Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 10 Feb 2001 16:54:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
568 times
|
| |
|
|
> Ohhhhhh, OKKKK, dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans.
No doubt in my mind.
> Hmmm, I don't remember any mention in the Bible about 20 ft lizards eating people
> left and right, in fact, I don't remember any mention of them PERIOD. People
> would have been a nice snack for Trex, and a good meal for velociraptors. Or was
> "God with them" all the time (instead of just in the Ark), so they stayed out of
> sight of humans and didn't eat them?
People are a nice meal for lions, and tigers, and bears, and pirannahs,
and sharks, and all sorts of carnivores/omnivores, but we seem to be
surviving just fine. Perhaps your idea of a Trex isn't what you imagine
based on Children's books and Jurassic Park. Just because an animal is
big doesn't mean it's scary mean and ferocious. There is in fact
evidence that shows Trex might not have been such blood-starved monster
anyhow. Their legs and posture don't lend to very fast or agile
movement, their teeth weren't rooted well for tearing apart animals,
their front legs were tiny and weak, which doesn't lend itself gripping
things well. Adult dinosaurs that are supposedly meat eaters have also
been found with extremely little teeth wear compared to what it should
be.
Maybe you don't remember any mention because you never read the Bible in
the first place:
Behemoth: Job 40?:15-19
Leviathan: Job 41
The descriptions of these animals would seem to at least point to a
dinosaur-like creature, if not a dinosaur itself. Futhermore, that
rgument is meaningless, lack of mention in the Bible doesn't mean lack
of existence
> Do you REALLY think that if dinosaurs existed less than 6K years ago, people would
> band together and make a conscious decision to NOT mention them in the Bible?
I think you should read the Bible before pretending to know what's in
there and what isn't.
> Because the belief in a 6000 year old earth with all of the evidence today is so
> insanely ridiculous?
If that's what you think then that's what you think. These 20
scientists (and obviously, this is just a sampling) don't agree with
your infinite wisdom:
http://www.icr.org/creationscientists.html
--
-TiM
NB, CA
http://echofx.itgo.com
t_c_c@yahoo.com
3ch0fx
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) Then I'm done wasting my time with you. You're hopeless, there's no doubt about it. I refuse to beat my head against a wall to try to talk some real common sense into you. You're just lost, and it's obvious you WANT to be lost. -- Tom Stangl (...) (23 years ago, 11-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) I don't have a lot of time right now, so I'm not going to waste it refuting every point on this site (and there are MANY that are ludicrous), but the following is just too rich to pass up... "Aquatic air-breathing mammals such as whales and (...) (23 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
