Rethinking Dinosaurs


Noah has finished building the ark and is looking over the animals that God has brought to him. He wonders at the multitude of the animals for he has enough space for about 15,000 of them. There are lots of small creatures, particularly birds. Of the larger animals there are few, a couple of giraffes about 12 cubits tall, a couple of pachyderms (mammoths or elephants) shorter but heavier than a giraffe. And of course there are the animals in between the birds and the giraffe.


What concerns Noah are the herds of dinosaurs just at the edge of his holding area. Off in the distance is the spinosaurus, a fierce looking fish eating dinosaur that at 20 tons is much larger than a pachyderm. Even the worrisome looking tyrannosaurus is smaller than it, fortunately the tyrannosaurs are primarily scavengers and don’t harass the gathered animals. But the herds are composed of extremely large dinosaur, the sauropods. The largest of these animals is half as long as the ark and weighed over 110 tons.


So how did Noah fit the dinosaurs on the ark? What happened when a 110 ton sauropod sauntered up the gangway? Well, the gangway broke and all loading had to be stopped. So no 110 ton sauropods on the ark!


The popular conception of dinosaurs is that they were massive creatures that were mostly larger than an elephant. But what was the average size of a dinosaur? The average that appears most often in the literature is about 850 kg, or the size of a grizzly bear. But as some people point out, there is no such thing as an average dinosaur, so let’s look at the median size of a dinosaur. Median is the measurement that’s in the middle, in this case, half of the dinosaurs would be bigger and half smaller. A median size dinosaur would be about the size of a giraffe, but wait a minute, why a giraffe? Why not a rhinoceros? They both weigh about the same, so a median size dinosaur should have weighed about 2 tons (or slightly less than 2 tonnes for the metric minded). Or how about a Kentrosaurus (a type of stegosaur), it weighed in at 1800 kg and stood 5 ft. tall and was 18 ft. long


According to the Wikipedia article on dinosaurs, most (the popular definition of average) theropods weighed between 100 and 1000 kg, while most predatory dinosaurs weighed in between 10 and 100 kg. That means that most theropods and predators were smaller than median size of dinosaur. All dinosaurs below this size would have no problem fitting on to the ark.


That leaves the large dinosaurs to contend with. An Apatosaurus juvenile at 5 years of age would be approximately 1000kg, or half the weight of our median dinosaur, and the Apatosaurus was among the largest of dinosaur. A juvenile T.rex, one of the largest predatory dinosaurs, at 2 years of age stood only 7 ft. high and weighed in at 30 kg. It would appear that the large dinosaurs that Noah had with him on the ark were juveniles, and that all of them would have been less than 2 tons. With the largest dinosaur on the ark weighing in at approximately 1000 kg, the median size of dinosaur would of course be somewhat less.


Noah was therefore able to fit all the dinosaurs on the ark. There was no problem with size because juveniles less than 5 years old were taken aboard for the large dinosaurs, while half of all dinosaurs (baraminologists estimate there were about 55 kinds of dinosaur) could be accommodated as full grown adults.




CMI Dinosaurs on the Ark

More by this Author


Comments 21 comments

Carneades-Georgia profile image

Carneades-Georgia 4 years ago from Augusta, Georgia

No, ti's just another far-fetched creationist account1 What would account for Noah's ingathering of thousands of species/ How could he ever have them all fed? No, Henry Morris, hydrologists, misunderstood how animals would land, not at all as he claimed!

Yes, with well-trained eyes,people can cherry pick and ignore the rest of reality.

Internet sites exist where one can find out why creationism ever fails and why evolution will ever be true,no matter what scientists find out about its components. Disputes within biology about evolution do not involve its being true in the least bit!


CHyNCHyN profile image

CHyNCHyN 4 years ago from Malaysia

This is a hilarious hub.

First, it was not mentioned in the Bible.

Second, your timeline is a bit mixed up. I think Dinosaurs died out before Noah was born.

Thirdly, we have yet to see the fossils of the famous one-eyed monster written in Bible.

Bible is a book of testimonials by humans that God exist. It is fallible, whereas god is not fallible.

God bless you.


barrydan profile image

barrydan 4 years ago from Calgary, Alberta, Canada Author

Those of us who believe in God have an account. The book "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study" answers your questions, Noah had no problem feeding the animals using standard farming practises.

Your second statement is a two edged sword, be careful it isn't true of you.


barrydan profile image

barrydan 4 years ago from Calgary, Alberta, Canada Author

It is mentioned in the Bible ( http://creation.com/could-behemoth-have-been-a-din... My timelime is consistent with a straightforward understanding of the text. I'm not sure what your thirdly statement is referring to, you'll have to elaborate.

Not only is God infallible, his revealed word is also infallible.

And God bless you.


CHyNCHyN profile image

CHyNCHyN 4 years ago from Malaysia

Bible is a book of testimonials by humans that God exist. It is fallible, whereas god is not fallible.

It is a book of testimonials, hence its name is Testament. New Testament, Old Testament. It is a book to prove the existence of God. Nothing more than that.


CHyNCHyN profile image

CHyNCHyN 4 years ago from Malaysia

It is mentioned in the Bible (Not Found) My Time Lime is consistent with a straightforward understanding of the text.

Jesus spoke in metaphor, most of the Bible is metaphoric. Because Jesus said the rulers do not understand his teachings. So a straightforward understanding would be misleading.


barrydan profile image

barrydan 4 years ago from Calgary, Alberta, Canada Author

I believe that it is a great deal more than that. That its testimonials prove the existence of God also verifies the statements it makes. Otherwise the proof is useless.


barrydan profile image

barrydan 4 years ago from Calgary, Alberta, Canada Author

The Bible makes distinctions between metaphor and narrative. A straightforward understanding also makes distinctions between metaphor and narrative. Without the distinction most of the meaning of plain statements is lost. See also

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1...


Carneades-Georgia 4 years ago

Why, God, Himself is metaphoric for the good against all the evils in the world which reveal no actual God!

Nature is god.I'm a Quenitn Smith naturalist pantheist- have awe of Existence!

I daresay that those feasiblity studies err by not looking at all information and by not considering the implications of what it does look at.


barrydan profile image

barrydan 4 years ago from Calgary, Alberta, Canada Author

You dare without having even considered the evidence, therefore you have not considered the implications.

Why does it matter to you? If a materialist evolution is true, why does anything matter to you? In a materialist universe we are but the random creation of chaotic events, existense is meaningless. If there is purpose, including a purpose to your caring, then we are more than random creations. So why does anything matter?


CHyNCHyN profile image

CHyNCHyN 4 years ago from Malaysia

Bible is a book of testimonials by humans that God exist. It is fallible, whereas god is not fallible.

It is a book of testimonials, hence its name is Testament. New Testament, Old Testament. It is a book to prove the existence of God. Nothing more than that.

So tell me, what about the children, who die at birth or age one or two, who do not know of Jesus, not yet baptized and not yet confessed?

What about your spirit? Is it only as old as your body? Do you have No past lives, only your life now?


barrydan profile image

barrydan 4 years ago from Calgary, Alberta, Canada Author

Infant salvation is a problem for some because of the lack of an absolutely clear cut biblical text on the issue. The issue itself is one of our own making, a lack of our understanding of God. The basic issue is resolved in a simplification of the gospel into two statements: - salvation is by grace, as found in Ephesians 2:8, - condemnation is by works, as found in Revelation 20:13.

Salvation by grace is a theme throughout scripture. It was the difficulty Jonah had with God over Nineveh. It is stated expressly in 2 Peter 3:9 that “God is not willing that any should perish.” It seems more consistent with the nature of God who loves mercy and grace that infants would be saved according to grace.

Infant baptism is another subject and one in which I do not believe. It has no foundation in scripture.

The argument is perhaps strongest from the negative point of view, i.e., condemnation is by works. The statement in Rev. 20:13 is that “they were judged every man according to their works.” Infants not having works to be judged by would appear to be exempt from judgment. Romans 2 also discusses those who have not heard the gospel. Verse 15 states that “their conscience also bearing witness”, I do not believe that we can credit infants with a conscience of this sort.

The passage in John 3 not only is the gospel in a nutshell, it provides clear statements about both salvation and condemnation. From verse 19 we have “And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” As infants have no deeds they can have no condemnation.

The following web links go into much greater depth on this subject.

A longer but still short consideration. http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f006.html

Part 1 of an in depth consideration. http://www.ondoctrine.com/2mac0142.htm

Part 2. http://www.ondoctrine.com/2mac0143.htm

John 3 also shows that there is no reincarnation. When Jesus answers Nicodemus question, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus’ answer shows that being born again is not a physical rebirth but a spiritual birth.

Hebrews 9:27 also says “…it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment”. If we can only die once then there can be no reincarnation. Salvation once for all precludes a recurring life with a recurring judgment.

For further information: http://www.focusonthefaulty.com/Pages/reincarnatio...


CHyNCHyN profile image

CHyNCHyN 4 years ago from Malaysia

So if the babies did something bad, like not filial to parents by crying all night long, they would go to hell because of this deed they did?

Or kids 5- 10 years old, never heard of Jesus, cheating and stealing money, would they too go to hell?


barrydan profile image

barrydan 4 years ago from Calgary, Alberta, Canada Author

No. The principle from scripture can be restated that the condition of accountability requires the ability to confess, no ability no accountability. Otherwise Romans 2 still applies. More to the point, where do you stand in relation to the gospel?


CHyNCHyN profile image

CHyNCHyN 4 years ago from Malaysia

I am a logical person. I read Bible and love Jesus. But Bible is full of mistakes and ideas contradicting each other. Vengeful God, Jealous God.

Why can't you accept reincarnation? Jesus did not reject the idea straight off. Our soul just continue to reincarnate until we are enlighten or saved. It is not that hard to accept.

Maybe you just don't want to understand.


CHyNCHyN profile image

CHyNCHyN 4 years ago from Malaysia

And also, when I look at these, "condition of accountability" is created by men who try to persuade people there is no wrong in Bible. This is like, when you start to lie, you need to tell more lies to keep it rolling. If the Bible is wrong so admit it. Don't lie and start New Ideas which is twisted from the Bible.

From your source " We are also born guilty because we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin. Chapter 5,Romans 5:12: "Just as through one man, sin entered into the world and death through sin, so death spread to all men because all sin."

Your teaching says all men including the babies died because of sin, they are born with Adam's sin, and there is no "accountability" whatsoever! Why do you deny your teaching?

I hope you think for yourself and don't make hubs like this before truly knowing anything.


barrydan profile image

barrydan 4 years ago from Calgary, Alberta, Canada Author

I do not lie. The Bible makes it plain in numerous passages, some of which I have already referred to that we are held accountable for our actions, this then is a condition of accountability. Yes, we are all born sinners, including babies, but babies having no actions to account for are not consigned to hell. So I have presented my arguments, I have given the source of those arguments from my scriptures, I have provided references to more extensive writings on the subject. All you have done is ask questions, deny and accuse. Your arguments will need to be better.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 4 years ago from upstate, NY

Great Hub! I'm sure God caused all the creatures including the Dinosaurs that he wanted, to come to the Ark! Maybe he chose some of the younger members of certain species, for the purpose of saving space. Why should we think God is limited by any obstacle.


Carneades-Georgia 4 years ago

Gee, I couldn't care less about my place in the Cosmos at my demise as I'll be the same as before I arived.What cont is my feeling wonderful and all the good I can do. Why hen bray at the Cosmos for not having any purpose for us?

Those maybe's are just examples of the argument from ignorance. Evidence,not wishful thinking counts!

Putative God has no rights over us and we own Him nothing! He faces that one-way street that the problem of Heaven notes!

No evidence exists for the validity of the reliability of the authors of that anthology ? What bowing to a fase claim of a superstition!

Remember the Pauluxy hoax? The bombadier hoax? That Ark nonssense is just that. No evidence exists that such a vessel would weather storms and its capacity-jut those maybe's of the magic of let it be!

Gee, non-fundamentalism also makes mirth!


barrydan profile image

barrydan 4 years ago from Calgary, Alberta, Canada Author

Thank you wba108. I agree that God led the animals to Noah and God is not limited.


barrydan profile image

barrydan 4 years ago from Calgary, Alberta, Canada Author

Why does anything count if the cosmos has no purpose for us? For something to count there must be a reason? There is considerable evidence for the validity of the Biblical texts, but it requires effort to examine them, simple denial just won't do. You seem to have forgotten the Piltdown hoax and the Nebraska man mistake. There has been an engineering study to examine, and not simply deny, the stability of the Ark. Again, it will require effort to study the evidence and not just simply deny it.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working