Author Topic: Behemoth?  (Read 1704 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Behemoth?
« Reply #29 on: August 20, 2013, 01:28:16 PM »
The thing is, can we be sure of that? Because there's also the entirely different topic of the age of the earth. I'd encourage all of us to look up the young earth theory as well as conventional theories of the planets age. It might be an eye opener into what creation scientists think of the geology of the earth, as well as their viewpoint on wildlife and nature

Ugh, no thank you! While it's a different topic there is no evidence to support a "young earth theory".

How about the discovery at the time of the aftermath of the eruption of Mount St. Helens that, contrary to previous ideas about how fine layers of sediment were made, and in what length of time they were formed, showed that within even an hour, distinguishable layers of sediment were made by 8 meters of ash.

It just illustrates that some geological processes can take much less time than we think, and therefore, it becomes less certain of how long these things take, and therefore, the age of the earth is more uncertain.

Ah the underwear gnomes style of theism:

(1)Find one thing that science is unclear on
(2) Shrug
(3) Declare that Young Earth Creation and the Bible is true


Little bits of evidence like the Grand Canyon having a meandering oxbow style river. Something that cannot happened naturally in a short period of time.

Just one of thousands of sceintific facts YEC has to ignore.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6366
  • Darwins +749/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Behemoth?
« Reply #30 on: August 20, 2013, 01:28:53 PM »
How about the discovery at the time of the aftermath of the eruption of Mount St. Helens that, contrary to previous ideas about how fine layers of sediment were made, and in what length of time they were formed, showed that within even an hour, distinguishable layers of sediment were made by 8 meters of ash.

It just illustrates that some geological processes can take much less time than we think, and therefore, it becomes less certain of how long these things take, and therefore, the age of the earth is more uncertain.

If you are thinking that one example, an example of one type of geologic force, is adequate to explain all geology, all time, all findings, then you're doing it wrong. If all layered rock was made up of volcanic ash, you might have a point. But layered rocks have formed for a variety of reasons, out of a variety of materials, and not all of them can be so easily explained away as being virtually instant.

In your defense, you did use the word "some". But you have to keep that fact in mind. Some forces are not all forces, some circumstances are not all circumstances, some findings are not all findings. And when many other discoveries point to long periods of time and impossible to humanly comprehend lengths of time, you sort of need to consider those too.

In other words, you need to know enough about the subject to be qualified to complain. Otherwise you are falling for silly interpretations by silly people. People who are hoping they are right, because their whole view of reality depends on it. Not the greatest sources for truth, as far as I can tell.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1797
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Behemoth?
« Reply #31 on: August 20, 2013, 01:50:30 PM »

How about the discovery at the time of the aftermath of the eruption of Mount St. Helens that, contrary to previous ideas about how fine layers of sediment were made, and in what length of time they were formed, showed that within even an hour, distinguishable layers of sediment were made by 8 meters of ash.

It just illustrates that some geological processes can take much less time than we think, and therefore, it becomes less certain of how long these things take, and therefore, the age of the earth is more uncertain.

As ParkingPlaces and others have pointed out, there simply is no credible evidence of the Earth being less than multiple billions of years old. On this thread (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25262.0.html) there was a recent discussion on dating methods and their applications.

Bottom line: the age of the Earth is not up for debate, save for those who are so bound to their religious faith that they can't stand the idea it might be wrong.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1968
  • Darwins +355/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Behemoth?
« Reply #32 on: August 20, 2013, 02:55:36 PM »
It just illustrates that some geological processes can take much less time than we think, and therefore, it becomes less certain of how long these things take, and therefore, the age of the earth is more uncertain.
Yes, there is a level of uncertainty with regards to the age of the Earth.

That uncertainty is 1%, derived from the expected uncertainty values of measurements taken from multiple, convergent lines of evidence that point to the Earth being 4.54 billion years old.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline relativetruth

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 607
  • Darwins +9/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Behemoth?
« Reply #33 on: August 20, 2013, 05:35:11 PM »
It just illustrates that some geological processes can take much less time than we think, and therefore, it becomes less certain of how long these things take, and therefore, the age of the earth is more uncertain.
Yes, there is a level of uncertainty with regards to the age of the Earth.

That uncertainty is 1%, derived from the expected uncertainty values of measurements taken from multiple, convergent lines of evidence that point to the Earth being 4.54 billion years old.

Based on the above what level of uncertainty would you give that the Earth is > 10,000 years?
God(s) exist and are imaginary

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10337
  • Darwins +180/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Behemoth?
« Reply #34 on: August 20, 2013, 06:28:13 PM »
So why not give us the bottom line Robob.  Are you trying to say the young earthers are right?  All the space exploration we have done and how old the universe appears to be and you still want the Earth to be under 10,000 years old.  I think I have stains in my underwear older than that.
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline Robob 123

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Behemoth?
« Reply #35 on: August 21, 2013, 03:58:19 AM »
Hi all I was attempting to say was that there pieces of evidence that could point to a younger earth, and if we had nothing to lose we could always investigate the claims
But of course, there is also loads of evidence that can be interpreted to support the much older earth.
Anyways, just to finish, of course I need to look more into all this stuff, much more than I already have, and then weigh up all these things you guys have told me. Thanks, and I'll leave you with this link for you guys just to talk about what this scientist has said.i know it's off a Christian site, but it doesn't mean it's an unnessecary challenge to the effectiveness of various dating methods. (You could scroll down past the carbon dating to get to the bit you're more likely to want.

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

Thank you for your thoughts and challenging my views! Sorry if I didn't try to answer you questions, but I thought I would just provide one of the roots of the concern with this. You've definitely given me stuff to read and think about.


Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Behemoth?
« Reply #36 on: August 21, 2013, 07:27:58 AM »
Hi all I was attempting to say was that there pieces of evidence that could point to a younger earth, and if we had nothing to lose we could always investigate the claims
But of course, there is also loads of evidence that can be interpreted to support the much older earth.
Anyways, just to finish, of course I need to look more into all this stuff, much more than I already have, and then weigh up all these things you guys have told me. Thanks, and I'll leave you with this link for you guys just to talk about what this scientist has said.i know it's off a Christian site, but it doesn't mean it's an unnessecary challenge to the effectiveness of various dating methods. (You could scroll down past the carbon dating to get to the bit you're more likely to want.

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

Thank you for your thoughts and challenging my views! Sorry if I didn't try to answer you questions, but I thought I would just provide one of the roots of the concern with this. You've definitely given me stuff to read and think about.

When you turn to Christian answer, you are coosing to look at a source that is only looking for evidence that supports them, not like a scientist would which looks at evidence, then draws conclusions.

A recent example would be the drilled shells found in a row....a beaded trinket. However hard science evidence shows them to be 100,000 years old. Previously the oldest know decorative object was 40,000 years old. This find rewrites all previous notions of how human may have behaved and thought that long ago.

You find evidence that invalidates your theory, you modify the theory. That's it. That simple, no conspiracy of conformity. No suppression.

At one point there was Ether theory. Considered very scientific, as some evidence seemed to support it. Further evidence and investigation showed it to be false, not even modifiable, but downright useless. Scientists NO LONGER INVESTIGATE IT. They use their efforts, time and money, on theories that have not been disproven.

Your statement "that there pieces of evidence that could point to a younger earth, and if we had nothing to lose we could always investigate the claims" has all the merit of someone stating why aren't scientists still persuing the evidence for Ether theory.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline neopagan

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1161
  • Darwins +86/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Behemoth?
« Reply #37 on: August 21, 2013, 07:33:54 AM »
Hi all I was attempting to say was that there pieces of evidence that could point to a younger earth, and if we had nothing to lose we could always investigate the claims

No, you started a thread about a Behemoth (now commonly known as the red herring) and quickly diverted that conversation into YEC and now drive off into the sunset. We have nothing to lose here, do you?

Quote
But of course, there is also loads of evidence that can be interpreted to support the much older earth.

Are you saying it can be interpreted that way, but the truth is YEC, which can be interpreted as lunacy by nine out of ten 12 year olds?  Because no one who could pick out an obscure reference to a mythical beast in the mythical story of Job could be that silly, right?

Quote
Anyways, just to finish, of course I need to look more into all this stuff, much more than I already have, and then weigh up all these things you guys have told me. Thanks, and I'll leave you with this link for you guys just to talk about what this scientist has said.

And now we get the obligatory Ken Ham (aka "this scientist") article to back up your stance. Classic. Sorry I wasted my time with this and with your PM. Your were here to crap a Chick tract on us.

By the way, your hero "scientist" was none too happy recently when an atheist supposedly did not practice full disclosure when he visited the Creation Museum and Ken promptly went all Romans 1 on him.  Ken doesn't take his views being challenged very well, being an open-minded truth-seeker like he is...   Here is  a link you can probably not be bothered to follow and read it in "weigh up all these things" Ken's own words:

http://www.debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2013/08/my-response-to-ken-ham-about-my.html

Robob, jeezus is not happy with your lies. Even scientist Ken said it. Adios!
« Last Edit: August 21, 2013, 07:36:53 AM by neopagan »
If xian hell really exists, the stench of the burning billions of us should be a constant, putrid reminder to the handful of heavenward xians how loving your god is.  - neopagan

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +658/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Behemoth?
« Reply #38 on: August 21, 2013, 08:53:23 AM »
I'll leave you with this link for you guys just to talk about what this scientist has said....
http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

Dr Batten, who supposedly wrote the article, is a horticulturist, not a geologist, not an evolutionary biologist.  In short, not an expert in the subject of which he wrote.
http://creation.com/dr-don-batten

 
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline neopagan

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1161
  • Darwins +86/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Behemoth?
« Reply #39 on: August 21, 2013, 09:05:59 AM »
I'll leave you with this link for you guys just to talk about what this scientist has said....
http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

Dr Batten, who supposedly wrote the article, is a horticulturist, not a geologist, not an evolutionary biologist.  In short, not an expert in the subject of which he wrote.
http://creation.com/dr-don-batten

Worse than that... Dr Batten "edited" it - author was Ken Ham and his fellow Creation Ministries cronies.  Ken has a BS in Applied Science (Biology), according to his own website.  Not that it matters - Ken could have the whole alphabet after his name and it doesn't change the fact he starts with a premise and goes about organizing his data to fit that premise, ergo flawed output. 
« Last Edit: August 21, 2013, 09:09:34 AM by neopagan »
If xian hell really exists, the stench of the burning billions of us should be a constant, putrid reminder to the handful of heavenward xians how loving your god is.  - neopagan

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4845
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Behemoth?
« Reply #40 on: August 21, 2013, 09:48:10 AM »
I don't think we can count the Behemoth or the Leviathan written about in Job as being any more accurate than anything else written about without corroboration from other sources.  I mean, Homer wrote about one-eyed giants called Cyclops, the Loto-phagi, Scylla and Charybdis, and quite a few other mythological beasts, yet we've never actually found any evidence to back up any of those assertions.  So why should assume Job is accurate simply because it describes something that sort of vaguely resembles a dinosaur if you look at it the right way?

As for the fact that some geological processes can take less time that expected; so what?  The weight of evidence is so heavily against the Young Earth Hypothesis that simply pointing to a geological process or three that don't always work as expected doesn't make it any more plausible as an explanation.  You would have to find a lot of stuff that couldn't be explained by the current hypothesis and that could be explained by the YEH for it to become a scientific explanation.

Offline hickdive

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 917
  • Darwins +32/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Behemoth?
« Reply #41 on: August 21, 2013, 09:52:51 AM »

I considered those three, but then the description of the tail being like a cedar tree doesn't make sense for those three animals.

I'm not out to prove anything, it just seems interesting, as well as the part of the scripture mentioning a leviathan. It's just a possibility that dinosaurs and animals we have today existed in parallel.  :)

Whereas the bones being tubes of bronze is exactly like a dinosaur?

Why dismiss the possibilty of those three mammals because their tails don't fit the description but leap to the conclusion that the passage refers to a dinosaur even though another part of the description doesn't fit a dinosaur or indeed any creature, ever.

It's a good job you're not out to prove anything.
Stupidity, unlike intelligence, has no limits.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +658/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Behemoth?
« Reply #42 on: August 21, 2013, 11:40:40 AM »
Worse than that... Dr Batten "edited" it - author was Ken Ham and his fellow Creation Ministries cronies.

I skipped them since there were no letters indicating any credibility.

Wieland was a medical doctor, making him completely unqualified to talk about any of this.  Not a scientist.
Sarfati is a PhD in chemistry, and should know better about at least some of what is written there.  But by and large, also not an expert in the field of which he writes.
Ham is just a fucking idiot.

Most of their references are back to AIG articles and books. 

So the whole article is a joke.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline neopagan

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1161
  • Darwins +86/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Behemoth?
« Reply #43 on: August 21, 2013, 11:52:07 AM »
In my fundie days, I read some of Ken's Ham-handed books and srticles on his website. It was all in an effort to give the YEC stuff I kept hearing in church a fair review.  I concluded back then he was, as Screw said, a fucking idiot...  He should be an embarrassment to most theists
« Last Edit: August 21, 2013, 11:54:13 AM by neopagan »
If xian hell really exists, the stench of the burning billions of us should be a constant, putrid reminder to the handful of heavenward xians how loving your god is.  - neopagan

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +658/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Behemoth?
« Reply #44 on: August 21, 2013, 12:04:40 PM »
Kent Hovind too.  I read his "doctoral dissertation" on evolution.  It's like a 6th grader's book report, only longer.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind's_doctoral_dissertation

the actual document:
http://rationalia.com/gawdzilla/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline neopagan

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1161
  • Darwins +86/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Behemoth?
« Reply #45 on: August 21, 2013, 01:20:11 PM »
^^^^  Unholy shit...!  I read about ten pages in and I could not take any more.  I could feel brain cells giving up and dying.  That may have been called a doctoral dissertation, but it could have been called a caramel sundae with equal validity - it could not be identified as either.

You are a brave man to have read through all of that drivel and lived to tell.
If xian hell really exists, the stench of the burning billions of us should be a constant, putrid reminder to the handful of heavenward xians how loving your god is.  - neopagan

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5665
  • Darwins +49/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Behemoth?
« Reply #46 on: August 21, 2013, 01:43:03 PM »
When do you expect when you go to "college" in a trailer park home?!?

I mean, nothing wrong with trailer parks, but that's probably the last place where a respected university would be found. Here's where Hovind got his "PhD"

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/File:PatriotUniversity2.jpg
« Last Edit: August 21, 2013, 01:45:34 PM by Emily »
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline neopagan

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1161
  • Darwins +86/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Behemoth?
« Reply #47 on: August 21, 2013, 02:17:41 PM »
In 1991, when Hovind was doing his rigorous academic work, the place must have been a dirt soddy (Oklahoma term)
If xian hell really exists, the stench of the burning billions of us should be a constant, putrid reminder to the handful of heavenward xians how loving your god is.  - neopagan

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Behemoth?
« Reply #48 on: August 21, 2013, 02:47:09 PM »
Indeed it does.  I personally have always found it interesting that YECs will often trumpet that this passage "proves" that man existed alongside dinosaurs, but they are always very, very careful to ignore the next creature discussed in Job, immediately after the behemoth.

Job 41:12-34 NIV
Quote
12 “I will not fail to speak of Leviathan’s limbs,
    its strength and its graceful form.
13 Who can strip off its outer coat?
    Who can penetrate its double coat of armor?
14 Who dares open the doors of its mouth,
    ringed about with fearsome teeth?
15 Its back has[c] rows of shields
    tightly sealed together;
16 each is so close to the next
    that no air can pass between.
17 They are joined fast to one another;
    they cling together and cannot be parted.
18 Its snorting throws out flashes of light;
    its eyes are like the rays of dawn.
19 Flames stream from its mouth;
    sparks of fire shoot out.
20 Smoke pours from its nostrils
    as from a boiling pot over burning reeds.
21 Its breath sets coals ablaze,
    and flames dart from its mouth.

22 Strength resides in its neck;
    dismay goes before it.
23 The folds of its flesh are tightly joined;
    they are firm and immovable.
24 Its chest is hard as rock,
    hard as a lower millstone.
25 When it rises up, the mighty are terrified;
    they retreat before its thrashing.
26 The sword that reaches it has no effect,
    nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin.
27 Iron it treats like straw
    and bronze like rotten wood.
28 Arrows do not make it flee;
    slingstones are like chaff to it.
29 A club seems to it but a piece of straw;
    it laughs at the rattling of the lance.
30 Its undersides are jagged potsherds,
    leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge.
31 It makes the depths churn like a boiling caldron
    and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment.
32 It leaves a glistening wake behind it;
    one would think the deep had white hair.
33 Nothing on earth is its equal—
    a creature without fear.
34 It looks down on all that are haughty;
    it is king over all that are proud.”

{bold mine}

If apologists are to insist that the first creature discussed is referencing an actual historical beast, then they would also seem obliged to say the same thing about the second creature, and yet they never seem to do so.  Can't imagine why not.  *cough*

I have spoken with various creationists like Ferrell Jenkins http://biblicalstudies.info/ and Don Patton http://www.bible.ca/tracks/ask-creationist.htm and they claim that this creature is in fact a dinosaur/dragon. They have gone as far as saying that some dinosaurs were fire-breathers and they use this passage as well as cave drawings of dragons and the like to back that assertion.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2013, 03:05:49 PM by Truth OT »

Offline neopagan

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1161
  • Darwins +86/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Behemoth?
« Reply #49 on: August 21, 2013, 02:57:32 PM »
The Creation Museum loves dragons; it is flying spaghetti monsters they can't be bothered with
If xian hell really exists, the stench of the burning billions of us should be a constant, putrid reminder to the handful of heavenward xians how loving your god is.  - neopagan

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10337
  • Darwins +180/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Behemoth?
« Reply #50 on: August 21, 2013, 03:51:30 PM »
The Creation Museum loves dragons; it is flying spaghetti monsters they can't be bothered with
That makes the FSM sad and wet his noodle appendages.
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 784
  • Darwins +53/-14
Re: Behemoth?
« Reply #51 on: August 23, 2013, 02:59:04 PM »
The thing is, can we be sure of that? Because there's also the entirely different topic of the age of the earth. I'd encourage all of us to look up the young earth theory as well as conventional theories of the planets age. It might be an eye opener into what creation scientists think of the geology of the earth, as well as their viewpoint on wildlife and nature

Ugh, no thank you! While it's a different topic there is no evidence to support a "young earth theory".

How about the discovery at the time of the aftermath of the eruption of Mount St. Helens that, contrary to previous ideas about how fine layers of sediment were made, and in what length of time they were formed, showed that within even an hour, distinguishable layers of sediment were made by 8 meters of ash.

It just illustrates that some geological processes can take much less time than we think, and therefore, it becomes less certain of how long these things take, and therefore, the age of the earth is more uncertain.


As I understand it,  That 8 meter plume of ash probably fell in a relatively short period of time.  sedimentary rock shows layers that vary in material makeup with the seasons.  each layer has varying levels of granularity and quantities of organic material.  showing the beginning of  a season.  One giant lump of volcanic ash would easily be seen as a single event even if it was meters thick.


You can even tell if it was multiple back to back volcanic events because fine dust would pile up at the end of the event with heavier bigger particles landing first. 
« Last Edit: August 23, 2013, 03:03:42 PM by epidemic »

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6366
  • Darwins +749/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Behemoth?
« Reply #52 on: August 23, 2013, 03:30:07 PM »
Mt. St. Helens ash is a simple story, about something that happened very quickly. Not all geology is that convenient for fundy's, though. I arbitrarily picked this Wikipedia article on the Marcellus formation in the eastern US to demonstrate how complex most geology is. If a fundamentalist can read this and tell me how it could have happened in even 5,500 years (prior to Europeans showing up and finding that it was clearly made just for them  >:(), I'd like to know how.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcellus_Formation

I could have chosen from any of hundreds of geologic formations as examples. I'm trying to keep it simple. However, geology isn't simple. Even the Mt. St. Helens ash will take its place in the geologic history of that region, along with hundreds of other major geologic events in that area.

Time is not on the side of the fundamentalist argument. Because they have no idea how to measure it. In fact, the only thing they can measure is sin, which they consider infinite. Cheaters.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline neopagan

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1161
  • Darwins +86/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Behemoth?
« Reply #53 on: August 23, 2013, 03:37:57 PM »
I suspect Robob 123 has gone the way of the dinosaurs. He spouted what he had and moved on...
If xian hell really exists, the stench of the burning billions of us should be a constant, putrid reminder to the handful of heavenward xians how loving your god is.  - neopagan

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10337
  • Darwins +180/-8
  • Gender: Male
Re: Behemoth?
« Reply #54 on: August 23, 2013, 04:01:22 PM »
Or he climbed the bean stock and found what he was talking about.
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline neopagan

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1161
  • Darwins +86/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Behemoth?
« Reply #55 on: August 23, 2013, 04:14:21 PM »
long time members here have an amazing capacity for patiently putting up with astonishingly inane drivel from the followers of the all knowing almighty...  if I wore a hat, it would be off to you
If xian hell really exists, the stench of the burning billions of us should be a constant, putrid reminder to the handful of heavenward xians how loving your god is.  - neopagan

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12059
  • Darwins +308/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Behemoth?
« Reply #56 on: August 23, 2013, 06:05:21 PM »
long time members here have an amazing capacity for patiently putting up with astonishingly inane drivel from the followers of the all knowing almighty...  if I wore a hat, it would be off to you

I think I'm a long-term member (going on 6 years from the original website) and I have no patience at all.

;)

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey