Behold, the bohemouth...

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by TheBigPayback, May 24, 2013.

  1. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    For God to tell Job these things, he had to have understood what they were
    Some species of dinos were around simultaniously with men

    “Behold, the Behemoth, 15 which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength it has in its loins, 16 what power in the muscles of its belly! Its tail sways like a cedar; 17 the sinews of its thighs are close-knit. Its bones are tubes of bronze, 18 its limbs like rods of iron. It ranks first among the works of God,

    19

    yet its Maker can approach it with his sword. The hills bring it their produce, 20 and all the wild animals play nearby. Under the lotus plants it lies, 21 hidden among the reeds in the marsh. The lotuses conceal it in their shadow;

    22

    the poplars by the stream surround it. A raging river does not alarm it; 23 it is secure, though the Jordan should surge against its mouth. Can anyone capture it by the eyes,

    24

    or trap it and pierce its nose?

    [a] “Can you pull in Leviathan with a fishhook 41 or tie down its tongue with a rope? Can you put a cord through its nose

    2

    or pierce its jaw with a hook? Will it keep begging you for mercy?

    3

    Will it speak to you with gentle words? Will it make an agreement with you

    4

    for you to take it as your slave for life? Can you make a pet of it like a bird

    5

    or put it on a leash for the young women in your house? Will traders barter for it? 6 Will they divide it up among the merchants? Can you fill its hide with harpoons

    7

    or its head with fishing spears? If you lay a hand on it, 8 you will remember the struggle and never do it again! Any hope of subduing it is false; 9 the mere sight of it is overpowering. No one is fierce enough to rouse it.

    10

    Who then is able to stand against me? Who has a claim against me that I must pay?

    11

    Everything under heaven belongs to me.

    “I will not fail to speak of Leviathan’s limbs,

    12

    its strength and its graceful form. Who can strip off its outer coat? 13 Who can penetrate its double coat of armor ? Who dares open the doors of its mouth,

    14

    ringed about with fearsome teeth? Its back has [c] rows of shields 15 tightly sealed together; each is so close to the next 16 that no air can pass between. They are joined fast to one another;

    17

    they cling together and cannot be parted. Its snorting throws out flashes of light;

    18

    its eyes are like the rays of dawn. Flames stream from its mouth; 19 sparks of fire shoot out. Smoke pours from its nostrils 20 as from a boiling pot over burning reeds. Its breath sets coals ablaze, 21 and flames dart from its mouth. Strength resides in its neck; 22 dismay goes before it. The folds of its flesh are tightly joined;

    23

    they are firm and immovable. Its chest is hard as rock, 24 hard as a lower millstone. When it rises up, the mighty are terrified;

    25

    they retreat before its thrashing. The sword that reaches it has no effect,

    26

    nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin. Iron it treats like straw 27 and bronze like rotten wood. Arrows do not make it flee; 28 slingstones are like chaff to it. A club seems to it but a piece of straw;

    29

    it laughs at the rattling of the lance. Its undersides are jagged potsherds,

    30

    leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge. It makes the depths churn like a boiling caldron

    31

    and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment. It leaves a glistening wake behind it;

    32

    one would think the deep had white hair. Nothing on earth is its equal—33 a creature without fear. It looks down on all that are haughty;

    34

    it is king over all that are proud.
    test
  2. IAmBenT

    IAmBenT Eat a dick, faggot

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,356
    fascinating
    test
  3. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    [​IMG]
    bohemouth

    [​IMG]
    Leviathan
    test
  4. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    The Delk Print

    [​IMG]

    In 2008 strict creationist Carl Baugh announced on his Creation Evidence Museum (CEM) website that he was in the possession of a "pristine" human footprint overlapped by a theropod dinosaur track in Cretaceous rock. If such a find were genuine, it would conflict with extensive geologic and paleontologic evidence indicating that humans did not exist on earth until at least 60 million years after non-avian dinosaurs went extinct. Baugh's CEM report asserts that subsequent CT scans of the rock confirms the authenticity of the tracks and eliminates any possibility of carving or alteration. However, Baugh has a long history of unsupported claims about "out-of-place" human prints, including examples on loose slabs rock slabs (Kuban and Wilkerson, 1989) and others in the Paluxy riverbed . From what can be assessed based on the photos and sketchy information provided so far by the print advocates, the pattern appears to continue.

    The CEM website indicates that in July 2000, "amateur archaeologist" Alvis Delk, assisted by James Bishop, both of Stephenville Texas, discovered the eleven inch "human footprint intruded by the dinosaur track" while working in the Cretaceous Limestone "in the vicinity of McFall Site I and II Sites where the Creation Evidence Museum team has been working since 1982." These sites are located near Glen Rose, Texas, just west of Dinosaur Valley State Park, and less than a mile from Baugh's little museum.

    Some commentators have suggested that some of the reported circumstances of the find seem curious, asking why an experienced amateur archaeologist such as Delk would find something as wonderful as a dinosaur track on a loose rock, and yet not immediately clean it, or notice that it overlapped a human footprint almost as deep, until almost eight years later. Others have noted that his friend Bishop repeatedly expressed the expectation that their find would "change history" and "disprove Darwin's Theory," and questioned why Delk took the print to a man well known for promoting dubious human tracks instead of a reputable research facility. Finally, some questioned the timing of the incident--noting that this took place during a time when some strict creationists were pushing to receive more exposure of their views in Texas public schools.

    While these circumstantial issues are too speculative to be more than marginally relevant, they underscore a more central and scientific concern: the lack of in situ documentation, which leaves uncertain the exact location of the original track bed, and whether both prints and all their details were originally part of it. To date it has not even been clearly established that the rock is Cretaceous, let alone that it was part of a specific track bed near Glen Rose. David Lines, a long-time supporter of Baugh, suggests that print contains "a number of fossils commonly found in North Texas such as small sea shells and shell fish" and that this "lends credence to the stone's authenticity. However, to date he has presented no specifics (such as names and photos of the fossil species involved) to support this. And even if the stone were demonstrated to be Cretaceous, it would not demonstrate that the prints on it were genuine. In this regard, let us review the physical attributes of the prints themselves, which show a number of serious problems.

    Although Baugh seems to regard the "human" footprint on the Delk slab as an ideal specimen, a number of its features are so unrealistic that some have described it as cartoon-like. To be more specific, the hallux (big toe) of the "human" print is exceedingly deep compared to the rest of the print. The lesser toe depressions are on a plane considerably higher than the rest of the print, and jut out at an unnatural angle. The middle three toe marks are also unusually long (or overly separated from the ball area). Although elongated toe marks are sometimes seen in real prints, usually there is some indication of sliding or dragging that accounts for this, whereas indicators of such movement appear absent in the Delk print. The division between the toes and ball also seems unusually angular and sharp. There are some harsh angular features between the ball and heel. The instep (left) side of the print appears unnaturally straight. The heel appears overly square on the left side, insufficiently depressed compared to the rest of the print (the heel is normally one of the deepest areas). Also, the margin of the print lacks the "mud up-push" and other evidence of deformation usually seen on distinct prints

    Continuing his attempt to justify the odd features of the print, Juby states that "it would be far more convincing if it were a "perfect" track, so why the imperfection? It makes more sense that it is a legitimate, albeit strange, track." (Juby, 2008). However, Juby neglects some simpler and more plausible explanations. One is that a forger might simply lack the ability to create a natural looking footprint. Another is that a carver might start from one or more already existing depressions in a rock, such as the deep hole now seen as a "big toe" and perhaps the depression in the ball area, and/or an indistinct dinosaur track (notice that in Fig. 8 below, the scan slice at this level shows only such depressions). If this occurred, it would not be the first time. In the 1970's, Glen Rose resident Wayland "Slim" Adams, explained to a group of creationists how his uncle George Adams, who carved human tracks on loose blocks and sold them to tourists during the Great Depression, usually did start with existing (but not human) depressions. George's granddaughter recently confirmed this, as well as her grandfather's use of acid to blur chisel marks.(Kennedy, 2008)

    Juby finally remarks that "That footprint is completely human, there is no other creature that makes a footprint like a human." Here he neglects the fact that humans can make footprints with tools as well as their feet. He also doesn't mention that some creatures (including certain dinosaurs) are known to have sometimes left superficially human-like tracks, and that in some cases such tracks were selectively enhanced and/or misinterpreted as human footprints (Kuban, 2006) Juby also suggests that if the track was a perfect track, the skeptics would say "it's too perfect, it's obviously a carving...that's what they've argued before with other human tracks from the Paluxy!"(Juby, 2008). However, I've intensively studied the Paluxy tracks and associated "man track" controversy for many years, and to my knowledge no scientist has claimed that any alleged human print there was "too perfect" in the sense of being both distinct and natural looking. The only Paluxy-related tracks that show a complete set of distinct human features, such as the Burdick Print, show serious anatomic abnormalities (the Burdick track is also on a loose block of rock, and is generally accepted as one of George Adams' carvings, even by many creationists).
    test
  5. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    Attempting to counter the possibility of carving, Ian Juby remarks on his web site that "I find it very difficult to believe that a rock this friable could be carved without disintegrating. This friability is quite common in the main track-bearing layer of the Paluxy." However, not only could relatively crude depressions such as those on the Delk slab be created with modern mechanical tools, but the surface could have been made more coarse by either allowing it to weather naturally for a number of years, and/or weathered artificially with application of acid, as at least one known carver is known to have done. Incidentally, although Juby says that friability is quite common on the main track layer, actually what traditionally has been called the "main track layer" in the Paluxy (the one with almost all tracks in Dinosaur Valley State Park") is considerably smoother and less friable than the Delk slab (even where eroded, it typically shows a smoother surface than the Delk slab). The surfaces of the "McFall ledge" east of the park, where Baugh has done much of his work, is more coarse and friable, but it has a texture and color somewhat different from the Delk print, and in view of the considerations above, does nothing to detract from the possibility of carving.
    Juby also remarks, "To claim that portions of the tracks show no higher density and thus must have been carved is a ludicrous argument: Did the carver only carve portions of the tracks?" The answer is, yes; quite possibly, especially considering that an early carver in Glen Rose is known to have done just that. Carving from some starting depressions saves time, and giving the carver the benefit of the doubt, its possible that he saw a hole and indistinct depression that he thought was a human track, and "enhanced" it to make it clear and unmistakable.

    Juby further implies on his website that skepticism about alleged human tracks in ancient rock is due entirely to evolutionary bias (Juby, 2008). However, this is dispelled by the fact even major creationist groups such as the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and Answers in Genesis (AIG) have questioned or rejected previous Paluxy "man track" claims, and to my knowledge, none to date have endorsed the Delk specimen. Likewise, several internet blogs have been discussing the Delk find, and the large majority of contributors (including many laymen and creationists as well as mainstream scientists) are expressing strong skepticism about it. Many are calling it an obvious fake (or other terms to that effect), often pointing out the above-mentioned problems, and more. Not mincing words about the appearance of the "big toe," one blogger remarked that it "looks like it was formed with a tent pole." Even Delk's own daughter Kristi Delk, a geology major at Tarleton State University, expressed doubts about the find, stating, "I haven't come to terms with it...I am skeptical, actually."(May, 2008)

    Although both scientific and public opinion seems to be running heavily against the authenticity of the find, some of its supporters have remarked that it has not been "disproven." This reveals a basic misunderstandings about the scientific process. When extraordinary claims are made, the burden is on the claimants to properly support their assertions in a thoroughly detailed scientific report, not on skeptics to disprove them. Baugh has not come close to properly supporting his claims about the Delk print, nor any of the "over 80" human prints he claims to have documented in Cretaceous rock (Baugh, 2008). Even major creationist groups such as "Answers in Genesis" agree, and acknowledge that there has never been a compelling case of human remains or footprints in Mesozoic rock (Snelling, 1991). Second, science does not ultimately deal in absolute proof or disproof, but in varying degrees evidence for or against a concept or hypothesis. As the saying goes, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." In this case, the Delk Print advocates have fallen far short.

    David Lines suggests there is a "wall of silence" about the find from the academic community, and that they "can't argue against it, so they just hope it will go away" (Kennedy, 2008). However, his criticism rings hollow for a number of reasons. First, the find had only been made public days earlier, and was done so with only sketchy information. Second, most scientists can readily see the serious morphological problems with the Delk print, and are familiar with the massive evidence for an old earth, so they are probably not inclined to spend valuable time critiquing an obvious fake. This is not evidence of bias, but prudence and common sense. Third, besides me, a number of mainstream workers have addressed the print, including Hurd (2008), Darrell (2008), and Phillip Murray, a paleontologist at Tarelton State University in Stephenville (May, 2008). Ian Juby (who promotes the Delk track on a Youtube video as well as his website) cites anti-creationist prejudice from mainstream journals as the reason why creationists have not published a detailed scientific paper on the find. However, this does not explain why a report of comparable academic rigor hasn't been published even in the creationist press, although he promises that one is forthcoming.

    Baugh was quoted by May (2008a) as stating that he is "so confident in the authenticity of the specimen that he is ready to put his reputation entirely on the line." Not to worry. Considering that he has a reputation for promoting sensational and unsupported claims, I am confident that his reputation will remain intact with this latest find.
    test
  6. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    test
  7. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    test
  8. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    CH711: Behemoth a Dinosaur
    CH711.1: Leviathan as a dinosaur

    There is no evidence to support such a claim. Fantastic creatures appear in folklore from all times and places. There is no reason to believe that the ancient Hebrews would be different.

    The "tail like a cedar," which creationists think indicates a large dinosaur, is not even a real tail. "Tail" was used as a euphemism in the King James version. A more likely translation for the phrase is, "His penis stiffens like a cedar" (Mitchell 1987). The behemoth was probably a bull, and the cedar comparison referred to its virility.

    Leviathan appears also in Ugaritic texts, where it is described as a twisting serpent (echoing language from Isa. 27:1) with seven heads. It personifies the waters of the primeval chaos. The rousing of Leviathan in Job 3:8 implies an undoing of the process of creation (Day 1992).

    It has also been suggested that Leviathan was a crocodile or whale, but its multiple heads (referred to also in Ps. 74:14) make it clear that it is a fantastic creature, such as appear in folklore from all times and places.

    Leviathan is clearly described as a sea creature in the Bible. Parasaurolophus and Corythosaurus were terrestrial.

    The message of Job 41 is that part of nature is indomitable, that "no purpose of [God's] can be thwarted" (Job 42:2). That message would lose its meaning if Leviathan was an ordinary animal that humans would be able to kill. The larger message of Job is that God's ways cannot always be understood. That message is best served by leaving Leviathan mythical.
    test
  9. Ass Napkin Ed

    Ass Napkin Ed DC - 19th & Benning Rd

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2013
    Messages:
    1,654
    ofcourse more copy/paste
    try and shock us one day - alice
    test
  10. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Come on alice

    2180 zanab zaw-nawb' from 2179 (in the original sense of flapping); the tail (literally or figuratively):--tail.

    Zan-ab-zaw — (hebrew) tail

    Job 40:17 BIB: ץֹּ֣פְחַי ֹו֣בָנְזזֶרָ֑א ־ֹומְכ
    NAS: He bends his tail like a cedar;
    KJV: He moveth his tail like a cedar:
    INT: bends his tail like A cedar

    at least if youre not going to look into it yourself
    find a credible refutation.
    test
  11. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Or better yet find a more contemporary source.
    in 1987 it was assumed to have ment an oxen
    however modern and more knowledged sources
    have ceased the assumption and left more pf the original
    language which is what we see today and can clearly
    understand to be a dinosaur
    test
  12. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    I think it would be funny as all heck if 'tail' in these cases all meant 'penis'.
    test
  13. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    Jokes aside... nonetheless, the evidence does not support these creatures as being real. As in, Behemoth and Leviathan. They are myth. Saurapods and stegopods are real, sure.

    But there is no evidence to support that they are what the bible was referring to. After all, if you take this to be a stegosaurus:

    [​IMG]

    Then what the heck is this, carved only a few feet below:

    [​IMG]

    Besides, you can't come up with a few fanciful picures and case closed.

    There is so much archeological evidence you'd have to fight against. Sixty five million year difference is not easily dismissed.
    test
  14. Alias3000

    Alias3000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,181
    Now who denies that the Holy Bible is real?
    test
  15. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Its never going to be case closed..not even with say 65 milllion year aproximations ;)
    but in this case i think theres more than enough here to consider there may be more than meets the eye when it comes to the "prehistoric"
    test
  16. Ass Napkin Ed

    Ass Napkin Ed DC - 19th & Benning Rd

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2013
    Messages:
    1,654
    Hey - hows it going
    test
  17. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    Speculative carvings and cave painting and obviously fake footprints aren't really a case.
    test
  18. Alias3000

    Alias3000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,181
    @AliceHouse, you speak idiot piss.

    Only when it's convinient will Esau accept archeological findings as real.
    test
  19. Alias3000

    Alias3000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,181
    We were all taught in kindergarten that Dinosaurs were real so did our teachers lie to us? Did this Edomite educational system lie to us? Or are they actually telling the truth.

    Esau loves to mix truth with lies. favoring the lies.
    test
  20. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    What are you on about?
    test

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)