The Bible and Dinosaurs

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

The old testament mentions the behemoth, which might be construed as a sauropod dinosaur and midrashim refer to several others including the reem, ziz bird, and "Og", the king of Bashan, but the context reads as if what was being described was a handful of holdovers which were viewed as oddities at a time just prior to the flood.

American Indian oral traditions and paintings indicate that Amerind ancestors dealt with dinosaurs on a more regular basis up to some point but there's still no way to think that Amerind ancestors ever had to deal with raptors or the more dangerous kinds of dinosaurs.

I know that u dispute carbon dating.

I take it that u also dispute dating by sedimentary stratification ?

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

Nor was there a real Headless Horseman in Sleepy Hollow NY

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Nor was there a real Headless Horseman in Sleepy Hollow NY

Sez who?

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

The old testament mentions the behemoth, which might be construed as a sauropod dinosaur and midrashim refer to several others including the reem, ziz bird, and "Og", the king of Bashan, but the context reads as if what was being described was a handful of holdovers which were viewed as oddities at a time just prior to the flood.

American Indian oral traditions and paintings indicate that Amerind ancestors dealt with dinosaurs on a more regular basis up to some point but there's still no way to think that Amerind ancestors ever had to deal with raptors or the more dangerous kinds of dinosaurs.

We've dealt with this bullshit before from Gunga Dim. The Amerindian legends and rock paintings don't describe anything remotely resembling dinosaurs. The beast in the rock paintings of the Great Lakes region is described in legends as being covered in fur, and being acquatic. Gunga Dim got his ass slapped down for that one, so he's careful to no longer describe it as a stegasaur.

As for this: "The old testament mentions the behemoth, which might be construed as a sauropod dinosaur . . ."--it might also have been construed as a giant, interstellar space hamster, with a pink pelt and neon eyes . . . but i doubt it. There is absolutely no basis for any claims about dinosaurs being mentioned in the bible.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

How come them kids look like Germans, and not Jews?

The ancient Israelites were Germans and Jesus was a raptor. You really don't know your bible, do you.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

KINDA like stomping road kill no? you wont do any good and you just get squashd gunga on yer shoes.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

You humble me, Joe, with your superior scholarship.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

ziz bird

Quote:

According to Hebrew tradition, the meat of this bird will be served as a meal, along with the behemoth and the leviathan, in the banquet at End Times. The Persian Simurgh, which is arguably a fifth accompaniment to the Kar, the Khara , the Hadhayosh , and another bird, the Chamrosh, has been said to be equated by the rabbis with the ziz, their three future-meal giant animals corresponding to the archetypal creatures of Persian mythology. The trio of behemoth, leviathan and ziz was traditionally a favorite decoration motif for rabbis living in Germany

The operant term is "MYTHOLOGY"

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

ziz bird
Quote:
According to Hebrew tradition, the meat of this bird will be served as a meal, along with the behemoth and the leviathan, in the banquet at End Times. The Persian Simurgh, which is arguably a fifth accompaniment to the Kar, the Khara , the Hadhayosh , and another bird, the Chamrosh, has been said to be equated by the rabbis with the ziz, their three future-meal giant animals corresponding to the archetypal creatures of Persian mythology. The trio of behemoth, leviathan and ziz was traditionally a favorite decoration motif for rabbis living in Germany

The operant term is "MYTHOLOGY"

More likely just different names
applied to large creatures with which we r familiar.
I 'm not sure how up-to-date the rabbis were in their zoology.

Am I missing something ?

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I know that u dispute carbon dating.

I dispute the misuse of carbon dating...

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

Quote:
I know that u dispute carbon dating.

I dispute the misuse of carbon dating...

How do feel about stratigrafy ?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

How do feel about stratigraphy ?

ANY system of trying to date things via stratigraphy has to depend on assumptions regarding how much time is required for one strata layer, what is involved in one layer etc. etc.

That's quickly becomes a sort of an inbred system in which only one operational paradigm is used since that paradigm determines funding, publications and the like.

2 Replies

@gungasnake,

what utter clueless bullshit. If you have no idea of what you speak gunga, you shouldnt waste our time.
THe principals of stratigraphy are underpinned by hydraulics, geomechanics, sedimentation, structural geology, and clastics mineralogy, Not toention several subdisciplines that use and depend on the av=ccuracy of sedimentary stratigraphy (like my own area of practice, economic geology). Ive made a very good living utilizing the principles of stratigraphy , you , on the other hand, have not. You are merely speaking from a pulpit of ignorance and mythology.
If youd go out in the field with any assignment to find a specific economic mineral, Im afraid youd be lost in the woods and would soon be broke and starving.
Thats why most all "Creationist geologists" arent even practicing scientists. Those that try, are merely trying to keep their heads down and are usually far from the age and stratigraphic interpretation portion . I know of one Jehovahs Witness geophysicist. Hes sort of an ostrich too, but at least he can argue from a higher plane of knowledge than you.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

Quote:
How do feel about stratigraphy ?

ANY system of trying to date things via stratigraphy has to depend
on assumptions regarding how much time is required for one strata layer,
what is involved in one layer etc. etc.

That's quickly becomes a sort of an inbred system in which only
one operational paradigm is used since that paradigm determines funding,
publications and the like.

Have u found any significance in the absence of any fossil findings
of dinosaurs together in the same strata with any large mammals, including Man ?

`

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

gungasnake wrote:

Quote:
How do feel about stratigraphy ?

That's quickly becomes a sort of an inbred system in which only
one operational paradigm is used since that paradigm determines funding,
publications and the like.

Have u found any significance in the absence of any fossil findings
of dinosaurs together in the same strata with any large mammals, including Man ?

Good question.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Humans clearly avoided the things, nonetheless you still see accurate depictions of known dinosaur types in Amerind petroglyphs around lakes and rivers and in some cases like in Utah in the middle of nowhere here and there. Lewis and Clark noted that their Indian guides were in mortal terror at the sight of water panther (stegosaur) glyphs around the Mississippi river since the original meaning of the things was something like "Hey, one of these things lives around here, be careful"...

http://www.nlmotel.com/images/pictograph.jpg

2 Replies

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

Humans clearly avoided the things, nonetheless you still see accurate depictions of known dinosaur types in Amerind petroglyphs

I don't see an accurate depiction. I see a cartoon that doesn't look anything like a dinosaur.

0 Replies

Here we go with the stegosaur horseshit again. Gunga Dim is so dull-witted that he admits that it was called a "water panther" by the aboriginals. Panthers are mammals, are fur-bearing, and don't resemble dinosaurs at all. The legends speak of a creature that lives in the Great Lakes. The stegosaur was not aquatic. The stegosaur didn't have a big round head with curving horns coming out at the sides and sitting on a long skinny neck. This petroglyph simply does not resemble a stegosaur at all, and the legends don't describe a creature even remotely resembling a stegosaur. Additionally, it is a bald lie that either Meriwether Lewis or William Clark referred to these petroglyphs in their journals. The image Gunga Dim is using is from the Painted Rocks, on the south shore of Lake Superior. Lewis and Clark did not get anywhere near the Great Lakes, and crossed the Mississippi in the vicinity of St. Louis--far, far from any significant rock formations. Lewis and Clark has no "Indian guides." Their guide was a French-Canadian trapper, Toussaint Charbonneau, whose teen-aged Shoshone "wife," Sacagewea occasionally acted as a guide, but who principally acted as an interpreter.

The bible-thumpers seem to be unable to avoid retailing outright lies whenever the nonsense from the bible is challenged.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

The "evidnece" , in the form of a story, has been attributed to Vine Delorias accounting of Ojibway tales of the Mushipishu. The conclusion of the verbal "evidence" is that the Mishipishu was a stegosaur. Yet, it was a hairy beast. The funny thing I find is that the Agawa Rock petroglyph is presented as real scientific evidence to counter all the tons of real science that clearly shows the geologic evidence of dinosaur fossils. NO DINOSAURS EXISTED for the last 65 million years. This is evidenced by several directions of hard science. The Mishipishu tale is just that, a myth of the Ojibway (and a similar tale from the Susquehannocks but with a different spikeless hairy animal).

WHERES THE REAL HARD EVIDENCE ?? WE dont rely on Alley oOOp cartoons to present a scientific case of contemporaneity of man and dino (at least most of us dont).

The paintings of Frank Frazetta are just as important a batch of evidence as is the Agawa Rock paintings. (Or the "space suited dudes" at Newspaper Rock)

HERES VINE DELORIAS spin:

Quote:

In numerous places in the Great Lakes are found pictographs of a creature who has been described in the English translation as the "water panther" This animal has a saw-toothed back and a benign, catlike face in many of the carvings. Various deeds are attributed to this panther, and it seems likely that the pictographs of this creature which are frequently carved near streams and lakes are a warning to others that a water panther inhabits that body of water. The Sioux have a tale about such a monster in the Missouri River. According to reports, the monster had ". . . red hair all over its body . . . and its body was shaped like that of a buffalo. It had one eye and in the middle of its forehead was one horn. Its backbone was just like a cross- cut saw; it was flat and notched like a saw or cogwheel" I suspect that the dinosaur in question here must be a stegosaurus.

I suspect that the "dinosaur" must be a stegosaurus. What utter and mind numbing bullshit. EStablish one fancy myth by getting past the dubious fact that the animal was NOT A DINOSAUR , then give it a SPECIES name. If thats how gungas Creationist assholes think, they all deserve each other.
Twits

0 Replies

Whenever I see a Gunga argument I think of this quote:

Facts are meaningless - you could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! - Homer Simpson

0 Replies

The Bible and Dinosaurs

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know