Name that animal!

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by Cris

Live4Him: and not wanting to see the Big Bang discredited, simply moved it
Actually, that hadn't occurred to me and I wasn't clear where you were going

Of course not! It was just an accident that it was moved in a hurry.

You REALLY want me to believe that one?

Second, why do YOU need to know where it is going? So you can better chose which to censor?


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.

And the best way to keep people believing that is to censor all posts that are contrary, like you've done.


Asking the wrong people is not likely to provide you correct answers, unless that was your intention.

Are you attempting to say that people on this forum DON'T have any intelligence? I don't believe that.

Second, if people were not interested in the thread, it would quickly roll off for lack of attention.

So, try again. Think of something more convincing next time.


The content is entirely philosophical, you know "life the universe and everything" and is not clear cut science.

Not to mention more in line with YOUR beliefs.



The "Where's the energy?" post addressed empirical facts, that are known and have been known, that expose the naturalists' beliefs for the empty shell that they are. You couldn't deal with it.

 

[heflores]

Literally meaning endurance or bearing pains, sufferings and difficulties and showing resistance against them and dealing with problems calmly, patience is one of the most important actions of the heart which God mentions in the Holy Book in its many aspects. Because of its importance, patience is regarded as half of the religious life, the other half of which is thankfulness.
http://www.pearls.org/emeralds/reflection.htm

 

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by Cris

But really most people in my experience do not like being manipulated. Why not just state your case clearly up front?

Exactly HOW did the post manipulate you? It asked you for a simple and honest answer. Couldn't you give that WITHOUT knowing the source of the issue?

Obviously not. It is a classic sign of a closed mind.

 

[heflores]

HOLDING ONE'S TONGUE

Loquacity is a personality defect which stems from mental and spiritual instability. Only precise words which do not confuse the listener's mind can be acceptable: in order to convey the intended message to the listener, circumlocution is unnecessary. Indeed, circumlocution may even be harmful since it is virtually never free from contradictions, and contradictions may create new problems in men's minds. This will not be of any use to the listener: on the contrary, it will work to his detriment.

 

[Neutrino_Albatross]

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".

Actually im not sure but i think that grass didnt exist when dinosaurs were alive. But you may be right about them refering to all herbavores as grass eaters.

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.

I think you really have a problem comprehending the size of these buggers. Rhoetosaurus a fairly small sauropod was 12m long and 7m tall. Marsh reeds tend to grow in shallow water only and arent that high above the water line. A thing that big would tower over the reeds.

Source: http://www.qmuseum.qld.gov.au/features/dinosaurs/rheotosaurus.asp

 

[Jaxom]

Censorship must have various meanings, since everyone can still read everything here...anyway...

Why is there no empirical evidence of such creatures above the KT boundary?

If man and dinosaur, or for that matter, an unknown creature labeled as a behemoth, existed together, then why is this passage the only mention of it? Do you have other evidence you can offer? By itself, it's pretty weak.

If your argument is that the interpretation of these layers is wrong, then let's address that issue, which has a lot of empirical evidence on its side. One passage in the Bible that cannot be verified won't be enough to topple the know science of paleontology.

 

[lixluke]

me

Originally posted by Live4Him
What animal is described below?

A herbivore with a tail as big as a tree. The bones of the animal seem as strong as metal. It is at home in the water and on land. It is mighty enough not to fear a raging river.

thats easy
its Bigmommahouse

 

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by williamwbishop

Live4him, I hate to break it to you, but you're about as opague as glass. Everyone knew where you were going with it

Of course they did! Well, everyone except for Cris. Well, maybe he DID and that is why he was threatening to censor it.

Anybody who will choose a handle like mine, post on a religion forum, and makes a post, is a fool if they think they are going to hide anything. It's like a magnet to the anti-Christians. Of course my posts are all about religion. If I post a poll, everybody will know that the poll has SOMETHING to do with religion.

BTW - Did YOU vote? And if so, what? And if not, why not?


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?

I DID start it on the religion forum. It WAS about religion.

There are two major religions in America, Christianity and Naturalism.

Some people will call naturalism by other names, like humanism, atheism, etc. but don't let the name change fool you. The differences between the different names are like Baptist, Catholic, Protestant, etc. Yet, a common thread between all the naturalists is the belief that life came about through natural means (i.e. Big Bang, evolution).

Since the censored thread (Where's the energy?) addressed the lack of energy for the 15 billion years needed by the naturalists' beliefs, it should have been allowed to be debated on the religion forum.

This one is similar. It shows empirical evidence for the co-existence of man and dinosaurs.

I suspect that most Christians DON'T know about many of the issues that I'll be raising. Thus, I raise them so that they have empirical evidence (i.e. real science) to support their beliefs.

Lastly, I've debated on other forums. When a topic came up that wasn't interesting, it quickly rolled off the first page (i.e. into obscurity). If the posts that I've made ARE really that uninteresting, then they will roll off. But, when they are forced off, even while active, it shows deliberate intentions to censor the material.

 

[Jaxom]

Originally posted by Neutrino_Albatross
Actually im not sure but i think that grass didnt exist when dinosaurs were alive. But you may be right about them refering to all herbavores as grass eaters.

You are correct. Grass is a relatively new plant. The plains of North America were covered with ferns when the dinosaurs were around.

Now, if we accept that they were around a few thousand years ago, we could argue that they had changed to eating grass. But we need more than a mention of a big beast to accept that...

Any other documents this old mention this? Greek, Romans, Persians? Should all mythological creatures be accepted as real due to them being documented, without any evidence to support them?

 

[Nasor]

Originally posted by Live4Him
...And the best way to keep people believing that is to censor all posts that are contrary, like you've done...Are you attempting to say that people on this forum DON'T have any intelligence? I don't believe that.

Sorry, but the vast majority of the readers here don't have any idea what a neutrino is. It has nothing to do with lack of intelligence on their part, it's just that most people have little interest in particle physics or quantum mechanics. I can understand your being upset that your thread was moved to a forum where many more readers would know something about modern physics and astronomy, especially since it depended largely on the general ignorance of your audience to be persuasive.

 

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by Neutrino_Albatross

I think you really have a problem comprehending the size of these buggers. Rhoetosaurus a fairly small sauropod was 12m long and 7m tall. Marsh reeds tend to grow in shallow water only and arent that high above the water line. A thing that big would tower over the reeds.

Not at all. The largest sauropod is known as the Supersaurus (or something like that - I don't quite remember the name). It was found in Argentina. Fern Museum in Atlanta had it on display for a while, including a T-Rex. I went to see it there.

Second, it doesn't say that the reeds were hiding it. Rather, the trees (i.e. Lotus trees) over it were hiding it.

Third, if the dinos were living, don't you think the same plant life found among the dinos would ALSO be living? In short, the "reeds" could have been quite large.

 

[Cris]

Neutrino,

Actually im not sure but i think that grass didnt exist when dinosaurs were alive.

Yes I remember that being discussed in a Discovery Channel program fairly recently. I only did a quick search on the web but found this -

Grass developed around 25 million years ago in what is called the "Miocene Epoch". But could do with some more references to this though.

That's about 40 million years after the Dinosaurs became extinct.

Of course 'grass eating' could just refer to the type of action and perhaps doesn't imply that grass actually existed, but that is something of a stretch and lack of grass certainly doesn't add weight to the biblical statements being true, especially since the statement reads -

15 Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox.

The authors of the story would not have known that grass at one time did not exist.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Splendor in the Grass

Originally posted by Live4Him
No deceit, just plain and simple honesty. ...

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

A tired and pathetic joke from a libelous and deceitful apologist. You and your childish myth deserve each other.

Parenthetrically, the behemoth is defined in the Stone Edition Tanach as "the 'Wild Ox' mentioned in Aggadic literature", while the footnotes in the New International Version (NIV) note that Job 40:15 possibly refers to the hippopotamus or the elephant, while 40:17 is possibly a reference to an elephants trunk. But it takes a born-again Live4Him ignorant contempt of science to posit an apatosaurus munching on grass

 

[Neutrino_Albatross]

lets review the initial statement shall we:

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.

now the key here is "hidden among the reeds in the marsh". Nothing that size by any stretch of the imagination could possibly be considered to be "hidden among the reeds in the marsh".

Nasor,

Sorry, but the vast majority of the readers here don't have any idea what a neutrino is.

I do.

 

[Jaxom]

Originally posted by Live4Him
Third, if the dinos were living, don't you think the same plant life found among the dinos would ALSO be living? In short, the "reeds" could have been quite large.

Okay, now you're adding another lifeform that suddenly went missing. Let's deal with them one at a time. What, outside the Bible, makes you think these large beasts were alive recently? Anything?

 

[Neutrino_Albatross]

I Just Realized Something...

How do you explain the extinction. Most creationists blme the flood, somehow noah missed all the dinosaurs (dont know how they're kinda hard to miss). This is from Job right? Dosent that take place after the flood?

 

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by Jaxom

Censorship must have various meanings, since everyone can still read everything here...anyway...

When was the last time you visited the Astronomy thread? Never?

Then, would you also admit that you are unlikely to read the post again? Isn't that censorship?


Why is there no empirical evidence of such creatures above the KT boundary?

First, the Bible doesn't say.

Second, my opinion is that was the period in time in which the flood occurred. I know that goes against the traditional "millions" of years. But, there is scientific / empirical evidence against those dates. I'll get around to posting it eventually (i.e on a new thread). Rome wasn't built in a day.

Hopefully, it won't be censored, or many of the readers will have a chance to read it first.


If man and dinosaur, or for that matter, an unknown creature labeled as a behemoth, existed together, then why is this passage the only mention of it?

We don't know when Job was written. There are no cities mentioned, nor rulers of those cities.

My belief is that Job lived before the flood, and far enough away from civilization to keep its impact on him at a distance. Somehow, Job's story became part of the collection of tablets that was used by Moses to write the Book of Genesis. Moses utilized the tablets (11+1), but couldn't fit Job's account into the flow of events. Thus, it became a separate book on its own.

But, much of this is meant for a different thread too.

Do you have other evidence you can offer? By itself, it's pretty weak.

I've been of the opinion that this was a description of a dino. Obviously, many others thought so also. Yet, this is the only description. However, Job 41 mentions another unknown animal, but it is even more obscure. I believe that it could be a description of a Elasmosaurus. But, this description is more clear.


If your argument is that the interpretation of these layers is wrong, then let's address that issue, which has a lot of empirical evidence on its side.

Not the layer, per se. Just the DATES assigned to the layers. Yet, this is, again, destined for a different thread.

 

[Jaxom]

Neutrino, some creationists believe that the dinos were on the ark...might as well, since just getting the basic species would be impossible, might as well add a few brontos too.

I've got a good theory: after the meteor strike 65 million years ago, dinosaur bones became very porous or soft, so they cannot fossilize at all. Thus, no evidence of them from then on. Of course, why some smaller reptiles managed to not get this defect...

 

[Neutrino_Albatross]

Neutrino, some creationists believe that the dinos were on the ark...might as well, since just getting the basic species would be impossible, might as well add a few brontos too.

WOW, ive never heard that one. All ive talked to said that they died in the flood. How do they explain the extinciton?

Some people...

 

[Jaxom]

Actually I read that thread too...just didn't see a reason to comment.

As for the rest, you do realize that they are all assumptions you need to clear up if this argument is taken seriously.

And when I said other mention, I really didn't mean other Biblical ones...that's what's under question...don't use the source as evidence for itself.