Dinosaurs

[CabinetMaker]

A bang-up job you're doing of it too.

I never said I was ignoring you.

But you won't provide any good reasons in the face of the Bible describing creatures that sound a lot like dinos.

By your own admission here, you are not convinced that the Bible describes dinos. "A lot like" is not the same thing as "are".

Sure, it does. The Bible also says "six days." You reject that too.

Yes, I do. That is why I am an old earth creationist. I believe God created everything, I just believe that based on the evidence He left for us to find, He took longer than six days.

No interpretation necessary. You posted the passage yourself. It says what it says.Dinos.

No, the passage I posted describes a fire breathing dragon, not a dinosaur. Therefore, you believe in fire breathing dragons.

And of course you are some kind of expert. Perhaps you can tell us what the details mean if they cannot mean what they plainly say.

Please show us an example of a fire breathing dragon in the fossil record. If its not there, then the descriptions in Job are embellished to make a point about something other than an animal..

Methinks you'll pass on that challenge too. As you have passed on every other question you've been asked.

I have not passed on any questions, you, by your own admission, just ignore answers that don't fit your world view.

 

[Stripe]

I have not passed on any questions.

Except for the one where I asked you what the details of the description mean if they do not mean what they plainly say. You skipped that one. And you skipped all the others.

Evolutionists hate a challenge.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Except for the one where I asked you what the details of the description mean if they do not mean what they plainly say. You skipped that one. And you skipped all the others.

Evolutionists hate a challenge.

No, I didn't. Remember, you admitted you ignore answers you don't like. Since you ignore things you have no way to know if you have been answered or not. That is your problem, not mine.

 

[Stripe]

Evolutionists hate a challenge. This Darwinist says Job 41 cannot mean what it plainly says, but he won't offer an idea of what the details mean otherwise.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Evolutionists hate a challenge. This Darwinist says Job 40 cannot mean what it plainly says, but he won't offer an idea of what the details mean otherwise.

Neither will he take JD to task over his ignorant analogy.

No, that is not what I said. I asked you about Job 41:

12 “I will not fail to speak of Leviathan’s limbs, its strength and its graceful form. 13 Who can strip off its outer coat? Who can penetrate its double coat of armor[b]? 14 Who dares open the doors of its mouth, ringed about with fearsome teeth? 15 Its back has[c] rows of shields tightly sealed together; 16 each is so close to the next that no air can pass between. 17 They are joined fast to one another; they cling together and cannot be parted. 18 Its snorting throws out flashes of light; its eyes are like the rays of dawn. 19 Flames stream from its mouth; sparks of fire shoot out. 20 Smoke pours from its nostrils as from a boiling pot over burning reeds. 21 Its breath sets coals ablaze, and flames dart from its mouth.

Apparently young earth creationists hate a challenge that takes a passage of text literally and asks them to support it with some real evidence.

 

[Stripe]

Posting in chiasm.

Posting in chiasm.

The evidence has already been presented:

Job 40 and 41 might well describe dinos. This is evidence that men and dinosaurs coexisted.

Darwinists try to mythicize the text out of existence, a tactic they are well practiced at with the creation account and its descriptions.

However, they won't tell us what the passages' details mean if the descriptions cannot mean what they plainly say.

Pretending that the evidence has not been presented is not going to help you.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Evolutionists hate a challenge. This Darwinist says Job 40 cannot mean what it plainly says, but he won't offer an idea of what the details mean otherwise.

Since you ask about the behemoth in Job 40, it most closely is represented by an elephant or a hypo if you limit your options to herbivores. If you wish to limit the description based on the tail then, in my mind, it most resembles a crocodile. The description could also be an allegory used to represent something else.

 

[Stripe]

Since you ask about the behemoth in Job 40, it most closely is represented by an elephant or a hypo if you limit your options to herbivores. If you wish to limit the description based on the tail then, in my mind, it most resembles a crocodile.

:darwinsm: Croco-phant, anyone?

The description could also be an allegory used to represent something else.

Or it could be a dino. And of course you won't tell us what the passages' details mean if they cannot mean what the descriptions plainly say.

 

[CabinetMaker]

The evidence has already been presented:

Job 40 and 41 might well describe dinos. This is evidence that men and dinosaurs coexisted.

It is an unsupported hypothesis. There is plenty of evidence the dinosaurs existed. There is plenty of evidence that early man existed. There is no evidence that they existed together. Had there been a global flood, dinosaur and human remains would have been found together. They are not. In fact, dinosaur fossils are always found at lower levels in the strata than human remains.

Darwinists try to mythicize the text out of existence, a tactic they are well practiced at with the creation account and its descriptions.

Once you produce a fire breathing dragon fossil then evolution science will have a real challenge. Until then, the passage appears to be allegorical, not factual.

However, they won't tell us what the passages' details mean if they cannot mean what they plainly say.

Pretending that the evidence has not been presented is not going to help you.

Your one passage from Job does not address the observable facts that God left for us to find. It is not evidence, it is a wish. Until you honestly address why dinosaur and human fossils are never found together you have nothing.

 

[Stripe]

It is an unsupported hypothesis.

Nope. It's a fact. These passages might describe dinos.

There is no evidence that they existed together.

Only if you ignore the evidence.

Had there been a global flood, dinosaur and human remains would have been found together.

Nope. And you need to deal with the evidence presented, not gallop out all the rabbit trails you can to disguise the fact that you are stumped by the evidence.

Once you produce a fire breathing dragon fossil then evolution science will have a real challenge.

Nope. We have evidence now. We know you hate evidence and will do anything to avoid a rational discussion over it.

The passage appears to be allegorical.

That which you assert without evidence we are justified in ignoring without reason.

 

[ok doser]

Once you produce a fire breathing dragon fossil...

what would you expect that to look like?

scorch marks in the rock?

 

[CabinetMaker]

what would you expect that to look like?

scorch marks in the rock?

This seems like it would be fossilized.

15 Its back has[c] rows of shields
tightly sealed together;
16 each is so close to the next
that no air can pass between.
17 They are joined fast to one another;
they cling together and cannot be parted.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Nope. It's a fact. These passages might describe dinos.

Which also means these pasages might not describe dinosaurs. You defeat your own "best" evidence.

Only if you ignore the evidence.

You have provided none to examine.

Nope. And you need to deal with the evidence presented, not gallop out all the rabbit trails you can to disguise the fact that you are stumped by the evidence.

I am intrigued by an allegorical passage. It is not evidence.

Nope. We have evidence now. We know you hate evidence and will do anything to avoid a rational discussion over it.

Then you keep it exceedingly well hidden. Which is really strange as if you actually had said evidence I can no see reason why you would wish to hide it.

That which you assert without evidence we are justified in ignoring without reason.

Unless and until you can show us a fossil that has:
15 Its back has[c] rows of shields
tightly sealed together;
16 each is so close to the next
that no air can pass between.
17 They are joined fast to one another;
they cling together and cannot be parted.
Then the dragons of Job are as fantastical and the unicorns of Noah.

 

[User Name]

12 “I will not fail to speak of Leviathan... 14 Who dares open the doors of its mouth, ringed about with fearsome teeth? 15 Its back has[c] rows of shields tightly sealed together... 18 Its snorting throws out flashes of light; its eyes are like the rays of dawn. 19 Flames stream from its mouth; sparks of fire shoot out. 20 Smoke pours from its nostrils as from a boiling pot over burning reeds. 21 Its breath sets coals ablaze, and flames dart from its mouth.

Godzilla?

 

[Stripe]

Which also means these pasages might not describe dinosaurs. You defeat your own "best" evidence.

:darwinsm:

You have no idea how science works, do you?

When you have an idea, you hold it loosely and work to falsify it.

That someone might say the passages could describe a crocodile — which is your idea — has no impact on the situation.

You have provided none to examine.

Except the evidence you ignored.

The Bible describes creatures that could be dinos, evidence that men and those animals coexisted.

 

[CabinetMaker]

:darwinsm:

You have no idea how science works, do you?

When you have an idea, you hold it loosely and work to falsify it.

That someone might say the passages could describe a crocodile — which is your idea — has no impact on the situation.

You have two passages in scripture that constitute 100% of your evidence and you say I don't understand science. Scripture mentions lions, can you show me a lion? Scripture mentions sheep, can you show me a sheep? Scripture mentions a wolf, can you show me a wolf? Scripture mentions a horse, can you you show me horse? Scripture mentions a fire breathing dragon, can you show me a fire breathing dragon? Why not?

Except the evidence you ignored.

I didn't ignore you passage, I challenged you to support it like you could with lions and sheep and wolves and horses. And you failed.

The Bible describes creatures that could be dinos, evidence that men and those animals coexisted.

As long as you continue to include qualifiers like "could" and "might" in this sentence you acknowledge that the passages equally does not support dinosaurs. In short, you discount your own evidence.

 

[Jose Fly]

So some Christian creationists believe dinosaurs and humans co-existed......so what? People from varying religions believe all sorts of things.

As 6days has repeatedly stated, creationism is "a belief about the past" and not science.

 

[Stripe]

You have two passages in scripture that constitute 100% of your evidence.

Nope.

You say I don't understand science.

That's right. You denied the legitimacy of my holding the evidence loosely, pretending it was reason to disregard the evidence. Furthermore, you have consistently denied that I even presented evidence.

Your sole commitment is to protection your precious religion.

Scripture mentions a fire breathing dragon, can you show me a fire breathing dragon?

You have an argument from silence. Congratulations. One more and you'll have the full set of fallacies.

As long as you continue to include qualifiers like "could" and "might" in this sentence you acknowledge that the passages equally does not support dinosaurs. In short, you discount your own evidence.

:darwinsm:

:mock: anti-science morons.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Nope.

You have offered nothing else.

That's right. You denied the legitimacy of my holding the evidence loosely, pretending it was reason to disregard the evidence. Furthermore, you have consistently denied that I even presented evidence.

You have presented scripture regarding animals without support. You completely ignored my questions about other animals in scripture. Why was that?

Your sole commitment is to protection your precious religion.

Actually, I have been asking you to defend yours. You have failed spectacularly.

You have an argument from silence. Congratulations. One more and you'll have the full set of fallacies.

How do you figure that one?

:darwinsm:

:mock: anti-science morons.

Much peer reviewed evidence has been presented on this thread. That is how science is done. Stipe say that all those who spent years in university and doing the actual work are wrong is not science.

 

[Stripe]

You have offered nothing else.

And you've offered nothing.

You have presented scripture regarding animals

And you've ignored the evidence.

Much peer reviewed evidence has been presented on this thread. That is how science is done.

Nope. Science is done by formulating an idea and testing it against the evidence.

Stipe.

My name has an "r" in it, retard.