Latest reply to Titan
QUOTE:
Originally Posted by Gwyno
Behemoth - I will still say it is not a dino. The tail hanging like a cedar or hardening like a cedar or being carrier like a cedar could well refer to the leafy branches rather than the trunk. Look at the cedar tree and it resembles an animal's tail - particularly a large cattle type animal. Also, given that your version of the bible contains metaphors (and admittedly without knowing the surrounding context of the surrounding verses in Job) I still think it could be an imagery thing. Either way, as much as you will never agree/believe that it is anything other than a dino; I do not think that such a description could only apply to a dino nor do I think that it is a dino they are referring to. If it was intended to represent a triceratops or an ankylosaurus (which would actually be more likely to account for sinewy legs and bronze ribs than a sauropod taking the truck tail out of the equation) then they would mention other characteristics that stand out way more than sinewy legs.
|
The Bible says that the tail "sways like a cedar". If it was truly talking about the leafy branches, then wouldn't the Bible have choosed a different thing to compare it with? Seriously, when you think of a cedar, you think of the thick and long trunk. If they were just comparing the way the cedar sways, then they would choose a word such as "sapling" or a smaller tree. Also, the reason they mention the strength of the loins is to help describe the strength to hold us such a massive tail.
QUOTE:
|
On the carbon dating thing. I have only managed to find one reported case of a crystal from Mt St Helens being questioned. The sample was taken by a creationist and was analysed by a creationist. According to the information I can find, his methods were very sloppy and there is a high chance the samples were contaminated. The only pages I can find that agree with his findings are creationist sites. Any actual scientific site points out the errors in his methodology.
|
I know I have heard this from Creationists but I have heard two or three different accounts of huge problems with carbon dating. I never did hear anything about a crystal, though. I'm not sure if you are familiar with Ken Ham (I think that's how you spell it) but he is one source where I heard huge problems with these dating methods. Another source is that book that I quoted. I don't think that they would have "sloppy" methods or misinterpret information. Otherwise, they wouldn't publish it.
QUOTE:
|
My take on that issue - Scientists are not looking to prove or disprove anything when they try and date things. All they want to know is how old it is and how accurately they can guage it based on the most current methods. Creationists have a reason to find evidence that may support their opinions whereas a scientist is merely after the facts.
|
But the scientists created this method assuming that Evolution actually occurred. They might not be trying to prove Evolution but they did assume it before they actually developed these dating methods.
QUOTE:
|
I know that some scientists in the past have lied about test results (pharmecutical companies for example) to make gains and I admit that. Do you think there is any chance that some creationists would have chosen to hide information in the same way?
|
Some might but most of the information we find supports our theory. We don't have to hide information. Since our theory is based on science, we really don't have to keep things from the public. Evolution has many problems and they keep on readjusting their opinions; Creationists have had the same view since the world was created. Some ideas (such as a flat world) have changed due to certain findings but the main message is still the same and is supported by science.
QUOTE:
|
Also, does your version of the bible have the apocrapha as a standard section? No C of E version ever had up until the time I saw my last bible anyway.
|
I'm pretty sure that I had said that this was just my opinion. Sorry, you misunderstood me, though. There is no place in the Bible that actually says this; this is just a theory that I believe. I don't completely believe it since there really is not 100% evidence supporting it (in fact, there is much less) but it makes sense and so I just wanted to say it.