Dinosaurs explained biblically

The animal mentioned in Job that we are supposed to believe is a dinosaur sleeps under lotus plants and is small enough to be concealed in the reeds (verse 21). The Jordan "surges against his mouth" (verse 23) meaning the animal is rather squat as dinosaurs go, much too small to have an actual tail the size of a cedar tree. Most likely the animal is a hippo or elephant, just as is reflected in the footnotes.By the way, the wording is, "Swings like a cedar tree"Job 40 NIV - The LORD said to Job: Will the one - Bible Gateway[This message has been edited by gene90, 09-01-2002][This message has been edited by gene90, 09-01-2002]

That's true, I checked the KJV and it actually does read like TB's post so I stand corrected. As can be seen in my link I used the NIV for that one simply because it is the default selection on biblegateway.net.

A young Creationist, maybe about TC's age but not nearly as well informed, once explained to me that dinosaurs are not extinct. You see, they are lizards, the very same species that are alive today and can be found in dry woodpiles and under rocks. Lizards apparently never stop growing, and in a hyperbaric pre-flood paradisiacal environment they got *really* *really* big.

[QUOTE][B]With your last statement I see hope in you yet.[/QUOTE][/B]There is none, give it up. This fellow just makes inflammatory remarks. Most non-theists have logical and consistent reasons for their worldviews and will happily debate you in good faith.He's not one of them.

[QUOTE][B]come on the math would even work...[/QUOTE][/B]No it wouldn't. Too many species requiring too much food. And this isn't just about raising them, it is about rebuilding every ecosystem on the planet after a global catastrophe, using only biota contained on the Ark. [QUOTE][B]
Have you heard about the Ica Stones found in Peru? If not than I recommend you searching them out and giving them a good read... ancient stone carvings of dinosaurs... not uncovered till current times.. come on[/QUOTE][/B]Yes, but they are a hoax. One guy makes money of them with a museum and selling them to tourists. The cave where they supposedly came from has never been announced.Ica Stones - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com [QUOTE][B]Dragons is a very good description..[/QUOTE][/B]Yes. Of fossil dinosaurs. There is no reason to think that people have ever been in the presence of living dinosaurs at any time in history.Plus no dinosaur remains have ever been found at archeaological sites and no human remains have ever been found occuring with dinosaur remains. Same with modern mammals. If dinosaurs and man coexisted then it is inevitable that people would have used dinosaur bones and skins in much the same way that they used mammoth tusks and hide, and it is also inevitable that a carnvirous dinosaur would have occasionally had an antelope or a bison for dinner. But no such overlap exists despite more than a hundred years of fossil searches all over the world. [QUOTE][B]this makes me think of the supposed "common ancestor" of man and apes.. the neanderthals and the other bones[/QUOTE][/B]Neanderthals are not a human ancestor. [QUOTE][B]What about the lockness monster?[/QUOTE][/B]There is not a single credible photograph since the surgeon's photo was admitted to be a hoax. Plus there is no way that the lake could support a population of large predators. And it is impossible for such a small population to survive over hundreds of years. Nessie hasn't been found and there's a reason for that. [QUOTE][B]Is it not interesting to that it only takes a decade to make a fossil?[/QUOTE][/B]But most fossils don't form in a decade.And by the way, pteradactyls are not dinosaurs.[This message has been edited by gene90, 11-02-2002]

[QUOTE][B]Neandarthals were inititally assumed by early researchers to be ancestral modern humans and that belief has never really died out, despite the evidence to the contrary.[/QUOTE][/B]This is a convenient example of how science works; new facts come to light and sometimes cause old ideas to be changed. I think most of the evidence regarding Neanderthals not being our ancestors is from mtDNA extracted from remains. In recent years there has also been a contention about the ultimate demise of the Neanderthals, whether they merely went extinct or whether they interbred with the invading H. sapiens. Again, the evidence is against interbreeding but the issue is still kind of controversal and will continue to be until much more information is collected.

Yes. I suppose you're a bad influence.

[QUOTE][B]Are there tests able to be done that can identify when these stones were carved?[/QUOTE][/B]No. [QUOTE][B]If they are real than obviously some people would try and counterfeit them just like money.. great for tourist trade...[/QUOTE][/B]The problem is that there are no "real" examples. There has been no archeaological dig to recover any. The only place to obtain them is to buy them from the people who are carving them. If we sent somebody to dig them up himself rather than buying them from somebody, then it would be different. [QUOTE][B]So I do not think the Ica Stones can be dismissed as of yet.[/QUOTE][/B]No point in dismissing them because there is no reason to accept them yet. It's a South American cottage industry, carving rocks and selling them to tourists. If Real Science got involved then I would be more likely to take it seriously. [QUOTE][B].. if any of the creatures that were born from an egg where brought on as eggs they would not need food[/QUOTE][/B]They would, however, need incubation and the right level of humidity. [QUOTE][B]and if they were younger like babies than there food intake would be minimal as it is..[/QUOTE][/B]What would they be fed? What about the animals that required milk, or regurgitated food from a parent? [QUOTE][B]If Moses could survive for 40 days and nights without food or water than the matter of food is a non issue Exodus 34:28, I guess that is the benefit of having faith.[/QUOTE][/B]I have a better explanation. An alien mothership sucked them all up and put them in cryogenic suspension for fourty days and fourty nights.That is, as you said, the benefit of having faith. [QUOTE][B]And there are many reasons to believe that dinos and man coexisted[/QUOTE][/B]How do you explain that lack of overlap in the fossil record? [QUOTE][B]cryptozoology...[/QUOTE][/B]Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience, of about as much value as astrology and alchemy. Believers in that subject expect us to accept that there are dinosaurs in Loch Ness, yet one never dies, floats up the surface, and stinks up half of Scotland. Likewise, there are ape-men running around in the Pacific Northwest, but no bodies are ever found. Yet despite the fact that human murder victims turn up around national parks all the time, proving that there are essentially no reaches of forest somebody doesn't occasionally wander into.Cryptozoology is like the Ica Stones. As soon as you bring Nessie to the local aquarium, we will take it seriously, but not before, because there is no other reason to believe there are large, hitherto unknown creatures in a First World nation than some very questionable eyewitness accounts, just as easily explained by a wake, a log, or a seal. [QUOTE][B]than I can conclude that you have been deceived and so I do not put much merit in your arguments if you fall in that category..[/QUOTE][/B]That sounds like an excuse to ignore anything you find inconvenient to your worldview. If you consider yourself right because you just ignore anything that implies you are wrong, how sure are you that you really are correct? [QUOTE][B]You are obviously easily convinced of lies[/QUOTE][/B]I have the same opinion of you. Creationists have filled your head with lies about neanderthals, the workings of science, and the fossil record. Yet the scientists here could set you straight, but you already said you will not hear of it. That's not only being convinced of lies, it is remaining willfully ignorant of the way things really are. [QUOTE][B]Correct me if I am wrong, but give me the scientific observation that can challenge that a fossil can be made in that way.[/QUOTE][/B]It takes centuries for bones to decompose. That's a fact of archeaology. They dig up old remains all the time.But quick burial happens all the time. Animals drown in a river, their bones sink to the bottom and are covered by sand. They wander into a bog and sink into the mud. They die in the desert and are covered by a dune. They're buried by a mudslide. A volcano erupts and they are engulfed in a pyroclastic flow. Fossilization is more common than most people think. [QUOTE][B]pteradactyls are not dinosaurs? Enlighten me.[/QUOTE][/B]They're flying reptiles. They're no more dinosaur than lizards you might find in your backyard.[This message has been edited by gene90, 11-02-2002]

Isn't Nessie supposed to be a pleisiosaur? That would make using it as "evidence" of recent dinosaurs useless. Guess that leaves them with Mokele-Mbembe.