Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Names of gigantic beasts or monsters described in Job xl. The former is from a root denoting "coil," "twist"; the latter is the plural form of "behemah"="beast."
—Biblical Data:
Ever since Bochart ("Hierozoicon," iii. 705), "behemoth" has been taken to denote the hippopotamus; and Jablonski, to make it correspond exactly with that animal, compared an Egyptian form, "p-ehe-mu" (= "water-ox"), which, however, does not exist. The Biblical description contains mythical elements, and the conclusion is justified that these monsters were not real...
The body of the leviathan, especially his eyes, possesses great illuminating power. This was the opinion of R. Eliezer, who, in the course of a voyage in company with R. Joshua, explained to the latter, when frightened by the sudden appearance of a brilliant light, that it probably proceeded from the eyes of the leviathan. He referred his companion to the words of Job xli. 18: "By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning" (B. B. l.c.). However, in spite of his supernatural strength, the leviathan is afraid of a small worm called "kilbit" (), which clings to the gills of large fishes and kills them (Shab. 77b)....
Symbolical Interpretation.
These haggadot concerning the leviathan are interpreted as allegories by all the commentators with the exception of some ultraconservatives like Baḥya ben Asher ("Shulḥan Arba'," ch. iv., p. 9, col. 3).
This was not the article I read but is similar.
Of course, those who would embrace that belief, are usually those who do not actually believe the Bible anyway. Some folks go to great lengths to explain away the written Word. Dinosaurs eyes very well may of had a glow to them, and it has nothing to do with a mythical belief. Some animals eyes do glow at night. Consider the link below.
Stop it, guys! This is all so confusing... misplaced times, out-of-sequence and inappropriate methods, lying assumptive scientists the world over..
It hurts! IT HURTS
MAKE IT STOP!
Well, seriously, enough of the theatrics, though Tom's side surely has enough of 'em, eh? I'll just agree with you for a moment, C34:
Let's list all my stupid conclusions (and your related admissions or comments, attached to each one of mine). My points, in dark red below, let's say are all based on inaccuracies and scientific assumptions.
I Say:
1. MODERN ARCHEOLOGICAL DATING TECHNIQUES are at the very least borderline reliable.
(You agree completely, else why continue to state that the El Toro figurines were accurately dated four different times at 1500 to 4000 years old by those same techniques?)
2. I (AND MANY OTHERS) CORRECTLY NOTE THAT THREE OF THE FOUR TIMES THESE El Toro ITEMS WERE DATED, THE ENTIRELY WRONG TECHNIQUE WAS USED.
(You say that professional scientists, whom you later accuse of lying and fraud, would never use the wrong technique.)
3. EVEN VALID OLD ARTIFACTS IN MEXICO DON'T DISPROVE EVOLUTION. UNRELATED.
(You state that they PROVE that dinosaurs and humans happily co-existed. and thus were on the planet at the same time. In Mexico and everywhere else, one would logically presume...)
4. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE IN ANY WORLDWIDE ARCHEOLOGY DIGS OF HUMANOID REMAINS BEING MIXED IN WITH DINO REMAINS, which would naturally occur if they were cavorting together, or especially if a hungry T-Rex, turned renegade and no longer a vegan (ROTFLMAO), decided to eat an ape-man, and hence leave bones in his fossilized gullet (like we've found with other co-existant life forms in dino stomachs)
(You state that this is all assumption and illogical. but don't tell us why.)
4. THERE'S AT LEAST SOME INDICATIONS OF POSSIBLE FRAUD IN THE ALCAMBERA El Toro FIND.
(You completely dismiss out of hand even the possibility of fraud here, loudly "neener neenering" it with your ears firmly covered.)
5. WORLD-WIDE, WE HAVE LITERALLY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF WELL-PRESERVED FOSSIL REMAINS THAT HAD TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE, AND WHICH HAPPEN TO FALL INTO A POSITIONAL ORDER WHEN DUG UP THAT IS COMPLETELY & ACCURATELY PREDICTED BY COMMON SENSE, LOGIC AND EVOLUTION.
(You say "science just operates on assumptions but won't tell us what they are).
6. THOSE SUPPOSEDLY NOW ACCURATE DATING METHODS YOU RELY ON ALSO PLACE ALL THE KNOWN FOSSILS THAT HAVE BEEN TESTED AT WAAAYYYY OLDER THAN THE YEC-REQUIRED 6035 YEARS. In facty-fact, these fossils are correctly dated and positioned at ranges of 15 to 65 million years of age.
(You, well, you.... what is it you do here, Tom? I'm sure you've got some cute deflective answer for this little corner you find yourself in, but frankly it's all been so illogical so often that I've forgotten. Remind me! And remember, common sense should be your guide, m'boy, not fantasy!)
Well, there's so much more, but I know this can be too much for you, so, please, do tell us all what you think. Besides, there's still that nagging Homework Question about the 70 or so million happy cruise boaters that Noah had to carry if there was no subsequent Evolution allowed to flesh out all the 30- 40 M known species now counted on our little planet. (That's a fact; no assumptions here, Tom... sorry)
Tell me where, by reference to my numbers above, my assumptions are wrong, and yours are right.
Sigh... As I said before; this is too easy! And entertaining! And fun!
1. According to News in Science, Radio carbon dating becomes less reliable with older material. If we are talking a few thousand years that is one thing, if we are talking 75 million years, well, it's anybodys guess.
2. If they were testing the carbon on the surface of the figurines with a carbon 14 test, why would that be wrong?
3. Correct, the figurines would not disprove Evolution, yet they would remove one of it's popular time supports.
4. If there is fraud in the collection, you would have to spell that out for me. Because right now, the only one that really tried to debunk the collection was a very pro believer in evolution whos negative comments were shown to be false. And his comments were based on a two day viewing back in the 1950s. Other well known scientist did not agree with his opinion.
5. If fossils are in order, why do we find fossils that are just as complex found in the cambrian layers?
6. As I pointed out, News in Science tells us the older the material tested, the less reliable the results become. Five samples of rock from Mt. St. Helens was tested not that long ago. The results were less then impressive. Yet if they did not know the actual age of the rock, many here would of believed those dates today as being confirmed true by science. Consider the link below.
Of course, those who would embrace that belief, are usually those who do not actually believe the Bible anyway. Some folks go to great lengths to explain away the written Word. Dinosaurs eyes very well may of had a glow to them, and it has nothing to do with a mythical belief. Some animals eyes do glow at night. Consider the link below.
Did you read the article in it's entirety or just dismiss it. The rules of the forum do not allow us to copy and paste an entire article thus the link. The article in it's entirety has nothing to your link of glowing eyes in the dark - you think I do not know what causes that?
Seeing your faith is based on and you cite the Hebrew scriptures, are you now dismissing their commentaries? Would they not be closer to the truth seeing it is their culture and all?
It's also no longer funny to to me, or, I'll bet, most others, as stubborn illiterate reactionism is hardly entertaining. Don't get overly caught up. That's likely exactly what he is seeking, not honest debate.
I don't know about you, but I am learning a lot, especially from Rifleman and SeekerSA. AND I'm also learning just how far some Creationists will go to try make everything fit into their stories and myths.
1. According to News in Science, Radio carbon dating becomes less reliable with older material. If we are talking a few thousand years that is one thing, if we are talking 75 million years, well, it's anybodys guess.
C14 is only good for 50k years or so. The fossils have been tested using the appropriate dating techniques that is more accurate and spans much longer periods.
Quote:
2. If they were testing the carbon on the surface of the figurines with a carbon 14 test, why would that be wrong?
C14 can only be used on stuff that actually ingests carbon in one way or another. What guarantee would one have the carbon on the surface was not a foreign contamination? However we have posted this ad nausium but you choose to ignore.
Quote:
3. Correct, the figurines would not disprove Evolution, yet they would remove one of it's popular time supports.
No they would not - only in your puny closed mind.
Quote:
4. If there is fraud in the collection, you would have to spell that out for me. Because right now, the only one that really tried to debunk the collection was a very pro believer in evolution whos negative comments were shown to be false. And his comments were based on a two day viewing back in the 1950s. Other well known scientist did not agree with his opinion.
The burden of proof resides with your camp. Accept Rifleman's offer or shut up already.
Quote:
5. If fossils are in order, why do we find fossils that are just as complex found in the cambrian layers?
Such as?
Quote:
6. As I pointed out, News in Science tells us the older the material tested, the less reliable the results become. Five samples of rock from Mt. St. Helens was tested not that long ago. The results were less then impressive. Yet if they did not know the actual age of the rock, many here would of believed those dates today as being confirmed true by science. Consider the link below.
You really want to discuss volcanoes? BTW we do not take creationist sites as a valid link unless you can corroborate that with other scientific impartial links, like folk who do not need to sign off on an inerrant biblical POV or YEC worldview.
As for dating of the age of rocks, you still have not offered ANYTHING in terms of moon rocks or the Canadian rocks dated at 4.5Bn years old.
Seeing Mount St. Helens is an active volcano, it stands to reason that the cap age may not be as old as other rocks dated elsewhere, heard of geological recycling?
We have described the dating method whereby samples are heated to test age and once that is done the sample is reset, or IOW, that test can only be carried out once per sample.
BTW that reply was entirely off the top of my head or IOW memory of what has been stated here time and again, I am not even a scientist like Rifleman.
The biblical account? You mean two creatures in Job, a book whose origins are shown to be borrowed from other culture(s).
I have done research on this from Jewish scholars and the one I found reminded the folk that these two names for behemoth and leviathan are NOT Hebrew words. I will need to post it later.
Now you are talking BS. You are being obtuse. How can the age be assumptive if they have been dated with later more accurate dating methods? Are you now being flexi preferential with all dating methods?
Well here we are entering Kent Hovind's woo-woo world of conspiracy. You state no conspiracy and the very next sentence you claim (bolded)held in check by those in charge You make extraordinary claims so citation needed - Oh wait you will only be able to quote doctor (NOT) Hovind.
Numerous bible verses have been found to be edited and look like they belong blah blah - are we to believe the bible is thus valid? (1 John5:7-8)
My statement is true - yours is not . We have been over this before. Furthermore offer a citation for your claims wrt to the fresh flesh and veins.
1 John 5:7,8 was quoted by numerous early church fathers, so without question the verse was there from the beginning. It was believed that some in the past tried to remove it from the scriptures yet did not succeed. consider link below.
Why 1 John 5.7-8 is in the Bible (http://www.bibleone.org/Article.aspx?Channel=1&Article=22&language=0 - broken link)
1 John 5:7,8 was quoted by numerous early church fathers, so without question the verse was there from the beginning. It was believed that some in the past tried to remove it from the scriptures yet did not succeed. consider link below.
Why 1 John 5.7-8 is in the Bible (http://www.bibleone.org/Article.aspx?Channel=1&Article=22&language=0 - broken link)
Your knowledge is appalling. The majority agree that the text should not be there. End of this deflection. Start a new thread if you want to argue this.
Where is your citation of the fresh flesh? That was the purpose of the post.
Carbon 14 was used to test the carbon (on the figurines), so it was not the wrong method.
And John Tierney had two framents of the Julsrud type ceramics that were removed from El Toro mountain (back in 1956). He had those fragments tested after the University of Pennsylvania's Thermoluminescent test was done.
Nope. The article by Dennis Swift (on numerous websites) actually says:
Quote:
John Tierney determined to expose the University of Pennsylvania's shenanigans by testing with standard procedures. Tierney had two fragments of Julsrud type ceramics excavated at El Toro Mountain in Acambaro and in 1956, in Julsrud's presence, Tierney submitted these pieces to Dr. Victor J. Bortolet, Director of Research of Daybreak Nucleari Archaeometrics Laboratory Services for dating.
I know it doesn't make sense, and if that's not what he meant, then perhaps he should change his story.
As for testing carbon ON the figurines- I don't know enough about this field. I'm sure Rifleman or SeekerSA would know more about how that's done.
My questions would be: Would someone be able to tell if some type of organic material was caked onto the object afterwards, or if it had been ON the object for a long time? What if the object was very recent but had been buried later in soil that contained organic material that was thousands of years old?
Jaymax, rifleman and others: you've elegantly provided your well-organized thoughts in a most thought-provoking way, to the satisfaction of most all readers. Your debator here has stubbornly resisted all common-sense and evidence, and is not likely to ever react to such common sense as his life and mental health stability obviously requires a theistic supernatural force to explain the scarier things in his family's life history.
It's also no longer funny to to me, or, I'll bet, most others, as stubborn illiterate reactionism is hardly entertaining. Don't get overly caught up. That's likely exactly what he is seeking, not honest debate.
The style of Campbell is rinse, recycle, repeat. This is why this thread can go on ad infinitum. We are now entering spin cycle 4 I believe.
Anything Kent Hovind has to offer has been thoroghly refuted and his dishonesty exposed in a well presented rebuttal. See the Creationist Lies - Part A and the No Answers in Genesis which has all the wacko YEC loonies claims collated and refuted with real links to real living scientists.
Anything Campbell may produce from herr doktor (NOT) Hovind, a rebuttal already exists as his stuff is already 10 years old and just like Campbell, he is recycling old crap for new unsuspecting/science illiterate customers for his books and tapes.
A snippet from the Creationist lies of herr doktor (NOT) Hovind
Hovind: "Only land-dwelling, air-breathing animals had to be included on the ark (Gen. 7:15, "in which is the breath of life"). Lie #307. Gen 6:13 "The end of all flesh is come before me" Gen 6:17 "...everything that is in the Earth shall die." Does this not mean all living things, including plants? Do not fish and plants take in oxygen (the breath of life)? Gen 6:19 "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark..." Doesn't this mean everything? Doesn't every sort mean every species?
Hovind: "Many animals sleep, hibernate, or become very inactive during bad weather." Lie #308. In the comfort of their own home in winter, yes. Confined in the dark on an unstable boat in rough seas? No! Most animals would die. If you doubt this, find out how many slaves died in similar conditions on a simple trip across the Atlantic lasting a couple of months. These people were treated like animals and were doubtlessly scared, but at least they had a better understanding of their circumstances than any panicked animal would do. They were human, and many of them died under those conditions. Where does Hovind get off imagining that real and petrified animals would do better?
Hovind: "All animals (and people) were vegetarians before and during the Flood according to Gen. 1:20-30 with Gen. 9:3." Lie #309. Animals were a mixture of herbivorous _and_ carnivorous according to the fossil record of their teeth. Hovind either has to find that fossil layer showing only herbivores, or he has to come up with the science to explain how carnivorous dentition was able to masticate plant material - and while he is at it, explain where all the aquatic species found all the plant material.
Hovind who's thesis has been equated to no more than that of a grade 10 term paper in which he claims his doctorate (NOT)
The doctorate supposedly in education and claims teaching science for 15 years yet frequently makes fundamental high school level mistakes. IOW a Grade 12 scholar studying real science would pick up his erroneous statements as being false.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
