# If Dinosaurs Aren't In The Bible, THEY DIDN'T EXIST!!!

An episode of [Viced Rhino: The Podcast](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/1536972599), 5 Jun 2026, 22 min.

Audio: https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/api.spreaker.com/download/episode/72335230/pod_censored_dinosaurs_disprove_the_bible.mp3

Apparently, the people at Reasons for Hope think that "dinosaurs aren't in the bible, and humans did not coexist with them" is the same as saying "dinosaurs aren't in the bible, so they don't exist." Cards: Christian Filmmaker is BIG MAD: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3fcDCkN2Yg Interview: Dr. Josh of Digital Hammurabi on Genesis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7wdXS-1P6c Soft Tissue Found Inside a Dinosaur Bone!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSaOS7erEOk Original Video: https://tinyurl.com/2cp2mj2y Sources: Pneumatic Air-Filled Bones First Appeared in Sauropod Dinosaurs 225 Million Years Ago: Study: https://tinyurl.com/229aybe4 Tipsy punters: sauropod dinosaur pneumaticity, buoyancy and aquatic habits: https://tinyurl.com/2cuf2rgd Mechanisms of soft tissue and protein preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex: https://tinyurl.com/y3hk7uzm All my various links can be found here: http://links.vicedrhino.com This content is CAN credentialed, which means you can report instances of harassment, abuse, or other harm on their hotline at (617) 249-4255, or on their website at creatoraccountabilitynetwork.org Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/viced-rhino-the-podcast--4623273/support. All my various links can be found here: http://links.vicedrhino.com This content is CAN credentialed, which means you can report instances of harassment, abuse, or other harm on their hotline at (617) 249-4255, or on their website at creatoraccountabilitynetwork.org

## Transcript

[0:00] Speaker 1: Hello and welcome to my podcast. This is an audio
[0:04] Speaker 1: version of my videos available to make listening to my
[0:06] Speaker 1: stuff in the background easier than YouTube makes it. But
[0:10] Speaker 1: since my videos are primarily made for YouTube, there may
[0:13] Speaker 1: be occasional references to visual materials. If you'd like this
[0:16] Speaker 1: podcast ad free, you can join us on Patreon app,
[0:19] Speaker 1: Patreon dot com, slash Vice Rhino. Please enjoy.
[0:23] Speaker 2: Hello and welcome to my channel Vice Rhino. Here today
[0:27] Speaker 2: we're looking at a video from the Reasons for Hope channel.
[0:29] Speaker 2: These are the guys who make overproduce fast paced debunking
[0:32] Speaker 2: videos that seem to be designed to his few nonsense
[0:35] Speaker 2: at you so fast that you don't have time to
[0:37] Speaker 2: stop and think about what they're saying. And as they
[0:39] Speaker 2: have started using AI tools in their videos, there has
[0:41] Speaker 2: been a corresponding ramping up of the aspects that I
[0:44] Speaker 2: call over produced. So this one is going to be painful,
[0:47] Speaker 2: but probably not as painful as Gramp's worrying about whether
[0:50] Speaker 2: or not having consensual sex one time gave him the aids.
[0:53] Speaker 2: So yay, let's go.
[1:02] Speaker 3: Hey yo, everybody, what's up, good, good good. Let's jump
[1:05] Speaker 3: into the nonsense asap, because I hear this a lot,
[1:07] Speaker 3: and I got to take it down d style.
[1:09] Speaker 2: I don't think I've ever seen a video opening that
[1:11] Speaker 2: had bigger how do you do, fellow kids energy than that.
[1:14] Speaker 3: Here's the shoddy syllogism shot senselessly by silly saboteurs of soundness.
[1:18] Speaker 3: The Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs, therefore they didn't live with humans.
[1:23] Speaker 3: Therefore the Bible is wrong about everything. Two flawed premises,
[1:26] Speaker 3: one dumb conclusion.
[1:28] Speaker 2: I agree those are flawed premisses and a dumb conclusion.
[1:32] Speaker 2: If anyone makes that argument, you would be correct in
[1:34] Speaker 2: dismissing it offhand. There's lots wrong with that argument. Now,
[1:38] Speaker 2: I would agree that the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs, even
[1:41] Speaker 2: if we include the passages that. I'm sure he's going
[1:42] Speaker 2: to claim our references to dinosaurs in a moment, So
[1:45] Speaker 2: I am good with the first premise. But therefore they
[1:48] Speaker 2: didn't live with humans, My dude, Whether or not the
[1:51] Speaker 2: Bible mentions dinosaurs is a completely separate question from whether
[1:54] Speaker 2: or not dinosaurs live with humans. This would be like
[1:56] Speaker 2: saying there are no dinosaurs in Hamlet, therefore dinosaurs didn't
[1:59] Speaker 2: live with humans. Thing is, there are plenty of organisms
[2:02] Speaker 2: that humans live with that are not mentioned in I
[2:05] Speaker 2: would wager most literary works. There are plenty of organisms
[2:09] Speaker 2: that when extinct before humans came on the scene, that
[2:11] Speaker 2: are also not mentioned in most literary works. And do
[2:15] Speaker 2: you know what else, there are plenty of literary works
[2:18] Speaker 2: that mention mythical creatures that never existed, or that place
[2:21] Speaker 2: humans alongside creatures that definitely did not coexist with them.
[2:25] Speaker 2: Because fiction is a thing that exists, no one who
[2:29] Speaker 2: is aware that the non avian dinosaurs did not coexist
[2:31] Speaker 2: with humans would ever give They're not mentioned in the
[2:34] Speaker 2: Bible as the reason for that, and the Bible being
[2:37] Speaker 2: silent on one specific category of organisms does not impact
[2:41] Speaker 2: the Bible's reliability when it comes to anything. And while
[2:44] Speaker 2: I have certainly seen atheists get all hyperbolic and say
[2:47] Speaker 2: that the Bible is wrong about everything, I would be surprised, indeed,
[2:50] Speaker 2: if their justification for that stance was simply its lack
[2:53] Speaker 2: of reference to dinosaurs. But well, I would definitely argue
[2:56] Speaker 2: that the Bible gets a lot wrong, there are at
[2:58] Speaker 2: least a few things that it does get right right.
[3:00] Speaker 2: Egypt exists, for instance. Ponsco's pilot was the governor of
[3:04] Speaker 2: GDA for a time in the first century CE. For another. Hell,
[3:06] Speaker 2: I'd even say that it got some of the moral
[3:08] Speaker 2: stuff right, like when it says to be kind to immigrants.
[3:11] Speaker 2: There's actually more versus commanding kindness to immigrants than there
[3:14] Speaker 2: are condemning homosexuality. And yet somehow Christians today seem hell
[3:18] Speaker 2: bent on oppressing the immigrants and hating LGBTQ people. But anyway, yeah,
[3:21] Speaker 2: the Bible gets some things right, but it also gets
[3:25] Speaker 2: a lot of things wrong. So while I would never
[3:27] Speaker 2: say that it's wrong about everything, neither would I agree
[3:31] Speaker 2: that it is right about everything. Turns out this isn't
[3:33] Speaker 2: a black and white issue.
[3:35] Speaker 3: Let's tear it up. Primous one, the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs. Well,
[3:38] Speaker 3: first of all, it is true that the word dinosaur
[3:40] Speaker 3: is not in the Bible. Well there you go, you
[3:42] Speaker 3: cry case closed, Jack.
[3:44] Speaker 2: Oh, please don't tell me. He is going to go
[3:46] Speaker 2: for that thing where the word dinosaur wasn't coined until
[3:48] Speaker 2: the eighteen hundred. So obviously we wouldn't expect to see
[3:51] Speaker 2: it in a book that was written thousands of years ago.
[3:53] Speaker 2: Because there is a huge glaring problem with that that
[3:57] Speaker 2: I've never seen a creationist address what is that problem? Well,
[4:01] Speaker 2: do you know what other words didn't exist when the
[4:02] Speaker 2: Bible was written? Every single goddamn word in the English language.
[4:06] Speaker 2: And yet somehow, through the magic of translation, we managed
[4:10] Speaker 2: to figure out which modern English words are the equivalent
[4:13] Speaker 2: of the ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Aramic ones of the Bible,
[4:16] Speaker 2: and then use those ones instead of the originals. I
[4:19] Speaker 2: think I just described the translation process. This means that
[4:23] Speaker 2: if there were references to dinosaurs in the ancient languages,
[4:26] Speaker 2: than any translation later than the eighteen forties would have
[4:29] Speaker 2: been able to use the word dinosaur, because that would
[4:32] Speaker 2: be the better translation than whatever words were being used
[4:35] Speaker 2: up until that point.
[4:37] Speaker 3: Easy, there, sir, and that's not my name. Anyway, we
[4:39] Speaker 3: shouldn't expect to see that word in a non English
[4:42] Speaker 3: Bible because dinosaur is an English word.
[4:44] Speaker 2: Oh my god, your argument is even stupider than I thought.
[4:48] Speaker 2: Are you really telling me that a main part of
[4:50] Speaker 2: that objection is centered around the fact that an English
[4:53] Speaker 2: word is not found in non English Bibles? Because nobody
[4:57] Speaker 2: makes that argument. Your straw man is one of the
[5:00] Speaker 2: the flimsiest I've ever seen. Seriously, I have seen many
[5:03] Speaker 2: bad arguments on the atheist side of things, It would
[5:06] Speaker 2: have been super easy for you to find one that
[5:07] Speaker 2: someone is actually making and tear that one apart. I
[5:11] Speaker 2: still would have called you out for not responding to
[5:13] Speaker 2: good arguments, but at least then you would have been
[5:15] Speaker 2: responding to real arguments. If I were to ever make
[5:18] Speaker 2: a video responding to the idea that the devil put
[5:20] Speaker 2: dinosaur fossils in the ground to trick us, then that
[5:22] Speaker 2: is what I would be doing at that point, responding
[5:24] Speaker 2: to a bad argument, and it would be a sad
[5:27] Speaker 2: day for me. But somehow y'all managed to think even
[5:30] Speaker 2: lower than that.
[5:31] Speaker 3: Secondly, the English word wasn't invented until around eighteen forty one,
[5:35] Speaker 3: so we should expect to see the word dinosaur and
[5:38] Speaker 3: any English translation before that date either.
[5:40] Speaker 2: Yeah, that's where I was expecting this to go. This
[5:43] Speaker 2: is the more robust response, and it is foiled by
[5:46] Speaker 2: the fact that most translations of the Bible that are
[5:48] Speaker 2: in use today were produced later than eighteen forty one.
[5:52] Speaker 2: So if there were an ancient Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic
[5:54] Speaker 2: word that would be best translated as dinosaur, it is
[5:58] Speaker 2: not unreasonable to expect translators to translate it that way, the.
[6:02] Speaker 3: Popular King James version was produced around sixteen eleven, some
[6:06] Speaker 3: two hundred years before the word dinosaur existed, So we
[6:09] Speaker 3: certainly can't expect a word to appear in a Bible
[6:11] Speaker 3: before the word exists, right.
[6:13] Speaker 2: Right, Which is why you'll notice that in my responses
[6:16] Speaker 2: here I have been focusing on the fact that most
[6:18] Speaker 2: translation of the Bible happened after eighteen forty one. But
[6:22] Speaker 2: do you know it is in the King James translation unicorns.
[6:26] Speaker 2: The word unicorn occurs nine times in the King James,
[6:29] Speaker 2: but in the more modern translations like NIV and ESV,
[6:32] Speaker 2: those verses render the same word as wild ox. Now
[6:36] Speaker 2: are you going to use the King James translation to
[6:38] Speaker 2: argue for the existence of unicorns because it mentions them?
[6:42] Speaker 2: Or is this maybe an instance of where an old
[6:43] Speaker 2: translation wasn't entirely accurate and so was corrected in later translations.
[6:48] Speaker 2: So if this could happen for the wild ox, why
[6:50] Speaker 2: could it not happen for dinosaurs? I mean, the obvious
[6:53] Speaker 2: and correct answer here is that when the Bible says
[6:56] Speaker 2: God is as strong as a unicorn, he's comparing himself
[6:58] Speaker 2: to gay unicorn Gary, because no being has greater strength
[7:01] Speaker 2: than gary.
[7:03] Speaker 3: Right, so right, the word dinosaur per se isn't in
[7:05] Speaker 3: the Bible, But that doesn't mean there aren't words or
[7:08] Speaker 3: versus in the Bible that describe dinosaurs.
[7:10] Speaker 2: The problem is those descriptions often come with words that
[7:13] Speaker 2: are the name of the creature they are describing. So
[7:15] Speaker 2: if they were actually agreed by the linguist and scholars
[7:18] Speaker 2: who translate the Bible to be a description of the
[7:20] Speaker 2: concept of a dinosaur in general or a specific dinosaur
[7:22] Speaker 2: in particular, then the linguists and scholars would use the
[7:25] Speaker 2: appropriate word there, but the words used to describe them
[7:28] Speaker 2: in the Bible still to this day go untranslated. Behemoth
[7:32] Speaker 2: comes from the Hebrew word Bihemah, and Leviathan comes from
[7:35] Speaker 2: the Hebrew Livia ten. If they were meant to be
[7:37] Speaker 2: specific animals that actually existed, rather than mythological ones akin
[7:41] Speaker 2: to centaurs and manticors, then translators would be able to
[7:44] Speaker 2: use the names of those specific animals. Now, admittedly, translation
[7:48] Speaker 2: can often be a difficult process, so there is sometimes
[7:50] Speaker 2: disagreement about which specific animal is being discussed. For instance,
[7:54] Speaker 2: there are a couple of translations for which the unicorn
[7:56] Speaker 2: of the King James is a rhinoceros. But the fact
[7:59] Speaker 2: that no has ever made a serious effort at translating
[8:02] Speaker 2: behemoth as dinosaur or sauropod kind of speaks of how
[8:05] Speaker 2: little evidence there is for such an interpretation.
[8:08] Speaker 3: In fact, I shall bring three to thine attention. Word.
[8:12] Speaker 3: Oh no, the Hebrew word tanin he he translated dragon, jackal, serpent, whale,
[8:16] Speaker 3: or even more broadly, as a marine or land monster,
[8:19] Speaker 3: depending on the context, and it appears twenty eight times
[8:22] Speaker 3: in the King James Bible in various forms.
[8:24] Speaker 2: Notice that none of those words that it can be
[8:26] Speaker 2: translated as is the word dinosaur.
[8:29] Speaker 3: Weird word shitayam, which means two in Hebrew, is the
[8:33] Speaker 3: word that hemoth.
[8:34] Speaker 2: You know, they really should decide between trying to be
[8:37] Speaker 2: clever and trying to go so fast you don't have
[8:39] Speaker 2: time to think. I was very confused for a moment
[8:41] Speaker 2: about their use of the Hebrew word for the number two.
[8:44] Speaker 2: Is there a context in which it could be considered
[8:46] Speaker 2: a dinosaur or a monster of some kind? No, of
[8:48] Speaker 2: course not. They were just trying to be clever. But
[8:50] Speaker 2: they were going so fast that you were primed to
[8:52] Speaker 2: expect the next Hebrew word to be you know, the
[8:55] Speaker 2: next Hebrew word they wanted to discuss, rather than just
[8:57] Speaker 2: the number two.
[8:59] Speaker 3: Which in English is the word behemoth, literally meaning great beast,
[9:03] Speaker 3: appearing only once in the Bible in Job forty.
[9:05] Speaker 2: And again, notice how neither behemoth or great beast is
[9:09] Speaker 2: the word dinosaur.
[9:10] Speaker 3: He described as being an herbivore with a tail like
[9:13] Speaker 3: a cedar tree.
[9:15] Speaker 2: He just flies past this part, because of course he does.
[9:17] Speaker 2: But I do feel the need to point out any
[9:19] Speaker 2: time we're dealing with this verse that it does not
[9:21] Speaker 2: describe him as having a tail like a cedar tree.
[9:23] Speaker 2: It describes him as having a tail that he moves
[9:26] Speaker 2: or makes stiff, like a cedar tree. And given that
[9:29] Speaker 2: the second half of that verse is talking about the
[9:30] Speaker 2: sinews of his stones, it makes it quite clear that
[9:34] Speaker 2: cedar tree here is a euphemism for he's got massive
[9:38] Speaker 2: balls and a that gets as stiff as a tree.
[9:41] Speaker 3: Bones like iron.
[9:42] Speaker 2: He's got bones like iron, except one of the reasons
[9:46] Speaker 2: soropods could get as big as they did was because
[9:48] Speaker 2: their bones were less dense than those of typical land animals.
[9:51] Speaker 2: So this is not about soropods. Now, I'd actually be
[9:55] Speaker 2: willing to be charitable at this point if he quoted
[9:57] Speaker 2: it correctly, because, as it happens, the the verse about
[10:00] Speaker 2: its bones is actually that his bones are tubes of
[10:03] Speaker 2: bronze and his limbs are bars of iron. If you
[10:05] Speaker 2: left the tubes of bronze bit in, I would be
[10:08] Speaker 2: happy to concede that. Should Behemoth actually be a sauropod,
[10:11] Speaker 2: that could be a metaphor for having hollow bones. And
[10:14] Speaker 2: while the bones aren't hollow in the tube sense, they
[10:17] Speaker 2: are frequently said to be hollow when speaking colloquially. But
[10:20] Speaker 2: since you just said it's bones are like iron, I
[10:22] Speaker 2: get to put a mark in the definitely not a
[10:23] Speaker 2: sauropod column.
[10:25] Speaker 3: Undaunted by rushing water and lying down under shady trees.
[10:29] Speaker 2: Research has shown that sauropods, due to the aforementioned low
[10:32] Speaker 2: bone density, would actually have been quite buoyant and as
[10:35] Speaker 2: a result, would have been incredibly unstable in water, making
[10:38] Speaker 2: the verses about him being totally chill in turbulent water
[10:41] Speaker 2: rather questionable. For the shady trees, it is specifically talking
[10:44] Speaker 2: about trees in a marshy area. Most translations render them
[10:47] Speaker 2: lotus trees, but this is another one of those We're
[10:49] Speaker 2: not entirely sure which species they meant words, but it
[10:52] Speaker 2: does tend to paint a picture of hanging about in
[10:54] Speaker 2: the reeds of a marsh by, you know, using those words,
[10:58] Speaker 2: and that doesn't really match up with what we know
[10:59] Speaker 2: of behavior. But there's another problem here. We're at the
[11:03] Speaker 2: end of their description. Every creationist I have ever seen
[11:06] Speaker 2: talk about this passage is convinced that it is a
[11:09] Speaker 2: sauropod dinosaur. But did you notice anything missing from the description.
[11:13] Speaker 2: What is the literal first thing you think of when
[11:16] Speaker 2: you think of a sauropod For most of you, I'd
[11:18] Speaker 2: be willing to wager it's the incredibly long necks that
[11:21] Speaker 2: they had. It is such a prominent feature that they
[11:24] Speaker 2: are frequently just called long neck dinosaurs. Are you telling
[11:27] Speaker 2: me that the author of job spent all that time
[11:30] Speaker 2: talking about it's cockin balls, its bone density, and preferred
[11:32] Speaker 2: tree to nap under, but it never occurred to him
[11:35] Speaker 2: to even mention that it's got a freakishly long neck.
[11:38] Speaker 3: Yeah.
[11:38] Speaker 2: I suppose this is an argument from silence, but I
[11:40] Speaker 2: feel like it's a pretty freaking valid one given what
[11:43] Speaker 2: we're talking about here.
[11:44] Speaker 3: The finally word TWA is this Hebrew word olivio, which
[11:50] Speaker 3: in English is Leviatha appearing as such five times in
[11:54] Speaker 3: the Bible.
[11:54] Speaker 2: Who I'm just gonna head the pedants off at the
[11:56] Speaker 2: pass here, I am aware that there were no fully
[11:58] Speaker 2: aquatic dinosaurs piece, and that he is probably about to
[12:01] Speaker 2: erroneously refer to something like a mososaur or an ichtheosaur
[12:04] Speaker 2: using the word dinosaur, and I am not going to
[12:07] Speaker 2: correct it.
[12:07] Speaker 3: Aside from here, it's basically as a Reith's animal megas, serpent, crocodile,
[12:12] Speaker 3: or some sort of large sea or inthebius creature.
[12:15] Speaker 2: Fun fact about Leviathan, it is pretty explicitly the Hebrew
[12:18] Speaker 2: version of the ugri atic sea monster Low ten that
[12:21] Speaker 2: was defeated by the Canaanite storm god in the Baal cycle.
[12:23] Speaker 2: What's more, in ancient Near Eastern cultures, it was fairly
[12:26] Speaker 2: common for them to borrow stories from each other and
[12:28] Speaker 2: swap their god's names in where appropriate. Often this would
[12:32] Speaker 2: take the form of their god fighting a watery deity
[12:34] Speaker 2: for supremacy. In a creation myth, the creation of the
[12:36] Speaker 2: world comes about from the supreme God exerting his power
[12:39] Speaker 2: over the watery god, who takes the form of a
[12:41] Speaker 2: sea monster, and we see this motif continued in the
[12:43] Speaker 2: biblical mentions of Leviathan. Psalm seventy four, for instance, talks
[12:47] Speaker 2: about God defeating Leviathan while clearly alluding to the Hebrew
[12:50] Speaker 2: creation myth when talking about establishing the heavenly lights, making
[12:53] Speaker 2: summer and winter, and fixing the boundaries of the earth.
[12:55] Speaker 2: We even see further development of this motif in Genesis
[12:58] Speaker 2: one two the earth is within out form and void,
[13:00] Speaker 2: with only water. Other potential translations here are the formless
[13:04] Speaker 2: waste or chaos, and the word translated as without form,
[13:07] Speaker 2: formless waste or chaos is one that has a potential
[13:09] Speaker 2: etymological connection with Tiamot, the Mesopotamian sea goddess who gave
[13:13] Speaker 2: birth to the other Mesopotamian deities, meaning that the opening
[13:16] Speaker 2: verses of the Bible are a continuation of the Canonite
[13:19] Speaker 2: practice of having your god defeating another culture's god in
[13:22] Speaker 2: a battle where the defeated God is represented by the sea.
[13:25] Speaker 2: I'll eve a link to a conversation I had with
[13:27] Speaker 2: a Syriologist, doctor Joshua Bowen, that goes over this connection
[13:29] Speaker 2: in a bit more detail if you're interested. But given
[13:32] Speaker 2: this cultural and historical context, it seems extremely unlikely to
[13:36] Speaker 2: me that Leviathan is actually supposed to represent a real
[13:39] Speaker 2: animal of some kind. It's just a representation of the
[13:42] Speaker 2: primary god of a different religion, with the Hebrew God
[13:44] Speaker 2: asserting dominance over it.
[13:47] Speaker 3: Job forty one described it as a large sea creature,
[13:49] Speaker 3: perhaps an amphibious one with scales. It shoots fire from
[13:53] Speaker 3: the class of smoke from its nostrils, and is really
[13:56] Speaker 3: really tough to capture or overcome.
[13:58] Speaker 2: I feel like it breathes is a pretty good indicator
[14:01] Speaker 2: that it is entirely mythical, as there has never been
[14:04] Speaker 2: any animal known to do that. If you want me
[14:06] Speaker 2: to take the idea that it was a real creature seriously,
[14:09] Speaker 2: best avoid the obviously untrue bits now.
[14:12] Speaker 3: Even if some of the words in some of the
[14:14] Speaker 3: passages are meant to be poetic, hyperbolic, or even used
[14:17] Speaker 3: to describe mythical monsters that convey God's sovereign power, they
[14:21] Speaker 3: no doubt sound a lot like what I and most
[14:23] Speaker 3: people would call a dinosaur.
[14:25] Speaker 2: Breathes fire and hides in marshy reeds aren't exactly the
[14:29] Speaker 2: first things I think of when you say dinosaur. Even
[14:32] Speaker 2: with your carefully cherry picked bits of the descriptions it
[14:34] Speaker 2: doesn't shout dinosaur to me at all. If they had
[14:37] Speaker 2: to be real creatures, Bohemus sounds like a hippo, and
[14:39] Speaker 2: Leviathan sounds like a crocodile.
[14:42] Speaker 3: Anyway, point is, there are words, in fact, verses and
[14:44] Speaker 3: chapters in the Bible that describe what certainly could be dinosaurs,
[14:48] Speaker 3: even if they don't use that exact word.
[14:50] Speaker 2: Unfortunately, for your case here, those descriptions are much better
[14:53] Speaker 2: suited to non dinosaur animals that currently exist alongside humans.
[14:57] Speaker 3: And now it's time to pummel primise too before they
[15:00] Speaker 3: didn't live with humans.
[15:01] Speaker 2: Yeah, No, the conclusion they didn't live with us is
[15:04] Speaker 2: not based on the fact that they weren't mentioned in
[15:06] Speaker 2: the Bible. It's based on the fact that no hint
[15:08] Speaker 2: of such creatures existing later than about sixty five million
[15:11] Speaker 2: years ago has ever been found.
[15:13] Speaker 3: Well, even if dinosaurs aren't mentioned, it doesn't follow that
[15:16] Speaker 3: they didn't exist or didn't live among humans.
[15:19] Speaker 2: Wait, are you seriously lumping dinosaurs didn't live with humans
[15:23] Speaker 2: in with dinosaurs didn't even exist. One of those is
[15:26] Speaker 2: a lot more ridiculous than the other, but I do
[15:29] Speaker 2: appreciate you using blatantly dishonest tactics to try and make
[15:31] Speaker 2: your position look reasonable by comparison, because if you have
[15:35] Speaker 2: to do that in order to look like you're winning,
[15:37] Speaker 2: it is a tacit admission that you not only lost,
[15:39] Speaker 2: you know that you lost and are trying to hide it.
[15:42] Speaker 2: If you had won, you'd be able to steal man
[15:44] Speaker 2: the we didn't live with dinosaurs position and still come
[15:47] Speaker 2: out on top. So the fact that you had to
[15:49] Speaker 2: weaken the position as drastically as you did says more
[15:52] Speaker 2: than I ever could.
[15:54] Speaker 3: Lack of mention doesn't equal lack of existence or presence.
[15:57] Speaker 2: Correct, but lack of mention LUs all of the evidence
[16:01] Speaker 2: that they lived millions of years ago, and when extinct
[16:02] Speaker 2: shortly after the chicksaloub impact does equate to lack of presence.
[16:06] Speaker 2: Combine that with the fact that, even by your own admission,
[16:09] Speaker 2: the creatures that you claim were dinosaurs in the Bible
[16:11] Speaker 2: could have just been mythological beats or hyperbolic language. And
[16:14] Speaker 2: we have zero reasonablieve that dinosaurs ever co existed with humans,
[16:17] Speaker 2: and zero reasonab believe that any of the authors of
[16:20] Speaker 2: the Bible were even aware of dinosaurs.
[16:22] Speaker 3: There's all kinds of things that books don't mention that
[16:24] Speaker 3: exist doesn't mean the book is somehow flawed. True.
[16:27] Speaker 2: But when creationists claim that The Flintstones is a documentary
[16:30] Speaker 2: and the only evidence they have supporting their claim is
[16:33] Speaker 2: the presence of dinosaurs in the Bible, then their absence
[16:35] Speaker 2: can be used to dismiss that claim.
[16:38] Speaker 3: Look, scripture is clear. Genesis won twenty through twenty six
[16:41] Speaker 3: declares that sea and land creatures, which would have included dinosaurs,
[16:44] Speaker 3: were created on days five and six, respectively.
[16:47] Speaker 2: Yeah, but the Bible also says that the earth is
[16:49] Speaker 2: flat and the stars can fall out of the sky.
[16:51] Speaker 2: So forgive me for not taking it seriously.
[16:54] Speaker 3: And this means they were alive at the same time
[16:56] Speaker 3: since man was created on day six. Whoa, whoa, Well
[16:58] Speaker 3: they double up the numb a dow them back to reality.
[17:01] Speaker 3: Don't you watch a Discovery channel? Don't you know that
[17:03] Speaker 3: all the dinosaurs went extinct millions and millions of years ago?
[17:07] Speaker 2: Correct? They did ergo a literal interpretation of the Genesis
[17:11] Speaker 2: creation myth is impossible?
[17:13] Speaker 3: No, they didn't. Not according to God's word.
[17:16] Speaker 2: Well, if God's word says the thing that is wrong,
[17:18] Speaker 2: then God's word is wrong, and thus either it isn't
[17:21] Speaker 2: God's word or else the god responsible for it doesn't
[17:23] Speaker 2: care about accuracy.
[17:25] Speaker 3: Not according to some of the scientific data, namely the
[17:27] Speaker 3: discovery of soft tissue including red blood cells in dinosaur finds.
[17:32] Speaker 2: They didn't find actual red blood cells. They found microscopic
[17:35] Speaker 2: structures that were morphologically similar to red blood cells in
[17:38] Speaker 2: the most protected portions of the fossils. After all the
[17:41] Speaker 2: non soft bits were dissolved in an acid bath. This
[17:44] Speaker 2: is important to know because creationists often present this discovery
[17:47] Speaker 2: as though you could find a fossil out in the wild,
[17:49] Speaker 2: crack it in half, and it would still be sticky
[17:51] Speaker 2: with blood. In reality, the amount of soft tissue that
[17:54] Speaker 2: survived is minuscule, and the reason they harp on about
[17:57] Speaker 2: soft tissue is to support the idea that all fossils
[18:00] Speaker 2: performed a nose flood just over four thousand years ago.
[18:02] Speaker 2: If that were the case, then we would expect to
[18:05] Speaker 2: find large quantities of soft tissues in just about any fossil.
[18:08] Speaker 2: But we don't, so they have to misrepresent what we
[18:11] Speaker 2: do find in order to make people think that we do.
[18:14] Speaker 3: It couldn't possibly be there if they were sixty five
[18:16] Speaker 3: million years old.
[18:17] Speaker 2: I've already linked to the state of clearly video that
[18:19] Speaker 2: goes over the story of the initial soft tissue find
[18:21] Speaker 2: in a little more detail, So go give that a
[18:23] Speaker 2: watch if you're interested. But to paraphrase it a bit here,
[18:26] Speaker 2: there were three options regarding the soft tissue. Option one
[18:29] Speaker 2: is what creationists go for, the fossil was actually young.
[18:32] Speaker 2: Option two is contamination. Option three is that there was
[18:35] Speaker 2: some mechanism at work that at the time of the
[18:37] Speaker 2: discovery was unknown. Given the mountains of evidence supporting the
[18:41] Speaker 2: age of the fossil, Option one was pretty much immediately
[18:44] Speaker 2: off the table. Option two had been ruled out by
[18:47] Speaker 2: subsequent fines and experiments, so we're left with option three,
[18:50] Speaker 2: And in subsequent research we've come to understand that these
[18:53] Speaker 2: tissues could have been preserved through iron mediated cross linking.
[18:56] Speaker 2: There is a lot more to it than this, obviously,
[18:59] Speaker 2: but yeah, we figured out a previously undiscovered mechanism of preservation.
[19:03] Speaker 2: Learning is fun no no no, no no no.
[19:06] Speaker 3: Bro dinosaurs are a recent creation, most buried in the
[19:08] Speaker 3: Genesis Flood, with some remaining survivors on the art going
[19:12] Speaker 3: extinct for various reasons.
[19:13] Speaker 2: The flinstones is a documentary because my book says so, which.
[19:17] Speaker 3: Leads me to state firmly then that the conclusion therefore
[19:20] Speaker 3: the Bible is wrong about everything is wrong, way wrong.
[19:23] Speaker 3: It just doesn't follow.
[19:25] Speaker 2: Congratulations. The flimsy ass straw man argument that you constructed
[19:29] Speaker 2: fell over. Well done. But when I break down what
[19:32] Speaker 2: you've done in this video, you've essentially said, the Bible
[19:34] Speaker 2: says X, therefore X can't be wrong. Therefore the Bible
[19:38] Speaker 2: isn't wrong. Can an argument get any more circular?
[19:41] Speaker 3: Even if the Bible not mentioning dinosaurs was somehow problematic,
[19:44] Speaker 3: it would not follow that everything else in the Bible
[19:46] Speaker 3: is false and nothing in it can be trusted. I mean,
[19:48] Speaker 3: my history books don't mention the iPad or the Toyota prius,
[19:51] Speaker 3: the latter for good reason.
[19:52] Speaker 2: Of course, I don't understand was that supposed to be
[19:56] Speaker 2: a jab at the prius. I haven't heard a priuses
[19:59] Speaker 2: are stupid since like two thousand and nine or something.
[20:02] Speaker 2: But yeah, history books don't mention things that aren't relevant
[20:05] Speaker 2: to their specific topic. Though I would imagine that there
[20:08] Speaker 2: are actually plenty of history books that do mention iPads
[20:11] Speaker 2: and priuses, as both were pretty big innovations at their debuts,
[20:14] Speaker 2: and their debuts were long enough ago to be included
[20:16] Speaker 2: in history books. At this point, my back hurts all
[20:19] Speaker 2: of a sudden. Anyway, that's basically it. He just summarizes
[20:23] Speaker 2: at this point. So yeah, big old straw man argument
[20:26] Speaker 2: that he didn't even really manage to beat. Today's comment
[20:29] Speaker 2: to the day comes to us from American Mutt zach K,
[20:31] Speaker 2: who says, why do atheists have such a problem understanding
[20:34] Speaker 2: that humans are evil? Not really hard to figure out.
[20:37] Speaker 2: Say it to yourself, atheists, humans are evil, and then
[20:40] Speaker 2: you'll understand the problem of evil is humans. First, I disagree,
[20:44] Speaker 2: some humans are certainly evil, but in my experience the
[20:47] Speaker 2: majority are generally good people who don't want others to suffer.
[20:50] Speaker 2: But also, that doesn't actually address the problem of evil,
[20:53] Speaker 2: because there is plenty of suffering in the world that
[20:55] Speaker 2: is not the result of humans being evil. When a
[20:58] Speaker 2: baby gets cancer, is that the result of humans being evil?
[21:02] Speaker 2: If your answer is yes, then I would suggest that
[21:04] Speaker 2: you need to reevaluate your life. Thanks for watching. I'll
[21:07] Speaker 2: be back next Friday with more, but if you need
[21:08] Speaker 2: to get your ride effets in before then, I lace
[21:10] Speaker 2: room with service every Wednesday eight thirty Eastern on my
[21:12] Speaker 2: other channel, A watering Hole, and periodically published shorts on
[21:14] Speaker 2: the channel Vice Rano Shorts. Thanks to Piper for being
[21:16] Speaker 2: my editor, and specially thanks as always to my patrons,
[21:18] Speaker 2: who are the cocaine that clearly fuels the creationist propaganda
[21:21] Speaker 2: video that is my channel. If you'd like me to
[21:23] Speaker 2: get high, you can join us on Patreon for as
[21:25] Speaker 2: little as a dollar per week over at patreon dot
[21:26] Speaker 2: com slash vice Rano, or by supporting the channel one
[21:28] Speaker 2: of the other methods. You can found at link stadviceround
[21:30] Speaker 2: dot com, which is also where you find links to
[21:32] Speaker 2: my other projects. If for whatever reason you want to
[21:34] Speaker 2: send me stuff, my po box addresses in the description
[21:36] Speaker 2: see next Time. I don't know if those are actually
[22:06] Speaker 2: coming through, but like I'm hearing them in my head
[22:08] Speaker 2: as I'm saying these words, I'm getting laid little, and
[22:11] Speaker 2: I don't like it because I'm not Calvin Smith of
[22:13] Speaker 2: Answers in Genesis.
[22:14] Speaker 3: You Calvin

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.