Do you believe.....

[heartstrings]

That "behemoth" is just a KJV glitch, perhaps if you used a modern version it would have more clearly translated that word from the manuscripts and you would know it is a dinosaur! :ideas:

Thanks but, no thanks. :Green

[Revelation3:20]

h really? And they can tell from reading the description in Job that this was without a doubt a dinosaur? Did they actually see this Behemoth? The Book of Job describes a big animal with "stones"(testicles) and a navel which likes to lay in the shade near the water but they can tell trom reading this passage that this was certainly a dinosaur and then present it as fact that when in reality NONE of us know for sure what this creature was. By all means, please teach creation but get the facts straight and teach the truth. And please don't anyone say I'm pushing for evolution because you also won't be getting your facts straight. Be honest with yourself, do you KNOW what this creature was? Do you really believe in your heart without a shadow of a doubt that this animal was a dinosaur. I can tell you I believe the BIble is true.....but I don't know for sure what the Behemoth was.

We do not know beyond all doubt that behemoth was a dinosaur but we can easily see that it does not fit any animal living today. I wouldn't be to worried about this behemoth having a navel proving it wasn't a dinosaur though. Even animals that hatch out of an egg are born with a bit of an umbilical scar for one thing. For another thing when the verse says "his force is in the navel of his belly" I think it is a safe assumption to say that it is speaking of "navel" as a general region of anatomy rather than a "belly button" in particular. There are not many muscles in a scar. I wouldn't worry about the "stones" either since it says "the sinews of his stones are wrapped together" and that could easily be speaking of what we would expect in a dinosaur. That part would not make sense in any large mammal I can think of but would fit well with dinosaurs or other reptiles. Not to be gross but the "stones" of reptiles are all wrapped up and that isn't the case in all but a handful of mammals.

[bookworm]

The notion of a ?Vapor Canopy? based on Genesis is contradicted in the same chapter in which it appears. Check out this discrepancy and a lot of other biblical misconceptions in

www.eloquentbooks.com/ManAndHisPlanet.html

[Alimantado]

If terrestrial dinosaurs survived the flood' date=' shouldn't [b']marine reptiles have doen so as well?

Because few large creatures live in the open ocean, I'd imagine that most of the species you've listed belonged in the coastal zone or might even have lived in brackish water. I'd expect a big flood to do almost as much damage to coastal communities as terrestrial ones. Habitats and communities don't reset themselves overnight. A flood that buried a coastal habitat--like a reef or something--under another 1000m of water would likely destroy it. Some species adapt well to scavenging and some don't, so neither would I expect all those sea creatures to just swim further inland and live happily of the remains of land creatures.

All communities of flora and fauna are sensitive to sudden environmental changes. I doubt it would be 'business as usual' underwater during a huge global flood.

[heartstrings]

Because few large creatures live in the open ocean, I'd imagine that most of the species you've listed belonged in the coastal zone or might even have lived in brackish water. I'd expect a big flood to do almost as much damage to coastal communities as terrestrial ones. Habitats and communities don't reset themselves overnight. A flood that buried a coastal habitat--like a reef or something--under another 1000m of water would likely destroy it. Some species adapt well to scavenging and some don't, so neither would I expect all those sea creatures to just swim further inland and live happily of the remains of land creatures.

All communities of flora and fauna are sensitive to sudden environmental changes. I doubt it would be 'business as usual' underwater during a huge global flood.

The largest creature known to have ever lived, is entirely marine and breathes air.
All of the other whales do the same and, as a matter of fact, some of these cetaceans live in fresh water.

[Alimantado]

Yip. There are few pelagic large animals; tuna, sharks and whales are amongst those few. Your point? :smile

[heartstrings]

Yip. There are few pelagic large animals; tuna' date=' sharks and whales are amongst those few. Your point? :smile[/quote']

source: "wikipedia"

The point was; since large marine AND fresh water species of air breathing creatures survived the flood, why would marine reptiles not have done so as well? Which goes back to my original point: If dinos were on Noah's ark, where are they? And wouldn't you say that 90 species is not a few?

[Alimantado]

Hi Candlelight,

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. Regarding the aquatic mammals: no I don't think 90 species is a lot, onsidering most of those species wil probably be coastal.

Anyway, that's getting away from your question, which is a very good one.