HOME | DD
Kairu-Hakubi — A Boy and His Behemoth
Published: 2007-09-26 02:13:34 +0000 UTC; Views: 1334; Favourites: 12; Downloads: 17
Redirect to original
Description
This behemoth is mighty, yes, but more or less domesticated. They're really not that fearsome if you're nice to them. As long as your land has lots of very very tall grass, you're in good shape
Tip: do not try to attach reins to your behemoth. That wouldn't work very well.
Related content
Comments: 44
Man, the memories this comments section brings back - been a long time since we talked, huh?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeesh.... I was a dick to you, huh? I would like to formally apologize about it all - I could have worded my arguments better.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Aw no problem. It was more a lack of reading what I said that was frustrating.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I still stand by my beliefs, though I could have worded it better.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I like how people have a problem with dinosaurs and grass living together while there's a -human- in the picture.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
And I also like that the guy just assumes out of nowhere that you're a creationist, even though there's absolutely no evidence to back up that claim
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, well that's okay then
But there's nothing in the actual drawing or it's description that says you're a creationist
It seems like the guy saw a picture of a dinosaur and a human living together, and just straight up assumed you were an ignorant Young Earther
also I think it's weird that he went on and on about how the grass, of all things, was the most preposterous thing in the drawing
he was clearly just being a troll for no good reason, and expected you to just go along with his bullying, which you bravely did not
which still makes you a hero in my book
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What, you mean the Kreaturez guy? yeah I found it weird he fixated on the grass.
And it's weird when people wanna get on arguments on DA, innit? It's not like any of us will ever convince each other of anything.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am in total agreement with you on that regard, even if we don't share the same religious views (I'm an atheist btw, which made me particularly appalled at the way Tyrantis Terror treated you)
Trolling people on the internet is just stupid
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
also the bible never said navel. nice misquote.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
For the sake of your sanity, do not associate with DrKaleidoscope. He's a dangerous individual and a petty troll.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think he's just a kid. His heart seems to be in the right place. Some people just aren't good at behaving online, and considering their surroundings it's not exactly a mystery.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, he isn't: he drove another deviant off of this site, telling him that he hoped that the deviant got "raped to death". He's a dangerous individual.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Let he who has no embarrassing online posts cast the first flame.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Don't stand beneath the behemoth! Especially if you don't want an unexpected golden shower!!
Very nice.. different from the behemoths I've seen the the Final Fantasy series.. nice change of pace for once!
(Its like if you have the belief all dragons you see are evil.. then you see a pure hearted one... 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What's behemoth look like in final fantasy?
I'm not sure if dinosaurs urinate separate liquid or if it all comes out in a gooey chalky mass like birds and lizards and turtles.. hmm.. curious..
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I can't seem to find a good picture of the FFX behemoth... maybe I can take a crude screenshot sometime and show you..
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I just wanted a vague description XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Um.. description... purple... huge black horns... red mane... huge tail... in fact the whole thing is huge...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Kay.. and what kind of animal is it? a huge purple BIRD with black horns, red mane, and huge tail? a huge purple STARFISH with black horns, red mane, and huge tail? what? XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hmm..
More like... I dunno...
Some kind of huge suped-up tiger/lion on steriods with a tail that looks like the shape of a lizard's?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his thighs are wrapped together.
His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
^Sounds more like something mammalian to me... Sauropods hatch from eggs and wouldn't have a navel. They don't eat grass either.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
good point, grass hadnt evolved for awhile. IDK, its still a cute pick.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I wondered what you'd have to say about it 
I was gonna draw it tall, then I re-read the passage and it ate -grass-, so it had to have a low head. They're saying they couldn't raise em high anyway nowadays. Course -they- being evolutionists, also say there wasn't grass at the time, but I think that's silly.. grass is any leafy thin green shiz on the ground. That's always existed.. I always see these big ridiculous long-leafed bush things in dinosaur books, instead of our familiar cloud-shaped bushes.. and dinosaurs could definitely eat those. Just not chew, cuz they didnt have good molars. That's what gastroliths are for. Butchu knew that already.
I always point out the tail though. Tail like a cedar is pretty clear, unless that's supposed to mean penis.
I didn't notice the navel part though >< ack. Navel.. .. thing is, though, you can't really see the navel on very many animals, can you? Hmm.. all the emphasis on the loins makes me think of something with pretty heavy legs though, not the thin flat legs of an ungulate, so that means it's either a sauropod or a pachyderm .. yeah ;D
Thinking is fun!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, if you want to be picky, it's only grass if it's a member of the family poaceae , which didn't exist until 65-55 mya; many plants are colliquially referred to as grass are actually not grasses at all.
Regardless, sauropods, had they lived in an era with grass, would have been physically incapable of eating it due to the shape of their teeth. Sauropod teeth are long and thin, ideal for stripping leaves from branches from plants such as trees and ferns, the latter of which was as abundant during the mesozoic as grass is today. Grazing animals such as cattle, horses, rabbits, etc, have flat, square teeth for cropping rather than raking.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Leaves are leaves, grass is grass. 
I mean hell, dogs eat grass. XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Behemoth sounds more like a description of an elephant from someone who did not know which end was which-most definitely not a sauropod, as you creationists claim. As grass did not exist in dinosaur times, given that it had not evolved yet, a grass-eating sauropod would actually just confirm evolution: it would have had to evolve teeth that could gather grass more effectively, a digestive system that could handle the stuff, and if we're talking about Brachiosaurus or any of the many other sauropods that did not have 'low heads,' as you put it, a neck that allowed the head to actually *reach* the grass in the first place.
If a sauropod IS around today, it would probably still be a browser-no animal today could reach up as high, allowing the dinosaur to feed in peace.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
You're spot on with your science, dude!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
1. Nobody who lives where elephants live doesn't know what an elephant is, that's common sense
2. The description doesn't remotely sound like an elephant. Though that whole 'tail = penis' thing is an intriguing concept that I wouldn't be too surprised about
3. plants are plants, there's always been long green things coming out of the ground. There's no reason to think that just because the bible says it eats grass that it literally only eats what is botanically defined as grass.
4. if we're critiquing the idea of dinosaurs being around then, it's not even worth bringing up that supposedly there was no grass. That's not even a fraction as significant.
5. we have zero information about dinosaur digestive systems
6. as you pointed out, we are not talking about brachiosaurs. So why even bring them up? most sauropods are not browsers, they're grazers.
Your arguments are very strange and seem to come from a person who's had a conversation inside their own head (or with other people) that they're replying to, rather than actually talking to me. I'd appreciate it if you'd not do that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
He did that before back when his Deviantart handle was Tyrantis Terror
Seriously, look up the comment thread for his page "No Sympathies:Samael"
Personally, I think the guy's a total psychopath
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
1. I meant as in somebody who was visiting the area where elephants lived, seeing an elephant, and not knowing what it was.
2. Again, it would make sense if the person who saw the elephant thought that the animal's tail was a tortoise-like head and the the trunk was the tail.
3. You sound like you've never even seen different types of plants: moss and ferns, two very different plants than grass that were around during dinosaur times, are very different from grass-mainly, they are generally very low-growing, not 'long green things coming out of the ground.'
4. Yeah, it is: the presence of grass in the Mesozoic would have resulted in many dinosaurs evolving to eat grass. That's how evolution works, kid: when a new food source is available, animals will evolved adaptations to eat said food.
5. Given that impressions of dinosaur digestive systems have been found, and comparing dinosaurs to their closest relatives-crocodiles and birds-we actually know quite a bit about how dinosaurs digested. Plus, the presence of large stones, or gastroliths, in sauropod stomachs similar to the ones that crocodiles and birds use to aid digestion by grinding up food shows that they probably did not have very effective digestive systems.
6. Most sauropods were indeed browsers-I can only think of two sauropods that had the necessary adaptations to be grazers. Almost all sauropods had very stiff necks that could barely lean down to drink water: not very practical if you're spending your time with your head to the ground to eat. And even the sauropods with heads lowest to the ground were still about 20 feet up in the air! Most sauropod necks were generally vertical-think of them as gigantic reptilian giraffes: even worse for grazing on plants that did not even exist at the time! Also, if you look at any sauropod's teeth-even the two I mentioned that could have actually been grazers-they would be similar to chisels or dull crayons in shape. These teeth would be incredibly ineffective at feeding on grass, but would be excellent tools for eating leaves, as mechanical models of the jaws have demonstrated.
Sorry about the structure of my arguments: I'm currently debating three other creationists who are infinitely more rude than you are-thank you for your politeness, by the way-and I'm a bit stressed because of that. Generally, though, creationists tend to always use the same arguments again and again, making them very easy to debunk. You, however, are bringing new arguments to the metaphorical table-it's actually very refreshing to use my vast reserve of dinosaur knowledge for once.
May I add, however, that this is actually a very good drawing. However, you might get more attention if you colored the Behemoth differently: a dark grey sauropod would not do very well in a world of animals specifically evolved to hunt its kind (Allosaurus and its kin). Look to lizards and birds for inspiration, or make up your own color scheme: how about a light green underside, with the top portion a dark green with black tiger stripes?
You are actually the most polite creationist I have ever met: almost all of the others I have met all would have brought God into this by now. As an atheist, I greatly appreciate that.
Your respectful adversary,
Glarn Boudin
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
The whole "I'm currently debating three other creationists" is probably a lie
I can see someone debating one, maybe two creationists, but FOUR?
ALL AT THE SAME TIME?
Man, this guy clearly needs to work out some personal frustrations in his life
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You have very very bad reading comprehension and way too much time on your hands. You clearly didn't understand anything I said, so I'm not going to bother reading the numbered part of your post.
I'm sorry you're arguing with creationists, but you realize it's you guys' fault they think they need to argue. They've been raised with this 'evidence' mindset when reality isn't like that. They're very confused and trying to prove the supernatural with evidence and that makes no sense. So of course it's annoying talking to them.. they're mixing things together and don't understand either very well.
Yeah I guess most observable reptiles are black and pale yellow, with rare exceptions like iguanas and such. but I still think dary gray is a logical color. Maybe it'd be better if it was a pale brown like a snake or a monitor lizard might be. Thing is though, stripes are useless on an animal that big. Once you're that big, you're visible, period. Camouflage won't help, your outline being broken up will do nothing.. so.. Your defense is your thick skin, your whipping tail, and your pals in the herd making you collectively a tough meal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1. You do realize that you are now just showing that you're proving yourself to be just another creationist by ignoring my points, right?
Also, it's a Sunday off from work. Of course I'm going to screw around on the Internet!
2. How is it our fault? Creationists are usually convinced of their beliefs are because they are raised that way, yes, but many actually 'convert' because they can't understand evolution. I mean, come on. Normal ignorance is forgivable: after all, are we not all born completely ignorant of the world around us? Ignorance on a topic can be a great incentive to learn more about the world. But creationists? That is WILLFUL ignorance-no, no, no. That's PRIDEFUL ignorance, expecting that people are going to actually RESPECT your idiocy. That's going around saying, "I'm an idiot! I must be right! Forget what those scientists say! They only have centuries of accumulated knowledge! I've got this one book of anti-knowledge hate speech!" That is nobody's fault but the creationists: their fault for ignoring all evidence that proves them wrong, their fault for thinking that they know better because they've read part of the Bible.
3. Most reptiles are actually green in color-an adaptation that helps them blend in with greenery.
The thing is, though, a creature like this would probably have at least some color to it, perhaps to attract mates. Remember, it's your creature in the world of your imagination. What really matters is that it looks good.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
You make me ashamed to be an atheist
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
How can you accuse someone of willful ignorance and then say something patently, observably false like "most reptiles are green" ?
Melanin is black. Nearly all reptiles are black. The only way you can be a color other than brown, black, yellow, tan, some variation of that, is to have a weird light-refracting tendency to your skin.. like bird's feathers and some reptile scales. Reptiles just get colored green in cartoons. If you actually observed real life, instead of just repeating evolutionist dogma about 'blending in with greenery' you'd know that that isn't how real life is.
as for the display, Maybe. I suppose this might be a plain female, and males might have a row of dorsal spikes on the head, or some other flashy skin feature.. maybe a dewlap. None of that would show up in fossils, though we do see some bone spines once in a while..
And indeed, this is just imagination, so anything goes. tbh I probably made it gray because i'm used to most sauropod illustrations which make them gray. Probably because they're thinking "big heavy thing with thick skin.. elephant, rhino, grey skin"
btw i'm blocking you now, purely so you can take a time out and think about the fact that you just called the most significant (and first) piece of literature in existence "hate speech". a term that only the most reprehensible people use AT ALL.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Dude, you are my new hero
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Nawww.. ... naww..
.. maybe. Naw my hair's more chocolate.. and i had glasses.. :>
And I was scared of big animals and wouldn't be caught dead in tall grass. XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 0