just curious?

Happy_Killbot

@maxx How strange... Almost like they just made it all up or something...

TKDB

@maxx

The earth is said to be 4.5 billion years old, and humanity has roughly been on this planet, I believe anywhere from 250,000 - 300,000 years? 

The above is what Regular Science says.

And in my experiences with going to a Religious building, have your individual talking points ever been discussed during the Religious services, in the Religious building.

"if the world is only as old as Christians say it is, then dinosaurs and humans must have roamed together at the same time. yet no where in the bible does it speak of them."

What individual Christians expressed to you, about the conversation piece, that you're elaborating on?

@RickeyD

Can you shed some light on maxx's conversation piece? 

"if the world is only as old as Christians say it is, then dinosaurs and humans must have roamed together at the same time. yet no where in the bible does it speak of them."

RickeyD

@TKDB ; @Maxx The Bible is replete with dinosaurs...just not by that identifier...

If dinosaurs were part of the original creation and taken on board Noah’s ark with the rest of the land dwelling animals, why aren’t they mentioned in the Bible?

Since the word “dinosaur” wasn’t actually coined until 1841, the creatures we now refer to as dinosaurs were simply called dragons throughout most of history. Not only does the Bible use the word “dragon” repeatedly, 21 times in the Old Testament and 12 times in the Book of Revelations, the Book of Job describes creatures called Behemoth and Leviathan, which seem to indicate large, reptilian beasts, like dinosaurs. (See the Book of Job, chapters 40 and 41.)

Job 40:15-19 “Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach
unto him.”

In Hebrew, the word “Behemoth” translates as “gigantic beast.” For this animal to be described by God as “the chief,” it must surely have been a huge and magnificent sight!

Throughout history, dragons have been a huge part of folklore, each culture replete with legends of flying reptiles, as well as monsters of land and sea. Notable historians such as Herodotus, Strabo, Dio, and Josephus have documented accounts with enormous creatures called dragons. In the journals of Alexander the Great and Marco Polo, there have been found additional references to these creatures, some large enough and scary enough to terrify the most stalwart of soldiers. Ancient writings have been discovered containing recipes which call for dragon parts like their bones, blood, and saliva. It seems that ancient man did not believe dinosaurs were a thing of the past, but a veritable threat to their present and future.

By the Middle Ages, dragon sightings had become rare. Those who did show themselves were instantly hunted for sport, food, or medicine. Yet the sightings continued. Today we continue to discover and unearth drawings and artwork with depictions of these monsters. From pottery, stones, and statues, to detailed carvings on an 800 year old temple in Cambodia, archaeology is abounding with pictures of the creatures we now call dinosaurs. So why is there a concerted effort to deny the co-existence of these creatures with humanity?

We’ve heard it before, in numerous ways. Dinosaurs lived millions and millions of years ago. They died out before man came into existence and were not discovered until the early 1800’s. The proof for this is in the fossil evidence and extinction. In order for their bones to be fossilized, and then buried under miles of dirt, rock, and other bones, they must have been wiped out long before mankind existed. Whatever disaster destroyed the dinosaurs must have happened before our ancestors were crawling around on all fours, or they would have been destroyed too. Today, these assumptions are touted as fact, as indisputable as gravity.

Scientifically, we have discovered that fossilization does not take millions of years. It just requires the right conditions. And the burial of millions of animals, plants, and marine life is explained quite easily by the worldwide flood recorded in the Book of Genesis. This wasn’t just a bit of rain that fell from the sky, but a worldwide catastrophe of epic proportions!

Dinosaurs—Part of the Original Creation

Through God’s Word, historical records, and evidence uncovered, we can see that dinosaurs were part of the original creation. Adam and Eve saw them in the Garden of Eden; Noah took them on the Ark; and mankind has interacted with them and been fascinated by them for over 6,000 years. It is only in recent times that there has been a concerted effort to assert their extinction before the dawn of humanity. This error has led many to question the Word of God and thereby to deny the reality of Creation, the Flood, and the Coming Judgment. Yet, over the centuries, science has proven to be like shifting sand. Only God’s Word is steadfast.

Source: https://creationtoday.org/dinosaurs-in-the-bible/

MayCaesar

Obviously dinosaurs have never existed, and evil scientists serving Satan buried fake bones everywhere to confuse everyone and make them question the holy book. See, the guy above says that what actually existed was not dinosaurs, but fire-breathing dragons! Is it not obvious?!

Neopesdom

@maxx

Just curious, is your search engine not working again?

Scripture does use the Hebrew word tanniyn to describe creatures resembling giant reptiles. These creatures appear over 28 times in the Old Testament, as a sea-monster or serpent. The term applies to a water monster (both marine and river), as well as a land monster. Many scholars believe Scripture writers used tanniyn to describe images of dinosaurs in the Bible.

Similar to Tannin or Tunannu which was a sea monster in Canaanite, Phoenician, and Hebrew mythology used as a symbol of chaos and evil.

Besides giant reptiles, the Bible also includes several references to a monstrous and mighty beast, specifically called a Behemoth in the book of Job 40:15–24.

From this description of the Behemoth, it seems possible that the book of Job was describing a giant, vegetation-eating sauropod or brachiosaurus.

Likewise, a great mythological sea dragon, the ancient Leviathan, appears various times in Scripture and in other ancient literature: Isaiah 27:1 and Psalm 74:14. Perhaps a kronosaurus

It doesn't require too much digging to see that the Bible conciliates that belief with reasonable support for their existence.









 



Mary Higby Schweitzer and her team confirmed the finding of soft tissue and blood remnants in the bone. She was low key about the find yet it gained wide publicity even in the mainstream media. On March 24, 2005, MSNBC aired a documentary about the find and showed Schweitzer dissolving tissue in EDTA which is a chemical that breaks down the hard calcium that surrounds the soft tissue. The TV documentary showed, in live action, the bending and flexing of the soft tissue from the dinosaur bone.

 Scientists know that no soft tissue of any kind could possibly be preserved in a dinosaur bone for 65 million years. Soft tissue is composed of highly complex and relatively unstable biopolymers such as proteins that would breakdown in far less time than even one million years. If it is indeed dinosaur soft tissue, then some people will have to rethink the whole paradigm of the age of the dinosaurs and by extension, the age of the earth itself.

In addition, fossils were also uncovered in Canada a century ago, and eventually ended up in London’s Natural History Museum. They include a claw from a carnivorous theropod (possibly a Gorgosaurus), a toe bone resembling that of a Triceratops and several limb and ankle bones of a duck-billed dinosaur. In order to find fresh, uncontaminated surfaces of the bones to examine, scientists broke tiny pieces off the fragmented fossils. When Sergio Bertazzo, a materials scientist at Imperial and Maidment’s co-lead researcher on the study, looked at the specimens using an electron microscope, he was shocked at what he saw....

....And that wasn’t all. While examining a cross-section of a fossilized rib bone, the researchers spotted bands of fibers. When tested, the fibers were found to contain the same amino acids that make up collagen, the main structural protein found in skin and other soft tissues. More tests remain to confirm that the materials the Imperial scientists found are in fact genuine red blood cells and collagen fibers, but if confirmed, the implications of the new findings are huge. -history.com

maxx

it is too bad you didnt post credits for the foot prints so people can look it up to see the dates. I do believe it will be much older than what Christians say the world is. as well, the word tanniyn is generally translated as whales, large serpents, or dragons. a far cry from the dinasaurs that we have fossils of. we know that dinosaurs lived in a much hotter climate that the world had some 6000 years ago also.  another problem with many Christians is that they only believe in scientific discoveries if it relates to what they believe in.  you seem to have no trouble in how radio-carbon dating works if something is found and dated to the biblical times, especially if it is something related to the bible. However, if the dating goes back to a point where you do not believe the world existed , then you refuse to accept the findings.@Neopesdom

Normal_1

Since the word “dinosaur” wasn’t actually coined until 1841, the creatures we now refer to as dinosaurs were simply called dragons throughout most of history.@RickeyD

I will have to correct you there, which will also put the dampers on your argument.
Dragons and dinosaurs are two completely different things.
Dragons are mythological creatures and until (1841) there was no way that anybody knew that dinosaurs existed, let alone "when" they existed.
So, the dragons as portrayed in the Bible have nothing at all to do with dinosaurs. The Bible does not mention dinosaurs.

Neopesdom

@maxx

>>it is too bad you didnt post credits for the foot prints so people can look it up to see the dates.

Why is their search engine down too? Google or Yahoo uses automated programs called spiders or crawlers, just like most search engines, to help generate its search results. They have a large index of keywords that help determine search results. ...

Google some key words together like "Man Dino footprint" and you will get a long list of relating items. Hit on "images" and look through the photo's until you see the same image as above or similar. Congratulations you just found a whole array of sources where anyone can look deeper into the subject for themselves. Yet you need me to post credits... ya ok.

>>I do believe it will be much older than what Christians say the world is.

Stereotyping all Christians into one group makes you a bigot, yes?

Stereotyping: Shortcuts to Bigotry

Perhaps the most familiar form of bias is the stereotype, which assigns a rigid set of characteristics to all members of a group, at the cost of individual attributes and differences.

>>the word tanniyn is generally translated as whales, large serpents, or dragons. a far cry from the dinasaurs

"Large serpents", those slithery reptiles are a far cry from the "dinosaurs" Really? LOL 

You might want to check how the word is used in the Bible, before you define what it means in the Bible.

In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea. (Isa 27:1)

The similarities between dinosaurs and dragons are well documented. There is a long history in China of identifying fossilised dinosaur bones as those of dragons....Based on their appearance, as well as their taste for large prey like knights and fair maidens, any real-life dragons would have filled a similar niche to that occupied by apex predators like Tyrannosaurus rex. - BBC

The first group of dragons contains the lóng of China, the drakon of Ancient Greece and the Old English wyrm. These are all dragons with elongated bodies and small legs, or no legs at all. - Josh Gabbatiss

There are literally hundreds of comparisons made between Dinos and Dragons, Serpents... google it, now that I showed you how. That "far cry" will quickly change to real tears as you realize how dum your statement was and that you typed it for all to see. 

>>many Christians is that they only believe in scientific discoveries if it relates to what they believe in

Show me one scientific discovery that proves Christianity wrong. Just one (1). no theories, no hypothesis, no conjectures, show me one pure unadulterated and undisputed FACT, so I can end any supposed delusions I may have...

Dee

@Neopesdom

***** Scientists know that no soft tissue of any kind could possibly be preserved in a dinosaur bone for 65 million years. Soft tissue is composed of highly complex and relatively unstable biopolymers such as proteins that would breakdown in far less time than even one million years. If it is indeed dinosaur soft tissue, then some people will have to rethink the whole paradigm of the age of the dinosaurs and by extension, the age of the earth itself.


This is another example of how young Earth creationists jump onto anything they think may support their deeply flawed narrative , Schweitzer is a former young Earth creationist and in fairness to her rejected such for the nonsense it was after listening to the supporting evidence , she did this at a cost of her family and husband who left her  such is the narrow minded mentality of the religious.I think you need to do a bit more research instead of plagarising work from creationist sites and making out it’s your own  ......


From ........How Stuff Works ......

Scientists agree on one aspect of Mary Schweitzer's research. The tissues she found shouldn't have been there, at least according to basic concepts of fossilization. Because of this, critics assert that what Schweitzer really found was a contaminated sample, not a breakthrough. Over 65 million years, there's plenty of time for other life forms to contaminate the bones of a dinosaur. Fossils also come into contact with human and other tissues during excavation. This presents a challenge for researchers trying to prove that a cell, tissue sample or DNA strand came from a specific extinct animal.

Neopesdom

@Dee

>> critics assert that what Schweitzer really found

What critics assert is not FACT. In fact a 'far cry' from it....

Peer Review Fails in Soft Tissue Study

The biggest problem currently faced by evolutionary paleontologists is how to explain the fact that original soft tissue—which should decay in only thousands of years—still persists in fossils that are supposedly millions of years old. A recent scientific paper was titled "Dinosaur Peptides Suggest Mechanisms of Protein Survival," which implies some sort of solution to this colossal conundrum. But not only did the authors fail to address the titled topic, the "peer review" process also failed to detect this critical omission and block the study's publication.

Appearing in the online journal PLoS ONE, the paper was authored by six investigators from various institutions. It did a good job of firmly establishing that the soft tissues the researchers extracted from a T. rex and a hadrosaur were original to the dinosaurs and not contaminants. - https://www.icr.org/article/peer-review-fails-soft-tissue-study

Dee

@Neopesdom


Its pretty lamentable that young Earth creationists are mainly found amongst American Christians and the most primitive  belief systems on the globe as in certain branches of Islam , the anti science movement is alive and well in the US and needs ignorance to survive which in fairness a fair proportion of American Christians readily bring o the table .......


Your “peer reviewed “ papers are not worth the paper they’re written on considering the source they come from , peer review is not decided by young Earth creationists thankfully , ..........

Rational wiki.......

The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is a young-Earth creationist faux-research organization that produces voluminous quote mines and logical fallacies in pursuit of debunking evolution and an old earth. The ICR is the unholy spawn of San Diego Christian College and are a bunch of cranks who want to undermine science education and eventually turn the United States into a young-Earth creationist, dominionist society. The Institute was founded by Henry Morris in 1972 and has since gone on to become one of the centers of the anti-evolution movement and quite possibly the general anti-science movement in the US.

Neopesdom

@Dee

Even livescience.com confirms that the samples were not contaminated, even though its age is not agreed upon.

The find was also controversial, because scientists had thought proteins that make up soft tissue should degrade in less than 1 million years in the best of conditions. In most cases, microbes feast on a dead animal's soft tissue, destroying it within weeks. The tissue must be something else, perhaps the product of a later bacterial invasion, critics argued.

Then, in 2007, Schweitzer and her colleagues analyzed the chemistry of the T. rex proteins. They found the proteins really did come from dinosaur soft tissue. -https://www.livescience.com/

>>peer review is not decided by young Earth creationists thankfully

It's not decided by you either, thankfully. Bias is in sciences is rampant.

US-based biologists rate prospective PhD students who disclose evangelical Christian beliefs more negatively than other applicants, according to an experiment that reopens the debate about the relationship between religion and science....

...They also conducted a survey of 664 students which found that 52 per cent felt that discrimination against Christians was a problem in science, and 35 per cent felt that it was not uncommon. -https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/us-biologists-biased-against-evangelical-students-says-study

As you can see Dee, your anti-christian hate mongering bigotry is not that uncommon. With that level of bias, nothing you say can be trusted as impartial, but hey thanks for sharing, comedy gold.

Dee

@Neopesdom

**** It's not decided by you either, thankfully. Bias is in sciences is rampant.

Of course it is unless the “science “ emanates from a young Earth creationist website 

****/US-based biologists rate prospective PhD students who disclose evangelical Christian beliefs more negatively than other applicants, according to an experiment that reopens the debate about the relationship between religion and science....

...They also conducted a survey of 664 students which found that 52 per cent felt that discrimination against Christians was a problem in science, and 35 per cent felt that it was not uncommon. -https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/us-biologists-biased-against-evangelical-students-says-study

Right so now you’re merely parroting what your fellow young Earth creationists constantly say as in there is “bias against “ them because they’re religious , you have it the wrong way around that’s merely deflection from the fact you’s have not got one credible peer reviewed paper that supports your young Earth gibberish so you invent straw men in an attempt to save face 

****As you can see Dee, your anti-christian hate mongering bigotry is not that uncommon

I’m married to a real Christian my entire family are Christians , it’s not hatred to call Young Earth Creationists lunatics that’s a statement of fact you’s make Scientologists look almost sane 

. *****With that level of bias, nothing you say can be trusted as impartial, but hey thanks for sharing, comedy gold.

If anyone wants comedy gold just try reason with imbeciles like you who think a creationist website is the source of all knowledge and yet peer reviewed papers . Nada, Zilch , Zero all because those nasty scientists are all biased Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha 

maxx

you wouldn't believe the facts if it was under your nose. the age of the earth alone is evidence against Christianity but you refuse to believe in  the accuracy of  carbon dating; unless it corresponds with some artifact that was dated to biblical times.  another? people can not be swallowed by a whale and live. there is plenty of evidence that the so called world flood was a local event. as well, I did look up the Hebrew word tanniym and it refers simply to a large animal.  there is evidence that dinosaurs lived in a tropical environment with a heavy oxygen atmosphere; in which the biblical world had neither.  why is it that you accept carbon dating when it shows a date in biblical times( such as the artifacts you plagerized above) and not the findings of anything that is dated older? @Neopesdom

Neopesdom

>>you wouldn't believe the facts if it was under your nose

...and you have yet to present any facts

>> the age of the earth alone is evidence against Christianity

...the only thing it would mean it that young earth creationists interpretation from the Bible regarding the age of the earth is wrong, since it does not specifically state the age of the earth, it must be exegetically extrapolated from the text. There is however no FACTS regarding the age of the earth that science has provided, only subjective evidence, this is why you have two competing theories, uniformitarianism and catastrophism.

The fact is, without a time machine to find out the intent of the writer on something so poetic and abstract as the creation of the universe, this debate will continue. - https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Day-age_creationism

>>people can not be swallowed by a whale and live.

Those who accept the literal account of Jonah take one of two main views regarding what happened to Jonah during his time in the belly of the great fish. One view holds that Jonah died and later returned to life. The second view holds that Jonah remained alive for three days in the belly of the great fish. -https://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jonah-die.html

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. (Matt. 19:26)

>>there is plenty of evidence that the so called world flood was a local event.

Did you know there are over 200 myths from all over the world about a major Flood? If a worldwide Flood never happened, why are there so many stories about it? -https://arkencounter.com/flood/myths/

>>why is it that you accept carbon dating

Carbon dating comes up with a number of different dates and people just cherry pick the date they like. Most of the time they get their dates from their made up "geological column" model and try to find a carbon date in their list that most closely matches. There is enough controversy around carbon dating to make it highly suspect.

>>such as the artifacts you plagerized above

I made the artifacts myself? LOL I forgot your search engine is down, let me help.

Did Ancient Man See Dinosaurs? These Carvings and Artifacts Say Maybe

https://historydaily.org/did-ancient-man-see-dinosaurs-these-carvings-and-artifacts-say-maybe

The Anasazi Dinosaur Petroglyph of Utah

Another fascinating Chinese artifact is the Late Eastern Zhou Sauropod (Fang Jian) ornamental box. Displaying a tridactyl foot, a long neck and a head that resembles a Brachiosaur, this depiction is compelling. (Fong, Wen ed., The Great Bronze Age of China, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1980, p. 285.)



For a much more comprehensive list visit https://www.6000years.org/frame.php?page=dinosaurs_depictions

Dee

@Neopesdom

I’m afraid your mental illness is escalating you actually use a creationist that claims a 6,000 year old Earth as “evidence”?

From psychology today here is a very relevant piece about mentally ill people like yourself .....

Along with denial, two other factors connect creationism with mental illness. The first is psychosis, which is an extension of denial. If psychosis is marked by the discrepancy between one's personal view of the world and the consensual view, creationism holds onto the personal view at all costs, refusing to accept what is abundantly clear. True, if creationism became the majority view, its psychotic character might be mitigated. Except that this majority view would have no more valence than the belief so widely held about the relationship between the sun and the earth before Copernicus proved how the latter orbits the former, and not vice versa.

Finally, creationism shares with autism an alleged lack of ability for irony. Creationists take the bible story as literally true, unable to recognise that it might be working on those other, mythic levels.

maxx

and yet, you have not provided any facts to prove the bible. you do not point at a book and say god is real because a character in the book says so. light alone takes over 2 million years to reach us from the andromeda galaxy. or do you not accept the speed of light either? At least if I were a smart Christian; with the evidence of the age of earth; I would provide a better argument than you have, just denial. perhaps I would say that god produced the world and the universe with the appearance of age.  as well, American Indians or their desendents, came to america up to 20, 000 years ago and at that time, there were still giant sloths and wooly mammoths. humans see patterns in everthing. I see a human or a dog in a cloud. is it? nope, its a cloud. most scientists see the above so called dinosaurs as 2 separate pictures plus and or natural weathering upon the rock. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/debunking-the-dinosaurs-of-kachina-bridge-96018102/ this link by riley black may be a bit more coherent to you.    as well, if dinosaurs existed in biblical times why are they not around today, a mere-so-called 6000 years ;later ?   ever hear of continental drift. we can measure the drift in respect with other continents. it has taken millions of years for everything to be placed where they are today in regard to Pangea   do you really think that the grand canyon or the alps formed in a mere 6000 years? did you not know that they can date the minerals in the rocks found in caves?  you want evidence yet you refuse to accept dating unless it correspond to your beliefs.@Neopesdom