creation myth

[eddiesmith]

basic fact - dinosaurs.
when the creation story was written there was no knowledge of dinosaurs.
now of course science evolves and new things come to light.
i think this really proves once and for all creation is a myth.

 

[Logic]

Welcome to 1850.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

I don't understand this argument.

 

[JohnR7]

basic fact - dinosaurs.
when the creation story was written there was no knowledge of dinosaurs.
now of course science evolves and new things come to light.
i think this really proves once and for all creation is a myth.

Actually according to your logic, it proves that dinosaurs are a myth.

 

[challenger]

Actually according to your logic, it proves that dinosaurs are a myth.

How so?

 

[Philosoft]

Actually according to your logic, it proves that dinosaurs are a myth.

No it doesn't. His point is that Genesis was written prior to the discovery of dinosaur fossils. Thus, the fact that Genesis does not mention dinosaurs (please don't bring up the "Leviathan" red herring again) is a strong indication that the authors were operating with only the limited human knowledge of the time, rather than God-inspired knowledge.

 

[Synesthesia]

I understand that Dinosaurs were never mentioned as DINOSAURS because the word dinosaur wasn't derived until 1824...


That being said, go check our Job 40....you will hear of an animal called behemoth, much like the apatosaur or brachiosaur. Also there is an "sea monster" referred to as leviathan. People will try to say that behemoth is describing an elephant or hippo. They have a huge barrel belly, legs like tree trunks, but that pesky tail is a problem...neither of them have a tail like a giant cedar.


So, check your "facts" again.



Ian

 

[notto]

I understand that Dinosaurs were never mentioned as DINOSAURS because the word dinosaur wasn't derived until 1824...


That being said, go check our Job 40....you will hear of an animal called behemoth, much like the apatosaur or brachiosaur. Also there is an "sea monster" referred to as leviathan. People will try to say that behemoth is describing an elephant or hippo. They have a huge barrel belly, legs like tree trunks, but that pesky tail is a problem...neither of them have a tail like a giant cedar.


So, check your "facts" again.





Ian

Do you think that leviathan could really breathe fire?

 

[Logic]

It really upsets me when people call leviathan and the behemoth dinosaurs. Please explain why, in a world dominated by these dragons, cows and pigs are mentioned thousands of times, when only two very inaccurate descriptions of dinosaurs appear. Show me evidence for dinosaurs having a belly button. Show me evidence they breathed fire.

ARGGGG, it just doesn't make sense to me, but I'm not good at explaining it, these things mentioned in the bible were mythical creatures... ARGHH!!

 

[Mistermystery]

Wow this whole thread is stupid.


"Creation can't be true because of... teh dinos"

"Don't listen to the evolutionists, believe in the leviathan. BELIEVE DAMN IT"

See those two arrows? This thread is *points some 5 odd kilometers off in the distance on both sides* over there.

 

[Freodin]

basic fact - dinosaurs.
when the creation story was written there was no knowledge of dinosaurs.
now of course science evolves and new things come to light.
i think this really proves once and for all creation is a myth.

In fact, this proves even two things.

The first is that the authors of Genesis did not write anything about dinosaurs, but not that they did not know. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The second is that you don´t have an idea what "proof" is.

 

[Oncedeceived]

basic fact - dinosaurs.
when the creation story was written there was no knowledge of dinosaurs.
now of course science evolves and new things come to light.
i think this really proves once and for all creation is a myth.

Really? Now just how have you come to this conclusion?

P.S. I didn't read ahead so if you have answered this somewhere in this thread I will not expect a repsonse to this. I always jump before reading through the thread.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In fact, this proves even two things.

The first is that the authors of Genesis did not write anything about dinosaurs, but not that they did not know. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The second is that you don´t have an idea what "proof" is.

Where is that hug smilie???? ((((((hug))))))

Freodin: I love that as an agnostic you are not biased into a corner nor are you closed to rational argument. A Good man you are for sure.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Hmm, kangaroos must not have existed when Genesis was written because they weren't mentioned.

Job is considered to be the oldest book in the Bible. While Genesis records earlier events than Job does, Job was written before Genesis. This whole thread is attacking the young earth model, so look at it inside that framework:

Dinosaurs were brought on the ark. After the flood the conditions for life were different, and the environment a lot more hostile for dinosaurs, so they die out. Not to mention the big ones would cause a lot of trouble for settlements, making them hunted targets. Therefore we would expect records of them to fade away over time after the flood. To me it is no surprise that Job mentions them but other books say nothing.

And anyway, elephants and many other large creatures aren't mentioned at all. Argument from silence is no argument at all.

 

[USincognito]

Dinosaurs were brought on the ark. After the flood the conditions for life were different, and the environment a lot more hostile for dinosaurs, so they die out. Not to mention the big ones would cause a lot of trouble for settlements, making them hunted targets. Therefore we would expect records of them to fade away over time after the flood. To me it is no surprise that Job mentions them but other books say nothing.

Except that as has been pointed out innumerable times already, Job doesn't reference a dinosaur. In fact there is no evidence anywhere of humans and dinosaurs interacting ever.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Except that as has been pointed out innumerable times already, Job doesn't reference a dinosaur. In fact there is no evidence anywhere of humans and dinosaurs interacting ever.

Pointed out innumerable times already where? I don't read this forum. Where's a good reference for the 'point' that Job doesn't reference a dinosaur?

 

[notto]

Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.

Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

 

[Mistermystery]

Pointed out innumerable times already where? I don't read this forum. Where's a good reference for the 'point' that Job doesn't reference a dinosaur?

I will tell you if you can awnser 2 simple questions:

1) Tell me, If humans and dinosaurs lived together, why don't we ever find their bones in the same strata?
2) Where in the bible does it acuratly literary discribe dinos? note, with acuratly I mean *precisely*.

 

[eddiesmith]

ok, just a thought. in a world dominated by these HUGE lizards, its just a bit funny how nothing is really mentioned about them? just a thought.

 

[Polycarp1]

Given the OP, does anyone want to identify the one word used in that without a clear consensus of meaning, and hang their own definition on it? Whaddaya mean, "myth"? How are you using the term?

And why would God, speaking through Moses to a bunch of people that He's saved from slavery and is transporting across the wilderness, and trying to shape up into people that will follow Him and not go haring off on goofball ideas about how to keep the crops fertile or charm that pretty young thing into your bed, figure it was necessary to explain to them about his experiment with what can be done with archosaur body structure, which He'd finished with 65 million years before?

He had a point in telling the Creation story as He did -- that's why it's written as a myth. If He'd wanted to write a natural history of the world, that was not the place and time to do it.

So why do people insist on reading it as one?