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
Originally posted by Nasor
Click to expand...

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.

Nor do they need to understand it. All they need to understand is that their is empirical evidence against the "billions of years" needed by Big Bang / Evolution.

But, those that are willing to dig in, well ... we could have an interesting conversation.
 
2 by 2 or 7 by 7

Originally posted by Jaxom
Let's deal with them one at a time.
Click to expand...
Actually, you first have to deal with them two at a time, or at least Noah did. It's a good thing he only needed to keep two. Thank YHWH that our behemouth, despite grazing on grass, didn't chew his cud!

Like Pinocchio's nose, the old ark keeps getting bigger and bigger ... :D
 
I completely agree with you Live4him...The correct answer is other...other could be anything...you're too funny...You're part of the club man...We are so dumb as usual....You're so so smart
 
Oh yeah and about the rest of your post.

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...
Click to expand...
During my recent dino reaserch (largely because of this thread) i found sme new theory that says that the meteor one woulndt work because the extinction was too selective. In a meteor strike alot more species would have become extinct and dinosaurs supposedly were good canidaties to survive the meteor.

http://www.livingcosmos.com/k-t.htm
 
That's it...The correct answer is other....other could be anything....you made my night man....
You're a genious....So is Cris when he said that this post should not be here.....Can someone point me to the jokes and puzzels forum...I dig that stuff...
 
Originally posted by
Click to expand...

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

That's correct. The author used the following Hebrew term.

2682. chatséyr, the greenness of a courtyard; grass; also a leek (collect.):— grass, hay, herb, leek.
James Strong, New Strong’s dictionary of Hebrew and Greek words [computer file], electronic ed., Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1996.

We English speaking people have translated it to grass.
 
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Click to expand...

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

That's correct. Why? It is because many of the earlier commentaries have commented on the animal as being the hippo / elephant, etc. Of course, they made their comments before the discovery of the fossil evidence of dinos. But, traditions die hard.
 
Interesting, Neutrino. I'd like to know the sources for some of those facts, being that they go opposite to what I've read. The Yucatan crater volcanic? Yeah, after the hole in the crust was ripped open. :)

A big "fact" they use is that both hemispheres were affected. 1) it's believed that such an impact would send shock waves through the mantle, to focus on the other side of the planet...India, with its volcanic area (I forget the name now) is there, and long was believed to be the other possible culprit. India was btw, farther south, then, and would have contributed to that hemisphere, and 2) I don't think that scientists now believe that hemispheres are totally isolated. Even if it wasn't as bad, the southern part of the world was affected. So a nuclear winter would be bad for US, Europe, Australia, etc.

But we disgress on the topic. What of the evidence for them recently?
 
Originally posted by Neutrino_Albatross
Click to expand...

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".

Now, lets look at the Hebrew word that has been translated to "reed".

7070. qaneh; a reed (as erect); by resemblance a rod (espec. for measuring), shaft, tube, stem, the radius (of the arm), beam (of a steelyard):— balance, bone, branch, calamus, cane, reed, × spearman, stalk.

James Strong, New Strong’s dictionary of Hebrew and Greek words [computer file], electronic ed., Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1996.

Now, many of us don't consider a "branch" or "cane" to be small.
 
Better yet, start your thread on misdating of paleontology, and we'll clean that assumption up.
 
7070. qaneh; a reed (as erect); by resemblance a rod (espec. for measuring), shaft, tube, stem, the radius (of the arm), beam (of a steelyard):— balance, bone, branch, calamus, cane, reed, × spearman, stalk.
Click to expand...
Ok the only one in that list that mkes much sens in context with the marsh is reed in th way i was using. Lets face it though, there arent a whole lot of plants that can conceal a large dinosaur (especialiy in that part of the world)
 
Live4him,
You ignored my answer. I told you I agree with your findings...You posted the question, and you also posted the answer and i agree with the answer....Why do you ignore my answer...Is this the way you usually study your bible??
 
Originally posted by Jaxom
Click to expand...

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?

If a description of an animal accurately describes a known animal, then why doubt it was an accurate description simply because current beliefs are that dinos lived long before man?

Second, there are a large number of artifacts that represent dinosaurs. There are paintings on cave walls of dinos. There is pottery with dinos on them. There are footprints of man and dino together.

Third, this is a thought that I've been thinking of recently. Everyone has heard of the myth of the "dragons" flying in and snatching people and / or livestock. What IF ... these are real descriptions of pterosaurs?


What, outside the Bible, makes you think these large beasts were alive recently? Anything?

See above.

Imagine for a moment. Instead of time being "millions of years" it was compressed to thousands of years. Initially, dinos roamed in some parts, while man roamed in other parts. We see this today, with man in cities, and the beasts outside the cities. Then, the flood wipes out most of the life on earth, including almost all of the dinos (NOTE: some are still alive today, in the ocean off Madagascar.)

If this DID occur, what would you expect? Fossils and legends, along with some artifacts that were not destroyed by water.


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 haven't heard this at all. The general theory among creationists is that dinos were not included on the ark.


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.

I've read a book recently (The Great Dinosaur Extinction Controversy). Apparently most scientists have discarded this theory as a probable cause for the extinction of the dinos.

Second, some unfossilized dino bones have been discovered. They MAY have dino blood (what's left of it) in the bone.


Later,

<><
Live4Him
 
I haven't heard this at all. The general theory among creationists is that dinos were not included on the ark.
Click to expand...
But the evidence your giving for dinos in the bible is from Job which was after the flood right? How do you explain this?
 
I haven't heard this at all. The general theory among creationists is that dinos were not included on the ark.
Click to expand...

Not so. They were taken on to the ark, the size problem was solved by taking baby dinosaurs which would take up less space.
 
Originally posted by heflores
Click to expand...

You ignored my answer. I told you I agree with your findings...You posted the question, and you also posted the answer and i agree with the answer....Why do you ignore my answer

Because I'm not following what you are saying. It appears to be simply mocking. If so, I don't have time for it. I'm here for serious discussion on any issue that impacts naturalism / Christianity.

However, I'll review your comments right now before I sign off.


That's it...The correct answer is other....other could be anything

Yes, it could be anything. However, it sounds like a dino, unless some other animal's remains are found that fits the description better.


....you made my night man.... You're a genious....So is Cris when he said that this post should not be here.....Can someone point me to the jokes and puzzels forum...I dig that stuff...

See, just mocking. I'm not a genius. I research. I present my findings, hoping someone would be willing to engage in serious debate on the subject.

If you ask a serious question, I'll answer it. If it is a totally different topic, then I'll request that a new thread get started. I abhor meandering threads going thousands of directions. So, I attempt to stay on track. Then, the casual reader can read the first post, and know that the last will be on that subject.

If you want to start a new thread, targeted specifically at me, just put L4H or Live4Him in the thread title. As long as I don't get swamped with a lot of them, I'll answer it.

But, if you're just mocking, don't bother to expect a response. If you want to call me a fool, think of me as a fool etc., that is your choice. I've lived with that response for the past several years. But don't expect a response to your post.

And now ... I'm out'a here for the night (really this time).
 
Originally posted by Live4Him
If a description of an animal accurately describes a known animal, then why doubt it was an accurate description simply because current beliefs are that dinos lived long before man?
Click to expand...

Coincidence, unless there's empirical evidence to back it up.

Second, there are a large number of artifacts that represent dinosaurs. There are paintings on cave walls of dinos. There is pottery with dinos on them. There are footprints of man and dino together.
Click to expand...

I've seen these. I've also seen the debunking of them.

Third, this is a thought that I've been thinking of recently. Everyone has heard of the myth of the "dragons" flying in and snatching people and / or livestock. What IF ... these are real descriptions of pterosaurs?
Click to expand...

Actually, I've seen more convincing literary evidence of pterosaurs in more recent works than the Bible. However, I've also seen the debunking of these too. Same problem, why no other evidence other than the imaginative tales? So what that they sound accurate, that means nothing if there's nothing else to base the argument on. Sorry, but you have to support your case.


I haven't heard this at all. The general theory among creationists is that dinos were not included on the ark.
Click to expand...

It's not a large portion, but I have seen mention of dinosaurs on the ark. I suppose it depends on where you're trying to stick them within the Biblical timeline that you'd have to argue that or not. I say the ark was impossible as is, we don't need things the size of that boat.

I've read a book recently (The Great Dinosaur Extinction Controversy). Apparently most scientists have discarded this theory as a probable cause for the extinction of the dinos.
Click to expand...

Most scientists would be stretching it if only a few renegade sites are claiming to frontier the unknown "truth". Hey, if there's evidence for another solution that explains it better, I'll look at it. I disagree with a few things that site mentions though, and that is from my recent readings.

Second, some unfossilized dino bones have been discovered. They MAY have dino blood (what's left of it) in the bone.
Click to expand...

This would be interesting news to me and support your theory better. Where did you see this? What were they found in, and what age was it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top