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.

 

6000 Year old Earth? T-Rex on Noah's Ark??!

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 10:20 PM
link   
actually, one cubit is the distance from ones elbow to the tip of the longest finger.

now the bible also states that there were giants in the earth in the days of noah. so if that were true, that would make their cubits a little bigger.

still plenty of room for baby/toddler animals and food.




posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   
wouldn't the gene pool be severely limited by taking only 2 of each animal?

couldn't we trace all animals back to 2 animals if it was true?



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
actually, one cubit is the distance from ones elbow to the tip of the longest finger.

now the bible also states that there were giants in the earth in the days of noah. so if that were true, that would make their cubits a little bigger.

still plenty of room for baby/toddler animals and food.



Noah and his son's were giants????
I mean they built the ark correct??

Honestly its been some time since reading the O/T N/T.
So i might be wrong.

[edit on 7/3/2006 by Prove_it]



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
actually, one cubit is the distance from ones elbow to the tip of the longest finger.

now the bible also states that there were giants in the earth in the days of noah. so if that were true, that would make their cubits a little bigger.

still plenty of room for baby/toddler animals and food.


Oh come on, you're stretching it a bit aren't you? You can't make the length of a cubit expand and retract depending on size. It doesn't work. And the bible may infer the existence of giants, but the fossil record doesn't. I believe the fossil record.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 08:30 AM
link   
the fossil record? or do you mean the geologic collumn? something that was created long before radiometric dating even existed. im not going to get into that for my own reasons. all I know (from much research) that the fossil record does not exist and the nterpretation on the fossils are often very inaccurate.

if humans used to be giants like the bible says, the fossils found today may be mistaken to be something other than a human. I mean its a huge bone. or another option that I also believe, many scientists\researchers that would do anything to disprove the bible hide the evidence of that which would support the theory of creation.

and no variations would not be limited, the gene pool is huge, variations come from the selecting a part of the gene pool. now would it take a while for the different variaties to show? yeah, I would agree that it would take about 1000 years (def. less) for the different "species\variations" to show.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Ok OK come on now where in the bible does it say humans were giants?

it does say that there were giants among the humans
...right?

And im pretty sure that giant human bone would look just like a normal humans bone??...(you would think) and we know those pretty well...so youd think they would be able to tell the difference.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   
The Bible does say "there were giants in those days".

But then again, I hear there are giants in New York






How tall are they? Are the descendants of the Nephilim?


Or just maybe the word giant can have different connatations and shouldn't always be taken literally



As to taking just one pair of animals onto the ark, it's quite correct - a single pair would not prove adequate breeding stock. Many species would quickly become extinct. Maybe that's what killed off the dinosaurs, ammonites, trilobites and the hundreds of thousands of other species no longer alive today?



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Right "there were giants in those days".

it just sounded to me that the previous poster was trying to say Noah was a giant?

As he and his sons built the Ark..which would use their arm as a cubit correct?



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   
ok, you seem interested.
the bible says in Genesis 6:4 that there were giants in the earth in those days. (oh and the new york joke made no point at all, thats a sports team NAME, not the description of persons living in a land)

also, reptiles never stop growing. the bible says that humans lived about 900 years each before the flood. if you gave a lizard 900 years to live, its would probably grow into something huge. something like a dinosaur. also, things change when you live that long. bones start to look a little different, the skull begins to change shape due to the different muscles pulling on the skull. they could easily be mistaken as something else.

there are many things that are overlooked when talking about the creation theory.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Right but was Noah a giant?
were his sons?

I'm still stuck on the cubit here...
I mean Noah and his son's did build the ark correct?



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Prove_it
Right but was Noah a giant?
were his sons?

I'm still stuck on the cubit here...
I mean Noah and his son's did build the ark correct?


There is nothing in the Bible to suggest Noah and his family (from whom supposedly we're all descended, remember) was anything but the same size as us.

So the whole 'larger cubit's thing is a complete red herring.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
ok, you seem interested.
the bible says in Genesis 6:4 that there were giants in the earth in those days. (oh and the new york joke made no point at all, thats a sports team NAME, not the description of persons living in a land)


So if I say there are giants in New York today, that's different to the Bible saying there were giants. How?

Maybe giants was an ironic nickname given to a group of people who were of smaller height than average?

Or, more likely, it meant giant in the same sense we often use it today - as in 'Deep Purple are giants of rock' It doesn't mean they are physically larger.

The fact that the Bible also describes them as 'men of renown' seems to support this contention.

Added to which, whatever you may want to believe, there is no physical evidence of human giants having ever existed on Earth.


Edit: I really should check for typos before posting!

[edit on 4-7-2006 by Essan]



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   
I agree i was just trying to get them to see the flaw also.
but i guess they noticed and hence no response.

if you cant explain...ignore.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
wouldn't the gene pool be severely limited by taking only 2 of each animal?


Yes, but under the creationist view of biological evolution, life was somewhat less deteriorated back then and would not suffer as much of a disadvantage from a small gene pool compared to modern animals.


couldn't we trace all animals back to 2 animals if it was true?


Possibly, but the amount of accumulated mutations might make that difficult.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by BeefotronX

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
wouldn't the gene pool be severely limited by taking only 2 of each animal?


Yes, but under the creationist view of biological evolution, life was somewhat less deteriorated back then and would not suffer as much of a disadvantage from a small gene pool compared to modern animals.


couldn't we trace all animals back to 2 animals if it was true?


Possibly, but the amount of accumulated mutations might make that difficult.


i guess you're right on both counts
guess i wasn't thinking straight

anyway, no matter how staggering the size of a ship that could hold 2 of every animal and food for all of them to survive for 40 days without cannibalising and predatation would be, HOW THE HELL DID NOAH GET A HOLD OF 2 OF EACH?!?!



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
HOW THE HELL DID NOAH GET A HOLD OF 2 OF EACH?!?!



The giants helped him of course
...

after all they helped build the ark lol



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
anyway, no matter how staggering the size of a ship that could hold 2 of every animal and food for all of them to survive for 40 days without cannibalising and predatation would be, HOW THE HELL DID NOAH GET A HOLD OF 2 OF EACH?!?!



You're probably thinking species. It is quite correct that it would have been impossible to collect two of every species as modern taxonomists recognize them. The biblical 'kind' however is probably closer to genus (family in some cases possibly) which would require collecting fewer animals. Even including extinct ones, I believe the number would come out to around 15,000 animals. Others have calculated that the animals would take up only about half of the floor space in the Ark (even less if some of their cages had been stacked up). Of course, the animals would not need to be fully grown, and so the mean size of all the animals would be rather small. The other half of the space is more than enough to contain enough supplies to feed everything for a year.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by BeefotronX
The other half of the space is more than enough to contain enough supplies to feed everything for a year.



Including the living eucalyptus tree - needed to provide food for the koalas



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   
ok you all think im ignoring you. this is not the case.
Noah and his family were giants along with everyone else (which wasnt very much of a population. maybe a couple million if anything.)

it took noah over 100 years to build the ark. yes, the ark did not have to carry the biggest animals, all it takes is the babies.

the animals were led to the ark by God. if God can create the animals and control the universe, he would have an influence on the animals to get to the ark.

LINK
here is some evidence in support for giants and noahs flood.

you can chose to believe this or chose not to. it really doesnt matter to me. the supporting evidence you are looking for may not exist, but the only other option that I know of has no feasible evidence whatsoever. having little evidence does not prove that the other option is a fact.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
ok you all think im ignoring you. this is not the case.
Noah and his family were giants along with everyone else (which wasnt very much of a population. maybe a couple million if anything.)


Excuse me my Friend, but I will ask that you review the Scriptures quite carefully.

Why is Noah Chosen?

Because he was Perfect in his Generations.

His Bloodline to Adam, through Seth, was pure and not contaiminated with the influx of the Lessor gods and deities of that time.

Your claim, Noah was a Giant, is 100% incorrect.

But do yourself, along with Christians in General, a favour. Get a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance so that you can Study the Word of God, prior to making outragous claims. It is a Wonderful TOOL, and allows you to understand what this corrupted English Version is expressing. You would also need to get a King James 1611 Bible, and if you do not have access, here's one.

www.jesus-is-lord.com...

Study Carefully, before suggesting things you "think" you understand. It makes us ALL (in a Collective Christian Sense) look Nutty.

Good luck, and if you need assistance, I would be pleased to offer that.

Ciao

Shane




top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join