It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Genesis’ Young Earth, Stars, Michael J. Fox and the DeLorean…“All Aboard!”

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 09:05 AM
reply to post by styleswahington

What about the dinosaurs?

God turned them into chickens and Noah kicked them up the gangplank along with the malaria mosquitoes, tapeworms and ichneumon wasps.

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 10:34 AM

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by styleswahington

What about the dinosaurs?

God turned them into chickens and Noah kicked them up the gangplank along with the malaria mosquitoes, tapeworms and ichneumon wasps.

Astyanax, Not sure if you saw this?

The Taylor Trail:
A series of 14 sequential human footprints on the same platform with at least 134 dinosaur tracks


Job 40:15-24
"Behemoth" description fits that of a dinosaur

15 ¶ Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.
19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his
sword to approach [unto him].
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook
compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he
can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares.

The entire description given in these verses fit certain types of dinosaurs very well. But we're going to zero in on one particular verse. It's in verse 17 it says, "He moveth his tail like a cedar:".

This verse alone should be enough to put the whole issue to rest as to whether or not God is describing a dinosaur to Job in this verse. Keep in mind, God is talking to Job about a living animal, that Job is familiar with. What land creatures do we know of today that have tails the size of a cedar tree? Before that question can be answered, it must first be determined how big a cedar tree is. We obtained information on this from two different sources.

First, we looked at what the Bible had to say about cedar trees to see if it would give us any clues as to how big the authors of the Bible thought they were. Second, we contacted the university of Arizona and asked them. The results of both inquires appear below.

How big does the Bible say cedar trees are?

Psalms 92:12 The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree: he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon (would this verse make much sense if it were referring to a small or medium sized tree?)

Isaiah 2:13 And upon all the cedars of Lebanon, [that are] high and lifted up, and upon all the oaks of Bashan,

Isaiah 37:24 By thy servants hast thou reproached the Lord, and hast said, By the multitude of my chariots am I come up to the height of the mountains, to the sides of Lebanon; and I will cut down the tall cedars…

Ezekiel 17:22 Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also take of the highest branch of the high cedar, and will set [it]; I will crop off from the top of his young twigs a tender one, and will plant [it] upon an high mountain and eminent:

Ezekiel 31:3 Behold, the Assyrian [was] a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs.

Amos 2:9 Yet destroyed I the Amorite before them, whose height [was] like the height of the cedars, and he [was] strong as the oaks; yet I destroyed his fruit from above, and his roots from beneath.

There is no question that the authors of the Bible considered cedar trees to be quite large. Some Christians who've tried to compromise with evolutionists have claimed that the verses describing Behemoth are describing a crocodile, hippopotamus or elephant. But those creatures don't have tails the size of a cedar tree. The only creatures known to us today that had tails as big as a cedar tree were the largest of the known dinosaurs.

more here:

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 10:42 AM
reply to post by Astyanax

A lil' more here...

Dinosaur-like creatures are mentioned in the Bible. The Bible uses ancient names like “behemoth” and “tannin.” Behemoth means kingly, gigantic beasts. Tannin is a term which includes dragon-like animals and the great sea creatures such as whales, giant squids, and marine reptiles like the plesiosaurs that may have become extinct.

The Bible's best description of a dinosaur-like animal is recorded in Job chapter 40. “Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds 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).

The book of Job is very old, probably written around 2,000 years before Jesus was born. Here God describes a great king of the land animals like some of the biggest dinosaurs, the Diplodocus and Apatosaurus. It was a gigantic plant-eater with great muscles and very strong bones. The long Diplodocus had leg bones so strong that he could have held three others on his back


posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 10:59 AM
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller

I don't think it is so very different, as you think. I think that it is exactly what it is; how the matrix was programmed, it's shape, it's construct, If you read the passage I linked it says metatron's name literally translates to"Beyond, and the matrix" In greek. Your picture BTW is very much like some other constructs in sacred geometry. You may not make the connection, but I do.

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 11:08 AM
reply to post by Astyanax


I also found another dozen or so reasons for a young earth...

Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.

Comets disintegrate too quickly.

Not enough mud on the sea floor.

Not enough sodium in the sea.

The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.

Many strata are too tightly bent.

Injected sandstone shortens geologic "ages."

Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years.

Helium in the wrong places.

Not enough stone age skeletons.

Agriculture is too recent.

History is too short.

Source and details here:

Some excerpts:

Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with an old universe only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a young universe. The list starts with distant astronomic phenomena and works its way down to earth, ending with everyday facts.

Galaxies wind themselves up too fast. The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1

Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies.

For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the dilemma has been a complex theory called "density waves."1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope's discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the "Whirlpool" galaxy, M51.2

Comets disintegrate too quickly. According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about 5 billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of 10,000 years.3

Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical "Oort cloud" well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.4 So far, none of these assumptions have been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations.

Lately, there has been much talk of the "Kuiper Belt," a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.


posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 11:15 AM

Originally posted by styleswahington
What about the dinosaurs?

There are mentioned in the scriptures, too.

References to Leviathan. (Leviathan is probably an extinct sea creature such as a KRONOSAURUS or LIOPLEURODON.)
Job 41:1-10 Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn? Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee? Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever? Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens? Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants? Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears? Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more. Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him? None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?

Psalms 74:14 Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.

Psalms 104:26 There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein.

Isaiah 27:1 In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.


posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 11:18 AM

Originally posted by styleswahington
What about the dinosaurs?


References to Dragons (probably Dinosaurs).

Deuteronomy 32:33 their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.

Job 30:29 I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls.

Psalms 44:19 Though thou hast sore broken us in the place of dragons, and covered us with the shadow of death.

Psalms 74:13 Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters.

Psalms 148:7 ¶ Praise the LORD from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps:

Isaiah 13:22 And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.

Isaiah 34:13 And thorns shall come up in her palaces, nettles and brambles in the fortresses thereof: and it shall be an habitation of dragons, and a court for owls.

Isaiah 35:7 And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water: in the habitation of dragons, where each lay, shall be grass with reeds and rushes.

Isaiah 43:20 The beast of the field shall honour me, the dragons and the owls: because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to my people, my chosen.

Jeremiah 9:11 And I will make Jerusalem heaps, and a den of dragons; and I will make the cities of Judah desolate, without an inhabitant.

Jeremiah 10:22 Behold, the noise of the bruit is come, and a great commotion out of the north country, to make the cities of Judah desolate, and a den of dragons.

Jeremiah 14:6 And the wild did stand in the high places, they snuffed up the wind like dragons; their eyes did fail, because there was no grass.

Jeremiah 49:33 And Hazor shall be a dwelling for dragons, and a desolation for ever: there shall no man abide there, nor any son of man dwell in it.

Jeremiah 51:37 And Babylon shall become heaps, a dwellingplace for dragons, an astonishment, and an hissing, without an inhabitant.

Micah 1:8 ¶ Therefore I will wail and howl, I will go stripped and : I will make a wailing like the dragons, and mourning as the owls.

Malachi 1:3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.


posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 11:41 AM
Well actually, OT, they turned to birds in last 65 million years. Man has evolved in the time that Dinosaurs have been around.

But the Bible talk about a lot of things including dragon-esque monsters and.....

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 11:48 AM
reply to post by Welfhard

W, yes I've heard that....I'm not too up on that....I'll look into k?

Birds are not dinosaurs
The results of the recent studies show that the hands of the theropod dinosaurs are derived from digits I, II, and III, whereas the wings of birds, although they look alike in terms of structure, are derived from digits II, III, and IV. If birds were descended from the theropod dinosaurs, we would expect homologous structures to be derived from comparable regions. One could propose that bird wings were originally derived from digits I, II, and III, but later developed another fourth digit, while the first digit regressed. However, there is no fossil evidence that this ever happened (and would be extremely unlikely, since the bird wing was fully developed, even in Archaeopteryx).

The second study shows that the theropod dinosaurs did not possess the correct skeletal structure or lung structure to have evolved into birds. The evolution of theropods into birds would have required the introduction of a serious handicap (a hole in their diaphragm), which would have severely limited their ability to breathe. As Dr. Ruben said, such a debilitating mutation "seems unlikely to have been of any selective advantage," which is quite an understatement.

There are other problems with the "birds are dinosaurs" theory.7 The theropod forelimb is much smaller (relative to body size) than that of Archaeopteryx. The small "proto-wing" of the theropod is not very convincing, especially considering the rather hefty weight of these dinosaurs. The vast majority of the theropods lack the semilunate wrist bone, and have a large number of other wrist elements which have no homology to the bones of Archaeopteryx. In addition, in almost all theropods, nerve V1 exits the braincase out the side, along with several other nerves, whereas in birds, it exits out the front of the braincase, though its own hole. Then there is the problem that birds are warm blooded. The evidence for warm-blooded dinosaurs hasbeen thoroughly dismantled lately8 and Archaeopteryx has been shown to bea bird in the modern sense,9 with fully developed ellipticalwings similar to modern woodland birds, and asymmetric flightfeathers that form individual airfoils, a flight scapula/coracoidarrangement, and a reserved hallux, found only in perching birds,and known in no dinosaur. There is also the minor problem that the vast majority of the theropods appeared after the appearance of Archaeopteryx.

According to Dr. Alan Feduccia, the problems with the evolution of birds from theropods is virtually incompatible with the evidence:

"Although the digital mismatch between birds and dinosaurs is anatomically the most serious problem, other versions of frame-shifthypotheses will be needed to explain such problems as the transformationof teeth and tooth replacement, the transformation of a dinosaurianseptate, hepatic-piston breathing system to a bird flow-throughlung, the complete abandonment of a balanced seesaw body planto the avian model, and the reelongation of already foreshortenedforelimbs, to mention a few. Perhaps the greatest form of specialpleading will be necessary to explain how flight could have originatedfrom the ground up; our present knowledge indicates that thereare two requisites for flight origin: small size and high places.Also, it must be explained why these superficially birdlike theropodsonly occur in the fossil record 30 to 80 million years after theappearance of the earliest known bird, which is already well developed,and why Triassic theropods are devoid of birdlikefeatures."10

The bottom line
The really difficult problem for the evolutionists is that the supposed link between the dinosaurs and birds is now all but gone. There are no bird-like thecodonts from which Archaeopteryx could have descended (another missing link!). Therefore, the much-touted link between dinosaurs and birds has just evaporated.


More Recent Controversy

Evolutionists are not happy with the study by Burke and Feduccia because they realize that this study refutes any evolutionary descent from dinosaurs and birds. As the authors maintain in a recent defense of their data, "The relationship of birds and dinosaurs is an hypothesis, and our report points out an inconsistency in this popular idea" that is "inconsistent with the observation and current evidence of comparative embryology." The debates can be found in the April 17, 1998 issue of Science (download the PDF file).

Missing bird-dinosaur link found?
Archaeopteryx has been described as a link between birds and dinosaurs, although it is remarkably similar to modern birds. Attempts to find more primitive intermediates have been unsuccessful - until now - so say a group of paleontologists (see the July, 1998 issue of National Geographic). The group has found two turkey-sized dinosaurs that have both downy and modern flight feathers on their arms and tail. Their skeletal structure is similar to theropod dinosaurs (short arms - too short to be useful in flight, serrated teeth, theropod-like pelvis, etc.). The conclusions are obvious - Right? However, other researchers dispute these claims.11 They point to shortened tail and fused sternum, arguing that they are more advanced than Archaeopteryx. These researchers believe that the intermediates are actually flightless birds. Oh, did I mention that the new fossils are dated to have appeared at least 20 million years after the appearance of the first Archaeopteryx? Those little details do get in the way of evolutionary theory, don't they!

According to an article by Alan Feduccia:

"Despite the popularity of the dinosaurian origin of birds, many ornithologists and physiologists, in particular, have hadtremendous difficulty with the theory (8, 10, 11) becauseof a huge and growing body of contrary evidence and the fact thata ground-up origin of avian flight is considered a near biophysicalimpossibility (12). Aside from criticism concerning the cursorialorigin of avian flight, there are problems related to the geologic,temporal occurrence of putative dinosaurian ancestors, which occursome 30 to 80 million years after the appearance of the earliestknown bird Archaeopteryx, and these forms become more and moresuperficially birdlike as one approaches the latest Cretaceous.There is also the fact that virtually all of the anatomical featuresused to ally birds and dinosaurs have beendisputed."9

There is alot more on this site...

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Welfhard
Well actually, OT, they turned to birds in last 65 million years...

I did find a recent study on the subject...

Birds didn’t come from dinosaurs, study suggests

June 10, 2009
Courtesy Oregon State University
and World Science staff

A new dis­cov­ery about bird breath­ing abil­i­ties in­di­cate birds probably did­n’t de­scend from any known di­no­saurs, ac­cord­ing to re­search­ers at Or­e­gon State Un­ivers­ity.

The sci­en­tists have been wag­ing a lonely bat­tle chal­leng­ing the con­ven­tion­al sci­en­tif­ic wis­dom that birds de­scend from di­no­saurs known as the­ro­pods, an ev­o­lu­tion­ary group that in­clud­ed the fa­mous Ty­ran­no­saur­us Rex.

Birds are be­lieved to have des­cended from thero­pod dino­saurs not un­like the above spe­cies, Guan­long wu­caii, dis­cov­ered in 2006. (Im­age cour­tesy US Nat'l Sci­ence Foun­dation)


Birds more likely share a com­mon an­ces­tor with di­no­saurs than de­scend from them di­rect­ly, said John Ruben, a zo­ol­o­gist at Or­e­gon State who par­ti­ci­pated in the new stu­dies.

“It’s really kind of amaz­ing that af­ter cen­turies of stu­dying birds and flight we still did­n’t un­der­stand a bas­ic as­pect of bird bi­ol­o­gy,” said Ruben. The stud­ies are pub­lished in The Jour­nal of Mor­phol­o­gy, and were funded by the U.S. Na­tional Sci­ence Founda­t­ion.


I can see I've got some studying to do myself...thanks W!

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 11:59 AM
The research hinges—almost literally—on the femur (upper leg bone) of birds. Unlike other walking creatures, a bird’s femur does not move significantly, and birds instead articulate the lower portion of their leg to walk or run. Quick’s surprising discovery is that this “knee running” anatomy, with nearly fixed femur bones and musculature, is crucial in preventing a bird’s air-sac lung from collapsing whenever the bird takes a breath.

Quick explained, “This is fundamental to bird physiology. It’s really strange that no one realized this before. The position of the thigh bone and muscles in birds is critical to their lung function, which in turn is what gives them enough lung capacity for flight.”

Dinosaurs lack this fixed femur, however, and that includes the theropod dinosaurs from which birds supposedly evolved. Oregon State zoologist John Ruben, a coauthor on the paper, commented, “Theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link.”

He continued, “It’s really kind of amazing that after centuries of studying birds and flight we still didn’t understand a basic aspect of bird biology.” Ruben added that the appearance of birds before dinosaurs in the fossil record is a “serious problem” that is ignored by those who advocate dinosaur-to-bird evolution ...source:Stunning New Research Overturns Widely Held Evolutionary Idea by A.P. Galling, AiG–U.S.June 12, 2009

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 12:04 PM
W, AiG weighed in on the June 09 Study...

Creationists should keep in mind several important points regarding this research:

Once again, the evolutionary “facts” have been challenged. What scientists believe about the evidence frequently changes, even while their presupposed belief in evolution is held constant. Don’t be fooled by the “facts” that evolutionists themselves may doubt tomorrow!
We may well hear a sharp response from other evolutionists attacking this research or, at least, emphasizing that birds still evolved, even if only from an unknown ancestor. Alternatively, we may hear virtually nothing if evolutionists hope the story goes unnoticed.
Whenever evolutionists demonstrate that specialized features originated separately (i.e., the evolutionary branches are farther apart), it multiplies the number of miraculous mutations that would have had to occur to produce the specialized anatomy in organisms on both branches.
The “overlap” between bird anatomy and mammal anatomy, and between bird anatomy and reptile anatomy—along with the plentiful uniqueness of bird anatomy—all shouts “design.” Evolution can only explain such recurring anatomical elements with the fanciful justification of “convergent evolution” (i.e., concluding that two similar features evolved separately because the organisms are on different evolutionary branches). Creationists instead have the common-sense understanding that the Creator chose for each organism whatever designs best suited its purpose, and sometimes He reused the best designs.
Perhaps most importantly, this research identifies an incredible, previously unknown element of bird biology—a sophisticated design that enables bird flight and reflects on the ingenuity of the Creator.

I know you don't like them, but thought it was worth citing...more:

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 12:37 PM
reply to post by OldThinker

Hi OldThinker/
Just wanted to stop by and tell you that this is a great post!
Quite informative and easy to read...I'm quite enjoing it!

Take care,


posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 12:43 PM

Originally posted by helen670
reply to post by OldThinker

Hi OldThinker/
Just wanted to stop by and tell you that this is a great post!
Quite informative and easy to read...I'm quite enjoing it!

Take care,



Appreciate the time you took to review...just a laymen hanging with the big boys...trying at least...heavy stuff here for sure...

Hope all is well with you!

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 12:47 PM
reply to post by OldThinker

You are never going to find real science on religious sites. How many times does one need to tell you that. That's why you fail at science.

The real science is found in Scientific peer reviewed journals.

Consensus: Dinosaurs that survived, evolved into birds. That explains it perfectly.

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 12:55 PM
reply to post by Welfhard

Point well taken...

And remember DISCOVERY can happen anywhere, no matter what the sign in front of the book/bldg may say...

I'm open to the journals, are you open to the sites evidence....I'm not the dismissor here friend....

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OldThinker

You are never going to find real science on religious sites...

Another isn't either/or here?

Maybe we both let our frame of reference blind our ability to learn thoroughly, what say you?


PS: Uni of Oregon isn't a religious site/study, right?

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 12:58 PM
reply to post by OldThinker

You only go looking for stuff that sides with your point thought, hence the religious sites.

It's important to be open minded, sure, but it's just as important to be critical - which you ain't.

The article from Oregon is probably the only thing I've ever seen from you that has any weight on it. Most of the time you peddle answersingenesis which is devoid of science or intellectualism.

But the main point is that there are no dinosaurs in the Bible because dinosaurs haven't been around for man to see, especially within the last 10,000 years when man started making notes of things.

So the depictions in the Bible are the imagination of primitives.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by Welfhard]

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:01 PM

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by OldThinker

You are never going to find real science on religious sites. How many times does one need to tell you that. That's why you fail at science.

The real science is found in Scientific peer reviewed journals.

Consensus: Dinosaurs that survived, evolved into birds. That explains it perfectly.

Saying that dinosaurs survived and evolved into birds doesn't explain anything at all, it just explains how scientists wish it would have happened so that they don't have to accept that God exists. Well, the scientists who still believe in evolution.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by Totakeke]

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:04 PM
reply to post by Totakeke

Well, the scientists who still believe in evolution.

You mean just about all of them producing a solid consensus.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in