Dinosaurs?

[adam149]

the word 'tail' occurs 11 times in scripture - how many times does the word 'trunk' appear? Is it impossible for two things have the same word to describe them?

You bring up an interesting question. Of course, all languages have some level of ambiguity to them, for example in english you can say "the trunk is big," without specifying whether it is the trunk of an elephant, a suitcase, the storage compartment of a car, or a tree. If that sentence were in a paragraph, the paragraph would be examined in order to understand the context. As to whether zanab could be used to describe both a tail and a trunk, given the meaning of the word ("tail, end, etc") and that all eleven times it was translated as "tail" I don't think this particular word could be, no.

I read on another thread (sorry, can't remember which one as there seem to be rather a lot of these creationalist/evolutionist debates) that the original Hebrew 'morning' in Genisis 1 can also mean 'the start of a new age'. Is it not possible that the Hebrew's used the same word to describe the tail of an animal as they used to describe an elephants trunk?

Again, I would have to answer no.

As to the whole genesis days issue, in Gen 1:5, it states "And God called the light, Day. And He called the darkness, Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

The word for "day" used here is yowm and it is translated as "day" 2008 times. It can, under certain circumstances (mostly relying upon context), be translated as "time." (i.e. there is a difference between "back in my day," and "we journeyed north for one day.")

However, the accepted meaning of the word in most situations is "1) day, 1a) day [as opposed to night], 1b) day [24-hour period as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1]"

If it is describing a sauropod, then I would have thought it's neck was a fairly noticeable feature that you might mention in its description - combined with the fact that its tail is nothing like a cedar.

Well, Job 40:19 tells us that the Behemoth is the chief, or first, of the ways of God. I think I went through the analysis in one of my previous posts on that word chief (first) and showed that it means the biggest, the mightiest, the greatest beast God created.

As to its tail not being like a cedar, this is clearly a comparison. The Bible is clearly not describing an animal which has a cedar tree for a tail, but an animal that has a large, powerful tail.

The tail is fairly horizontal, the tree is vertical.

While this is technically true, again, the Bible isn't saying that its tail appears exactly like a cedar tree, but is making a comparison between the strength and size of the tree to the strength and size of the tail.

Hope this answered your questions, Timo

 

[Invader Pichu]

I don't know if this has been said by someone else, but I wanted to give my view anyways.

Dinos were real. But, sadly, most do not exist now. Notice this verse:

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Now, why would God say replenish the Earth? Because the Earth had once been populated before.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I find it funny that all the people who wish to make the Behemoth a dinosaur forget this little gem...

19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

So, dinosaurs breathed fire? They must have since the Bible says so... It couldn't be that God was useing a parable like tale to make a point, after all, who ever heard of a great religious figure using parables?

 

[Haethurn]

I find it funny that all the people who wish to make the Behemoth a dinosaur forget this little gem...

19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

So, dinosaurs breathed fire? They must have since the Bible says so... It couldn't be that God was useing a parable like tale to make a point, after all, who ever heard of a great religious figure using parables?

Of course not. A religious figure using parables? What a ridiculous notion...

 

[michabo]

Probably an atheist giving Christians a bad name.

It's a tall order. I've listened to Hovind, and you need to be seriously deranged to go over the top of him. YEC are too extreme to parody. It's funny reading though, even if he is being serious.

 

[Haethurn]

It's a tall order. I've listened to Hovind, and you need to be seriously deranged to go over the top of him. YEC are too extreme to parody. It's funny reading though, even if he is being serious.

Actually I am a Christian joking around.

 

[Bushido216]

Heh... TE?

 

[Haethurn]

Heh... TE?

What strange language are you speaking? What is this TE that you question?

 

[Bushido216]

Theistic Evolutionist.

 

[goat37]

Why is it that YEC's believe something that there is not one shred of evidence for, yet try to deny that a species existed when we have found their bones? Maybe if we took a big T-Rex leg bone and beat them across their heads repeatedly, they would get a clue.

It still troubles me that there are people today that actually believe that humans co-existed with Dinosaurs. (and I am not talking the distant relatives that may still exist... I am talking like T-Rex, Stegasaurus, Triceratops etc...)

 

[Haethurn]

Theistic Evolutionist.

Then yes, I am a theistic evolutionist.

 

[adam149]

Those animals fit the description in the text better than dinosaurs considering the animal described is a mammal and dinosaurs aren't mammals but hippos are. Even more reasonable would be that it describes a mythological creature.

A mammal? There is no evidence or indication within the text that the Behemoth is a mammal. The most reasonable thing is to match its descriptions with those of known animals and pick which animal fits best. A dinosaur fits the description the best. If that contradicts your theory, well, sorry. Maybe you should fix your theory.

Why is actual empirical evidence unacceptable? Of course actual, empirical evidence should be our best argument.

It isn't unacceptable and I agree.

We find no fossil evidence of dinosaurs living in the Cenozoic. There is a very distinct separation of time between the disappearance of dinosaurs and the appearance of humans. There is no evidence that humans and dinosaurs existed contemporaneously. We have established that this time separation is >60 Ma. So what's wrong with actual, empirical evidence? Just that it doesn't support your position?

Not at all. The evidence is overwhelmingly against evolution. I have no problem with real science, just the religion of evolution on its back like a parasite.

Furthermore, you haven't actually demonstrated beyond wishful thinking that the mammalian creature depicted in the Bible represents dinosaurs.

1. Its not mammalian. There's no way to TELL.
2. By continually denying that it is indeed a dinosaur, you are refusing to accept empirical evidence based upon documentation from the original language and context.

I don't understand what your point is here except to rifle off the Tertiary epochs (which you probably copied from a website) to try to appear like you know what you're talking about.

Actually, I wanted to be a paleontologist when I was in middle school and memorized the Geologic Column. Then I learned about Creationism and started reading about the same stuff from the other side, so the information kinda stayed. I can recite the periods of the Column backwards if you like (oh, wait, you won't believe me until you can hear me do them )

There is a vast ~60 million year gap in the geologic record between humans and dinosaurs so you're not really doing your argument any favors. This is also recent relative to the rest of the geologic timescale.

Actually, the gap exists in the Geologic Column, not the rocks. I will elaborate upon this when I start the new thread on that topic.

Civilization and writing began at least 6,000 years ago. Furthermore, we know dragons are mythological figures.

I believe that the 6,000 year figure comes from the Egyptian First Dynasty kings lists, which are unfortunately exagerated.

"We think that the First Dynasty [in Egypt] began not before 3400 and not much later than 3200 B.C. . . A. Scharff, however, would bring the date down to about 3000 B.C.; and it must be admitted that his arguments are good, and that at any rate it is more probable that the date of the First Dynasty is later than 3400 B.C., rather than earlier."—H.R. Hall, "Egypt: Archaeology," in Encyclopedia Britannica, 1956 edition, Vol. 8, p. 37.

"The problem with the First Dynasty dates is they are based on the king-lists of Manetho, an Egyptian priest who lived many centuries later, in 250 B.C. Manetho's writings have only been preserved in a few inacurate quotations in other ancient writings." --V. Ferrell, The Evolution Cruncher, 2001, pg. 151

"In the course of a single century’s research, the earliest date in Egyptian history—that of Egypt’s unification under King Menes [first king of the first Egyptian dynasty]—has plummeted from 5876 to 2900 B.C., and not even the latter year has been established beyond doubt. Do we, in fact, have any firm dates at all?"—Johannes Lehmann, The Hittites (1977), p. 204.

Several things scholars believe about Manetho's lists:
1. He fabricated names, dates, history, events, and numbers, as was common practice from Egyptian historians and Pharaohs
2. His lists deal with two sets of rulers reigning at the same time in Upper and Lower Egypt
3. Exagerated victories and omitted defeats
4. That they (the lists) are not numerically accurate

"[The chronology of Manetho was] a late, careless, and uncritical compilation, the dynastic totals of which can be proven wrong from the contemporary monuments in the vast majority of cases, where such monuments have survived. Its dynastic totals are so absurdly high throughout, that they are not worthy of a moment's credence, being often nearly or quite double the maximum drawn from contemporary monuments, and they will not stand the slightest careful criticism. Their accuracy is now maintained only by a small and constantly decreasing number of modern scholars." —James H. Breasted. History of Ancient Egyptians (1927), p. 26.

As for the Sumerians:

"The dates of Sumer’s early history have always been surrounded with uncertainty."—*S.N. Kramer, "The Sumerians," in Scientific American, October 1957, p. 72.

Moving on...

There is no problem at all especially considering you haven't actually identified why it is a problem except to effectively say 'it just is.'

Allow me to clarify, then. Its a problem for the evolutionist if the strata and the fossils are a mess because it nulifies their geologic column, which has all the animals parading around in a nice, neat, orderly evolution with each layer at a different date. It nulifies it because if it is a jumbled mess, then there would be no way to know if the Column were correct or not.

Even Steven Gould knew that.

"The three-leveled, five-kingdom system may appear, at first glance, to record an inevitable progress in the history of life that I have often opposed in these columns. Increasing diversity and multiple transitions seem to reflect a determined and inexorable progression toward higher things. But the paleontolgical record supports no such interpretation. There has been no steady progress in the higher development of organic design." —*Stephen J. Gould, Natural History, 85(8):37 (1978).

And he knew a ton more about the column and the fossil record than you or I.

It's really a problem for flood geologists/creationists because we should see fossils of dinosaurs and humans together rather than separated by tens of millions of years worth of sedimentary deposition.

This assumes that:
1. The whole world wasn't drowned in a flood, in which case things would tend to be buried at chaotic random,
2. That man and dinosaurs habitually lived in close proximity (do we habitually live in close proximity to elephants or lions or hippos? Of course not. Its not healthy, its not smart, its not safe)
3. That the sediment layers actually represent tens of millions of years.

Geology falsifies the flood...not to mention the fact that there is not enough water on earth for it to occur in the first place (much less a source for all the sediments claimed to have been deposited at the time).

Strawman. Apparently you don't know much about Creationist research into the flood.

Several things:
1. The earth before the flood was much different, no huge mountains, etc
2. Water below the crust of the earth that burst up and mingled with the water already on the surface
3. Some water (could be as little as mist or as much as ice, no one is sure) from above the earth
4. The mountians lifted up and the valleys sank down to cause the water to rush away to the low places (I suspect that much of this was the old caverns that held the water under the crust caved in on themselves under the weight and the water rushed down over top)
5. Large amounts of seismic activity and hundreds of volcanic eruptions which shot their clouds into the atmosphere (the eruption cloud from a single volcano takes about two years to settle out of the air), thus causing the post-flood ice age, etc

This thread is a compilation of the various geologic topics discussed on the forum that disprove the literal flood story:

I shall certainly look it over, and likely include topics from it in my own thread.

Unsubstantiated assertion. There is no reason to believe that there are any significant problems with modern stratigraphy and sedimentology.

Interestingly, the second sentence there is also an unsubstantiated assertion.

One can either suppose you are lying or have not done much with repsect to studying geology. You're going to have to document this. Furthermore, the sediments are separated into distinct strata--one should not expect this from your position. One should also not expect to find desert deposits interbedded with marine deposits.

The bolded words in the above quote is a strawman, and also a total misunderstanding of the creationist position.

TRUE: the sediments are separated into distinct strata.

FALSE: one should not expect this from the creationist position. We say there was a world-wide flood, man. A world-wide flood. sediments are automatically sorted into their strata according to mass in water. Not only is it expected, it was predicted.

You're going to have to document this as well. You're bluffing. You don't have any information to back this up.

I find that typically, nervous or uncertain people say that sort of thing. I am not bluffing, and will back it up.

There is no evidence that fossils are out of place or that strata are as well except certain scenarios that appear to be so to the untrained layman (e.g., thrust sheets). Our absolute dating methods have only verified our relative dating methods.

You sound like you're trying to convince yourself. Please name these absolute dating methods and also these relative dating methods.

If "gathering [your] information" means copying and pasting from creationist websites, don't bother.

You don't set the terms of the debate, my friend.

Anyway, What I meant was arranging the information in a logical order, into sections.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

1. Its not mammalian. There's no way to TELL.
2. By continually denying that it is indeed a dinosaur, you are refusing to accept empirical evidence based upon documentation from the original language and context.

If there's no way to tell, then why are you arguing that it's a dinosaur?

And if you are insisting it's not a mammal because of the verse referring to the tail, then it is equally not reptilian because of the verse referring to the navel.

 

[Haethurn]

If there's no way to tell, then why are you arguing that it's a dinosaur?

And if you are insisting it's not a mammal because of the verse referring to the tail, then it is equally not reptilian because of the verse referring to the navel.

I say whatever it is it doesn't exist.

 

[adam149]

If there's no way to tell, then why are you arguing that it's a dinosaur?

No, there's no description which would indicate that it is a mammal. It matchs a dinosaur perfectly.

And if you are insisting it's not a mammal because of the verse referring to the tail, then it is equally not reptilian because of the verse referring to the navel.

Job 40:16, "see, now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the muscles of his belly."

If it was translated "navel" then it was mistranslated, because the hebrew word is mothen, which is "an unused root to be slender," and is used 47 times in scripture. It is translated "loins, side, or hips" in all cases, and means "1) loins, hips, 1a) the pelvic area." If somebody thought it meant navel, they were mistaken.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

No, there's no description which would indicate that it is a mammal. It matchs a dinosaur perfectly.


Job 40:16, "see, now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the muscles of his belly."

If it was translated "navel" then it was mistranslated, because the hebrew word is mothen, which is "an unused root to be slender," and is used 47 times in scripture. It is translated "loins, side, or hips" in all cases, and means "1) loins, hips, 1a) the pelvic area." If somebody thought it meant navel, they were mistaken.

So... Dinosaurs breathed fire?

Interesting, I have never heard any evidence of this, I always thought the Behemoth was a mythic dragon, used as an illistration point in the story.

 

[Larry]

If Noah was commanded to take either 2 or 4 of every creature on the Ark, and if dinosaurs were around at the time of the flood, wouldn't he have taken dinosaurs on the Ark?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

No, there's no description which would indicate that it is a mammal. It matchs a dinosaur perfectly.

I'd contend it matches a hippo better than a dinosaur:

Job 40:23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

http://www.owens-foundation.org/images/hippo2.jpg

The only reason to argue that it is a dinosaur is because of the "tail" passage, which may or may not refer to the tail (some scholars contend it refers to the genitals).

(I have a link depicting male hippo genitalia, but don't want to link it here in case it's a forum violation. If you want the link, PM me.)

Job 40:16, "see, now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the muscles of his belly."

If it was translated "navel" then it was mistranslated, because the hebrew word is mothen, which is "an unused root to be slender," and is used 47 times in scripture. It is translated "loins, side, or hips" in all cases, and means "1) loins, hips, 1a) the pelvic area." If somebody thought it meant navel, they were mistaken.

I'd be willing to grant it is referring to the belly and not specifically a navel.

 

[Word of Peace]

I find it funny that all the people who wish to make the Behemoth a dinosaur forget this little gem...

19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.

20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.

21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

So, dinosaurs breathed fire? They must have since the Bible says so...

Ever heard of fire-breathing dragons? There are thousands of stories of these creatures, from almost all the ancient cultures known. Certainly, many legends have been exaggerated, but it's remarkable that there are so many stories from separate isolated cultures all over the world (in Europe, Latin America, China, the Middle East, the South Pacific, North America, etc) that had to do with fire-breathing dragons, and they had to have had something to base their stories on.

The bombardier beetle has a "built-in flamethrower" that shoots out a hot mixture of chemicals at attackers to deter them. Many dinos have/had mysterious chambers in their heads, with tubes coming from them into their nose & mouth area. Could these chambers be chambers for storing and/or mixing flammable chemicals?

Now, many have said that stories of dragons were made up after ancient people found dinosaur skeletons. This doesn't sound too plausible to me, for at least 4 reasons. First, bones that were found were not studied scientifically in those days - they simply assumed that the bones came from some kind of animal that was familiar to them. Second, in addition to the often exaggerated legends, there were indirect references to the dinosaurs, written in the same matter-of-fact way that one would use when talking about an ordinary, well-known animal. Third, many ancient dinosaur depictions were more accurate than even depictions done in the mid 1800's, when these fossils were first studied scientifically. Fourth, many of the dragon legends agree remarkably well, considering their geographical isolation - for example, pterodactyls have been described in similar ways in the South Pacific, North America, the Middle East, and Europe.

Now I'll sit back and wait for the flaming to begin, calling me superstitious or the likes.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

The bombardier beetle has a "built-in flamethrower" that shoots out a hot mixture of chemicals at attackers to deter them.

Yes, but chemicals and flame are two different things. There is not a single example of a living species capable of producing fire, AFAIK.