The relevence of Biblical claims to science

the second definition of "navel" is a central point or a middle

combine it with "his strength is in his loins" and "the sinews of his stones are wrapped together" and you'll see the connection.

---

*not an actual doctor

Elephants are large. You've simply misunderstood the passage. It doesn't literally refer to the tail. Here's a different translation that should make it a little more obvious:

quote:

---

He makes his tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together.

---

"Stiff like a cedar"? The member that this passage is referring to is the penis, not the tail.This is an elephant. It's the only animal known to the bible authors that would have fit these depictions.

quote:

---

This is an elephant. It's the only animal known to the bible authors that would have fit these depictions.

---

Especially if the authors hadn't seen an elephant themselves but relied on the descriptions (perhaps exaggerated) of travellers.

Are you kidding? You don't know anything about dinosaurs, do you?All the sauropod species were larger; that encompasses 9 different families of dinosaur. The majority of the Cerapods (pachycephalosaura, hadrosaura, etc) stood upwards of 20 feet tall. The larger therapods could probably snatch a medium-size elephant up in their jaws, and those would be a few different species each of allosaur, tyrannosaur, carnotaurus, and maybe utahraptor.Brachiosaurus? Seismosaurus? Supersaurus? These names don't ring any bells? These animals stood over 40 feet tall at the neck and weighed up to 80 tons.And you expect us to believe that the Job author was talking about one of these when he described something that could lie in the shade of a cyprus tree and conceal itself in the grass? Please.

Ummm, do you know anything at all in regards to the anatomical and physiological diffences between herbivores and carnivores?

Does the original language really mean "navel" as in a mammal or is it only refering to that part of the "" stomach area??

. I'm goin to camp tomorrow and i got to start packing. It's like midnight. I'll be back in week. until then i suggest that all open minded people read "The Answers Book" by Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Wieland. I finished it this week at hockey camp. If you don't, I'll be back to talk about it in week. cya

Here's a tip quoting Ken Ham is liking asking people to read Bobo the clown's views on Nuclear science.

Given that the book of Job is a fictional work, I'm not sure why anyone would think that Job is referring to anything other than the Behemoth of Jewish mythology who was supposedly created by God on the 5th day.IMO, the Behemoth is a fictional creature who can be described as an author sees fit. I'm sure the authors description was inspired by animals of his time, but I don't think it was about any specific animal of his time.I do agree though, that the author of Job is not refering to an actual "tail".

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

"Here's a tip quoting Ken Ham is liking asking people to read Bobo the clown's views on Nuclear science."No kidding. Couldn't have said it better myself. Very typical of fundy logic, however. They tend to think if they could just get evolutionists to read THIS book or THAT article or go th a creationist museum they would "see the light" and realize the folly of their ways. Ken Ham has been caught promoting numerous deceptions in the name of his "Creation ministry", including but not limited to "coexistence of man and dinosaurs", "lack of moon dust", modern "plesiorsaur sightings", Setterfield's "slowing of the speed of light", etc. Ham has latched onto nearly every YEC "solution" in order to support his YEC model regardless of the evidence, only to later quietly abandon the more untenable explanations. By playing fast and loose with the scientific evidence it is not unfair to place Ham in the camp of the LFJs (Liars for Jesus) along with Carl Baugh, Duane Gish, and Henry Morris.

Long time, no see!How ya been?Sheesh! What a scattered thread...pulled in like 100 unrelated directions!!!I think I am missing out on something very central to the issue. To me, it appears as a non-issue, really.Let me re-post your questions here: For these first four, I say, the Bible is not a book about Biology. Most creationists do not argue against the idea of evolution -- the idea that living things can change over time -- utterly. Variation, speciation, micro-evolution...whatever you want to call it can all explain these phenomena. And these phenomena prove neither abiogenesis nor the idea that all living things evolved from an ameoba over the past 3 billion years. Do they? Ooops. This is a discussion all its own. One I'd probably not do too well at...as it is geology stuff. But I must ask for proof that ammonites and trilobites disappeared at different times...this will lead to 100s of post that have more to do with "Geology and the Great Flood." I really just barely understand what you're talking about -- what is the difference between a degraded and undegraded habitat, for instance. I must ask, though, does the idea that we all evolved from an amoeba over 3 billion years provide the answer to this question?Regarding the spiritual effecting the physical: I believe it does, but I don't believe physical sciences will be able to determine such things.After reading nearly ALL the posts here, I still feel like I have misunderstood both you and maestro.Cheers,
--JasonAbE:
I don't know if you even need any type of evolution to account for conditions #1 and #2. If you'd like to go into (a bit) more detail about the first four and #6...by all means do...as I don't understand half the terminology you use. I am not even really sure what you're getting at, but I figured you are thinking evolution is a good explanation for these conditions.I think #5 will lead into a bunch of off-topic Flood/geology posts...it should be skipped, imho.Don't know how far I can (intelligently) carry the discussion, though. You're one-up (more than that, really) on me...me having NO biology background (except for highschool).This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-26-2005 02:01 AMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 07-26-2005 02:16 AM