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: 14
1
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 01:02 PM
link   

i'm no expert in the field of wood, but does wood not decay after 5000 years? maybe the cold air kept it in fair condition.


I believe your correct in your assumption that the wood was preserved in the ice (not particulary unusual from what i understand).


also i like how when we talk about dating things that prove the earth to be a great age, or fossils of dinosaurs or fossils of animals and early human-type species, and christians say carbon dating is flawed. yet, when it comes to proving a piece of wood is 5000 years, there's absolutly no question at all that this is conclusive proof ...talk about a bunch of hypocrits!


Firstly i'm NOT a young-earther. And they Don't say that carbon(14) dating is flawed(that's the technique used to date organic material, ie WOOD), their dispute is with radiometric dating(the measurment of “radioactive” decay of certain kinds of atoms from one form into another, used to date inorganics, ie ROCKS) which is the method used to determine the age of the Earth. Which btw has nothing to do with anything i posted and/or linked you to. I'd advise you become familiar with the issue before throwing around insults (hypocrit). Here's a link from a Old-Earth Creationist site that will explain to you the various dating techniques and how they work, and why the young-earth hypothesis doesn't hold water. Deny Your Ignorance Here.




posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
Firstly i'm NOT a young-earther. And they Don't say that carbon(14) dating is flawed(that's the technique used to date organic material, ie WOOD), their dispute is with radiometric dating(the measurment of “radioactive” decay of certain kinds of atoms from one form into another, used to date inorganics, ie ROCKS) which is the method used to determine the age of the Earth. Which btw has nothing to do with anything i posted and/or linked you to. I'd advise you become familiar with the issue before throwing around insults (hypocrit). Here's a link from a Old-Earth Creationist site that will explain to you the various dating techniques and how they work, and why the young-earth hypothesis doesn't hold water.


sorry about that, i just thought there was only 'carbon dating'. plus i'm now reading up about it on that site. not sure why people have a problem with the dating method using radiometric dating...it seems prety conclusive from what i've read so far.

does anyone not find that whatever science comes up with christianity just sort of tags along behind picking up pieces and adding it to the pile of things they believe in.

science - new theory of evolution

christianity - at first are outraged, its blasphemous, it's crazy, darwin is insane. yet, now some christians accept evolution is a natural process and say that god put it in motion.

science - the earth is millions/billions of years old!

christianity - what? are you crazy....what kind of stupid nonsense is that? no look it really is. it's a shame because you and your bible say the earth is only 6000 years old. our bible doesn't say that, if you interpret the bible in a completly different way you can also believe in old earth, yet still be a christian and make it in to heaven.

science - we dug up these bones of this big creatures that lived millions of years ago, we're gonna call them dinosaurs.

christianity - dinosaurs? i've never heard such nonsense. people were created first everybody knows that! oh wait but if i believe in old earth i can also believe that god perhaps put these fossils here to test my faith, thus making me a stronger christian.

i just love how christians bend their rules and beliefs to fit in with everything else going on.

[edit on 9-9-2005 by shaunybaby]



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 07:26 PM
link   


i just love how christians bend their rules and beliefs to fit in with everything else going on.


good observation there, you understand that many christians compromise their faith and rules and beliefs to fit what the majority believes. talk about a dumb idea.

EC



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 11:10 PM
link   
First off, one of the rules of being a rational creature is to try to stop relating the real, natural world in which we live to what a few people wrote about in a book.

There was never a global flood.

There were meteor strikes, which probably choked the earth and killed everything off.

But to even give one nanosecond's thought to some guy in a boat rescuing all the creatures of the world is the funniest thing I have ever been taught - and i had to suffer through 12 years of that bull# in catholic school!

Come on - there not only was no ginormous flood, but there was no Noah and no boat. If there was, and he was told to save all the animals - why just the animals? What about all the insects? Parasites? If there WAS a global flood, did he hunt down and rescue every single species that existed? LOL good stuff always makes me laugh.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 12:42 AM
link   


Come on - there not only was no ginormous flood, but there was no Noah and no boat. If there was, and he was told to save all the animals - why just the animals? What about all the insects? Parasites? If there WAS a global flood, did he hunt down and rescue every single species that existed? LOL good stuff always makes me laugh.

your statements only show how ignorant you are of the bible. he brought every KIND of animal on the ark. and he didnt bring the biggest ones he could find. species and kinds are two different terms. the bible says that they will bring forth after their kind not after their species. a kind is those who could originally bring forth and produce offspring. after breeding and breeding some species cannot breed with some other species of the same kind and produce offspring. that is due to a loss of information.

if you read the bible, it says that he took the animals whos notrils where the breath of life. also they were the only ones on land.
notice that bugs to not have nostrils. they can survive a flood. bugs can float, they can burrow in the mud and survive. there is no problem with bugs surviving a flood. do your science.

and if there wasnt a world wide flood, then where did all the layers of strata come from? and how did trees get stuck in those layers running through many layers? how did some of those trees get stuck upsidedown? the only explanation would be a flood but you already said that there wasnt one.

EC



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
good observation there, you understand that many christians compromise their faith and rules and beliefs to fit what the majority believes. talk about a dumb idea.


majoirty? 70% of people living in the uk consider themselves christian. sure that same amount doesn't go to church every week, but nonetheless that is the percentage. so this 'majority' you talk of, what majority would that be? the 10-15% that believe in evolution from the uk perhaps? that's not much of a majority...in fact that's called a minority. so it's funny that christians would accept beliefs from minority groups. so they are indeed compromising their faith and rules and beliefs to fit in what the minority believes.


Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
your statements only show how ignorant you are of the bible. he brought every KIND of animal on the ark. and he didnt bring the biggest ones he could find. species and kinds are two different terms. the bible says that they will bring forth after their kind not after their species. a kind is those who could originally bring forth and produce offspring. after breeding and breeding some species cannot breed with some other species of the same kind and produce offspring. that is due to a loss of information.


he still has to go to australia (a country at which time noah probably had no idea existed) to get the animals from there. what about koala bears? they only eat eucalyptus leaves too...did noah take those special diets in to account?



if you read the bible, it says that he took the animals whos notrils where the breath of life. also they were the only ones on land.
notice that bugs to not have nostrils. they can survive a flood. bugs can float, they can burrow in the mud and survive. there is no problem with bugs surviving a flood. do your science.


i've poured water on to an ants nest...they don't like it, they also wouldn't survive underneth trillions of litres of the stuff. what about arachnids, i'm pretty sure most spiders can't swim, and i should know i'm swept them to their misery down the bath plughole. if anyone needs to do their 'science' is you.



and if there wasnt a world wide flood, then where did all the layers of strata come from? and how did trees get stuck in those layers running through many layers? how did some of those trees get stuck upsidedown?


why would a flood make trees turn upside down anyways? if there was a flood there wouldn't be 'many' layers of strata, it'd be one huge layer of depositation, of which there is none. believe it or not, there is absolutly no evidence outside the bible to suggest there was a world wide flood. you say all these other cultures also speak of this 'flood'. yet, those cultures surely would have died? or would they even exist according to the bible, as it was only after the flood that noah's sons supposedly went out to procreated and make new cultures and nations.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 10:41 AM
link   
The earliest flood story (Gilgamesh) predates the Bible. Using Mr Crunchers logic here must have been two floods. Because the bible culdnt possibly rip off an old legend now could it?

Or using actuall logic and science and stuff you could just say its laughable, an old legend with no foundation except in he minds of people who beleived that their small region was the entire world.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
your statements only show how ignorant you are of the bible. he brought every KIND of animal on the ark. and he didnt bring the biggest ones he could find. species and kinds are two different terms. the bible says that they will bring forth after their kind not after their species. a kind is those who could originally bring forth and produce offspring. after breeding and breeding some species cannot breed with some other species of the same kind and produce offspring. that is due to a loss of information.



EC, even ignoring the fact that he couldn't possibly rescued some animals, caring for the rest would be an impossible task. Do you know how many "kinds" of animals there are on Earth?

Im still waiting for a reply on my last post.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I tried going back and reading through this thread, and I cant remember if this was the thread where I was supposed to give examples of teachers getting fired for not believing in evolution and exposing errors in the textbooks. someone let me know if you know. thanks

also. im not trying to say that there were two floods. and just because someone writes something down before someone else does, it does not make the first one more accurate than the other.
Moses edited Genesis so that is probably the reason for the delay of publication. there are many flood legends that match up with what the bible says about the flood. actually there are over 300 flood legends. im sure Gilgamesh is one of them.



EC, even ignoring the fact that he couldn't possibly rescued some animals, caring for the rest would be an impossible task. Do you know how many "kinds" of animals there are on Earth?

yeah there are about 8,000 basic kinds. including the ones that live in the water.

EC

[edit on 11-9-2005 by Evolution Cruncher]

[edit on 11-9-2005 by Evolution Cruncher]



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
also. im not trying to say that there were two floods. and just because someone writes something down before someone else does, it does not make the first one more accurate than the other.
Moses edited Genesis so that is probably the reason for the delay of publication. there are many flood legends that match up with what the bible says about the flood. actually there are over 300 flood legends. im sure Gilgamesh is one of them.


why would other cultures or civilisations mention the flood? surely it was only after the flood that 'other cultures and civilisations' came about because noah's sons, after the flood, went out to procreate and make cultures and civilisations. also if there are other 'accounts', some 300 you say, of the same biblical noah's flood, then who made those 'other accounts' of the flood. surely everyone else died apart from noah? who's writing down these other 300 flood stories, that are aparently match up with what the bible says about the flood?



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   


Accutually we know evolution happpens thats why you need a new flu vacine every year because the flu virus changes. Changes of an entire species = evolution. Thats micro evolution. Many say that macro evolution, evolution of multi celled organisms like humans, doesnt exist and has never been observed which is also false. During the industrial revolution a normally white moth turned black to camoflauge with soot covered buildings. So in rural areas there was a white moth but in urban areas it was black, so one type of moth turned into two. SO lets say that in a few of these urban areas there was a change in evironment such as it getting slowly colder the moths would slowly change to fit their environment and now youd have a moth that was very simmiliar to it relatives the white and black ones but it wouldnt be the same. If many of these changes built up you would infact end up with different animals.


actually that story has been proven wrong. after counting the moths for 40 years, they only found two. the story is a fake. they glued dead moths on the tree to take the picture.
even if that was the case. that is not evolution, the moths did not change colors, the birds picked the ones they could see. its called natural selection. not a creative force, it was a selecting force. thats all. it didnt change the moths into prayingmantis' or anything else. thats a poor example for evolution. that was a great example of natural selection.

EC



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
actually that story has been proven wrong. after counting the moths for 40 years, they only found two. the story is a fake. they glued dead moths on the tree to take the picture.


have you even seen a moth, picked up a moth, let alone tried to glue a dead one to a tree without squashing it and make it look slightly lifelike?

''they glued dead moths on the tree to take the picture''

please stop stating utter randomness without backing it up with some sort of evidence.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   
yeah, I used to be a bug a bug person when I was a littel kid. its not hard to glue a moth to anything. and if its already dead, its even easier.

and you still didnt provide evidence for this being evolution.

and is this the thread where I was supposed to post examples of teachers getting fired for not believing in evolution or exposing errors in the textbooks?

EC



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
and is this the thread where I was supposed to post examples of teachers getting fired for not believing in evolution or exposing errors in the textbooks?


not sure, why don't you enlighten us anyway?



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
if you drained the oceans a little bit, all of the continents would be connected

I beleive that australia and antartica are not connect at all, whereas eurasia and the americas do have a continental rock connection between them.

. it is entirely possible for koalas to have traveled many miles to get on noahs arc.

Its just plain ridiculous to say that koalas walked from australia to, say, the middle east, knowing where noahs' arc was, and then walked back. And to say that all the marsupials somehow magically ended up only in australia doesn't make any sense either. Neverminding the fact that there is no evidence of a global flood, that there isn't enough water on the planet to submerge all the land, and that there isn't any reasonable way to get ride of that water afterwards too.

so you would know that its geophysically impossible for the Colorado river to have formed grand canyon over millions of years.

There is no evidence that the grande canyon was made by some sort of mega-flash flood, let alone a global one.

however, the sun is losing mass as well. the overall graphed out data shows that the sun is shrinking. its losing 1/10% per century.

I beleive that its been repeatedly pointed out to you that this is absolutely false. Guys like hovind repeat it because they are either liars or willfully ignorant, please stop listening to an uneducated dolt like hovind for scientific information, or any sort of information for that matter.

the moon proves that the earth was created

It does nothing of the sort.

ok, you should know that most fossils are found in groups. a flood probably wouldnt spread everything out to be evenly distributed around the world.

It certainly wouldn't result in the actual pattern of the fossil record.

that is another assumption still awaiting proof, or awaiting observation.

Again, macroevolution, the changing of one species into another, has been observed, both in the lab and in the wild. Its a baseless assumption that says it can't happen.

you would have given the picture as well as an explanation.

If you are trying to learn about these things, then its upon you to take that nice list, and look up the specimin photos on line and in the journals.

neanderthal was people with arthritis.

Both genetic and morhphological analyses clearly show that neanderthal were not homo sapiens, they are clearly a different species.

lucy was a fake

Completely false.

. lucy's knee was found over 1 mile away in different rock layers. (which are supposed to be different layers)

Wrong. Please check your facts.
www.talkorigins.org...


and that is the only place on earth where they could survive. maybe thats what happened

Maybe. But there is no evidence for it, and rather the evidence supports the evolutionary model.


he brought every KIND of animal on the ark

Whether one uses kinds of species, hatchlings babies or adults, is irrelevant. There is simply not enough room on the ark for any of these sets.


notice that bugs to not have nostrils. they can survive a flood.

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. Having nostrils does not mean that you can't survive a flood, and insects need air just as much as other animals.

and how did trees get stuck in those layers running through many layers?

I think you are talking about so called 'polystrat' trees. There are no trees running thru multiple geological layers. I'd think that there'd've been some that were buried, petrified, partially exposed, and then reburied by a new layer, but I am not familiar with any. The examples cityed as 'polystrate' trees are not truly poly-strate. They are merely trees that have been buried in layers of mud and whatnot, not different geological strata.

then where did all the layers of strata come from?

This is a basic concept in geology. I find it stunning that you either don't know the answer, or that you do know it but aren't bothering to present what you think is wrong with it.

the only explanation would be a flood but you already said that there wasnt one.

New Orleans is currently flooded, there will be a flood deposit there with upside down trees. Last I checked, the rest of the planet wasn't flooded tho.

where I was supposed to give examples of teachers getting fired for not believing in evolution and exposing errors in the textbooks. someone let me know if you know. thanks

I don't recall, but why don't you present the stuff here anyways?

Moses edited Genesis so that is probably the reason for the delay of publication.

Moses was editing genesis, and this is why the Epic of Gilgamesh pre-dates any jewish flood story by several centuries???

are many flood legends that match up with what the bible says about the flood.

Rather, the bible matches up with the nearby, older, sumerian flood legend. Its the oldest one, therefore the bible matches it.

actually there are over 300 flood legends. im sure Gilgamesh is one of them.

On a side note, irrespective of any and all of this, you should really try reading the epic of gilgamesh, its really fascinating.

yeah there are about 8,000 basic kinds

There is no such thing as a kind, therefore there are not 8k of them.


fake moths

Here is a more thorough examination of the peppered moths.

the moths did not change colors, the birds picked the ones they could see. its called natural selection.

This is evolution by natural selection. Evolution doesn't say that the animals decide to become something more fit. They vary, this variation has repurcussions. If you are a darker moth and the trees are getting darker, you've got a beneficial varitation, birds will tend to not eat moths that are hard to see. The result is eventually that the whole population is pretty dark. This is evolution. Saying its not is like saying that the evolution of camoflauge is not evolution.

. not a creative force, it was a selecting force

Precisely. Natural selection is not creative, its selective.

it didnt change the moths into prayingmantis' or anything else.

So? Its still evolution.I'm sorry if you think evolution allways has to men evolving from apes. It doesn't. Sometimes its small changes, sometimes its big changes. The big changes require lots of time. We've only had a little amount of time to observe the animals, and therefore all we're going to see is the small changes. If we coudl see the big picture, we'd expect to see big changes. Lo and behold, the fossil record provides a big amount of time to look at, and we see a tremendous variety and a progression of forms thru time. Precisely as predicted by evolution thru natural selection.


I used to be a bug a bug person when I was a littel kid

Then surely you are well aware of the tendency of moths to rest on tree trunks. Why have you been fooled by the statement that they don't??

Apologies for the late reply, wasn't aware until now of the following:

with a north seeking compass and come near one of those rocks that have reversed polarity, its going to point the other way?

No. This is not what I am claiming. Why do you claim this?
Below is some of the revelant data for sea floor magnetic anomolies.


first, its near the oceanic ridge, where some kind of extreme event might have taken place that allowed very very hott water to eject from the ridge. sometime in the past this probably took place.

This does not explain the above data in any way.
THe original citation for magentic sea floor spreading is:
Magnetic anomalies over oceanic ridges
FJ Vine, DH Matthews - Nature, 1963
Here is an intersting page on the idea.


are these reversals found anywhere else in the world?

The anomolies are not only found everywhere that there is sea floor spreading, but they all are in agreement with one another.


[edit on 11-9-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 02:24 AM
link   
so people like Hovind are stupid just because they are creationists and anyone who believes in evolution are the smart ones and actually get credit for making assumptions and claims even though many of them are known to be false?



Again, macroevolution, the changing of one species into another, has been observed, both in the lab and in the wild. Its a baseless assumption that says it can't happen.


changing from one speices to another is micro evolution. its called a variation. the variations are limited to within the Kind. but we have never observed or have any evidence for example: a dog producing a non-dog or a dog coming from a non-dog.
there is no evidence that a bacteria can evolve into everything we see today. there is no evidence for it whatsoever.

half of everything else you listed is false as well. and has been proven wrong by many people. its denied only becuase it upsets the humanist idea.


another question,
how do you know how old rock layers are? cuz I can tell you right now. its not done without the geologic collumn which was erected before radiometric dating was even invented.

EC

[edit on 12-9-2005 by Evolution Cruncher]

[edit on 12-9-2005 by Evolution Cruncher]



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
so people like Hovind are stupid just because they are creationists and anyone who believes in evolution are the smart ones and actually get credit for making assumptions and claims even though many of them are known to be false?


because people like hovind provide too much disinformation, it's propoganda.



changing from one speices to another is micro evolution. its called a variation. the variations are limited to within the Kind. but we have never observed or have any evidence for example: a dog producing a non-dog or a dog coming from a non-dog.


i just don't think you grasp the concept of evolution. it's unrealistic to think that a non-dog species would be born from two dogs. that has nothing to do with evolution because two dogs having a non-dog in no way helps the species.

what has been observed is two species of fly mating, and having a completly new species of fly unlike either of it's original parents. this is refered to as a hybrid species and shows evolution can work slowly or very fast.

[edit on 12-9-2005 by shaunybaby]



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Similarities between Noah and Gilgamesh

Superficially, the flood accounts appear to be similar:
1-Flood occurs in the Mesopotamian plain.
2-Main character is warned to build a boat to escape the flood
3-Main character is told to save himself, his family, and a sampling of animals
4-The boats were sealed with tar
5-The boats came to rest on a mountain
6-Birds were released to determine if the waters receded
7-Main character sacrificed an offering

Imo i think it's fair to say that the two stories are 'rooted' in the same 'event'.

The stone tablet (11 of 12) which contained The Epic of Gilgamesh dates to approximately 650 B.C. although fragments of a flood story have been found on tablets dating back to appr. 2,000 B.C.

Some scholars believe Genesis was written between 1,500 and 500 B.C. But it's important to note that the events are claimed to have happened several thousand years earlier. Genesis didn't necessarily steal the Sumerian story, it could just be two perspectives of the same event. Not the strongest of arguments i know, but it's plausible imo.

Some of the differences between Noah and Gilgamesh are worthy of mentioning also.

1-Timing:
The Gilgamesh flood lasted only 3 weeks(7 days rain 14 days of flood waters)

Noah's about a year.(40 days or rain 260 days of flood waters)

2-Boat design:
Gilgamesh, an unseaworhty cube with a slate roof and 12 decks. Measuring 200x200x200 built in 7 days.

Noah, seaworthy(tested per bible specs. to 200ft waves and could tilt 90deg. and still "right" itself) with a wooden roof, 3 decks. Measuring 450x75x45 and taking 100 years to build.

3-Aftermath:
Gilgamesh, gods quarrel among themselves, god Ea lies to Enlil. Utnapishtim and wife made into gods.

Noah, GOD promises not to destroy humanity by flood again.

4- repopulation:
Gilgamesh, Ea and Mami created 14 human beings to help repopulate the earth.

Noah, Noah and family told to multiply and repopulate the earth

I could go on and on but my point is that the similarities show that a flood did occur and the differences show one is not a copy of another(maybe).

Gilgamesh is much more fancifal/magical than the Genesis account imo. And given that Gilgamesh was written on stone and Genesis on papyrus the older (biblical) accounts may have been lost where as Gilgamesh could have survived.

Either way i don't think the evidence shows that Noah is Gilgamesh adapted for a Jewish audience, of course that's only my opinion...i could be wrong.(it's bound to happen sooner or later)


Got alot of this info from this(below) source and here is their conclusion:

www.godandscience.org...
There are a couple possible explanations for the existence of multiple ancient flood accounts. One - that Genesis was a copy of Gilgamesh - has already been discussed and does not seem to fit the available data. The other possible explanation is that the flood was a real event in the history of mankind that was passed down through the generations of different cultures. If so, the Gilgamesh account seems to have undergone some rather radical transformations. The story is a rather silly myth that bears little resemblance to reality. In contrast, the Genesis account is a logical, seemingly factual account of a historical event. It lacks the obvious mythological aspects of the Gilgamesh epic.


Also check out this link Genesis is older(these guys are "Young-Earther's" and Global Flood proponents both are theories that i don't subscribe to, but i think they make some valid points...which imo speak to neither contention, YE or GF, so far as what i've quoted here)


It makes more sense that Genesis was the original and the pagan myths arose as distortions of that original account. While Moses lived long after the event, he probably acted as the editor of far older sources.9 For example, Genesis 10:19 gives matter-of-fact directions, ‘as you go toward Sodom and Gomorrah and Admah and Zeboiim’. These were the cities of the plain God destroyed for their extreme wickedness 500 years before Moses. Yet Genesis gives directions at a time when they were well-known landmarks, not buried under the Dead Sea.

It is common to make legends out of historical events, but not history from legends. The liberals also commonly assert that monotheism is a late evolutionary religious development. The Bible teaches that mankind was originally monotheistic. Archaeological evidence suggests the same, indicating that only later did mankind degenerate into idolatrous pantheism.


(emphasis mine) not sure of the validity of that last statement i'm no archeologist. I can find an argument either way, and then there's henotheism and Pantheism and probably 20 other terms i don't know about. Honestly never thought about it, as a Christian i believe monotheism(GOD) should pre-date any other form but i've never actually looked into it. Would certainly aid in the debate over whose story was first Noah or Gilgamesh, no? Anyone got any links to an unbiased source as to what the evidence we have suggests was the first (type of) religion? I'm not sure where to look for a credible source on this info, thanks.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 09:45 PM
link   
It seams there are two "kinds" of people in this world; those that understand physics and the physical sciences, they are called evolutionists and those that don't they are called creationists.

We can explore the bottom of the oceans and the top of the mountains all across this planet. We can even use our overwhelming accurate skills in understanding of physics and the physical sciences to safely land an unmanned craft on distant planets but, we can't recover some piece of wood from a boat that is claimed to be responsible for all current life on earth. Come on now get a clue. There is no arc and never was.

Woodmorrape put out a very entertaining book about Noah's ark. He in no way proved it happened. All the information he presented and he himself said that the book was only to show that it could happen. Clearly he is wrong in so many areas simply because he doesn't provide any facts or solutions that work together. Obviously since the creationists are blind believers in the accuracy of the popular book, the bible, written by Arabs (you know the terroristic group). They will not see the critical omitions that invalidate his stories. Things like the time it takes to build the oh so delicate coral reefs, or the lack of a saline layer in the ice caps (which would have been destroyed by a global flood). Or how the Hawaiian island were created. Or the lack of dibris and silt deposits across the globe that floods cause. (have you sean New Orleans?) Not to mention the incredible accuracy of the numerous independent dating methods showning the age of the earth and dinosaurs. Of course no dating methods work when you are talking about religious artifacts, every creationists knows that. Because you got to have faith right. No stone tablets, no arc of the covenent, no holy grail, no jesus. (there were many rabis at the time with the first name jesus). It is all just blind faith.

Evolution is a theory. It is as much a fact as the theory of relativity and the theory of gravity. If Woodmorrape did so much research into Noah's arc why did he not present facts to support a theory? If the arc was built seaworthy on the first shot by a non boat builder who had the knowledge and skills to recreate entire eco-systems and support thousands of wild animals without killing them or having them die in their own waste/floating septic system, why would he not pass this knowledge on? If such a boat was responsible for your existence don't you think you would want to protect and preserve it? Well I guess he wasn't quite that smart was he.

Global flood humm. Was that just one storm cloud covering the entire globe at once? How did the people know that? Did they use their telephone to call China and ask "hey, you guys getting flooded?" Yeah there are hundreds of stories about a global flood. Yeah they all have similarities to the bible. Well that is because they are all from the same myth. Each time the story was told it changed. It doesn't matter how many gullible people think this could have happen it does not make it so. Fact of the matter is there are thousands of similar stories about Santa Claus. To be consistent all creationist must be absolutely certain that since there are so many similar stories, Santa Claus exists to go to every home in the world in just one night. My 2 year old son can prove it Santa left him a gift. Hey, why stop there? Santa Claus visits every home in the universe in just one night. That explains UFO's.

Back to Noah’s arc. It is a glamorized story about a grain and livestock ship merchant who got caught in a tsunami, somewhere. This was the result of a volcanic island 300 miles away from mount Ararat blowing itself off the face of the earth. (Have you evr been in a tsunami? If you were you would think the whole world was being flooded.) The resulting tsunami carried with it the lightweight sea born volcanic rock that just happens to sit around and some atop mount Ararat. These rocks are of a composition that matches a seabed volcano, not anything like the material composition of mount Ararat. The tsunami broke the natural dike and that created the black sea. There is factual evidence of a fresh water lake and towns at the bottom of the Black sea, in other words, they are still there. Is it just a coincidence that the organic materials recovered from the structures there have been repeatedly dated to around the time of this mythological story? Or did the flooding of an area the size of Florida (which would have taken about a month or forty days) just go unnoticed? It would have been a slow rising flood just like the flood of New Orleans. The difference is that they couldn’t pump the water out or rebuild the dike.

One last thing just to get people all fired up. Where do we get our Oxygen? Well, half of all of our oxygen comes from Phytoplankton. The other half comes from living breathing vegetation. If you submerge half of the source of the earth’s oxygen then you would expect the level of oxygen to drop in half very quickly. Since we breathe 21% oxygen and there doesn’t seam to be any differences in the breathing capacity of historic peoples or animals then it seams at the time of Noah’s arc the oxygen level and the breathing abilities of those needing it was the same as it is now. We here’s a fact, we start to suffocate at 15% oxygen levels. Submerge all the plant life in the world and you drop the oxygen level down to 10% and everyone and everything suffocates before the levels of carbon dioxide build up to cause the global warming you hear the alarmists going off on. After all was dead the earth would heat up and poach everything.

By the way Evolution does not disprove creation. You can't prove myth wrong. But, if there is a creator who created him/her/it? and why?

Have a nice day.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
so people like Hovind are stupid just because they are creationists

Hovind is just plain stupid, it has nothing to do with 'people like him'. The man's an idiot. He has no idea what he's talking about half the time, whether its science or religion.


changing from one speices to another is micro evolution. its called a variation.

Speciation is not variation. Macroevolution is defined as changes at and above the species level. Thus, macroevolution is observed.

the variations are limited to within the Kind.

There is no evidence of any such limitation.

half of everything else you listed is false as well.

This is incorrect.

and has been proven wrong by many people.

it hasn't been proven wrong by a single solitary person.

its denied only becuase it upsets the humanist idea.

The christians and other non-humanists who understand evolution seem to disagree. Also, why would humanism be effected if evolution didn't occur via natural selection? They wouldn't. Humanism has nothing to do with evolution, evolution is a science.

cuz I can tell you right now. its not done without the geologic collumn which was erected before radiometric dating was even invented.

The geologic column gives relative ages of the layers within it. Radiometric dating yeilds absolute ages or 'radio-ages'.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join