If dinosaurs died out millions of years ago then how come there are so many depictions of them?

Question

There are many written accounts and depictions of dinosaurs.
http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm
The word dinosaur was invented in 1841. Before that people used names like dragon.
People from all over the world have accounts of dinosaurs: the Chinese who have incorporated it into their lunar calendar, The Welsh who have the dragon in their flag; The account of the Saxon Beowolf; The native american thunderbird; and other stories from many other nations. The Romans even made mosaics of them.

Furthermore, dinosaur fossils have even been found containing blood cells - hardly 65 million years old.
http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/creationontheweb?q=dino+blood&hl=en&lr=

But check the evidence for yourself - don't by brainwashed by dogmatic evolutionists who don't want us to think for ourselves :)
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3061

Answer 1

"don't by brainwashed by dogmatic evolutionists who don't want us to think for ourselves"

That's right. Accept the babblings of creationists who are incapable of original thought and think that "dragons" are dinosaurs.

Answer 2

Sure dinosaurs - fossils left their marks in nature bones or the remnants of their existance are found all over the world. Preserving the bones is a freak of nature (think deep-ice or hot dry sands), gaining a blood sample is a bit far fetched though not impossible. Mummies had blood samples taken - I don't know if there was a relation - but the thieves are still at large. DNA samples might lead to a mapping of where dinos actually lived in abundance, of course this leads to their downfall and our arrival here 65 mln years ago.

Answer 3

Why post your question here?

Ask Mary Schweitzer, who studied the dinosaur "blood" you speak of, herself.

http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2006/may/dinosaur.php

Her opinion of young earth creationists:

"Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science."

If you don't believe Schweitzer, herself a proud christian, who can you believe? Someone from the creationtheweb.com website who “ twist (her) words and they manipulate (her)data.”

Is the overwhelming scientific community missing something?
What possible reason could they have to hide this?

Answer 4

That reminds me of the Galileo's trial because the religion dictated that the Earth had to be flat and at the center of the universe.
What a big surprise when a new continent full of human beings was discovered.

This is because of narrow-minded religious people who don't accept that the holy books were written about two thousands years ago to be understood by the average culture people had at that time.
Also, apart from some historic facts and personages, many of the stories are symbolic and figurative. They give us messages but shouldn't be taken literally.
Otherwise, with whom did the sons of Adam and Eve form a family? Between themselves or with evolved primates?

Did God actually shape a dummy of Adam from mud?

Can't we interpret "mud" just as existing matter, such as evolved primates to whom God gave the first spark of intelligence and conscience? In other words a "soul"?

What is important of religions are their spiritual messages.
It is not wise to confuse their mythology and popular stories as incontrovertible "scientific" facts.

What's wrong with Evolution? It is just a tool of God's Creation. The entire universe is evolving. Stars are born and others die, even today. Galaxies are still spinning, black holes are still swallowing matter.
The Big Bang started the Creation process of "our" universe (there might be others).
Evolution is just the way the Creation process continues through the ages.
Isn't such concept beautiful enough?
Why can't it be religiously acceptable ?

Answer 5

Have you considered that perhaps dragon legends were the result of ancient people finding dinosaur skeletons? It's irrelevant when the word "dinosaur" was invented.
The dino blood was actually the chemical signature of blood. It wasn't the actual blood.

Answer 6

Dragons and other preternatural beasts have been the subject of myth and folklore for thousands of years. You make the presumption that ancient people had no sense of imagination. Their myths and legends served the same purpose as our modern books and movies. For some reason, you didn't mention mermaids. Why? They clearly weren't dinosaurs and have to be left out of the argument because they don't support your point? What about trolls, gremlins, leprechauns, unicorns, fairies, yeti, winged horses, centaurs, and the titans?

Yes, we all know what free-thinkers creationists are.

Answer 7

Did you notice the Mexican carving that looks like a dude in a rocket ship? Awesome imagination those people had -- it's not really a rocket ship.

Did you notice how many modern depictions of dinosaurs we have? It's from the work of paleontologists! Guess what! Maybe some of those old civilizations had paleontologists -- and excellent imaginations.

Answer 8

I have no problem thinking for myself, the fossil records are clear enough. The dragons you talk about are mythical beasts.

Answer 9

Erm... and religion does want you to think for yourself?

They are one sided arguements towards creation. Of course they are going to make it look believable to believers.

I'm pagan but believe in science.

Answer 10

well i think i would believe those crazy scientists who spent their lives researching stuff, than a few nutters who created a website last week.