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: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Play nice please.




posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 08:30 PM
link   
4 things

1 alf lied about something i never said anything about crocadiles and stuff surviving because they were underwater whaterer

2: i forgot to say that it was a theory that they coexisted and i was just providing some evidince supporting the theory

3: how am i the ignorant one when i cant even give a new theory a chance?
4: a few of you talked about the cat/mammal here's some like's about it
aolsvc.news.aol.com...
news.nationalgeographic.com...
www.rednova.com...
oops its turned out that it was the mammal that ate the dino not the other way around
and if u guys still want more links there was lots more if u search dinosaur found in mammal on google



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by trust_no_one
if their was a global flood they strata would get mixed up like it is (dinosaures at bottom human at top) because dinosaur bones are bigger and heavier

This is not true. Many dinosaurs were smaller than humans. And many mor dinosaurs had bones that were less dense than humans, because they were filled with air sacs. Not to mention that there is an order to the fossil record that simply cannot be accounted for by this kind of 'sorting', nor that the fossils are rarely found in sediments depostied by a flood.


and mamels and dino's were never thought to live together either

I simply don't understand where you get that, the people studying the stuff have allways known that mammals and dino co-existed.

i forgot to say that it was a theory that they coexisted and i was just providing some evidince supporting the theory

You have not provided any evidence that supports their co-existence. At best, you have provided the usual excuses as to why man and dinosaurs are not found together (ie a variation of the old creationist 'hydrological sorting' excuse). Excuses are not evidence.

how am i the ignorant one

You are ignorant because you are uneducated on the matter, which isn't much of a problem except that in your lack of education and study on it you still think it sensible to proffer 'theories' about it.
[qote]oops its turned out that it was the mammal that ate the dino not the other way around
I am really having a hard time as to how you think any of that is relevant. No one disputes that mammals and dinosaurs co-existed. What is disputed is that man and dinosaurs co-existed. And if anything the proof that mammals existed refutes the 'hydrological sorting' idea, where big dinos sank to the bottom and smaller humans floated to the top, because here you have a smaller mammal 'sinking to the bottom'. Heck, its a smaller mammal, so it should float, but it has a dinosaur in it, so it should 'sink'. So its obvious that dinosuars do not allways 'sink', becuase some of them are infact quite small.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
First off, you are really ignorant. Half of the incredibally unthought out information you gave us as evidence for a flood HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH A FLOOD. But its funny seeing how people who can't connect a single coherant thought write on message boards like yourself. Show me the evidence of a submerged mount everest. And bonehead...where is Noahs ark? They believe they found it...well why don't they show us all. You know how that stupid rumor started? A news network aired a hoax show unknowingly. An athiest conned christians all over the world by telling them he found noah's ark...JUST TO SHOW HOW GULLABLE THEY REALLY ARE. You fit the gullable bill for still holding onto this fairy tail years after the guy admitted he was trying to fool you. THEY HAVE NEVER FOUND NOAHS ARK, AND THEY NEVER WILL. But it will be fun watching you wait your whole life for that and the rapture and such...nice.

Where is the evidence of a cat inside a dinosaur that you say they have found? The dinosaur footprints with humans is in no way evidence by the way. You are gullable again for believing it. If you do a simple internet search on google, you will find about 1000 websites claiming that dinosaur and human footprints found together are evidence of tere coexistance. What you would have left out is that they are ALL CHRISTIAN WEBSITES. A little biased do you think?

I will reiterate something. If you had ever opened a book and actually read anything in your short and uneducated life, you would know that there are such things as water pressure, air pressure, gravity, and raw material. There is no way that 5 times the amount of water on earth todat could have dissapeared. Are you truly that foolish (Rhetorical question)? The bible states the size of the ark. It would hardly fit 1000 people with food for a week today. Do you want me to go again and provide that info again? Let alone containing a pair of every living creature and its food for A MINIMUM OF 40 DAYS AS DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE.

There is NO EVIDENCE. You are the fool. You are foolish. You are a blind follower. You will forever be ignorant. I wish there were no people like you. Foolish enough to believe and repeat everything you hear from your uneducated pastors. You don't even know what the bible says yourself. I swear, I am glad organized religion is on a serious decline. Maybe my children won't have to grow up with the uneducated fools I did.

[edit on 3/3/2005 by Seapeople]


Wow. Replace all christian/religious statements and inferences with "Black" or "person of color" and then take a look in the mirror. It never ceases to amaze me the amount of prejudice and hatred that people find acceptable as long as they are directing it at christians.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Jeez--you couldn't get all the animals on our whole naval group much less a wooden boat the size of a couple football fields.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople

Please understand, that there is no evidence ANYWHERE supporting a global flood.




Scientific Reasons
The earth's surface and sedimentary crust also bear strong witness to the historicity of a worldwide Flood, and the early geologists (Steno, Woodward, etc.) taught this. Most modern geologists have argued, on the other hand, that the earth's crust was formed slowly over billions of years. Yes, but consider the following significant facts.

All the mountains of the world have been under water at some time or times in the past, as indicated by sedimentary rocks and marine fossils near their summits. Even most volcanic mountains with their pillow lavas seem largely to have been formed when under water.
Most of the earth's crust consists of sedimentary rocks (sandstones, shales, limestones, etc.). These were originally formed in almost all cases under water, usually by deposition after transportation by water from various sources.
The assigned "ages" of the sedimentary beds (which comprise the bulk of the "geologic column") have been deduced from their assemblages of fossils. Fossils, however, normally require very rapid burial and compaction to be preserved at all. Thus every sedimentary formation appears to have been formed rapidly—even catastrophically—and more and more present-day geologists are returning to this point of view.
Since there is known to be a global continuity of sedimentary formations in the geologic column (that is, there is no worldwide "unconformity," or time gap, between successive "ages"), and since each unit was formed rapidly, the entire geologic column seems to be the product of continuous rapid deposition of sediments, comprising in effect the geological record of a time when "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished."
It is also significant that the types of rocks, the vast extent of specific sedimentary rock formations, the minerals and metals, coal and oil found in rocks, the various types of structures (i.e., faults, folds, thrusts, etc.), sedimentary rocks grossly deformed while still soft from recent deposition, and numerous other features seem to occur indiscriminately throughout the various "ages" supposedly represented in the column. To all outward appearances, therefore, they were all formed in essentially the same brief time period.
The fossil sequences in the sedimentary rocks do not constitute a legitimate exception to this rule, for there is a flagrant circular reasoning process involved in using them to identify their supposed geologic age. That is, the fossils have been dated by the rocks where they are found, which in turn had been dated by their imbedded fossils with the sequences based on their relative assumed stages of evolution, which had ultimately been based on the ancient philosophy of the "great chain of being." Instead of representing the evolution of life over many ages, the fossils really speak of the destruction of life (remember that fossils are dead things, catastrophically buried for preservation) in one age, with their actual local "sequences" having been determined by the ecological communities in which they were living at the time of burial.
The fact that there are traditions of the great Flood found in hundreds of tribes in all parts of the world (all similar in one way or another to that in the Genesis record) is firm evidence that those tribes all originated from the one family preserved through the cataclysm.
This brief article is a mere introduction to the large array of scientific and Biblical evidences that could be cited for the great Flood of the Bible, global in extent and cataclysmic in character and results. The book, The Genesis Flood (coauthored by Dr. John Whitcomb and myself back in 1961), supplemented by many subsequent books and especially by many writers and articles in the Creation Research Society Quarterly scattered over its 35 years of publication, as well as various other creationist journals, provides an abundance of further evidence and documentation of the global extent and cataclysmic nature of the Flood.

One can understand why atheistic and pantheistic evolutionists have to interpret Earth history in terms of great ages and evolution, rather than Creation and the Flood. They really have no other choice, once they have decided to reject the God of Creation and His record in the Bible. However, it is very difficult to understand why men and women who do believe in God and His word do this. The Bible is explicitly clear on the global Deluge, and sound scientific evidence supports it.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by trust_no_one
wow that is really ignorint. and as the person who gave ALF the idea for this thread i want to say some stuff that he left out.


I really wish people here would stop using the word "ignorant" as an insult. Just because the site's motto is "Deny Ignorance" doesn't mean that everyone arguing with you is, themselves, ignorant. This goes for everyone, whether believer or skeptic. At the very least, I wish people could come up with more creative ways to insult each other



1: their is evidence of a global flood, there are tree stumps in deserts that are thousands of years old and are though to have been carried by water for miles away.


Many regions that are currently deserts have not always been so. The evidence of fossilized and/or mumified trees that you mention here is one thing that indicates this. Layers of strata with an abundance of non-desert-plant pollin is another. Neither of these things, of themselves, require that a flood happened. We have evidence, in recent history, of the spread of deserts into formerly fecund areas. Check out the desertification of areas near the Saraha in the 20th century.


2: they think they found noahs ark in a mountian range somewere in the middle east


Are you talking about Ron Wyatt's "discovery" of the Ark in Turkey? Even Creationist Sources agree that it's not the Ark.


3: if it was a global flood that wiped out the dinos then it would have made the strata mix up (dinosaure bones sink to bottom, and human float to top) and thats why they think that they existed so many years before


This is the one that everyone's jumping on, mostly because it is the easiest to dispute. There's a lot of evidence that what you suggest here is incorrect.

First of all, were the bones to have settled by density, we would see a lot of large mammals along with the denser dinosaur bones at the bottom of the stratta, moving towards smaller and smaller animals as you approached "modern" stratta. The progression we would expect, had the bones settled into mud, should look something like this

---Modern Era----
"fossilized" and other single-celled life
Simple multicellular life
Insects, other tiny arthropods
Small multicellular life with light/rudimentary skeletal systems
Medium sized arthropods (lobster, crabs, etc)
Small fish
Small birds
Small reptiles and amphibians
Small mammals
Medium fish
Medium birds
Medium reptiles and amphibians
Medium mammals
Large fish
Large birds
Large reptiles and amphibians
Large mammals
Huge fish
Huge reptiles
------End of the 6th Day of Creation-----------

Following your view, you should, for example, see evidence of Elephant bones at a level with similarly dense dinosaur bones. You should see primitive fish and bird bones at a much higher layer than we currently do.


4: they resently found a dino with a small mamal (cat like or something) in its stomach, but mamals wernt supposed to exist for thousands of years after the dinos too so if mamles wernt supposed to exist then and we have evidense of it now then y is it so hard to believe that humans did too?


Without a link to the article (or a citation for it, if it's only available in print) I can't do much more than to say that current theory isn't that mammals and dinosaurs never coexisted, just that most modern mammals and dinosaurs didn't.


5: their are footprint fossils with a dino fotprint and a human footprint inside, although i think a while ago it was found to be froud but im not sure


Most of the "human/dino footprint" evidence has been pretty far discredited. A lot of what they initially thought were examples of this have been fabricated or re-evaluated. The fun thing about science, though, is that while it may be temporarily dogmatic, it is, by nature, open to revision. Should a true mix of dinosaur and human footprint fossils be found, and if there's sufficient evidence to support the theory, we'll see some fun shakeups in the theories about human development (or, more likely, dinosaur extinction.) Until that time, however, science can only go on the data it's currently got.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
All the mountains of the world have been under water at some time or times in the past,

This is entirely untrue, and just plain stupid. There is not enough water on the planet to cover all the way up to Mt. Everest. Mountains are formed by the folding of rocks and uplifting. Its a basic geological process. Whenever oceanic sedimentary rocks are found on mountains, they also 'just happen' to be folded and contourted along with all the other rocks that the mountain is made up of. They were laid down in the past, solidified into rock, and then were uplifted and folded into the modern mountains.



. Even most volcanic mountains with their pillow lavas seem largely to have been formed when under water.

most volcanoes do not have pillow lavas, at least the ones on continents. Underwater volcanoes do indeed form pillow lavas. This cooling of the lava causes the volcano to grow. Eventually they break the surface of the water and can even form islands, ala hawaii.


Most of the earth's crust consists of sedimentary rocks (sandstones, shales, limestones, etc.). These were originally formed in almost all cases under water, usually by deposition after transportation by water from various sources.

Dear god man, how is that supposed to be contorted into meaning that there was a global flood? These deposits are of entirely different ages! And is it so surprising that most rocks on the surface of the earth were laid down by surface processes? If the earth was young, then yes, it would be. A lack of much sedmintary rocks would support your idea.


Thus every sedimentary formation appears to have been formed rapidly

There are no geologists, outside of creationists perhaps (and certainly not all of them) maintains this. Rather, the rocks often bear evidence of being laid down, not only over long periods of time, but in low energy environments, ie not global floods.


even catastrophically—and more and more present-day geologists are returning to this point of view.

A sheer lie.



Since there is known to be a global continuity of sedimentary formations in the geologic column (that is, there is no worldwide "unconformity," or time gap, between successive "ages"),

Again, another lie. While the entire 'geologic column' exists in several places, there is absolutely no 'global continuity of sedimentary formations'. Often its difficult to correlate sedimentary layers within a region, let along across the entire globe.


and since each unit was formed rapidly, the entire geologic column seems to be the product of continuous rapid deposition of sediments,

So you start out with a lie, or at best a gross example of complete ignorance, and use that to conclude that there was a flood? Absurd. There is no global flood layer and most sediments do not accumulate rapidly. In this little bit of insanity you have basically said 'all rocks are laid down by floods, there's rocks everywhere, ergo there was a flood everywhere'. Pure fantasy.


sedimentary rocks grossly deformed while still soft from recent deposition,

I don't know where you get that, but it too is untrue. Its well known that rocks can be bent and folded when pressure is applied to them. They can even behave like plastic at certain pressures and tempurates.

To all outward appearances, therefore, they were all formed in essentially the same brief time period.

'To all outward appearances' indeed. At best one can say that they superficially give that impression, and even then it requires a vast amount of ignorance of geology in order to conclude that.




for there is a flagrant circular reasoning process involved in using them to identify their supposed geologic age.

Since the rough ages of the strata in teh geologic column were assigned and correlated by pre-darwinian 'creationist' geologists then if its an error its the error of the religious.


That is, the fossils have been dated by the rocks where they are found, which in turn had been dated by their imbedded fossils with the sequences based on their relative assumed stages of evolution

This, quite simply, is not how rock strata are dated. Undoubtedly some reasearchers in the past, when the 'evolutionary stages' idea was in fashion before darwin, would state that a rock with very primitive life was very old. But even a child can observe that there are primitive lifeforms around now. If you want to pretend that these bible toting geologists were stupider than children, then you'd have to present a little more than your own sayso to support it.


which had ultimately been based on the ancient philosophy of the "great chain of being."

Again, more fallacy. Modern biology doesn't require acceptance of the pseudo-evolutionary 'great chain'.


(remember that fossils are dead things, catastrophically buried for preservation)

To call the miniscule process that can result in 'rapid' burial of a carcas a 'catastrophic process' is to make a sneeze as catastrophic as a hurricane.



The fact that there are traditions of the great Flood found in hundreds of tribes in all parts of the world

Speaks to the fact that there are allways local floods that are destructive everywhere.

is firm evidence that those tribes all originated from the one family preserved through the cataclysm.

Firm evidence? No just tangentally supporting evidence or possibly relevant evidence? But firm evidence? More fantasy.



This brief article is a mere introduction to the large array of scientific and Biblical evidences that could be cited for the great Flood of the Bible

Are they all based upon lies fantasy and ignorance also?


The book, The Genesis Flood (coauthored by Dr. John Whitcomb and myself back in 1961),

Henry Morris co-authoered that book with Whitcomb. I assume at this point that you are infact cuting and pasting from another source? Well, its nice to have it confirmed that Morris is infact an idiot from this moronic and unscientific ramblings.


in the Creation Research Society Quarterly

The CRS requires that members affirm faith in creationism before becoming members and publishing. Its not a scientific magazine, its a mouthpeice for some of the most idiotic creationist propaganda out there.


scattered over its 35 years of publication, as well as various other creationist journals, provides an abundance of further evidence and documentation of the global extent and cataclysmic nature of the Flood.

Indeed. Morris presents a bit of garbage and lies to advance his claim, and then says 'oh, there's just so much information and evidence out there, who can even present it all'. Yeah, right.


One can understand why atheistic and pantheistic evolutionists have to interpret Earth history in terms of great ages and evolution,

Indeed, since they are looking at the evidence. Heck, highly pious and religious people who are also rational thinkers also support evolution, and are even 'evolutionists' and evolutionary and geological researchers themselves. They have different religious perspectives, and merely because they treat the evidence intelligently, they arrive at a good answer.


They really have no other choice, once they have decided to reject the God of Creation and His record in the Bible.

Except, again, for those who are infact religious and don't have a problem with evolution or any other science.


However, it is very difficult to understand why men and women who do believe in God and His word do this. The Bible is explicitly clear on the global Deluge, and sound scientific evidence supports it.

Perhaps they beleive in evolution, and reject the 'global flood' because the evidence is against it, and because of shallow liars like Morris and Whitcomb and, heck, practically any other 'creationist' researcher.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Dbrandt makes illogical and insane statements like that all the time. He does not ever bother looking into the nonsense he tries telling us all. He is just like the rest of them. It is a waste of your time showing him factual data that proves his statements incorrect because he does not care. He intentionally forces unintelligence on himself, because it is the only way his sacred book can work...if everything that actually happens in reality is a lie.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Just think of the size of the required Arc if Noah would want save a 150 ton megasaur , let alone a male and a female of all the other dinosaur species....



[edit on 5-3-2005 by Countermeasures]



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Yeah all dinosaurs were huge? What about the smaller classic dinosaurs? Raptors? Compsugnatus? There are loads of small dinosaurs but apparantly dinosaurs were always huge.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
This is entirely untrue, and just plain stupid.


Well you are not actually calling me ignorant and stupid or a liar etc. You are saying that about the following man:

Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired full colonel (Air Force), West Point graduate, and former Army ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years in the military included: Director of Benet Research, Development, and Engineering Laboratories in Albany, New York; tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life, Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after many years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military in 1980, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and speaking on origins.

For those who wish to know more about Walt Brown, a new book (Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World by George Mulfinger and Julia Mulfinger Orozco) devotes a chapter to Brown.


Written Debate

The issue is: Does the scientific evidence favor creation or evolution? Dr. Brown’s standing offer for a strictly scientific, written, and publishable debate is on page 336. Please read the entire passage and note that a few initially agreed to a strictly scientific debate, but later changed their minds, insisting they would only take part if the exchange included religion. One evolutionist is so upset that a written debate will not include religion that he now misleads by saying that Walt Brown has refused to debate him. (Correspondence in our files shows how he no longer wanted a strictly scientific debate after reading the 6th edition of this book.) Dr. Brown has consistently maintained his position for 23 years: the debate should be limited to scientific evidence.

If someone says, “Walt Brown has refused to debate,” we suggest you ask to see that person’s signed debate agreement. (Walt Brown has published his on pages 336-338.)


You can go to creationscience.com to read the other side of what happened during the flood in Noah's day and how it affected our world we live in today.

There are many more men and women who know the creation view and it makes perfect sense so to simply say it's a lie and "we're" ignorant is a pretty lame rebuttal.

Potentially the creation view can bring someone to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, so to anyone, don't just sit here and believe one side or the other, investigate. With the internet you can find plenty of sites that explain the flood and how it changed the world.


As a side note for those who post and call others names, Christ came to free you of this. You don't have to call someone a name, you can be free of this. I hope you realize that by putting others down it merely shows a need within you to make you feel better about yourself. It would take a surrender to Jesus on your part so that you can be remade in His image. I don't know if you have actually read the entire Bible but it talks about you in it. Jesus tells those who follow Him that "If they hated me they will also hate you".



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Countermeasures
Just think of the size of the required Arc if Noah would want save a 150 ton megasaur , let alone a male and a female of all the other dinosaur species....
[edit on 5-3-2005 by Countermeasures]


How did Noah fit all the animals on the Ark?

Question: “How did Noah fit all the animals on the ark?”

Answer: How did Noah fit all of those animals on the ark? Was the ark big enough to fit “two of every kind… of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind,” and seven of some? What about food? There had to be enough room to store enough food to last Noah and his family (8 in all), plus all of the animals, at least a year (see Genesis 7:11; 8:13-18) and maybe more depending on how long it took for vegetation to grow back. That’s a lot of food! What about drinking water? Is it realistic to believe that Noah’s boat was big enough to store all of these animals and all of this food and water for over a year?

The dimensions for the ark given in Genesis are 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high (Genesis 6:15). What is a cubit? A cubit is an ancient unit of measurement, the length of the forearm from the elbow to the longest finger (the term “cubit” comes from the Latin word “cubitum” which means elbow. The Hebrew word for cubit is “‘ammah”). As everybody’s arms are different in length this unit may seem a bit ambiguous to some but scholars generally agree that it represents somewhere between 17 and 22 inches (43-56 centimeters). The ancient Egyptian cubit is known to have been 21.888 inches. So let’s do the math…

300 x 22 inches = 6,600; 50 x 22 inches = 1,100; 30 x 22 inches = 660

6,600/12 = 550 feet; 1100/12 = 91.7 feet; 660/12 = 55 feet.

Thus, the ark could have been up to 550 feet long, 91.7 feet wide and 55 feet long. These are not unreasonable dimensions. But how much storage space does this amount to? Well, 550 x 91.7 x 55 = 2,773,925 cubic feet. (If we take the smaller measurement, 17 inches, we end up with 1.278,825 cubic feet). Of course, not all of it would have been free space. The ark had three levels (Genesis 6:16) and a lot of rooms (Genesis 6:14), the walls of which would have taken up space. Nevertheless, it has been calculated that if the ark had only 1,518,750 cubic feet of free space, a little more than half (54.75%) of the 2,773,925, it could store up to 125,000 sheep-sized animals (see - www.icr.org...).

John Woodmorappe, author of the definitive Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, estimated that only about 15% of the animals on the ark would have been larger than a sheep. This figure does not take into account the possibility that God may have brought Noah “infant” animals, which can be significantly smaller than adult animals.

How many animals were on the ark? Woodmorappe estimates about 16,000 “kinds.” What is a “kind”? The designation of “kind” is thought to be much broader than the designation “species.” Even as there are 400-something dog breeds but they all belong to one species (Canis familiaris), in the same way many species can belong to one kind. Some think that the designation “genus” may be somewhat close to the Biblical “kind.”

Nevertheless, even if we presume that “kind” is synonymous with “species,” “there are not very many species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles. The leading systematic biologist, Ernst Mayr, gives the number as 17,600. Allowing for two of each species on the ark, plus seven of the few so-called “clean” kinds of animals, plus a reasonable increment for known extinct species, it is obvious that not more than say, 50,000 animals were on the ark.” (Morris, 1987)

Some have estimated that there were as many as 25,000 kinds of animals represented on the ark. This is a high-end estimation. With two of each kind and seven of some the number of animals would exceed 50,000, though not by very much relatively speaking. Regardless, whether there were 16,000 or 25,000 kinds of animals, even with two of each and seven of some, scholars agree that there was plenty of room for all of the animals on the ark, plus food and water with room to spare.

What about all of the excrement produced by all of these animals? How did 8 people manage to feed all of those animals and deal with tons of excrement on a daily basis? What about animals with specialized diet? How did plant-life survive? What about insects? There are a thousand other questions like these which could be raised and they are all good questions. In the minds of many these questions are unanswerable. But they are certainly not anything new. They have been asked over and over for centuries. And in all of that time researchers have sought answers. There are now numerous, very scholarly feasibility studies which have put Noah and his ark to the test. The very best work available on the subject today is John Woodmorappe’s Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study.

With over 1,200 scholarly references to academic studies, Woodmorappe’s book is “a modern systematic evaluation of the alleged difficulties surrounding Noah's Ark” (John Woodmorappe, “A Resource for Answering the Critics of Noah’s Ark,” Impact No. 273 March 1996. Institute for Creation Research, 30 January 2005 www.icr.org...). Woodmorappe claims that after years of systematically examining all of the questions which have been raised over the years, “all of the arguments against the Ark are… found wanting. In fact, the vast majority of the anti-Ark arguments, at first superficially plausible, turn out to be easily invalidated.”

Recommended Resource: Noah's Ark - A Feasibility Study by John Woodmorrape.




[edit on 5-3-2005 by dbrandt]



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Very few dinosaurs were larger then 10 feet tall. Raptor family, except Utah Raptor, were all under 6 feet, with Utah around 9 feet. Compys, Tro-odon, other scavenger/pack hunters were only about the size of chickens-turkeys. Iguanodonts, Segnos, so forth were around 10 feet, but were basically cows. Also, signs show dinosaurs were warm blooded, not cold. More in common with birds then reptiles.

Anyways, with salt/fresh water mixed, ALL SEALIFE DIES! No whales, dolphins, walleye, perch, all dead. SO Noah had huge aquariums on his ship also?

Also, Mountains weren't always mountains....... They are formed when two crust plates shift and run into each other.... so a mountain can be covered, because it wasn't a mountian at the time it was covered. Science people, science. Geography to.

[edit on 5-3-2005 by James the Lesser]



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandtHow did Noah fit all the animals on the Ark?
I just must answer this idiotic cut and paste with another cut and paste that actually speaks to what this fool wrote in his book, since dbrandt yanked that particular piece from a Christian website. But first:

Why did Noah need to carry all the animals onto an ark to begin with? God made all living things no? In one day he supposedly filled the oceans, trees, skies, burrows, dirt and land with animals, fish and reptiles. All he had to do was repeat this exercise, but no, he had to go about it the hard way, make Noah slave to build some monster raft, then whisper to the animals to haul it toute de suite on board, and keep Noah and his family busy for months feeding, and cleaning, birthing, sacrifing. The Bible story is not only ludicrous, it entirely disputes itself on this story as I have previously outlined elsewhere, on top of which Noah made a window and it seems he could not think to just look out of it before he sent out the first bird to see what the water level was? The man was sitting high above a mountain and had a view of the entire "choke" world.


Woodmorappe uses the genera as the equivalent of the created kind. Taking one pair from each genera,
Obviously he was trying to vouch for evolution after all.


Woodmorappe attempts to solve the feeding and care problems by comparing the ark to modern mass production farming methods. But there is no justification given to approaching the problem in this fashion. It is not clear that solutions applicable to the care of 8,000 hogs, requiring the same food, water and space, can be applied to 8,000 different animals each requiring a different set of food, water and environmental conditions. Every care and feeding problem is attacked by this approach. And yet he suggests that some of the snakes can be coaxed into eating inert food by stuffing snake skins with meat. He notes that pandas can survive on diets lacking bamboo, but a check of the references shows that the replacement diet is more time-consuming to create than bamboo. This type of feeding is precisely why so many have wondered whether Noah and company had sufficient time to feed thousands of animals.
Everytime creationists try to support same, they inevitable have to resort to imagination and supposition, which is equivalent to rewriting the Bible. And the following has got to be in bold, he's a comedian too

When it comes to care on the ark, Woodmorappe enlists the aid of the animals themselves. According to Woodmorappe, prior to the flood, Noah had kept a menagerie and trained the animals to defecate and urinate on command into buckets. They were also trained to leave their pens for exercise and return to their cages on command. Snakes and bats were trained to take inert food. Birds were trained to take sugar water from pots. This, of course, makes Noah the greatest animal trainer in history. How much time Noah and his hired hands required to train 16,000 animals is almost incalculable. Then we have

During the time of the menagerie, Noah was engaged in modern breeding in order to "maximize the heterozygosity of the recessive alleles" to avoid inbreeding depression after the flood (p. 194). If hibernation was a desirable trait, Noah was able to breed strains of animals which were more likely to hibernate (p. 133). He was able to acclimatize reptiles to the temperatures they would find on the ark ( p. 124) and breed a pair of Koalas who would accept dried Eucalyptus leaves. This type of solution is appealed to so often, it begins to take on the appearance of an ad hoc explanation.

There are some serious drawbacks to the book. First, as noted in the disclaimer, Woodmorappe resorts to lots of name calling when he does not like an adversary's argument...Several arguments are not self-consistent. An example is the following:

"After raising some transparently absurd problems of snails and earthworms (animals not on the Ark) migrating to the Ark, Morton (1995, p. 69) then dusts off the old chestnut about the slow-moving sloth needing practically forever to reach the Ark from South America." (p. 60)
Thus one is left assuming that earthworms are not on the ark. But earlier in the book, Woodmorappe had appealed to earthworms as the agent for decomposing and handling solid waste (p. 34-35). And later, he says that snails were on the ark for food (p. 101). Inconsistencies like this abound throughout the book.

He claims that calculations show ark animals produced between 6 and 12 tons of airborne moisture. None of the assumptions are displayed to allow the reader to evaluate such a claim. Calculations of the heat production by animals in the ark are claimed to show that there is no problem with this issue, but the lack of calculations force the reader to depend upon the author for the validity of that statement.
And my personal favourite

Woodmorappe states (p. 27) that the urine could be drained overboard by gravity. He does not tell how this is possible from the lowest floor level which was below the water line. At one point he suggests that the animals could be trained to urinate and defecate upon command while someone holds a bucket behind the animal.
That man is/was an absolute idiot!

www.talkorigins.org...





[edit on 3/5/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   
While it probably won't matter to some it could to others. Before the flood the temperature ,climate of the earth was consistent all over the planet thus animals of all kinds probably lived all over the planet.

God brought the animals to Noah, Noah didn't have to go get them.

It was after the flood that enmity was put between man and animal.

Animals also ate grass before the flood and will return to this condition when Christ returns.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
While it probably won't matter to some it could to others. Before the flood the temperature ,climate of the earth was consistent all over the planet thus animals of all kinds probably lived all over the planet.
And you come about this revelation from where?



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Dbrandt,

Above you cited xome information about an MIT professor and his beliefs that science outweighed creationism in competition with evolution or other theories. Now, being that I know that you have no idea why he thinks that, I want you to go ahead and show us the science that proves his point of veiw.

On your own, why don't you show us why. Be prepared to defend your points of views. Although you will simply just deny everything that you disagree with...i guess thats your defense.

There is no evidence anywhere that supports creationism in any way. No evidence at all supports your silly bible. Your bible cant even agree with itself let alone science. But, once again you will deny it. It must be nice living in the foolish blind and idiotic paradise that you live in. Not ever having to think rationally on your own....so nice.....



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople

Above you cited xome information about an MIT professor and his beliefs that science outweighed creationism in competition with evolution or other theories. Now, being that I know that you have no idea why he thinks that, I want you to go ahead and show us the science that proves his point of veiw. On your own, why don't you show us why. .



Why don't I fill in my next cavity also. Because I'm not a dentist.

There are people who have degrees in physics and geology etc. They have knowledge of how things form and have been able to study what a pre flood world would have been like and how volcanoes affect land and water etc. So it seems your point is that no one else in the world knows anything but you. You can consult sources who as part of their job and training know these things and can put them in perspective.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
There is no evidence anywhere that supports creationism in any way. No evidence at all supports your silly bible. Your bible cant even agree with itself let alone science.


This is simply not true. I went on the internet today and did a search on sites that say the Bible and science agree. Sites that can Biblically show how the world and creation and science prove each other. You could do this same thing as well as anybody reading this right now.

I don't get it. The things you accuse christians of you do yourself.







 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join