Dragons Or Dinosaurs Creation Or Evolution.

Jump to Last Post 1-8 of 8 discussions (106 posts)
  1. Castlepaloma profile image77
    Castlepalomaposted 12 years ago

    Or Crouching Dragon and Hidden Dinosaur:

    In the Bible the word Tanniyn occurs 28 times in the Bible and is normally translated “dragon.” It is also translated “serpent,” “sea monster,”  “great creature,” and “reptile.

    Ideas of creation science, is not taking a stand on the age of the Earth. The word called :Tanniyn: couls it be about dinosaurs and dragons too. Bones from dinosaurs have been found all around the world. The Book of Revelation twice refers to "the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan. Then could christian really fear the hidden truth about dinosaurs?

    Not to mention in the bible about the other missing 95% species that went extinct that ever lived on the earth. Rather than have a discussion on creation theories from the Bible.

    How did dinosaurs be less discussed than dragons, sea-monster, serpent and big fish?.

    All could you ever miss the largest animals that ever walked the earth

  2. dipless profile image68
    diplessposted 12 years ago

    As far as I'm concerned, the Dragon does not exist, there is no fossilized evidence of such creatures. They are creatures of myth, and I love to read about them.

    The reason that Dinosaurs are so talked about is because the reality is more exciting than fiction, these creatures which are so unlike anything we can imagine capture the imagination of all. The fossil record for Dino's is compelling and has allowed us to build a clear idea about not only what they looked like, but their modes of life also.

    Reality is more interesting than fiction in this case, I see no link between dino's and the Bible.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image77
      Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I agree

      There is this one 27 million dollar Creative Museum that presents origins of the Universe,  Life, Mankind and man’s early history according to the book of Genesis, all created 6000 years ago an over six-day period. They want to sell to every school in America wail the science community is up set about it.

      Where are all the Christian on this forum, when this topic of dinosaurs shows up? Or do they prefer the crouching dragon that they fear in fiction?

    2. BL Tween profile image60
      BL Tweenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I am a Christian, that is to say, I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe the Bible is true.
      Dinos are mentioned in the Bible, it is in the book of Job, in chapters 40 and 41.
      The word dinosaur is not in the Bible, however, the Bible describes two of them the behemoth and the  leviathan. There is a lot of science in the Bible.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image77
        Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        “Behold now, behemoth, which I made as well as thee; He eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, And his force is in the muscles of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: The sinews of his thighs are knit together. His bones are as tubes of brass; His limbs are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God….. Job 40

        “So God created the Great Dragons” …Genesis 1:21 The Latin Vulgate; 5th Century

        The Written language was invented after the great  flood,

        Those cave men and sheep herder sure can tell grand stories around a camp fire.  God may of put those dinosaur bones in the ground to test your faith. They gave it a shot to figure it out, over wine  ,

        God is such a prankster to hide those bones all over the world, What a good sense of humor. yeah

  3. profile image0
    Emile Rposted 12 years ago

    Maybe the ancients unearthed a dinosaur skeleton and imagined how the creature would have been when alive. I know it would have scared the beejeebies out of me if I found one and had no clue as to what it was. I could have easily concluded it breathed fire and was a demon beast.

    1. mischeviousme profile image59
      mischeviousmeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      My point exactly. Adventures used to come home with all sorts of cool and wierd things.

    2. Castlepaloma profile image77
      Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It took most people of Religion on earth 1500 years to accept the earth was round. How long will it take for most people of Religion to accept there were dinosaurs rather then dragons?

      1. profile image0
        Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        I don't know. I do know at least one person that claims dinosaurs were on the ark. It is kind of cute, but weird.

        1. dipless profile image68
          diplessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Did you know that if they had to put every Animal in pairs onto the Arc it would have to have been the size of Ireland, not 450 feet long 75 feet wide and 45 feet high equating 100,000square feet not enough by anyone's reckoning.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image77
            Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Since no christian are here to defend the bible, I will
            Most of the world works in the metric system, sir

          2. TMMason profile image60
            TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            No it would not.

            You can house all the base pairs of every animal alive today in the Ark as it was.

            You do not need every last animal... just the base pairs. Evolution will take care of the rest. Real Evolution that is.

            Ie; You would not have to bring dogs, coyotes and wolves, as they are all dogs, and would spring form the same pair. Just as all the colors of Men could come from one color of parents.


            As to dinosaurs. We have no idea what was alive before the flood.

            1. psycheskinner profile image83
              psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              So, all canids sprang from two dogs that somehow had all the genes needed in their pockets--and just happened to recreate pre-diluvian species.

              Yeah, very plausible.

              1. Kyle Payne profile image60
                Kyle Payneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Pre-diluvian species of dogs, different from the original pair, came from mutation.

                1. Castlepaloma profile image77
                  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  A new breed of dog every three years since the flood and we all missed it

            2. dipless profile image68
              diplessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              Please list all the 'base' pairs that you speak of.

              If someone comes up with a counter argument to you, move the goal posts, so please also explain what 'real evolution' is. Please also explain, how we have fossils which we have dated from 100's of millions of years ago?

              I know that i won't get a response with anything but regurgitated information. But worth a guess for sensible debate i guess.

              1. TMMason profile image60
                TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                I have not moved any goal post.

                Just because you do not understand how it was done, doesn't mean it wasn't done.

                Base pairs just like the example I gave.

                You would not need all the relatives of dogs, wolves, just a pair, and the rest would come about from real evolution.

                Take the BS model they drilled into your head for human evolution, a common ancestor, and posit it in the model with a Genus, a family group. Base pair = male and female. Simple.

                And then real evolution will take its course and that genus will flower into diversity within its family group.

                Simple, see.

                As far as Carbon Dating... it has its own set of issues to be over-come. It is founded on pre-suppositions and carried by assumptions.

                It is not the exact science they would have you believe. Mollusks, seals from the Bering Sea, and many many other suppossedly datable materials show us the problems with it as a measure of time. There are even fossils which date different at one end of the fossil to the other. Vary by millions of years.

                None of it is exact science... though many push it as such.

                1. dipless profile image68
                  diplessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  ok, Just because you think it was done, doesn't mean it was.

                  I'm not going to debate with you because all you will say is that it is not an exact science, please show me some exact science which proves the arc existed!

                  Radiometric dating is very very  accurate and the assumption that it is based on is radioactive decay of known elements which is very well understood.

                  It does have a margin of error like any experimental technique and these are taken into consideration, you are trying to push the ark only taking base pairs and the fact it existed as fact. I have yet to see any proof.

                  1. TMMason profile image60
                    TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    You are the one who pre-suppossed the existence of the ark in your statement.

                    I simply pointed out that the animals could fit.

                    You're the one with the issues about the ark.

                    Not I.

                    And the assuptions do exist.

                    Unstable uranium (U, parent) eventually change into stable atoms like Lead (Pb, daughter). When scientists date rocks, they do not actually observe the atoms changing. They measure the products of the change, which they assume took place in the past. But what if they are wrong about their assumptions?

                    Assumption 1: The original number of unstable atoms can be known. Scientists assume how many unstable (parent) atoms existed at the beginning based on how many parent and daughter atomes are left today.

                    Assumption 2: The rate of change was constant. Scientists assume that radioactive atoms have changed at the same rate throughout time, ignoring the impact of Creation or changes during Noah's Flood.

                    Assumption 3: The daughter atoms were all produced by radioactive decay. Scientists assume that no outside forces, such as flowing groundwater, contaminated the sample.



                    http://www.answersingenesis.org/article … -the-bible

                    Yup... a lot of assumtions and issues with carbon dating.

                2. Castlepaloma profile image77
                  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  The oldest known dog lived over 31, 000 years ago. Scientist in 2008 found the remains in a cave located in Belgium. This dog has been named Paleolithic and resembled a Siberian Husky. Unlike the Husky, however, this dog was twice the size and had more teeth.

                  Was it a pair of husky upon the Ark, then evolved to 1500 breeds which led to 400 million dogs that exist on our planet today? One new breed of dog for every three years. Now consider that one pair per one species out one million other species jammed onto the Ark which has survived today. Not counting the 95% missing extinct species along the way.

                  Many preachers claim the T Rex and all the other dinosaur were made into baby pairs.

                  Then maybe the dinosaurs went extinct because the polar bears and lions refused to eat vegetable any more served on the Ark and dinosaurs were too small and lack experience to survived.

                  Help me out here, give me a piece of lettuce, I trying to think in the shoes of a christian.

                  1. TMMason profile image60
                    TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    You have not heard me argue dinosaurs on the ark at all have you.

                    And yes base pairs. See if this clearifies it for you.

                    Though I doubt you will be satified with any explaination I post

                    The science of how speciation occurs, and the definition of a species versus the biblical kind, does explain how many variations of the same kind of animal can arise quickly from small populations, such as those on Noah's Ark.

                    (again we are talking about a Genus, a group of related animals or plants that includes several or many different species),

                    Reproductive Isolation and Speciation

                    The definition of species is different for many scientists and is not a standardized term. Many scientists define species as a population of animals that are reproductively isolated from other similar species. Reproductive isolation can occur in a number of ways and result in speciation from one kind of animal through events that isolate one variation (species) from another. Many of these isolation events have been identified and are described as behavioral isolation, ecological isolation, and geographical isolation, to name a few.

                    Geographical isolation is one of the best understood events and likely the most common. Geographical isolation results when two variations of the same kind of animal migrate and become separated by a geographical barrier preventing the two animal variations (species) from having contact and interbreeding. Once completely separated, the two populations of animals possess variations of some genes, resulting in two "species" that differ in appearance (color, size, etc.) and behavior.

                    The colorful Ensatina salamanders of the Pacific coast are good examples of geographical isolation. These little salamanders migrated south through the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the coastal mountains of California. The drier San Joaquin Valley, between the two mountain ranges, prevents large-scale interbreeding between several species of these salamanders. Each species looks different, but when they are brought into contact with each other they will breed and produce hybrid offspring. The migration pattern that facilitated Ensatina speciation and the ability to hybridize indicate that these salamanders belong to the same kind of animal. African leopards and South American jaguars would be another good example of two species of the same kind of animal geographically isolated from each other.

                    Ecological isolation results when animals of the same kind live in different habitats. Bears provide another example of how scientists classify animals as different species that are the same kind. Grizzly bears (Ursa arctos) and polar bears (U. maritimus) are ecologically isolated most of the year, but can produce fertile offspring when they come in contact with each other. The ability to reproduce in the wild suggests that they are a single kind of animal separated only by their different fur color and other minor physical features that enable them to adapt to different ecosystems.

                    Eastern and western meadowlarks, Sturnella magna and S. neglecta respectively, are classified as different species and provide a good example of behavioral isolation. Eastern and western meadowlarks don't typically interbreed in the wild, partly because they don't readily recognize the mating song of the other species and partly because they prefer slightly different habitats. Both species are nearly identical in appearance and are physically capable of interbreeding in the laboratory, and occasionally hybrids between the two species are identified in natural habitats. The potential to reproduce, and the nearly identical appearance and genetic constitution of these two bird species, certainly qualifies them as the same biblical kind, in spite of their classification as different species.

                    There are more examples of how different kinds of reproductive isolation cause speciation from a common kind of animal. Speciation events are documented for nearly every kind of animal that has been described, and recently it has been estimated that 10 percent of all animal species still hybridize (mate with other species, producing fertile offspring) in the wild, and even more when brought into contact with each other in captivity. This evidence indicates that most species had a common ancestor from which similar species have descended. This might appear as evolution, but it is not. How this would happen without evolution can be illustrated by considering the descendants of the animals aboard Noah's Ark.

                    Millions of Species in a Few Hundred Years?

                    Some people who object to a recent-creation interpretation of Genesis point to the fact that such a view requires that all modern animal species on earth must have descended from these same species saved on the Ark. If the Ark had roughly 30,000 animals (less than 15,000 species or different kinds), how could the animals on the Ark produce millions of species within a few hundred, or a few thousand, years after the Flood? Surely this would require a faster evolutionary rate than even the most ardent evolutionist would propose.

                    However, it is not correct to assume that a few thousand species would have produced the millions of species extant (alive) today. There are fewer than 30,000 extant species of mammals, birds, reptiles, and possibly land-reproducing amphibians (many salamanders) that were represented on the Ark. The millions of other species are the invertebrates (>95 percent of all animal species), fish, and a few aquatic mammals and reptiles that survived in the water during the Flood. The processes of speciation discussed above need to only double the number of animal species from 15,000 to 30,000. This is certainly a feasible process based on observable science.

                    Evolution, defined as large-scale changes that produce one kind of organism from another kind, is not capable of producing the millions of species observed today from the 15,000 different kinds of animals on the Ark. However, the genetic potential of each kind of animal and the freedom from genetic equilibrium, combined with mutations, would allow the appearance of many different species from the few animals on the Ark.

                    Genetic Potential for Variation

                    The genetic potential to produce a wide range of variation in any animal kind or species, regardless of how these terms are defined, easily provides 30,000 different species from fewer than 15,000 different kinds. Genetic potential is the amount of variation that a kind or type of organism can produce from the genetic material that is already present. It is possible for a pair of animals to harbor nearly all of the alleles (variations of a type of gene) for their kind in their genome.

                    Other alleles result from mutations to existing genes (human red hair color would be a good example of this). For example, two humans (Adam and Eve?) could have all the common DNA variations (called polymorphisms) found in all ethnic groups. This would require only one DNA base difference every 667 bases between the two of them. This is hardly a difficult situation for the genomes of two people and can account for much of the genetic variation observed in people today. Rare polymorphisms are few in number compared to common polymorphisms and are likely the result of the accumulation of mutations. These rare polymorphisms are frequently referred to as personal polymorphisms, since they can be used to identify an individual.

                    The effects of common and rare polymorphisms can be easily illustrated by all domesticated animals and their various breeds. Dogs, cattle, hamsters, and tropical fish all have many different breeds that easily demonstrate what genetic potential is. Of course, these are all artificially selected animals and selecting for these breeds has led to a much faster rate of variation (what some call evolution) than would be expected in the wild. (Most dog breeds have been developed in the last 200 years.)

                    Species Classification

                    Domesticated animals, as examples of genetic potential, do not motivate a scientist to name a new breed of dog a species. However, there is more phenotypic and genetic variation in domesticated animals than there are in many, if not most, wild "species" of animals that were discussed above. The only requirement to be classified as a species, in many cases, is for two populations of animals to be reproductively isolated. Most people would be hard pressed to identify an eastern meadowlark from a western meadowlark, but they are classified as different species simply because they have different mating songs and are reproductively isolated in the wild. Many of these animals are so close phenotypically (in appearance) that only an expert can tell them apart.

                    Even humans have far more phenotypic variation than many animals that are divided into separate species, and scientists are not about to start classifying different ethnic groups of humans as different species. The decision to classify an animal as a new species isn't completely arbitrary, but the modern scientific definition of a species is not determined by the biblical kind.

                    To maximize the number of animals on the Ark with the genetic potential to produce all the variation we see today requires a genetic engineer who knows the genetic composition of each animal. Genesis 6:20 tells us that God brought the animals to Noah to be put on the Ark. It clearly indicates that God chose the animals to be saved and it is likely that the choice of animal was based on the genetic potential to produce a variety of animals after the Flood. God is the omniscient genetic engineer who chose each animal and made the variation in extant animals possible from all the animals on the Ark.

                    Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium

                    The other important factor to be considered in this scenario is something called genetic (Hardy-Weinberg) equilibrium for the gene frequencies of a particular population of organisms. The change in gene frequency is used in evolutionary theory as evidence for microevolution, but this theorem can also be applied to a creation scenario since it does not involve the formation of novel genes from no genes. Hardy-Weinberg theory states that gene (or more accurately, allele) frequencies will remain constant as long as these requirements are met: random mating, no migration in or out of the population, no mutation, no genetic drift (chance changes in gene frequencies), and no selection for traits.

                    When the animals left the Ark none of these conditions would be met, enabling microevolution (change in allele frequency) and speciation events. These events include the selection of mates (for humans specifically), environmental selection of some traits, accumulation of mutations, chance genetic drift, and migration of animals taking with them different combinations of genetic material. Because of the small populations of animals immediately after the Flood, gene (allele) frequencies would rapidly be altered as animals migrated around the globe, adapted to various environments based on their genetic constitution, and became reproductively isolated.

                    This would result in many variations of the original animals on the Ark, just like artificial selection produces many variations in domestic animals. This is not just a creation paradigm. Many population genetic studies, for any animal, include migration and reproductive isolation leading to speciation. The migration of humans around the globe is well-documented and based on the changing gene frequencies (such as ABO blood alleles and mitochondrial DNA) in each population. It is also well documented from DNA and protein sequences that all animals had migratory events that contributed to the ecological, behavioral, and geographic speciation events observable today.

                    All of the examples given above do not require creation of new genes or genetic information via natural processes from genetic information not previously in existence (evolution). The genetic information we observe today was supplied at the time of creation in these animals in their genomes, and their genetic potential has created the variations frequently classified as species. It is true that mutations create many new variations, but this is not an example of Darwinian evolution. Mutations work on pre-existing genetic material, are accompanied with a loss of information, and lead to extinction, not the conversion of one animal kind into another animal kind, regardless of how many years mutations are given.

                    The Creator God endowed His creatures with the potential for all the wondrous varieties that not only are evident in the fossil record, but also surround us today. This variation is made possible by the genetic information given to animals at the time of creation.


                    It is a fairly simple concept, and makes a lot more sense than the BS you evolutionist spew.

                    And you do know that when a Lion and most other Carniviours make a kill, that the first and favorite part of the meal is the ruman... the partly digested vegatation... interesting huh?

                    And you know that if you put lions on a diet of vegies and oats and other non-meats... that they excell in health? Probrably not... I doubt you would find an interest in something so telling.

        2. Castlepaloma profile image77
          Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          The Creation Museum in Kentucky  religious view rejected biological evolution, and assert that the Earth and all of its life forms were created 6,000 years ago , about 1500 years later dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark. All the flesh eating animal were converted to vegetarian during the spiritual journey and all the million species that exist today plus all dinosaurs were jammed on one boat

          No animals died on the trip and they  live by the same temperature and all were vegetarian, Isn’t that inconvenient, accept for Noah he was a 600 year old man. About10 million people living on the earth at different parts at that time, somehow missed out on this experience of drowning.

          When they landed. Then what happen to the Dinosaurs?

          Good thing Christian are converted by free will

          1. BL Tween profile image60
            BL Tweenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            The bottle neck theory states that something happened on the earth at about the time of Noah’s flood. Almost every person on earth died. All the people on the earth today came from just a few people that somehow survived. I believe it was the people on the ark.

            About the dinosaurs, the earth was different after the flood. Even the atmosphere was changed.  In fact it had never rained before. The water came up like a mist from the ground. After the flood the air was thinner. The plants that grew were different, the dinosaurs had a hard time surviving in this new atmosphere and feeding on the new plant life. Although some did and I am not sure all the dinosaurs are gone today.

            About the fossil record. There have not been, nor ever found any transitional fossils. That is to say a fossil where one thing has begun to turn into something else. What the fossil record does show is that the species suddenly appears. You know like it was made that way by a creator.

            Recently fossils were found of prehistoric snakes, snakes with legs. New evidence is discovered  on a regular basis to prove creation. These discoveries are pretty much kept hush, hush, and do make the news, but just barely! When a dinosaur that had eaten a mammal, that is to say, the fossilized mammal skeleton was found inside the fossilized dinosaurs stomach. CNN ran it across the bottom of the screen. I saw it the first time, then sat in front of the television for an hour and waited for it to scroll across again. It did, but that was the extent of it. No newscaster made any comment about it, no other mention of it, I did not see it in any newspapers, although it may have been in one. The real significance of this is that dinosaurs and mammals are separated by a rather large number of years as assigned by the geologic time scale. According to it, there is no possible way a dinosaur could have eaten a mammal and yet the fossil evidence states otherwise. That’s another issue, the geologic time scale has not been proven although it is presented as such. These time periods are assigned time periods not proven time periods.

            Remember when dinosaurs were giant lizards? But . . . Scientist now have determined they were actually birds? That brings me to the most recent discovery of a fossilized flying dinosaur that was found and guess what the contents of its stomach was? A bird.  No not a feathered dinosaur, but a bird!

            The universe, many believe that the universe must be billions of years old because of light, light travels at a specific rate, so in order for us to see a distant star it is believed that it would take so many light years to reach earth, however, that is not necessarily the way it is. What if we see the light from the star from the point of its creation leaving us, going out into space not coming back to us from space. God is AWESOME and amazing and does not necessarily do things in the way we might think they are done.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image77
              Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              HA HA HA HA AH Grand Story

              world population history

              5000BC      Population: 5,000,000 world population history
              Note- almost 1000 years Before Adam and Eve

              4000BC      Population: 7,000,000 world population history
              3000BC      Population: 14,000,000 world population history
              Before the Great flood

              2000BC      Population: 27,000,000   world population history
              500 years after the flood
              They grew from 8 people to 27 million, must have been the greatest baby boom ever in history. If each couple had babies every generations Each couple would have had made 155,000 babies in each couple”s life span.

              Mean wail dinosaurs roam the earth worldwide still searching for food and starving to death. The only mammal ever recorded in their stomach was rodents because mammal the size of man would have been eaten in minutes.

              There is no word, that relate to dinosaurs in the bible, yet 700 species have been founded, recorded and named.

              Unicorn. The term “unicorn” is found nine times in the King James Version of the Bible(Num. 23:22; 24:8; Dt. 33:17; Job 39:9-10; Psa. 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; Isa. ...

              The word “dragon” appears 21 times in the OT

              1. TMMason profile image60
                TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                I do not know where you think you find "unicorn" in the bible , but that is just a buch of BS, Castle.

                1. Castlepaloma profile image77
                  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  “Unicorn” does not appear at all in the American Standard Version, nor in most other more modern versions.  King James version of the Bible 9 times, in 5 different books, by at least 5 different authors: by Balaam, Moses, David, Isaiah, and even God himself in the book of Job. These are the verses that mention unicorns:

                  Numbers 23:22    “God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.”
                  Numbers 24:8     “God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.”
                  Job 39:9   “Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?”
                  Job 39:10    “Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?”
                  Psalms 29:6     “He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.”
                  Psalms 92:10    “But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.”
                  Deuteronomy 33:17    “His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.”
                  Psalms 22:21    “Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.”
                  Isaiah 34:7     “And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.”

                  1. TMMason profile image60
                    TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    The Hebrew words is translated as “unicorn” should be “wild ox” or even "Rinoceros", and is "reym".

                    Dictionary form is re’em. In Greek it’s monokeros, or “one-horned.”

                    So why would KJV translations choose unicorn over rhinoceros? Apparently they didn’t know that unicorns were, in fact, mythical. Since 1382 the translations were consistently unicorn. Most simply the translations were being influence more by tradition and ancient versions rather than a study of the Hebrew word itself.

                    But context is everything. In Job 39:9 the reference to a “furrow” suggests that an animal used to plow was in the vicinity and that isn’t a rhino.

                    You should actually read the links you paste from. If you had read the entire thing you would see you are propagating a bad translation.

                    Again... as I said, that is BS.

                    Reminds me of the additions to the verses the trinitarians inserted in the bible to promote their own polytheistic view. You need to go back to the original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, for the proper context and actual words to translate.

                    Anyways... if you would learn, and not just cut and paste from links to stir the pot... you might gain some better understanding.

                    And those translators using a name of an animal which to them was real, doesn't speak to God being wrong... it speaks to man being wrong. Which is usually the case. The bible does not contradict itself.... peoples interpretations of the Bible contradict themselves and others.

                    Simple, see.

        3. mischeviousme profile image59
          mischeviousmeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          There is nothing cute about blatant ignorance to rationallity.

  4. rbe0 profile image59
    rbe0posted 12 years ago
    1. rbe0 profile image59
      rbe0posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      "The Ouroboros represents the perpetual cyclic renewal of life,[3] the eternal return, and represents the cycle of life, death and rebirth, leading to immortality, as in the phoenix." -wiki

  5. rbe0 profile image59
    rbe0posted 12 years ago

    This might be the dragon you are chasing...

    The Ouroboros (or Uroborus)[1] is an ancient symbol depicting a serpent or dragon eating its own tail.


    Or maybe you are only chasing yourself.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image77
      Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Makes me feel like making a dragon sculpture out of chocolate. Then  have people starting eating it from the tail end.

  6. Mikeydoes profile image44
    Mikeydoesposted 12 years ago

    Choosing one would make you wrong, because we do not have enough evidence out there to say that creation and evolution are 100% wrong or right. Why can't people just be intrigued by how cool life is instead of picking sides?

    1. Castlepaloma profile image77
      Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I'm non bias because do not belong to any group. Just very curious and base my life on good sense. We the people,generally know what is right or wrong

  7. profile image0
    Muldaniaposted 12 years ago

    There was a TV programme a few days ago about this topic.  It suggested that the ancients discovered the bones of dinosaurs, just as modern man has, and called these creatures dragons.

    1. Philanthropy2012 profile image83
      Philanthropy2012posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yes but the Bible wasn't written by ancients, it was the word of God, was it not?

      By your reckoning, God did not have any part in writing the Bible and so it was the ancients making up stories full of false information based on what they saw at the time?

      1. profile image0
        Muldaniaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        That the Bible is the word of God, is your religious belief, which you are entitled to.  However, historians can trace some biblical stories to other older traditions.  For example, the story of Noah was based on that of Gilgamesh, which was written a couple of thousand years earlier.

        In addition, the belief in dragons is not limited to the Middle East, where the Bible was written.  The Chinese also have a belief in the existence of dragons, yet they do not share the same religious texts as those contained in the Bible.

  8. TMMason profile image60
    TMMasonposted 12 years ago

    You all do not seem to grasp that not all the animals in the world had to be in the ark.

    Only land animals would have required the ride.

    And there are less than 23,300 species of LAND ANIMALS alive today

    God mentioned bringing aboard the ark “every living thing of all flesh...of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind” (Genesis 6:19-20). The text later describes those animals that would join Noah and his family as “beasts” and “birds of the heavens” (Genesis 7:2-3).

    Thus, we know that Noah was not required to take aquatic animals (which could have survived the Flood outside the safety of the ark). Also, creatures such as mollusks, tunicates, echinoderms, sponges, protozoans, coelenterates, certain arthropods, and some varieties of worms would have been able to survive in the water; thus, Noah likewise did not have to carry them on the boat. Only those land-dwelling and/or air-breathing animals that needed protection from the water were required to be on board.

    The Genesis word “kind” (Hebrew min) is not the same as the biologists’ “species” of today. Noah did not have to take two or seven of every species of animal. He had to take two (or seven) of every kind. That is to say, he did not have to take two German Shepherds, two Golden Retrievers, two coyotes, and two dingoes. He simply had to take two of the dog “kind.” Dogs, dingoes, coyotes, foxes, and wolves all can interbreed, and therefore are the same kind.

    But what about those who still want to argue that Noah was required to take two of each unclean, and seven of each clean, species? To answer such an argument, one would merely have to turn to Principles of Systematic Zoology by world-renowned evolutionary taxonomist Ernst Mayr, and examine the table he provides that lists the total number of animals per species (1980). Of those that would have needed protection onboard the ark, we find:





    Total—21,100 different species

    We can immediately multiply that number by two (two of every unclean animal)—42,200. After adding the clean animals (which were much fewer in number), this would yield approximately 50,000 vertebrate animals onboard the ark. Recognizing that the majority of these animals would have been small (e.g., birds, reptiles, etc.), we can safely estimate the average size for each animal at roughly the size of an adult sheep. Morris and LaHaye have suggested that since one railroad boxcar is capable of holding 240 “sheep-sized” animals, all of the animals that Noah would have had to accommodate (using known species, not kinds) would have taken up only 36 percent of the ark’s capacity. They concluded: “In other words, assuming a minimal size for the ark and a maximum number of animals, we find that the ark was not too small for the task, as many have claimed” (1976, p. 247, emp. added).

    John Woodmorappe took his analysis one step farther. Using the floor-space recommendations for the housing of laboratory animals, he documented that the cumulative area of the ark’s three decks was more than adequate to provide all the necessary floor space required to accommodate the ark’s inhabitants (1996, pp. 15-16).

    And what you call "Evidence", is nothing more than interpretaion of certain facts. And that interpretation is the propblem you all have.

    1. Philanthropy2012 profile image83
      Philanthropy2012posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      And you need to grasp the FACT that a population of 2 animals will not mutate into THOUSANDS of different ones in a few hundred years.

      Let alone will they in THOUSANDS of years.

      And what did all of these carnivores eat? Any pseudo-science to back you up there?

      And what about a disease? Just one animal had to carry a deadly disease and the humid climate will have carried it and killed every single one of them.

      1. psycheskinner profile image83
        psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Exactly.  Such a genetic bottleneck would have been apparent in the genome no matter how it was done, and in fact have caused the extinction of most species.

        1. TMMason profile image60
          TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          You have no clue what was here to begin with... so you have no clue about what went extinct after.

          Or do you have a crystal ball Psyche?

          1. Philanthropy2012 profile image83
            Philanthropy2012posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            We have complete fossil records and a proven accurate carbon dating procedure?

            Do you dispute this? Or do you have a crystal ball that sees otherwise?

            And please explain to me how evolution occurred over a few hundred years from just 2 animals?

            1. TMMason profile image60
              TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              No we do not.

              Those are assinine assertions to make.

              We in no way, shape, or form have a complete fossil record.

              That is straighjt out false.

              And carbon dating has many issue, and is based on assumptions.

              http://www.answersingenesis.org/article … -the-bible

              And you guys have never read the Boble have you?

              There were 7 pairs of clean animals taken, and 1 pair of un-clean. And God chose the ones which went, so no sickness or defects.

              1. Philanthropy2012 profile image83
                Philanthropy2012posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Carbon dating is based on the half lives of molecules that have never faltered. Assumptions, what a joke.

                We have complete fossil records* not a complete fossil record. Please keep your StrawMan fallacy to yourself.

                Now, please explain to me how evolution occurred over a few hundred years from just 2 animals??

              2. Philanthropy2012 profile image83
                Philanthropy2012posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                And just in case you didn't read it the first 3 times,

                please explain to me how evolution occurred over a few hundred years from just 2 animals?

                1. Jesus was a hippy profile image59
                  Jesus was a hippyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  In my experience when someone looks to "AnswersInGenesis" for their information, they lack all rational thought.

                  1. TMMason profile image60
                    TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    What experience?

                    Creating bait threads and refusing to consider any point that doesn't fit your lil theories.

                    And you all do grasp that a "Theory" is not a fact...

                    You do understand that?

                    And you all know that if you would search past the first page or so of google, you would actually get some opposing views.

                    Welcome to the wonderful world of "Sidewalks", thanks to the Obam Admin.

                  2. Philanthropy2012 profile image83
                    Philanthropy2012posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    Here here!

                2. profile image0
                  Muldaniaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Two things seem to be confused here.  The biblical story of Noah and the flood has no part in the evidence for evolution.  I have never heard an evolutionary biologist state that evolution took place after the flood, as a result of the animals which were on the ark evolving over a few hundred years.  Evolution has taken place over millions of years, for which there is evidence.  However the story of a world-wide flood is not one backed by scientific evidence, but is an ancient story, created by an ancient people, who knew nothing about evolution.

              3. Philanthropy2012 profile image83
                Philanthropy2012posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Also after reading that Origins link, I found and read Dave.E.Matson debunking everything that it said, here it is, in all of it's scientific and sense-making glory:

                http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/ … 14.html#R1

              4. Castlepaloma profile image77
                Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                When it come to a 6000 year old earth, us guys have not read from the Boble

        2. Castlepaloma profile image77
          Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this


          Your saying 1500 species somehow grew to 95 million species then when 95% species went extinct, it boiled down to One Million species that are living today (not counting breeds) All within 4500 years and no body ever notice the greatest miracle that man ever experienced. Maybe 80-90 or more billion people who ever lived and died on earth just after the great flood were all asleep.

          Man began to learn how to write after the flood and they missed the whole grand happening of these masses animal orgies

          Let me say it for you, you human are very stupid, so very very stupid, from the movie planet 9

          You win the ED Wood award with this one

          1. Philanthropy2012 profile image83
            Philanthropy2012posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            More importantly, the bible does not care to explain how 900,000 species of insect came about after taking 3.8 billion years to become that number, in a few thousand years.

    2. rbe0 profile image59
      rbe0posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Imagine if the Great flood had never happened... we would have SOO many more exotic land animals that would be tasty for throwing onto the barbecue...


      1. mischeviousme profile image59
        mischeviousmeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Now that's funny. A cook book " How to prepare and eat endangered animals".

        1. rbe0 profile image59
          rbe0posted 12 years agoin reply to this

          tucans have a large duck-like bill that must first be removed before chewing.

          1. mischeviousme profile image59
            mischeviousmeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            You can also use the discarded bill as a dish or to decorate the table!

          2. Castlepaloma profile image77
            Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            If all these animals were involved in a masses animal orgies like TM says. I can only imagine a million animal coming out looking like duckbill platypuses or totally looking like  creatures from another  planet.

            1. rbe0 profile image59
              rbe0posted 12 years agoin reply to this

              uhhh what? brb i must go erase my brain now before i puke.

              1. Castlepaloma profile image77
                Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                TM said all animals came from 1500 species from the Ark, that grew into millions of species over a  few hundred years.  That means there had to be 95 million species within that 4500 years. Because about 95% species have went extinct that boiled down to one million species today..

                Creation of masses animal orgies within hundreds of years, which nobody notice

                1. TMMason profile image60
                  TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  You do not know the difference between a Genus and species?

                  Do you? No.

                  Genus... biology: a group of related animals or plants that includes several or many different species.

                  See how that works.

                  And there are today about 23,300 land species, not millions.

                  It is extremist BS like that which shows the deceptive nature of you all.

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image77
                    Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    I was trying to be more kind with  one million species of animals toward
                    your estimate of 15,000 or was it 23,000 species What ever you want to call it , they had to loaded those plants insects and every living on earth thing
                    all on the Ark too

                    Other estimates have ranged from as few as 3 million to as many as 100 million. Dr. Mora and his colleagues believed that all of these estimates were flawed in one way or another.  that most species will remain undescribed for many years unless there is a rapid increase in species descriptions
                    There  may be up to 1.5 million of them. Fungi are today considered a separate kingdom from PlantSxcluding the fungi, there may be around 350 000 identified species of Seed Plants; Bryophytes 

                    There is a million insect species alone and have not even counted the plants yet, or were they drown at sea.

              2. Castlepaloma profile image77
                Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this



            2. Philanthropy2012 profile image83
              Philanthropy2012posted 12 years agoin reply to this

              He seems to believe that 2 animals will evolve into hundreds and thousands over a few hundred years, despite what any tests of evolution have shown.

              He refuses to share any evidence either sad

              1. TMMason profile image60
                TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                I have posted as much evidence as you.

                You post a site and claim it is fact, and that mine are junk.

                That is your own refusal to look into it... not mine.

                And your use of "two animals" shows you have no clue about the Bible and the Flood.

                1. rbe0 profile image59
                  rbe0posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Why do you assume he was talking to you when he responded to Castleoaloma's post?

                2. Philanthropy2012 profile image83
                  Philanthropy2012posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Nay Mr Mason! You in particular have only shown me one link concerning evolution, and that was a man who claimed that "mutation cannot lead to evolution" and that the evolution of 15,000 animals into 30,000 species, having only 2 of each is "feasible", stating that in the face of all things Evolution!

                  I on the other hand have provided links concerning the reason for why mutation is in fact the foundation of evolution, and the reasons for why it takes thousands of years for new species to develop. And only then it is because of a large population (more than 2 - billions) and a need for such change.

                  Now, in front of all of these nice people, care to educate me on how the  evolution of 15,000 or 23,000 different species could have possibly occurred over a few hundred years.

                  1. rbe0 profile image59
                    rbe0posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    fact: the darwinian theories of evolution are not accepted as fact...

                  2. TMMason profile image60
                    TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    I have supplied a lot of links... if you only looked at one, then that is on you.

                    I have posted many a link in several threads this morning.

                    And you are assuming evolution takes millions of years.

                    I know some of you even claim Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.

                    Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against the theory of phyletic gradualism, (your view), which states that evolution generally occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (called anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous.

                    In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing this theory and called it punctuated equilibria. Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's theory of geographic speciation, I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis, as well as their own empirical research. Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.

                    So is fast or slow?

                    And as the fossil record shows us, thing just show up all of a sudden, no gradual change recorded in the record at all.

                3. Castlepaloma profile image77
                  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this


                  Please do not put words into my mouth,

                  I can only use my imagination and evidence of science community
                  to form a good Theory of the origin of Man and earth along with a base of good sense.

                  I study the bible a lot when growing up, it had far too many contradiction or not good enough answers for me to continue when there are millions of other fine books out there. You think all answer lead to one book, which creations explain very little about the origin of man and you call it simple truth.

                  1. TMMason profile image60
                    TMMasonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    I do not know what your talking about Castle.

                    the reply you quoted is to Phylanth, not you.

                    I think you got a lil confused... no biggie bro.


This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)