Wouldn't the dinosaurs have been extinct at this time?
|
Wouldn't the dinosaurs have been extinct at this time?
I believe they were Starfirefly, but apparently others don't.
For goodness sake people, stop fighting about something that cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Believe what you want and let others do the same, and just move on. I'm so sick of all this back and forth arguing that goes no where.
There have been dinosaurs found which were buried extremely rapidly by water and silt. In one local case reported on the news locally in the first week of June 1998, a mystery has been uncovered not far from here. The world famous Tyrell Museum, located near here will be investigating to try to sort out the mystery.Quote:
Originally Posted by starfirefly
Evolutionists believe that this area of the prairies was a vast inland sea many many millions of years ago. But the mystery involves a duck-billed dinosaur that was found where the sea would have covered the land at that time (according to the theory).
The problem is that duck-billed dinosaurs are believed not to have been able to swim, and where this one was found causes all sorts of difficulties for theories other than young earth/creationism.
The evolutionists, who admit that this is an intriguing mystery, are guessing that the immature dinosaur was washed out to sea, but that leaves the problem of why it wouldn't just bloat and rot like any other animal. Yet this one died so rapidly as to leave an imprint of the skin that has very much impressed the palentologists exmining the remains. They describe the quality of the skin imprints as rare. For that to happen, the body would have had to have been buried extremely rapidly, such as would happen in a catastrophic flood (i.e. Genesis).
The palentologists say that if their guess that the animal was washed out to sea doesn't hold, they will have to try to come up with another explanation.
The evidence, such as this, suggests are that dinosaurs were still in existence.
Starfly,
Folks who believe the stories in the Bible(Creation and Noah's Ark, for example) are *literally true* also believe that the earth was created about 6,000 years ago... dinosaurs and all. :D
Pointing out how all the gigantic dinosaurs would have to have fit on the ark reveals that it is just an old Jewish story about a flood that may have happened... and a story was told in the tribe's oral history.
Questions for those who believe the literal Noah's ark story, including the bits about the entire earth as we know it in modern times being flooded, and the ark having carried samples of every species of animal from all continents across the entire earth:
1. Why is it that there are animals that are indiginous to lands far away from where the ark landed - such as kangaroos in Autralia, llamas in South America, and penguins in Antarctica - how did thet get to these places from the ark once the water's receded? Did Noah sail around the world and deliver them back to their native lands? The bible suggests not. And if they somehow migrated and swam back home on their own, why are there no old fossils of kangaroos or llamas anywhere but in their native lands? Wouldn't some of them have died along the way?
2. If the whole earth as we know it was flooded, so that the oceans covered everything, how did fresh water fish survive? I know that some species of fish can live in both fresh and salt water, but most cannot. Shouldn't the majority of fresh water fish have died off?
It has been pointed out that many cultures speak of great floods. After what occurred in the American midwest and in Myanmar last month it's easy to understand that a major flood would have a tremendous impact on a culture, and that to an ancient people it would seem like their entire world was under water. Obvoiusly there have been many major floods throughout history, and perhaps all major civilizations have experienced them. But to say that evidence of past floods have occurred is somehow proof that there was once a flood that covered the entire world as we know it today defies logic, especially considering that middle-eastern people living in "Noah's time" had no idea that places like Australia and South America even existed.
Tom,
The burden of proof is on you, the believer. Science has proven the Universe if OLDER THAN 6,000 YEARS!! All animals alive in the time of Noah's Ark could never fit on an ark, specially the dinosaurs, the carnivores like Tyrannosaurus Rex would eat the other animals. What about all the different kinds of insects... terrible to keep track of.
Your attempts at defending the literal interpretation of Noah's Ark myth and the Creation myth don't pass the hysterical laughter test.
Why do the non believers keep posting on the religion threads?
It's your choice not to believe, so don't believe somewhere else.
Maybe Starfirefly should have posted this in the Christian section where he/she could get ALL Christian answers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Altenweg
Sorry, I'm just so sick of non believers asking believers to prove their beliefs. Why should we? It's our belief, we don't have to prove anything.
Prove to me that God doesn't exist, no one can, and I can't prove that he does. So where does that get us? No where. :(
I absolutely agree that one is free to hold whatever religious beliefs one likes - I have no problem with people saying they believe that the flood occurred exactly as described in the bible, or as they chose to interpret the bible,as a matter of faith. No argument from me. However, when posters try to put forth arguments based on physical or scientific evidence of a global flood then it deserves a response questioning their "science." Previous posters have tried to describe physical evidence, talking about how floods have been reported in virtually all cultures, how there may be a dinosaur fossil somewhere there is difficult to explain, or providing links to web sites that purport to provide "evidence" of a global flood- that's what I and others are responding to. If your position is "I believe because I have faith" - that's fine, and no one will argue. But if your position is "I believe because the physical evidence is there" you will get rebuttals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Altenweg
How did he pick those species that exist in specific areas only (ex. Penguins, kangaroos, etc.)?
There are over 5 million individual insect species, Noah got all of them?
Actually, science has not proven that. The conclusion that some scientists have reached is based upon mixing some evidence with a number of assumptions. Others used different assumptions and come up with a completely different answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Choux
You keep claiming that animals could not fit in the ark, based upon what?
BTW, Choux, I have a background in science.
OP, here's a great site I found that might help answer some questions you have. I haven't read everything on the site, but from what I did read, the person who started the site is unbiased and has tried his best to bring the story of Noah's ark to light. I hope it helps;
Noah's Ark on the Web - Everything about Noah's Ark
If it doesn't help, Google Noah's ark, there are tons of other sites out there, from people who have studied this story for years and years, most of them are sites that are totally unbiased, some are sites started by people who just want to prove their side, so you have to pick.
Good luck.
Remember boys and girls, this is a religious thread, not a discussion thread, and a few posts went past the limit on even the discussion ones. No attacks, no attacking the faith of another on the boards that are not discussion, even there it has limits of personal attacks.
We are about one more post from another one being closed.
Remember original poster posted in a relgious thread, did not ask if it happened or not, merely to what extent and if all the animals. So the OP is posting from a religious view point that it did happen as part of the OP faith.
I'll open a new post in Member Religious Discussions for a debate on Noah's Ark !
Why is no one answering my question? :(Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Addressed in part in post #15. I see folks asking details about how many different individual species were handled. First, the scope of that question too large to handle on any discussion group, and second, we do not have records that specific, so either way it would be speculation. We need to deal with what the record does show.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Fish and water mammals I understand but why not microscopic animals and *all* species of land insect?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
This is what I was referring to when I said:Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I see folks asking details about how many different individual species were handled. First, the scope of that question too large to handle on any discussion group, and second, we do not have records that specific, so either way it would be speculation. We need to deal with what the record does show.
We could spend lifetimes trying to speculate on a species by species basis, but this will not bring us any closer in dealing with the issue of the global nature of the flood.
The original question was with respect to the scope of the flood (whole world?) and whether everyone died and in this thread I believe that we are required to remain focused on that question.
The story always led me to believe that it was only the animals and Noah's family that survived.
I did love that story.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:45 PM. |