What of the dinosaurs?

  • 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.
Seifer5 said:
yes it can be lotus. Marsh is also mentioned, so it could have been in swamp lands going from the other words like fens.
Click to expand...

Should be "lotus plants" not "can be" as it is translated in the NASB and other more accurate translations.

Nope, I don't see Dreadnoughtus getting shade from a lotus, which is a plant not a tree, except in mythology.

Now, at 65 tons and an incredible appetite for rabbit food, I could see Dreadnoughtus eating lotus. Therefore, there wouldn't be much if any lotus.
 
4enlightment said:
Well, if you were on a deserted Island for a long period of time, and the only thing that's around was a mudskipper, that mudskipper will be evolving into a woman in your mind. So, this is the only evidence that you have that show that a fish evolving into a man (woman)?

Click to expand...

If you believe L. Ron Hubbard of the Church of Scientology, woman evolved from a clam.

Use your imagination. I mean, you have to use your imagination (or do some LSD) to see a world that is 6000 years old or cowgirls riding T. rex in the Dinosaur Rodeo.
 
Brainfreeze said:
No, I'm going to dial 911 if I can.. And if need be die trying to save everyone. I guess I don't think logically.
Click to expand...

Whatever the point might be, I would sure raise my hand to be picked to stay. One of those whom I possibly replaced may now have an opportunity to receive Christ in Salvation who wouldn't have otherwise. And since I am firmly sitting on the throne with Jesus in that "heavenly place" with Him, it wouldn't make much sense to preserve this miserable fleshly existence any further. What a wonderful thought, to be able to sacrifice myself for someone else to possibly live! :)
 
Straightshot said:
Response to the OP

Briefly ....

The dinosaurs existed on the earth between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2

The Lord judged the pre-Adamite earth because of Satan's rebellion against Him which occurred long before humans were created on a reconditioned Earth about 6000 years ago

The Lord's judgment was severe and the earth required changing to be suitable for human habitation

If you look at all the other planets in the earth's solar system your can see the results of the Lord's fierce anger and devastation .... notice that none of them provide environments for any life forms including humans

However, the earth is very different today because the Lord recently changed the planet for human habitation along with new life forms created after their kind

So the earth was without form and void, and darkness prevailed in the universe in the aftermath of the Lord's punishment against Satan and his fallen angels

The theory of Evolution is false and the human way of attempting to deny the existence of God

The biblical account of creation is true and makes perfect sense

There is much more to say about this subject from a biblical perspective

If you have further questions I will help you with your witness to substantiate the truth about the Lord's creation, past, present, and future .... His revelation is very convincing and it does fit perfectly with archaeological discoveries
Click to expand...

Yep. And you can find this story told in 1 Illusions 3.

For those who are not sure about that verse, here's a contrasting view in Ex. 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them,..."

You decide who you want to believe.
 
JackH said:
These mudskippers have been around for how many millions of years?

400 millions of years, give or take a million or two or ten?

But we have some on this thread who would have us believe that mudskippers were created a mere 6,000 years ago?

How is one to resolve such a drastic discrepancy?

Somebody get me a Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) video quick.
Click to expand...

I bet Hovind stole Jack's lunch money when they are little.
 
JackH said:
If you believe L. Ron Hubbard of the Church of Scientology, woman evolved from a clam.

Use your imagination. I mean, you have to use your imagination (or do some LSD) to see a world that is 6000 years old or cowgirls riding T. rex in the Dinosaur Rodeo.
Click to expand...




Best Answer


Scientology doesn't make this claim.

In Scientology it is stated that there are 3 parts to Man (a human being). The Body ,the MInd, and the Soul or Spirit. Scientology states that we are spiritual beings, that we have a mind , and we have a body,( like we have a house or a computer)
In the book "Scientology A History of Man" the history of the body and its genetic evolution to it's current form is covered. Clams as a physical form as a period of evolution of the body and the effects on the current body that we experience from this period is covered in that book. Particularly teeth and mouth related problems

Have you ever noticed that when you yawn (open your mouth very wide) .... your eyes water ?
The cause of this body reaction and others is explained in that book.

We as spiritual beings have a separate "evolutionary" track to that of our current physical bodies and we most definitely did not evolve from clams or any other physical forms.

L.Ron Hubbard explained fully the theology and technologies of Scientology in more than 500,000 pages of writings, including dozens of books and over 4,000 tape recorded public lectures.
So it's understandable that this tiny piece of data from one book taken out of all context would create this false impression.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120104053235AAkzSal
 
Cycel said:
I will ask you again. Do you now agree now that the so-called sauropods on the Egyptian seal are actually stylized, long-necked lions? The same motif is used on the Egyptian artifact shown below:

640px-Narmer_Palette_serpopard_side.jpg

Long-necked lions appear to have been a popular motif in Egypt. Yes? You agree?
Click to expand...

Depending on how old this artifact is, it may be a Sauropod according to the recollections of the descendants of eyewitnesses. I've seen many inaccuracies in artifacts depicting real animals—elephants with the legs wrong, for instance. This could be deliberate, or it just may be inaccurate recollections by someone getting secondhand information.

My suspicion is, dinosaurs died out within the first century after the flood, being hunted to oblivion in the regions where they could survive. They were very valuable dead to the hunter looking for notoriety. But they've stayed in the memories of the descendants of Noah to this day. So some artifacts are going to have some issue with precision, depending on the skill level of the artist, and information available to him.

But calling this a lion is laughable. I would need a very large dose of religious blind faith to accept that.
 
Calminian said:
Depending on how old this artifact is, it may be a Sauropod according to the recollections of the descendants of eyewitnesses. I've seen many inaccuracies in artifacts depicting real animals—elephants with the legs wrong, for instance. This could be deliberate, or it just may be inaccurate recollections by someone getting secondhand information.

My suspicion is, dinosaurs died out within the first century after the flood, being hunted to oblivion in the regions where they could survive. They were very valuable dead to the hunter looking for notoriety. But they've stayed in the memories of the descendants of Noah to this day. So some artifacts are going to have some issue with precision, depending on the skill level of the artist, and information available to him.

But calling this a lion is laughable. I would need a very large dose of religious blind faith to accept that.
Click to expand...

There is one man much taller than the others in this carving too... Is it a giant? Who is that guy with horns at the very top?

Is this an accurate depiction? Or has the artist taken some liberties with size, scale and depiction?
 
ColinCat said:
There is one man much taller than the others in this carving too... Is it a giant? Who is that guy with horns at the very top?

Is this an accurate depiction? Or has the artist taken some liberties with size, scale and depiction?
Click to expand...

From my research the person is supposed to be Narmer, whom may or may not be same as Menes whom also is supposed to be the first Pharoah of united Egypt. Perhaps he was a giant in his own mind , or maybe in the minds of his artists and artisans. It is fair to scrutinize any depiction indeed none are perfect. This artifact seems to be a religio-political artifact commemmorating his kingship. It is thought the bullmonster is either one of his idols or elsewise is some sorta ancient propaganda made to make Narmer seem powerful.


Ancient Egypt: Early Dynastic Period - Narmer Palette
 
ColinCat said:
There is one man much taller than the others in this carving too... Is it a giant? Who is that guy with horns at the very top?

Is this an accurate depiction? Or has the artist taken some liberties with size, scale and depiction?
Click to expand...

Giants are certainly real historical people according to the Bible, but it appears to me the others there are children.
 
GodIsSalvation said:
From my research the person is supposed to be Narmer, whom may or may not be same as Menes whom also is supposed to be the first Pharoah of united Egypt. ...
Click to expand...

Who may or may not be Mizriam, Noah's grandson through Ham. Mizriam (mitzrayim) is the hebrew word for Egypt. The NIV-11 just translates it Egypt.

Gen. 10:6 The sons of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put and Canaan.

If Mizriam lived as long as other grandsons of Noah, like Arphaxad (438 years), it would make sense he'd be the ideal founder of a nation. And if he outlived many of his own generations, it's easy to see why pharaohs were worshiped and thought to be gods.
 
Calminian said:
Giants are certainly real historical people according to the Bible, but it appears to me the others there are children.
Click to expand...

The one whom created the image wasn't very artistic; The man look like he was tall but he was standing on the right in one single line up, the rest were on the side of him. The dead body on the ground with their head cut off and put between their legs, suppose of been laying on a flat surface. It look to me that the image was showing a victory of a battle and they all were standing before their enemies. Back in those times they cut the heads of their enemies after the battle.
 
Calminian said:
Who may or may not be Mizriam, Noah's grandson through Ham. Mizriam (mitzrayim) is the hebrew word for Egypt. The NIV-11 just translates it Egypt.

Gen. 10:6 The sons of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put and Canaan.

If Mizriam lived as long as other grandsons of Noah, like Arphaxad (438 years), it would make sense he'd be the ideal founder of a nation. And if he outlived many of his own generations, it's easy to see why pharaohs were worshiped and thought to be gods.
Click to expand...

That's one thought, though the other plausibility I have seen before is Egypt which is literally what Mizraim means was of course named after him as the land him and his progeny settled. At some point they had a civil war/seccession era into Upper and Lower Egypt and then were reunited by Narmer or Menes.
 
GodIsSalvation said:
Here's an ancient egyptian depiction of lions. The Egyptians depict lions and other felines very consistently. So we can of course see the dinosaurs on the Narmer Palette are in fact not lions.

View attachment 91252

Article with other lion or lion-like depictions and a revisionist outlook on ancient egyptian lion lore: The Lions of Egypt, Pharaonic
Click to expand...
Yes, that is a fine sculpture, but it doesn't mean that the Egyptians only portrayed lions realistically. How about the statue below: a woman with the body of a lion and the wings of a bird. No, GodisSalvation, those early images are not sauropods. Those images are of lions with giraffe-like necks. The example I showed is clearly a lion. Even 4Enlightenment finally admitted as much.


$%28KGrHqZ,%21rYE88g6%28v+RBP%28iS1F6O%21%7E%7E60_35.JPG
 


There are stories of a plesiosaur-like creature seen in Queensland, Australia. Both aboriginal peoples around Lake Galilee and tribes farther up to the north tell of a long-necked animal with a large body and flippers. "Elders of the Kuku Yalanji aboriginal tribe of Far North Queensland, Australia, relate stories of Yarru (or Yarrba), a creature which used to inhabit rain forest water holes. The painting
depicts a creature with features remarkably similar to a plesiosaur. It even shows an outline of the gastro-intestinal tract, indicating that these animals had been hunted and butchered." (CEN Technical Journal, Vol.12, No. 3, 1998, p. 345.)mystifying puzzling ancient artifacts - Page 10 - www.hardwarezone.com.sg

Yarru.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back