WEBVTT 1 00:00:00.160 --> 00:00:03.919 Hello and welcome to my podcast. This is an audio 2 00:00:04.000 --> 00:00:06.719 version of my videos available to make listening to my 3 00:00:06.759 --> 00:00:10.000 stuff in the background easier than YouTube makes it. But 4 00:00:10.119 --> 00:00:13.640 since my videos are primarily made for YouTube, there may 5 00:00:13.679 --> 00:00:16.920 be occasional references to visual materials. If you'd like this 6 00:00:16.960 --> 00:00:19.519 podcast ad free, you can join us on Patreon app, 7 00:00:19.559 --> 00:00:22.839 Patreon dot com, slash Vice Rhino. Please enjoy. 8 00:00:23.280 --> 00:00:27.399 Hello and welcome to my channel Vice Rhino. Here today 9 00:00:27.480 --> 00:00:29.800 we're looking at a video from the Reasons for Hope channel. 10 00:00:29.920 --> 00:00:32.719 These are the guys who make overproduce fast paced debunking 11 00:00:32.799 --> 00:00:35.119 videos that seem to be designed to his few nonsense 12 00:00:35.119 --> 00:00:37.000 at you so fast that you don't have time to 13 00:00:37.000 --> 00:00:39.159 stop and think about what they're saying. And as they 14 00:00:39.159 --> 00:00:41.560 have started using AI tools in their videos, there has 15 00:00:41.600 --> 00:00:43.920 been a corresponding ramping up of the aspects that I 16 00:00:44.000 --> 00:00:47.320 call over produced. So this one is going to be painful, 17 00:00:47.439 --> 00:00:50.320 but probably not as painful as Gramp's worrying about whether 18 00:00:50.399 --> 00:00:53.000 or not having consensual sex one time gave him the aids. 19 00:00:53.520 --> 00:00:55.520 So yay, let's go. 20 00:01:02.799 --> 00:01:05.040 Hey yo, everybody, what's up, good, good good. Let's jump 21 00:01:05.079 --> 00:01:07.239 into the nonsense asap, because I hear this a lot, 22 00:01:07.280 --> 00:01:08.719 and I got to take it down d style. 23 00:01:09.040 --> 00:01:11.159 I don't think I've ever seen a video opening that 24 00:01:11.239 --> 00:01:13.840 had bigger how do you do, fellow kids energy than that. 25 00:01:14.640 --> 00:01:18.560 Here's the shoddy syllogism shot senselessly by silly saboteurs of soundness. 26 00:01:18.959 --> 00:01:23.159 The Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs, therefore they didn't live with humans. 27 00:01:23.359 --> 00:01:26.719 Therefore the Bible is wrong about everything. Two flawed premises, 28 00:01:26.920 --> 00:01:27.959 one dumb conclusion. 29 00:01:28.239 --> 00:01:31.959 I agree those are flawed premisses and a dumb conclusion. 30 00:01:32.200 --> 00:01:34.680 If anyone makes that argument, you would be correct in 31 00:01:34.719 --> 00:01:38.239 dismissing it offhand. There's lots wrong with that argument. Now, 32 00:01:38.280 --> 00:01:41.000 I would agree that the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs, even 33 00:01:41.000 --> 00:01:42.959 if we include the passages that. I'm sure he's going 34 00:01:42.959 --> 00:01:45.319 to claim our references to dinosaurs in a moment, So 35 00:01:45.480 --> 00:01:48.680 I am good with the first premise. But therefore they 36 00:01:48.680 --> 00:01:51.040 didn't live with humans, My dude, Whether or not the 37 00:01:51.040 --> 00:01:53.959 Bible mentions dinosaurs is a completely separate question from whether 38 00:01:54.000 --> 00:01:56.200 or not dinosaurs live with humans. This would be like 39 00:01:56.239 --> 00:01:59.159 saying there are no dinosaurs in Hamlet, therefore dinosaurs didn't 40 00:01:59.200 --> 00:02:02.560 live with humans. Thing is, there are plenty of organisms 41 00:02:02.560 --> 00:02:05.560 that humans live with that are not mentioned in I 42 00:02:05.599 --> 00:02:09.280 would wager most literary works. There are plenty of organisms 43 00:02:09.319 --> 00:02:11.680 that when extinct before humans came on the scene, that 44 00:02:11.759 --> 00:02:15.080 are also not mentioned in most literary works. And do 45 00:02:15.120 --> 00:02:17.960 you know what else, there are plenty of literary works 46 00:02:18.000 --> 00:02:21.560 that mention mythical creatures that never existed, or that place 47 00:02:21.639 --> 00:02:25.120 humans alongside creatures that definitely did not coexist with them. 48 00:02:25.639 --> 00:02:29.000 Because fiction is a thing that exists, no one who 49 00:02:29.039 --> 00:02:31.680 is aware that the non avian dinosaurs did not coexist 50 00:02:31.680 --> 00:02:34.599 with humans would ever give They're not mentioned in the 51 00:02:34.639 --> 00:02:37.680 Bible as the reason for that, and the Bible being 52 00:02:37.719 --> 00:02:41.039 silent on one specific category of organisms does not impact 53 00:02:41.039 --> 00:02:44.599 the Bible's reliability when it comes to anything. And while 54 00:02:44.639 --> 00:02:47.120 I have certainly seen atheists get all hyperbolic and say 55 00:02:47.120 --> 00:02:50.560 that the Bible is wrong about everything, I would be surprised, indeed, 56 00:02:50.560 --> 00:02:53.280 if their justification for that stance was simply its lack 57 00:02:53.319 --> 00:02:56.599 of reference to dinosaurs. But well, I would definitely argue 58 00:02:56.599 --> 00:02:58.520 that the Bible gets a lot wrong, there are at 59 00:02:58.599 --> 00:03:00.240 least a few things that it does get right right. 60 00:03:00.800 --> 00:03:04.039 Egypt exists, for instance. Ponsco's pilot was the governor of 61 00:03:04.039 --> 00:03:06.680 GDA for a time in the first century CE. For another. Hell, 62 00:03:06.759 --> 00:03:08.439 I'd even say that it got some of the moral 63 00:03:08.479 --> 00:03:10.960 stuff right, like when it says to be kind to immigrants. 64 00:03:11.400 --> 00:03:14.400 There's actually more versus commanding kindness to immigrants than there 65 00:03:14.439 --> 00:03:17.960 are condemning homosexuality. And yet somehow Christians today seem hell 66 00:03:18.000 --> 00:03:21.879 bent on oppressing the immigrants and hating LGBTQ people. But anyway, yeah, 67 00:03:21.960 --> 00:03:25.159 the Bible gets some things right, but it also gets 68 00:03:25.199 --> 00:03:27.800 a lot of things wrong. So while I would never 69 00:03:27.840 --> 00:03:31.199 say that it's wrong about everything, neither would I agree 70 00:03:31.240 --> 00:03:33.840 that it is right about everything. Turns out this isn't 71 00:03:33.840 --> 00:03:34.840 a black and white issue. 72 00:03:35.319 --> 00:03:38.400 Let's tear it up. Primous one, the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs. Well, 73 00:03:38.439 --> 00:03:40.479 first of all, it is true that the word dinosaur 74 00:03:40.520 --> 00:03:42.360 is not in the Bible. Well there you go, you 75 00:03:42.439 --> 00:03:44.560 cry case closed, Jack. 76 00:03:44.759 --> 00:03:46.400 Oh, please don't tell me. He is going to go 77 00:03:46.400 --> 00:03:48.639 for that thing where the word dinosaur wasn't coined until 78 00:03:48.639 --> 00:03:51.039 the eighteen hundred. So obviously we wouldn't expect to see 79 00:03:51.039 --> 00:03:53.319 it in a book that was written thousands of years ago. 80 00:03:53.719 --> 00:03:57.039 Because there is a huge glaring problem with that that 81 00:03:57.080 --> 00:04:00.879 I've never seen a creationist address what is that problem? Well, 82 00:04:01.080 --> 00:04:02.639 do you know what other words didn't exist when the 83 00:04:02.680 --> 00:04:06.439 Bible was written? Every single goddamn word in the English language. 84 00:04:06.840 --> 00:04:10.240 And yet somehow, through the magic of translation, we managed 85 00:04:10.240 --> 00:04:13.039 to figure out which modern English words are the equivalent 86 00:04:13.080 --> 00:04:16.040 of the ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Aramic ones of the Bible, 87 00:04:16.319 --> 00:04:19.800 and then use those ones instead of the originals. I 88 00:04:19.839 --> 00:04:23.160 think I just described the translation process. This means that 89 00:04:23.279 --> 00:04:26.240 if there were references to dinosaurs in the ancient languages, 90 00:04:26.439 --> 00:04:29.560 than any translation later than the eighteen forties would have 91 00:04:29.560 --> 00:04:32.680 been able to use the word dinosaur, because that would 92 00:04:32.680 --> 00:04:35.639 be the better translation than whatever words were being used 93 00:04:35.680 --> 00:04:37.000 up until that point. 94 00:04:37.240 --> 00:04:39.480 Easy, there, sir, and that's not my name. Anyway, we 95 00:04:39.519 --> 00:04:41.959 shouldn't expect to see that word in a non English 96 00:04:42.000 --> 00:04:44.240 Bible because dinosaur is an English word. 97 00:04:44.639 --> 00:04:47.399 Oh my god, your argument is even stupider than I thought. 98 00:04:48.079 --> 00:04:50.399 Are you really telling me that a main part of 99 00:04:50.439 --> 00:04:53.160 that objection is centered around the fact that an English 100 00:04:53.199 --> 00:04:57.240 word is not found in non English Bibles? Because nobody 101 00:04:57.319 --> 00:04:59.879 makes that argument. Your straw man is one of the 102 00:05:00.000 --> 00:05:03.839 the flimsiest I've ever seen. Seriously, I have seen many 103 00:05:03.879 --> 00:05:06.120 bad arguments on the atheist side of things, It would 104 00:05:06.120 --> 00:05:07.920 have been super easy for you to find one that 105 00:05:07.959 --> 00:05:11.480 someone is actually making and tear that one apart. I 106 00:05:11.519 --> 00:05:13.199 still would have called you out for not responding to 107 00:05:13.240 --> 00:05:15.279 good arguments, but at least then you would have been 108 00:05:15.319 --> 00:05:18.360 responding to real arguments. If I were to ever make 109 00:05:18.360 --> 00:05:20.439 a video responding to the idea that the devil put 110 00:05:20.480 --> 00:05:22.720 dinosaur fossils in the ground to trick us, then that 111 00:05:22.879 --> 00:05:24.879 is what I would be doing at that point, responding 112 00:05:24.879 --> 00:05:27.079 to a bad argument, and it would be a sad 113 00:05:27.160 --> 00:05:30.120 day for me. But somehow y'all managed to think even 114 00:05:30.199 --> 00:05:30.959 lower than that. 115 00:05:31.879 --> 00:05:35.480 Secondly, the English word wasn't invented until around eighteen forty one, 116 00:05:35.560 --> 00:05:38.000 so we should expect to see the word dinosaur and 117 00:05:38.079 --> 00:05:40.399 any English translation before that date either. 118 00:05:40.800 --> 00:05:43.199 Yeah, that's where I was expecting this to go. This 119 00:05:43.480 --> 00:05:46.199 is the more robust response, and it is foiled by 120 00:05:46.199 --> 00:05:48.199 the fact that most translations of the Bible that are 121 00:05:48.199 --> 00:05:51.800 in use today were produced later than eighteen forty one. 122 00:05:52.120 --> 00:05:54.759 So if there were an ancient Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic 123 00:05:54.800 --> 00:05:58.000 word that would be best translated as dinosaur, it is 124 00:05:58.040 --> 00:06:03.000 not unreasonable to expect translators to translate it that way, the. 125 00:06:02.959 --> 00:06:05.959 Popular King James version was produced around sixteen eleven, some 126 00:06:06.079 --> 00:06:08.959 two hundred years before the word dinosaur existed, So we 127 00:06:09.000 --> 00:06:11.240 certainly can't expect a word to appear in a Bible 128 00:06:11.279 --> 00:06:12.800 before the word exists, right. 129 00:06:13.000 --> 00:06:16.160 Right, Which is why you'll notice that in my responses 130 00:06:16.199 --> 00:06:18.480 here I have been focusing on the fact that most 131 00:06:18.519 --> 00:06:22.480 translation of the Bible happened after eighteen forty one. But 132 00:06:22.519 --> 00:06:26.079 do you know it is in the King James translation unicorns. 133 00:06:26.360 --> 00:06:29.319 The word unicorn occurs nine times in the King James, 134 00:06:29.639 --> 00:06:32.519 but in the more modern translations like NIV and ESV, 135 00:06:32.879 --> 00:06:36.360 those verses render the same word as wild ox. Now 136 00:06:36.600 --> 00:06:38.720 are you going to use the King James translation to 137 00:06:38.800 --> 00:06:42.160 argue for the existence of unicorns because it mentions them? 138 00:06:42.319 --> 00:06:43.920 Or is this maybe an instance of where an old 139 00:06:43.920 --> 00:06:48.040 translation wasn't entirely accurate and so was corrected in later translations. 140 00:06:48.399 --> 00:06:50.759 So if this could happen for the wild ox, why 141 00:06:50.759 --> 00:06:53.879 could it not happen for dinosaurs? I mean, the obvious 142 00:06:53.920 --> 00:06:56.199 and correct answer here is that when the Bible says 143 00:06:56.240 --> 00:06:58.720 God is as strong as a unicorn, he's comparing himself 144 00:06:58.720 --> 00:07:01.759 to gay unicorn Gary, because no being has greater strength 145 00:07:01.800 --> 00:07:02.279 than gary. 146 00:07:03.279 --> 00:07:05.920 Right, so right, the word dinosaur per se isn't in 147 00:07:05.959 --> 00:07:08.319 the Bible, But that doesn't mean there aren't words or 148 00:07:08.399 --> 00:07:10.360 versus in the Bible that describe dinosaurs. 149 00:07:10.439 --> 00:07:13.199 The problem is those descriptions often come with words that 150 00:07:13.279 --> 00:07:15.480 are the name of the creature they are describing. So 151 00:07:15.600 --> 00:07:18.199 if they were actually agreed by the linguist and scholars 152 00:07:18.199 --> 00:07:20.120 who translate the Bible to be a description of the 153 00:07:20.120 --> 00:07:22.800 concept of a dinosaur in general or a specific dinosaur 154 00:07:22.839 --> 00:07:25.800 in particular, then the linguists and scholars would use the 155 00:07:25.839 --> 00:07:28.759 appropriate word there, but the words used to describe them 156 00:07:28.759 --> 00:07:32.439 in the Bible still to this day go untranslated. Behemoth 157 00:07:32.480 --> 00:07:35.160 comes from the Hebrew word Bihemah, and Leviathan comes from 158 00:07:35.199 --> 00:07:37.839 the Hebrew Livia ten. If they were meant to be 159 00:07:37.920 --> 00:07:41.519 specific animals that actually existed, rather than mythological ones akin 160 00:07:41.560 --> 00:07:44.399 to centaurs and manticors, then translators would be able to 161 00:07:44.519 --> 00:07:48.480 use the names of those specific animals. Now, admittedly, translation 162 00:07:48.560 --> 00:07:50.879 can often be a difficult process, so there is sometimes 163 00:07:50.959 --> 00:07:54.560 disagreement about which specific animal is being discussed. For instance, 164 00:07:54.560 --> 00:07:56.720 there are a couple of translations for which the unicorn 165 00:07:56.720 --> 00:07:59.560 of the King James is a rhinoceros. But the fact 166 00:07:59.560 --> 00:08:02.560 that no has ever made a serious effort at translating 167 00:08:02.560 --> 00:08:05.920 behemoth as dinosaur or sauropod kind of speaks of how 168 00:08:05.920 --> 00:08:07.839 little evidence there is for such an interpretation. 169 00:08:08.560 --> 00:08:11.879 In fact, I shall bring three to thine attention. Word. 170 00:08:12.079 --> 00:08:16.680 Oh no, the Hebrew word tanin he he translated dragon, jackal, serpent, whale, 171 00:08:16.720 --> 00:08:19.199 or even more broadly, as a marine or land monster, 172 00:08:19.439 --> 00:08:22.079 depending on the context, and it appears twenty eight times 173 00:08:22.120 --> 00:08:24.360 in the King James Bible in various forms. 174 00:08:24.759 --> 00:08:26.639 Notice that none of those words that it can be 175 00:08:26.680 --> 00:08:28.879 translated as is the word dinosaur. 176 00:08:29.360 --> 00:08:33.120 Weird word shitayam, which means two in Hebrew, is the 177 00:08:33.159 --> 00:08:34.200 word that hemoth. 178 00:08:34.639 --> 00:08:37.080 You know, they really should decide between trying to be 179 00:08:37.159 --> 00:08:39.039 clever and trying to go so fast you don't have 180 00:08:39.080 --> 00:08:41.440 time to think. I was very confused for a moment 181 00:08:41.480 --> 00:08:43.559 about their use of the Hebrew word for the number two. 182 00:08:44.080 --> 00:08:46.000 Is there a context in which it could be considered 183 00:08:46.000 --> 00:08:48.799 a dinosaur or a monster of some kind? No, of 184 00:08:48.840 --> 00:08:50.799 course not. They were just trying to be clever. But 185 00:08:50.879 --> 00:08:52.840 they were going so fast that you were primed to 186 00:08:52.879 --> 00:08:55.320 expect the next Hebrew word to be you know, the 187 00:08:55.360 --> 00:08:57.679 next Hebrew word they wanted to discuss, rather than just 188 00:08:57.720 --> 00:08:58.559 the number two. 189 00:08:59.159 --> 00:09:03.279 Which in English is the word behemoth, literally meaning great beast, 190 00:09:03.399 --> 00:09:05.600 appearing only once in the Bible in Job forty. 191 00:09:05.759 --> 00:09:09.360 And again, notice how neither behemoth or great beast is 192 00:09:09.399 --> 00:09:10.360 the word dinosaur. 193 00:09:10.919 --> 00:09:13.679 He described as being an herbivore with a tail like 194 00:09:13.720 --> 00:09:14.720 a cedar tree. 195 00:09:15.039 --> 00:09:17.480 He just flies past this part, because of course he does. 196 00:09:17.720 --> 00:09:19.200 But I do feel the need to point out any 197 00:09:19.200 --> 00:09:21.039 time we're dealing with this verse that it does not 198 00:09:21.120 --> 00:09:23.919 describe him as having a tail like a cedar tree. 199 00:09:23.960 --> 00:09:26.559 It describes him as having a tail that he moves 200 00:09:26.759 --> 00:09:29.000 or makes stiff, like a cedar tree. And given that 201 00:09:29.039 --> 00:09:30.759 the second half of that verse is talking about the 202 00:09:30.799 --> 00:09:34.240 sinews of his stones, it makes it quite clear that 203 00:09:34.399 --> 00:09:38.320 cedar tree here is a euphemism for he's got massive 204 00:09:38.440 --> 00:09:40.799 balls and a that gets as stiff as a tree. 205 00:09:41.559 --> 00:09:42.639 Bones like iron. 206 00:09:42.840 --> 00:09:46.000 He's got bones like iron, except one of the reasons 207 00:09:46.000 --> 00:09:48.399 soropods could get as big as they did was because 208 00:09:48.440 --> 00:09:51.240 their bones were less dense than those of typical land animals. 209 00:09:51.480 --> 00:09:55.399 So this is not about soropods. Now, I'd actually be 210 00:09:55.440 --> 00:09:57.840 willing to be charitable at this point if he quoted 211 00:09:57.840 --> 00:10:00.480 it correctly, because, as it happens, the the verse about 212 00:10:00.480 --> 00:10:02.960 its bones is actually that his bones are tubes of 213 00:10:03.000 --> 00:10:05.720 bronze and his limbs are bars of iron. If you 214 00:10:05.799 --> 00:10:08.000 left the tubes of bronze bit in, I would be 215 00:10:08.000 --> 00:10:10.960 happy to concede that. Should Behemoth actually be a sauropod, 216 00:10:11.240 --> 00:10:14.159 that could be a metaphor for having hollow bones. And 217 00:10:14.279 --> 00:10:17.120 while the bones aren't hollow in the tube sense, they 218 00:10:17.120 --> 00:10:20.080 are frequently said to be hollow when speaking colloquially. But 219 00:10:20.200 --> 00:10:22.080 since you just said it's bones are like iron, I 220 00:10:22.120 --> 00:10:23.879 get to put a mark in the definitely not a 221 00:10:23.879 --> 00:10:25.320 sauropod column. 222 00:10:25.559 --> 00:10:29.440 Undaunted by rushing water and lying down under shady trees. 223 00:10:29.879 --> 00:10:32.559 Research has shown that sauropods, due to the aforementioned low 224 00:10:32.559 --> 00:10:35.279 bone density, would actually have been quite buoyant and as 225 00:10:35.320 --> 00:10:38.200 a result, would have been incredibly unstable in water, making 226 00:10:38.200 --> 00:10:41.000 the verses about him being totally chill in turbulent water 227 00:10:41.159 --> 00:10:44.240 rather questionable. For the shady trees, it is specifically talking 228 00:10:44.240 --> 00:10:47.279 about trees in a marshy area. Most translations render them 229 00:10:47.360 --> 00:10:49.360 lotus trees, but this is another one of those We're 230 00:10:49.360 --> 00:10:52.039 not entirely sure which species they meant words, but it 231 00:10:52.080 --> 00:10:54.120 does tend to paint a picture of hanging about in 232 00:10:54.200 --> 00:10:57.799 the reeds of a marsh by, you know, using those words, 233 00:10:58.080 --> 00:10:59.840 and that doesn't really match up with what we know 234 00:10:59.840 --> 00:11:03.399 of behavior. But there's another problem here. We're at the 235 00:11:03.519 --> 00:11:06.840 end of their description. Every creationist I have ever seen 236 00:11:06.919 --> 00:11:09.480 talk about this passage is convinced that it is a 237 00:11:09.519 --> 00:11:13.200 sauropod dinosaur. But did you notice anything missing from the description. 238 00:11:13.919 --> 00:11:16.200 What is the literal first thing you think of when 239 00:11:16.240 --> 00:11:18.600 you think of a sauropod For most of you, I'd 240 00:11:18.600 --> 00:11:21.200 be willing to wager it's the incredibly long necks that 241 00:11:21.240 --> 00:11:24.000 they had. It is such a prominent feature that they 242 00:11:24.000 --> 00:11:27.720 are frequently just called long neck dinosaurs. Are you telling 243 00:11:27.759 --> 00:11:30.159 me that the author of job spent all that time 244 00:11:30.240 --> 00:11:32.879 talking about it's cockin balls, its bone density, and preferred 245 00:11:32.960 --> 00:11:35.600 tree to nap under, but it never occurred to him 246 00:11:35.600 --> 00:11:38.080 to even mention that it's got a freakishly long neck. 247 00:11:38.519 --> 00:11:38.720 Yeah. 248 00:11:38.720 --> 00:11:40.879 I suppose this is an argument from silence, but I 249 00:11:40.879 --> 00:11:42.960 feel like it's a pretty freaking valid one given what 250 00:11:43.000 --> 00:11:43.919 we're talking about here. 251 00:11:44.639 --> 00:11:50.720 The finally word TWA is this Hebrew word olivio, which 252 00:11:50.799 --> 00:11:54.120 in English is Leviatha appearing as such five times in 253 00:11:54.159 --> 00:11:54.519 the Bible. 254 00:11:54.840 --> 00:11:56.360 Who I'm just gonna head the pedants off at the 255 00:11:56.360 --> 00:11:58.840 pass here, I am aware that there were no fully 256 00:11:58.879 --> 00:12:01.519 aquatic dinosaurs piece, and that he is probably about to 257 00:12:01.639 --> 00:12:04.639 erroneously refer to something like a mososaur or an ichtheosaur 258 00:12:04.919 --> 00:12:07.279 using the word dinosaur, and I am not going to 259 00:12:07.279 --> 00:12:07.759 correct it. 260 00:12:07.919 --> 00:12:12.679 Aside from here, it's basically as a Reith's animal megas, serpent, crocodile, 261 00:12:12.919 --> 00:12:15.320 or some sort of large sea or inthebius creature. 262 00:12:15.639 --> 00:12:18.600 Fun fact about Leviathan, it is pretty explicitly the Hebrew 263 00:12:18.679 --> 00:12:20.879 version of the ugri atic sea monster Low ten that 264 00:12:21.000 --> 00:12:23.639 was defeated by the Canaanite storm god in the Baal cycle. 265 00:12:23.759 --> 00:12:26.600 What's more, in ancient Near Eastern cultures, it was fairly 266 00:12:26.600 --> 00:12:28.759 common for them to borrow stories from each other and 267 00:12:28.879 --> 00:12:32.039 swap their god's names in where appropriate. Often this would 268 00:12:32.080 --> 00:12:34.320 take the form of their god fighting a watery deity 269 00:12:34.360 --> 00:12:36.799 for supremacy. In a creation myth, the creation of the 270 00:12:36.799 --> 00:12:39.399 world comes about from the supreme God exerting his power 271 00:12:39.440 --> 00:12:41.159 over the watery god, who takes the form of a 272 00:12:41.159 --> 00:12:43.799 sea monster, and we see this motif continued in the 273 00:12:43.799 --> 00:12:47.159 biblical mentions of Leviathan. Psalm seventy four, for instance, talks 274 00:12:47.159 --> 00:12:50.039 about God defeating Leviathan while clearly alluding to the Hebrew 275 00:12:50.080 --> 00:12:53.279 creation myth when talking about establishing the heavenly lights, making 276 00:12:53.279 --> 00:12:55.519 summer and winter, and fixing the boundaries of the earth. 277 00:12:55.840 --> 00:12:58.559 We even see further development of this motif in Genesis 278 00:12:58.600 --> 00:13:00.919 one two the earth is within out form and void, 279 00:13:00.960 --> 00:13:04.039 with only water. Other potential translations here are the formless 280 00:13:04.039 --> 00:13:07.000 waste or chaos, and the word translated as without form, 281 00:13:07.120 --> 00:13:09.840 formless waste or chaos is one that has a potential 282 00:13:09.879 --> 00:13:13.559 etymological connection with Tiamot, the Mesopotamian sea goddess who gave 283 00:13:13.559 --> 00:13:16.559 birth to the other Mesopotamian deities, meaning that the opening 284 00:13:16.639 --> 00:13:19.279 verses of the Bible are a continuation of the Canonite 285 00:13:19.279 --> 00:13:22.480 practice of having your god defeating another culture's god in 286 00:13:22.519 --> 00:13:25.360 a battle where the defeated God is represented by the sea. 287 00:13:25.480 --> 00:13:27.120 I'll eve a link to a conversation I had with 288 00:13:27.120 --> 00:13:29.879 a Syriologist, doctor Joshua Bowen, that goes over this connection 289 00:13:29.919 --> 00:13:32.320 in a bit more detail if you're interested. But given 290 00:13:32.399 --> 00:13:36.440 this cultural and historical context, it seems extremely unlikely to 291 00:13:36.480 --> 00:13:39.679 me that Leviathan is actually supposed to represent a real 292 00:13:39.799 --> 00:13:42.320 animal of some kind. It's just a representation of the 293 00:13:42.360 --> 00:13:44.919 primary god of a different religion, with the Hebrew God 294 00:13:44.919 --> 00:13:46.279 asserting dominance over it. 295 00:13:47.080 --> 00:13:49.799 Job forty one described it as a large sea creature, 296 00:13:49.840 --> 00:13:53.399 perhaps an amphibious one with scales. It shoots fire from 297 00:13:53.399 --> 00:13:56.240 the class of smoke from its nostrils, and is really 298 00:13:56.279 --> 00:13:58.120 really tough to capture or overcome. 299 00:13:58.519 --> 00:14:01.759 I feel like it breathes is a pretty good indicator 300 00:14:01.759 --> 00:14:04.240 that it is entirely mythical, as there has never been 301 00:14:04.320 --> 00:14:06.919 any animal known to do that. If you want me 302 00:14:06.960 --> 00:14:09.159 to take the idea that it was a real creature seriously, 303 00:14:09.519 --> 00:14:12.279 best avoid the obviously untrue bits now. 304 00:14:12.440 --> 00:14:14.279 Even if some of the words in some of the 305 00:14:14.320 --> 00:14:17.600 passages are meant to be poetic, hyperbolic, or even used 306 00:14:17.639 --> 00:14:21.080 to describe mythical monsters that convey God's sovereign power, they 307 00:14:21.159 --> 00:14:23.679 no doubt sound a lot like what I and most 308 00:14:23.720 --> 00:14:25.519 people would call a dinosaur. 309 00:14:25.879 --> 00:14:29.519 Breathes fire and hides in marshy reeds aren't exactly the 310 00:14:29.519 --> 00:14:31.960 first things I think of when you say dinosaur. Even 311 00:14:32.000 --> 00:14:34.720 with your carefully cherry picked bits of the descriptions it 312 00:14:34.720 --> 00:14:37.399 doesn't shout dinosaur to me at all. If they had 313 00:14:37.399 --> 00:14:39.799 to be real creatures, Bohemus sounds like a hippo, and 314 00:14:39.919 --> 00:14:41.440 Leviathan sounds like a crocodile. 315 00:14:42.000 --> 00:14:44.720 Anyway, point is, there are words, in fact, verses and 316 00:14:44.799 --> 00:14:48.039 chapters in the Bible that describe what certainly could be dinosaurs, 317 00:14:48.080 --> 00:14:49.960 even if they don't use that exact word. 318 00:14:50.200 --> 00:14:53.399 Unfortunately, for your case here, those descriptions are much better 319 00:14:53.440 --> 00:14:57.360 suited to non dinosaur animals that currently exist alongside humans. 320 00:14:57.960 --> 00:15:00.399 And now it's time to pummel primise too before they 321 00:15:00.399 --> 00:15:01.399 didn't live with humans. 322 00:15:01.840 --> 00:15:04.519 Yeah, No, the conclusion they didn't live with us is 323 00:15:04.559 --> 00:15:06.360 not based on the fact that they weren't mentioned in 324 00:15:06.399 --> 00:15:08.399 the Bible. It's based on the fact that no hint 325 00:15:08.440 --> 00:15:11.000 of such creatures existing later than about sixty five million 326 00:15:11.039 --> 00:15:12.879 years ago has ever been found. 327 00:15:13.600 --> 00:15:16.559 Well, even if dinosaurs aren't mentioned, it doesn't follow that 328 00:15:16.600 --> 00:15:19.000 they didn't exist or didn't live among humans. 329 00:15:19.639 --> 00:15:22.919 Wait, are you seriously lumping dinosaurs didn't live with humans 330 00:15:23.039 --> 00:15:26.639 in with dinosaurs didn't even exist. One of those is 331 00:15:26.720 --> 00:15:29.159 a lot more ridiculous than the other, but I do 332 00:15:29.240 --> 00:15:31.879 appreciate you using blatantly dishonest tactics to try and make 333 00:15:31.879 --> 00:15:34.960 your position look reasonable by comparison, because if you have 334 00:15:35.000 --> 00:15:37.000 to do that in order to look like you're winning, 335 00:15:37.320 --> 00:15:39.720 it is a tacit admission that you not only lost, 336 00:15:39.960 --> 00:15:42.200 you know that you lost and are trying to hide it. 337 00:15:42.519 --> 00:15:44.720 If you had won, you'd be able to steal man 338 00:15:44.759 --> 00:15:47.200 the we didn't live with dinosaurs position and still come 339 00:15:47.240 --> 00:15:49.120 out on top. So the fact that you had to 340 00:15:49.159 --> 00:15:52.240 weaken the position as drastically as you did says more 341 00:15:52.320 --> 00:15:53.320 than I ever could. 342 00:15:54.080 --> 00:15:57.559 Lack of mention doesn't equal lack of existence or presence. 343 00:15:57.679 --> 00:16:01.159 Correct, but lack of mention LUs all of the evidence 344 00:16:01.159 --> 00:16:02.879 that they lived millions of years ago, and when extinct 345 00:16:02.879 --> 00:16:06.559 shortly after the chicksaloub impact does equate to lack of presence. 346 00:16:06.799 --> 00:16:09.200 Combine that with the fact that, even by your own admission, 347 00:16:09.200 --> 00:16:11.200 the creatures that you claim were dinosaurs in the Bible 348 00:16:11.399 --> 00:16:14.279 could have just been mythological beats or hyperbolic language. And 349 00:16:14.320 --> 00:16:17.639 we have zero reasonablieve that dinosaurs ever co existed with humans, 350 00:16:17.799 --> 00:16:19.960 and zero reasonab believe that any of the authors of 351 00:16:20.000 --> 00:16:22.000 the Bible were even aware of dinosaurs. 352 00:16:22.480 --> 00:16:24.639 There's all kinds of things that books don't mention that 353 00:16:24.720 --> 00:16:27.600 exist doesn't mean the book is somehow flawed. True. 354 00:16:27.879 --> 00:16:30.639 But when creationists claim that The Flintstones is a documentary 355 00:16:30.720 --> 00:16:33.039 and the only evidence they have supporting their claim is 356 00:16:33.080 --> 00:16:35.840 the presence of dinosaurs in the Bible, then their absence 357 00:16:35.919 --> 00:16:37.720 can be used to dismiss that claim. 358 00:16:38.080 --> 00:16:41.120 Look, scripture is clear. Genesis won twenty through twenty six 359 00:16:41.159 --> 00:16:44.360 declares that sea and land creatures, which would have included dinosaurs, 360 00:16:44.360 --> 00:16:47.039 were created on days five and six, respectively. 361 00:16:47.519 --> 00:16:49.600 Yeah, but the Bible also says that the earth is 362 00:16:49.639 --> 00:16:51.120 flat and the stars can fall out of the sky. 363 00:16:51.240 --> 00:16:53.240 So forgive me for not taking it seriously. 364 00:16:54.000 --> 00:16:56.080 And this means they were alive at the same time 365 00:16:56.120 --> 00:16:58.759 since man was created on day six. Whoa, whoa, Well 366 00:16:58.799 --> 00:17:01.480 they double up the numb a dow them back to reality. 367 00:17:01.639 --> 00:17:03.879 Don't you watch a Discovery channel? Don't you know that 368 00:17:03.919 --> 00:17:06.759 all the dinosaurs went extinct millions and millions of years ago? 369 00:17:07.160 --> 00:17:11.200 Correct? They did ergo a literal interpretation of the Genesis 370 00:17:11.200 --> 00:17:12.759 creation myth is impossible? 371 00:17:13.400 --> 00:17:15.440 No, they didn't. Not according to God's word. 372 00:17:16.000 --> 00:17:18.480 Well, if God's word says the thing that is wrong, 373 00:17:18.759 --> 00:17:21.119 then God's word is wrong, and thus either it isn't 374 00:17:21.119 --> 00:17:23.839 God's word or else the god responsible for it doesn't 375 00:17:23.839 --> 00:17:24.799 care about accuracy. 376 00:17:25.480 --> 00:17:27.799 Not according to some of the scientific data, namely the 377 00:17:27.839 --> 00:17:32.000 discovery of soft tissue including red blood cells in dinosaur finds. 378 00:17:32.400 --> 00:17:35.720 They didn't find actual red blood cells. They found microscopic 379 00:17:35.720 --> 00:17:38.839 structures that were morphologically similar to red blood cells in 380 00:17:38.880 --> 00:17:41.599 the most protected portions of the fossils. After all the 381 00:17:41.640 --> 00:17:44.240 non soft bits were dissolved in an acid bath. This 382 00:17:44.400 --> 00:17:47.519 is important to know because creationists often present this discovery 383 00:17:47.519 --> 00:17:49.400 as though you could find a fossil out in the wild, 384 00:17:49.519 --> 00:17:51.559 crack it in half, and it would still be sticky 385 00:17:51.559 --> 00:17:54.559 with blood. In reality, the amount of soft tissue that 386 00:17:54.599 --> 00:17:57.480 survived is minuscule, and the reason they harp on about 387 00:17:57.480 --> 00:17:59.960 soft tissue is to support the idea that all fossils 388 00:18:00.079 --> 00:18:02.400 performed a nose flood just over four thousand years ago. 389 00:18:02.759 --> 00:18:05.480 If that were the case, then we would expect to 390 00:18:05.480 --> 00:18:08.680 find large quantities of soft tissues in just about any fossil. 391 00:18:08.839 --> 00:18:11.319 But we don't, so they have to misrepresent what we 392 00:18:11.400 --> 00:18:13.480 do find in order to make people think that we do. 393 00:18:14.400 --> 00:18:16.680 It couldn't possibly be there if they were sixty five 394 00:18:16.680 --> 00:18:17.400 million years old. 395 00:18:17.559 --> 00:18:19.519 I've already linked to the state of clearly video that 396 00:18:19.559 --> 00:18:21.720 goes over the story of the initial soft tissue find 397 00:18:21.759 --> 00:18:23.720 in a little more detail, So go give that a 398 00:18:23.759 --> 00:18:26.079 watch if you're interested. But to paraphrase it a bit here, 399 00:18:26.359 --> 00:18:29.279 there were three options regarding the soft tissue. Option one 400 00:18:29.480 --> 00:18:32.359 is what creationists go for, the fossil was actually young. 401 00:18:32.480 --> 00:18:35.880