Name that animal!

Name that animal!

  • Hippopotamus

    Votes: 3 15.8%

  • Dinosaur (i.e. Brontosaurus)

    Votes: 7 36.8%

  • Elephant

    Votes: 2 10.5%

  • Other (Please explain)

    Votes: 7 36.8%
  • Total voters
    19
Tyler,

There's yet anything in here of religious content. Please give us the religious content or I have no dobut it will be moved.

Well, that's your or their choice. However, I know that at least one of the moderators has identified the religious content.

Thus, it can ONLY be fear that causes them to want to suppress it.
 
No, it's the fact that 21 posts have been so far a waste. If you would kindly show us the religious side of this, as I'm sure there is one, I will kindly not push for it to be moved. Okey-dokey?
 
Can I ask what might seem like a stupid question?

How is moving a post to a more appropriate place
censoring it? Wouldn't deleting it be more along the
lines of censoring?
 
Tyler,

If you would kindly show us the religious side of this

Okay, here it is.

Hippopotamus - Doesn't have a tail like a tree.
Elephant - Doesn't have a tail like a tree.
Dinosaur (i.e. Brontosaurus) - Does have a tail like a tree, is a herbivore, does go in the water, but (according to evolution) died out 65+ million years before man and it's fossils were not discovered until about 150 years ago.

Thus, the correct answer is "Other".

In the book of Job, which is in the Bible, it describes just such a creature as being recognizable to a man.

Job 40

15 Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16 What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly!
17 His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.
18 His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron.
19 He ranks first among the works of God, yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.
20 The hills bring him their produce, and all the wild animals play nearby.
21 Under the lotus plants he lies, hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
22 The lotuses conceal him in their shadow; the poplars by the stream surround him.
23 When the river rages, he is not alarmed; he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth.
24 Can anyone capture him by the eyes, or trap him and pierce his nose?


Now, since the majority of the people who gave an answer thought it was a dinosaur (2/4/0/2), doesn't that say something about the theory of evolution? How is it that Job could describe a Brontosaurus so accurately?
 
Re: Can I ask what might seem like a stupid question?

Originally posted by EvilPoet
How is moving a post to a more appropriate place
censoring it? Wouldn't deleting it be more along the
lines of censoring?
Click to expand...

You can move it out of general readership, into an obscure forum, and then nobody will read it. When a post is composed for a certain audience, that audience will respond to it more than other the other forum.

For example, when I composed the "Where's the energy?" post, which the moderators have censored, it is targeted for addressing the religious issue of naturalism vs. Christianity. If naturalism rests upon the Big Bang/Evolution and there is insufficient energy for the stars to last 15 billion years, then raises the probability of a supreme being. The moderators realized this, and not wanting to see the Big Bang discredited, simply moved it. Thus, the new readers (astronomy) will not consider the religious implications, but will safely conclude that "science will answer it eventually". But the person interested the issue of religion, will ponder that fact then consider Christianity with renewed interest.

Authoritarians have used this technique for years. Why should it be different here?

If you can't dispute the facts, then controll the communication of those facts, limiting access to the general public.
 
EvilPoet,

As an addendum...

Look at how the moderators treat the same issue, but from two different perspectives.

The "explaining the universe" (i.e. pro-naturalism) thread is kept on the Religion forum, while the "Where's the energy?" thread is moved. Why the different treatment?

It is because they agree with the message in the pro-naturalism thread.
 
I picked other, because no species of dinosaur that we know of had a huge tail, bones as strong as metal and lives in both land and sea environments.
 
live4him,

For example, when I composed the "Where's the energy?" post, which the moderators have censored, it is targeted for addressing the religious issue of naturalism vs. Christianity.
Click to expand...
So why didn’t you explain your intention in the opening post as is customary and usual practice for most threads and in most forums? That way readers interested in the issue and the topic are better prepared to address the issue and respond appropriately.

After a number of posts the discussion was entirely about a significant science issue which is better addressed by readers and members who have more of a scientific interest and more knowledgeable about such issues. If you truly wanted an informed answer about a science issue then you should address those questions to those better able to respond. Those interested in religion are not necessarily competent in science.

And with this thread: Not explaining your intentions until you had received the answers you wanted is simply deceitful.

Please be more open with what you plan and I am sure you will gain far more respect and some genuine responses. Many here truly want to learn and think through the issues. You do not have to play games with people to achieve that.
 
Now, since the majority of the people who gave an answer thought it was a dinosaur (2/4/0/2), doesn't that say something about the theory of evolution? How is it that Job could describe a Brontosaurus so accurately?
Click to expand...
Simple its just not a good description of a saurapod.
15 Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox.
Click to expand...
A saurapod didnt eat grass. It had a long neck so it mostlikely ate from the top of trees.
17 His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.
Click to expand...
This is the only part of your argument that resembles a saurpod.
18 His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron.
Click to expand...
No dinosaur had bones made of bronze tubes. And if its supposed to be metaphorical this tells us nothing.
21 Under the lotus plants he lies, hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
Click to expand...
Do you have any idea how big these dinosaurs were? There is no way any saurapod could hide in marsh reeds. Most palentoligists will say that saurapods did not swim at all. And even if they did they are far to big to be concealed by marsh reeds.

No this does not descripe a brontosaur. The description is actually much closer to a hippo than a dinosaur. The only one that dosent fit a hippo is the bit about its tail everything else is exactly right.
 
id say a brackyasuras or a brontasurus

but i didnt read the whole thread, just the first post:p
 
live4him,

and not wanting to see the Big Bang discredited, simply moved it
Click to expand...
Actually, that hadn't occurred to me and I wasn't clear where you were going, I thought the big bang theory was pretty much concrete at this point in time, but I reckoned our science gurus would likely give a better answer.

If you can't dispute the facts, then controll the communication of those facts, limiting access to the general public.
Click to expand...
Or ask the right people. Asking the wrong people is not likely to provide you correct answers, unless that was your intention.

The "explaining the universe" (i.e. pro-naturalism) thread is kept on the Religion forum, while the "Where's the energy?" thread is moved. Why the different treatment?
Click to expand...
The content is entirely philosophical, you know "life the universe and everything" and is not clear cut science.
 
James,

I'm waiting for somebody to mention behemoths, Cris.
Click to expand...
LOL. It’s been a long time since I've heard that - I didn't see it - must be an age thing.

Live4him,

But then again, maybe I shouldn't be surprised. Maybe silencing your opponents is the only way.
Click to expand...
Hmm, well Free Thoughts is more popular than this forum. But really most people in my experience do not like being manipulated. Why not just state your case clearly up front?
 
Another possibility to consider:

There is a Babylonian myth, to which the writer of Job would have had access, about an enormous bull. It's in the <i>Epic of Gilgamesh</i>. The bull had a tail like a tree trunk and (you guessed it) ate grass (like many bulls).
 
Live4him, I hate to break it to you, but you're about as opague as glass. Everyone knew where you were going with it, just some were willing to give you the benefit of the doubt(cris). It should have been started in the religion thread where it belonged. Putting it where it belonged in the first place would have been polite, but barring that, how can you take offense for someone moving it to where it belonged? That is not censorship, it's called putting things where they belong. If it was deleted, that would be censorship. Accusing someone of something like that is simply unethical, and it's merely a transparent attempt to redirect attention away from what you were guilty of doing by setting up a straw man. It's unethical. What you attempted to do was not only wrong, it was distasteful. And you know it. You remind me oddly enough of the pedophile offering candy to kids to get them close enough to do what you REALLY want. Perhaps you could be honest in the future and just start the thread where it belongs in the first place instead of being dishonest?
 
Live4him,

I can see what you are trying to say, but I think is a bet farfetched. Maybe if the Bible mentioned distinct bone structure and some type of a dead give-away, this argument might be relevant. However, I could say that it is a kangaroo who happened to be aquatically inclined. I can see that you are a hardcore Christian, but this was a very pointless thread.
 
Originally posted by Cris
Click to expand...

So why didn’t you explain your intention in the opening post as is customary and usual practice for most threads and in most forums?

I did! I wanted an honest opinion of what kind of animal that was described. I did NOT want a "Oh, he's attacking evolution, so I'll give him a different answer to circumvent that issue."

No deceit, just plain and simple honesty.


After a number of posts the discussion was entirely about a significant science issue which is better addressed by readers and members who have more of a scientific interest and more knowledgeable about such issues.

You mean, hide it, right? It was up for less than a day, and most people post during the time period just after the move.


Those interested in religion are not necessarily competent in science.

Perhaps you ought to tell the following religious organizations this little one.

Institute for Creation Research
the Creation Explanation
www.creationism.org
Creation Revolution
Creation Research

ALL of them address this issue on the given link.

The problem is that you're more concerned with censorship than you are in getting to the truth.


And with this thread: Not explaining your intentions until you had received the answers you wanted is simply deceitful.

Why is it so important to know the source of the description before one gives an honest answer of their opinion? Can't they be unbiased in their opinions when they know the source?


Many here truly want to learn and think through the issues. You do not have to play games with people to achieve that.

You mean like hiding threads in unrelated forums? Sorry, but I don't have that power. Only moderators have that. Hey! YOU'RE a moderator, aren't you?

Perhaps you ought to follow your own advice.

Why do you feel the need to hide scientific evidence AGAINST the Big Bang, but will go into all kinds of topics in which you feel attacks Christianity?
 
I would like to thank the moderators on this site deeply for a great job.....They have truly shown me the meaning of a term that I never understood before.....prudance.......

Here's the starting verses from the pearl of wisdom site

Prudence is an important virtue to exercise in any venture or project; it can prevent the remorse and regret that follow from loss or failure. So many who have initiated projects, have either been deeply regretful or blamed their fate, just because they failed to address their situation with the proper prudence and competence. Such people are doubly in error - first, for inadequate deliberation and then for criticizing fate.

For the rest of information.....go to http://www.pearls.org/pearls/prudence.htm

If will help to have your speaker on.....the music is very calming...:)
 
Originally posted by
Click to expand...


A saurapod didnt eat grass. It had a long neck so it mostlikely ate from the top of trees.

While we DON'T really know what they ate, I will grant this to you partially. However, in the ancient world, all herbivores were considered "grass eaters".


No dinosaur had bones made of bronze tubes. And if its supposed to be metaphorical this tells us nothing.

It tells us that the bones on the animal were extremely strong. It specifically states that like rods of iron.


Do you have any idea how big these dinosaurs were? There is no way any saurapod could hide in marsh reeds. Most palentoligists will say that saurapods did not swim at all. And even if they did they are far to big to be concealed by marsh reeds.

Nor does the Book of Job say that the Behemoth swam. If it swam, then it would be concerned of a raging river. But since it's not, it tells us that is was big enough to stand on the river bottom when the river raged.

Second, if the dino were in the water, part of it's body would be submerged. The part above water would be able to be concealed among (not by) the reeds.


The description is actually much closer to a hippo than a dinosaur. The only one that dosent fit a hippo is the bit about its tail everything else is exactly right.

Well, a lot of Bible scholars have thought so. Yet, all of these scholars lived before the dino fossils were found, so that doesn't count for much.
 
Literally meaning thinking on a subject deeply, systematically and in detail, reflection is the lamp of the heart, the food of the spirit, the spirit of knowledge and the soul and light of believers' way of life. Without reflection, the heart is darkened, the spirit becomes exasperated and Islam is lived at a superficial level devoid of meaning and profundity.

Reflection is such a light in the heart that good and evil, harm and benefit and beauty and ugliness can be discerned and distinguished from each other through it. Again, it is through reflection that the universe becomes a book to study and the verses of the Holy Book disclose their meaning and secrets more deeply.

http://www.pearls.org/emeralds/reflection.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top