Creationists, please explain: Noah and the Moa!

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2

 

So what say you?

I say that you still haven't posted any objective evidence that proves any of your (or the bible's) claims

So to get it out of the way -----

do you agree that what I said possible? That the Noah Moa - was brought in the island by seafares/explorers?

thx,
edmc2

reply to post by ararisq


According to you, everything in the past is unknowable...funny

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2

 

So what say you?

I say that you still haven't posted any objective evidence that proves any of your (or the bible's) claims

So to get it out of the way -----

do you agree that what I said possible? That the Noah Moa - was brought in the island by seafares/explorers?

thx,
edmc2

Given that it was humans who hunted them to extinction...I doubt it Plus, we have zero evidence of Moa's living outside NZ...if humans had brought that bird from somewhere else, we'd have evidence of it elsewhere than NZ.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
According to you, everything in the past is unknowable...funny

I think I have this conversation figured out and I've already intimated at it before. You have no interest in engaging in dialog which is usually par for the course when an atheist jumps in to a religious debate - its a jib-jab tactic, jump in and then run for the hills before its too late.

I'll leave this thread to the dust-bin of history.

reply to post by ararisq


Hey look, it's the good old "ad hominem attack"! Please, MrXYZ and the other atheists on here (including me) are more than interested in engaging in a debate...you just don't have a leg to stand on here.

reply to post by ararisq


...I'm going to point this out, geologic evidence can be used to infer that events happened ages ago. For one thing, flood sedimentation is well understood and has been observed and studied first hand by geologists. We know what to look for in the geologic record, there should be a worldwide uniform sedimentary layer to correspond with the global flood.

reply to post by MrXYZ


I think you missed the pt of the OP question which is how'd the Noah Moa's or other animals got there. Not why or how they became caseroles n carnitas.

So again are u absolutely 100% positive beyond any reasonable doubt that there's NO possibility they were brought there by seafares/explorerz. Can't happen?

Thx,
Edmc2

Originally posted by ararisq

Originally posted by MrXYZ
According to you, everything in the past is unknowable...funny

I think I have this conversation figured out and I've already intimated at it before. You have no interest in engaging in dialog which is usually par for the course when an atheist jumps in to a religious debate - its a jib-jab tactic, jump in and then run for the hills before its too late.

I'll leave this thread to the dust-bin of history.

I posted tons of scientific links that show what a bunch of hogwash the global flood theory is...but some people continue to be hellbent in saying "god did it" without presenting the slightest bit of evidence. And you're attacking me? For critical thinking? Seriously?

I'm willing to discuss, but that would require all parties to actually look at the facts. One party's not doing that

reply to post by halfoldman


I really don't know much about the history of this Ark etc but maybe it was like metaphorical for like genetically saving all the species somehow (as in maybe they were advanced in the past). Just an idea from nowhere.

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

I think you missed the pt of the OP question which is how'd the Noah Moa's got there. Not why or how they became caseroles n carnitas.

So again are u absolutely 100% positive beyond any reasonable doubt that there's NO possibility they were brought there by seafares/explorerz. Can't happen?

Thx,
Edmc2

You might wanna reread the OP...he's not talking about a "Noah Moa" (what's that anyway??), he's asking how creationists explain the Moa in relation to Noah's ark.

There's a possibility ancient maori seafarers shipped a moa from one island to the next, sure...but eventually they ate them all, and although we find moa remains in NZ, we don't find any anywhere else. So it makes sense to say the Moa didn't originate outside NZ. How else to you explain no Moa remains outside NZ...and please don't make my spill my drink by saying "global flood"

You said:

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Well, the margin of error we use in carbon dating the earth is relatively small given the timescale.

I know there are other forms of dating. I'm just pointing out your error (carbon dating the earth). You're not willing to admit you made a mistake as small as it is?

This is from the link you posted:
Because the exact accretion time of Earth is not yet known, and the predictions from different accretion models range from a few millions up to about 100 million years, the exact age of Earth is difficult to determine. It is also difficult to determine the exact age of the oldest rocks on Earth, exposed at the surface, as they are aggregates of minerals of possibly different ages.

If it's so difficult to determine the exact age of the oldest rocks on Earth AND they also used the age of meteorites, how can you be so certain of your "4.5 billion give or take 200 million years"? Just because the oldest rocks dated are around 4.5 billion years old does not make Earth 4.5 billion years old. It could be much older than that.

On-topic (sort of):
The one thing (most) Christians and (most) evolutionists have in common is that they are so dead-set in their belief, whether based on faith or science, that there is nothing anyone can say to convince them otherwise. Evolutionists are 100% convinced about the validity of evolution and it will take a miracle to convince them otherwise, and vice versa.

reply to post by Lannock


I also mentioned the word "radiometric dating" numerous times...so it should be clear what I meant. The fact remains, we have radiometric dating methods that date the earth to be around 4.5bil years old.

Because the exact accretion time of Earth is not yet known, and the predictions from different accretion models range from a few millions up to about 100 million years, the exact age of Earth is difficult to determine.

And the first sentence in the very article you quoted is:

The age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years.

100mil year error margin is pretty insignificant given the timescale. That's an error margin of 2.2%. If you ever had statistics, you'd know that a lot of people would kill to be able to claim something is true in 97.8% of the cases.

If it's so difficult to determine the exact age of the oldest rocks on Earth AND they also used the age of meteorites, how can you be so certain of your "4.5 billion give or take 200 million years"? Just because the oldest rocks dated are around 4.5 billion years old does not make Earth 4.5 billion years old. It could be much older than that.

How? If you can date the very fabric of our planet, and the oldest element of that material is 4.5bil years, it's logical to assume that's the age of the earth. What's your theory? Someone replaced all the material of the earth to make it seem younger?

reply to post by MrXYZ


Firstly, you won't even admit that you've made a mistake, as minor as it is. Then you claim, "If you can date the very fabric of our planet". "The oldest such minerals analyzed to date" is hardly"the very fabric of our planet". You're the evolutionist who claims to have science at his back, but you mangle the science to fit your point of view. You sir, are no better than bible-thumpers.

Originally posted by Lannock
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Firstly, you won't even admit that you've made a mistake, as minor as it is. Then you claim, "If you can date the very fabric of our planet". "The oldest such minerals analyzed to date" is hardly"the very fabric of our planet". You're the evolutionist who claims to have science at his back, but you mangle the science to fit your point of view. You sir, are no better than bible-thumpers.

Ok, so according to you, examining the very material the earth is made of isn't appropriate for dating it...tell me, what's your plan, how would you date it?

reply to post by ararisq

Has anyone considered that the information needed to preserve all of these species can be stored in an incredibly small amount of space and that the animals aboard the Ark might not have been in adult or even child form but in the form of DNA?

Yeah, that idea is ridiculous to say the least. They had neither the brain capacity, nor the tools available to extract the DNA from every creature around at that time. That's not even taking into consideration the ability to recreate an organism from scratch from the DNA extracted. Something that we only successfully achieved last year and that was only a single cell!!

You have to step back and realize that the knowledge pre-Flood was extremely advanced and the knowledge post-flood was not (on purpose) that Noah and his sons for the most part kept apart from the rest of the growing world.

[citation needed]

reply to post by MrXYZ


I wasn't trying to convince you, since that is not quite the task for me. Only God Himself can manage that one. I'm an instrument of faith, not an instrument of proof.

A2D

First understand the writings in their true context... And not after the reasoning of the species....

These writings are a "Parable" for "The True Mind" or LIFE and Not the Species..

The Species will never interpret these writings, as only “The True Mind” (which some are a "Partition" of, while others are Not.) can decode them…

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

I wasn't trying to convince you, since that is not quite the task for me. Only God Himself can manage that one. I'm an instrument of faith, not an instrument of proof.

A2D

In other words, you realize you have ZERO objective evidence backing up your claims

reply to post by MrXYZ


No. I realise that your bias will naturally override any and all evidence given contrary to your beliefs....

A2D

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

No. I realise that your bias will naturally override any and all evidence given contrary to your beliefs....

A2D

I'm not biased, I want objective evidence and you fail at producing any. You are biased if your personal belief overrides objective evidence...so in short, it's you who's biased as you believe in something we have ZERO evidence for.