PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Dinosaurs and humans together?
       Shattering proof against evolution!

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

 
Clarifying Christianity
(Click a topic)    Heaven    Angels     Church     Cults     Creation/Evolution  
   Reading and Understanding the Bible      Bible Search  
   The Bible's Subjects     Bibles In Various Languages  
   The Source of Life    Search (Netscape)    Search (IE)  
   The Trinity     Baptism     FAQ     Dinosaurs     Science  
   Proving the Bible     Losing Weight     Statement of Faith  




 Dinosaurs and the Bible
 
Most of us loved reading about dinosaurs at some time in our lives. In 1993, the movie “Jurassic Park” stimulated the public interest in dinosaurs far beyond its previous level. As a result, increasing numbers of people have thought, “Since we have found all these fossils and dinosaur bones, we know dinosaurs existed. How come they are not mentioned in the Bible?”

Actually, dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible, and we will prove it by doing the following three things:

Examining the Bible’s text and the related scientific facts.
Explaining the accuracy of the Bible.
Exploring what we are taught in school and through the media.


The Bible’s Text
The Bible refers to many the common animals we know today. The list includes lions, wolves, bears, sheep, cattle and dogs along with various kinds of birds, rodents, reptiles, and insects. What is interesting is that this extensive list includes three animals that we no longer recognize. These three are (in the original Hebrew language) tanniyn, b@hemowth (yes, it’s spelled correctly—at least as close as we can get in Roman characters), and livyathan.

Although we alter the spelling of behemoth and Leviathan slightly, we still use those same words in bibles today. However, tanniyn is always translated into another word when we write it in English. Tanniyn occurs 28 times in the Bible and is normally translated “dragon.” It is also translated “serpent,” “sea monster,” “dinosaur,” “great creature,” and “reptile.” Behemoth and Leviathan are relatively specific creatures, perhaps each was a single kind of animal. Tanniyn is a more general term, and it can be thought of as the original version of the word “dinosaur.” The word “dinosaur” was originally coined in 1841, more than three thousand years after the Bible first referred to “Tanniyn.” To make things clearer, we constructed the following table comparing the scientific names with the Biblical names tanniyn, behemoth, and Leviathan.

“Dinosaur” Names, Then and Now
Name and date first written in the Bible Scientific Name (best estimate) and date the name appeared
tanniyn (dragon) before 1400 BC dinosaur 1841 AD
behemoth before 1400 BC brachiosaurus 1903 AD
Leviathan before 1400 BC kronosaurus 1901 AD

How we got these new names is interesting. In 1822, Mary Ann Mantell became the first person to discover and correctly identify a strange bone as part of a large, unknown reptile. Her husband, Dr. Gideon Mantell, later named this creature an “Iguanodon.” From that time forward, these forgotten animals were given names chosen by the people who rediscovered them. Of course, the Bible, written between approximately 1450 BC and 95 AD, does not include any of these names.

Reading the Bible carefully, you will realize that no living creature matches the descriptions of behemoth and Leviathan. However, if you grab your kid’s dinosaur book, you will notice several possible matches for each one. Let’s examine those.

Behemoth has the following attributes according to Job 40:15-24


It “eats grass like an ox.”
It “moves his tail like a cedar.” (In Hebrew, this literally reads, “he lets hang his tail like a cedar.”)
Its “bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron.”
“He is the first of the ways of God.”
“He lies under the lotus trees,
In a covert of reeds and marsh.”
Some bibles and study bibles will translate the word “behemoth” as “elephant” or “hippopotamus.” Others will put a note at the edge or bottom of the page, stating that behemoth was probably an elephant or a hippopotamus. Although an elephant or hippopotamus can eat grass (or lie in a covert of reeds and marsh), neither an elephant or a hippopotamus has a “tail like a cedar” (that is, a tail like a large, tapered tree trunk). In your kid’s dinosaur book you will find lots of animals that have “tails like a cedar.”

We would expect behemoth to be a large land animal whose bones are like beams of bronze and so forth, so whatever a behemoth is, it is large. A key phrase is “He is the first of the ways of God.” This phrase in the original Hebrew implied that behemoth was the biggest animal created. Although an elephant or a hippopotamus are big, they are less than one-tenth the size of a Brachiosaurus, the largest (complete) dinosaur ever discovered.[1] A Brachiosaurus could therefore easily be described as “the first of the ways of God.”

Comparing all this information to the description in your kid’s dinosaur book, you may come to the conclusion that “behemoth” is not a normal animal, it is a dinosaur—the brachiosaurus. We agree with that conclusion!

Note: Some paleontologists have found fragmentary leg bones, ribs, or vertebrae which they propose belong to “new” sauropods larger than Brachiosaurus. Examples of these include Amphicoelias, Argentinasaurus, Sauroposeidon, Seismosaurus, Supersaurus and Ultrasaurus. There currently is not enough evidence to really determine the size of any of these, and some paleontologists believe that they are merely large examples of known dinosaurs like Brachiosaurus or Diplodocus. In any case, only the “modern scientific name” of behemoth would change. The point would still remain that behemoth refers to a dinosaur, not a “modern animal” like an elephant or hippopotamus.
Leviathan has the following attributes according to Job chapter 41, Psalm 104:25,26 and Isaiah 27:1. This is only a partial listing—just enough to make the point.


“No one is so fierce that he would dare stir him up.”
“Who can open the doors of his face, with his terrible teeth all around?”
“His rows of scales are his pride, shut up tightly as with a seal; one is so near another that no air can come between them; they are joined one to another, they stick together and cannot be parted.”
“His sneezings flash forth light, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lights; sparks of fire shoot out. Smoke goes out of his nostrils, as from a boiling pot and burning rushes. His breath kindles coals, and a flame goes out of his mouth.”
“Though the sword reaches him, it cannot avail; nor does spear, dart, or javelin. He regards iron as straw, and bronze as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make him flee; slingstones become like stubble to him. Darts are regarded as straw; he laughs at the threat of javelins.”
“On earth there is nothing like him, which is made without fear.”
Leviathan “played” in the “great and wide sea” (a paraphrase of Psalm 104 verses 25 and 26—get the exact sense by reading them yourself).
Leviathan is a “reptile [a] that is in the sea.” (Isaiah 27:1)
[a] Note: The word translated “reptile” here is the Hebrew word tanniyn. This shows that “Leviathan” was also a “tanniyn” (dragon).

Unlike behemoth, who is huge, Leviathan is ferocious and terrifying. Many references (we have not listed them all) refer to the sea, so Leviathan is probably a sea creature. Although some bibles refer to Leviathan as an alligator or crocodile (and both of these are fierce) neither of these is a sea creature. They like the water, but they spend much of their time on land. Further, the question “Who can open the doors of his face. . . .” implies that nobody can open Leviathan’s jaws. Although an alligator's jaws cannot normally be forced open, a punch to their sensitive snout or poke in eye might startle them enough to release their grip.[2] Although this is a good description of an alligator characteristic, it does not fit perfectly with the description of Leviathan, which in the context of the Bible was supposed to describe an essentially impossible event, and we are not done yet.

The description of the scales is interesting. Several verses describe these great scales. Compared to Leviathan’s armor, iron is like straw and arrows ca not make it flee. Let’s face it, an arrow can do a lot of damage to a crocodile or alligator. This is not a description of either of them—or any living animal we are aware of.

And now for the key ingredient: fire. It is hard to read Job 41:18-21 without realizing the Bible is telling us that Leviathan breathes fire. That alone will eliminate almost every living animal. Yes, there is one animal like that in today’s world. It is called a bombardier beetle. This beetle is a native of Central America, and has a nozzle in its hind end that acts like a little flame thrower. It sprays a high-temperature jet of gas (fueled by hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide with oxidative enzymes) for protection. Now, if a Central American beetle can do it, so could Leviathan. By the way, crocodiles and alligators are out of the picture on this one, don’t you agree?

Before we leave the topic of fire, there are two more notes you may find interesting:

The history of every culture is filled with stories of fire-breathing dragons. If you think about it, in all the past ages wouldn’t someone have made up a story of a fire-breathing lion or something? Nobody did because the dragon stories are based on truth, and only “dragons” breathed fire. It is easy to imagine Leviathan as a member of the dragon (tanniyn) family. (Plus, Isaiah 27:1 strongly implies this connection.)
Many fossil dinosaur skulls contain unexplained, empty passages. Scientists have not been able to guess the reason for these passages. Would it make sense that some dinosaurs used these passages as “gas tanks” for the combustible mixture used to “breathe fire?” We believe it does.
Comparing all this information to the description in your kid’s dinosaur book, you may come up with the conclusion that Leviathan is a kronosaurus. We have heard (and read) other suggestions, but the kronosaurus is the best match of any known creature to the description of Leviathan.

The Accuracy of the Bible
Some people believe that the Bible is not a scientifically accurate book, and that it is only a “spiritual book,” that forgot about dinosaurs or described them incorrectly. This is not the case. Nobody has ever proven that the Bible contains any inaccurately recorded information. (If you think someone has such evidence, contact us and show us the evidence. We will post that evidence with our reply in our FAQ section for the world to see—literally.) You do not have to believe the Bible just because someone says you are supposed to. That is blind faith, and blind faith is something you do not need with Christianity. The Bible and Christianity have been proven to be true. (See our page called “How Do You Know The Bible Is True?”) There is no other religion or “holy writing” that can honestly make the same claim. You may also wish to get a copy of the book “Know Why You Believe” by Paul Little. It addresses the facts that support Christianity in clear and simple terms.

What We Are Taught (In School and Through the Media)
Since humans are in the Bible, we unconsciously think that dinosaurs were extinct—and therefore not mentioned in the Bible. As you have just seen, the Bible not only refers to dinosaurs, but has detailed information about two of them.

Unfortunately, our public school system and the media have convinced us that dinosaurs were extinct at least 60 million years before man appeared on earth. They have done such a good job in this area that we can not imagine people and dinosaurs living at the same time. The fact is that dinosaurs were created no more than one day before mankind, not many millions of years earlier—and we have evidence to support that statement. Click here to see our Creation and Evolution page, and a link to many sites that fully prove this.




















-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 6:08 PM on August 10, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

I'm great aren't I?


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 6:13 PM on August 10, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, you're not.  The bible does Not Mention dinosaurs at all.  Merely desperate twisting of vague text.  No non-avian dinosaur remains have been found later than 65 million years ago.  The bible also mentions demons, giants, unicorns, which also never existed.  The bible is a book of myths and has no scientific validity.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:43 PM on August 10, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do your Reasearch! There have been pleenty of bible "myths" proven true! Like the hittites.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:53 PM on August 10, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Also, Demons are not physical, they are spiritual. Giants did exist and the only unicorns are symbols, not physical creatures.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:55 PM on August 10, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Also, wat was the behemoth and leviathen if they were not dinos?


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:56 PM on August 10, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do your Reasearch! There have been pleenty of bible "myths" proven true! Like the hittites.

Finding that the bible mentions a tribe of people that actually existed is nothing big and adds no plausability to the claim that dinosaurs existed alongside man.

Also, Demons are not physical, they are spiritual.

No such thing as spiritual creatures.

Giants did exist

No they didn't, show us your evidence (the bible doesn't count).

the only unicorns are symbols, not physical creatures.

Then why do so many creationists try to show what the unicorn really was?  If the unicorn was merely a symbol, why couldn't leviathan and behemoth?

Also, wat was the behemoth and leviathen if they were not dinos?

Hippo and whale, most likely.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:31 PM on August 10, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wen i say giants, i am not saying 200 foot tall giants. i am talking 8, 9, 10, 11 fett at the most. Hippo? look more closely! His tail sways like a cedar tree. hisbones are like bars of iron. He is first in the ways of god. (meaning the largest creature created or evolved) A wale? give me a brake! He is a reptile in the sea. Though the sword reaches him, it has no avail. He treats iron as starw, bronze as rotting wood. he laughs at the threat of javilins. slingshots are like stubble to him. on earth there is nothing like him which is made without fear. Thats, is NOT a wale man.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 11:58 AM on August 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

Wen i say giants, i am not saying 200 foot tall giants. i am talking 8, 9, 10, 11 fett at the most.

A human body 8 or 9 feet tall is pretty frail, 10 or 11 feet tall is impossible.

Hippo? look more closely!

OK, the passage also says:
"Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox."

Dinosaurs didn't eat grass, oxen chew cud, dinosaurs didn't chew, they ripped off leaves from trees and swallowed.

"Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly."

Dinosaurs, being egg leayers, didn't have navels.

"He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his thighs are wrapped together."

It says he 'moveth' his tail like a cedar, not that his tail was as big as a cedar.   Many translations of this passage say that this was a euphimism for the animals genitalia.

"He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens."

Sauropod dinosaurs, laying under shady trees?!?  They'd have to be some big trees!

And let's not forget that no sauropod dinosaur remains have been found later than 65 million years ago!  No, there is no way in hell behemoth was a dinosaur.  If all you have is a misinterpretation of the bible, then you have absolutely no evidence to support this claim.

A wale? give me a brake!

A whale or a large crocodle or some other sea going animal that was alive at the time.  Certainly not a pleisiosaur!  All the other crap you posted is nothing more than hyperbole and really amounts to nothing.  Once again absolutely no evidence that leviathan was a giant sea going prehistoric reptile.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:24 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

that barely sounds like a croc. That was a lame excuse.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 6:24 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

that barely sounds like a croc. That was a lame excuse.

And neither behemoth or leviathan sound like dinosaurs (or pleisiosaurs), that's just nonsense.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:25 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

actualy, the behemoth sounds like a brachiosaures


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:38 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
ProEvo

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hahahahaha, this is pure comedy. So a translation of a text sounds like a word that was made up only recently. Wow, this shows the work of the divine one!
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 10:40 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

wat?!?!?


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:42 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
ProEvo

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

tanniyn is the original word, and you link it to brachiosaures. Brachiosaures, now translate that into hebrew, and if it is similar to tanniyn then you have a point. Otherwise it is stupid. I really hope you can see that.
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 10:48 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ya i no that. but another thing, the leviathen does NOT sound like a alygator or a croc or wale, more like a kronosaures or a liopleurodon.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:57 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

actualy, the behemoth sounds like a brachiosaures

No it doesn't, where does it mention the Brachiosaurus' long neck?  And it does say the behemoth had a navel, dinosaurs didn't have navels.  So no, any objective evaluation would have to conclude, behemoth wasn't a dinosaur.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:04 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
ProEvo

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"ya i no that. but another thing, the leviathen does NOT sound like a alygator or a croc or wale, more like a kronosaures or a liopleurodon."

Unreal. Are you still trying to links words?
 


Posts: 49 | Posted: 11:07 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"He sways his tail like a cedar. Hippos and elephants dont sway their tails. They will whip them around a little but thats it. His bones are like bars of iron.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 2:32 PM on August 16, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

OK, the passage also says:
"Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox."

Dinosaurs didn't eat grass, oxen chew cud, dinosaurs didn't chew, they ripped off leaves from trees and swallowed.


GRASS DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME OF THE DINOSAURS. THERE IS NO FOSSILIZED GRASS FOUND IN THE SEDIMENTARY LAYERS CONTAINING DINOSAUR FOSSILS.

Checkmate.

"He sways his tail like a cedar. Hippos and elephants dont sway their tails. They will whip them around a little but thats it. His bones are like bars of iron.


Give us scholarly refutation, Creationist. You are demeaning yourself. I watch an elephant move its tail, and, in fact, "sway" is one of the words that comes to mind.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 8/16/2007 at 6:47 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 6:45 PM on August 16, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i have seen dinos like brachiosaureses move their tales and Sway comes to mind instantly


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 8:37 PM on August 16, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i have seen dinos like brachiosaureses move their tales and Sway comes to mind instantly


And there we are, Creationest6: the leap of logic in your argument.

If a thousand different types of animal sway their tails, who are you to decide which animal the Bible is alluding to?


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 9:57 PM on August 16, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i have seen dinos like brachiosaureses move their tales and Sway comes to mind instantly

REally!  Where di you see this brachiosaurus?!?
After all, none have walked the earth for what, 100 million years?  So where did you make this observation?  
And what about the fact that dinosaurs don't have navels but the behemoth did...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:36 PM on August 16, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

on walking with Dinosaurs i saw a brachiosaures. Wen it says "navel" I dont think it is being literal. It also says "He is first in the ways of god". That means he is the largest creature to be created, or from your point of view, evolved.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 11:48 AM on August 17, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

on walking with Dinosaurs i saw a brachiosaures.

But on Walking with dinosaurs, the brachiosaurus was based on reconstructions created by evolutionists.  How come you accept what evolutionists say the brachiosaurus looked like but you don't when they say it lived.  How do you determine when evolutionists are right and when they are wrong?  Seems like you're very inconsistant...

Wen it says "navel" I dont think it is being literal.

Why not?  Why do you think it's not being literal here, it does say navel.  Why isn't it literal here and yet you claim it's literal in other places...

It also says "He is first in the ways of god". That means he is the largest creature to be created, or from your point of view,
evolved.


First in the ways of God means he is the largest creature to be created????  Doesn't look like that to me.  Nowhere does "First in the ways of God" have any conotation of size.  Again, you are interpreting these passages to support your preconceived ideas.  You are twisting the words of the bible to support your superstitions.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:21 PM on August 17, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

that is how it is interpetid


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 09:58 AM on September 1, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

that is how it is interpetid

That's how you interpret it but in the light of the facts that interpretation is clearly wrong.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:58 PM on September 1, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"First in the ways of god" is interpited as the largest creature created.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:00 PM on September 3, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"First in the ways of god" is interpited as the largest creature created.

So then it's wrong because the blue whale is larger...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:56 PM on September 5, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

it was taking about a land creature


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:08 PM on September 5, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Back on track here, no evidence that dinosaurs and man ever lived together and plenty of evidence that they did not.  No creationist has been able to provide any evidence to support their position.  It's just another impossible myth from the bible, the Big Book of Myths...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:21 PM on September 5, 2007 | IP
Darwin of Suburbia

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Holy hell.

I used to wish i was a paleontologist, and as a result I have accumulated a wide knowledge about dead animals, not to mention a cupboard full of bones. I doubt that the leviathan could be a plesiosaur, as one of these could easily be be killed by a javelin or whatever. As for behemoth being a Brachiosaur, I doubt they could have written anything about a brachiosaur without mentioning its neck. Furthermore, why are there only two dinosaurs in the whole bible, if that is what they are? And science does have an explaination for both these giant creatures and the giant people without having to delve into dinosauria. Think megafauna (look it up dearie), and gigantopithecus. I didn't think people still bothered with this "evidence" any more, so widely has it been discredited. Except to indoctrinate children.

I suggest that creationest retakes his childhood in a better school, with graduate teachers or whatever, and reads ALL THE EVIDENCE, not just that which matches the mindset imposed upon him by his parents presumably.

Sometimes the intellectual underclass need "tough love". ;)
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 06:38 AM on September 6, 2007 | IP
Darwin of Suburbia

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And now for the key ingredient: fire. It is hard to read Job 41:18-21 without realizing the Bible is telling us that Leviathan breathes fire. That alone will eliminate almost every living animal. Yes, there is one animal like that in today’s world. It is called a bombardier beetle. This beetle is a native of Central America, and has a nozzle in its hind end that acts like a little flame thrower. It sprays a high-temperature jet of gas (fueled by hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide with oxidative enzymes) for protection. Now, if a Central American beetle can do it, so could Leviathan. By the way, crocodiles and alligators are out of the picture on this one, don’t you agree?


Oh my God, or not as the case would have it. Where to start. They begin a sentence with And! No, that wasn't it. Let me try again:

Does this fire breathing animal sound familiar to you? A dragon, maybe? Do they exist, no. Did they ever, NO. Is this maybe a bit of the bible that isn't true? Possibly.

In case you are belligerent, incorrigible and ignorant, as your posts suggest, let's assume that it is a true bit of the bible. The way that you assume that it must be a dinosaur based on the fact that no animals alive now can breath fire is a bit like saying that Elvis was abducted by dinosaurs, as no animal alive now did it. The bombardier beetle's trick does not translate to fire breathing, it merely shoots hot, smelly fluid out of its rear. Not the same. If an animal did that, no-one would claim that it was fire breathing. The firebreathing animal must therefore have been neither a dinosaur nor an animal alive today, perhaps it was a manifestation of satan, or maybe God made it without genitals so it was a one-off. Or maybe that part of the old testament was made up. I don't care which you choose, but stop offending myself and Ross from Friends, by saying that it was a dinosaur!

 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 07:03 AM on September 6, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

it sounds alot like a lioplearudon


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 5:59 PM on September 6, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

it sounds alot like a lioplearudon

As you've shown us, with enough wishful thinking and willful ignorance, anything can sound like anything!  And of course, it wasn't
Liopleurodon, they all died out over 150 million years ago.  No evidence that they survived into modern times.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:38 PM on September 6, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the loch ness monster is a pleisaures


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:35 PM on September 6, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the loch ness monster is a pleisaures

No, it's not.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:15 AM on September 7, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

wat is it den


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 09:51 AM on September 8, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

wat is it den

I don't know but it can not possibly be a pleisiosaur.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:42 PM on September 8, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

from all of the pics i have seen it looks alot like one.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:57 AM on September 9, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

from all of the pics i have seen it looks alot like one.

You mean all those hoaxes?

And from here:
Plesiosaur

"On the other hand, mainstream science does offer plausible reasons why such an animal could not exist in Loch Ness. Apart from its apparent extinction, the plesiosaur was probably a cold-blooded reptile requiring warm tropical waters, while the average temperature of Loch Ness is only about 5.5°C (42°F). Even if the plesiosaurs were warm-blooded, they would require a food supply beyond that of Loch Ness to maintain the level of activity necessary for warm-blooded animals. [6]

Moreover, there is no substantive evidence in the bone structure of fossilised plesiosaurs that indicate sonar capability (similar to that possessed by dolphins and whales). Such a system would be necessary in the loch, as visibility is limited to less than 15 feet due to a high peat concentration in the loch. Consequently, sunlight does not deeply penetrate the water, limiting the amount of photosynthetic algae, thereby reducing the number of plankton and fish in the food chain. Fossil evidence indicates plesiosaurs were sight hunters; it is unlikely that the loch's peat-stained water would allow such animals to hunt the limited food supply at sufficient levels.

In October 2006, Leslie Noè of the Sedgwick Museum in Cambridge pointed out that, "The osteology of the neck makes it absolutely certain that the plesiosaur could not lift its head up swan-like out of the water", precluding the possibility that Nessie is a plesiosaur. [7]"

So I stand by my statement, it can't be a plesiosaur.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:36 PM on September 9, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the plesiosaur was probably a cold-blooded reptile

Yes probaly, could have been warm blooded


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 7:45 PM on September 10, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes probaly, could have been warm
blooded


Most likely it was not wram blooded, but Loch Ness doesn't have enough food to sustain a family of large predators.  Plesiosaurs couldn't move their necks like the "pictures" of the Loch Ness monster show.  No, there is no way the Loch Ness monster is a plesiosaur.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:07 PM on September 11, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how do u no how it moved?


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 6:47 PM on September 12, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how do u no how it moved?

Didn't you bother to read my post???  You keep asking for proof and when it's provided, you don't even read it.  From my post abouve:

"In October 2006, Leslie Noè of the Sedgwick Museum in Cambridge pointed out that, "The osteology of the neck makes it absolutely certain that the plesiosaur could not lift its head up swan-like out of the water", precluding the possibility that Nessie is a plesiosaur. [7]"

So we know it could NOT move like the hoax photos of the Loch Ness monster show it moving.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:27 PM on September 13, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

it could be a deformed plesiasaur


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:49 AM on September 16, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

it could be a deformed plesiasaur

Only in your imagination!  So one deformed plesiosaur  has been evading capture for what, 1000 years????   And just how would a plesiosaur live that long, let alone a deformed one?  What about the fact that the plesiosaur was a line of sight predator, it couldn't see to catch food in the loch.  What about the fact that the loch doesn't have enough food in it to feed a large predator?  What about the fact that the evidence for the last living plesiosaur is from over 100 million years ago?  So, I'll repeat your mantra, Proof please...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 7:50 PM on September 16, 2007 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.