Your reasoning is faulty here: you’re assuming that the ones that died in the flood (unless previously extinct) are influencing those not in the flood.
No, I'm assuming that those that were supposedly dinosaur eggs or hatchlings that were on the Ark......immediately died on the Ark because they most certainly were extinct after the supposed Flood. Dinosaurs before the Flood....no dinosaurs after the Flood. The notion that dinosaur eggs or hatchlings were on the Ark is not quite as ludicrous as Man walking in the land of 100+ meat eating dinosaurs.
Actually just because some of those went extinct doesn’t mean all of them did. Take horses, lions, rhinos, and elephants for example; they’re all large and it would have taken less space to get them as young-animals. {Hatchlings would be little different in this regard, taking the young to save space.}
ALL of them went extinct. There is NOTHING in Genesis that leads one to believe that there were hatchlings and newborns on the Ark instead of adult animals of breeding age. That's manufactured to get to the belief that eggs and hatchlings of extinct creatures were somehow on the Ark.
You’re discounting the possibility that we humans WERE that “extinction event.” Take the legends of “dragons” and their slayings, for instance, those dragons could have been dinosaurs and the tales have a little truth in them... as I noted to someone else on this thread it was thought that the giant squid was a myth in modern history, but really-recent history has proven the old-sailor’s tale true [to some extent].
Manufacturing humans making dinosaurs extinct is sooooo....YEC. SO of all the animals on the Ark, Man chose to make extinct the only ones that have been extinct for millions of years......how convenient...
There is zero evidence of dragons ever having actually existed....no, I don't believe in the spirit horse either.
man could have killed all the dinos prior to the flood.
Riiiiiiiight. Man killed 100+ species of large meat eating dinosaurs with rocks and sticks. Oops...forgot, Man just needed to throttle a few hatchlings.
Oh, since you brought up the numbering 2x2, there is also a a command to bring all the clean animals, and birds, in pairs of seven. (So, birds would obviously have a better chance of survival in the post-flood world considering their population was seven times that of a dino’s.)
BWAAAAAahahahahaha......birds surely would've killed off 100+ species of large meat eating dinosaurs. 14 chickens against ONE T. rex....I'll take those odds.
THIS is the stuff one has to make up to ensure the belief that Man walked in the land of large meat eating dinosaurs until 4,351 years ago?
>ALL of them went extinct. There is NOTHING in Genesis that leads one to believe that there were hatchlings and newborns on the Ark instead of adult animals of breeding age.
There’s only the phrase “the male and his female” to indicate that they WERE of breeding age; but that is ignoring the art of animal husbandry wherewhich humans assign the pairings.
>That’s manufactured to get to the belief that eggs and hatchlings of extinct creatures were somehow on the Ark.
And you’re stating that there was absolutely no way they were on the ark; even though the story gives TONS of leeway for such specifics, like the actual cosmetic-structure of the ark: we’re given dimensions and several design-requirements, but it could have looked more like a giant box or more like a modern freighter (hull-shape-wise).
But you’re also discounting that I have also acknowledged the possibility that dinosaurs were extinct PRIOR the flood.
>Dinosaurs before the Flood....no dinosaurs after the Flood.
Certainly DOES NOT preclude the possibility that dinosaurs died PRIOR to the flood, which I HAVE acknowledged as a possibility.
>The notion that dinosaur eggs or hatchlings were on the Ark is not quite as ludicrous as Man walking in the land of 100+ meat eating dinosaurs.
Which is obviously just as ludicrous as man walking in the land of Lions, Hyena, and Alligators, right? {Oh, wait, we call that place Africa!}