-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
E
there are some walking the earth as we speak. just not the massive creatures we think when we think dino.
I think most of them died of in the flood. and the ones who made it to the other side (such as the behemoth) ran out of food because of the more hostile atmospheric environment took away their food source.
I think most of them died of in the flood. and the ones who made it to the other side (such as the behemoth) ran out of food because of the more hostile atmospheric environment took away their food source.
E
It says in plain words.
he was the greatest of Gods creation (most powerful or mighty)
and he had a tail like a cedar. Yes it was a medaphor. it explained his tail. again look up Lebanon cedar. and tell me you have seen a hippo which is the greatest of all creation. and has a tail which is symbolically or metaphorically represented by the cedar tree..
he was the greatest of Gods creation (most powerful or mighty)
and he had a tail like a cedar. Yes it was a medaphor. it explained his tail. again look up Lebanon cedar. and tell me you have seen a hippo which is the greatest of all creation. and has a tail which is symbolically or metaphorically represented by the cedar tree..
Could refer to any large land animal. Most likely a hippo.
Keep in mind the Bible has been translated time and time again. The passage most likely refers to the way the tail moved, such as the branches of a willow tree.
This is true, except for the part where you said:
Almost all scientists accept the theory of evolution. There is an INCREDIBLY minute number of young earth scientists.
There isn't a single repeatable scientist, who majored in any field associated with evolution, who went from being an evolutionist to a creationist based on science. Literally every single scientist who made the change did so because the science clashed with their religious views, and they chose to hold onto their religion. Keep in mind, there are barely any creation scientists.
Whether you like it or not, claims in support of evolution are put through the scientific process. Creationist claims, on the other hand, are not. Hence, creationism isn't science.
This isn't proven, it's assumed.
Not only would this be untrue, but there's zero evidence of a world wide flood.
They're called BIRDS.
You know what they say about those who assume...
The metaphore described the movement of the tail. Not the size.
Again, the metaphor most likely referred to the movement of the tail.
But, hey, I'll give you a fair shot. Tell me which dinosaurs the Bible could be referring to. Then, find me an example of one of these dinosaurs who's fossilized remains were found in the same layer as human remains. If you can find me a legitimate example that has not been thoroughly debunked by science, that has been verified by numerous sources and recorded in a scientific journal, I'll go to every forum I can think of and write a paper on how evolution is wrong and how dinosaur bones have been found with human bones.
Keep in mind the Bible has been translated time and time again. The passage most likely refers to the way the tail moved, such as the branches of a willow tree.
This is true, except for the part where you said:
Almost all scientists accept the theory of evolution. There is an INCREDIBLY minute number of young earth scientists.
There isn't a single repeatable scientist, who majored in any field associated with evolution, who went from being an evolutionist to a creationist based on science. Literally every single scientist who made the change did so because the science clashed with their religious views, and they chose to hold onto their religion. Keep in mind, there are barely any creation scientists.
Whether you like it or not, claims in support of evolution are put through the scientific process. Creationist claims, on the other hand, are not. Hence, creationism isn't science.
This isn't proven, it's assumed.
Not only would this be untrue, but there's zero evidence of a world wide flood.
They're called BIRDS.
You know what they say about those who assume...
The metaphore described the movement of the tail. Not the size.
Again, the metaphor most likely referred to the movement of the tail.
But, hey, I'll give you a fair shot. Tell me which dinosaurs the Bible could be referring to. Then, find me an example of one of these dinosaurs who's fossilized remains were found in the same layer as human remains. If you can find me a legitimate example that has not been thoroughly debunked by science, that has been verified by numerous sources and recorded in a scientific journal, I'll go to every forum I can think of and write a paper on how evolution is wrong and how dinosaur bones have been found with human bones.
This is why there's such a controversy. What evidence we find contradicts the literal interpretation of the Bible. That's not to say most evolutionists don't believe God or Jesus. In fact, the majority of scientists who accept the theory of evolution are (if I remember correctly) Christian.
Also, the Bible never stated there was no death before the fall.
Also, the Bible never stated there was no death before the fall.
Really? You may want to take another look in scripture about that.
After God made man he looked at all His creation and sait it was "good" of there was already decaying flesh on earth how would He describe that as "good"?
Nowhere in scripture does is show Adam and Eve ate meat. So there's evidence there they didn't kill for food. Actually, it wasn't til well after the fall of man until God allowed men to kill for food.
After God made man he looked at all His creation and sait it was "good" of there was already decaying flesh on earth how would He describe that as "good"?
Nowhere in scripture does is show Adam and Eve ate meat. So there's evidence there they didn't kill for food. Actually, it wasn't til well after the fall of man until God allowed men to kill for food.
T
I don't think people know what metaphors are. Saying the Behemoth has a tail LIKE a cedar tree, that's a simile, not a metaphor. Also, do people even hear themselves? There's no way on God's green earth that a hippopotamus has a tail LIKE a cedar tree, its tail is barely like a feather duster! Even if the verse is referring to the tail moving LIKE a cedar tree, that still doesn't sound anything like an elephant or hippo or rhinoceros. Come on, seriously! Their tail movements are more akin to a horse's. When people don't want to accept that people and dinosaurs once lived together and that God is talking about dinosaurs or dinosaur-type creatures in Job, they really have to resort to the ridiculous.
Last edited by a moderator:
F
The answer is they didn't become extinct before the fall of man. The Bible teaches (in Genesis 1:29–30) that the original animals (and the first humans) were commanded to be vegetarian. There were no meat eaters in the original creation. Furthermore, there was no death. It was an unblemished world, with Adam and Eve and animals (including dinosaurs) living in perfect harmony, eating only plants.
Sadly, it did not stay this way for very long. Adam rebelled against his Creator, bringing sin into the world (Genesis 3:1–7; Romans 5:12). Because of this rebellion, Adam, and thus all of his descendants (you and me), gave up the right to live with a Holy (sinless) and just God. God therefore judged sin with death.
The Bible plainly teaches from Genesis to Revelation that there was no death of animals or humans before Adam sinned. (Consider just a few of the many passages, such as: Romans 5:12; Genesis 2:17; Genesis 1:29–30; Romans 8:20–22; Acts 3:21; Hebrews 9:22; 1 Corinthians 15; Revelation 21:1–4; Revelation 22:3.) This means there could not have been any animal fossils (and no dinosaur bones) before sin. After Adam’s sin, animals and people started to die. It was now a different world, one of death and strife. A world that was once beautiful now suffered under the curse placed upon it by the Creator (Genesis 3:14–19). But a promise was given (Genesis 3:15) that God would provide a way for the penalty of sin to be paid so there would be a way for man to come back to God.
If the different kinds of dinosaurs survived the Flood, then they must have come off the Ark and lived in the post-Flood world.
In the Bible, in Job 40:15–24, God describes to Job (who lived after the Flood) a great beast with which Job was familiar. This great animal, called “behemoth,” is described as “the chief of the ways of God,” perhaps the biggest land animal God had created. Impressively, he moved his tail like a cedar tree! Although some Bible commentaries say this may have been an elephant or hippopotamus, the description actually fits that of a dinosaur like Brachiosaurus. Elephants and hippos certainly do not have tails like cedar trees!
Actually, very few animals are singled out in the Bible for such a detailed description. Contrary to what many may think, what we know now as dinosaurs get more mention in the Scriptures than most animals! So dinosaurs—all the different kinds—must have lived alongside of people after the Flood.
SOFT TISSUE IN DINOSAUR BONES FOUND TODAY?
Ask the average layperson how he or she knows that the earth is millions or billions of years old, and that person will probably mention the dinosaurs, which nearly everybody “knows” died off 65 million years ago. A recent discovery by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, however, has given reason for all but committed evolutionists to question this assumption.
If dinosaurs lived over 65 million years ago, why do some dinosaur fossils still contain well-preserved soft tissues?
Bone slices from the fossilized thigh bone (femur) of a Tyrannosaurus rex found in the Hell Creek formation of Montana were studied under the microscope by Schweitzer. To her amazement, the bone showed what appeared to be blood vessels of the type seen in bone and marrow, and these contained what appeared to be red blood cells with nuclei, typical of reptiles and birds (but not mammals). The vessels even appeared to be lined with specialized endothelial cells found in all blood vessels.
Amazingly, the bone marrow contained what appeared to be flexible tissue. Initially, some skeptical scientists suggested that bacterial biofilms (dead bacteria aggregated in a slime) formed what only appear to be blood vessels and bone cells. Recently Schweitzer and coworkers found biochemical evidence for intact fragments of the protein collagen, which is the building block of connective tissue. This is important because collagen is a highly distinctive protein not made by bacteria. (See Schweitzer’s review article in Scientific American [December 2010, pp. 62–69] titled “Blood from Stone.”)
Some evolutionists have strongly criticized Schweitzer’s conclusions because they are understandably reluctant to concede the existence of blood vessels, cells with nuclei, tissue elasticity, and intact protein fragments in a dinosaur bone dated at 68 million years old. Other evolutionists, who find Schweitzer’s evidence too compelling to ignore, simply conclude that there is some previously unrecognized form of fossilization that preserves cells and protein fragments over tens of millions of years. Needless to say, no evolutionist has publically considered the possibility that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old. Read more at #3 Soft Tissue in Fossils - Answers in Genesis
THIS INFORMATION ISN"T SCIENTIFIC ?
Many secular and atheist groups mock Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum for not being scientific. However, some of the most influential scientists past and present have been and are creationists (see below). I hope by listing only a few that you get the picture.
Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics.
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Professor Stuart Burgess, Engineering Design
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology ... and many more!
Sadly, it did not stay this way for very long. Adam rebelled against his Creator, bringing sin into the world (Genesis 3:1–7; Romans 5:12). Because of this rebellion, Adam, and thus all of his descendants (you and me), gave up the right to live with a Holy (sinless) and just God. God therefore judged sin with death.
The Bible plainly teaches from Genesis to Revelation that there was no death of animals or humans before Adam sinned. (Consider just a few of the many passages, such as: Romans 5:12; Genesis 2:17; Genesis 1:29–30; Romans 8:20–22; Acts 3:21; Hebrews 9:22; 1 Corinthians 15; Revelation 21:1–4; Revelation 22:3.) This means there could not have been any animal fossils (and no dinosaur bones) before sin. After Adam’s sin, animals and people started to die. It was now a different world, one of death and strife. A world that was once beautiful now suffered under the curse placed upon it by the Creator (Genesis 3:14–19). But a promise was given (Genesis 3:15) that God would provide a way for the penalty of sin to be paid so there would be a way for man to come back to God.
If the different kinds of dinosaurs survived the Flood, then they must have come off the Ark and lived in the post-Flood world.
In the Bible, in Job 40:15–24, God describes to Job (who lived after the Flood) a great beast with which Job was familiar. This great animal, called “behemoth,” is described as “the chief of the ways of God,” perhaps the biggest land animal God had created. Impressively, he moved his tail like a cedar tree! Although some Bible commentaries say this may have been an elephant or hippopotamus, the description actually fits that of a dinosaur like Brachiosaurus. Elephants and hippos certainly do not have tails like cedar trees!
Actually, very few animals are singled out in the Bible for such a detailed description. Contrary to what many may think, what we know now as dinosaurs get more mention in the Scriptures than most animals! So dinosaurs—all the different kinds—must have lived alongside of people after the Flood.
SOFT TISSUE IN DINOSAUR BONES FOUND TODAY?
Ask the average layperson how he or she knows that the earth is millions or billions of years old, and that person will probably mention the dinosaurs, which nearly everybody “knows” died off 65 million years ago. A recent discovery by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, however, has given reason for all but committed evolutionists to question this assumption.
If dinosaurs lived over 65 million years ago, why do some dinosaur fossils still contain well-preserved soft tissues?
Bone slices from the fossilized thigh bone (femur) of a Tyrannosaurus rex found in the Hell Creek formation of Montana were studied under the microscope by Schweitzer. To her amazement, the bone showed what appeared to be blood vessels of the type seen in bone and marrow, and these contained what appeared to be red blood cells with nuclei, typical of reptiles and birds (but not mammals). The vessels even appeared to be lined with specialized endothelial cells found in all blood vessels.
Amazingly, the bone marrow contained what appeared to be flexible tissue. Initially, some skeptical scientists suggested that bacterial biofilms (dead bacteria aggregated in a slime) formed what only appear to be blood vessels and bone cells. Recently Schweitzer and coworkers found biochemical evidence for intact fragments of the protein collagen, which is the building block of connective tissue. This is important because collagen is a highly distinctive protein not made by bacteria. (See Schweitzer’s review article in Scientific American [December 2010, pp. 62–69] titled “Blood from Stone.”)
Some evolutionists have strongly criticized Schweitzer’s conclusions because they are understandably reluctant to concede the existence of blood vessels, cells with nuclei, tissue elasticity, and intact protein fragments in a dinosaur bone dated at 68 million years old. Other evolutionists, who find Schweitzer’s evidence too compelling to ignore, simply conclude that there is some previously unrecognized form of fossilization that preserves cells and protein fragments over tens of millions of years. Needless to say, no evolutionist has publically considered the possibility that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old. Read more at #3 Soft Tissue in Fossils - Answers in Genesis
THIS INFORMATION ISN"T SCIENTIFIC ?
Many secular and atheist groups mock Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum for not being scientific. However, some of the most influential scientists past and present have been and are creationists (see below). I hope by listing only a few that you get the picture.
Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics.
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Professor Stuart Burgess, Engineering Design
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology ... and many more!
First, you tell me the Bible states there was no death before the fall. Then, you provide me no such statements. Instead of assume "good" MUST refer to something that can't die. You also assume that because the Bible didn't mention Adam and Eve ate meat, they must have never ate meat. You also assume that because Adam and Eve never ate meat, there was no death elsewhere. All of these claims are completely asinine and fails to serve as evidence.
The Bible described the way the tail moved - and it referred to he branches of a cedar tree. How many times do I have to say this.
Considering the branches and the leaves and how one could use them to wave away flies - sounds exactly like an elephant, hippo, and rhino.
It's a pot calling the kettle black.
Anyway, I'm still waiting for dinosaur bones that were found in the same rock layers as humans. Shouldn't be too hard to find considering how dinosaurs and humans co-existed.
Their tails were very much so like the ends of cedar trees, branches with leaves on them, that people would use to swat away flies.
Including unicorns?
Potholer, from YouTube, debunked this preposterous claim.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE
She found, what appeared to be, transparent tissue vessels - which were revealed AFTER a process of partial demineralization.
In the same way fossils of dinosaur bones appear to be dinosaur bones. What she found wasn't actually red blood cells.
She never claimed to have found these things. Everything she found was fossilized.
Please, give this article a read: Dino Blood Redux
You then finish off a short list of names with:
How many more?
I present to you, project Steve. Project Steve | NCSE
The Bible described the way the tail moved - and it referred to he branches of a cedar tree. How many times do I have to say this.
Considering the branches and the leaves and how one could use them to wave away flies - sounds exactly like an elephant, hippo, and rhino.
It's a pot calling the kettle black.
Anyway, I'm still waiting for dinosaur bones that were found in the same rock layers as humans. Shouldn't be too hard to find considering how dinosaurs and humans co-existed.
Their tails were very much so like the ends of cedar trees, branches with leaves on them, that people would use to swat away flies.
Including unicorns?
Potholer, from YouTube, debunked this preposterous claim.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE
She found, what appeared to be, transparent tissue vessels - which were revealed AFTER a process of partial demineralization.
In the same way fossils of dinosaur bones appear to be dinosaur bones. What she found wasn't actually red blood cells.
She never claimed to have found these things. Everything she found was fossilized.
Please, give this article a read: Dino Blood Redux
You then finish off a short list of names with:
How many more?
I present to you, project Steve. Project Steve | NCSE
E
NOTHING in that passage would even resemble a hippos.
He ranks first in the works of God. You want to compair a hippo to a brontosaur? This us God speaking, this is not a man speaking. You want to mock God by saying a hipo was the greatest of all creation?
The first of all creation. A hippo does not have much of a tail.
lol.. Ok. If you say so..
There are MANY young earth non evolution scientists. It is growing as we speak.
WHo cares if there or more. Since when has the most been correct. Paul warned us about going with the many.
Well if you do not read things, or selectively read them. You would believe this. I can;t help it if you fail to do your research. I have read many a scientist who left evolution and state there has to be some sort of creator. Even if they do not believe in God.
lol. Yet Science and creationism fit like a glove..
Nah, Science shows that the atmosphere at one time was massivly different than it is now. But if you do nto want to see it, you will not.
Again, there is massive evidence of a world flood. Again, if you do not want to see it, you wont.
dude you have serious issues. Why are you here?
Yep. Why are you assuming in a science with no proof??
again why are you hear? To mock those who believe in God. Don;t you have a better place to go? Go to find your athiest friends and continue to believe the lie you have been trained to believe.
He ranks first in the works of God. You want to compair a hippo to a brontosaur? This us God speaking, this is not a man speaking. You want to mock God by saying a hipo was the greatest of all creation?
The first of all creation. A hippo does not have much of a tail.
lol.. Ok. If you say so..
There are MANY young earth non evolution scientists. It is growing as we speak.
WHo cares if there or more. Since when has the most been correct. Paul warned us about going with the many.
Well if you do not read things, or selectively read them. You would believe this. I can;t help it if you fail to do your research. I have read many a scientist who left evolution and state there has to be some sort of creator. Even if they do not believe in God.
lol. Yet Science and creationism fit like a glove..
Nah, Science shows that the atmosphere at one time was massivly different than it is now. But if you do nto want to see it, you will not.
Again, there is massive evidence of a world flood. Again, if you do not want to see it, you wont.
dude you have serious issues. Why are you here?
Yep. Why are you assuming in a science with no proof??
again why are you hear? To mock those who believe in God. Don;t you have a better place to go? Go to find your athiest friends and continue to believe the lie you have been trained to believe.
Actually the water-bear is the greatest of all creations. (The point is, how do you know what the greatest animal created was?)
And, if you look at every other description in the passage, it fits a hippo perfectly well.
Stop ignoring my posts and READ them.
The problem is, you only read creationist dogma. For example, you believe there were many scientists who believe in creationism. If all you hear are stories from creationists, this number will appear large. But if you look outside creation sources, you'll see these scientists are vastly outnumbered by those who do accept evolution - 95% of them.
Anyway, the rest of what you said failed to address any of my arguments. Going around telling people they're wrong, without addressing why or how, gets you nowhere.
And, if you look at every other description in the passage, it fits a hippo perfectly well.
Stop ignoring my posts and READ them.
The problem is, you only read creationist dogma. For example, you believe there were many scientists who believe in creationism. If all you hear are stories from creationists, this number will appear large. But if you look outside creation sources, you'll see these scientists are vastly outnumbered by those who do accept evolution - 95% of them.
Anyway, the rest of what you said failed to address any of my arguments. Going around telling people they're wrong, without addressing why or how, gets you nowhere.
You first stated there was nothing in the bible that said otherwise and I said you may want to take another look. That means study for YOURSELF. I won't do it for you. The answers are right there in Genesis. God permitted man and animals to eat plants. He never permitted them to eat meat. BElieve what you want. It isn't my words you are calling asinine. It's Gods. You can take that disagreement up with Him.