PDA

View Full Version : Godzilla, Book of Job


domenick2x
05-22-2008, 08:26 AM
I emailed the creator of www.dinosaursinthebible.com regarding the issue I've brought up about Ch 41, the breathing of the flames and whatnot.

He actually responded:

I need to update that part of my site - but yes,
like squids that can emit "ink", beetles that
emit fire (bombadier beetle), bugs that light up,
worms that regrow heads, I'm sure a dinosaur that
can emit flames is zero problem.

Interesting idea. I don't think there's any evidence that dinosaurs of any type breathed fire in any way, but I concede that Under God, it could be possible.

And maybe they burned each other to extinction. :)

LSU
05-22-2008, 08:37 AM
I emailed the creator of www.dinosaursinthebible.com regarding the issue I've brought up about Ch 41, the breathing of the flames and whatnot.

He actually responded:



Interesting idea. I don't think there's any evidence that dinosaurs of any type breathed fire in any way, but I concede that Under God, it could be possible.

And maybe they burned each other to extinction. :)

Yeah, bugs that light up, regeneration, and squid ink...all the equivalent to having a pilot light in your mouth.

domenick2x
05-22-2008, 08:47 AM
Yeah, bugs that light up, regeneration, and squid ink...all the equivalent to having a pilot light in your mouth.
Under God, all things are possible.

That's probably an actual verse from the Bible.


QED

LSU
05-22-2008, 08:55 AM
also...link to beetles emitting fire?

domenick2x
05-22-2008, 08:57 AM
also...link to beetles emitting fire?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle

Gish is mentioned in that, by the way.

domenick2x
05-22-2008, 09:02 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle

Gish is mentioned in that, by the way.
Check this out:

Some people's belief is that the bombardier beetle's defense, whether reflexive or not, shows God's purpose. But claiming to know the mind of God is a form of hubris. The Bible makes it clear (for example, Job 37:5, Eccl. 11:5, Is. 55:8) that we can't understand God's ways.

For many creationists, purpose leads to an inextricable contradiction. They say the beetle's defense mechanism was designed, but designed for what? They also say that death wasn't part of the original design, but came later with original sin [Morris, 1985, p. 211]. If the bombardier beetle's defense was part of the original creation, it had no purpose; if it came later, it wasn't designed. And the problem involves more than their defense mechanism. All bombardier beetles are predators, and are thus themselves agents of death. Even as larvae, they are predaceous; at least two species are ectoparasitoids of the pupae of other beetles, slowly devouring and ultimately killing their helpless hosts [Erwin, 1967]. Was that aspect of its life cycle designed with the rest of the beetle?


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

LSU
05-22-2008, 09:05 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle

Gish is mentioned in that, by the way.


I know, already read it. I see something about gas, sound, etc. Even chemical reactions.

Didn't see fire.



As for Gish, he lights up my life.

LSU
05-22-2008, 09:10 AM
Check this out:




http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html


For talk origins, was death not part of design for humans or all of life? That could be an interpretation or idea that would contradict the line of reasoning they're trying to put forth.

It also wouldn't preclude the creation of the beetle after death was introduced.

But here I thought death wasn't a punishment (for sin) but rather the path to the afterlife, which if you go to Heaven, is a good thing, and going to Hell would be the punishment of sin... not death.

Or is it that without death, you can't be punished for sin?

domenick2x
05-22-2008, 09:11 AM
I know, already read it. I see something about gas, sound, etc. Even chemical reactions.

Didn't see fire.



As for Gish, he lights up my life.
I think that for the blast, it could be equated with a burst of flame. I'd have to find some YouTube footage to confirm, and I don't have time for that right now.

LSU
05-22-2008, 09:13 AM
I think that for the blast, it could be equated with a burst of flame. I'd have to find some YouTube footage to confirm, and I don't have time for that right now.


Looking now.

LSU
05-22-2008, 09:16 AM
Looking now.


no flash, no fire. Perhaps a little smoke from the reaction. Just liquid it appears.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpJ3asv3XMY

But the conversation going on in the comments looks like it's pretty interesting.