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.
Originally posted by riley
PLENTY of sites? Wow that changes everything.
Just because plenty of people have built sites that parrot what the bible says- it does not make it 'fact'.
[edit on 17-6-2005 by riley]
Originally posted by babloyi
Actually riley, interestingly enough, that's not the case. Australia has not been connected (by land bridges or directly) to any other major land mass since long before humans existed.
It broke off from Asia, and has been drifting away ever since. The plates have been moving away- there would be no place for a "land bridge" to pop-up.
It could be said that some small group of people went from island to island all the way down, but that is still a huge stretch of imagination for early humans.
Also, although Dbrandt's statistics may be a little misleading, they are correct. A majority of all animals on earth are worms, insects, and microscopic animals.
Only a very small percentage is made up of large animals. So if you take the average of all the animal sizes, you would get something smaller than a cat.
Originally posted by shaunybaby
the amount of water that would be needed for such a flood doesn't exist on earth. there's only ever a certain amount whether its in lakes, rivers, the sea or the clouds. if there was a world wide then the world would be in a 'waterworld' type movie scenario, because the water would still be here...water doesn't just come and go, dissapear etc.
Originally posted by riley
Originally posted by babloyi
Actually riley, interestingly enough, that's not the case. Australia has not been connected (by land bridges or directly) to any other major land mass since long before humans existed.
Incorrect [though 40-50 thousand years is still before Noahs time [and adam and eve for that matter].
Originally posted by riley
It could be said that some small group of people went from island to island all the way down, but that is still a huge stretch of imagination for early humans.
It's not a huge stretch of the imagination.. they had conoes etc so could travel on water.. canoes aren't exactly just a marvel of modern technology.
Originally posted by riley
Also, although Dbrandt's statistics may be a little misleading, they are correct. A majority of all animals on earth are worms, insects, and microscopic animals.
Insects and earth worms are not animals.
Originally posted by riley
Only a very small percentage is made up of large animals. So if you take the average of all the animal sizes, you would get something smaller than a cat.
That would depend what region you are looking at.. africa may have an average larger than a domestic cat for example.. besides which it does nothing fot the ark argument because just larger animals by themselves would not fit inside.
Originally posted by babloyi
Originally posted by riley
Are you saying that Australia was connected to Asia 40-50 thousand years ago??? Wow...whatever you wish to think.....
BTW, you seem very knowledeable about when Noah and Adam were around. How do you know it was 40-50 thousand years ago?
I'm sorry, but I DO find it a huge stretch of imagination. They would probably be a small group in a few "canoes". They would have to spend weeks and weeks in the water,
Hahahahahhahahahah
... ok......Every studied biology? Classification?
There are 5 kingdoms:
Animalia, which is made up of animals; Plantae, which is made up of plants; Protista, which is made up of protists (single-celled creatures invisible to the human eye); Fungi, which is made up of mushrooms, mold, yeast, lichen, etc; and Monera, which is made up of the three types of bacteria.
Where do YOU think insects and worms are included? Anyway, whatever you think, the answer for insects is the Arthropoda, and for worms it is Annelida.
I assume dbrandt was talking about the all regions. And I did not say it had anything to do with animals not fitting in the ark. You implied that dbrandt was wrong when he said that the average size of all animals is smaller than a cat. I was just showing you that he was correct.
Originally posted by riley
Wishful thinking? Strange that I get accused of that when I offer actual proof and logical explanations.
Originally posted by riley
Because the bible's geneology only dates back 6000 years.
Originally posted by riley
Wrong. If there were more islands at that stage the stops between islands [some with land bridges] would have been more frequent with the trips only lasting a couple of days each.
Originally posted by riley
Are you going to start using all caps now as well?
Originally posted by riley
Quite right.. so if the general definition of 'animal' now includes insects [which are usually exluded from the general defintion], spiders and worms.. tell me.. where were they put? That many would no doubt take up a few tonnes of room and resaurces as well.
Originally posted by riley
No one has provided any proof of that most animals a smaller than cats.. and I doubt that is the average. They are so diverse in size that an average could not accurately concluded.
The Animal Kingdom is at once the Kingdom most and least familiar to us. Almost all of the animals we commonly think of -- mammals, fish, and birds -- belong to a single subgroup within one of the 33 Phyla comprising the Animal Kingdom. On the other hand, over 100,000 species in some 25 animal phyla -- mostly small worms -- are so unfamiliar that they are virtually unknown to non-scientists. The same goes for several hundred thousand tiny insect-like species populating the Arthropoda phylum.
Originally posted by shaunybaby
all of the countries were once joined together, of which is prety much fact.
Originally posted by babloyi
Originally posted by riley
Wishful thinking? Strange that I get accused of that when I offer actual proof and logical explanations.
I saw no proof. Where is the proof that Australia separated from Asia between 40,000 and 50,000 years ago?
Originally posted by riley
Because the bible's geneology only dates back 6000 years.
Show me. I don't think it does. A day in the sight of God is 100000 years to man? Something like that.
A couple days (minimum) each for small groups of people travelling in self-propelled boats towards an uncertain destination? I still find it unlikely.
All large animals come from only 1 Phyla in the Animal Kingdom. On the other hand there are over 100,000 species from 25 animal phyla mostly small worms.
Originally posted by shaunybaby
problem with god being able to move things instantly and so forth is that the continents and countries are still moving apart of in some cases moving closure.
Originally posted by riley
I showed you where there is remnants of a link between indonesia and Australia.. that should be proof enough. They have also calculated when and where it was with geological studies and plate movement. If I provide any more proof you will just dismiss it no matter how credible [established pattern] so I'm not going to bother.
Originally posted by riley
A couple days (minimum) each for small groups of people travelling in self-propelled boats towards an uncertain destination? I still find it unlikely.
Why would it be an uncertain destination if they lived in that region? Haven't you heared of islanders travel from island to island before?
Originally posted by riley
All large animals come from only 1 Phyla in the Animal Kingdom. On the other hand there are over 100,000 species from 25 animal phyla mostly small worms.
Well if you want to get technical.. Noah's duty was to collect a two [one male and one female] of every animal.. worms are homaphrodite.
Originally posted by babloyi
You showed me proof that Australia and Asia were once connected. I never doubted that. Infact, I believe that I was the one who brought it up in this thread. However, you claimed that all this happened between 40,000 and 50,000 years ago. Never heard of this in my life.
Despite what you want to believe, I am not an idiot. Show me where you got the idea that Australia separated from Asia 40,000 to 50,000 years ago.
Australian Aborigines have the longest continuous cultural history in the world, with origins dating back to the last Ice Age. In the early part of the last Ice Age the sea was lower than it is today; Australia and New Guinea were joined, some of the large islands north of Australia were part of the Asian mainland. And the distances between the many smaller islands were quite short.
www.petra.ac.id...
Seems there were two migrations...
The Aborigines have the longest cultural history in the world, with origins dating back to the last Ice Age. The first humans travelled across the sea from Indonesia over a landbridge to Australia and Tasmania, about 70,000 years ago. The next immigration followed 20,000 years later.
[cont]The members of this group which had spread over the western part of Australia are the Aborigine´s ancestors. The whole continent was colonised with in a few thousand years. When the Europeans came to Australia in the 18th century, they found about 750,000 "primitive" natives, as they called them, who seemed to live there as in the Stone Age.
Australia's original inhabitants, the aborigines, arrived in a series of migrations from Southeast Asia more than 40,000 years ago. There were as many as 600 distinct groups of aborigines living throughout Australia when Dutch mariners explored parts of the west and southern coasts in the early 17th century.
html.rincondelvago.com...
Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Ok, im not sure if this is in the later translations of the bible, but actually noah and his family were one of seven families on the ark. the others being shem, ham, japheth, and some others.