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.
Who really cares what the bible says about dinosaurs? We know dinosaurs existed, There is proof to their existance, we have fossils, bones and other artifacts. I know some Christians who think that dinosaur bones are fake...they where planted by the devil to discredit the bible. People who take the bible word for word always crack me up...lol.
That very phrase is like fingernails on a chalkboard. If the Church declared that there weren't any dinosaurs, then they automatically become fictional and therefore not believed? I'm afraid I don't understand that at all.
The question itself is rediculous in that the answers you get from Christians will range from, "no younger than 65 million years" to "no older than 4000 years." Then from certain odd-ball sects you will get that they were planted by Satan to fool man, or planted by God to test man.
And can you direct me to the scientific review that would prove your assumption, that the Inca buricl stones are fakes? Or could you show me the scientific review which would reveal that the El Toro figurines are hoaxes? I'm mean really, your the one who says science has the answers. Where's their review on these discoveries? Oh that's right, science only does a review if they think it proves evolution, and all other evidence is ignored or dismissed. Yeah, nothing like honest and unbias science. LOL
Tom completely ignores that I offered to conduct a modern dating of the Acambaro clay toys, but that the city officials, including The Minister of Culture and Ecology, and the lady Mayor, chose to completely ignore my various diligent requests for access to even a fragment of these obvious hoaxes. They have e-mail addresses, but specifically chose to not respond.
It's typical with this guy, san, as you and I now well know, that he's hopelessly stuck forever on his fantasies about friendly dinos, Arks and all the rest. He chooses to believe ANYTHING posted by ANYONE who supports the vast Christian mythology, and yet quickly dismisses any other evidence, no matter how strong.
Science has officially offered to review the Acambara toys; religion (actually, the greedy, money-grubbing Acambara Tourism Dept.) have declined.
Campbell, don't bother to ever lie about this againl It's really not very Christian of you.
The question itself is rediculous in that the answers you get from Christians will range from, "no younger than 65 million years" to "no older than 4000 years." Then from certain odd-ball sects you will get that they were planted by Satan to fool man, or planted by God to test man.
...or that man could have saddled up good of T-Rex and rode him off into the sunset.
Wasn't the famous date for Columbus' sailing 1492? That predates these claimed "free dino rides" in Peru that Campbell34 insists were happening. Seeing as how we have actual dino skeletons showing how massive they were...
...it's literally and rationally impossible that there would have been no consistent writings or commentaries about their peaceful co-existance with men within the same hisdtorical timeframe. Any figurines or artwork are either modern-day creationist hoaxes (oh say it isn't so!) or the product of too many magic mushrooms and fermented apple juice in a smoky hut.
A T-Rex was a very effectve, very hungry, opportunistic and very large carnivorous predator. Check out that dentition!
Adult T-Rex Head Large on Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/21617380@N08/2090125601/ - broken link)
There were literally tens of thousands of species of dinos world-wide, everywhere from South America to Alaska, and yet there's absolutely NO oral accounts or totem poles or other cave art than the Acambara or ICA burial stones, all carefully covered in great detail in the popular Christian Creationist press. Is this suspicious to anyone else? Two accounts versus tens of thousands of scientific investigations, which are, according to C34, all the result of a vast global disinformation conspiracy?
Rigggghhhtttttt.... Oh, and to what end would this be again?
This also completely ignores the fact that the fossils and DNA we now have all date reliably to millions of years ago, well before the fantasy Creationist timetable. But blurt it out again, guys.
I'm reminded of how the native American indians sat in their teepees and chanted themselves into belief in all of their mythologies while they ate various psychotropic mushrooms. Say it enough times, with fervent belief, in spite of all the other evidence, and eventually you'll believe it.
This one will run and run, but I must smile at this quote from your link.
"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.”
This is a circular argument. It says that the Bible describes a Brachiosaurus because it is bigger than the Hippo or Elephant.
How do we know that the Bible isn't talking about the Elephant and Hippo which if there is no Brachiosaurus there, would be the biggest?
But it is there. the Bible says so. How do we know the Bible is talking about the Brachiosaur? Because it is the biggest.
The mentions of Behemoth, Leviathan and the rest are arguable. Certainly the language is so poetic that it is hard to get a proper description out of it. It's true that Hippos, Oxen or Elephants don't have particularly large tails. It is arguable whether the reference to the tail is really to genitals. I don't think one can ever get to a solution from wrangling over Bible text.
I think the best evidence is scientific, as is generally the case, rather than Biblical textual.
There is no mention of dinosaurs or of the prehistoric mammals in other ancient written records. The carvings don't show them. One can make much of Babylonan dragons and the Egyptian Set god or the legend of Tiamat, but they don't add up to much more than the Welsh dragon. Mythical.
We find no dinosaur bones in the way we find the bones of domesticated or wild animals of the time. If we find the bones of prehistoric animals we find them in rocks, apart from the more recent ones in tar-pits or ice-age deposits.
At best, we could say that one or two large animals now extinct (and they could be extinct mammals) might have survived as has the Crocodile, Shark and Coelacanth, though in evolved forms.
There is a curious carving at Ta Phrom in Cambodia. It appears to show a Stegosaurus. It could be other things but it certainly does resemble one, but if so, it has changed a lot from those dug up in fossil form. It is just possible that one species survived to the 14th century in the Cambodian jungles, but it must be pretty rare as there is no other carving showing it.
So where does that leave us? There is only arguable evidence for survival of a few, rare, prehistoric animals in Biblical or more recent times. So what?
"What", is that dinosaurs have to have survived, if Young Earth creationism is to be maintained. And Young Earth creationism has to be maintained if a Bible literalist belief is to be maintained.
It wasn't so bad if one could assume that the dinosaurs were wiped out in a Biblical flood. Why, science actually supported that. But then, dinosaur footprints were found in levels claimed by Creationists to be left by the flood, which means that dinosaurs had to have survived the flood. Not just Titanotheres or Giant sloths, but the dinosaurs, too. So they all had to be on the already overcrowded Ark.
So that's the answer. A Christian can believe in the dinosaurs in the Bible or not, but a Young Earth Bible-literalist Christian, has to believe that the terms refer to dinosaurs.
P.s Jesus, Campbell, You again!
We would know the Bible was not speaking of either an elephant or hippo, because neither one has a tail the size of a cedar tree, as stated in the Scriptures. And ancient records do show us pictures of dinosaurs. The problem comes in when science is confronted with this evidence, they ignore it. And the reason for this, is because this evidence simply does not fit their worldview. Clear drawings of dinosaurs can be seen in Ica burial stones. And stone and clay figurines found in 1947 at the base of El Toro mountain, also contain figurines of dinosaurs. And some of them, were of dinosaurs yet not discovered. Here again, science will claim this evidence is fake. Yet they make these claims without any scientific review.
Now for years, science told us that soft tissue would never be found on dinosaur bones, because such tissue could only last about 10,000 years. Yet in recent times, dinosaur bones are not only being found with soft tissue, they are also being found with stretchable blood vessels. So now the believers in evolution have revised their theory on soft tissue. And we are now being told, that soft tissue can last 70 million years. LOL
I believe their is enought evidence out there to support the belief that dinosaurs were walking the earth 2,000 years ago. And I can say that, because ancient art shows us such dinosaurs. Yet it is todays science, that ignores this evidence.
That tail is all you think you got in that descprition to demand that it is a dinosaur. The entire "tail" has been dispensed with yet you keep whipping it out. It is not a tail at all, yet you keep yanking on it. You're gonna go blind doing that. LOL
We would know the Bible was not speaking of either an elephant or hippo, because neither one has a tail the size of a cedar tree, as stated in the Scriptures.
OMG, do we have to go through this every two weeks? Will you fools ever process the fact that your claims have been debhunked? For the last time - Behemoth is not a dino and in light of proper translation, the "cedar" mentioned is not referring to a tail.. but to a more private body part:
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.
Liar liar, pants on fire!
