I was tagged about Karl Keating on Behemoth

Here is first the link to his article:

Catholic Answers : Was Job's Behemoth a Dinosaur?
Karl Keating
May 25, 2015
http://www.catholic.com/blog/karl-keating/was-jobs-behemoth-a-dinosaur

Here are my answers under the link, on Catholic Creation Alliance, with appropriate quotes:

Karl Keating's article:

"We are told that Behemoth “finds shade in the marsh.” According to Wikipedia, marshes “are often dominated by grasses, rushes, or reeds. If woody plants are present they tend to be low-growing shrubs. This form of vegetation is what differentiates marshes from other types of wetland such as swamps, which are dominated by trees.”

"So marshes are characterized by short plants. According to Wikipedia, the titanosaur was up to 130 feet long (not up to 200 feet long, as the Kolbe Center article suggests) and as much as 24 feet tall at the arch of the back. How could an animal that big “find shade” among plants that were only waist-high to a man? (Please, no jokes about elephants hiding in strawberry patches.)"

Hans Georg's answers:

Sauropod kind of which Titanosaur is one of the largest (it would seem sauropods qualifying as Mokele Mbembe are smaller) might have included size varieties incapable of finding shade in a marsh before the flood, or even not so, if plants were huger (we have seen huge fossil ferns, haven't we. This does not mean that those surviving after flood need also have been that large.

Also, finding shade in the marsh may refer rather to finding it in muddy waters than finding it under plants. But Mokele Mbembe seems to be right size for finding it under mangrove trees too.

Karl Keating's article:

"Then there is the remark that Behemoth “is not frightened by the Jordan River rushing into his mouth.” I can see how this might be true of a hippo, but it hardly sounds like a useful description of a titanosaur."

Hans Georg's answers:

Once again, Behemoths come in different sizes.

The remark on "largest among God's ways" may refer to Titanosaur size, the remark on not frightened by the Jordan River rushing into its mouth, if at all referring to opening the mouth while bathing in it as it could also refer to a comparable size between Jordan river and mouth, may refer to smaller specimens.

Karl Keating's article:

"The water moves so slowly that a child can stand in the shallows without danger of being knocked over. No titanosaur would be “frightened” by the water’s speed."

Hans Georg's answers:

Could refer to fright of water amount - Behemoths could [if so] not be waterboarded by a Jordan River sized influx.

Karl Keating's article:

"The Kolbe Center article says that the description in the book of Job is sufficient for us to “confidently identify” Behemoth as a titanosaur."

Hans Georg's answers:

Here I disagree with Kolbe centre. I think Behemoth means a kind, like dog. Titanosaur would be a breed, like Great Dane.

I think Kent Hovind would have done a better job (excuse pun, please!) than Kolbe Centre arguing the point.

Karl Keating's article:

"There are two things we can say “confidently” about this article, though:"

Hans Georg's answers:

If you care to put your confidence in vanities.

Karl Keating's article:

"it demonstrates that the Behemoth, whatever it was, wasn’t a dinosaur,"

Hans Georg's answers:

False, bungling a demonstration that it was a dinosaur doesn't amount to inadvertently proving it wasn't.

Karl Keating's article:

"and it does a disservice to the Church by promoting a preposterous argument."

Hans Georg's answers:

Keating does a disservice to the Church and to truth by being so very preoccupied with what is "preposterous" in the sight of secularists, or even in his own view, since he probably shares their ridicule for it.

Disservice to the Church is putting it very mildly.

I think that attitude was how Pharisees, preoccupied with what Pilate would consider preposterous, as well as Huigh Priests, started attacking Christ over feeling He was "doing a disservice to Qahal Israel".

Note:

I haven't read the article by Kolbe Centre, it may be less bad than the purported refutation with provided quotes and citations made it appear.

Here is their article:

Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation : Historical Evidence for Dinosaur and Human Co-existence
http://kolbecenter.org/historical-evidence-for-dinosaur-and-human-co-existence/

Here are their advisers, I have a suspicion "admin" might mean software architect, i e Robert Bennett (two T!) and I feel a certain sadness that they seem to need a psychiatrist among advisers as well:

Kolbe Center Advisors
http://kolbecenter.org/contact-us/special-creation-advisors/

PS, I had an exchange with Hugh Owen on Kolbe Center for Study of Creation, and before going into details, I must first say the essay (by an anonymised young man, possibly making his first publishing) was far better in general than as to the blunder of verbally in one sentence identifying Behemoth with Titanosaurus rather than with Sauropods in general. It's an amazing piece of art studies compared to palaeontological art. I think I will have to share this with my favourite palaeontological artist Nobu Tamura./HGL