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.
Seriously, try harder. You're not very good at trolling.
As far as the animals getting there, who knows. We don't even know what the geography of the world was like at that time so any question regarding how a kangaroo can swim from Australia to the Middle East is irrelevant.
My stance is this....no one knows the age of the earth.
I agree with this
The earth is 6,000 years old position.
The earth is 4.7 billions years old view
Many of these scientists believe the earth is more in the range of 7, 000 years old.
Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
Seriously? He is the OP how on earth can he be trolling?
OK if we assume that the animals were called by God, then one would have to assume that those animals that could not swim were already in the area. This probably indicates that the flood was not a worldwide event. If that is the case then some animals would have survived 'the flood' as it was localised.
Sorry what exactly is it that you agree with? All of them?
I think perhaps you should br trying harder. So far you have answered nothing and only managed to create confusion.
No one seems to have done the math on how much water it would take to float the Ark up to 13,000 feet on a mountain, if the Mount Ararat site is actually it. So here it is: Earth’s diameter=approx. 7918 miles 4/3 pi* r^3=surface area=((4/3)*(3.14)*(7918/2)^3)/3=2.5979 x 10^11 square miles area 2.5979 x 10^11 *5280 ft^/mile^2=7.2426 x 10^18 square feet area 7.2426 x 10^18 sq. ft x 13000 feet deep = 9.4153 x 10^22 cubic feet of water 9.4153 x 10^22 * 7.48 gallons/ft^3=7.0427 x 10^23 gallons of water , or 704,270,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of water is now missing from the planet. Where did the water go?
He's trolling simply because athiests love to start a debate and this thread is more than likely already here at ATS. I've discussed the ark and corresponded story literally hundreds of times.
is it so hard to understand that you're BOTH RIGHT? Bits and pieces, sure, but both sides have valid arguments and it isnt until you meet somewhere near the middle that you UNDERSTAND.
Evolution is flawed, certainly, but nature tells us that evolution within a species is factual.
Religion is flawed, indeed, but history and archeology tell us that the events depicted within CERTAIN PARTS of ALL religious texts are factual.
That is unless you're bullheaded and unable to accept and learn.
My stance is this....no one knows the age of the earth.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Not if you're able to completely debunk religious claims like Noah's arch or the genesis account...
Well, we have hard evidence that supports speciation...because we observed it in nature and the lab
So no, it isn't flawed. If it were, it wouldn't be called a scientific theory, but rather a hypothesis.
That's EXACTLY what religion does. They state a CONCLUSION before even considering objective evidence
So no, you are completely wrong if you believe science is comparable to religion
Sure there was a flood. Fact. What you're wanting to see is physical remnants of a WOODEN boat how many thousands of years after the FACT? It took my fence 12 years to become a crumpled heap.
There is enough published Archeological, Historical, and Scientific evidence to support both sides of the argument...Your inability to consolidate, or your need to 'choose' will keep you numb to actual facts...
Darwin himself said there were holes in his 'theory'...Which in fact makes it a hypothesis....yes?
both comparable and compatable...
Fish to bird?
Originally posted by OneEleven
You aren't able to debunk either side....If anything, you're able to pick and choose evidence to support your own personal beliefs...Its a matter of whose evidence fits your unbreakable opinion...
Sure there was a flood. Fact.
What you're wanting to see is physical remnants of a WOODEN boat how many thousands of years after the FACT? It took my fence 12 years to become a crumpled heap.
There is enough published Archeological, Historical, and Scientific evidence to support both sides of the argument...Your inability to consolidate, or your need to 'choose' will keep you numb to actual facts...
there you go screwing it up again....Darwin himself said there were holes in his 'theory'...
Which in fact makes it a hypothesis....yes?
Wingless bird to soaring eagle. Sure.
Fish to bird? Where's the proof?
Hunchbacked homonid to modern day erectus...sure. Algae to Human? What makes you certain?
So no, you are completely wrong if you believe science is comparable to religion
both comparable and compatable...
You are them....They are you....your religion is your own belief system...unshakable....inarguable...
your religion is Atheism,
a religion whose ranks you joined when you decided that you needed a title and people to agree with your BELIEFS. Your need to be apart of a group of fools makes your RELIGION just as unseeing...
But i would expect you to argue these points...Its as much a part of your religion as communion is for Catholics...I however will not humor you, because i have long moved past the forks that keep you baffled and unable to move upstream.
Nope, MrXYZ (who can speak for himself, but he's a friend so I'll speak in his defense) is a person who values one thing above all else: evidence. Evidence will shake his beliefs.
Evolutionists have in fact had to change their thinking about the origins of a wide suite of New Zealand’s flora and fauna. “A consistent finding is that the biota is much more youthful than previously thought,” reported the Massey University press release. It said that a very high proportion of the birdlife in New Zealand has its origins in Australia, with some species being “so like those in Australia they cannot be distinguished even with molecular data.”, An exception was the moa—its DNA most closely matched that of the tinamou of South America, which can fly. This and other molecular data has forced a radical rethink of the origins of flightless birds worldwide. In short, the molecular and other evidence points to New Zealand’s flightless birds being the descendants of birds which flew to New Zealand, and which are just like flying birds we see elsewhere in the world today. So much for the Moa’s Ark theory!
But if the researchers had indeed taken time to consider the facts before them from the perspective of Genesis being actual history, they would see that New Zealand’s fauna fits with a Creation–Noah’s Ark perspective of origins and biogeography. From that perspective, the earth’s post-Flood land areas about 4,500 years ago were completely devoid of all land animals and birds, as any creature with “the breath of life in its nostrils” (Genesis 7:22) had perished in the Flood, unless it was on the Ark. The process of repopulating the earth with land animals radiating out from the Ark’s landing site in the Middle East was made easier by the presence of land bridges connecting (or almost connecting) Asia to the Americas and to Indonesia/Papua New Guinea/Australia during the Ice Age.9 But the 2,000 kilometres of deeper ocean waters separating Australia and New Zealand proved a most effective barrier to land animals.
umm...they were living creatures that died
I don't see what your point is being that I never placed a "birthdate" on the Earth.
I don't know if it's 4.7 billion years old.
I don't know if it's 6000 years old.
I don't know if it's 900 trillion years old.
Scientists have been able to reconstruct detailed information about the planet's past. The earliest dated Solar System material was formed 4.5672 ± 0.0006 billion years ago and by 4.54 billion years ago (within an uncertainty of 1%) the Earth and the other planets in the Solar System had formed out of the solar nebula—a disk-shaped mass of dust and gas left over from the formation of the Sun
Originally posted by pshea38
I guess those poor Moa had Noah-where to go.
From that perspective, the earth’s post-Flood land areas about 4,500 years ago were completely devoid of all land animals and birds, as any creature with “the breath of life in its nostrils” (Genesis 7:22) had perished in the Flood, unless it was on the Ark. The process of repopulating the earth with land animals radiating out from the Ark’s landing site in the Middle East was made easier by the presence of land bridges connecting (or almost connecting) Asia to the Americas and to Indonesia/Papua New Guinea/Australia during the Ice Age.9 But the 2,000 kilometres of deeper ocean waters separating Australia and New Zealand proved a most effective barrier to land animals.