I personally don’t think Behemoth refers to a single identifiable animal. It’s more likely a generic term for any large, intimidating animal. Thus you see a mishmash of traits here – an elephant’s legs, a crocodile’s tail, and so on.
In any case, if it really is a sauropod dinosaur, why is it not described as having a long neck?
I don’t honestly know. But based on the weight of evidence suggesting that humans and dinosaurs were never on the earth together, my guess is that it was NOT a dinosaur. It will take more than Ica stone conjecture (that most young earth creationists reject) to outweigh the scientific evidence for me.
P. S. I will get back to your longer post addressed to me later.
@J.E.S, your insistence on getting hold of the wrong end of the stick leaves me speechless.
It’s not about money versus the truth, it’s about money and the truth. There are some times when making money depends on the truth. Oil exploration being one example.
I’m going to bow out of this thread now. It’s bearing more and more of a resemblance to the Monty Python dead parrot sketch with every post that passes. It is all getting rather too silly.
While I am leaning toward what James said, i would like to address the statement:
So it’s not about the truth then…it’s all about money…as I feared.
(Excuse not using the quote function, on my iPad where it doesn’t work)
It is very often about the money. All research costs and grants are given for projects with promise. Someone has to finance those projects, and if the big creationist group offered grants to look at this, you can bet there would be applicants for those grants. But those grants are not offered. Why? Surely no one is afraid of what the results would show? Many organizations are closed to debate and examination of their ideas, because they fear loss of donations and funding if proven wrong. I think that is one of the great strengths of Biologos and this forum, as there is an openness to discussion and examination in the iron sharpens iron tradition, feeling that truth will prevail.
Who benefits from the ongoing indeterminate status of these stone? Obviously, the locals who make the souvenir stones, the websites and organizations that get donations and ad money for stoking the fires, the tourist industry, the book sales etc.
It’s not about the credibility of the organizations, it’s about the credibility of the tests and their results. For example, what tests distinguish between natural and artificial oxidation?
Actually, I’m glad you all have said this. I had gotten a bad feeling about this thread a while back, and I do indeed think this is a good time to quit (it may even have been a good time to quit a while back). It is quite exhausting after a while to watch the unending tide of denial and illogical refutations that turn a deaf ear to explanation…
Dinosaurs have been a fun topic…maybe a bit too fun 
.
Since you agree, will close it down
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.