A Question About Adam and Eve vs. Dinosaurs

reply to post by TXRabbit


I would GUESS, it is only a guess, that Polar bears Adapted to their environment if they weren't created that way. I don't know if the Polar Bear can interbreed with blacks, grizzleys or browns so I can only guess. If they can then they adapted, let me put i this way. I believe all the BEAR KIND (kind can breed the Bible says) came from 2 bears of the ark, evolutionists believe all the bears came from a wet rock 4.5 billion years ago. Or a frog 100's of millions of years ago, even though we have Trillions of fossils and none in between bears and non bears, in fact there is NO intermediary fossil and many archeologists and paleontologists have commented on this fact.

reply to post by theindependentjournal


Yes, polar bears and Grizzlys can interbreed;
Wiki

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by theindependentjournal

 

As a side note, since I'm getting dangerously close to being OT, the dinosaurs were long gone before humans came around and could build boats large enough to hold two of every animal, even if those animals were very young and very small, so they couldn't have been on the arc. Not to mention the fossils of young dinosaurs that have been found are nowhere near as small as they would need to be for a human to control them long enough to put them on a boat, not to mention live with for a year, with very few exceptions.

So what you're saying is you already have a belief.. That's cool I don't hold no ones beliefs against them. I disagree with you on the dinosaurs being gone long before man and I believe their is much evidence to support my claim but thas fine.

One hing though Noah didn't take 2 of every animal aboard, only those that had nostrils and birds and only the interbreeding KINDS. So he would take one set of Horses and all zebras, horses, donkeys and mules come from that original pair with small adaptations. But they are not different kinds as they can all interbreed. Same with the cats, tigers and lions and cougars and such can all interbreed, a Liger, a tigon, lipan and so on. There are websites that show people that interbreed these animals. They are rarely fertile but when the offspring is fertile they tend to go back to one or the other of the original pair...

reply to post by theindependentjournal


Just because some scientists doubt the accuracy of carbon dating doesn't make it inaccurate.

Regarding the feathered dinosaurs, I think you will find there a many fossils found with evidence of feathers:
en.wikipedia.org...

The realization that dinosaurs are closely related to birds raised the obvious possibility of feathered dinosaurs. Fossils of Archaeopteryx include well-preserved feathers, but it was not until the early 1990s that clearly nonavian dinosaur fossils were discovered with preserved feathers. Today there are more than a dozen genera of dinosaurs with fossil feathers, all of which are theropods. Most are from the Yixian formation in China. The fossil feathers of one specimen, Shuvuuia deserti, have even tested positive for beta-keratin, the main protein in bird feathers, in immunological tests.[1]

Another question I have regarding creation: Why do we have wisdom teeth? They serve no purpose, other than being bloody painful if they need removing.

If humans were created, surely they wouldn't have been included.

On the other hand, if humans have evolved, then wisdom teeth are an example of evolution, the change from an elongated jaw to what we have today, with the wisdom teeth still lingering.

Originally posted by Jkd Up

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Okay so which one came first assuming the bible is true, which it's not.

Isn't Adam and Eve, in the bible, the first entities on earth?
Doesn't that imply that dinosaurs never existed?

Please educate me on the topic

I have asked this same question to enlightened Bible scholars and there is plenty of proof in the Bible that this could have happened. Also, there is not referance to periods of time...

I think your gotta get clobbered on this one. A great topic. But, with the opening sentance casting doubt about the Bible's integrity... You've already made p your own mind.

Not to mention there were many many more "books" to the bible they originally just put the good stuff into one book and skipped a lot of what they felt at the time was pointless data.

Originally posted by theindependentjournal

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by theindependentjournal

 

As a side note, since I'm getting dangerously close to being OT, the dinosaurs were long gone before humans came around and could build boats large enough to hold two of every animal, even if those animals were very young and very small, so they couldn't have been on the arc. Not to mention the fossils of young dinosaurs that have been found are nowhere near as small as they would need to be for a human to control them long enough to put them on a boat, not to mention live with for a year, with very few exceptions.

So what you're saying is you already have a belief.. That's cool I don't hold no ones beliefs against them. I disagree with you on the dinosaurs being gone long before man and I believe their is much evidence to support my claim but thas fine.

One hing though Noah didn't take 2 of every animal aboard, only those that had nostrils and birds and only the interbreeding KINDS. So he would take one set of Horses and all zebras, horses, donkeys and mules come from that original pair with small adaptations. But they are not different kinds as they can all interbreed. Same with the cats, tigers and lions and cougars and such can all interbreed, a Liger, a tigon, lipan and so on. There are websites that show people that interbreed these animals. They are rarely fertile but when the offspring is fertile they tend to go back to one or the other of the original pair...

I need to find the pick, there is a hieroglyph of people riding a dinosaur somewhere lol. I think it was on one of those stones that the farmer got in trouble for selling back in what was it the 30's? So not sure of it's accuracy but it is said to be according to a film deposit on the stone that would take thousands of years to form.

As for molars ask my mother lol she says we were created in gods image so he must have molars too lol. At least that's what she would tell me as a kid every time I questioned the inconsistencies.

I learned from her never question a believer of any belief system even if it's a valid question there will always be a response to validate their own belief.

reply to post by Darthorious


I like your molar comment, I always tell people Angels don't have wings, cause we were made in their image and I aint ever seen a man with wings. LOL.

I think you are referring to the Icca Stones and there is over 60,000 of them last I heard, not all have Dinosaurs on them but a great deal do. And there are all the cave drawings around the world that show perfect art of the dinosaurs shape and skin. If they weren't here with men how did all these ancient civilizations draw them to a tee?

I aint trying to say anything about anyone's faith, I am only saying before you bash mine READ THE BIBLE. The Bible is available all over for free, pick one up and read it before posting something you heard someone say that was passed down multiple times. And think logically when reading, the Bible is ver logical.

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
reply to post by Darthorious

 

I like your molar comment, I always tell people Angels don't have wings, cause we were made in their image and I aint ever seen a man with wings. LOL.

I think you are referring to the Icca Stones and there is over 60,000 of them last I heard, not all have Dinosaurs on them but a great deal do. And there are all the cave drawings around the world that show perfect art of the dinosaurs shape and skin. If they weren't here with men how did all these ancient civilizations draw them to a tee?

I aint trying to say anything about anyone's faith, I am only saying before you bash mine READ THE BIBLE. The Bible is available all over for free, pick one up and read it before posting something you heard someone say that was passed down multiple times. And think logically when reading, the Bible is ver logical.

I wasn't actually referring to you with the faith comment just anyone questioning your faith with things such as the molar question. Kind of ends up off topic in the end when that happens.

As for the stone I found a pic of it.
Edit: I believe there is another one also but it depicts a triceratops quite accurately but sense fakes have been made to sell to tourists not sure if that one is authentic or not.



[edit on 18-12-2008 by Darthorious]

reply to post by Darthorious


Your picture is accurate of the original, I too can not say from a picture whether it's THE real one or a copy.

There are about 15, if I aint mistaken, that have very accurate pictures of many types of Dinosaurs on them. Carl Bough has some of them and ICR does too I believe..

THe dinosaurs were created during one of the early "creative days". And no, there is no need to limit these creative days to 24 hour periods.

Each day was a epoc, millions of years long.

I have every reason to limit these "creative" days to 24 hour periods because there is nothing that leads me to believe otherwise.

Day one - Heaven and Earth and Light.
Day two - Created spaces on the Earth
Day three - Dry land and Seas, freshwater probably, and PLANTS AND HERBS...
Day four - The stars and Moons and SUN...

Here's the problem with this day-age theory that is UNBIBLICAL!!!!

Plants day 3, Sun Day 4, how did these plants that NEED SUN TO LIVE last 1000 years waiting for the Sun to come?

Another problem is how would there be light, and liquid water without the sun?

You can't find Dinosaurs in the Bible? Is this because you've never read it?? hey are very clearly there, land and water and even a FIRE BREATHING dinosaur is in there.

Impossible. If every species known to man today were around during the time of the dinosaurs, then why have not found human fossils that date back to the cretacious, or earlier? Why have we not found rabbit, lion or cheetah fossils that date back 65 million years?

The OTHER question is this? Why do YOU ASSUME that Noah didn't take dinosaurs?
I think he did and HAD TO under the story and God's orders to Noah...

Do you really believe what you're saying? Okay, let's say Noah did take the dinosaurs on his ship with him, his family and the other animals. How would a T-Rex be contained? Dinosaurs were among the biggest creatures that ever lived, and an animal such as a T-rex would have to eat pounds, and pounds of food every day. How would Noah keep order?. How would he make sure that the T-Rex was well fed without it eating other animals, and ultimately having every other species on the Ark go extinct? Because that's exactly what would have happened. Not to mention the T-Rex would not be his only problem. Noah would still have to worry about feeding the Braciasaurus (Gigantic animal with a long neck, he appears in the Jurrasic Park movies) But not to leave out the animals of today, lions are not tame animals, neither are tigers and other big cats.... Don't you see this notion as a tad bit ridiculous?

Also, you believe he brought two animals of every species onto the Ark, well how did this one man and his family travel the whole entire world, and fit every single animal into his ship, including every species of the dinosaur age, before the dinosaur age, and today?

I understand some of you Christians think that evolution is FACT and you've been taught this bunk. And now ou seek ways to get GOD and evolution to mesh, this is understandable in that you don't want to deny scientific fact but you don't want to deny God so you seek a compromise...

Evolution is fact...

They believe that everything came from nothing

I thought you were talking about evolution, not abiogenesis. Evolution doesn't need to explain the origins of life, that's not its job.

I do NOT want an evolution debate or comments on what I said about it, this was ONLY for the Christians in this thread and why they shouldn't try to mesh the two theories as I am sure most evolutionists would agree, they are not compatible.

I answered anyway because your understanding is flawed, and its clear that you really know nothing of evolution.

Which means you have lots of flaws in the Bible, YEAH YEAH I got ya no need to keep trying to convince me. I gave reasoned information and you can not respond, happens all the time. I won't hold it against you personally, I know there's LOTS of flaws, but I did notice you didn't point out anymore, is that because you know I will retort with the LOGICAL thinking answer to it?

LOGICAL? this is hardly logical at all, in fact it isn't logical at all. You believe that man took with him dinosaurs, whether they're babies or adult does not matter at all because the bottom line is that it could not have happened. I might be inclinded to believe your hypothesis if lets say a human fossil were to be found dating back to the cretacious period. But not one human fossil has been found that dates back to such a time. Why do you think that is???

Also, you believe Noah snuck around behind a gigantic dinosaur and stole its babies without being eaten? Yeah, okaaaaaaaay.... and he supposedly did this to every large dinosaur as well??? Do you really believe that?

What are your thoughts on birds being direct ancestors of dinosaurs? Some dinosaurs even had feathers. Isn't this a clear case of evolution?

There is no proof of a dinosaur having feathers, the two so called finds have been shown as fakes, I think i is called the something optrix I can get you the link if you would like... I do not believe in any part of evolutionary theory other than what they call Micro-evolution, which I call change or adaption within a species. Like breeding dogs for a special trait and getting a miniature dobie. Yes the dog is different in looks but it is still a dog that can interbreed with other dogs, it didn't turn into a horse...

You mean Archaeopterix. But again this is a clear display of your ignorance. You try to use your lack of knowledge in evolution to refute evolution. But no, Archaeopterix was not the Dino found with feathers, it was the raptor. Archaeopterix is a transitional fossil between birds and dinosaurs, and it is not a fake.... We can't really say that for the Shroud Of Turin though can we?

You don't believe in Evolution but you believe in Micro-Evolution. Wow... Macro-Evolutin would not be possible without Micro-Evolution. You really can't have one without the other. If you believe in Micro-Evolution, then what is so hard to understand about Macro-Evolution? You said so yourself, Micro-Evolution is small changes within a species. What is so hard to believe about a series of changes over millions and millions of years culmininating into a species that is no longer what it was millions of years ago. Dinosaurs & Birds are a clear example of evolution.

Here is the fossil of a Dinosaur with feathers.





[edit on 18-12-2008 by AlexG141989]

reply to post by theindependentjournal


What I was saying was that I was trying to get back onto the topic of Adam, Eve and dinosaurs. And I think of it more as lack of belief, but I suppose you could say that lack of belief is a belief.

I should have been more specific. By animal I meant anything that doesn't spend it's life in the water. Though there are mammals with nostrils that spend most of their lives in the water. I thought it went without saying that he probably didn't have creatures with gills, but apparently it didn't.

And you don't get a mule from a horse and a horse, it comes from a horse and a donkey and they are so rarely fertile that it wouldn't have made any sense to rely on mules to repopulate anything. Had there only been two horses on the ark, there would only be horses now. Had there only been two tigers/lions/cougars/housecats on the ark there would only be one type of those felines now. Unless of course this was your subtle nod to evolution being fact, which is of course a topic for a different thread. (One I would gladly join in on actually, should you care to start a thread on the ark and the animals it contained. I'd start it myself but my threads tend to be overlooked since they never make outrageous enough claims. )

Originally posted by AlexG141989

Another problem is how would there be light, and liquid water without the sun?

God is light so that is probably the first light given, but He clearly states the Sun on day 4 and plants need Sun not Light to do photosynthesis, or a fake sun that gives the right rays.

Impossible. If every species known to man today were around during the time of the dinosaurs, then why have not found human fossils that date back to the cretacious, or earlier? Why have we not found rabbit, lion or cheetah fossils that date back 65 million years?

Dating systems are flawed as stated elsewhere in this thread, but we do find those animals and mans bones on top of, under and with Dinosaur bones and those other animals are in the Cretaceous layer.

Do you really believe what you're saying?

Okay, let's say Noah did take the dinosaurs on his ship with him, his family and the other animals. How would a T-Rex be contained? Dinosaurs were among the biggest creatures that ever lived, and an animal such as a T-rex would have to eat pounds, and pounds of food every day. How would Noah keep order?. How would he make sure that the T-Rex was well fed without it eating other animals, and ultimately having every other species on the Ark go extinct? Because that's exactly what would have happened. Not to mention the T-Rex would not be his only problem. Noah would still have to worry about feeding the Braciasaurus (Gigantic animal with a long neck, he appears in the Jurrasic Park movies) But not to leave out the animals of today, lions are not tame animals, neither are tigers and other big cats.... Don't you see this notion as a tad bit ridiculous?

More guesses huh? I can see you've never read the story but are going off what you think you know. #1. baby dinosaurs eat less, live longer, make more offspring, were not carnivores (DID YOU CATCH THAT).

The Bible says that all the animals were Herbivores prior to the Flood, it is after the flood that God says ok you can eat the flesh. You ma have heard of that Bible verse hat says the Lion will lay with the lamb again? How d you suppose that happened if they weren't all herbavores? I will answer your "we know they ate meat" response now. the panda has the same kind of teeth as a raccoon or lion or what we would think as a carnivore, tell me what does a panda eat? There is no way to tell from teeth what an animal no longer living ate, it's only a guess...

Also, you believe he brought two animals of every species onto the Ark, well how did this one man and his family travel the whole entire world, and fit every single animal into his ship, including every species of the dinosaur age, before the dinosaur age, and today?

I didn't say SPECIES, in fact I said KIND, and a kind is those that ca breed together. Bears all come from two bears, dogs all come from two dogs etc. I will not get into speciation as KIND is a different thing. Horses, zebras, mules, donkeys all can interbreed well not donkeys usually but some are born female...

God sent them to the Ark Noah didn't have to go get them.

Evolution is fact...

NO it isn't, it's a Theory that changes everyday...

I answered anyway because your understanding is flawed, and its clear that you really know nothing of evolution.

I know EVERYTHING about evolution I have studied it for years... Darwin said, "isn't it wonderful that a banana and man should have a common ancestor."

LOGICAL? this is hardly logical at all, in fact it isn't logical at all. You believe that man took with him dinosaurs, whether they're babies or adult does not matter at all because the bottom line is that it could not have happened.

This is your OPINION and you can not prove it so thanks for that...

I might be inclinded to believe your hypothesis if lets say a human fossil were to be found dating back to the cretacious period. But not one human fossil has been found that dates back to such a time. Why do you think that is???

They refuse to Carbon Date Dinosaur bones, ohhhh you didn't know that, I see... Answered and done.

Bones of men are found under Dinosaurs in the Strata all over the world, this is a FACT and kinds puts the suspect dating means in a different light... This also destroys the Theory of Geological Strata being great periods of time.

You mean Archaeopterix. But again this is a clear display of your ignorance. You try to use your lack of knowledge in evolution to refute evolution. But no, Archaeopterix was not the Dino found with feathers, it was the raptor. Archaeopterix is a transitional fossil between birds and dinosaurs, and it is not a fake....

It has been PROVEN a fake both of the two found, and thank you yes that s the one.

We can't really say that for the Shroud Of Turin though can we?

Well I have never stated that the Shroud of Turin is from Jesus's Death have I? Are you assuming? I don't think the Shroud is real and I think the bible story backs me up on this, do you know the story of Christ's death and resurrection? Read it and find out how they buried their dead back then and what was placed on their faces? YOU MAY BE SURPRISED. The Shroud is the Catholic Church's creation not God's...

You don't believe in Evolution but you believe in Micro-Evolution.

No I believe that KINDS adapt that word is your word not mine.

Wow... Macro-Evolutin would not be possible without Micro-Evolution.

Really so you can show me a pair of dogs that have through micro-evolution given birth to a non-dog kind? I can't wait to see your evidence.

You really can't have one without the other. If you believe in Micro-Evolution, then what is so hard to understand about Macro-Evolution? You said so yourself, Micro-Evolution is small changes within a species. What is so hard to believe about a series of changes over millions and millions of years culmininating into a species that is no longer what it was millions of years ago. Dinosaurs & Birds are a clear example of evolution.

No they aren't and the Earth aint millions of years old. your word micro-evolution can be observed, macro has NEVER been observed and there is NO intermediate fossils ever found.

One of your images shows no feathers, and the other has been debunked as not a missing link or anything other than a bird...

Here is one link

Heres number two

And from Britannica:

Archaeopteryxfossil bird Main Archaeopteryx skeleton, cast made from a fossil found in limestone …the oldest-known fossil animal that is generally accepted as a bird. The eight known fossil specimens date to the Late Jurassic Period (161 million to 146 million years ago), and all were found in the Solnhofen Limestone Formation in Bavaria, Germany. Here a very fine-grained Jurassic limestone formed in a shallow tropical marine environment (probably a coral lagoon), where lime-rich muds slowly accumulated and permitted fossil material to be exceptionally well preserved. Several of the fossils show clear impressions of feathers. The sizes of the specimens range from that of a blue jay to that of a large chicken.

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by theindependentjournal

 

And you don't get a mule from a horse and a horse, it comes from a horse and a donkey and they are so rarely fertile that it wouldn't have made any sense to rely on mules to repopulate anything. Had there only been two horses on the ark, there would only be horses now. Had there only been two tigers/lions/cougars/housecats on the ark there would only be one type of those felines now. Unless of course this was your subtle nod to evolution being fact, which is of course a topic for a different thread.

I said they were interbreed able, if i put two backwards then my bad. Horses, donkeys and zebras probably had a common ancestor ad it was a HORSE. All of these animals can interbreed, and sometimes their offspring are infertile but sometimes they are not. I think with mules it is like 1 in 10000 is female and fertile, most are male and infertile. Cats are the same way if they can breed they are the same KIND. This would also go for dinosaurs, if they cold interbreed they were the same kind. We ge this definition from Creation Story in Genesis:

Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

If I went off track I am sorry, I was answering all the questions I was getting... Please forgive

Edit - Species is mans definition Kind is God's. They rarely agree.

[edit on 12/18/2008 by theindependentjournal]

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
Dating systems are flawed as stated elsewhere in this thread, but we do find those animals and mans bones on top of, under and with Dinosaur bones and those other animals are in the Cretaceous layer.

Sources please? First I've heard of it.

baby dinosaurs eat less, live longer, make more offspring, were not carnivores (DID YOU CATCH THAT).

Again, sources please?

The Bible says that all the animals were Herbivores prior to the Flood,

How about something outside the Bible as a source for that one?

Horses, zebras, mules, donkeys all can interbreed well not donkeys usually but some are born female...

Mules are the ones that are typically sterile, not donkeys.

NO it isn't, it's a Theory that changes everyday...

It changes when evidence is discovered. Kinda like everything else in the world that changes when some truth is discovered about it. Theory is as close to calling something a fact as you will get when talking about anything scientific.

This is your OPINION and you can not prove it so thanks for that...

Like you can't prove your opinion that dinosaurs were on the ark?

They refuse to Carbon Date Dinosaur bones, ohhhh you didn't know that, I see... Answered and done.

Bones of men are found under Dinosaurs in the Strata all over the world, this is a FACT and kinds puts the suspect dating means in a different light... This also destroys the Theory of Geological Strata being great periods of time.

Sources?

Really so you can show me a pair of dogs that have through micro-evolution given birth to a non-dog kind? I can't wait to see your evidence.

Confusing micro with macro. I'm by no means an expert on evolution, but even I can see that they are two different things.

No they aren't and the Earth aint millions of years old. your word micro-evolution can be observed, macro has NEVER been observed and there is NO intermediate fossils ever found.

Then how old is it? And what do you think all those little micro-evolutional changes add up to after a few hundred thousand years?

reply to post by Jenna


#1. Dating Innacurate

#2. Comes from the Bible, and since your questioning that source I will use it as the defense. The Bible says that all life ate the grasses and herbs and seeds and grains... This won't be good enough for some, but they can not prove it otherwise. Bones whether from last year or 1 billion years ago (tongue in cheek) don't tell you what they ate.

#3. I take a lot of pain meds fro chronic back pain so excuse me if I confused Donkeys and Mules, thank you I am glad you understood anyways...

#4. Has the laws of Gravity changed? Thermodynamic laws? Laws on motion? These are all Scientific Laws not theories, theories are guesses until it can be PROVEN through testing and observation then they become known as Laws...

#5. No I can't prove that dinosaurs were on the ark, but archeological finds have modern man (their words) found under or with Dinosaur bones. This would indicate that man and dinosaurs lived together, as well as the thousands of Dragon stories and tales...

#6. Source on Strata and fossils

#7. My point exactly, micro-evolution(what I call adaption within a KIND) is observable, macro-evolution has NEVER been observed you have to BELIEVE it happened. Which is fine to believe just don't call it fact or Science.

8. It is my opinion that the Bible is correct and that the Earth is about 6000 years old. And that site posted in several links in my response has that chapter too, so you can find the information if you want to see it. There are things like he moon getting farther away, the Sun burning and getting smaller, and other such observations that show the Earth can not be very old. I know some scientists claim it is at least 12,000 years old and maybe not older but I think they are off by double... Neither you nor I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the age of the Earth, so it will have to be a draw.

God is light so that is probably the first light given, but He clearly states the Sun on day 4 and plants need Sun not Light to do photosynthesis, or a fake sun that gives the right rays.

I cannot argue this, not because it makes sense or is logical, but because of its pure absurdity.

Dating systems are flawed as stated elsewhere in this thread, but we do find those animals and mans bones on top of, under and with Dinosaur bones and those other animals are in the Cretaceous layer.

They're flawed, even though they all date back to the same period??? Ok.... If they're so flawed then why haven't we found a dinosaur fossil that dates back to 2000 years ago?

They refuse to Carbon Date Dinosaur bones, ohhhh you didn't know that, I see... Answered and done.


Carbon Dating doesn't work on fossils that are over 70,000 years old.

Bones of men are found under Dinosaurs in the Strata all over the world, this is a FACT and kinds puts the suspect dating means in a different light... This also destroys the Theory of Geological Strata being great periods of time.

Care to provide a link to such a case???

I know EVERYTHING about evolution I have studied it for years

Just because you study something does not mean you understand it, because judging from your posts, you really do know nothing of evolution.

No it hasn'tIt has been PROVEN a fake both of the two found, and thank you yes that s the one

Ummm, no they haven't been proven fake...

"Their suggestions have not been taken seriously by paleontologists, as their evidence was largely based on misunderstandings of geology, and they never discussed the other feather-bearing specimens, which have increased in number since then."

en.wikipedia.org...

Well I have never stated that the Shroud of Turin is from Jesus's Death have I? Are you assuming?

My apologies, but I find it rather hard to believe that you don't believe in something which may actually be evidence for your christ. I don't believe its real, but the findings that concluded it was a hoax were wrong, and further testing on the shroud needs to be done to come to a real conclusion.

Really so you can show me a pair of dogs that have through micro-evolution given birth to a non-dog kind? I can't wait to see your evidence.

Hmm, I never said it would happen within a human lifetime did I?

reply to post by ModernAcademia


The bible is a series of scriptures and the first part of understanding it can be found by looking for repeating lines. (Thats how I began anyways)

If you read it for what is there metaphorically especially you will see sense in it no matter what faith you are.

The bible is the water but only you can drink it and the bible tells you that.

You will never find your answer asking someone else only you can find it if you seek it.

The fact you are interested is a positive.

Stop trying to read the bible and picture everything like a story as it is not meant to be read like this at least until you can make sense of it for yourself and understand what it is.

If that does not make sense then it is not for you to understand yet, simple, but it is inevitable that certain answers can only be found in certain places.

There are two sides to a coin literally!!!





[edit on 18-12-2008 by XXXN3O]

On the subject of Dinosaurs on the ark...or all animlas for that matter, I found this site

www.christiananswers.net...

Yes, I understand that it's a Chrisitan website, therefore some of you will bypass it based soley on that, but it does give some good answers to the question at hand.

And no, I'm not someone who believe the Bible word for word, or evenbelieves the story of Noah,. but this site at least explained it a little more logically than any teacher did in my nine years of Christian School...

reply to post by Layla


Thank you fr that link, I loved it and saved it. I never seen it before but it does line up with most of what I have been saying in here and what I have learned from other sources.

GREAT FIND star for you!

reply to post by theindependentjournal

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
#1. Dating Innacurate

That's going to take a bit of reading. I skimmed it but I will have to go back to read it more in depth.

#2. Comes from the Bible, and since your questioning that source I will use it as the defense. The Bible says that all life ate the grasses and herbs and seeds and grains... This won't be good enough for some, but they can not prove it otherwise. Bones whether from last year or 1 billion years ago (tongue in cheek) don't tell you what they ate.

So, nothing outside of the Bible? This is going to sound like I'm nit-picking and I'm really not but I can't think of a better way to phrase it. If the Bible doesn't include every single thing that happened and especially not in order, which I am thinking was the basis of your position on whether or not Cain had a sister that he married or whether he found a wife in Nod, then it can be argued that the Bible isn't proof they didn't eat meat since it leaves things out and that part could have been left out as well. Dogs eat grass to throw up, but naturally speaking they are meat eaters. Maybe all the other animals with pointy teeth are the same, including animals way back in then.

#3. I take a lot of pain meds fro chronic back pain so excuse me if I confused Donkeys and Mules, thank you I am glad you understood anyways...

Yeah, I knew what you meant. Figured it was just a minor slip up, they happen.

#4. Has the laws of Gravity changed? Thermodynamic laws? Laws on motion? These are all Scientific Laws not theories, theories are guesses until it can be PROVEN through testing and observation then they become known as Laws...

Actually, yes the Newton's theory on gravity was shown to be slightly off the mark due to Mercury. And the laws of thermodynamics have changed a bit and there have been proposed additions to them.

#5. No I can't prove that dinosaurs were on the ark, but archeological finds have modern man (their words) found under or with Dinosaur bones. This would indicate that man and dinosaurs lived together, as well as the thousands of Dragon stories and tales...

But where is your source for modern man being found under or with dinosaur bones?

#6. Source on Strata and fossils

Also added this to my reading list.

#7. My point exactly, micro-evolution(what I call adaption within a KIND) is observable, macro-evolution has NEVER been observed you have to BELIEVE it happened. Which is fine to believe just don't call it fact or Science.

That's kinda the point. Macro-evolution can't be observed first-hand because there is not a creature alive that lives for thousands of years or millions of years to witness it. Soon as I find one though, I'll get him/her/it to come on and tell you what they saw.

8. It is my opinion that the Bible is correct and that the Earth is about 6000 years old.

I smell a new thread coming. Not from me right now though, real life needs my attention. Perhaps when I have some time later.

[edit on 18-12-2008 by Jenna]