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: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 06:55 PM
link   
exactly, why would Noah take big dinosuars? he took the babies. and in the bible they arent called dinosaurs, they are called dragons, becuase the word dinosaur wasnt used in dictionaries intil the 1800's. but he didnt take every single species. noah took every kind of animal.




posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   
"Kinds" animals, as Josh was saying, are the basic types of animals. Basically Noah would take two dogs to cover all the dogs that diversified into the species we see today... should we call that evolution... somewhat. However it is the evolution of adaptation in which animals do not change into different types of animals. Which by the way is unseen and will undeniably never happen.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
you have two problems according to the bible.

1. that is saying that death came before mans sin.
2. all those legends are now false.

These are only problems who expect these stories to be taken literally. They are not problems for most pious christians.

I think that the reasoning here is intersting tho; you (not you personally necessarily, but one thinking in this mode) start with the bible, you reject anything that disagrees with it, and you add stuff to the bible that is implied by taking it all together. Hence, dinosaurs on the ark.

Are dinosaurs clean or unclean?

Also, its phyiscally immpossible to fit them all on the Ark. According to the general creationist way of thinking about it, the fossil record is more or less something the bulk of which was laid down by The Flood (and of course there is no evidence for the flood in the first place). This means that the species contained in it would've had representatives on the ark. Thats a hell of a lot of animals. All the dinosaurs, all the pterodactyls, all the dino-birds, all the giant amphibians, all the synapsids, all the mammalian megafauna (giant sloths, indricitherum, giant marsupials) etc etc. And you can't take eggs or babies for all of these things, how are eggs and babies supposed to have gotten there? And how are these younglings supposed to learn the behaviours taught to them by their parents, as with birds which learn their birdsongs from their parents? Let alone how are teh mammalian giants supposed to be nursed with no parents.
There's no room, its simple not workable.

noah took every kind of animal.
[
It clearly states that noah was to take specific species of animals. And using 'kinds' doesn't help, because there are far more kinds of animals than there could possibly be room for on the ark. There are simply far far too many sorts of animals out there in the fossil record to accomodate them. Besides which, there is no such thing as a 'kind' of animal, 'kind' has no biological reality.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Nygdan,

It appears there is not too many kinds...because they are here now for the most part.

Do not hold the flood as the only catastrophic source for fossils. The Babel - Peleg event is likely the source of many as well. I also believe it is the likely source for the frozen mammoths.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 08:28 PM
link   
kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species. maybe that will help you out.


What is a “kind”? The designation of “kind” is thought to be much broader than the designation “species.”




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.
so will this right here if you wish to read any more. supasmoove101 knows what he or she is talking about.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 11:07 PM
link   
I would like to help define what a "kind" is according to the bible. if you readin the bible in Genesis what a kind is, it is those that can bring forth. for examples;

a horse and a zebra can bring forth, they are the same kind, maybe different species but they are the same kind of animal.

a dog and a wolf can bring forth because they are they same kind. actually a great dame and the chiwawa can bring forth, its just there are some mechanical problems.

for those who dont know what a KIND is according to the bible want know what a KIND is according to the bible check out genesis 1. and 2
it will say that "they bring forth after there kind"
so a kind is simply those that can bring forth.

just trying to be of help to help people understand the bible a little better, and yes I do believe that about 4400 years ago noah took every kind of animal on the ark including dinosaurs to save them from the flood.

of course this is all by faith, I cant prove this ever happened, but I can look for scientific evidence and try to match it with what the bible says.

thanks



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
It appears there is not too many kinds...because they are here now for the most part.

I don't see how there can be, if noah was only bringing along kinds, and yet we have specific ones mentioned, and that therefore kinds is very specific. And if kinds are specific, then there are simply far far too many in the fossil record to fit into the ark. If kinds is 'general enough to allow them to fit on the ark', well thats not saying much.



Do not hold the flood as the only catastrophic source for fossils.

I don't consider it a source for any fossils, but the general idea remains.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joshm2u
kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species. maybe that will help you out.

If you didn't notice, 'kind' is not in that list.



so will this right here if you wish to read any more. supasmoove101 knows what he or she is talking about.
What in the world did you finding convincing from that page???


EC
. if you readin the bible in Genesis what a kind is, it is those that can bring forth

Then there is def. no room on the ark. This means that its practically synonymous with species.


and yes I do believe that about 4400 years ago noah took every kind of animal on the ark including dinosaurs to save them from the flood.

I can understand beleiving these things as a matter of faith, but I can't understand expecting to find scientific evidence that they occured, especially when the evidence shows that they didn't.



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 01:00 AM
link   


Then there is def. no room on the ark. This means that its practically synonymous with species.


there would be plenty of room on the ark for the different kinds. he didnt have to take the biggest ones, he probably brought babies, or young ones. they live a lot longer and they dont break bones as easy and they sleep more.

there is no need to bring a horse and a zebra and a stallion and a mustang. they are all different species but the same kind, they all can bring forth no matter how you breed them. all he needed to do was bring one species from on KIND. there would be plenty of room on the ark.

I believe the bible and it says that every kind of animal was on that ark.
I believe that first of all because it says that they were on the ark, and second; because it makes sense to bring the different kinds instead of the different species. if he brought all the different kinds, he would have room, if he brought all the different species, I would agree that there wouldnt be enough room, or rather that there might not be enough room.

but I must conclude with the statement that I take the bible by faith and believe that it is true. and that is what this post is based on.

thanks



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
there would be plenty of room on the ark for the different kinds. he didnt have to take the biggest ones, he probably brought babies, or young ones. they live a lot longer and they dont break bones as easy and they sleep more.

The babies could not teach themselves how to do everything based on instinct. How would they survive without leanring how to survive?
What about the Insects who's lifespan was a few days?


Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
there is no need to bring a horse and a zebra and a stallion and a mustang. they are all different species but the same kind, they all can bring forth no matter how you breed them. all he needed to do was bring one species from on KIND. there would be plenty of room on the ark.

There would need to be enough room for all of the animals to be caged seperately, food storage, waste storage, sleeping quarters. They would also need to account food spoilage, and the animals that need a special diet.


Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
I believe the bible and it says that every kind of animal was on that ark.
I believe that first of all because it says that they were on the ark, and second; because it makes sense to bring the different kinds instead of the different species. if he brought all the different kinds, he would have room, if he brought all the different species, I would agree that there wouldnt be enough room, or rather that there might not be enough room.


Noah's Ark isn't very plausible at all. There are numerous problems with the building of the ark, gathering of the animals, fitting the animals aboard, caring for the animals itself. Ignoring the impossiblities(Polar bears, and peguins location) these tasks would be very difficult at best, and for Noah to do it by himself using the technology of that day, its very unlikely. These problems and more addressed here:
Problems with Noahs Ark
I have one questions for whoever thinks the flood made the Dinosaurs extinct. How would a flood kill off all of the amphibious dinos?



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   
well first I would like to point out that your link did not work, it make have been just my computer, but i ended up at a site that had no information on it, although it looked familiar it led me to nowhere.
anyways....

now this argument against noahs ark is based on some faulty assumptions in my opinion.



I have one questions for whoever thinks the flood made the Dinosaurs extinct. How would a flood kill off all of the amphibious dinos?


I as a creationist do not believe that dinosaurs are extinct. I believe from numerous reports that dinosaurs that used to be called dragons, are still alive today. also dinosaurs are not amphibians, no doubt that there were some pretty big amphibians back in noahs days, but a frog will not turn into a dinosaur. but I do get your point on amphibious dinosaurs for an example the Plesiosaurus. one was reported as Mokele-mbembe in africa. I dont doubt that dinosaurs are still alive and many people make the wrong assumption that creationist try to say that they are extict becuase of noahs flood.

here is what I think according to the bible.

I believe that there used to be a canopy of some form of water above the earths atmosphere providing hyperbarric conditions on earth. this layer of water would block all forms of harmful radiation. I also believe that the oxygen level used to be double what it is today. they discover this in amber which is petrified tree sap. when they drill in, they find that the air bubbles contain almost 50% more oxygen then todays atmosphere. so I have reason to believe that. the bible teaches that there was a canopy of water above the atmosphere so i take that in faith.

before the flood, there were giants in the earth. and man lived to be over 900 years old. life was great. people lived a long time and animals grew to be huge. noah did not have to take the biggest animals he could find onto the ark. all he had to do was get a pink one and a blue one so that they could produce offspring once the flood was over.

the bible says that all of the animals came to him, apparently animals didnt fear man back in naohs days, probably because they didnt eat animals back then, not until after the flood.
to asnwer the question on animals who learn from there parent animals. ok, there are a lot of animals that learn from their parents, if you want to consider humans as animals, that includes us. however, there are also many animals that do not rely on parents for teaching. the mother bird does not teach baby bird how to fly. like I said before I take the bible by faith. as for bugs that dont live that long... keep in mindi that man, now days, hardly makes it past 100, im sure bugs lived a little longer back then as well as the other creatures.

as for the waste problem, there was a great world of water underneath, im sure they either used the waste for some kind of use or they just dumped it out into the water. as for eating and sleeping, you can eat and sleep in the same place without a problem, I do it all the time. now as for food storage and spoilage you might have a point, but I have one also. there are some good out there that dont go bad, also noah could have taken plants on the ark for them to grow while on the ark and eath them as they grow. now for food spoilage, all they had to do was dump it.
there is no problem with noahs ark, if God wants it done it will get done.

and to answer the other question/statement. Noah didnt build the ark by himself, he had 3 sons not to mention their wives and noahs wife. that is 8 people. and the bible says that there were giants in the eart in those days.
that would be 8 giants building an ark, now the bible doesnt say it got done in a few days, im sure it took a while to build a huge ark.

I honestly dont see what the problem is.



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   
if u dont mind evolution cruncher, i might be able to answer the waste and air question, and the questions skeptics have regarding the size of the boat and how if might break. the answer to all of these questions lies in 3 words....a moon pool.

the moon pool acted like a piston for the boat as it went over waves, becuase it pumped in new air from outside, and also might have been a place where waste could have been put, since it would go into the ocean anyways. the moon pool also helped to relieve the stress placed on the boat, since it was so large. however, noah's ark was only meant to float, so it didnt didnt masts, which means less stress.

if you want to learn more about the ark's geometry click herethis site provies information about the golden ratios long before they were discovered by scientists in the AD.

This is just what i believe, and i have faith in God that the flood did happen, becuase it is written so in the bible.



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   
in reply to Joshm2u,
hey I agree with the moon pool idea, I forgot all about that. thanks for bringing that up.
the moon pool does provide an explanation many problems.
I still cant believe I forgot all about that.
thanks again.

I thought I saw on the history channel that they found noahs ark... and they are actually going to try to get it this time.



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   
there is also a website by ron wyatt, who has since died, reagarding a few interesting historic events in the bible, and one of the topics he discusses is noah's ark. he has done radar scans, and other things, and belived that he found the ark. here is the link to his site.....Ron Wyatt



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Problems with Noah's Ark... hmmm... they are endless to tell you the truth. But you know what, alot can change in 4,000 years. Evolutionists think that the first people on Earth were primative half ape beasts. And yet they talk about the babies on Noah's Ark having trouble surviving after the flood. How first can a cave man mirraculously learn how to speak before we address the problem of a baby surviving alone.
Anyway back to Noah's problem. Let's say that people were not smaller and dumber those days... let's say they were significantly larger and smarter to boot. Let's say they lived 900 years. In 900 years you could learn nearly everything there is to know in the World. Now lets imagine 10 times the brilliance of Einstien and 10 times the size of Aundrie the Giant attempting to build a boat. I don't think it would be quite so hard at that point.
I would rather keep my mind open to theory than trying to disprove vast subjects with mere schoolboy knowledge!



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher



Then there is def. no room on the ark. This means that its practically synonymous with species.


there would be plenty of room on the ark for the different kinds.

I'm sorry, but there is absolutely not enough room given the dimensions of the ark to fit all the species nor all the kinds. There are far too many representatives, it doesn't matter if you use adults or eggs or embryo's in vials.


there is no need to bring a horse and a zebra and a stallion and a mustang. they are all different species but the same kind, they all can bring forth no matter how you breed them. all he needed to do was bring one species from on KIND. there would be plenty of room on the ark.

Even with that representation there would not be enough. And its also driopping a big claim of creationism to say that you can not only evolve new species, but new genera and the like, all the way from stallions to donkeys to cat sized fossil horses.


I believe the bible and it says that every kind of animal was on that ark.

It is not possible. If you beleive it, fine, but lets not state that it can scientifically be done. Sure, if god made the ark have cubby holes with access to other dimensions, then you can have an unlimited amount of space. Short of miracles, it is not possible, whether we're talking species or 'kinds'. There are too many animals.



but I must conclude with the statement that I take the bible by faith and believe that it is true. and that is what this post is based on.

Fair enough. But i do need to point out that its not possible short of divine intervention and miracles, which may of course have happened but which can't be included in any scientific consideration of it. And certianly can't be taught in schools, let alone science classes (but that has more to do with the wider creationism movement than this thread)

joshm2u
a moon pool.

There's already no room on the ark, now you're going ot cut a giant hole in it? And where is anything like that described in the bible? THe bible says an ark, and ark isn't going to have a moon pool. Let along a moon pool would probably sink the ship given the gigantic waves that are screaming across a planet that is all ocean in the middle of a heavenly deluge.

there is also a website by ron wyatt,

Ron Wyatt is a fraud who never discovered the ark. The 'iron nails' he presented, for example, weren't nails at all but were simply natural minerals that have iron in them. This is also the guy who lied about finding the ark of the covenant and the bottom of a perpetual stream of blood and who said that he'd reveal the location soon, but then died many many years later. Still no AofC. Still no Noah's Ark.

SupaSmoove101
Now lets imagine 10 times the brilliance of Einstien and 10 times the size of Aundrie the Giant attempting to build a boat

And its made out of weak desert wood and held together with tar and muck???



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   
In all the threads I've seen on this subject.. I've never been given a plausable explanation as to how koalas [and other aussie species] got on board.. remembering of course that they can only eat eucalyptus leaves [native to Australia]. Anyone care to answer this one scientifically?



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Koala's adapted to their environment. That is why they eat only one type of plant. It is the simple and true answer. They did not evolve from dust millions of years ago. They came from a common ancestor ~bear~ that was on the Ark. It was trapped on an island when the water level went up during the time of Peleg. Probably about the time that the ice caps melted.



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SupaSmoove101
Koala's adapted to their environment. That is why they eat only one type of plant. It is the simple and true answer. They did not evolve from dust millions of years ago. They came from a common ancestor ~bear~ that was on the Ark.


Please educate yourself.

Koalas are not bears.

I asked for the scientific answer.. not a fanciful one based on "But they are called koala bears.." :shk:


[edit on 27-7-2005 by riley]



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Whatever Koala's are they did not come from dirt. Stop crying about what a Koala is and think about what I said.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join