Dinosaurs

[Stripe]

While the combination print could be a fake, there are 2 things that vouch for its authenticity. One is the desity of the rock in the right places for a footprint, and the other is the size of the track. Although making a track by drying mud is possible, fakers would try to make a more standard size foot.

The real take away from the track is that the tracks keep going under undisturbed banks. If there were scientists that were really interested in the truth, they would have investigated further. But they aren't really interested in the truth.

Yeah. I've seen images like that where a cross-section proves it was carved and others where the cross-section proves it wasn't.

 

[TracerBullet]

And your comment about "why aren't they buried together in every possible combination?" simply exposes your ignorance about what flood geologists say about the flood. That's called "not looking at both sides." This, again, highlights why I give points to the common descent side of the debate... because unlike you I look at both sides.

so why aren't modern mammals buried together with dinosaurs in every possible combination?

Except that it shows there is no pattern of common descent when we compare DNA to homology, biogeography, and geography that shows continental drift is wildly different than common descent needs to be even a hypothesis.

References?

 

[Jonahdog]

so why aren't modern mammals buried together with dinosaurs in every possible combination?





References?

Mammals could run faster so they got higher before they drowned? Or some sort of hydrologic sorting? Dino flesh denser than mammal? Must be something like one of those. Wonder if any of the scientists at AiG or Liberty University are working on that issue?

 

[TracerBullet]

Mammals could run faster so they got higher before they drowned? Or some sort of hydrologic sorting? Dino flesh denser than mammal? Must be something like one of those. Wonder if any of the scientists at AiG or Liberty University are working on that issue?

Years ago i read about a 'scientist' using a tank of water and plastic dinosaur models to prove that dinosaurs were more stream lined and thus would have sank faster than mammals. I laughed until i realized this was not a joke

 

[Jonahdog]

Years ago i read about a 'scientist' using a tank of water and plastic dinosaur models to prove that dinosaurs were more stream lined and thus would have sank faster than mammals. I laughed until i realized this was not a joke

Kent Hovind perhaps? Sounds like something he would have done.

 

[The Barbarian]

Will you ask Knight what rule The Barbarian broke for me? Thanks

It's the way things work here. No hard feelings on my part.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, it doesn't.

Here's your chance to learn something.

Look up those two phrases in the Bible and tell us why there are no descriptions of those ideas.

Well, let's take a look...

The word in Genesis for the windows of heaven is "arubbah", meaning something like a sluice gate.
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/699.htm

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of the life of Noe, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were opened:

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

So the story of Noah and the flood is literally true, except where it isn't. Apparently, the argument is that the "fountains of the deep" are literally true, but the sluice gates of heaven are not. Or something like that.

Meanwhile, the evidence remains uncontested: The Bible describes behemoth and leviathan.

Most likely elephant or hippo. The "tail" is a euphemism, commonly used in Hebrew.

 

[6days]

So the story of Noah and the flood is literally true, except where it isn't.

The account of Noah and the flood is recorded as true history. Jesus referred to it as a real event. Peter also believed in the worldwide flood. The early church father's believed in the global flood. Evolutionists don't believe that a 'day' means a day....they don't believe that 'all' the high mountains means all the high mountains.

 

[The Barbarian]

The account of Noah and the flood is recorded as true history. Jesus referred to it as a real event.

Of course, He never said it was a real event. If your argument is that whenever Jesus refers to an allegory, it becomes an historical event, I'd be pleased to see your reasoning.

So far, you've dodged that question everytime I've posed it.

It certainly doesn't seem rational to declare that in the same sentence, the "fountains of the deep" are literally true, but the "windows" in the sky are not literally true.

It sure looks like cafeteria Christianity carried to a completely absurd level.

Explain to us, if you can, why it isn't.

 

[6days]

Meanwhile, the evidence remains uncontested: The Bible describes behemoth and leviathan.

Most likely elephant or hippo. The "tail" is a euphemism, commonly used in Hebrew.

Your 'tale' is a tall one.*


As Stripe said, the Bible describes behemoth*and leviathon....likely *dinosaurs, but we don't know for sure. However we do know that elephants don't have a tail like a cedar tree.

 

[The Barbarian]

Your 'tale' is a tall one.*

Denial isn't going to help you much. Read the verse in context and that will immediately tell you that "tail" is a euphemism.

There are other anatomical details that make this clear.

 

[Interplanner]

Your 'tale' is a tall one.*


As Stripe said, the Bible describes behemoth*and leviathon....likely *dinosaurs, but we don't know for sure. However we do know that elephants don't have a tail like a cedar tree.

*s seem to pop in to your posts just about any time they want. Could you explain?

The references to such creatures can point to how suddenly the watery world before creation was changed to what we now have. While the 'formless and void' world may have existed a long time, this points to a very quick creation.

The rarity of them, and the fear of them, are familiar from other ancient near east cosmology. Sometimes the whole pre-existing earth is said to have been one huge lizard that needed to be killed and then the creator changed all that material into the earth we now have.

So even though the oldest book, Job, has such fear of them, we also notice that they were not meant to survive and did not survive generally in the 'formed and filled' earth of Gen 1.

 

[TracerBullet]

Your 'tale' is a tall one.*


As Stripe said, the Bible describes behemoth*and leviathon....likely *dinosaurs, but we don't know for sure. However we do know that elephants don't have a tail like a cedar tree.

the biblical description of the behemoth could apply to any number of mammals. But only mammals. the behemoth has a navel and since dinosaurs were egg layers....

 

[The Barbarian]

the biblical description of the behemoth could apply to any number of mammals. But only mammals. the behemoth has a navel and since dinosaurs were egg layers....

Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

And only mammals have external er, "stones."

 

[Stripe]

*s seem to pop in to your posts just about any time they want. Could you explain?

The references to such creatures can point to how suddenly the watery world before creation was changed to what we now have. While the 'formless and void' world may have existed a long time, this points to a very quick creation.

The rarity of them, and the fear of them, are familiar from other ancient near east cosmology. Sometimes the whole pre-existing earth is said to have been one huge lizard that needed to be killed and then the creator changed all that material into the earth we now have.

So even though the oldest book, Job, has such fear of them, we also notice that they were not meant to survive and did not survive generally in the 'formed and filled' earth of Gen 1.

This is why you shouldn't do drugs.

 

[Interplanner]

This is why you shouldn't do drugs.

???
I have no idea what you are saying. I can't tell if you're referring to the *s or if you have no background on 'formless and void' in Gen 1 and 2 Peter 3.

 

[6days]

*s seem to pop in to your posts just about any time they want. Could you explain?

Nope... I try delete them sometimes before I post but..... Sorry...Its annoying.

The references to such creatures can point to how suddenly the watery world before creation was changed to what we now have.

Like Stripe suggested... you seem to be on drugs.
You sure like to add psychodelic things into scripture.

While the 'formless and void' world may have existed a long time, this points to a very quick creation.

It lasted part of day 1... Read Genesis

The rarity of them, and the fear of them, are familiar from other ancient near east cosmology. Sometimes the whole pre-existing earth is said to have been one huge lizard that needed to be killed and then the creator changed all that material into the earth we now have.

Magic mushrooms?
You certainly don't get those ideas from God's Word.
You continually attempt to mythologize God's Word.

So even though the oldest book, Job, has such fear of them,

Job has such fear?

we also notice that they were not meant to survive and did not survive generally in the 'formed and filled' earth of Gen 1.

God called his creation "very good' at the end of Genesis one but you reject that, thinking there was death, suffering and extinctions.
Extinctions AFTER sin and the curse is consistent with God's Word.

 

[6days]

the biblical description of the behemoth could apply to any number of mammals. But only mammals. the behemoth has a navel and since dinosaurs were egg layers....
Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

Its difficult to think outside of the evolutionary box it seems.
There are a few possibilities but the obvious one is that the word 'navel' meant something different 400 years ago.
Here is how most modern translations read...

What strength it has in its loins, what power in the muscles of its belly!
King James 2000 Bible
Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the muscles of his belly

New Living Translation
See its powerful loins and the muscles of its belly.

English Standard Version
Behold, his strength in his loins, and his power in the muscles of his belly.

New American Standard Bible
"Behold now, his strength in his loins And his power in the muscles of his belly.

King James Bible
Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Look at the strength of his loins and the power in the muscles of his belly.

International Standard Version
Now take a look at the strength that he has in his loins, and in the muscles of his abdomen.

 

[SamuelJ]

the biblical description of the behemoth could apply to any number of mammals. But only mammals. the behemoth has a navel and since dinosaurs were egg layers....

Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

And only mammals have external er, "stones."

Best point ever made on the Behemoth. Facts are facts. Reptiles don't have belly buttons

 

[chair]

Best point ever made on the Behemoth. Facts are facts. Reptiles don't have belly buttons

I don't think this translation of the Hebrew to "Navel" makes sense, at least in the modern sense of "belly button".

Which translation has it as "Navel"?