jwu said:
Nothing in science is ever proven. "Theory" is as good as it gets. A theory is a well supported hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested by predictions and evidence.
You keep believing that, and its small minded following belief system. Evolutionist stress theory being correct because they can't prove fact. Theory is a weak arrogant attempt to say your right.
jwu said:
Items are being found on dinosaurs that could never has lasted millions of years. Recently they have found T-rex tissue. Four chambered hearts preserved in dinosaurs in Alaska. Now you tell me skin or tissue is going to last millions of years. Just step back for a second and thank about it. One evolution scientist, said that because certain stomach tissue was found was because now it had iron in it which preserved it. Evolutionist are always taking back there theory on the destruction of Dinosaurs. At least they got one part right. It had to happen all at once, and happen around the world. They CHOOOSE not to believe in The Flood. If though all the earth shows evidence of it. The climate was said to be dense before the flood and less if no mountains. Mountains today have sea shells at the top. Hmm. The bible said during the Flood that land rose.
jwu said:
Actually several recent evolutionary changes of humans have been identified.
Humans have zero signs of evolution. People even believe that mankind grew taller over time which is a lie as well. Ever heard of the tall races in the bible? In Europe they found a femur that belong to a human stretching four feet long. Maybe it Was six I can't remember. Hair, stomach size, color. None of this is Evolution, Being smarter then the 1800's isn't evolution either. Its called caring someone elses work and expanding from there. Evolution is an atheist view point and nothing more.
jwu said:
Dragons are based on people finding a skeleton of an ancient giraffe species...the skull was up for display in a temple and people venerated it as a dragon skull.
And Behemoth is described to have a navel. Dinosaurs hatched from eggs and hence did not have navels. Therefore behemoth was clearly not a dinosaur.
I searched the web best I could and found very little on this topic, and if I did find anything it was from an evolutionist view point, which I already disagree with.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2179
(incase u don't click I'll paste)
Q.
Some writers have suggested that “behemoth,†mentioned in Job 40:15ff., could have been a type of dinosaur. However, since the Bible mentions behemoth’s “navel†(40:16), would not this exclude dinosaurs, since they were egg-layers and would not have possessed navels?
A.
The word rendered “navel†in the King James Version of the Bible derives from the Hebrew term sharir. Scholars have suggested that the term originally meant “firm, hard,†hence, denoted “the firm parts of the belly†(Gesenius, 1979, p. 850). In Job 40:16, it thus means “sinew, muscle†(see Brown, et al., 1906, p. 1057; Harris, et al., 1980, 2:957).
In Job 40:16, the term is the plural form. Would anyone suggest that the behemoth had more than one navel? The comments of Albert Barnes are appropriate:
The word here rendered navel means properly firm, hard, tough, and in the plural form, which occurs here, means the firm, or tough parts of the belly. It is not used to denote the navel in any place in the Bible, and should not have been rendered so here (1949, 2:248).
While many commentators have identified behemoth with the elephant or the hippopotamus, elsewhere I have argued that the descriptions given in the book of Job do not fit either of these animals (see Jackson, 1983, pp. 86-87) and that there is no valid reason for rejecting the idea that behemoth could have been some species of dinosaur.
Those who reject this possibility do so solely on the assumption that dinosaurs and man were never contemporaryâ€â€a view that not only is contrary to principles of sound biblical interpretation, but is, in fact, saturated with evolutionary presuppositions. Were it not for modern-day influences of evolutionary pseudoscience, certain Bible believers would have no problem at all with such passages as this.
And another link on another passage about that same Behemoth.
http://www.creationists.org/dinosaurs.html
Job 40:15-24
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
This verse alone should be enough to put the whole issue to rest as to whether or not God is describing a dinosaur to Job in this verse. Keep in mind, God is talking to Job about a living animal, that Job is familiar with. What land creatures do we know of today that have tails the size of a cedar tree? Before that question can be answered, it must first be determined how big a cedar tree is. We obtained information on this from two different sources.
First, we looked at what the Bible had to say about cedar trees to see if it would give us any clues as to how big the authors of the Bible thought they were. Second, we contacted the university of Arizona and asked them. The results of both inquires appear below.
How big does the Bible say cedar trees are?
Psalms 92:12 The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree: he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon (would this verse make much sense if it were referring to a small or medium sized tree?)
Isaiah 2:13 And upon all the cedars of Lebanon, [that are] high and lifted up, and upon all the oaks of Bashan,
Isaiah 37:24 By thy servants hast thou reproached the Lord, and hast said, By the multitude of my chariots am I come up to the height of the mountains, to the sides of Lebanon; and I will cut down the tall cedars…
Ezekiel 17:22 Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also take of the highest branch of the high cedar, and will set [it]; I will crop off from the top of his young twigs a tender one, and will plant [it] upon an high mountain and eminent:
Ezekiel 31:3 Behold, the Assyrian [was] a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs.
Amos 2:9 Yet destroyed I the Amorite before them, whose height [was] like the height of the cedars, and he [was] strong as the oaks; yet I destroyed his fruit from above, and his roots from beneath.
There is no question that the authors of the Bible considered cedar trees to be quite large. Some Christians who've tried to compromise with evolutionists have claimed that the verses describing Behemoth are describing a crocodile, hippopotamus or elephant. But those creatures don't have tails the size of a cedar tree. The only creatures known to us today that had tails as big as a cedar tree were the largest of the known dinosaurs.
What one tree expert at the University of Arizona had to say
The following e-mail was sent and responded to in June, 1997:
Hello. I've searched everywhere I can think of on the internet and can't find the information I'm looking for. I'm trying to find out how big a cedar tree might have been around the 1,000 - 2,000 BC time frame (when the book of "Job" was written in the Bible). The reason is because there is a Bible verse that describes an animal that moves its tail like a cedar tree (Job 40:15-19). It seems that only a dinosaur fits this description. For more info on this, see:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c004.html
Thanks.
=======
The reply
=======
From: "Henri Grissino-Mayer"
Organization: Tree-ring Lab, Uni. of Arizona
To: Gary Martin
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 18:42:55 -0700
Subject: Re: How large are cedar trees?
Priority: normal
Hi Gary ,
Well this certainly is one of the more original questions I've ever answered. In the Middle East, there are several species of trees that would qualify for "cedar" status. Basically, any juniper-like tree can be called a cedar. However, the tree most likely referred to is the famous well-known species called "Cedrus libani", or "cedar-of-Lebanon," a beautiful and stately tree that grows in the Middle East. These trees can be quite large! I worked on cross-sections from one tree that were about 1.5 meters in diameter. The tree can attain heights greater than 40 meters with a diameter greater than 3 meters! The tree is a favorite nursery tree and is now planted all over the world, even many here in Tucson, Arizona. Hope this helps.
Henri
Henri D. Grissino-Mayer
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
The University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721 USA
Conclusion
Again, we see evidence that a cedar tree is huge. It should be clear from the above verses in Job that the creature God is describing is most likely a dinosaur. For more information about what kind of dinosaur it might be, see this link.
Keep in mind that the term "dinosaur" didn't exist until the 19th century. Prior to that, they were mostly referred to as 'dragons'. Also, when you read various commentaries on the Bible, or different versions of the Bible, consider whether they were written between these time frames:
the time when knowledge of living "dragons" had been lost and
the time before the fossil discoveries of dinosaurs in the 1800's.
During this time frame, many commentators and Bible translators may not have had access to information that accurately described what a dinosaur was. Therefore, they would naturally have tried to make their best guess as to what some of these Bible verses may have been based on animals they did know about at the time. The Bible verses concerning Behemoth are a good example. This might explain why some commentaries wrongly attribute these Bible verses to creatures like elephants, alligators and hippopotamus's.
Additionally, because evolutionism has poisoned the modern church to a very great extent, many modern commentators and Bible translators may be guessing at creatures other than dinosaurs because of their well-meaning but erroneous compromises with evolutionism.
When trying to decide for yourself whether or not these verses are referring to dinosaurs, please take into consideration the world-wide body of evidence that exists that supports our assertion that humans and dinosaurs did co-exist.
:
