Me: Dinosaurs and man did not co-exist.
You're welcome to claim that I'm an unbeliever because of that, but I might point out something: I know my heart and my thoughts (you do not know my heart and my thoughts). I know the level of my devotion to Christ (you do not know the level of my devotion). I know what I believe (you do not know what I believe).
And if you want to debate the history, I'm game.
Young Earth Creationist:"Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feed on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God..." Job 40:15-19 (NIV)
Me: What is the behemoth? Is it concretely identified as a reptile (which the dinosaurs were)? No, it is not. It is identified as a herbivore, muscular and sinewed, and as a creature which lives near a swamp/water. So it could be a dinosaur,but it could also be a hippopotamus, or an elephant, or perhaps even a rhinoceros. Arguably, the description of the tail might argue against this, but it should be noted that the word could be a euphemism for genitals -- and in fact, in the original-language manuscript of Job, this is the more sensible interpretation of the passage. In other words, behemoth might be any number of animals apart from a dinosaur. Why rush to the least-obvious conclusion and insist that it was a dinosaur? YEC: "His tail sways like a cedar" -- it has to be big. Nothing exists now meets that description; "behemoth" usually means it is just humongous. Come on man, it is as if you don't want to believe dinosaurs were in the Bible...why not? I doubt the elephant ranks first, plus dinosaurs at least started out as herbivores. Me: You're ignoring what I said -- I already addressed that objection. But a little expansion on the point can't hurt. Firstly...yes, some dinosaurs were herbivores. Some, however, were carnivores. We can tell as much by looking at their teeth. A herbivore has teeth rather like that of a human molar -- flat, built for crushing. A carnivore has teeth rather like the human canine, or like the fangs of any number of modern predators -- sharp, pointed, made for piercing and tearing. I read some rather whimsical comments, in the past, suggesting that T-Rex was a herbivore -- what a fantastic lie that is! Even looking at a Tyranosaur skull demonstrates that T-Rex was a carnivore -- its teeth would be almost useless for chewing on plants, but they'd be excellent for latching on to prey. Small forearms don't really enter into it -- most predators eat their food on the ground, and few indeed use their claws/paws as an integral part of the eating process. It's not that I don't want to believe that there were dinosaurs in the Bible -- it's that there aren't dinosaurs in the Bible, plain and simple. Those reptile species died out long before humanity ever began writing down its histories and legends; indeed, the dinos died out long before humanity even appeared on the scene. If dinosaurs and man really co-existed, then we'd see indications of it in different archaeological sites that we've found the remnants of early human civilization in. We've learned from looking at the history of the Native Americans, especially, that people who live an early, tribal lifemake use of the world around them for tools and other things; we would expect to find examples of tools, weapons or jewelry made with dinosaur bones. Especially weapons! Some dinosaur leg bones are massive, and were likely very strong -- they'd make excellent spears, don't you think? And let's not forget that a massive dinosaur leg bone would make a very excellent piece of building material, say...for a house's roofing strut? But we see no examples of any of this. Nor do we find depictions of dinosaurs alongside human beings in early cave paintings. And if one looks at historical depictions of Behemoth, one sees that Christians certainly made no connection between behemoth and a giant reptile throughout much of the time that there has been a Church. More to the point, the term "sways" is a bit of a mis-translation. The relevant Hebrew word is more accurately translated as "extend". In fact, in the original Hebrew, the description of the beast doesn't seem to be describing its tail at all -- given that we see mentioned the sinewy "stones" of the creature (read: testicles), the text would actually seem to be referring to the beast's penis Don't forget that English-language Bibles are translations of the original text of Scripture; the word "tail" is likely a euphemism. At any rate, you didn't answer my question: why is it so important to think that behemoth must be a reference to a dinosaur? YEC: Because it is in the bible,
Enough said. What are you gonna believe: some wise crack in a school, or a Christian source? You are Christian, right?
Wait, you support the Pope...that pretty much denies Jesus right there. There is nothing Christian about the pope; he is an idolater, he lies, and he is a deceiver. Catholics have made up lies like Purgatory and Baptism (of infants?), and have even started wars (the First and Second World Wars). Additionally, the reason why so many Catholic priests have become pedophiles is because they are not allowed to marry, which is a falsehood. People are supposed to marry.
Me: Dinosaurs are nowhere mentioned in the Bible, not by name nor by "kind" (if you prefer the use of that term).
God fashioned me a handy brain in the process of making me, and He does delight in my use thereof. To that end, I am able to learn, to perceive, and to reason based on the arguments and evidences presented to me.
Now, as it so happens, I used to be quite the little dinosaur buff, and my knowledge of these fascinating creatures extends far beyond some "wise crack in school". My home province, Alberta, has a large expanse in its southern regions called "The Badlands", wherein numerous dinosaur skeletons -- some near-complete -- have been found. In addition to numerous trips there, I've studied many different resources and scientific journals on the subject -- this is an area of natural scholarship that fascinates me, and while I'm no paleontologist, I believe I can speak to the issue of dinosaurs with some authority.
To that end, I have my doubts about your "Christian" source, not the least of which is that it fails to cite even one passage from Scripture in its supposedly Christian defence of several glaring errors (the most minor of which, I think, is that the author cannot tell the difference between the Albertosaur and the Tyranosaur).
For example: the arms of the T-Rex were indeed short. If you look at the pictured skeleton on the site, and try and imagine how the head and arms might move, there is no way that the T-Rex would have been able to reach, with its mouth, any item held in its hands. It would not have done well had it attempted to use those hands to manipulate branches, since their reach was so small. No, the T-Rex (not unlike the giraffe) would use its mouth and the length and articulation of its body to find food with.
Which brings us again to its teeth. Those are not the teeth of a plant-eater. If you want to see a herbivore's teeth, look at the molars in the back of your own mouth; they are blocky, and more or less flat on top. If you want to see a carnivore's teeth, look at the teeth of a lion. Now...which animal has teeth that more closely resemble those of a T-Rex? Your "Christian" source claimss that the teeth would wear down if the T-Rex were constantly biting through flesh and bones...but this too is false, and we can observe as much in nature today. Alligators, crocodiles, and some species of predatory mammals all have jaws that are easily capable of biting through bone, and yet even into old age do not show measureable signs of tooth degradation. In many cases, that is because their teeth -- unlike ours -- are constantly growing; they periodically gnaw on things to sharpen and hone them.
Is not God's design marvelous?
Your source also claims that "true" meat eaters are "smooth and sleek". This is kind of a logical fallacy (look up "No True Scotsman" if you're curious), and is also something of a patent falsehood. Alligators and crocodiles are not particularly sleek. Nor are they particularly fast -- they rely on stealth and the murky water in catching their prey. In fact, many predators are not as fast as their prey; they either attempt ambushes and surprise to catch their prey, or else they prey on the sick and the elderly in the herd (which are slower or have less stamina with which to flee).
As to the issue of the Pope, and my support for him meaning that I deny Jesus: how, exactly, is that the case? You claim that the Pope is not a Christian, that he is a liar and an idolater. You are engaging in an ad hominem attack here, which is typically indicative of a poor argument that you are attempting to hide behing a wall of insults.
But also...where is your evidence in support of these wild assertions? I hope you're not going to throw some Jack Chick in my face here; Chick is not a credible source.
As to your assertion that the belief that we are not supposed to refrain from marriage is not supported by Scripture: what the heck is Paul talking about in 1 Corinthians 7, then?
Look, I actually like you -- you've got spirit. I think, along the way, you've been brought into a goodly number of falsehoods and untruths, perhaps by well-meaning people or perhaps by people who don't mean very well at all (don't know 'em, can't say). Be that as it may; I like your passion for Christ -- it's a commendable trait. But why do you mar it so, with these lies you tell? You do not even know Scripture well enough to know that celibacy is a Biblical teaching, and a condition of being highly praised by Paul.