Who believes in dinosaurs on Noah's Ark? Do you as theistic evolutionists believe that?


I removed what I originally had here and placed Happy New Year to be friendly. Perhaps that was not appreciated. In any case, that is not the topic I created here. I cannot believe that dinosaurs were on Noah’s Ark. You see, I believe in Noah’s Ark as an historical event. I believe that Noah’s Ark was made during a local flood in Mesopotamia. Do I believe God did it due to the evil of this land. My answer is most certainly yes. Why were there not dinosaurs on the Ark? The answer is simple: Noah’s flood took place after the extinction of the Dinosaurs. I have read the Drs. Haarmas’ book on origins and find that I accept the Adam and Eve Representatives View on page 256. I would like Brad to respond to this since he too is a theologian. Could you accept the views stated here? Why or why not? I would like for you to answer this question. If you would disagree, what are your reasons and which views do you accept?

1 Like


I don’t understand your logic. If BioLogos calls for Evolution DIRECTED BY GOD how is it Darwinism in the Atheist sense?

How are you defining Darwinism?


If Henry has actually been convinced that “Old Earth” creationism is somehow not compatible with the mission of BioLogos … I would say that whoever it was that did the convincing has done everyone, including Henry, a great disservice.


To be fair, I think that BioLogos is making a bit of a mistake by making evolutionary creationism/theistic evolution its starting point. Unlike an old earth (which can be accounted for by 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4), it’s not easy to see how evolution fits in with the Genesis account and there is some cognitive dissonance involved for us as evangelical Christians.

What I believe the starting point should be is championing scientific integrity in Christian apologetics. The Bible has far, far more to say about honesty and integrity than evolution or the age of the earth, yet the lack of honesty coming from the main young-earth organisations is quite frankly a disgrace – and this dishonesty isn’t limited to science, it also extends to Biblical exegesis and church history. If they are to claim that their case is supported by science, they need to be vigorously held to account for maintaining the standards of rigour and honesty required by the scientific method at a very minimum.

Discussions about evolution can then flow out from this demand for honesty and integrity.

1 Like

Happy New Year!

@Henry this is the third time now you’ve “withdrawn” from BioLogos, only to be back a short while later. This is a free site where anyone can participate. No need to “withdraw” or “come back” publicly.

Yes she was. If you are awake tonight, think of all the people your mother helped, loved, and touched. Then think of all who carry her inside them. See your mother in them and help, love and touch them. Be at peace my friend.

Happy New Year


It is only the Atheists that participate on these boards that so fixate on Darwin. There is no oath of fidelity to Darwin here at BioLogos. Your fidelity is to God. We learn about the principles of Natural Selection and “Evolving” gene pools so that we understand the processes that God used in creating humankind.

I don’t really get why Darwin poses a threat to your faith. Darwin had little room in his worldview about God answering prayers in real time, or having a specific goal in his work of evolving life forms on Earth.

BioLogos supporters allow for BOTH (real time prayers, and God-Directed evolution). So what’s the problem?



I don’t think any atheist is fixated on Darwin. Darwin was a great scientist, but he wouldn’t be qualified to teach high school biology today. Science and technology has progressed greatly since Darwin. Genetic research is where all the action is today. We should treat Darwin as one of the great scientists of all time, up there with Newton, Maxwell, Einstein.


Not really. The future depends on humans learning the lessons of ecology and applying them.

And may I add up there with Noether, Margulis and Lovelock

Happy New Year!

In case the thrice withdrawn Henry returns to draw his sword once again, let me just say that this statement he made reveals a depth of misunderstanding and miscomprehension of what the ark was, what the dinosaurs were, and on what they ate. Dinosaurs would not have been more problematic than other predators, for those dinosaurs that may have been predators. Most animals would have come on the ark as small (infants), taking up little space and eating not much, so any predation hierarchy would have been much different. It seems most dinosaurs are actually herbivores, or at least omnivores, so they didn’t have to eat other animals. So there is no impossibility for the arrangement and feeding of all these very young and small animals.

Many critters require maternal care. Did Noah and his wife have to regurgitate food for some of the species?

1 Like

Miss BeagleLady, once we start making MIRACLES happen so that the Ark doesn’t sink under its own weight … we might as well conclude that God regurgitated food Himself - - into the mouths of all those babies … invisibly … every few hours … and probably including Noah and his sons.




George, that’s really not funny. And its a bit…ignorant. Why would it take a miracle for the ark not to sink under its own weight? Please explain the physics? A comment such as this discredits your future comments.

And beagle lady, what you must know is that birds that regurgitate food for little ones do not have forks and mashers, and also find it a good way to carry food to their young. But those animals that regurgitate to feed their young are generally not that big, and for small animals, it most likely meant adults, or at least teenagers were on the ark, able to eat on their own, and not being reproductive for that time. But, if there were a few species that needed some mashed up food, I’m sure it was not beyond the capacity of the caretakers.


Do the math, John. Put two of every terrestrial species known on earth. Include food. No known ship made of wood could survive the stresses on the hull.

So, you might as well just start lumping all the miracles together, because it takes an unending string of miracles to make the story of Noah’s Ark possible:

Count the Miracles:

  1. God telling Noah to build a boat nowhere near the water;
  2. God giving Noah the skills to build his first boat virtually without defect;
  3. God giving Noah’s construction team enough resources to build the biggest boat known to mankind
  4. God sending the animals into the Ark;
  5. God keeping the animals from eating each other (a miraculous sleep? at the very least…);
  6. Invisible feeding of thousands of animals by the omnipresent Lord … or even asleep they would die.
  7. Raising all the Earth’s waters to the height of Mt Ararat;
  8. Keeping the animals alive for a year in captivity;
  9. Keeping the animals alive AFTER release to replenish the world’s terrestrial animal supply.

The Flood story cannot survive as a partial scenario. While it could easily have been INSPIRED by a regional flood (common to the region of the Tigris and the Euphrates) … it cannot be a history of a Regional Flood - - because there’s no reason to think God would bring all the animals in PAIRS into the Ark … if it was just a regional flood.




I’m quite sure you are trolling. But, still…

I was going to respond, but you are repeating tired old arguments which have been refuted many times. If it takes miracles, then there is no problem. But if you are going to counter that miracles are not possible, because the physics of boat building, skills, animals coming to the ark, etc., are impossible… then I do not understand why we are even having the discussion. So, my scientific conclusion is that you are trolling.