creation and evolution fact or faith?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 08:34 AM
link   
CHEESESR- on the contrary ,you just prooved my point. of course ther was low o2 levels during and after the flood, hence the reason for smaller animals and shorter life spans post flood.....did you notice in your above stated article that they mention a 90% extinction? interesting...here is the science to back up my claim-------Pre-flood--- helium and hydrogen gas accumulated in the earths upper atmos, acting as a natural shield to solar radiation,like a sky canopy, when the waters broke forth on the earth (the flood gates of the deep and the waters of the heaven) as stated in the bible (the geysers) it would send h20 shooting out of the ground into the earth and atmosphere, causing soaring thermal air currants. this would in turn cause VERY LOW O2 LEVELS on the earth. This would also cause a very great deal of water to fall from the sky, just as the bible states...there my friend you have the short version of the flood and low 02..i stand by my theory...want more info? kjubible.org




posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ninki
CHEESESR- on the contrary ,you just prooved my point. of course ther was low o2 levels during and after the flood, hence the reason for smaller animals and shorter life spans post flood.....did you notice in your above stated article that they mention a 90% extinction?

Are you suggesting this 'great flood' wiped out dinasaurs?



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 08:53 AM
link   
yes i am suggesting this......i think we still have dinosoars..just little ones..ones who live a shorter life span in crummy 02.



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ninki
yes i am suggesting this......i think we still have dinosoars..just little ones..ones who live a shorter life span in crummy 02.


Is this a serious statement?
Dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago. They got wiped out by an asteroid.. [along with many other species] which caused an ice age.. which was probably followed by a 'great flood'.. [one of MANY] ..all before humans appeared.
Moses apparently existed only a couple of thousand years ago.. he was obviously not present during any of these events.

[edit on 18-12-2004 by riley]



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 10:25 AM
link   
From other thread:

Originally posted by ninki
RILEY- just for you..here i am ...listen how long did it take noah to build the ark? this is why you should remidy the bible situation, because you cannot say you do not believe in something that you do not know,

AGAIN.. I have read it.

also i believe all land mass to have been conected pre-flood...

Another ridiculous statement. Australia disconnected over a billion years ago. Moses was around during ancient egypt times.

that the animals came to him, so no i dont think he had to go to australia, the animals came to him.

Koalas and kangaroos don't fly or swim.. or even walk on water for that matter.. besides which they would die of old age before even reaching the coast.. Australia is a huge place.

also it takes more math than just assumption math to say an ark could not hold all those animals..

No amount of math could make this possible.

i dont want to post all over the place but am glad to talk to you about the ark issue on the other threads, makes my life easier...i have a 1 year old.

No need.. unless you can come up with some logical answers.. sorry but I can't take your 'explanations' seriously so I won't request anymore.



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 01:00 PM
link   
RILEY.......:bash: you assume the earth is that old you have no proof....and yes i am dead serious.



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Ninki, wheres your proof the earth is 6000 yrs old? Truely you picked the wrong side to argue! LOl
I bet you wont even read this link and if you do, you quote something oput of context that appears to support your veiws......

www.talkorigins.org...



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 09:50 PM
link   
i'm what u would call a mixed believer...ibelieve in a higher power,but i also believe in scientific fact. even if you don't believe humans evolved...look at reptiles,birds,plants. there is plenty evidence that these lifeforms did evolve over time.



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 02:00 AM
link   
what are you serious? have you done any research?


CHEESESR- on the contrary ,you just prooved my point. of course ther was low o2 levels during and after the flood, hence the reason for smaller animals and shorter life spans post flood.....did you notice in your above stated article that they mention a 90% extinction?

ok....
well you say that *ofcorse ther was low oxygen levels during and after the flood* it explain in the site i posted above that the low oxygen levels was before the mass extinction of the dino's, which you say the flood caused.?
you said that it fits into your story of a flood. my above states nothing of a flood, again you are trying to twist things into the way you like it. the article states that the extinction that could of wiped out 90% of creatures was because of global warming? and not a flood. There is no evidence to indicate a flood while the oxygen levels were low. - this was before your *flood* not during it and after it.

*harsh conditions in which oxygen content of air at the Earth's surface was only about half of today's 21 percent.*
you didnt say anything how the oxygen levels were low but yet the dinos where still big? i feel you are ignoring some of my difficult facts.

Why where the dinosaurs big, but yet the oxygen was approx half of what it is today. Wouldnt that mean that todays reptiles should be bigger than the reptiles back in the mesozoic era?




yes i am suggesting this......i think we still have dinosoars..just little ones..ones who live a shorter life span in crummy 02.

You say in crummy oxygen? but yet i have provided you with information, when the dinos were around, there was little oxygen, compared to todays.
So you are basically going against what the facts are.

riley-Are you suggesting this 'great flood' wiped out dinasaurs?


yes i am suggesting this......i think we still have dinosoars..just little ones..ones who live a shorter life span in crummy 02.

as riley said, the mass extinction was approx 65million years ago, and all indications are that there was no flood that caused this, but a astroid.
And Noah wasnt around then. This makes me laugh! Humans have been around what? 3million years maybe, and primates 35million? please



also i believe all land mass to have been conected pre-flood...

so your also saying, that you also believe that lands masses where always not connects, and you say...

RILEY....... you assume the earth is that old you have no proof....and yes i am dead serious.
scientist have found shrub that are 11thousand years old(www.death-valley.us...). how old do you think the earth is?, if you are saying that the earth was one a great land mass, it would of took approx 120millions years for it to become today current geological state. Cant you see all your inconsistencies?

and you do release you are indirectly saying that people that live in high altitude and low altitude would have a huge difference in size. I dont see this to be the case.

Ninki, as I said before, I see so many inconsistencies in you posts, I dont know why I bother to argue.

Ps. Please answer this question as I asked above.

* Why where the dinosaurs big, but yet the oxygen was approx half of what it is today. Wouldnt that mean that todays reptiles should be bigger than the reptiles back in the mesozoic era?*



[edit on 12/11/2004 by cheeser]



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ninki
RILEY.......:bash: you assume the earth is that old you have no proof....and yes i am dead serious.

Well you are wrong.

It is not an assumption.. read carefully [pretend it's the bibile]..:

It is a PROVEN FACT.

Not a guess.. not a theory.. not a fable.. A FACT.
Our planet is definently AT LEAST 4.6 billion years old.

Evidence that the earth may have been cooling and had a crust [and possible LIFE] 4.4 billion years ago:
www.nsf.gov...:
The 4.4-billion-year-old mineral sample suggests that early Earth was not a roiling ocean of magma, but instead was cool enough for water, continents, and conditions that could have supported life.
www.suntimes.com...:
Nearly 4 billion-year-old rocks from Greenland could hold the earliest evidence of life on Earth, University of Chicago and Field Museum scientists say.

The rocks, the researchers argue in today's edition of the journal Science, are sediment of such composition that they could contain evidence of early life.


You started this thread ASKING for facts.. but before you even started this thread I am certain you had already dismissed them cos the bible is never wrong
.

It is also a proven FACT that dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago.. where is your PROOF they didn't? Where is your evidence that all the scientific PROOF is wrong?

I could have provided more info but no doubt you'll dismiss these facts as well so I won't waste more time on someone who clearly will believe in ignorant fables no matter what. You have asked questions and people have tried to educate you and explain things to you but it is pretty obvious you started this thread just to antagonise people and waste their time.

-FIN

And so they saw the light and were blinded by it.

[edit on 19-12-2004 by riley]



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 08:52 AM
link   
RILEY- thank you ever so much for the education..lol...i still think your wrong..although i have not the time, because of christmas, to debate with you...i really do wish you and yours a good holiday, and will continue to post when i return from holiday family events......i am interested in talking to you further about the age of the earth as i do believe the earth to be very young compared to the calculations stated above..ill find you round when i am back.......merry christmas!



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ninki
RILEY- thank you ever so much for the education..lol...i still think your wrong..although i have not the time, because of christmas, to debate with you...i really do wish you and yours a good holiday, and will continue to post when i return from holiday family events......i am interested in talking to you further about the age of the earth as i do believe the earth to be very young compared to the calculations stated above..ill find you round when i am back.......merry christmas!


I guess geology is wrong. And so are those darned archeologists. Oh, and the astronomers too. Lets not forget all of the physics, and mathematics experts. Oh, heavens, lets not forget the chemist's. Man, I guess every sense of reality we have must be wrong....its our darned brains that are telling us that 5+5 = 10. Thats whats wrong.....we just cant calculate.



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ninki
RILEY- thank you ever so much for the education..lol...i still think your wrong..although i have not the time, because of christmas, to debate with you...i really do wish you and yours a good holiday

Thankyou.

i am interested in talking to you further about the age of the earth as i do believe the earth to be very young compared to the calculations stated above

Sorry but the calculations and conclusions are from the world's past and present top scientists [and plain logic]. I doubt that I will be interested in debating this with you further as the information you have provided isn't exactly on pah with theirs and is consistantly conflicted and contradictory.
My motivation is to gain knowledge.. your's seems to be to affirm belief.. in this case it's futile as I'm not about to ignore facts and convert to your beliefs.. and you aren't about to accept facts given. Thats fine and I really respect Christ as a philosopher and teacher so I'm not trying to undermind your religion but.. why would you want to keep talking about it when you know I won't change my mind? There isn't a middle ground here.

Anyway.. I do hope you and your family have a wonderful Christmas and new year.

[edit on 20-12-2004 by riley]



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Lets hope this thread is dead now! theres atleast half a dozen of em anyway! :shk:



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 04:21 AM
link   
i will second that





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join