Leviathan, from the book of Job, was a dinosaur (Talk.Origins)

Claim CH711.1:


 * Leviathan, described in Job 41 and mentioned in Psalms 104:26, describes a dinosaur like Parasaurolophus or Corythosaurus, plesiosaur such as Koronosaurus,or a crocodile Sarcosuchus.

Source:
 * Gish, Duane, 1977. Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards. El Cajon, CA: Master Books, pp. 30,51-55.
 * Gish, Duane, 1993. Dinosaurs by Design. Master Books.

CreationWiki response:

Admittedly the description of Leviathan is not as clear as that of  Behemoth so pinning it down is harder.

It is not uncommon in mythology to add usual traits to real animals. Such as the three headed dog in Greek mythology. Such a reference in Greek mythology does not make dogs mythological or three headed. The same could be true of Leviathan.

This interpretation assumes a connection between the Ugaritic reference and the Biblical reference, a connection that probably does not exist. If the Biblical reference to Leviathan is taken as a real animal, Job 3:8 would seem to be referring to those who would try to catch a Leviathan.

While the Hebrew word (Strong's - 07218) can mean head, it can also mean chief, choicest, or best. So Ps. 74:14 is likely referring the largest and most powerful Leviathans and not multiple heads.

Also, it has historically been common usage in English and other languages to use the word "head" to represent a unit count of an animal. Asking a cattle rancher about the size of his herd of cattle, he might answer, "three hundred head", and we say we take a "head count" or "count of heads" to make sure an entire group of people is present for some given activity.

This just show that Talk Origins' source made a mistake. Kronosaurus is the most common candidate suggested.

Actually the message is best served if Leviathan is a real and deadly animal that at least in Job's day could not be taken out by man. This would be the case because a real animal would be part of the human experience where a mythical one would not. If Leviathan was a real animal  Job would  have heard of encounters with them, or maybe as a young man had an encounter with one. In either case the comparison would have made a far better impression than a reference to some mythical animal.