Were there Dinosaurs in the Bible?

But, I predict, you'll refuse to show me how and simply retreat from the discussion. It's not surprising for the dictionary and Google to miss some of the finer points of biological classification. I was certainly surprised myself when I learned that dinosaurs were not reptiles; however, my wife assures me that this is not a controversial position among biologists. It's fine for Ned to take whatever position he likes. I'm sure that, like me, he's motivated to defend the truth no matter what side that puts him on, or whom his ideological bedmates might be.Lord knows I've been on your side plenty, Buz, when you're on the right side.But none of that changes the fact that "reptile" refers to a category of creatures, the critera of which exclude dinosaurs as members. It's just that simple. "Reptile" means something specific that doesn't apply to dinosaurs.You're free to disagree, but you need to explain how dinosaurs are reptiles instead of just asserting that they are.

Ok, well, now I looked in my wife's copy of Animal Diversity (Hickman, Roberts, and Larson, 2000) and while it doesn't draw the distinction between "reptile" and Reptilia that her molecular phylogenetics text does, it does point out that Reptilia is no longer a valid taxa recognized by cladists.So, in fact, nothing is a reptile, unless you define "reptile" as either:1) All amniotes that are not birds or mammals. This is an obviously flawed and overgeneral definition; it's not much use to anyone. This is probably the definition Buz is working under.2) The combined members of classes Archosauria (crocodiles, birds, dinosaurs) and Lepidosaurs (lizards, snakes, amphisbaenians, sphenodons), which, as I told Ned, means that dinosaurs are only reptiles if birds are reptiles too.The book gives criteria for the "classic" taxonomy of Class Reptilia:1) Body varied in shape and covered with an excoskeleton of hrony epidermal scales, sometimes with bony plates; integument with few glands2) Limbs with five toes (many dinosaurs have only 3)3) skull with one occipital condyle4) Respiration by lungs5) Three-chambered heart (dinosaurs had more chambers)6) Ectothermic (dinosaurs were endothermic)7) Metanephric kidney8) Nervous system with optic nodes on dorsal side of brain; 12 pairs of cranial nerves9) Seperate sexes and internal fertilization10) Oviparous reproduction with calcareous or leathery shellsAgain, as the book says, this is a classification that they do not expect to be continued. But even in the "old" Reptilia, dinosaurs don't belong any more than birds and mammals do.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 08-18-2004 06:40 PM

It appears I read too quickly and got it wrong Crash. Thanks.

Crash, you have produced one author who decides to revise a whole lota books including nearly all dictionaries, encyclopedias and other books written over many centuries as well as current ones. For centuries dinosaurs have been regarded as reptiles and I'm sticking with the thousands of books which regard them as reptiles and you can go on with your one or two revisionist microspectors. Now don't accuse me of bailing out, but you and your new convert Ned will need to respectfully disagree with me on this one.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 08-18-2004 09:07 PM

Actually, there is evidence that a number of dinosaurs were warm blooded, which reptiles are not.

Dictionaries aren't biological texts, Buz. It's not reasonable to expect them to be on the top of cutting-edge biology.And no, I didn't present one author. Between the two texts I've mentioned I've presented five authors, each describing the consensus view of biologists.You, on the other hand, have presented absolutely nothing at all. Erroneously, as I've shown you. By what criteria do you propose to cataloge dinosaurs as reptiles? I've asked three times and you still haven't said.Moreover you still haven't explained why there's any dinosaur fossils at all if God changed them into belly-dragging reptiles before death entered the world.

It's a complicated subject, and there's plenty of biologists who want to consider dinosaurs reptiles and birds not, simply because that's how they've always been cclassified.That doesn't change the fact that there's significant morphological differences between dinosaurs and "nominal" reptiles, far more difference than between humans and chimpanzees, for instance.At any rate, there's no good reason to consider dinosaurs reptiles and birds and mammals not reptiles, other than that's how they've always been considered. That's not good enough reason for me.

One question crashfrog:If crocodiles went extinct with the Dinosaurs, do you think that today they would be classified with Dinosaurs?

They are. Crocodiles, birds, and dinosaurs belong to a taxa called "Archosaurs."So, yes. Nothing about the modern classification would change if crocs had gone extinct.

One more questionDo you believe that crocodiles are reptiles?

Yes. They meet, as nearly as I can tell, the requirements for the classification "reptile".

Then why are you so vehemently disputing Buz' classification of Dinosaurs as reptiles?

Because crocodiles are most certainly not dinosaurs.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

don't you have a pressing matter over in the dating the exodus thread to deal with?or is this an good example of "too busy"?

Because dinosaurs are not reptiles, for reasons I've made abundantly clear. I don't understand what crocodiles had to do with that.(edited to be a little less terse.)This message has been edited by crashfrog, 08-19-2004 05:45 PM