Posted on 04/14/2009 8:36:29 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Dinosaur herd buried in Noah’s Flood in Inner Mongolia, China
by Tas Walker Published: 14 April 2009
An international team of scientists have uncovered graphic evidence of the deadly terror unleashed on a herd of dinosaurs as they were buried under sediment by the rising waters of Noah’s Flood in western Inner Mongolia (figure 1).[1]
Dinosaur bones were first discovered at the site, located at the base of a small hill in the Gobi Desert, in 1978 by a Chinese geologist. After about 20 years, a team of Chinese and Japanese scientists recovered the first skeletons, which they named Sinornithomimus, meaning “Chinese bird mimic”.
A few years later in 2001, the international team excavated the remains of more than 25 dinosaurs, creating a large quarry in the process as they as they followed the skeletons into the base of the hill. Remarkable excavation
As the team carefully mapped the location of the bones and strata that contained them (figure 2), it became clear that the dinosaurs were all within the same layer of mudstone (i.e. the same bedding plane), generally facing the same direction and remarkably well preserved.[2]...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Right. It is referring to another part of his anatomy and what happens when he gets excited!
Not at all: like the photographed fake "giant Man Track" carved in mud "found" by a YECer alongside the dinosaur tracks near Glen Rose, TX, the Chinese YECers also "found" a buried wooden sign*, stating, "Noah was here!"...
###</SARCASM>###
*NOTE" if in doubt, highlight between the "###s"...
16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.
Dinosaurs have navels?
na·vel
1 : a depression in the middle of the abdomen that marks the point of former attachment of the umbilical cord or yolk stalk 2 : the central point : middle
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/navel
No, the passage that you quote SAYS “His bones are tubes of bronze”! That is NOT a comparison, that is a statement of fact.
And we can infer that because of the VERY NEXT PHRASE being “his limbs like rods of iron”, which by inclusion of the word “like” become a simile.
Clearly, the Word of God says the first is an absolute statement - the beasts bones ARE made from bronze tubes, and that the second is comparison of the beast’s limbs to rods of iron (but not made of iron).
How can you state both are a comparison? The literal words as you quote do not support your conclusion at all.
Unless you mean the Bible is not inerrant in its words, and that sometimes it says one thing but means another?
Of course that would lead to the Bible being a metaphorical, geneological, and theological/philosophical book, and not a history book. And we all know that you simply won’t accept that viewpoint.
Here’s your conundrum - if the Bible is the literal, inerrant Word of God, then the behemoth MUST have had bones of bronze - no other conclusion is possible. Unless the Bible is not a literal, inerrant Word of God (like what the Muslims believe of the Qu’ran).
Why do Adam and Eve have belly buttons?
Wow - the bark doesnt even look like cedar - more like walnut or something
GGG,
You still have not addressed the fact that you have misquoted the bible inorder to make your point.
That's a hippopotamus, not a dinosaur.
If that were true, the would have found human remains in the mud strata ...
Yes, they would have found human remains in the form of T-Rex poop!
Noah’s flood? when did that happen?
Can you prove they had belly buttons? I don’t recall ever seeing picture of Adam and Eve.
Good one!
i don’t think that the navel is a characteristic of the reptile.
G-Cube, this is your weakest yet!
We are made in the image of God, correct? If you and I have belly buttons, then not only must all other people - who are made in the same image - but God must have a belly button, too!
I didn't bring up the cretaceous period. It was cited by the author. It has a specific meaning and is defined as lasting from 144 to 65 MYA.
The Bible has been used to calculate the various Biblical ages. Noah is generally considered to have lived 6000 to 10000 years ago.
This is not an "evo" position. Geological periods are geology, not biology.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.