The book of Job, generally accepted as the oldest book in the Bible, cites at least two examples of giant animals coexisting with man. Job 40:15-24 speaks of Behemoth, a giant creature that eats grass like an ox, has a tail like a giant cedar tree, and can drink a river dry. Many modern Bible scholars suggest that this mysterious (to us) creature must have been a hippopotamus, but seriously, does a hippopotamus have a tail like a cedar? How about an elephant? No. This must have been some kind of creature that is now extinct – perhaps a variety of sauropoda. Whatever it was, God instructed Job to observe it carefully – “Behold now, Behemoth, which I have made with thee” (Job 40:15). Apparently, this creature coexisted alongside of Job. Otherwise, how could Job have beheld it!
Job 41:1 speaks of Leviathan, which is some kind of aquatic reptile, perhaps a mosasaur. So great is this creature that it cannot be hooked, pierced with spears, tamed as a pet, much less barbequed. It is so fierce that men faint at its sight. It breathes out fire and smoke, and its armor is impenetrable. Some Bible scholars believe this was some kind of alligator or crocodile, but there are many fine restaurants that serve up some tasty alligator tail!
So, if the Bible asserts that these giant creatures (probably dinosaurs) existed alongside Job, does it not make sense that mammoths and mastodons did too? Well, it appears that science is once again catching up with the Bible. A site in Vero Beach, Florida contains mammoth, mastodon, giant ground sloth, and human fossils! Such a find is at odds with current thinking on evolution which claims that humans did not coexist with these creatures. So in order to gloss over the apparent contradiction, early researchers invented the story that these human remains washed in long after the mammals fossilized. However, more recent studies are showing that the rare earth elements contained within the fossilized bone of both humans and these mammals are essentially the same.
So, if Job lived with dinosaurs, why is it so difficult to accept that ancient North Americans lived with woolly mammoths?
Peter J. Hart says:
I haven't seen anything that says Mammoths did not coexist with humans, but of course I haven't read everything. Is there an article somewhere that doubts Mammoths lived recently? It seems widely accepted now.
Peter, I think biblical creationists have problems with how evolutionists present their history of mammoths, I know I do. The focus is generally on pre-historic stone ages and ice ages of the remote past but not that mammoths are documented in recent finds that could support biblical history recorded in Genesis 10-11. Evolutionists are loathe to do this.
Some examples - Woolly mammoth remains have been found on St. Paul Island Alaska. These are now dated by c-14 to 5,725 BP or 3, 725 B.C. Again evolutionists are surprised by mammoth fossils being so young and not from the 10,000-11,000 years BP extinction claimed for the end of the Ice Age. This article also mentions the discovery of the Wrangle Island mammoths in northeast Siberia that caused a stir too. These are dated to 4,000 years BP or about 2,000 B.C. during the time of the Egyptian middle kingdom. Ref - JOC 24(2):6-7, 2010. Another example comes from ancient Egyptian tombs: "...a painting in the tomb of Rakh-Mara in the Valley of the Nobles.1" Ref - http://creation.com/mammoth-among-the-pharaohs
Certainly finds like this can be explained within the biblical history of Genesis chapters 1-11 without invoking the evolutionary story of origins.
Mo, you are correct that all peer reviewed journals reject dinosaurs and humans as coexisting. These peer reviewed journals are evolution based and committed. However, peer reviewed creationists journals do not. Some recent examples - 'Dragons in Paradise', Acts & Facts 40(3):10-11, 2011 (March) and 'Eyewitness to Extinction', Acts & Facts 40(6):16-17, 2011 (June). We also have secular museums like 'Emory Exhibit Unmasks Ancient Monsters', BAR 37(2):26, 2011 (Mar/Apr). If anything, secular museum displays like this help biblical creationists who hold the position that dinosaurs and mankind lived in the pre-Flood world of Noah during the same age. Continued reports of uncovering dinosaur soft tissue in the fossil record is a serious problem for evolutionists too - 'Latest Soft Tissue Study Skirts the Issues', http://www.icr.org/article/6220/ (July 2011). One of may favorites concerns native American history - 'Oblivious to the obvious: dragons lived with American Indians', JOC 24(1):32-34, 2010 (April 2010). My comments on this JOC review from my home DB - "From the material gathered in this book, it appears that Native Americans had encounters with dinosaurs like T-Rex, pterosaurs, and water monsters like mososaurs. Either pre-Flood encounters or post-Flood encounters can explain these legends. It is possible that many dragon legends in general can be explained based upon the biblical record where early post-Flood men encountered dinosaurs that departed from the Ark after Noah's Flood and later became extinct in the post-Flood world." Evolutionists must reject the historical connection with dragon legends and explain away the soft tissue finds to fit with millions of years of strata age otherwise dinosaur remains were buried much more recently. I feel creationists have better answers here.
In addition to the previous comments here, it has always been accepted that these ancient mammalian megafauna (mammoths, mastodons) coexisted with humans. Current theories assert that climate change, along with human overhunting (by Asiatic, European, and newly-settled American populations), possibly caused their eventual extinction.
However, the dinosaur-human cohabitation hypothesis has been stoutly rejected by all of the peer-reviewed (!) scientific community.
Robert Byers says:
Good article here.
A few corrections.
They do agree Indians lived and hunted the big hairy elephants and easily in florida.
They are seen as recent extinct creatures.
There wwre many great creatures after the flood and I don't see a reason to invoke dinosaurs as living with Job.
Could be but likely they are just 'mammals" now extinct.
Rod Bernitt says:
Woolly mammoth remains have been found on St. Paul Island Alaska. These are now dated by c-14 to 5,725 BP or 3, 725 B.C. Again evolutionists are surprised by mammoth fossils being so young and not from the 10,000-11,000 years BP extinction claimed for the end of the Ice Age. The JOC article also mentions the discovery of the Wrangle Island mammoths in northeast Siberia that caused a stir too. These are dated to 4,000 years BP or about 2,000 B.C. during the time of the Egyptian middle kingdom. Ref - New woolly mammoth dated 5, 725 BP on St Paul Island, Alaska, JOC 24(2):6-7, 2010. Author Oard, M.J.