Tell us about the dinosaurs

[Loki_999]

So Statler - are you actually going to give us an answer instead of beating around the bush.

Yes, we know about Leviathan being mentioned in the OT which Creationists point to and say "Look - Dinosaur!" but that is pretty weak. Every mythology things like Chimera, Sphinx, Dragons, Unicorns, Fairies, etc... doesn't make it true.

Yes, you have made your point about Brontosaurs several times, lets pretend i said a different Dinosaur, eg Triceratops, Diplodocus, etc.

Come on... give us your belief of the Dinos.

@Ace - about the ignoring. Why? If we ignore the theists then there will not be many to debate with, and besides, its fun. I can't wait to hear his story of the dinosaurs, i'm sure it will be a blast.

[KichigaiNeko]

Kitteh is bored with dis Statler person....que the tiger tanks!!

[Ace Otana]

@Ace - about the ignoring. Why? If we ignore the theists then there will not be many to debate with, and besides, its fun. I can't wait to hear his story of the dinosaurs, i'm sure it will be a blast.

At the time, I just wasn't in the mood, I wasn't having a very good day. I found out yesterday that a girl I liked was with someone else. Found out by looking through her friends messages. Turns out they broke up anyway.

But yeah, I was unhappy and stressed and when that idiot started talking crap again, I just wanted to come away for a bit to unwind. I'm due to have a really hot bath later, that always takes away stress and such. I'm in a much better mood and my stress levels are back down. So I'm ready to take him on some more.
Soon, near xmass, I'm due to take a little break from all the debating.
Been a while since I've taken a break.
I debate very efficiently after coming back from a good long break.

[Statler Waldorf]

Ahh, I too have read science books and have been to the MNH in D.C. . You act like the dinosaur question is a quick answer for both sides of the issue. Well it appears that "your people" did mention dinosaurs, quite often too. Since the word "dinosaur" was not created until the 19th Century by Richard Owen (Creationist) I would not expect to see an ancient Hebrew word for it. However the word "dragon" is used numerious times in the Old Testament. It is used symbolically at times but also used when talking about everyday animals. If I ran into a dinosaur before the word dinosaur was created I probably would describe them as dragons as well. Since dragons really are only giant lizards. There are also some msyterious animals mentioned in Job that are often described today with everyday animals but these animals do not fit the actual description in the text. As to your old "bones" laying around, I assume you mean fossils?

Funny how you don't mention the fact that Owen was an ardent supporter in some form of evolution, and had been developing a theory of evolution of his own. In fact, he praised some aspects of Darwin's. Although he and Darwin became enemies, it wasn't so at first. But his biggest argument was with Huxley and the notion that we were descended from apes (which we know now, of course, is beside the point since we are, in fact, a species of ape). I think that entire episode was, more than anything, sour grapes on Owns' part. He died a bitter man, largely because he ultimately lost face and lost the argument. I'm sure this is something you aspire to, eh?

I am sure you are also aware that Creationists believe in speciation (sometimes more so than Evolutionists) so to point to one and pretend he believes in common descent without a Creator is dishonest. Still does not change the fact that a Creationists named your beloved Dinosaurs, ironic. Humans are only a species of primate because Evolutionists stuck them in that group based on their Evolutionairy ideas. So it does not prove anything that they are there.

---

Calling yourself "rational" and claiming to live in the "real world" don't actually prove anything,

NO but calling yourself a creationist pretty much dooms you when it comes to rationalty.

"The Assertion" comes up with another assertion!!

[downbeatplumb]

Evolutionists stuck them in that group based on their Evolutionairy ideas. Based on the overwhelming mountain of evidence.

Fixed that for ya. my bold

Just to point out that was a deliberate missquote for humerous effect.
Just learnt that is against the rules. #slaps own wrist#

[Statler Waldorf]

So Statler - are you actually going to give us an answer instead of beating around the bush.

Yes, we know about Leviathan being mentioned in the OT which Creationists point to and say "Look - Dinosaur!" but that is pretty weak. Every mythology things like Chimera, Sphinx, Dragons, Unicorns, Fairies, etc... doesn't make it true.

Yes, you have made your point about Brontosaurs several times, lets pretend i said a different Dinosaur, eg Triceratops, Diplodocus, etc.

Come on... give us your belief of the Dinos.

@Ace - about the ignoring. Why? If we ignore the theists then there will not be many to debate with, and besides, its fun. I can't wait to hear his story of the dinosaurs, i'm sure it will be a blast.

Well the Leviathan was most likely a plesiosaurian reptile, which I am sure you are aware are not true dinosaurs. However, the Behemoth would have most likely been a true dinosaur, one of the sauropods is a good assumption. These were not supposed to be fictitious creatures or monsters of folklore. Job uses them real animals that people would have been familiar with and would have seen. To compare them to unicorns is a bit of a stretch. As for dragons that might be a better comparison. Often real animals become embellished and become the stuff of legend, we saw this with Buffalo and the Native Americans and Elephants in India. So to say that dragon legends could not have arisen from dinosaurs is not necessarily true. There is lots of evidence that the Chinese viewed Dragons as real animals and not mythological creatures (which are westernized brains loves to do). In the Chinese calendar, the other eleven animals used are all real animals- so it's pretty fair to assume that when they devised this calendar they viewed dragons as a real animal too.

What else would you like to know?

---

Evolutionists stuck them in that group based on their Evolutionairy ideas. Based on the overwhelming mountain of evidence.

Fixed that for ya. my bold

Intentionally misquoting someone by using the [quote] function is a very severe offense on every other fourm I have been on. I hope that is also the case on this forum.

[downbeatplumb]

Evolutionists stuck them in that group based on their Evolutionairy ideas. Based on the overwhelming mountain of evidence.

Fixed that for ya. my bold

Intentionally misquoting someone by using the [quote] function is a very severe offense on every other fourm I have been on. I hope that is also the case on this forum.

I've just learnt it is I appologise.

[orogenicman]

I am sure you are also aware that Creationists believe in speciation (sometimes more so than Evolutionists) so to point to one and pretend he believes in common descent without a Creator is dishonest. Still does not change the fact that a Creationists named your beloved Dinosaurs, ironic. Humans are only a species of primate because Evolutionists stuck them in that group based on their Evolutionairy ideas. So it does not prove anything that they are there.

Some creationists believe in speciation. Others don't. As to creationists naming things, apparently you aren't aware that prior to the middle 1800s, many scientists were devout Christians, and so to find sholars of the time trying to show the truthfulness of the bible using cientific findings was a common theme of the time. But not all scientists of the day were devout, and in fact, William MacClure, the father of American geology had some very nasty things to say about religion in general, and Christians in particular. In his European journals, he frequently remarks on the absurdity of wasting energy and precious resources on religious devotion. He also remarks on how it enslaves people. He was one of the first to recognize that basalt was not a sedimentary or rock or a chemical precipitate, but was volcanic in nature. He also broke from many of the old ways of doing geology (i.e., Werner "Neptunism"), recognizing that it was constructed by someone who spent his entire life doing geology within 50 miles of where he was born, and that those methods and theories were simplistic, at best, and simple wrong when applied to almost all of the rest of the planet. And he could say this because he had travelled all over Europe and North America. He constructed the first geologic map of the Eastern U.S. His and other new ideas caught on and so over time, the creationist ideas were discarded, and today, only those who choose to ignore 200 years of scientific discovery cling to such trifling notions. The Scopes trial is over.

Humans are the only primate species extent today because all the other known species re extinct. Why yo brought that up is a mystery, unless it was in respoinse to my earlier point that humans are apes. Human ARE apes in every way that one can describe an ape.

Classification of Homo sapiens:

Kingdom: Animalia

Phylum: Chordata

Class: Mammalia

Order: Primates

Family: Hominidae

Subfamily: Homininae

Tribe: Hominini

Genus: Homo

Species: H. sapiens

Classification of chimpanzees:

Kingdom: Animalia

Phylum: Chordata

Class: Mammalia

Order: Primates

Family: Hominidae

Subfamily: Homininae

Tribe: Hominini

Subtribe: Panina

Genus: Pan

Pan troglodytes (Common Chimpanzee)

Pan paniscus (Bonobo)
_______________________

If there are no further questions, class is dismissed!

[Welsh cake]

I don't remember which of you made that funny mistake. I just assume you all believe Brontosaurus was real.

That was you, Statler. Even little childrens' shows like 'Harry and his Bucketfull of Dinosaurs' don't make arsehat mistakes like that. >.>

Since the word "dinosaur" was not created until the 19th Century by Richard Owen (Creationist) I would not expect to see an ancient Hebrew word for it. However the word "dragon" is used numerious times in the Old Testament. It is used symbolically at times but also used when talking about everyday animals.

Your Achilles' heel has been bolded for your review and consideration. The Bible is not to be taken literally, it speaks figuratively, often containing metaphors rather than addressing what it is actually elaborating upon therefore open to anyone's interpretation. You can play semantics with us all day if you like: Dragons aren't dinosaurs.

If I ran into a dinosaur before the word dinosaur was created I probably would describe them as dragons as well.

What? Now you're just messing with us.

I am sure you are also aware that Creationists believe in speciation (sometimes more so than Evolutionists) so to point to one and pretend he believes in common descent without a Creator is dishonest. Still does not change the fact that a Creationists named your beloved Dinosaurs, ironic.

Still does not change the fact your beloved Creationist agreed with Darwin that evolution did actually occur. Such a shame.

Humans are only a species of primate because Evolutionists stuck them in that group based on their Evolutionairy ideas. So it does not prove anything that they are there.

You mean taxonomists - they established biological orders.

[Thor]

Well the Leviathan was most likely a plesiosaurian reptile

Sounds like an unsubstantiated assumption.

However, the Behemoth would have most likely been a true dinosaur, one of the sauropods is a good assumption.

Or... Behemoth is as fictitious as the flood and the resurrection. That sounds like a much more reasonable assumption.