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: 11
1
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   


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


now do you know for a fact, thats what happened, or did they migrated all over and then earth climate changed and that is the only place on earth where they could survive. maybe thats what happened.
maybe there use to be less water in the oceans making it possible for them to migrate there in the first place.

the fact is, you are trying to state a fact and then state your interpretation and then try to make your interpretation look like its part of the fact, that it not the way it works.


EC




posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alien Life Form
OK my friend ( trust_no_one on abovetopsecret ) say's that there's a connection between the noahs arc flood and the global flood that help kill all dinosours. He say's that when the flood happend it killed all animal ( dino's ) but when he got two of each animal he did'nt take any dinosours ( but crocas lived because thay can live in water ) but has anyone herd of this or have any sort of proof to back my friend up?
thanks


crocs need land...they cannot just swim, swim, swim...they are not fish. also the water would have been either salt or fresh, or worse a mixture, if this is the case almost all water life would have died. this alone makes the global flood concept absurd and we haven't even got to noah the sailor...



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
now do you know for a fact, thats what happened, or did they migrated all over and then earth climate changed and that is the only place on earth
EC


How is a Koala going to migrate over the ocean, even if it is ice? Why would it want to? Where is the proof for this theory?

And Shaunybaby I don't think your gonna get a reply anytime soon. Alienlifeform is a banned member.



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   


crocs need land...they cannot just swim, swim, swim...they are not fish. also the water would have been either salt or fresh, or worse a mixture, if this is the case almost all water life would have died. this alone makes the global flood concept absurd and we haven't even got to noah the sailor...


of course you are assuming that before the flood, the oceans were salt water. the oceans today really are not that salty, somewhere around 3.5%-3.8%. that is the percentage of salt in the oceans. freshwater has a very low content of salt, I dont know the exact number but there is some salt in the water. sticking the freshwater fish into salt water would kill the fish. but if you slowly add salt into the water (like how rivers add salt to the oceans) the fish will be able to withstand the salt, or maybe become immune to it. something like that.
its kinda like lifting weights, you cant just put on 500 pounds and lift, you have to work at it. if you work at it, you will eventually get there, just like the fish, if salt is slowly introduced to the environment, they will be able to survive a little by little increase in salt content.

no that is not evolution that is called adaptation, it did not change what kind of animal it is, and it did not change a rock to a fish. even though there are rockfish (little bit of trivia there)

but I hope you get my point.



EC



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

of course you are assuming that before the flood, the oceans were salt water. the oceans today really are not that salty, somewhere around 3.5%-3.8%.


10,000-35,000 ppm for sea water vs 1,000 ppm for fresh

Not that salty? It's salty enough to cause you serious problems if you try rehydrating yourself with it.



Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
sticking the freshwater fish into salt water would kill the fish. but if you slowly add salt into the water (like how rivers add salt to the oceans) the fish will be able to withstand the salt, or maybe become immune to it. something like that.


Do you think you would be able to adapt yourself to drinking seawater instead of fresh?

Where in the bible does it say or imply that this alleged global flood happened slowly enough for aquatic species to adapt to a completely different environment?



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 12:21 AM
link   
as far as i remember according the torah, i mean the old testament (correct me if i'm wrong) it was after 1 year and ten days that water levels were back to "normal" i would really not have liked being there , Mars was/is probably more hospitable than any location after a flood (think indonesia) , the only lifeforms that could have thrived in that kind of environment would have been bacteria and other microscopic beings algea etc.... so now what .... water levels are back to what they used to be but of course everything has to dry... the earth is now covered in a thick layer of ...uuh ... goo , the stench of decaying corpses must be unbearable let of the danger of infections and diseases of all sorts, ........ etc etc


Urn

posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher



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


now do you know for a fact, thats what happened, or did they migrated all over and then earth climate changed and that is the only place on earth where they could survive. maybe thats what happened.
maybe there use to be less water in the oceans making it possible for them to migrate there in the first place.

the fact is, you are trying to state a fact and then state your interpretation and then try to make your interpretation look like its part of the fact, that it not the way it works.


EC


ok....we KNOW that they didn't "migrate all over and the earth's climate changed and blah blah"...
because, A: (as i stated earlier) there are currently no populations of koalas existing on any continent on the planet other than australia...and there never has been...

B: there are NO koalas fossils of ANY kind anywhere on the planet, other than australia....i reapeat, NO fossils at all....never have been...therefore, it is safe to say that no populations of marsupials have EVER existed anywhere on the planet other than australia !!!

facts are facts... you can't interprate facts. facts aren't like the bible...you can't just interprate FACTS and expect to get awy with it...

[edit on 5-8-2005 by Urn]



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
of course you are assuming that before the flood, the oceans were salt water. the oceans today really are not that salty, somewhere around 3.5%-3.8%. that is the percentage of salt in the oceans. freshwater has a very low content of salt, I dont know the exact number but there is some salt in the water. sticking the freshwater fish into salt water would kill the fish. but if you slowly add salt into the water (like how rivers add salt to the oceans) the fish will be able to withstand the salt, or maybe become immune to it. something like that.
its kinda like lifting weights, you cant just put on 500 pounds and lift, you have to work at it. if you work at it, you will eventually get there, just like the fish, if salt is slowly introduced to the environment, they will be able to survive a little by little increase in salt content.

no that is not evolution that is called adaptation, it did not change what kind of animal it is, and it did not change a rock to a fish. even though there are rockfish (little bit of trivia there)

but I hope you get my point.



EC



the fact that we have salt water crocodiles and fresh water crocodiles, i think means that some can survive in salt water and the others in fresh, obviously there is a substantial difference. the fresh water crocs would not be used to the sea. they need land as they cannot just swim all day like fish.

i don't really get what point you're trying to make. you said i'm assuming we had salty oceans in noah's time, yet you're assuming that fresh water creatures adapted in 40 days to survive in a different environment. the change from salt water to fresh water for water life, is the same as saying, 'if humans spend enough time in the water, we could learn to survive'. however, we would not. if you suddenly flooded the planet, no land, and all humans were just swimming around, we'd all be dead within 24 hours.


Urn

posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher but if you slowly add salt into the water (like how rivers add salt to the oceans) the fish will be able to withstand the salt, or maybe become immune to it. something like that.
its kinda like lifting weights, you cant just put on 500 pounds and lift, you have to work at it. if you work at it, you will eventually get there, just like the fish, if salt is slowly introduced to the environment, they will be able to survive a little by little increase in salt content.


WRONG what your saying is more akin to someone putting small amounts of arsnic into a persons food on a regular basis...they aren't going to slowly adapt to the arsnic....the are going to slowly DIE!!!



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 07:04 AM
link   


WRONG what your saying is more akin to someone putting small amounts of arsnic into a persons food on a regular basis...they aren't going to slowly adapt to the arsnic....the are going to slowly DIE!!!


you are missing the entire point. if you take drugs a lot, after a while, the dosage you take will no longer effect you, you will have to take more to get some sort of effect.

you see my point now?

and you dont know if the earths climate had changed, if the ocean levels used to be lower. at least I am open to all possibilities to what could have happened in the past.
we simply dont know, and the present is not the key to the past.

are dingos found in any other part of the world?



EC



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
you are missing the entire point. if you take drugs a lot, after a while, the dosage you take will no longer effect you, you will have to take more to get some sort of effect.

you see my point now?


you're comparing two things that have nothing in common: humans taking drugs and becoming ammune to small dosages, hence they have to take more, to fresh water creatures adapting to salty ocean life in 40 days.

the point you're trying to make is that fresh water creatures could adapt to survive in a salt water environment like the oceans. not only is the salt going to kill them, but the other preditors which they have no defences against. you cannot be exposed to something so rapidly and expect things to adapt...maybe you're watched too much of the 'borg' from star trek...



and you dont know if the earths climate had changed, if the ocean levels used to be lower. at least I am open to all possibilities to what could have happened in the past.
we simply dont know, and the present is not the key to the past.


i think it's a logical assumption to make that the oceans have not 'suddenly' become salty just after noah's mythical flood. sharks have been around for millions of years, and they cannot be put in to fresh water because they will die, this shows they have evolved to survive in salt water, hence they must have been living in salt water for longer than a few thousand years.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
now do you know for a fact, thats what happened, or did they migrated all over and then earth climate changed and that is the only place on earth where they could survive. maybe thats what happened.

The evidence supports the idea that there are only marsupials on australia because the continent was seperated by oceans before any placentals came into existence. This is why the fauna of australia is 'primitive', consising only of marsupials and monotremes.
A similar thing happened in south america. The evidence shows that it too was seperated before placentals developed, and we find stratas there that only have marsupials, with marsupial animals occupying niches that in other places are filled with placentals. This means that we have marsupial 'versions' of lions, wolves, bears, etc. This is best explained by evolution also, btw. It doesn't even make sense to think of it as any sort of rational design to make lions tigers and bears, and then marsupial lions tigers and bears, only to have them wiped out by regular lions tigers and bears (when the evidence shows that land began to connect south america to placental dominated north america), and all this long before any humans inhabited the continent.



maybe there use to be less water in the oceans making it possible for them to migrate there in the first place.

Then why no placentals? And why no marsupials (short of the possum) anywhere else today? Wouldn't we at least expcet that we'd see an increasing concentration of marsupials (and monotremes) from the 'arksite' to australia? At least vaguely?? And also if they existed everywhere else and werent' replaced by placentals (at least until the flood or recently), then why don't we find lots of fauna where marsupials and placentals and monotremes are co-existing?


the fact is, you are trying to state a fact and then state your interpretation and then try to make your interpretation look like its part of the fact, that it not the way it works.

Not for nothing, but its quite the same to say that the bible is fact, and even worse to say that the evidence supports it. The bible, if taken literally, lays out a sequence of events. There is no evidence for this sequence. There infact is evidence that rather contradicts this sequence. Now, of course, miracles can allways be supposed, no matter how unlikely, because god can do anything. But a rational consideration of the evidence leads one to conclude that gravity is what is moving planets and that evolution is what is changing animals. Is it a fact that marsupials were outcompeted and destroyed by placentals except australia? No, certainly not. Its a theory. Its a scientific theory that is supported by the evidence, but not a fact, no.


of course you are assuming that before the flood, the oceans were salt water

Hardly an assumption. What evidence demonstrates that they were freshwater?

the fish will be able to withstand the salt, or maybe become immune to it. something like that.

They adapt via evolution. And rather its the other way around. The oceans have allways been salty, and ocean life was originally adapted to this. Then species started comming into contact with fresher and fresher water, and adapted to this. The change, btw, from being a salt water fish to a fresh water fish is clearly macroevolutionary, its a 'big' change.

its kinda like lifting weights, you cant just put on 500 pounds and lift, you have to work at it

Try this with most freshwater fish and you will have dead fish. True, some species of fish a really tolerant to changes in salt conctration. Most aren't.

no that is not evolution that is called adaptation,

I think you are really confused. THe weight lifting analogy is saying that you can take a particular fish, put it in a tank, and slowly increase the saltiness of the tankwater, slowly enough so as to not kill the fish. That acclimatization, not adaptation. Its like when a person moves from the coast to a city with a high altitude or really cold weather to hot weather. At first its unberable, but then they acclimate.
The process of adaptation is something that occurs over generations, its evolutionary.

it did not change what kind of animal it is

A salt water fish and a fresh water fish are two different kinds of animals. There is a macroevolutionary difference between them. Humans and Chimps are far more similar that say guppies and Sharks. If guppies and sharks are microevolution, than man and monkey certianly is.


there are NO koalas fossils of ANY kind anywhere on the planet, other than australia....i reapeat, NO fossils at all....never have been...therefore, it is safe to say that no populations of marsupials have EVER existed anywhere on the planet other than australia !!!

I hate to break it to you, but marsupials have existed all over the planet. They only survived in australia to the modern day, because only australia has been isolated. Excluding the opposum agian tho.

facts are facts... you can't interprate facts

Its a fact that there are marsupials in australia. Its a theory that they are there and not placentals because of the isolation of australia. Its a good theory, a theory supported by the evidence, but not a fact. Theories are theories and allways remain so. Its a fact that populations of organisms change over generational time. Its a theory that this occurs via a mechanism of natural selection. A well supported theory, a theory that has never been refuted, a thoroughly scientific theory, but not a fact.

[edit on 5-8-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
are dingos found in any other part of the world?




The dingo is a primitive type of dog evolved from the wolf, and has become widespread across southern Asia. Dingoes were introduced to northern Australia by Asian seafarers 3,500-4,000 years ago. The dingo was a semi-domesticated animal that either escaped or was deliberately released. It then colonised the rest of Australia, and now dingoes are established over much of mainland Australia, except Tasmania.

Source

You are not open to all possibilities, especially evolution.


Urn

posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

there are NO koalas fossils of ANY kind anywhere on the planet, other than australia....i reapeat, NO fossils at all....never have been...therefore, it is safe to say that no populations of marsupials have EVER existed anywhere on the planet other than australia !!!

I hate to break it to you, but marsupials have existed all over the planet. They only survived in australia to the modern day, because only australia has been isolated. Excluding the opposum agian tho.

oops...my bad...i meant to say 'no populations of koalas"...not marsupials..now i feel dumb



Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Urnfacts are facts... you can't interprate facts

Its a fact that there are marsupials in australia. Its a theory that they are there and not placentals because of the isolation of australia. Its a good theory, a theory supported by the evidence, but not a fact. Theories are theories and allways remain so. Its a fact that populations of organisms change over generational time. Its a theory that this occurs via a mechanism of natural selection. A well supported theory, a theory that has never been refuted, a thoroughly scientific theory, but not a fact.

and all i can say to this, is....i stand corrected...(probly should have thought a lil harder about it before i typed that)...i hate it when i'm flat out wrong
...



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   
I got a question.
if each rock layer represents a different age, how is it possible for polystrate fossils to form? why are there such things as polystrate fossils.
petrified trees for example are found connecting many rock layers. some are found standing up rightside up and upside down. how does this happen over millions of years? it cant.
but it can happen in a flood. called noahs flood


EC



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
but it can happen in a flood. called noahs flood


Probably one of the weakest arguments is the polystrate fossil trees.

To sum it up with "it can happen in a flood. called noahs flood" is cop-out to all the actual study that has taken place around the world by geologists. In fact, this matter even has a theory that dates back over a 100 years that still holds up today. It is impossible to interpret these coal deposits as being formed by a single event of short duration (ie. a flood).

I suggest some serious indepth study on this. It is interesting stuff. I just wish it would stop being used as a "convenient argument" by believers of a young earth.

As a side note:
Scientists can be fooled by hoaxes and Creationists can be fooled as well. When a hoax is discovered in the scientific community, it is dealt with completely in the open. I challenge you to find one website (to make it easier) where Creationists admit to any such hoaxes? The human footprints alongside dinosaur tracks is one such hoax.

I just find it interesting how the two communities handle such matters. It certainly helps know who is trying to find truth and who is trying to invent truth.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
petrified trees for example are found connecting many rock layers. some are found standing up rightside up and upside down. how does this happen over millions of years? it cant.

You've never heared of earthquakes, landslides, avalanches etc? You really should use logic before posting things. There are really obvious explanations other than 'goddunit'.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 08:59 AM
link   


You've never heared of earthquakes, landslides, avalanches etc? You really should use logic before posting things. There are really obvious explanations other than 'goddunit'.


so these trees found all over the world are from the causes that you listed. also, fossil meteorites are rarely found in lower layers of strata. if the earth is millions of years old, dont you think a few meteors would have hit the earth within in a few thousand years?
as for the tree thing, the flood is a great explanation for this, moving water would sort the sediments by their density and move big object such as trees and leave them in positions that we find them in today. in order to get petrified trees standing up connecting many rock layers, that means that those layers arent different ages according to the theory of evolution. if mudslides did form different layers, that means that many layers can have the same age. I wouldnt go with that theory, you might upset darwins theory that the different layers are different ages.


EC



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   

so these trees found all over the world are from the causes that you listed. also, fossil meteorites are rarely found in lower layers of strata.

Could you prove this please? I would also like to know if meteorite crators are included in this little fact? [some break up before/on impact]

if the earth is millions of years old, dont you think a few meteors would have hit the earth within in a few thousand years?

I know one probable one about apx 65 million years ago. That would be the one that killed the dinosaurs. Someone else also has provided a link to a meteorite data site.. I think their question was asking why there are so many crators if the earth is so young.. meterorites tend to cause devestations and extinctions.. and the bible doesn't mention any. Perhaps you should respond to them.

as for the tree thing, the flood is a great explanation for this,

:shk:
There is NO scientific evidence of a world wide flood.. which makes it kind of ridiculous that you would use 'upright trees' as some kind of scientific proof of a flood when all other facts say otherwise.

I gave you the obvious answer.. yet you find that ridiulous despite your believing that a guy built a boat with his bare hands to fit ALL species on the planet in [impossible], including their food and water [impossible] they somehow swam [including koalas], walked or flew the THOUSANDS of miles across oceans and mountains to get to Noah [impossible], crammed them all onto this boat without suffocating or having them kill eachother [impossible].. and THEN he managed to squeeze dinos aboard.. and you think 'upright trees in the ground' prove noahs story?


[edit on 9-8-2005 by riley]



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   


I gave you the obvious answer.. yet you find that ridiulous despite your believing that a guy built a boat with his bare hands to fit ALL species on the planet in [impossible], including their food and water [impossible] they somehow swam [including koalas], walked or flew the THOUSANDS of miles across oceans and mountains to get to Noah [impossible], crammed them all onto this boat without suffocating or having them kill eachother [impossible].. and THEN he managed to squeeze dinos aboard.. and you think 'upright trees in the ground' prove noahs story?


not all species, all the KINDS. get ti straight, it was the different kinds, not all the different species. dinos? he didnt have to bring the biggest ones.
and no you didnt give the only obvious answer. you still didnt answer my question about the layers being differeny ages if a landslide or a mudslide caused the trees to become stuck in that position, then why are there different layers around that tree? are they still different ages? what about the layers that are not occupied by trees running through them? there are many flaws in your assumption. if the layers are different ages but a mudslide can cause different myaers to form around a tree in a matter of minutes, than you have yourself a big problem dont you. what if all of those layers were formed by a great mudslide all over the world? that would mean that those layers arent as old as you think they are.

and you were trying to tell me that I was dumb.

EC



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join