between seven to ten inches at the widest part! [vi]  And just what would it be like to wag a tail that is like a cedar?  Obviously, anything that got in its path would experience serious devastation.  Getting in the path of an elephant’s tail might not smell great, but it probably would not do much harm.  What can be said about the tail of an elephant is equally true of a hippopotamus – the tail is little more than a fly swatter!

 

It’s a Tail and Nothing Else

Some have tried to suggest that the Hebrew word זנב (zanav tail) should in fact be translated as the male genital instead.  This theory is nothing more than an attempt to draw attention away from the true issue that in this text the tail of this creature does not fit that of any normal everyday kind of creature.  Zanav is used eleven times in the Hebrew Bible including this passage in Job.  Every occurrence outside of Job refers to a tail whether it be an animal’s literal tail or a figurative usage of what comes after and not before.  Several of those times[vii] the word is further defined by the contrast with the head, leaving little doubt that a tail, and not a sexual organ, is being referred to.

 

The Bones

Next God states what his bones are like.  To take this passage literally means that we understand that the text suggests that the bones are like bronze and iron, although they are not made of those actual materials.  Care must be given not to overlook those small but important words that allow us to interpret literally.  Nevertheless, the picture is given that the bones of this creature were of immense strength implying that the creature itself was extremely big to need such strong bones.  Although one could argue that elephants and hippos possess such strong bones, it would fit well in describing the strength of dinosaur bones, too.  In fact, considering that “the weight of Brachiosaurus, the largest plant-eating dinosaur, is 50 metric tons” according to the Indian Institute of Astrophysics website, which is 49.2 English tons, its bones would have to be extremely strong.  An adult, male, African elephant, the largest of all elephants, weighs in at 6.8 tons.  While we should certainly not want it to step on our feet, it is much, much lighter than the heaviest of dinosaurs.  The Brachiosaurus is seven times heavier than the elephant.  The implications of such enormous size are summarized as follows:

 

Galileo was the first to address the problem of support faced by land animals in the early 1600s. He theorized about the relation of size to strength and structure. Consider two animals of different sizes that are geometrically similar. If the larger is twice as long as the smaller animal, it is also twice as wide and twice as high. The larger creature outweighs its smaller counterpart eight times. Although the volume is eight times larger, the strength of its legs increases only by a factor of four. Thus, eight times the weight would have to be carried by only four times the bone strength. If an animal becomes progressively bigger without changing its shape, it must eventually reach a size at which it is incapable of supporting itself.  (Indian Institute of Astrophysics 2006)

 

While the above explanation does not consider the elephant and the Brachiosaurus specifically, the principle holds true that the bones of the dinosaur would have needed to be extremely strong to support such an enormous creature.  Thus, the Bible’s description of the bones being like bronze and iron is in no way an exaggeration if the animal were indeed a large dinosaur such as the Brachiosaurus.  In fact, it would seem that no other creature except such a giant would merit the description of having bones like bronze and iron.

Leviathan

After questioning Job about his knowledge of Behemoth, God then continues to challenge him regarding another creature, whose description has caused many to dismiss it as purely myth.  The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible states, “Obviously the author of Job 41 had access to some animal mythological literature relating to the Egyptian tradition” (Van Der Toorn et al 1999: 513).  The author matter-of-factly states that the biblical writer, whom I believe to be Job, borrowed the tradition from another culture.  The author of the dictionary has effectively declared that it was not God who spoke those words to Job, but rather some unknown author who was inspired by another culture.

 

A Dragon/Snake-Like Creature

A root similar to Leviathan is found in an Ugaritic text[viii]litanu whose etymology is thought to be either “the twisting one (cf. Arabic lawiya) or the wreath-like, the circular (cf. Heb liwya), both possibilities pointing to an original concept of Leviathan as a snake-like being” (Van Der Toorn et al 1999: 511).  Other than this connection, no other supporting evidence is given to substantiate the claim that Job, or whoever is believed to have written the biblical book of Job, borrowed the idea from others rather than being told divinely from God Himself.  Most Ugaritic texts are from the 15th century B.C., although many believe that the book of Job is much older than that.  Granted, the date of Job is controversial and not altogether certain.  However, if the early date of Job is accepted, then it is at least possible that the account in Job is the original, while the Ugaritic account is merely a distortion of it.  Although we may not be able to prove conclusively which account is older, we can look at the Bible’s own description of this amazing creature.

 

God’s Description of Leviathan

We are told in Isaiah 27:1 that at that point God will “punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan that twisted serpent; and He will slay the reptile that is in the sea.”  Due to the end times nature of this passage, it cannot be ruled out that this may be metaphorical language referring to Satan who is called the dragon of old in Revelation 12:9.  On the other hand, we are told specifically that the creature lives in the sea and is some type of twisting serpent-like creature as we saw in the Ugaritic text.

 

Psalms 104:26, 27 provides an important naturalistic description of Leviathan indicating that it was a real, historical creature as far as the Bible is concerned.  “There the ships sail about; There is that Leviathan which You have made to play there.  These all wait for You, that You may give them their food in due season.”  The fact that Leviathan lives where the ships sail and is listed with the innumerable teeming things which live in the sea (Psalms 104:25) strongly demonstrates that, whatever it was, it was one of the many creatures that God made.  The detailed description of Leviathan is given in Job 41 where God challenges Job if he is able to contend with Leviathan, with the implication that God alone is able.

 

Can you draw out Leviathan with a hook,

Or snare his tongue with a line which you lower?

Can you put a reed through his nose,

Or pierce his jaw with a hook?

Will he make many supplications to you?

Will he speak softly to you?

Will he make a covenant with you?

Will you take him as a servant forever?

Will you play with him as with a bird,

Or will you leash him for your maidens?

Will your companions make a banquet of him?

Will they apportion him among the merchants?  (Job 41:1-6)

 

Not an Ordinary Creature!

God is stating in unambiguous terms that this creature is no ordinary creature.  He is not some animal that one can tame like the other animals and is not one that is taken as food for a banquet (verse 6).  God then goes on to describe how this creature is practically invincible because no spear can pierce him and his entire body is covered with a type of armor impenetrable to man’s weapons.

 

Can you fill his skin with harpoons,

Or his head with fishing spears?

Lay your hand on him;

Remember the battle–  never do it again!

Indeed, any hope of overcoming him is false;

Shall one not be overwhelmed at the sight of him?

No one is so fierce that he would dare stir him up.

(Job 41:7-10)

 

Invincible

The description that God gives of this creature is remarkable.  There is no known animal on the entire earth that was so fierce that man could not conquer it.  God declares that because no one would dare stir Leviathan up that there was no one who was able to stand against God.  No elephant, hippopotamus, crocodile, or any other creature is invincible to man.  Although many men may die fighting, given enough spears and men, every creature would eventually fall at the hands of men — with the exception of one.  This creature can be conquered by God alone.  God continues describing Leviathan.

 

“I will not conceal his limbs,

His mighty power, or his graceful proportions.

Who can remove his outer coat?

Who can approach him with a double bridle?

Who can open the doors of his face,

With his terrible teeth all around?

His rows of scales are his pride,

Shut up tightly as with a seal;

One is so near another

That no air can come between them;

They are joined one to another,

They stick together and cannot be parted. (Job 41:12-17)

 

 

Some remarkable traits of Leviathan are his terrible teeth, true of the crocodile but certainly not of the elephant or hippopotamus.  The teeth is where the similarity to the crocodile ends, however, for Leviathan has an outer coat which none can remove and has rows of scales which no air can come between nor can they be parted.  It is true that crocodiles have a hard and scaly backside, but their belly is soft and vulnerable.  In verse 30 we are told that his undersides are sharp and that he leaves marks in the mire – characteristics hardly true of the crocodile.

 

Fire Breathing

What is truly shocking about Leviathan is that God states that he breathed fire.

 

His sneezings flash forth light,

And his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.

Out of his mouth go burning lights;

Sparks of fire shoot out.

Smoke goes out of his nostrils,

As from a boiling pot and burning rushes.

His breath kindles coals,

And a flame goes out of his mouth. (Job 41:18-21)

 

I admit that when I first contemplated the thought of a fire-breathing dragon as actually being real, I was skeptical.  But then I began to consider it and eventually came to the conclusion: why not?  After all, Fireflies (One of God’s Amazing Creatures) are tiny creatures that produce something inside of them that produces light as do numerous bioluminescent marine animals including the electric eel.  Certainly an amazing creature is the bombardier beetle, which, when being attacked by a predator, can release chemicals in its rear to provide about 70 quick explosions which are fatal to other insects.  Thus, if a little beetle is able to  create an explosion from its tiny body, who is to say that dinosaurs might not also have been able to breathe fire?  Perhaps the legends of fire-breathing dragons from all over the world actually hold some validity.

 

A Shining Wake

God then finishes by giving some other characteristics of Leviathan that separate him from all other creatures, especially any of the animals living today.  He could swim so rapidly and above the surface of the water that he left a shining wake making people think that the “deep had white hair”!  In God’s words, there is nothing like him on earth and so “…he is king over all the children of pride” (verse 34):

 

Strength dwells in his neck,

And sorrow dances before him.

The folds of his flesh are joined together;

They are firm on him and cannot be moved.

His heart is as hard as stone,

Even as hard as the lower millstone.

When he raises himself up, the mighty are afraid;

Because of his crashings they are beside themselves.

Though the sword reaches him, it cannot avail;

Nor does spear, dart, or javelin.

He regards iron as straw,

And bronze as rotten wood.

The arrow cannot make him flee;

Slingstones become like stubble to him.

Darts are regarded as straw;

He laughs at the threat of javelins.

His undersides are like sharp potsherds;

He spreads pointed marks in the mire.

He makes the deep boil like a pot;

He makes the sea like a pot of ointment.

He leaves a shining wake behind him;

One would think the deep had white hair.

On earth there is nothing like him,

Which is made without fear.

He beholds every high thing;

He is king over all the children of pride.” (Job 41:22 – 34)

 

Impenetrable Armor

Anna Gosline, writing for the NewScientist.com news service, writes about the amazing body armor of one type of dinosaur known as Ankylosaurs, which, though it is not to be equated with Leviathan, does provide an excellent example of what these impenetrable scales may have been like – pointing to the veracity of the account in Job 41.

 

An in-depth study of dinosaur armor has revealed an unexpected new level of strength, with some plates having a weave of fibers resembling today’s bulletproof fabrics. The likely strength of such plates makes the dinosaurs studied – ankylosaurs – perhaps the best – protected creatures to have ever stalked the Earth […] Ankylosaurs were massive herbivores that grew up to 10 meters in length during the late Jurassic and Cretaceous periods. The coin-sized plates sported by the ankylosaurs fully covered their back, neck, head and even protected their eyes […] They had sets of structural fibers running parallel and perpendicular to the surface, and then further sets at 45° to each of these axes, providing strength in all directions. The fibers of the bulletproof fabric Kevlar are similarly arranged. (Gosline 2004)

 

Where is the proof?

So the Bible does in fact claim that men and dinosaurs once lived together.  However, there is still so much research regarding dinosaurs and so many experts attest that they died out about 65 million years ago.  If the dinosaurs really did exist with men as the Bible claims, shouldn’t we see some proof of that other than mere oral accounts that many believe are suspect to exaggeration and mythologizing?  Wouldn’t we expect to see some hard facts substantiating men and dinosaurs living together?

Soft Tissue and Red Blood Cells

The evidence that men and dinosaurs coexisted not millions of years ago but only thousands of years ago lies right in front of

T-Rex Soft Tissue

our faces, but out of fear, most refuse to see.  The evidence of Job and the description of two dinosaurs is evidence not to be lightly brushed off; nevertheless, it remains invisible to many.  The discovery of soft tissue complete with blood vessels in dinosaur bones should be just such evidence that should make people reconsider their paradigm.  Dr. Schweitzer, who made the discovery, even suggested, “We may not really know as much about how fossils are preserved as we think” (Peake 2005).  Dr. Carl Wieland remarks regarding the discovery:

One description of a portion of the tissue was that it is “flexible and resilient and when stretched returns to its original shape”. Dr. Schweitzer…has been cited as saying that the blood vessels were flexible, and that in some instances, one could squeeze out their contents. Furthermore, she said, “The microstructures that look like cells are preserved in every way.” She also is reported as commenting that “preservation of this extent, where you still have this flexibility and transparency, has never been seen in a dinosaur before.”

 

The reason that this possibility has long been overlooked seems obvious: the overriding belief in “millions of years”. The long-age paradigm (dominant belief system) blinded researchers to the possibility, as it were. It is inconceivable that such things should be preserved for (in this case) “70 million years”.

 

Unfortunately, the long-age paradigm is so dominant that facts alone will not readily overturn it. As philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn pointed out, what generally happens when a discovery contradicts a paradigm is that the paradigm is not discarded but modified, usually by making secondary assumptions, to accommodate the new evidence.

That’s just what appears to have happened in this case. When Schweitzer first found what appeared to be blood cells in a T. Rex specimen, she said, “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’” Notice that her first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm. (Wieland 2005, emphasis mine)

Dinosaur tissue is an amazing challenge to the old-earth paradigm, but it still doesn’t prove that men and dinosaurs coexisted as the Bible clearly claims.  However, evidence that men and dinosaurs lived together in the past does exist and is available for scrutiny for all who are willing to reconsider the paradigm.  Let’s now consider some archaeological evidence that men and dinosaurs lived together.



[i] A plethora of excellent research has been done in this area demonstrating conclusively that many of the supposed transitional forms were hoaxes, fanciful reconstructions based on pigs’ teeth, merely extinct apes, or just humans – none of which is the missing evolutionary link between men and the imagined ancestor.  Marvin Lubenow’s Bones of Contention is a scholarly, yet very readable, creationist assessment of human fossils.  Mr. Lubenow systematically demonstrates that the bones in question are not the transitional forms the paleontologists have been telling us for so many years.

[ii] See Jeffrey Harrison’s article Dinosaurs and the Bible (2006), for a detailed listing of over forty verses dealing either directly or indirectly with dinosaurs. www.totheends.com/dino.html

[iii]King James Concordance (electronic version: The Word Bible Software): Total KJV Total of occurrences 27 of the root תּנּים / תּנּין tannin / tannim: dragons 15: Deu 32:33, Job 30:29, Psa 44:19, Psa 74:13, Psa 148:7, Isa 13:22, Isa 34:13, Isa 35:7, Isa 43:20, Jer 9:11, Jer 10:22, Jer 14:6, Jer 49:33, Jer 51:37, Mic 1:8

dragon 6: Psa 91:13 (2), Isa 27:1, Isa 51:9, Jer 51:34, Eze 29:3

serpent 2: Exo 7:9-10; monsters 1: Lam 4:3; serpents 1: Exo 7:12; whale 1: Job 7:12; whales 1: Gen1:21

[iv] Dave Wright notes “The sea creatures, like the plesiosaur, are not actually considered dinosaurs. The term “dinosaur” is used to refer to those that live on land. Therefore, dinosaurs were land animals that were created on day six.”  (Dave Wright, Answers In Genesis staff, personal communication, June 9, 2007)

[v] Dr. Sholar notes “when He says, ‘Look now at the behemoth..’ this speaks strongly to me of coexistence.  If it was extinct, however, the ‘look now’ makes no sense for he would not have had any historical record of it.” (Sholar, personal communication September 21, 2006)

[vi] Cedars of Lebanon. Retrieved August 8, 2006, from

www.mcforest.sailorsite.net/ListTest.html

[vii]Exodus 4:4, Deuteronomy 28:13, Deuteronomy 28:44, Judges 15:4, Isa_19:14-15

[viii] KTU 1.5 I:1 27

 

Evidence of Men and Dinosaurs Articles

Still soft and stretchy

Dinosaur soft tissue find—a stunning rebuttal of “millions of years”

by Dr Carl Wieland, AiG–Australia

25 March 2005

We previously announced the discovery of what seemed to be microscopic red blood cells (and immunological evidence of hemoglobin) in dinosaur bone (see Sensational dinosaur blood report! and response to critic).1 Now a further announcement, involving the same scientist (Montana State University’s Dr Mary Schweitzer2) stretches (pun intentional) the long-age paradigm beyond belief.

Not only have more blood cells been found, but also soft, fibrous tissue, and complete blood vessels. The fact that this really is unfossilized soft tissue from a dinosaur is in this instance so obvious to the naked eye that any scepticism directed at the previous discovery is completely “history”.

T Rex Soft Tissue

Science via AP
(From www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/)

A: The arrow points to a tissue fragment that is still elastic.  It beggars belief that elastic tissue like this could have lasted for 65 million years.
B: Another instance of “fresh appearance” which similarly makes it hard to believe in the “millions of years”.
C: Regions of bone showing where the fibrous structure is still present, compared to most fossil bones which lack this structure.  But these bones are claimed to be 65 million years old, yet they manage to retain this structure.

One description of a portion of the tissue was that it is “flexible and resilient and when stretched returns to its original shape”.3

The exciting discovery was apparently made when researchers were forced to break open the leg bone of a Tyrannosaurus rex fossil to lift it by helicopter. The bone was still largely hollow and not filled up with minerals as is usual. Dr Schweitzer used chemicals to dissolve the bony matrix, revealing the soft tissue still present.4

She has been cited as saying that the blood vessels were flexible, and that in some instances, one could squeeze out their contents. Furthermore, she said, “The microstructures that look like cells are preserved in every way.” She also is reported as commenting that “preservation of this extent, where you still have this flexibility and transparency, has never been seen in a dinosaur before.”

It appears that this sort of thing has not been found before mainly because it was never looked for. Schweitzer was probably alert to the possibility because of her previous serendipitous discovery of T. rex blood cells. (It appears that the fossils were sent to her to look for soft tissues, prior to preservative being applied, because of her known interest.) In fact, Schweitzer has since found similar soft tissue in several other dinosaur specimens!

CREDIT: M. H. Schweitzer


Will they now be convinced?

Unfortunately, the long-age paradigm is so dominant that facts alone will not readily overturn it. As philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn pointed out,5 what generally happens when a discovery contradicts a paradigm is that the paradigm is not discarded but modified, usually by making secondary assumptions, to accommodate the new evidence.

That’s just what appears to have happened in this case. When Schweitzer first found what appeared to be blood cells in a T. Rex specimen, she said, “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’”6 Notice that her first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm. That is in a way quite understandable and human, and is how science works in reality (though when creationists do that, it’s caricatured as non-scientific).

So will this new evidence cause anyone to stand up and say there’s something funny about the emperor’s clothes? Not likely. Instead, it will almost certainly become an “accepted” phenomenon that even “stretchy” soft tissues must be somehow capable of surviving for millions of years. (Because, after all, we “know” that this specimen is “70 million years old”.) See how it works?

Schweitzer’s mentor, the famous “Dinosaur Jack” Horner (upon whom Sam Neill’s lead character in the Jurassic Park movies was modeled) is already urging museums to consider cracking open some of the bones in their existing dinosaur fossils in the hope of finding more such “Squishosaurus” remains. He is excited about the potential to learn more about dinosaurs, of course. But—nothing about questioning the millions of years—sigh!

I invite the reader to step back and contemplate the obvious. This discovery gives immensely powerful support to the proposition that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most.7

NC State scientist finds soft tissue in T. rex bones

Contact: Tracey Peake
tracey_peake@ncsu.edu
9190515-3470
North Carolina State University

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-03/ncsu-nss032405.php retrieved October 6, 2006

Conventional wisdom among paleontologists states that when dinosaurs died and became fossilized, soft tissues didn’t preserve – the bones were essentially transformed into “rocks” through a gradual replacement of all organic material by minerals. New research by a North Carolina State University paleontologist, however, could literally turn that theory inside out.

Dr. Mary Schweitzer, assistant professor of paleontology with a joint appointment at the N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences, has succeeded in isolating soft tissue from the femur of a 68-million-year-old dinosaur. Not only is the tissue largely intact, it’s still transparent and pliable, and microscopic interior structures resembling blood vessels and even cells are still present.

In a paper published in the March 25 edition of the journal Science, Schweitzer describes the process by which she and her technician, Jennifer Wittmeyer, isolated soft organic tissue from the leg bone of a 68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex.

Schweitzer was interested in studying the microstructure and organic components of a dinosaur’s bone. All bone is made up of a combination of protein (and other organic molecules) and minerals. In modern bone, removing the minerals leaves supple, soft organic materials that are much easier to work with in a lab. In contrast, fossilized bone is believed to be completely mineralized, meaning no organics are present. Attempting to dissolve the minerals from a piece of fossilized bone, so the theory goes, would merely dissolve the entire fossil.

But the team was surprised by what actually happened when they removed the minerals from the T. rex femur fragment. The removal process left behind stretchy bone matrix material that, when examined microscopically, seemed to show blood vessels, osteocytes, or bone building cells, and other recognizable organic features.

Since current data indicates that living birds are more closely related to dinosaurs than any other group, Schweitzer compared the findings from the T. rex with structures found in modern-day ostriches. In both samples, transparent branching blood vessels were present, and many of the small microstructures present in the T. rex sample displayed the same appearance as the blood and bone cells from the ostrich sample.

Schweitzer then duplicated her findings with at least three other well-preserved dinosaur specimens, one 80-million-year-old hadrosaur and two 65-million-year-old tyrannosaurs. All of these specimens preserved vessels, cell-like structures, or flexible matrix that resembled bone collagen from modern specimens.

Current theories about fossil preservation hold that organic molecules should not preserve beyond 100,000 years. Schweitzer hopes that further research will reveal exactly what the soft structures isolated from these bones are made of. Do they consist of the original cells, and if so, do the cells still contain genetic information? Her early studies of the material suggest that at least some fragments of the dinosaurs’ original molecular material may still be present.

“We may not really know as much about how fossils are preserved as we think,” says Schweitzer. “Our preliminary research shows that antibodies that recognize collagen react to chemical extracts of this fossil bone. If further studies confirm this, we may have the potential to learn more not only about the dinosaurs themselves, but also about how and why they were preserved in the first place.”

The research was funded by NC State, the N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences and the National Science Foundation.

Note to editors: An abstract of the paper follows.

“Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex”
Authors: Mary H. Schweitzer and Jennifer L. Wittmeyer, North Carolina State University; John R. Horner, Montana State University; Jan B. Toporski, Carnegie Institution of Washington Geophysical Laboratory Published: March 25, 2005, in Science

Abstract: Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. Some regions of the demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience. Three populations of microstructures have cell-like morphology. Thus, some dinosaurian soft tissues may retain some of their original flexibility, elasticity and resilience.


Nile Mosaic of Palestrina

Evidence of Men and Dinosaurs Living Together

The following page is taken in whole from s8int.org Please visit their site for more amazing out of place artifacts that challenge the evolutionary/old earth paradigm.
Palestrina Mosaic.

CLICK HERE FOR HIGH RESOLUTION NILE MOSAIC IMAGE

In this article s8int.com will once again, (as we’ve tried to do on more than 50 pages of this section), provide visual evidence that dinosaurs and humans did in fact coexist; this time in the art of the 1st century. In this article we will seek to show that not just dinosaurs but that other fauna said by science to have become extinct millions of years ago were still living up to at least the time of the 1st century A.D.

I was in the library this week poring over literally thousands of pages of early Roman art, including the art of 1st century Pompeii. I spent this time in the library after spending weeks trying to find more copies and higher resolution photos of the pieces being presented here online.

If and when I did find them, in the great majority of cases the representations of the art had been cropped so that the “offending details” had been eliminated. Other companion works were often shown in their entirety and often in higher resolution, but these were not.

Although these art masterpieces should be easy to find—they are not. As you look at the evidence s8int.com presents here, remember that the keepers of the evolutionary paradigm did everything overtly or subtlety possible to keep us from seeing them. That might tend to lend them additional credibility as evidence supporting interaction since there would be no need to surpress or deny information which does not threaten the paradigm.

The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina and the hunting mosaic from the “House of the Physician” are incredible works that should be well known to the public in their entirety, but if in fact they were well known, they would be very controversial with respect to the evolutionary timeline.

What we really wonder about is; with respect to the powers that be who conspire to keep this information out of the public eye, do they themselves manage to maintain the belief that dinosaurs and man never coexisted—or is it just the great unwashed true believers out there who have the pure religion? Is the power of denial really that strong?

What we do know is that whatever we do stumble upon here at s8int.com or whatever anyone else discovers is just the tip of the iceberg.

The Nile is not just a river in Egypt.

The Nile is the longest river in the world, stretching northwards for approximately 4,000 miles from East Africa to the Mediterranean. In addition to Egypt, it flows through the African countries of Sudan, Burundi, Rwanda, DR Congo, Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, and Ethiopia,. Nilotic art like the first century Nile Mosaic of Palestrina detailed life along the Nile.

“The vast Nilotic mosaic (21.3 x 17.3 feet) set into the floor of the apsidal hall adjacent to the sanctuary of Fortuna Primigenia at Praeneste (Palestrina) provides important evidence for what Roman triumphal paintings using topographical conventions may have looked like.

On the mosaic, the Nile winds past vignettes representing exotic landscapes and settlements; the more recondite details are carefully labeled in Greek, underscoring the Alexandrian source of the genre. The precise nature of the relationship between the mosaic and cartographic practices is controversial.

Recently the Palestrina mosaic has been interpreted as an actual topographic map of the Nile: the upper part of the mosaic represents Ethiopia, the upper zone of the lower section represents Egypt, and the foreground represents the Delta, top to bottom understood as south to north, the standard convention for ancient maps.

More likely, however, the mosaic provides a large, coherent landscape composition of the Nile during the flood season, nevertheless dependent on topographical conventions”.( Meyboom )

Dinosaur Art From the House of the Physician-Mid First Century A.D.

“Pompeii is a ruined Roman city near modern Naples in the Italian region of Campania, in the territory of the commune of Pompei. It was destroyed during a catastrophic eruption of the volcano Mount Vesuvius on 24 August 79 AD.

The volcano buried the city under many metres of ash and it was lost for 1,600 years before its accidental rediscovery in 1748. Since then, its excavation has provided an extraordinarily detailed insight into the life of a city at the height of the Roman Empire”……Wikipedia

IMAGES: Both of the images on the left are from the “Hunt” mosaic discovered in the House of the physician in Pompeii, Rome.

When the images are discussed, it is within academia, not with the general public. The apology given for the oversized reptiles is that they are simply nile crocodiles. This is not the case. As we will show, the crocodiles on these Nile works were rendered realistically and accurately as shown in this rendering from the Nile Mosaic on the right.

Note that in the image on the left, and in the complete mural below a man is battling a reptile taller than himself with a shield and a spear. Compare the man, the dinosaur and the building at the center of the image.

The creature on the right has a dermal ridge, unlike a crocodile but exactly like certain dinosaur types which might be safer to sit astride as we will explore below.

CLICK HERE FOR HIGH RESOLUTION MOSAIC IMAGE

There are many armored dinosaur types that fit this reptile portrayal at least as well as the crocodile. Most of them had “low slung” bodies with heights of six feet high or less. One can make up his/her own mind but the hunter astride the reptile is between “plates” on its bck. In addition to the examples shown here, other candidates can be seen by following this link.

Another denial tactic is to label the dark skinned peoples in these mosaics as pygmies (to account for reptile towering over native). However, authorities on Roman art note that its not just blacks who are made diminutive in Roman art but that it was a way of making the Romans seem superior.

African-Roman hercules
African-Roman Hero, Hercules. Fresco, Imperial Roman Pompeii. Hercules stands beside the enthroned Lydian Queen Omphale

Not only blacks were diminutive in the pieces, white or light skinned persons were dwarfed as well. As a matter of fact, Snowden, in his book “Before Color Prejudice” makes note of the egalitarian nature of the Roman civilization, and apparent lack of color discrimination, using examples from ancient Roman Art; many works showing scenes involving both dark skinned and light skinned citizens.

With respect to the three pieces found at the House of the Physician, all portray light skinned and dark skinned dwarves.

This includes “Judgment of Solomon”, (NOT SHOWN) which depicts the Jews as dwarfed and as both dark skinned and light skinned peoples.

The work below is also first century, from the House of the Physician at Pompeii.

Dinosaurs In Literature, History and Art: Part 2

Suppressed Evidence of Human, Dinosaur and Other “Extinct” Fauna Interaction in First Century Roman, Nilotic Art

Extinct Fauna on First Century Roman “Palestrina” Mosaic & Other Works?

As we noted in Part 1 of this article, it has turned out to be extremely difficult to obtain detailed, complete or higher resolution images of both the Palestrina Mosaic as well as the works from the House of the Physician at Pompeii.

In this part of the article using the resources we have, we will attempt to show that there were a number of fauna represented in first or second century ancient Roman art, including several creatures that we now call dinosaurs. These tentative identifications will be made more difficult by the lower resolutions that we have available to us here at s8int.com. we have only been able to study a sample of the fauna represented o the work. If you have access to exclusive academic sources like JSTOR or MUSE, let us know.

Nile Mosaic detail
The Nile mosaic of Palestrina is an ancient mosaic depicting the Nile from Ethiopia to the Mediterranean. It is dated to around 100 BCE, and is thought to have been the work of Demetrius the Topographer, a Greek artist from Ptolemaic Egypt who visited Rome.

The mosaic is located in the city of Palestrina. It contains detailed depictions of Ptolemaic greeks, black Ethiopians in hunting scenes, and various animals of the Nile river.

Wikipedia References:Finley, The Light of the Past, 1965, p93. In this detail, we’ve circled some of the fauna we’re going to highlight in this part of our article….s8int.com

Readers will of course be free to decide for themselves whether or not we’ve been able to make correct observations. Of course we could be wrong about all of them. “Science” would claim that all the dry land creatures are actually crocodiles just as dead sea monster identifications are basking sharks. Those evolutionary believers down at the bottom of the “food chain” will likely agree.

Perhaps they are correct.

However, remember that science also told us that there were primitive “cavemen” called Neanderthal man and the slightly less primitive caveman, Cro-Magnon. These fables and images have permeated our culture for over 100 years.

In order to preserve and promote evolutionary theories of man, as recently as this year science has insisted that Neanderthal; could not speak but could only grunt not having a language, never mated with “modern” man, (but may have mated with apes) did not bury their dead etc, etc.

In November of this year, scientists were able to sequence the DNA of a man they called a “Neanderthal”. His DNA turned out to match “modern humans” to 99.99%. Everyone living today has DNA that matches other humans to 99.99%. This means that your DNA is as close to Neanderthals as it is to Richard Dawkins’, the famous evolutionist at Harvard. Exit caveman.

Oh, and what about the “Gap theorists”. This is a group of Christians so distressed about what science said about primitive man that they invented pre-adamic races to account for “cave men”, doubting the Bible from the first chapter of Genesis, it’s first book? No doubt they will cling to the Gap theory just as evolutionists will cling to evolution and to cave men.

We know that no matter how much evidence is provided, “rationalists” and evolutionists will refuse to accept the evidence of their own eyes. Romans 1 says that what may be known about God is from evidence that can be “seen”. Denial is not just a river…

Science was wrong about Neanderthal. Maybe science is wrong about dinosaurs and when they lived as well.

Palestrina Mosaic Dinosaurs?

Iguanodon? See top photo for location on mosaic under the tiger representation.

Several years ago, we came across an image of the Palestrina Mosaic in used book store in a book entitled “The Light of the Past”, by Finley. In that one book we found several things that shouldn’t be there if the evolution paradigm were true. We found evidence that ancient man had lived with dinosaurs.

As it turns out, the high resolution portion of the mosaic featured in that book represented only a small portion of the complete mosaic. Just off to the left of the “dinosaur” being hunted that we featured on the first page of this section was another dinosaur representation we had not seen.

Iguanodon.

We believe it represents a dinosaur similar to iguanodon. We regret that we don’t have a higher resolution photo of this section of the mosaic. It appears here after having tried several filters to make it appear as clearly as possible.

Iguanodon according to science

“(meaning “Iguana tooth”) is the name given to a genus of ornithopod dinosaurs, which lived roughly halfway between the early hypsilophodontids and their ultimate culmination in the duck-billed dinosaurs.

They lived between 120 to 140 million years ago, in the Barremian to Valanginian ages of the Early Cretaceous Period, although one dubious species is from the Late Jurassic. Iguanodon’s most distinctive feature was a large razor-sharp ‘thumb spike’, probably used for defense against predators.

Iguanodon was the first dinosaur recognized and the second dinosaur formally named, described in 1822 by English geologist Gideon Mantell. Together with Megalosaurus and Hylaeosaurus, it was one of the three originally used to define the new classification, Dinosauria.

Paleobiology

The various Iguanodon species are bulky herbivores, ranging from 6 to 11 metres (20 to 36 feet) in length, and averaging about 5 tonnes (5.5 tons) in weight. Iguanodon’s thumb spikes were perpendicular to the three main digits.

In early restorations, the spike was placed on the animal’s nose. Later fossils revealed the true nature of the thumb spikes, although their exact purpose is still debated. It could have been used for defense, or for foraging for food…..Wikipedia.

Dinosaur Depiction on Roman Mosaic at Sepphoris?

Detail from floor mosaic discovered at Sepphoris. This is a nilotic scene incorporated into the Dionysos Mosaic.

The mosaic is dated between the first and third centuries. A great earthquake destroyed Sepphoris in 363 A.D.

Note that here warriors/hunters battle the “large reptile” using shields and large rocks.

Palestrina Mosaic Entelodont:? Dinohyus?

Dinohyus

Photo:Dinohyus is just our speculation but it appears to be a enteledont rather than a hippo.

Dinohyus (meaning “terrible pig”) was a large, warthog-like hoofed mammal that lived during the early Miocene, roughly 24 million years ago. This herbivore (it ate plants, including roots) had a long skull (over 1 m = 3 feet long), a small braincase, a pair of knob-like protrusions on the back of the lower jaw (in the cheek area), blunt incisors, and wide, strong canine teeth.

Its long legs probably made it a fast runner. The neck was short and stout and there was a hump on the shoulders formed by spines along the backbone. It was about 6 feet (2 m) tall at the shoulders and was the biggest and among the last of the Entelodonts.

Fossils have been found in western North America (including Battle Creek, South Dakota, USA).

Classification: Class Mammalia (mammals), Order Artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates), Family Entelodontidae (large, pig-like mammals from the Oligocene to early Miocene, including Archaeotherium, Megachoerus, Dinohyus, Entelodon and Eoentelodon), Genus Dinohyus

Source: Metareligion

Palestrina Mosaic Camelops-Extinct Camel?

Camelops

Camelops is an extinct genus of camels that once roamed western North America, where it appeared about 45 million years ago. It migrated to Eurasia and Africa around 2 to 3 million years ago, contrary to various other animals that migrated to North America. Its name is derived from the Greek κάμελος (camel) + ὀψ (face), thus “camel-face.”

Camelops first appeared during the Late Pliocene period and became extinct at the end of the Pleistocene. The reason for its extinction is poorly understood but was part of a larger North American die-off in which native horses, camelids and mastodons also died out.

Because soft tissues are generally not preserved in the fossil record, it is not certain if camelops possessed a hump, like modern camels, or lacked one, like its modern llama relatives….Wikipedia

Palestrina Mosaic -Extinct Horse?

Pliohippus

Photo: The tiny horse in the mosaic could represent any of the small tiny horses science believes were ancestors to modern horses. In reality, they were simply part of the genetic variation God built into all creatures, just as there are large and small dogs.

“Grandfather” to the modern horse, Pliohippus appears to be the source of the latest radiation in the horse family. It is believed to have given rise to Hippidion and Onohippidion, genera that thrived for a time in South American, and to Dinohippus which in turn led to Equus.

Where & When? Fossils of Pliohippus are found at many late Miocene localities in Colorado, the Great Plains of the US (Nebraska and the Dakotas) and Canada. Species in this genus lived from 12-6 million years ago.

Did Pliohippus live during the Pliocene? Or, how do you manage to miss an entire epoch? As incredible as it may sound, recent research shows that Pliohippus and the Pliocene have shrunk in duration so that they completely missed each other!

The problem is twofold. First of all, the epochs like the Pliocene and Miocene are all compared to marine sediments in Europe. It is difficult, although not impossible, to compare the ages of horses with British invertebrate fossils.

Over the years, refinements in our understanding of the Pliocene have resulted in the shrinking of that epoch. It is now believed to have covered a period ranging from about 5.3 to 1.75 million years ago. It formerly included North American land mammals ages that are now regarded as being late Miocene.

Our concept of the genus Pliohippus has also shrunk. In essence, Pliohippus has been split into two genera. Pliohippus now includes horses with large facial depressions in front of their eyes. These lived during the Miocene. The second genus, Dinohippus, includes horses with smaller facial depressions which lived into the Pliocene. (Equus lacks these depressions.)

The shrinking of the Pliocene and Pliohippus has resulted in the unhappy complication that the namesake of the Pliocene did not live during this time period”…..Florida Museum of Natural History

Palestrina Mosaic -Smilodon?

Smilodon (IPA: /smailəʊdɑn/, a bahuvrihi from Greek: σμιλη “knife” and (Ionic) οδων “tooth”) is an extinct genus of large machairodontine saber-toothed cats that are understood to have lived between approximately 3 million to 10,000 years ago in North and South America. .

They are the only known successors to Machairodus. Smilodon means knife tooth, an entirely appropriate name given its enormous fangs. The smilodon species are also known as Saber-Toothed Cats or Saber-Toothed Tigers.

As many as six species of Smilodon are known to have existed:

  • Smilodon fatalis, 1.6 million-10,000 years ago
  • Smilodon gracilis, 2.5 million-500,000 years ago
  • Smilodon populator, 1 million-10,000 years ago
  • Smilodon neogaeus, 3 million-500,000 years ago
  • Smilodon floridus, may be a subspecies of Smilodon fatalis
  • Smilodon californicus, may be a subspecies of Smilodon fatalis.

A fully-grown Smilodon weighed approximately 200 kilograms (450 pounds) and had a short tail, powerful legs and a large head. About the size of a lion, smilodon was extremely powerful. Its jaws could open 120 degrees. Its fangs were about 17 cm (7 inches) long.

Many Smilodon fossils have been unearthed at the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles. The Smilodon is the prehistoric cat that researchers know the most about….Wiipedia


Nile Mosaic of Palenstrina


The following page is taken in whole from s8int.org Please visit their site for more amazing out of place artifacts that challenge the evolutionary/old earth paradigm.


Nile Mosaic of Palestrina

Palestrina Mosaic

I was in the library this week poring over literally thousands of pages of early Roman art, including the art of 1st century Pompeii. I spent this time in the library after spending weeks trying to find more copies and higher resolution photos of the pieces being presented here online.

If and when I did find them, in the great majority of cases the representations of the art had been cropped so that the “offending details” had been eliminated. Other companion works were often shown in their entirety and often in higher resolution, but these were not.

Although these art masterpieces should be easy to find—they are not. As you look at the evidence s8int.com presents here, remember that the keepers of the evolutionary paradigm did everything overtly or subtlety possible to keep us from seeing them. That might tend to lend them additional credibility as evidence supporting interaction since there would be no need to surpress or deny information which does not threaten the paradigm.

The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina and the hunting mosaic from the “House of the Physician” are incredible works that should be well known to the public in their entirety, but if in fact they were well known, they would be very controversial with respect to the evolutionary timeline.

What we really wonder about is; with respect to the powers that be who conspire to keep this information out of the public eye, do they themselves manage to maintain the belief that dinosaurs and man never coexisted—or is it just the great unwashed true believers out there who have the pure religion? Is the power of denial really that strong?

What we do know is that whatever we do stumble upon here at s8int.com or whatever anyone else discovers is just the tip of the iceberg.

The Nile is not just a river in Egypt.

The Nile is the longest river in the world, stretching northwards for approximately 4,000 miles from East Africa to the Mediterranean. In addition to Egypt, it flows through the African countries of Sudan, Burundi, Rwanda, DR Congo, Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, and Ethiopia,. Nilotic art like the first century Nile Mosaic of Palestrina detailed life along the Nile.

Nile Mosaic of Palestrina crop1“The vast Nilotic mosaic (21.3 x 17.3 feet) set into the floor of the apsidal hall adjacent to the sanctuary of Fortuna Primigenia at Praeneste (Palestrina) provides important evidence for what Roman triumphal paintings using topographical conventions may have looked like.

On the mosaic, the Nile winds past vignettes representing exotic landscapes and settlements; the more recondite details are carefully labeled in Greek, underscoring the Alexandrian source of the genre. The precise nature of the relationship between the mosaic and cartographic practices is controversial.

Recently the Palestrina mosaic has been interpreted as an actual topographic map of the Nile: the upper part of the mosaic represents Ethiopia, the upper zone of the lower section represents Egypt, and the foreground represents the Delta, top to bottom understood as south to north, the standard convention for ancient maps.

More likely, however, the mosaic provides a large, coherent landscape composition of the Nile during the flood season, nevertheless dependent on topographical conventions”.( Meyboom )


Dinosaur Art From the House of the Physician-Mid First Century A.D.

“Pompeii is a ruined Roman city near modern Naples in the Italian region of Campania, in the territory of the commune of Pompei. It was destroyed during a catastrophic eruption of the volcano Mount Vesuvius on 24 August 79 AD.

pompeii

"Hunt" mosaic discovered in the House of the physician in Pompeii, Rome

Hunt Mosaic from Pompeii

"Hunt" mosaic discovered in the House of the physician in Pompeii, Rome

The volcano buried the city under many metres of ash and it was lost for 1,600 years before its accidental rediscovery in 1748. Since then, its excavation has provided an extraordinarily detailed insight into the life of a city at the height of the Roman Empire”……Wikipedia

Nile River Crocodile

Nile Mosaic

When the images are discussed, it is within academia, not with the general public. The apology given for the oversized reptiles is that they are simply nile crocodiles. This is not the case. As we will show, the crocodiles on these Nile works were rendered realistically and accurately as shown in this rendering from the Nile Mosaic on the right.

Note that in the image on the left, and in the complete mural below a man is battling a reptile taller than himself with a shield and a spear. Compare the man, the dinosaur and the building at the center of the image. The creature on the right has a dermal ridge, unlike a crocodile but exactly like certain dinosaur types which might be safer to sit astride as we will explore below.

"Hunt" Pompeii Mosaic

"Hunt" Pompeii Mosaic

 

Low stature, armored dinosaur comparison

Low stature, armored dinosaur comparison

There are many armored dinosaur types that fit this reptile portrayal at least as well as the crocodile. Most of them had “low slung” bodies with heights of six feet high or less. One can make up his/her own mind but the hunter astride the reptile is between “plates” on its bck. In addition to the examples shown here, other candidates can be seen by following this link.

Another denial tactic is to label the dark skinned peoples in these mosaics as pygmies (to account for reptile towering over native). However, authorities on Roman art note that its not just blacks who are made diminutive in Roman art but that it was a way of making the Romans seem superior.

 

African-Roman Hero, Hercules. Fresco, Imperial Roman Pompeii

African-Roman Hero, Hercules. Fresco, Imperial Roman Pompeii. Hercules stands beside the enthroned Lydian Queen Omphale

Not only blacks were diminutive in the pieces, white or light skinned persons were dwarfed as well. As a matter of fact, Snowden, in his book “Before Color Prejudice” makes note of the egalitarian nature of the Roman civilization, and apparent lack of color discrimination, using examples from ancient Roman Art; many works showing scenes involving both dark skinned and light skinned citizens.

With respect to the three pieces found at the House of the Physician, all portray light skinned and dark skinned dwarves.

This includes “Judgment of Solomon”, (NOT SHOWN) which depicts the Jews as dwarfed and as both dark skinned and light skinned peoples.

The work below is also first century, from the House of the Physician at Pompeii.

 

from the House of the Physician at Pompeii

From the House of the Physician at Pompeii

 

 

 

Continue to Part 2 >>>

 


Also View:

Dinosaurs in Literature
Dinosaurs Among Men Video Clips
Dinosaur Animation

Dinosaur Animation

Ceratopsids

The ceratopsids were herbivores, characterized by large bony collars, armed with large bony horns. These dinosaurs are often found in association with hadrosaurs suggesting that they may have had similar habits. Shown here is Triceratops called so for obvious reasons. The head shield, thought originally to be a defensive weapon, is now thought, because of the extensive vascularization evident as vessel channels on the surface of the bony shield, to have been involved in thermoregulation.

Tyrannosaurus rex

Perhaps no other dinosaur has received as much bad press as T. rex, the king of carnivorous dinosaurs. There is little doubt that this carnivore was a fearsome sight, standing 20 feet tall, and having long serrated teeth, apparently capable of ripping its prey to shreds. Its front feet were designed for ripping also and probably were not capable of holding the weight of the animal, which walked upright, using its formidible tail for balance. The most famous T. rex is a dinosaur named “Sue” at the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History. This nearly complete specimen was 43 feet long and stood 12 feet high at the hips.

Ornithomimosaur

These medium sized dinosaurs,s, Gallimimus, are the largest of the ornithomimosaurs except for the famous Deinocheirus, an ornithomimosaur with eight foot long arms and 10 inch claws. are best known for their appearance in Jurassic Park, where they featured, as in this picture, as a stampeding herd. The name “Gallimimus” indicates the overall resemblance (mimic) of these birds to chickens (“Ostrich-like”, may be a more diplomatic way to put it). The remains of these forms have been found in Upper Cretaceous strata in Mongolia.

Hadrosaur (Parasaurolophus)

The hadrosaurs or duckbills are herbivorous ornithischian (plant-eating, bird-hipped) dinosaurs characterized by formidible dental “batteries” containing hundreds of interlocking crushing teeth in upper and lower jaws and having broader and more elongate bill-like snouts than other ornithischians. Hadrosaurs have relatively long fore-limbs with hoof-like terminations on the forefeet. Parasaurolophus, depicted here, is further distinguished by the presence of extended nasal cavities above the head. These animals are extremely abundant in some fossil deposits. It is thought that they may have moved in herds, much as sheep do today. Although this point is still controversial, it is apparent that Hadrosaurs could walk upright, and probably on “all fours” as well. Just which method was preferred awaits further study, but many trackways thought to have been formed by hadrosaurs show only rear foot impressions.

Pterosaurs

Pterosaurs, or flying reptiles, are not, strictly speaking dinosaurs, although they were contermporaries, and doubtless lived in similar habitats. These reptiles were apparently not just gliders, but were capable of active flight as well. In 1975, the largest pterosaur ever found came to light in Big Bend National Park, in Texas (of course!) . This monster had an estimated wingspan of about 35 feet, as large as that of some jet fighter planes. Other pterosaurs, perhaps juveniles, were only a few cenitmeters tall, but appeared to be capable of flight. These reptiles typically had an impressive mouthful of teeth.

Raptors

The raptoral dinosaurs, typified by this version of Utahraptor, achieved great notoriety in the movie “Jurassic Park”, where they were depicted as fierce, aggressive predators. While this is just speculation, we can discern in the skeletal remains from which this depiction originated, the possibilities for an aggressive carnivorous creature.

Brachiosaurus

The sauropods were the blue whales of the dinosaur world. They were herbivores identified by their extremely large bodies, up to 120 feet in length. They had very small heads at the end of long necks, and bore their nostrils on the tops of their heads, which has fueled the suggestion that they lived in water.

All animations, pictures and explanations on this page complements of Earth History Research Center.


NC State Scientist Finds Soft Tissue in T. Rex Bones

Contact: Tracey Peake
tracey_peake@ncsu.edu
9190515-3470
North Carolina State University

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-03/ncsu-nss032405.php retrieved October 6, 2006

Conventional wisdom among paleontologists states that when dinosaurs died and became fossilized, soft tissues didn’t preserve – the bones were essentially transformed into “rocks” through a gradual replacement of all organic material by minerals. New research by a North Carolina State University paleontologist, however, could literally turn that theory inside out.

Dr. Mary Schweitzer, assistant professor of paleontology with a joint appointment at the N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences, has succeeded in isolating soft tissue from the femur of a 68-million-year-old dinosaur. Not only is the tissue largely intact, it’s still transparent and pliable, and microscopic interior structures resembling blood vessels and even cells are still present.
In a paper published in the March 25 edition of the journal Science, Schweitzer describes the process by which she and her technician, Jennifer Wittmeyer, isolated soft organic tissue from the leg bone of a 68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex.
Schweitzer was interested in studying the microstructure and organic components of a dinosaur’s bone. All bone is made up of a combination of protein (and other organic molecules) and minerals. In modern bone, removing the minerals leaves supple, soft organic materials that are much easier to work with in a lab. In contrast, fossilized bone is believed to be completely mineralized, meaning no organics are present. Attempting to dissolve the minerals from a piece of fossilized bone, so the theory goes, would merely dissolve the entire fossil.
But the team was surprised by what actually happened when they removed the minerals from the T. rex femur fragment. The removal process left behind stretchy bone matrix material that, when examined microscopically, seemed to show blood vessels, osteocytes, or bone building cells, and other recognizable organic features.
Since current data indicates that living birds are more closely related to dinosaurs than any other group, Schweitzer compared the findings from the T. rex with structures found in modern-day ostriches. In both samples, transparent branching blood vessels were present, and many of the small microstructures present in the T. rex sample displayed the same appearance as the blood and bone cells from the ostrich sample.
Schweitzer then duplicated her findings with at least three other well-preserved dinosaur specimens, one 80-million-year-old hadrosaur and two 65-million-year-old tyrannosaurs. All of these specimens preserved vessels, cell-like structures, or flexible matrix that resembled bone collagen from modern specimens.
Current theories about fossil preservation hold that organic molecules should not preserve beyond 100,000 years. Schweitzer hopes that further research will reveal exactly what the soft structures isolated from these bones are made of. Do they consist of the original cells, and if so, do the cells still contain genetic information? Her early studies of the material suggest that at least some fragments of the dinosaurs’ original molecular material may still be present.
“We may not really know as much about how fossils are preserved as we think,” says Schweitzer. “Our preliminary research shows that antibodies that recognize collagen react to chemical extracts of this fossil bone. If further studies confirm this, we may have the potential to learn more not only about the dinosaurs themselves, but also about how and why they were preserved in the first place.”

The research was funded by NC State, the N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences and the National Science Foundation.
Note to editors: An abstract of the paper follows.
“Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex”
Authors: Mary H. Schweitzer and Jennifer L. Wittmeyer, North Carolina State University; John R. Horner, Montana State University; Jan B. Toporski, Carnegie Institution of Washington Geophysical Laboratory Published: March 25, 2005, in Science
Abstract: Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. Some regions of the demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience. Three populations of microstructures have cell-like morphology. Thus, some dinosaurian soft tissues may retain some of their original flexibility, elasticity and resilience.

Still soft and stretchy

Dinosaur soft tissue find—a stunning rebuttal of “millions of years”

by Dr Carl Wieland, AiG–Australia

Courtesy of www.Answersingenesis.org

T Rex Soft Tissue

Science via AP (From www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/) A: The arrow points to a tissue fragment that is still elastic. It beggars belief that elastic tissue like this could have lasted for 65 million years. B: Another instance of ‘fresh appearance’ which similarly makes it hard to believe in the ‘millions of years’. C: Regions of bone showing where the fibrous structure is still present, compared to most fossil bones which lack this structure. But these bones are claimed to be 65 million years old, yet they manage to retain this structure.

We previously announced the discovery of what seemed to be microscopic red blood cells (and immunological evidence of hemoglobin) in dinosaur bone (see Sensational dinosaur blood report! and response to critic).1 Now a further announcement, involving the same scientist (Montana State University’s Dr Mary Schweitzer2) stretches (pun intentional) the long-age paradigm beyond belief.

Not only have more blood cells been found, but also soft, fibrous tissue, and complete blood vessels. The fact that this really is unfossilized soft tissue from a dinosaur is in this instance so obvious to the naked eye that any scepticism directed at the previous discovery is completely “history”.

One description of a portion of the tissue was that it is “flexible and resilient and when stretched returns to its original shape”.3

The exciting discovery was apparently made when researchers were forced to break open the leg bone of a Tyrannosaurus rex fossil to lift it by helicopter. The bone was still largely hollow and not filled up with minerals as is usual. Dr Schweitzer used chemicals to dissolve the bony matrix, revealing the soft tissue still present.4

She has been cited as saying that the blood vessels were flexible, and that in some instances, one could squeeze out their contents. Furthermore, she said, “The microstructures that look like cells are preserved in every way.” She also is reported as commenting that “preservation of this extent, where you still have this flexibility and transparency, has never been seen in a dinosaur before.”

It appears that this sort of thing has not been found before mainly because it was never looked for. Schweitzer was probably alert to the possibility because of her previous serendipitous discovery of T. rex blood cells. (It appears that the fossils were sent to her to look for soft tissues, prior to preservative being applied, because of her known interest.) In fact, Schweitzer has since found similar soft tissue in several other dinosaur specimens!

CREDIT: M. H. Schweitzer
Left: The flexible branching structures in the T. rex bone were justifiably identified as “blood vessels”. Soft tissues like blood vessels should not be there if the bones were 65 million years old.
Right: These microscopic structures were able to be squeezed out of some of the blood vessels, and can be seen to “look like cells” as the researchers said. So once again there is scope for Dr Schweitzer to ask the same question, “How could these cells last for 65 million years?”

The reason that this possibility has long been overlooked seems obvious: the overriding belief in “millions of years”. The long-age paradigm (dominant belief system) blinded researchers to the possibility, as it were. It is inconceivable that such things should be preserved for (in this case) “70 million years”.

Will they now be convinced?

Unfortunately, the long-age paradigm is so dominant that facts alone will not readily overturn it. As philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn pointed out,5 what generally happens when a discovery contradicts a paradigm is that the paradigm is not discarded but modified, usually by making secondary assumptions, to accommodate the new evidence.

That’s just what appears to have happened in this case. When Schweitzer first found what appeared to be blood cells in a T. Rex specimen, she said, “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’”6 Notice that her first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm. That is in a way quite understandable and human, and is how science works in reality (though when creationists do that, it’s caricatured as non-scientific).

So will this new evidence cause anyone to stand up and say there’s something funny about the emperor’s clothes? Not likely. Instead, it will almost certainly become an “accepted” phenomenon that even “stretchy” soft tissues must be somehow capable of surviving for millions of years. (Because, after all, we “know” that this specimen is “70 million years old”.) See how it works?

Schweitzer’s mentor, the famous “Dinosaur Jack” Horner (upon whom Sam Neill’s lead character in the Jurassic Park movies was modeled) is already urging museums to consider cracking open some of the bones in their existing dinosaur fossils in the hope of finding more such “Squishosaurus” remains. He is excited about the potential to learn more about dinosaurs, of course. But—nothing about questioning the millions of years—sigh!

I invite the reader to step back and contemplate the obvious. This discovery gives immensely powerful support to the proposition that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most.7


The Day Men Saw Dinosaurs

The co-occurrence of men and dinosaur would dispel an Earth with vast antiquity. The entire history of creation, including the day of rest, could be accommodated in the seven biblical days of the Genesis myth. Evolution would be vanquished.  (Louis Jacobs, 1993: 261, Former President of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology)

There are carvings and figurines from around the world that show that the artists must have seen a living dinosaur from time to time.

Natural Bridges National Park, Utah, The park literature attributes the petroglyphs to the Anasazi who inhabited the area from approximately 400 A.D. to 1300 A.D..  (Courtesy of Dr. Don Patton www.bible.ca)

Acambaro, Mexico Figurines

In 1945, Waldemar Julsrud, discovered a collection of 20,000 or more ceramic figurines in the village of Acambaro (a few hundred miles from Guadalajara), Mexico which, unlike the Ica Stones, can be dated easily and with a fair amount of accuracy since they are made of clay.  The figurines ( See Picture 8 ) most likely originated from the Chupicauro civilization that flourished from approximately 500 B.C. to 500 A.D..  This amazing collection contains at least 23 known types of dinosaurs and others that are still unknown.

Because thousands of figurines strongly suggest that ancient man actually saw living dinosaurs, the discovery was quickly claimed to be a hoax.  Dr. Swift notes the measures taken to determine conclusively that the figurines were not a hoax as claimed, but are in fact authentic:

In 1955 Charles Hapgood, respected Professor of Anthropology at the University of New Hampshire, conducted an elaborate investigation including extensive radiometric dating. He was accompanied by Earl Stanley Gardner, former District Attorney of the city of Los Angeles, California and the creator of Perry Mason. They falsified the claim that Julsrud manufactured the figurines, by excavating under the house of the Chief of Police, which was built 25 years before Julsrud arrived in Mexico. Forty three more examples of the same type were found. Three radiocarbon tests were performed by Isotopes Incorporated of New Jersey resulting in dates of 1640 B.C., 4530 B.C. and 1110 B.C.. Eighteen samples were subjected to thermo luminescent testing by the University of Pennsylvania,all of which gave dates of approximately 2500 B.C.. These results were subsequently withdrawn when it was learned that some of the samples were from dinosaurs. (Swift 2006, emphasis mine)

Acambaro Dinosaur Figurine  (Courtesy of Dr. Don Patton www.bible.ca)

Carving in Cambodia

In January of 2006, Drs. Patton and Swift journeyed to Cambodia to the temple monastery, Ta Prohm.  The temple was built by Jayavarman VII in honor of his mother and dedicated in 1186 A.D. (See Picture 9 Temple Monastery Ta Prohm).  The walls of the monastery were decorated with hundreds of all kinds of animals, one of which was a creature that closely resembles a stegosaurus.  Drs. Patton and Swift note that the likeness of a stegosaurus has also been observed by two magazines.  One of the magazines states, “Along the vertical strip of roundels in the angle between the south wall of the porch and the east wall of the main body of the gopura there is even a very convincing representation of a stegosaur.” (Ancient Angor 1999) [iii]

Temple Monastery Ta Prohm (Courtesy of Dr. Don Patton www.bible.ca)

Stegosaurus-Looking Creature  (Courtesy of Dr. Don Patton www.bible.ca)

Three Possible Answers

Thus, we are left with essentially three possibilities regarding the evidence showing men and dinosaurs together.  The first is that man and dinosaurs actually lived together 65 (plus) million years ago.  This, of course, is unacceptable to the evolutionary model and is obviously contradictory to the belief in a recent, literal, six-day creation.  The second possibility is that dinosaurs did not die out 65 million years ago, but rather continued until the time of early man one million years ago according to the evolutionary time scale.  The third is simply that man and dinosaurs lived together in the relatively near past (less than 10,000 years ago).  None of these options is very acceptable to evolutionists; but the evidence that men and dinosaurs coexisted is ample though it is only visible to those willing to see.

This selective vision caused by the evolutionary paradigm has prevented many people from reaching the conclusion that dinosaurs (etc.) did not die out millions and millions of years ago – in spite of continual discoveries of living species thought to have died out millions of years ago.  In 1938, a fish, the Coelacanth, which was believed to have died out with the dinosaurs, was discovered as still living.  Keith S. Thomson, Executive Officer, Academy of Natural Sciences states that:

Off the coast of southern Africa, in the winter of 1938, a fishing boat called The Nerine dragged from the Indian Ocean near the Chalumna River a fish thought to be extinct for 70 million years. The fish was a coelacanth, an animal that thrived concurrently with dinosaurs. (Thompson 1991 book cover, emphasis mine)

Thompson also notes concerning the Dawn Redwood that it was “thought to be extinct worldwide until living specimens were found in central China in 1945” (Thompson 1991: 72).

A similar example is in a 1994 article entitled: Newfound Pine Goes Back in Time – It was Believed to be Extinct.  The tree was thought to have been extinct for 100 million years.

David Noble was out on a holiday hike when he stepped off the beaten path and into the prehistoric age. Venturing into an isolated grove in a rain-forest preserve 125 miles from Sydney, the Parks and Wildlife Service officer suddenly found himself in a real-life ‘Jurassic Park’-standing amid trees thought to have disappeared 150 million years ago. “The discovery is the equivalent of finding a small dinosaur still alive on Earth,” said Carrick Chambers, director of the Royal Botanic Gardens.  “The biggest tree towers 180 feet with a 10-foot girth, indicating that it is at least 150 years old. The trees are covered in dense, waxy foliage and have a knobby bark that makes them look like they are coated with bubbly chocolate.”

Barbara Briggs, the botanic gardens’ scientific director, hailed the find as one of Australia’s most outstanding discoveries of the century […] “The closest relatives of the Wollemi Pines died out in the Jurassic Period, 190 million to 135 million years ago, and the Cretaceous Period, 140 million to 65 million years ago.” (Salt Lake City Tribune, December 15, 1994, p. A10, from Associated Press, emphasis mine)

All three examples are surprise discoveries merely because the billions of years of evolution are considered to be an established (and uncontestable) fact.  Fish and trees thought to have coexisted (and died out) with the dinosaurs have been found to still exist.  Perhaps there is so much surprise because the paradigm of when the dinosaurs lived and died out is wrong.  We saw that the Bible plainly talks about dinosaurs under names such as tanninim, behemoth, and Leviathan. According to the Bible, God created dinosaurs during the first six days along with man.  If we read the first six days in Genesis as literal days, we are not surprised by such discoveries; we anticipate them and are strengthened by them.  Furthermore men and dinosaurs carved on stones are not a problem, but a simple confirmation of what God has already revealed.

[i] See: http://www.skepdic.com/icastones.html and http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-07/hoaxes.html

[ii] The reader is encouraged to study Marvin Lubenow’s Bones of Contention as mentioned earlier as well as Jack Cuozzo’s Buried Alive (2003) to examine the evidence.

[iii] “Ancient Angkor was first published in Thailand in 1999 by River Books Ltd., Bangkok.” Pg. 144.  They also state: “The large, beautiful 320 page book, Angkor, Cities And Temples, by the same author and photographer, includes a half page picture of the stegosaur sculpture.” On page 213 the author describes it asan animal which bears a striking resemblance to a stegosaurus.” See bible.ca/tracks/dino-art.htm