Originally posted by Voidmaster
Do you remember how long the moonlanders legs were? If not, they are about 10-12 feet long.
OMG you're not going to make the moon dust arguement are you
They were that long because scientists figured the moon was about the same age as the earth.
OMG you did.
I can understand finding this arguement convincing. I apologize if you are offended by the above, but its one of the 'classic' creationist
arguements.
Short Refutation
Here is a bigger article related to it
There is a recent creationist technical paper on this topic which admits that the depth of dust on the moon is concordant with the mainstream
age and history of the solar system (Snelling and Rush 1993). Their abstract concludes with:
"It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the
postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately,
attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is
forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system."
Some people don't trust Talk Origins, which is strange, because they are pretty upfront about being an archive of information and articles written by
scientists and non scientists, generally in favour of evolution over creationism. Regardless, AIG took note of the speciousness and incorrectness of
the moon dust arguement also and even listed it as one of cf 10 arguements creationists should not use on
this page, with a specific linking page
here
Absurdly and dishonestly, they make it out to sound like
they were the ones to 'debunk' this arguement, when in fact nothing could be further
from the truth
In an important paper, geologist Dr Andrew Snelling from Australia’s Creation Science Foundation [now Answers in Genesis], and former
Institute for Creation Research graduate student Dave Rush, have examined in minute detail all the evidence relating to this argument.1
Voidmaster
Well I would say that after the flood the died out in all places except the parts of africa that still had the type of enviroment that they were built
to survive in
Since there is no evidence for a global flood and what evidence there is seems to contradict any sort of flood, this doesn't help much.
I can also deduce that since this place is remote that nobody is digging for fossils there.
Paleontologist
Paul Sereno, while not, as far as I know, doing excavations in the deep congo, is one of many
paleotologists who brave incredible hazzards to go to remote locations to scout for fossils.
Mark
Norell is another well known one.
Could this thing be a dinosaur that was taken up on noahs ark and lived in africa? I dunno, seems extremely unlikely, but if one wants to invoke
miracles, then anything is possible no?
BTW 'Hitchikers Guide' rules!
shenroonbut the amazon is one huge jungle
Congo, but yes, there are small sauropds. Still, we'd have to be talking about herds of these animals, since we know that they traveled in
structured herds (across plains, not jungles and swamps)
brainiac
The footprints they claim to have found also look like Elephant footprints to me.
It would be trivially easy to compare any 'footprints' to distinctive sauropod footprints.
Odium
They will know what each animal is, how to kill it, what bits you can eat, how to cook it, skin it, etc, a lot more then we do.
Sure, as long as its something that they've been around for generations. They're not stupid, they recognized the animals that they can be expected
to, but dinosaurs and apparently rhinos and other foreign animals, 'mokele mbembe, mokele mbembe!'. Heck, that sort of settles it don't it? If it
was somethign in their area, they'd be able to identify it, because they're more than smart enough for that. But a mythical creature that doesn't
exist that lots of different people thought they saw, to one guy its a rhino, another a horned sauropod, etc etc.
adn remember the Lock is massive and has access to the sea
I thought it does not have access to the sea? Or perhaps its just not a big enough access for a large animal like nessie? Anyway, nessie is
sometimes thought to be a plesiosaur, but that doesn't really fit whats hypothesised about the monster.
JTL
a NEW FORM OF LIFE was found in 2002 on the bottom of Loch Ness
Er?
But to say they are stupid is wrong
I don't think anyone said that these tribespeople are stupid. THey're
obviously 'uneducated' tho, nothing
wrong with that, and
they're also equally very knowledgeable about the world around them. That world, I think the OP was trying to point out, was just very very limited.
. It would seem that "Mokele-mbembe" is better translated as "monster" than "dinosaur". Although I don't think we can rule out
the possibility of undiscovered largish land animals, the odds seem small and get smaller every year. Eventually, sattelite based IR imaging will
probably settle this one, assuming no hard evidence is found in the interim.
