It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Noahs Arc and Dinosaurs???

page: 10
1
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by SupaSmoove101
Ok ok, you got us Creationists with this arguement hands down.

That is because creationalists [young earth] never seem to offer counter arguments that are scientifically sound.


couldnt u hint at the sarcasism in supasmoove's post? try reading the rest of the post and you will maybe be able to understnad the mood of it. why did the animals of australia just evolve there, and nowhere else in the world? and how do you know that they didnt migrate? and evolutionsts always seem to shift the burden of proof.. it is seldom that they come up with an answer themselves.


Originally posted by riley
It is not the big bang. It is not aboriginesis. It is the process of life changing.. before it becomes life is not relevent.
How it becomes life is irrelevent to the evolution theory as it is not evolution.

ok, so you are saying that the beginning of anything isnt important? then how do u think that life first started? you cant just jump into the middle of an argument without knowing what happened first. there has to be a beginning. that is exactly why evolutionists have no proof. riley show me some proof of evolution, if life on earth has always been here.




posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joshm2u
why did the animals of australia just evolve there, and nowhere else in the world?

I find it stunning that you have made up your mind about evolution v creation and yet seem to know absolutely nothing about evolution or any of the theories and findings associated with it. You should really try to learn about evolution before rejecting it.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joshm2u
. that is exactly why evolutionists have no proof. riley show me some proof of evolution, if life on earth has always been here.


HeJUST said they are two different theories! Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis or the Big Bang. Proof for evolution has nothing to do with proof of The Big Bang, or proof of abiogenesis. Why do you think some evolutionists believe creation?

Evolution does not say life has always been here.


Originally posted by Joshm2u
why did the animals of australia just evolve there

Do know what the chances of the same animal evolving in two different places is? There are so many variables its not even funny.


[edit on 2-8-2005 by Charlie Murphy]



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joshm2u

why did the animals of australia just evolve there, and nowhere else in the world?

Well they we seperated rom the large mainland. This didn't allow for gene flow within a species. Eventually they speciated



ok, so you are saying that the beginning of anything isnt important? then how do u think that life first started? you cant just jump into the middle of an argument without knowing what happened first. there has to be a beginning. that is exactly why evolutionists have no proof. riley show me some proof of evolution, if life on earth has always been here.


The earth has not always been here, actually it's about 4.6 billion years old. You want some proof here.
Acastas Gneiss
Also there is crystals from sandstone dated to about 4.3 billion years ago. (Funny you mention austrailia, since the zircon crystals are from there too)
Zircon
We also have meteorite dating.






[edit on 2-8-2005 by silentlonewolf]



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 05:48 PM
link   
you are always telling me to find out the proof of evolution myself, but i find it hard, becuase it is all based on assumptions. how do they know that the rocks are that old, and dont tell me becuase of the fossils.
when evolutionists say that the rocks age is determined by the fossils, and the fossils age are determined by thte rocks, it is circucular reasoning.

what about this site. it talks about radioactive particles being emitted into rock, and helps disprove evolution. it also counters what some of the sites you showed me say.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joshm2u
try reading the rest of the post and you will maybe be able to understnad the mood of it.

You keep make insulting demands like this.. yet don't seem to have much understanding yourself which makes it even more irritating. Please discontinue doing this.

why did the animals of australia just evolve there, and nowhere else in the world?

Because thats where their ancestors came from.. and no-where else in the world has the same enviroment [otherwise they would have evolved into something else].

and how do you know that they didnt migrate?

They had no reason to leave and come back.
Because they can't swim.
Oh.. and no other places have gumtrees. :shk:
They are native to Australia.
How many times to you want me to answer this?
I've answered it about 5 times now.
What is it you want to hear? Noah called the animals. Koalas crawled some of the way on ice [didn't die of hypothermia], swam some of the way, made it through asia without having anything to eat.. through the rest of the world without food, got to Noahs ark [without food] and came back through Asia to Australia and started binge eating to make up for it. All in one lifetime.

You don't see anything wrong with this version of events do you?

and evolutionsts always seem to shift the burden of proof.. it is seldom that they come up with an answer themselves.

I [and others] have been giving you proof repetitvely. You keep ignoring it.
And this:

when evolutionists say that the rocks age is determined by the fossils, and the fossils age are determined by thte rocks, it is circucular reasoning.

Evolutionists have NEVER said this. Did you just make this up? It's already been said numerous times how things a dated.. and how can a fossil not be the same age as the layer of rock it's in? Obviously when the animal died.. it was not in rock but soil/sand.. over thousands of years the soil and the animal hardened to become rock.. it's alot more technical than that but thats the gist of it. Are you clear on this now?

[edit on 2-8-2005 by riley]



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joshm2u

what about this site. it talks about radioactive particles being emitted into rock, and helps disprove evolution. it also counters what some of the sites you showed me say.


Gentry's work is erronous and known to be.

here
It's was originally posted in the Journal of Geological Education, May of 1988 and can now be found at the site I posted.



The geological setting of these sites shows conclusively that Gentry’s notion of an 'instantly created' earth composed of granite is false. Specifically the samples came from crystallized rocks which can be shown to crosscut several sedimentary and other plutonic rocks. Some of the sedimentary rocks contain stromatolites. The geology of the sites shows that the uranium, and most likely the polonium, were deposited via postmagmatic hydrothermal fluids. Besides ignoring the geology at his collection areas, Gentry also makes numerous grossly erroneous generalizations about the origin of plutonic rocks


The fact of the matter is gentry used dikes for his sources, (and not all of em are granite I believe) The canadian sheild in which these dikes cut through is made up of metamorphic rock. Metamorphic rocks are sedimentary or igneous rocks that have been subjected to extreme heat and pressure causing the rock to melt and and reform into a new type of rock. Limestone for instance metamorphoses into marble, dolostone into dolomarble, sandstone into quartzite, etc. Based on geologic laws for relative dating, the dikes are younger than the rock it cuts through. So right there it's does not support a young earth.



[edit on 2-8-2005 by silentlonewolf]



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 12:50 AM
link   
ok i read all the articles, and many more regarding the halos. it does appear there are some flaws, but that doesnt disproof that the earth is 6,000 years old. take a look at this about mount st. helens. you can scroll down to the geology in hours section to read about a mini-grand canyon wasnt formed in millions of years.



Like Dr Austin, I was taught at school that you assume layers like this were laid down at the rate of one or two per year. Thus you can estimate how long it took for such a deposit to form—thousands, hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions of years

realtive dating as you said, but........


this 25 feet (8 metres) thick series of layers was formed in less than one day




People throughout the world are indoctrinated by evolutionists to believe that layers like those we see at the Grand Canyon took millions of years to be laid down. The idea that the earth is billions of years old is foundational to evolution. What happened at Mount St Helens is a powerful challenge to this foundation.


personally, i think the layers just give more justification for the flood. hydrologic sorting is one theory of how the fossils and rocks got to where they are. and i know you will have a response to this hydrologic sorting so im looking foward to it.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley

They had no reason to leave and come back.
Because they can't swim.
Oh.. and no other places have gumtrees.
They are native to Australia.
How many times to you want me to answer this?

yes obviously they live in austraila now, today. but what if they were all over the earth around 6,000 years ago, including australia if you want, beucase u think they left just australia to get on the ark. befoer the flood though there were plants everywhere, porbbaly even gumtrees, adn the earth was very lush. if you dont believe me on that one, i have a one word answer...oil, but that could start a whole new discussion. you are thinking with a Uniformitarism kind of attitude. which is


The concept that the processes that have shaped the Earth through geologic time are the same as those observable today.


the earth is not the same as it was before the flood. and the ice was at the poles, not in australia. here is a map that shows where it was.

and here is some information about circularing reason, just so u dont think i made it up.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joshm2u
ok i read all the articles, and many more regarding the halos. it does appear there are some flaws, but that doesnt disproof that the earth is 6,000 years old. take a look at this about mount st. helens. you can scroll down to the geology in hours section to read about a mini-grand canyon wasnt formed in millions of years.

Here is Dr. Austins paper from ICR.


From Dr. Austin's paper: Under Rapidly forming strata

Up to 400 feet thickness of strata have formed since 1980 at Mount St. Helens. These deposits accumulated from primary air blast, landslide, waves on the lake, pyroclastic flows, mudflows, air fall, and stream water

Ok we have a volcanic explosion, so a lot of volcanic ashe should be deposited. Also notice the fact that it happened in 1980.

next quote from the next section

Dr. Austin's paper: Under Rapid erosion

Mudflows, from Mount St. Helens, were responsible for the most significant erosion. A mudflow on March 19, 1982, eroded a canyon system up to 140 feet deep in the headwaters of the North Fork of the Toutle River Valley, establishing the new dendritic pattern of drainage.


notice the date 1982. Only 2 years. The ashe is nowhere near lithified yet. The water picks up the loose ashe and runs away with it, hence mudflow. Ok now the reason this didn't happen like this at the grand canyon is the layers were not rapidly deposited. Limestone does not deposit catastropicly, nor does sandstone, shale, etc. The fact that in the grand canyon we have sedementary layers especially limestone, on both side, prove that the layer had to laid down and lithified before the water cut through it.





realtive dating as you said, but........



this 25 feet (8 metres) thick series of layers was formed in less than one day


Well in a volcanic explosion the size of mount helens a lot of debris will be layed down. But that is volcanic ashe. Sedimentary rocks such as limestone are not formed catastrophicly.

This here is from talkorigins.org and it deals with Dr. Austin and the whole Mt. St. Helens thing.

talkorigins.org
Austin continued his presentation by showing us some of his slides of the Mt. St. Helens area. One slide was simply described as showing "strata 25 feet high deposited by Mt. St. Helens". He referred to this stratified volcanic ash only as "sedimentary rock", and observed that it took only a few hours to be deposited in layers. What was implied here, of course, was that large-scale sedimentary strata, such as the limestones and sandstones of Illinois, could be deposited in a similar, rapid manner. I asked Austin whether he had any evidence that any of the more typical sedimentary rock - limestone, sandstone, or shale, had ever been deposited rapidly, but he provided no such example.





personally, i think the layers just give more justification for the flood. hydrologic sorting is one theory of how the fossils and rocks got to where they are. and i know you will have a response to this hydrologic sorting so im looking foward to it.


Only water runoff that collected volcanic ashe and turned into a mudflow. Sorry no catastrophic flood.

I've only had a brief glimpse at hydrologic sorting, so I am really unfamilar with it. I will research it and see I find out and get back to you later on it.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joshm2u
yes obviously they live in austraila now, today. but what if they were all over the earth around 6,000 years ago,

They didn't.. and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. If you are going to make up theories try at least base them on reality

including australia if you want, beucase u think they left just australia to get on the ark.

No. I don't believe in the ark. It is fiction.. I'm just trying to get you to understand how ridiculous your theories are.

befoer the flood though there were plants everywhere, porbbaly even gumtrees,

Wrong. Gum trees are native exclusively to Australia. I think I've said this many times before.
As for the rest of your post.. I really can't be bothered answering it as you'll just ignore it. You do not have theories.. you have explanations fit for kindergarten picture books and are not fit for science. The polar ice caps don't fit your version of events.. and circular reasoning? You made a generalisation about the evolutionists here trying to attack their rationale [without backing it up with proof].. not only was it not based on your own observations but it was an insult you ripped off directly from another creationalist site without even giving credit. You've just proved it through the links you provided:

There are several types of circular reasoning found in support of evolutionary theory. One of these is the geological dating position that "fossils are dated by the type of stratum they are in, while at the same time the stratum is dated by the fossils found in it."
www.pathlights.com... Reasoning

Do you want to know what real circular reasoning is?

'Adam and eve are a fact.'
.'Prove it.'
'It's in the bible- so it's fact.'
'How do you know the bible is fact?'
'Because it's God's word.'
'How do you know god is fact?'
'It's in the bible.


Urn

posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joshm2u
why did the animals of australia just evolve there, and nowhere else in the world? and how do you know that they didnt migrate?

they evolved there and nowhere else in the world because they where isolated from...well...the rest of the world...
we know they didn't migrate because...well...do you see any populations of marsupials running around on any continent other than australia?


Originally posted by Joshm2u evolutionsts always seem to shift the burden of proof..

SHIFT the burden of proof? what...shift it so that you have some???
i'm sorry, but it's the creationists who have NO evidence to begin with...
it is YOU who has yet to provide the evidence, any evidence...PLEASE anything will do...just provide somthing...


Originally posted by Joshm2u it is seldom that they come up with an answer themselves.

can you not taste the irony in that statment?


Originally posted by Joshm2u ok, so you are saying that the beginning of anything isnt important? then how do u think that life first started?

correct...the origin of life is most certainly not relevant to the field of evoluionary biology, perhaps you are thinking of abiogenesis theory?(they happen to be two completly different branches of science by the way)



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Urn

Originally posted by Joshm2u
why did the animals of australia just evolve there, and nowhere else in the world? and how do you know that they didnt migrate?

they evolved there and nowhere else in the world because they where isolated from...well...the rest of the world...
we know they didn't migrate because...well...do you see any populations of marsupials running around on any continent other than australia?


There is no point. Josh has been told this about ten times so far [as requested].. and everytime has dismissed it without logical reason.. then poses the same question again as though it's never been answered. Either he/she is just trolling or genuinely does not understand.. in any case I'm going to give up trying to educate him/her.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 07:29 AM
link   
well why do you think that there are certain animals found in australia that are not found anywhere else on the earth?



EC


Urn

posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 07:37 AM
link   
oops...double post...

[edit on 3-8-2005 by Urn]


Urn

posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
well why do you think that there are certain animals found in australia that are not found anywhere else on the earth?

must i repeat myself?...it's only two posts up...


Originally posted by Urn
they evolved there and nowhere else in the world because they where isolated from...well...the rest of the world...



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 07:44 AM
link   

you're very funny cruncher

at least i hope you are trying to be..



[edit on 3-8-2005 by riley]



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joshm2u
you are always telling me to find out the proof of evolution myself, but i find it hard, becuase it is all based on assumptions.

Again, you have yet to study evolution, and yet you completely reject it in favour of the absurd and baseless religious theories that other people have told you.

how do they know that the rocks are that old, and dont tell me becuase of the fossils.

They have demonstrated the absolute ages of the rocks via radio-isotopic dating. Radio-isotopic dating, despite what frauds like Kent Hovind tell you in their videos, is accurate.


when evolutionists say that the rocks age is determined by the fossils, and the fossils age are determined by thte rocks, it is circucular reasoning.

Again, stop listening to demonstrable frauds and liars like kent hovind. This is one of his usual sayings. And again, if you were actually interested in learning these things, it would be trivially easy for you to get a basic education in them, and yet you don't. Apparently, you choose to not participate in the discussions here and are just trolling. You are aware that trolling is not permited in these fourms, no??



it also counters what some of the sites you showed me say.

Its also been refuted, by actual scientists who aren't making up lies to support their literal interpretation of the bible. Why is it that you are unable to find out about the science that clearly shows these claims to be completely baseless, and that infact shows that the people making them don't know what they are talking about? Gosh Josh, I wonder.

[edit on 4-8-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joshm2u
personally, i think the layers just give more justification for the flood. hydrologic sorting is one theory of how the fossils and rocks got to where they are. and i know you will have a response to this hydrologic sorting so im looking foward to it.


Here's the thing with the whole Hydrologic sorting idea that has been floated. It could not have happened. First because there different ways sedimentary rocks are formed. Also the are relative dating markers like ripple marks, oscillation and current, tool marks, mud cracks, rain drop imprints,etc. that are in these rocks, in these layers, that cannot be formed by rapid deposition, and if it was by hydrologic sorting there wouldn't be any sandstone on top of shale, etc. which we see.



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 07:35 AM
link   
FRom a previous thread(God is an Alien!!!!!....) that i made i included a bit about a flood and a bit about dinosaurs:

Dinosaurs were put on this earth by the aliens who noticed our blooming planet. They set out to experiment whether the earth was capable of life. After years of testing evolution and so on, they believed it was time to let human life flourish on earth. Of course they had to kill off the dinosaurs. We all know scientists think they were killed off by a comet but could it have been some sort of weaponry.

ATLANTIS the mythical city, I believe was a base on earth for the aliens. As an island it was in no harm of being discovered all those years back. And the flood that was believed to destroy the city was done to cover up the alien tracks and may have been the result of nuclear power. This is why no trace has been found. I believe this was around the time of Noah.
It wasnt a world wide flood just a flood that cover africa



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join