What doesnt make sense

Originally posted by pineappleupsidedown

Originally posted by Sight2reality
The unfortuneate consequence is that everything in our world points to an age much older than what the bible tells you.

Please do not think i am "attacking or critizing" you or your beliefs. But please tell me how "everything" points to a much older world, given the inaccuracies of carbon dating.

---Pineapple

Historical geology. The formation process of sedimentary rocks. etc. There are several dating methods, the best one is radiometric dating of igneous rocks, even though some disagree and claim that it isn't accurate as well.
Nothing points to a young earth other than the bible.

[edit on 3-8-2005 by silentlonewolf]

Well I would like to say that no Christian has realy asnwered any of my questions and if they do what has already been said will easily destroy it.

Sorry but once again Atheism prevails over the 'book of god' (or if you are an elohimist the bok of the elohim)

Originally posted by Shenroon
HOw can creationalists explain how before the flood there were creatures like the dinosaurs some of the most fearsome predators ever along wiht pterasaurs and the sea living reptiles all have coexisted with modern creatures. I mean a T-rex would have easily walked around masacreing whole packs of lions and tigers and such.
It just doesnt make sense.

How did early humans (the ones who lived in caves without fire) survived the "whole packs of lions" that existed?

That shouldnt make sense either, using your logic.

Have you seen the pictures of the T-Rex or fossils? It seems like all the T-rex had going for him was a big mouth. His arms were useless. So how hard would it be for smaller animals to hide from the T-rex?

Also, i doubt all dinosaurs covered every area, so some animals wouldnt even have had to face the T-rex.

And plz, no flames, you are complaining no christian will answer your questions, so when you finally get your wish dont abuse it. Otherwise you only prove your point that christians wont answer by flaming them all away.

---Pineapple

Originally posted by pineappleupsidedown
How did early humans (the ones who lived in caves without fire) survived the "whole packs of lions" that existed?

Well first you make the assumption that they lived in caves. When in fact we start to see a move from forest/jungle to plains on the end of forests/jungle.

Have you seen the pictures of the T-Rex or fossils? It seems like all the T-rex had going for him was a big mouth. His arms were useless. So how hard would it be for smaller animals to hide from the T-rex?

No very hard at all. The T-rex is considered a scavenger, first and foremost. Also, most of the mammilian type fossils we find dating to those periods are pretty much the size of common rodents. That is what allowed them to survive at that time. Once the dinosaurs we gone we see an increase in size of what we would consider mammals.

Also, i doubt all dinosaurs covered every area, so some animals wouldnt even have had to face the T-rex.

Dinosaur fossils have been found all over the world.

silentlonewolf,

I was just using the term in parenteses to refer to early humans, I admit I didnt look it up, it was just to clarify what i meant by "early". I dont see how that effects my question. the author of this thread asked how a t-rex could live at the same time as lions because the T-rex would massacre the lions.(im sorry if im misquoting, but i dont have a mouse so it would take a lot to check and make sure)

Now you are proving my comment that the T-rex would not have been killing mass amounts of lions and tigers if they coexisted.

A more likely senario would be those same lions and tigers killing the humans who lived then.

as for my comment about the dinosaurs, i said "i doubt all dinosaurs covered every area", meaning that although you can find dinosaurs across the world, certain species are built for certain climates and any one species would not live everywhere.

---Pineapple

Well pineapple I didnt answer your answers but they were all compltly destroyed by someone else. BUt if you want you can throw another bunch of questions and then gawp at the answers.

Originally posted by Shenroon
Well pineapple I didnt answer your answers but they were all compltly destroyed by someone else. BUt if you want you can throw another bunch of questions and then gawp at the answers.

HUH???

lets take a summary, shall we?

you said that we could not have coexisted with dinosaurs because the T-rex would have killed all the lions.

I said that a T-rex only has its big mouth going for it and probably couldnt take out prides of lions.

silentlonewolf said that I was correct, and added that a T-rex is a scavenger.

You post to say that my answer was completely debunked by others in this thread.

Now, silentlonewolf and I do not agree on our ideals, but both of us are able to acknowledge and agree upon facts like that a T-rex would not go around killing prides of lions if they coexisted. this is what you asked me to try and explain.

Try a stronger arguement next time.

---Pineapple

EDIT: added "if they coexisted" to clarify that silentlonewolf was not saying they coexisted.

[edit on 8-8-2005 by pineappleupsidedown]

Why did the dinosaurs die after the flood?

I think that sums it up.

I was just saying T-rex is a bad example. Though there were other dinosaurs that would have been far better hunters even if T-rex was more than a scavenger (which is very much possible, however the last I read, T-rex was considered mostly a scavenger), and there are fossils of carnivorous dinosaurs all over the world.

Now I did find this today. It's from January of this year. Turns out that there were some larger mammals, than previously thought. They are much like a badger, that did indeed eat smaller dinosaurs. It is also the largest mammal known to have lived at the time, a very fascinating read.

here

Its skull measures 16 centimetres long, its body 52 cm, and the preserved part of its tail 36 cm. The beast probably weighed 12 to 14 kilograms. Hu says R. giganticus's legs suggest it was a ground dweller that could dash to catch prey, but not run long distances. R. robustus was two-thirds as long and weighed between 4 and 6 kg.

Still not what would be considered a large mammal today. Also as it reads, it was by no means prowling the prairies.

Sorry pineapple i sorta of only breathly looked at the thread adn i thought i was in a different one and saw your name. I have a huge apology to make to you. I still dont think that lions adn dinos were around at the same time, also i read somewhere it was like a cat scavenged and hunted.

Why can't we blieve in the idea of humans an dinosaurs coexisting together. And why does everything have to be based on the bible. The bible came as a result of a bunch of guys sitting and debating which stories would be included, and to my knowledge (and historical fact) there were a bunch of stories that were banned or left out.
And if you look at the stories that were included, they just about took place in or around Isereal or Jerusalem ( don't hear of jesus walking in what is present day Arizona).
Also, another thing to ponder.Where are all the artifcats that can support that the bible is real. And if the bible if the offical history of the world, then why is it not found in the history or refference section of any library or book store.
There are more artifacts to prove the theory of evolution, and that man possibly walked with dinosaurs. Ando you breationist want us to believe that all these civilization made up fictional stories of giants beasts that roamed the earth, stories that just happened to become fact 1000's of years after they wrote them. COME ON!!!!!
Weigh the evidence and keep and open mind.

Sincerly,
Atheist and Realist