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.

 

Creationists, please explain: Noah and the Moa!

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 



Seriously, try harder. You're not very good at trolling.


Seriously? He is the OP how on earth can he be 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.


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.


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.



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.




posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 

Seriously? He is the OP how on earth can he be trolling?


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.



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.


Not at all. We do not know exactly what the Earth looked like when the ark was built. It could have easily been one supercontinent in which flightless birds could easily travel to Noah in the 100 years it took to build the ark.



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.


I agree with the fact that there are multiple opinions on the matter yet no one really knows for certain. Some people say 4.7 billion years old. Others still maintain that it is 6000 years old. And still, others maintain 7000 years old. I for one, do not put an age on the earth and simply state I do not know its age.

A2D


edit on 14-3-2011 by Agree2Disagree because: grammar



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Griffo
 


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.

All I know is that creation implies creator. I do not look at a building and assume that it built itself.

A2D



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


Yes, which is why we don't prove things by using common English colloquial language. We can distinguish a 'created' object from a natural one quite easily. It's the reason you can pick up a pocket watch in the forest and realize it's created but can't point out that the trees or that the forest itself was created.

Earth? No evidence of creation. The argument that 'creation = creator' hasn't just been dismissed outright, it was disproved on national television.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
The human Species is in denial of all the components of themselves,
and the so called universe experience for one reason or other.

The understanding of the Story of Noah is totally off track
regarding the arc.

The arc is not what many believe it to be.

First we need to know the True story and not just what is taught by others.
Then all will become very, very clear without the BS of the human primate.

The ancient Christian writings are not understood at all today,
and have been "humanised" instead of understanding what the writings are really about.

This came about by the Roman church suppressing the knowledge, by the rejection
of many ancient Christian writings, the burning of the Books etc.
Simply to be able to rule over flesh, which is "Vanity"

This involves "Lost knowledge", the Knowledge which the human species
knows nothing about today, and does NOT involve the Species at all,
but instead what All is manifested in.

Hence the lack of knowledge and all the arguments.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   
There are plenty of holes in the story.like the size of a boat that would be needed to carry every living thing on the planet, not to mention the amount of food and water needed.

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?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


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.

So I'm a troll because "atheists" love to start a debate? I thought debate was the point.
One can discuss many issues on hundreds of threads.
But this thread, and it's slant and material does not already exist.
Ultimately if people are tired of certain issues they've discussed before, like homosexuality, or the ark, or Neanderthals, then surely they can choose to leave that topic for a while.
Making allegations about people and threads is not nice, and points the finger of "troll" right back.

Usually young earth creationists have a lot to say, and this is a space where they can respond with an open-minded and non-judgmental reception from me. That doesn't mean I have to agree however.

The video already has certain flaws, firstly I do not see in Genesis that God sent an angel to Noah's wife.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ArgentumAquila
 


One "small" problem with your belief: We know as a scientific fact that life expectancy was A LOT less than it is today in ancient times...that's an irrefutable FACT! The whole "they lived for hundreds of years" is complete and utter nonsense


Why do you chose to believe in something that is so blatantly wrong and untrue?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
you're all so bullheaded.....

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.

Give it time and we'll figure it out. We're working on it. After all, the human mind only evolves, and i believe it's spirit does as well.

That is unless you're bullheaded and unable to accept and learn. Then we're talking about de-evolution.

These arguments are useless and even childish.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by OneEleven
 





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.


Not if you're able to completely debunk religious claims like Noah's arch or the genesis account...



Evolution is flawed, certainly, but nature tells us that evolution within a species is factual.


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.



Religion is flawed, indeed, but history and archeology tell us that the events depicted within CERTAIN PARTS of ALL religious texts are factual.


Yeah, but none of the crucial stuff has any objective evidence backing it up. So yeah, Jerusalem might be described well...but there's ZERO objective evidence for the important stuff like the existence of a deity, or the genesis account. In fact, much of that stuff like Noah's arch, a global flood, and the genesis account can be completely debunked by science.



That is unless you're bullheaded and unable to accept and learn.


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



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 





My stance is this....no one knows the age of the earth.


Well, the margin of error we use in carbon dating the earth is relatively small given the timescale. Anyone who says the earth is less than at least 4.5bil years is talking complete nonsense...or getting info from such hogwash sites as bibletruths.net



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Not if you're able to completely debunk religious claims like Noah's arch or the genesis account...

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...



Well, we have hard evidence that supports speciation...because we observed it in nature and the lab

thanks for agreeing with me....that's the spirit...


So no, it isn't flawed. If it were, it wouldn't be called a scientific theory, but rather a hypothesis.

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?




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


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.
edit on 15-3-2011 by OneEleven because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-3-2011 by OneEleven because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by OneEleven
 





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 is ZERO scientific evidence supporting a global flood. Sedimental evidence would most certainly be there, but it doesn't support a global flood. So yeah, the global flood as described in the bible is complete and utter nonsense.

You're trying really hard to claim science and religion are both faith based, but the very definition of science doesn't permit for faith. Things need to be backed up by OBJECTIVE evidence. And there is absolutely NONE when it comes to that ridiculous global flood. And when it comes to that arch: Why on earth would I look for it if it's clear that the people back then couldn't build an arch big enough to host all the animals on the planet? Plus, what about the plants? There's no way they'd all survived a salty surface once the flood went away...and lastly, where did all that excess water go?

In short, the global flood story in the bible is complete hogwash




Darwin himself said there were holes in his 'theory'...Which in fact makes it a hypothesis....yes?


You do realize we made thousands of discoveries since Darwin that fully back up the theory, right? It is classified as a theory because nothing is able to debunk it so far, and every fossil or DNA finding fully supports it




both comparable and compatable...


No they are most certainly not. Creationists loooooove claiming they're both a "belief", because that way they make it seem people have a choice what to "believe" in. But science isn't based on belief, it's based on hard OBJECTIVE evidence...which makes it FAR superior in assessing reality than religion.

You might wanna look up scientific method to better understand why saying science is a belief just like religion is beyond crazy


In short, what's your objective evidence of a global flood?





Fish to bird?


It's nonsense like that which shows how little you really know about the theory of evolution. Birds actually evolved from reptiles...but who cares about objective evidence if it threatens your illogical religious beliefs, right?




You should really watch this series because it makes abundantly clear why a lot of people chuckle when they hear about nonsense like Noah's flood


edit on 15-3-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by OneEleven
 



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...


No, one side has evidence, the other doesn't. There is absolutely no evidence to support any flood account. Hell, it's not even possible for a wooden ship of the dimensions mentioned to be sea worthy. It's not possible to gather that many animals onto one boat. There's not a shred of genetic evidence that points to there being a massive bottleneck in every gene pool at the exact same time. There's no geologic evidence.

Of course, all of this was already discussed over here. This thread, on the other hand, is about a specific account.



Sure there was a flood. Fact.


Not a fact. Where is your evidence.



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.


Nope, that's a straw man argument. I'd like some geologic evidence. Hell, I'd like to see evidence that it's even feasible for the world to stay submerged fully for about a year.



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...


I'm sorry, but please point to a single piece of scientific, archeological, and historical evidence (one each please) that shows that this account is anything other than a pile of equine manure.



there you go screwing it up again....Darwin himself said there were holes in his 'theory'...


Yes, the biggest hole in it was the lack of understanding of the mechanism of heritable traits...which we discovered. It's been 152 years since Darwin published his first work on evolution, please examine the science after him.



Which in fact makes it a hypothesis....yes?


Nope. It's a scientific theory with 150+ years of evidence repeatedly confirming its basic claims and modifying our understanding of the specific mechanisms.



Wingless bird to soaring eagle. Sure.


Actually, it was dinosaur to eagle..



Fish to bird? Where's the proof?


Titaalik.



Hunchbacked homonid to modern day erectus...sure. Algae to Human? What makes you certain?


Oh, you're just going to play the straw man game. Algae?





So no, you are completely wrong if you believe science is comparable to religion


both comparable and compatable...


I'm sorry, but you're wrong...and I'm awaiting the "Atheism is a religion" speech...wow, it is right there below me. I guess when you get to over 9000 posts you learn a few trends.



You are them....They are you....your religion is your own belief system...unshakable....inarguable...


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.



your religion is Atheism,


So is bald my grandfather's hair color? Is my area of study not learning Spanish? Is my favorite sport not playing lacrosse?

I'm sorry, but I've dismantled the claim that atheism is a religion so often that it is ridiculous that I have to do it again.

Atheism = not believing in any deity

Atheism is a skeptical position on deities.



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...


Except...no. It's not a religion, it has no ranks. It is a group of people who all happen to not believe in deities. They have a wide array of other beliefs and only agree on one thing. Of course, you went for the ad hominem attack.



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.


Ah, the attempt to high road when losing an argument. Classic.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





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.



Thx! That pretty much sums it up...I want OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE to make up my mind. It's why I don't believe in nonsense like a global flood, the genesis account, talking snakes, people walking on water, people parting the seas, burning talking bushes, and so on. It's also why I don't believe all Muslims are terrorists (or even 10% like that fool Beck claims), or why I realize that in the US, it's not the teachers causing the deficit, but reckless defence spending and corporate subsidies.

All I care about are facts and objective evidence. If you come to me and claim you saw a purple turtle with eagle wings soaring through the skies...well, unless you show me objective evidence, I'm gonna claim you're 100% crazy and should have your head examined


And before someone comes here claiming the bible is proof or evidence...it also outlaws shellfish by calling it an abomination. So yeah, it's subjective evidence of what people believed 2000 years ago...but in no way, shape, or form could it be considered objective evidence!
edit on 15-3-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Well the following makes sense to me.
‘Moa’s Ark’ vs Noah’s Ark

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!


The quote below is also from ‘Moa’s Ark’ vs Noah’s Ark

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.


As you can see, it is perfectly possible for the Moa to support the story of Noah's Ark.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 





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.


What I meant was: it takes quite a long time for fossils to be created, plus the fact that we can radiometrically date the fossils as well. Now considering that the fossils of dinosaurs have been dated at between 230 - 65 million years ago, we can safely say that the earth is a lot older than 6000 years.

Radiometric Dating

Dinosaurs


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.


We know how old the earth and the solar system is (~4.5 billion years), just like we know how old the universe is (~ 13.7 billion years)


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


#N.B. Where is says an uncertainty of 1%, it means ± 1% of 4.54x10^9 (4.54x10^7 years or 45.4 million years)

Earth

Lastly, Homo sapiens first appeared in Africa round about 200,000 years ago, which also contradicts the hypothesis of the earth being 6,000 years old

Homo sapiens
edit on 16/3/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38
I guess those poor Moa had Noah-where to go.


- good one. I don't think Noah sailed all around the world, just in his part of it. I don't think the whole planet got flooded, IMO.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 


No wonder everything you post is complete hogwash...getting your "knowledge" from creation.com




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.



First of all, we have fossils that fit the 4500 time frame that make it clear land wasn't devoid of life. And your land bridges theory is complete and utter nonsense...what were they made of? Please don't say "ice from the ice age" because 4,500 years ago THERE WAS NO ICE AGE!!! As for the "deepness" of the oceans preventing bridges...you do realize other continents are separated by far deeper waters, right?

And lastly, there is ZERO sedimental evidence of the flood!! There would be if a global flood really happened.

What really baffles me is that you believe in a website that so blatantly lies to you by claiming 4,500 years ago was an ice age.

Oh, and as far as biodiversity in New Zealand: There's hundreds of species that can only be found there, and which are completely separate from species on other continents. An example is the kiwi.

Please please please watch the following video series...because if you keep on parrotting nonsense from creation.com you'll look like a complete fool




Just one last time to make it clear: CREATION.COM IS LYING TO YOU!! What a garbage website dumbing down the nation!!!
edit on 16-3-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Griffo
 


Do you take this information as fact?

I find it interesting that most individuals here at ATS deny a vast majority of information given from MSM or any other source and claim they are "disinformation agents". But when it comes to the sciences, they think it is 100% accurate and no way of being tampered with or someone intentionally misleading them......just seems....ironic.

A2D




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join