User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 18 of 25 FirstFirst ... 8141516171819202122 ... LastLast
Results 137 to 144 of 195

Thread: Which religions are represented here?

  1. #137

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    central upstate New York
    Posts
    439
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Arrow

    Well said, Scot. [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html312/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/img]
    Restore our biosphere, create a new culture of kindness.

  2. #138
    noah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Senegal
    Posts
    538
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi Scotty,

    Thanks for replying! I see we agree on some things... and others not. A "few" comments on what you said...

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]the thing about that is..Science doesent need to care one way or the other if God exists or not..
    Exactly

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]all of Science's conclusions still work regardless of God's existance or non-existance!
    They may "work"... but that doesn't mean they are true! As I pointed out, they are all based on the premise that God doesn't have an effect on the world. But let's just say he could....

    Now what does the picture look like?

    For example, take the case of a murder trial. Evidence shows there was a guy with a scetchy record in the alley at the time of the crime. However, that is all the evidence they have for this guy.

    Second, you have another suspect who ended up with the slain man's cell phone. He claims it was planted on him. Also, he is way to small be be able to beat someone up. Furthermore, he has absolutely no blood on his hands. Lastly, there wasn't enough time for him to do the crime.

    Now, since the prosecution has to use some solid evidence, they ignore guy #1. This leaves them to come up with a complex possibility of how guy #2 could have killed the slain. Eventually, they conclude that he ran the block before the alley in his suit, knocked the slain over by surprise, went to the balcony above the guy he had knocked over, dropped a bunch of rocks on him, stole the cell phone, then picked up the rocks and hid them nearby, running the next few blocks to make up the lost time.

    It doesn't seem to matter to them how unlikely this scenario is. Since they have decided they can't use guy #1 for the trial, they are ignoring him. Does that mean he is innocent? Does it?

    Of course not!! Just cause they don't have any evidence for him doesn't mean he didn't do it.

    The same thing goes for evolution and creation. Just because we don't have any scientific evidence for God's existence doesn't mean he doesn't exist or didn't create the universe. There is plenty of evidence for metaphysical intervention throughout the world. If scientist were to accept the possibility that metaphysical intervention was possible, millions of things would be attributed to it:

    The big bang had to be set off by someone/thing. According to Newton's laws it is a process that can't be repeated.
    The intricate design of almost everything around us screams for the need of a designer. I interests me that evolutionists claim that all life on earth came about by chance and yet we have not found one single functioning object outside of life that did. Do we find fossilized watches on the beach? or even gears? The chance that a gear was formed from some molten metal years ago is far higher than the chance of even one single organelle in a cell forming by chance. Survival of the fittest works for evolution once you have stable life. But it doesn't explain how cells could have formed, for a cell can't even begin to survive until all of it's parts are in place precisely as they are. That goes for many things we find in nature. Eyes. Ears. These couldn't have come about simply piece by piece! Until they were fully formed, they can't function!

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ] I simply dont believe the bible is a factual book..God can be very seperate from the bible.
    You don't have to! That is fully based on faith. However, it Bible does work as far as moral laws go. Those who follow it tend to have more balanced, fruitfull lives. As far as historic accuracy goes, many things were read in the Bible long before they were proven by science. Check out

    http://www.seeking4truth.com/histori..._the_bible.htm

    for a few examples.

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]
    yes, but Nature does follow the laws of nature!
    everything that science observes follows the laws of nature.
    if you assume the "laws of nature" are "God's laws"..then God is breaking a lot of his own laws! why would God write something (in the bible) then show it to be utterly untrue in the real world? that doesent make sense to me..
    Yes, nature follows the laws of nature. That is the way the universe is set up. Assuming God created the world from nothing, we have to remember a few things:

    Before the world, there was no matter
    Without matter, there was no time or space.

    Our minds are limited to thinking about things within the realms of time, matter, and space. We can not imagine infinity, or what life outside time, space, or matter is like. Assuming God DID create time, matter, and space, he would have every right to set the rules that nature will follow or to break them. After all, these are rules that NATURE will follow... not himself. If you make a lego world, you make the rules. It is perfectly right and just to break any rules to set up for your creations to follow. (This is totally different than God's nature (other meaning of the word here) or any promises he makes. These he can't break, by his nature, like you said... but that's a whole nother discussion. And yes God can't lie.)

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]He said things in the bible that he just made up..which he didnt really do..
    such as? [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html312/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/img]

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]thats not true..it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that God exists, it is also impossible to prove he created the universe..
    therefore evolution is the only plausable theory for how life came about based on evidence that physically exists..
    yes creationism is another theory..but one based only on faith..not based on any factual evidence whatsoever..
    True - evolution is the only "plausable" theory for how life came about based on evidence that physically exists. But that doesn't mean it is wrong.

    Consider the love a mother has for her young one. If we only took physical evidence, we would have to say that she takes care of him to ensure:

    a. she has someone to take care of her when she gets old.
    b. to carry on her gene code through society.
    c. because she has to - abandoning the child would be illegal.

    Now, are any of those primary reasons for which most mothers take care of their children? Of course not!! We know that mothers take care of their young because they LOVE them. Is this conclusion based purely on faith?? Of course not.... we see the evidences, and feel love ourselves in our hearts.

    In the same way, there is evidence in the universe supporting the existance of God - if we choose to accept it - and those that have a relationship with God can feel him very strongly in their hearts.

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]I dont understand how creationists can believe in God, and then utterly ignore all of His creation! thats so bizzare..
    I, for one, don't ignore his creation. I see it's complexity and beauty as a declaration God's glory. The whole earth supports a creationist theory. Evolution doesn't disprove creation in the least. It only gives a theory of how it could have happened if we were to rule God out.

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]1 in a googleplex? did you make that number up yourself?
    that arguement is meaningless..because first of all..no one knows what that actual odds are..and secondly, lets say the odds ARE one in a googleplex..well, it STILL could have happened then right?! without God! [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html312/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/img] you are saying it IS possible!
    the only way to really use that arguement as a arguement against evolution is to say "then one has no choice but to embrace the IMPOSSIBLE chance that we evolved from chemicals to algae to fish to humans"
    True. I do see it as impossible, but I'm neither a fully trained scientist nor a statisticion, so I can't give you the numbers first hand... I can only take what others have come up with. The figures I've seen that scientists have put out range somewhere between 1 in *insert a huge number here* and 0. But I can't claim that they are 0 and be honest about it. I really don't have a clue what they are. But I know they have to be infintessimally tiny, especially after studying how cells work at great length.

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]I disbelieve the bible, creationism, the flood, etc..based on tons of factual eveidence against these myths..and zero factual eveidence to support them..
    That, as you well know, is the overstatement of the day. There is a lot of evidence for a flood, and much of the stuff found in the Bible. Don't give sweeping statements like that unless you are willing and able to back them up with something. [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html312/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/img]

    Yes, God COULD have created the world through evolution... but then it wasn't evolution by chance anymore, it was evolution spurred on by God. That would explain the total lack of fossil evidence for evolutionary stages and how the evolutionary theory could have fit into the young earth that many scientists are finding we live on. [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html312/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/img]

    Hey, this is quite an interesting discussion! Let's hope it stays at the "discussion" stage and doesn't turn into an argument.

    cheers,

    -noah

  3. #139

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Dickinson,TX
    Posts
    191
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I guess Iíll stick my nose in here since my name was invoked. Let me state outright that I have found the Bible to be infallible. It says what it say, we intrepret
    What it says. The biggest problem is when were lost in translation. Check this out.


    Hebrew is very fascinating. Unlike our language, the individual letters have meaning. For example with the word "cat" in English, the individual letters have no meaning, In Hebrew each letter would represent characteristics of the cat. Hebrew also has no numbers; the letters have dual meaning (both consonant and number). Further Biblical Hebrew is written right to left, back to front. As if that were not enough: there were no chapters, no verses, the vowels were left out, no punctuation, and no spacing! Just a continuous string of Hebrew consonants! Now that "cat" becomes "ct" or really "tc"! So you have to pick out the word from the string of letters and determine from context if say cat, cot, or coat was intended! One could write a whole paper on linguistics and Hebrew!
    If you are really going to delve into some of the controversial issues in the Bible, you need to learn something of the original languages - or at least the history of the translation - especially if you are going to hang entire concepts on the meaning of a word or two. Some think this is rubbish... They say "God gave me the King James version - that's all I need". Well, for these people I offer the following simple examples:
    A fine example is the Hebrew word "erets" translated as "earth" that appears in the King James Bible. What do you think of when you hear the word Earth? Probably the round spinning globe of a planet we call home - right? We subconsciously "add in" things like the Earth's: size, volume, shape, number and shape of continents, size and depth of oceans, height of mountains, diversity and quantity of wildlife (from the deepest parts of the oceans to the polar regions), etc. The word Earth comes with a lot of baggage today... This is a very recent definition of "Earth". In Biblical Hebrew, this word means "land". It could be an individual's land, the land of a city, as far as you could see, or possibly the extent of an empire. In short, it usually meant anything but what we attribute to it now!
    Another example is the phrase in Genesis 1:28 "... Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth...". This helped lead Scofield and others into the gap theory - which postulates that in Genesis 1:1 everything is created, in Genesis 1:2 it becomes "formless and void", and Genesis 1:3 on details the "re-creation"! The Hebrew word translated as "replenish" really simply means to "fill".
    My final example is the word Adam/Man. Most do not realize that the Hebrew word for "Adam" and "man" are one and the same. The translators decided where to put in "Adam". There is no special proper name for Adam!
    Possibly now you can appreciate the difficulty, and understand some of the arguing that goes on as a result of taking these original Hebrew texts, translating them into "old English" (the language of King James in 1611) and applying our modern meanings to these older translated words!
    I think you will find this information helpful and informative. I feel you will gain something - regardless of which "side" you fall on with regard to any one of these controversial topics.

    That being said I agree with Jim Scott on this. I did not mean to imply the Bible can be interpered
    Many different ways, simpley that through are own inperfections, and quest for short cuts, many people have manipulated the bible to say what they want it to. I believe that each passage of scripture states only what the arthor intended it to say. I have found no..( read zero(0) discrepancyes in scripture itself. This leads me to state with a given amount of assurance that Godís word is infaliable. The problem with interpretation comes when people do not do there home work on what there studying, or donít bother to study at all. I find it curious that some state the donít believe the bible when they havenít studied it. NOT MEARLY TOOK A GLANCE AT IT BUT STUDIED IT. I doubt also that anyone here, myself included, as read every atheistic paper written, but some how believe this THEORY without question.
    On to Dinosaurs!

    I believe they were long gone before Adam and Eve were created.
    What happened to them? Well I think its a virtual certainty that it was a meteor impact. Do you know we have recently discovered a crater in Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula (Chicxulub) that is 120 miles across! This calls for an asteroid at least 9 miles in diameter! In 1883 Krakatoa erupted and in the U.S. and during the next season temperatures were down an average of 7 degrees overall. That may not seem too significant to you but consider that this led to very wide spread crop failure in the U.S. and even more catastrophic failures in Europe. Now consider that Chicxulub was an explosion over 1000 times more powerful (yes 1 thousand)! This clearly would have had a devastating impact on all life on this planet. As further proof this event dates to the time of the dinosaurs extinction (approximately 65 million years ago) and at that layer there is over 300 times more iridium (element contained in asteroids) than expected. Most scientists recognize this as the "smoking gun" for what happened to the dinosaurs

    Annnnnnnd the increadible shrinking sun.

    Prior to our understanding of nuclear energy, the only explanation scientists could come up with for the sun's energy was gravitational contraction. If this was indeed what powered the sun, more than 100 million years ago the sun would have been larger than the earth's orbit! Further evidence came from "some" measurements that seemed to indicate a small decrease in the suns diameter.
    Rebuttal: From what we now know about nuclear reactions, the temperature and pressure inside a collapsing sun would ignite nuclear fusion (nuclear energy power is therefore unavoidable). The idea of a sun decreasing in diameter has been completely disproved by the much more precise measurements of Barry LaBonte and Robert Howard. If you still have any doubts, the sun's temperature, luminosity, spectral line emissions, radius, and mass, all dictate an energy source through converting hydrogen into helium (nuclear fusion) for about 5 billion years. It further indicates that this fusion should proceed for about another 5 billion years. This is very good science firmly rooted in physics... Remember we have nuclear reactors on the Earth now!

    AND CARBON DATEING.

    This is probably one of the areas that get written about the most. Young earth creationists usually devote an entire chapter of their books to its alleged problems - often imaginary or greatly exaggerated. Since the dates being measured can be in the billions of years, and there is a margin of error, the dates can be off by more years than the young earth creationists believe the earth to be. This leads them to laugh at the error being stated as +/- x million years... well that's because we are dealing with billions of years of history. An analogy would be young earthers counting how many thousandths of an inch a major interstate had, while the rest of us were counting the miles!
    Radiometric dating is basically measuring the amount of decay in a radioactive element. Radioactive is just that - it is actively radiating energy. When this energy is radiated away it will change into another element. This process is measured in terms of "half life" - which refers to the amount of time required for there to only be half of the original element present. After another half-life there is only half of that original half left (or 1/4) - this continues on down the line. With carbon 14 dating for example if an item was dated to 11,540 years, it would only have 1/4 of the original carbon 14 which means that it had gone through 2 half life periods (5770 + 5770 = 11,540 years). You can only go back about 10 half-lives before there is so little of the original material left - you can't measure it.
    The way it works is kind of simple. Think of the analogy of a solar system, pretend at specified rate planet orbits decay to the point that they drift away - this is similar to what happens to the atoms of these radioactive elements. The orbits of the atom particles are not stable long term - they have a shelf life if you will (the half-life). Nothing on this earth is forever - it will eventually decay. If fact, we have discovered that the entire universe is literally wearing out just as depicted in the Bible (Isiah 51:56). God has created the laws of physics, wound up the universe and is letting it run down... we can even measure this wearing down... it's called entropy. Radioactive decay is proof of this wearing down. Radioactive decay too supports the Bible.
    I will briefly cover 2 of the main type of radioactive dating here - there are others and they are getting more accurate all the time.
    Carbon 14 dating has a half-life of 5,770 years. It decays into nitrogen 14. It is only useful for measuring the age of prior living matter. The amount of initial carbon 14 can be determined by the amount of carbon 12 still present (which does not decay within the useful range). Ages can be determined up to 50,000 years (age since man) with an approximate 15% error rate. Carbon 14 has been cross-referenced with tree rings to achieve a very high degree of accuracy for ages up to 9,000 years. Carbon 14 dating has helped prove the age of events in the Bible - it is not something to be feared.
    Potassium-Argon dating measures the rate of breakdown of potassium 40. It has a half-life of 1.3 billion years. It decays into argon 40. It is useful for dating only volcanic matter form the millions to billions of years with a plus minus date of 50,000 years.
    There are no very good ways to date things (radioactively) in the "in between" age of 50,000 years to a million years. They are working on it.
    The notion that radioactive decay proceeded at a different rate in the past is impossible! Radioactive decay is by definition a nuclear process. Any conditions such as temperature, pressure, radiation, etc. strong enough to alter the atomic decay rate, would completely destroy whatever it is that you are trying to date (such as a fossil or its surrounding sedimentary deposits).
    The only issues are the amount of original parent material, and possible contamination.
    Young earth rebuttal: The evidence for radiometric dating is weak - there is little (if any) evidence for actual decay - and even if it occurred, the rate of decay could have been higher in the past (for example during the flood). A special young earth group of scientists (RATE) has been put together that openly challenges the wisdom of conventional science on radiometric dating.
    Old earth reaffirmation: The RATE group has had much difficulty explaining away the problem of radiometric dating. In fact, in their most recent findings - they make some powerful admissions. They now freely admit that much radiometric decay has indeed irrefutably taken place. They further admit you can't simply appeal to the geological processes (read the flood) to solve this difficult problem.

    Check out these quotes from the most recent RATE (pro YEC) paper:
    "Others had triedóand for some, the search went on for a while in the early RATE daysóto find the answer in geological processes. But Drs Humphreys and Baumgardner realized that there were too many independent lines of evidence (the variety of elements used in Ďstandardí radioisotope dating, mature uranium radiohalos, fission track dating and more) that indicated that huge amounts of radioactive decay had actually taken place. It would be hard to imagine that geologic processes could explain all these. Rather, there was likely to be a single, unifying answer that concerned the nuclear decay processes themselves."
    And what about this one this one...
    "By measuring the amount of uranium and Ďradiogenic leadí in these crystals, one can calculate that, if the decay rate has been constant, about 1.5 billion years must have passed. (This is consistent with the geologic Ďageí assigned to the granites in which these zircons are found.)"
    Source:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0821rate.asp

    It is equally hard to envision a greatly accelerated rate of decay in the past... If the current radioactive decay rate is sufficient to sustain plate tectonics over a few billion years, one must wonder... What are the consequences of putting a few billion years of decay into the short time scales they require?

    If all that decay were confined to a single year or a few days (during the creation week) you would have an unimaginable amount of energy (read heat) released. You would vaporize the oceans and melt the earth. And if all this decay actually took place -- how is it that we STILL have active uranium mines... it should have all decayed (actually went up like a nuke with that fast of a decay) long ago. Since they (YECs) believe the earth is only a few thousand years old, and they admit (now) that much decay has taken place, and moreover they trust carbon dates into biblical times (read thousands of years) but still want them to be off for even further back -- Let's not forget, they believe the entire universe is only thousands of years old -- so it puts a VERY tiny window on when these decay rates could have been functioning differently that today's measurable rates. And the further back you "trust" any radioactive dates, the more unexplainable their position becomes especially when you want the uranium derived dates to be operating differently than say carbon dates. Why is all this important? Because they completely miss the point that the earth is a very poor conductor of heat. If this much heat was released (through accelerated decay) the earth would still be VERY hot -- you cannot cool the earth in a mere few thousand years to present levels. The situation is completely hopeless.

    Iíll stop here. Unless anyone has a question directly for me this will probably be my last post on this thread. I do not have a computer at home, and mostly post between breaks. I will continue to read the discussions here on my PC phone, but I can not sign in for some reason. Even if I could I would have to use a stylus on a tiny on-screen keyboard. My time will be limited in the next few weeks, and Iíd like to focus on developing the relationship with those of you who have been Pming me.
    To those of you I havenít PM ed in a while, I apologize. Also, since I believe in the doctrine of the elect, and predestination. I believe God has foreordained His children (Romans 8:28-34) for His glory. I also believe that there are those who will never accept the message of the cross because God has foreordained this as well. Again Iím more than happy to address questions aimed at me here, other wise I look forward to speaking with all of you on other threads. Thanks! Iíve enjoyed it. I can explain what war is like, you can go watch ďSaving private RyanĒ but until you experience it first hand you wouldnít have a clue. God is like this!
    Until you experience Him first hand, and he changes Youíre life in ways that would make Dr. Phil green with envy itís a hard concept. PERSONALLY, what HE has done in my life is all the evidence Iíll ever need.
    Justin Jacob Zak
    I always suspect everything is a trap....thats why I'm still alive

    Times fun when you're having flys

  4. #140
    Jeremiah Harris's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    1,239
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hello all

    BTW a googleplex is a really number 10 to the 10th power to the 100th power to give you an Idea of how large this number is if you traveled to the farthest star and put a zero every inch of the way you would still not have enough room to write it. That's what google was named after.

    I have a few questions for you.

    Where do you believe the bible to be untrue?

    Where is the so called "facts" to support evolution?


    Hope to hear you response.

    thanks
    -Jeremiah--Jeremiah-

  5. #141
    scottychaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Western New York, USA
    Posts
    2,970
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    For Noah,
    great stuff! I like the way you think..even if I dont agree with all of it![img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html312/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/img]
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]That, as you well know, is the overstatement of the day. There is a lot of evidence for a flood, and much of the stuff found in the Bible. Don't give sweeping statements like that unless you are willing and able to back them up with something.
    I can back them up with plenty!
    its really not an overstatement at all..
    yes there is evidence for *small* *local* floods..
    but there is no evidence to support "Noah's flood"..the great global flood.
    there is no uniform silt layer found everywhere on the planet, as there should be if the global flood was true.
    the flood myth goes against many of "natures laws" and against many laws of physics and logic..
    all the layers of the earth disprove the flood myth.
    rather than post all the hundreds of problems with the flood theory, I will just let these links speak for me:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH541.html
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH542.html

    To Jeremiah:
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ] have a few questions for you.

    Where do you believe the bible to be untrue?

    Where is the so called "facts" to support evolution?


    Hope to hear you response.
    no problem!
    I believe the bible to be untrue in the matter of literal creationism (genesis) and the flood story..among others..
    here are some facts to support evolution.

    Fossil layers in sedementary rocks have primitive animals in lower, older layers, and more advanced plants and animals in higher, younger layers..
    you NEVER find mammal or dinosaur fossils in the same layers with Trilobyte fossils! why not? easy..because they didnt live at the same time..
    they were seperated by many millions of years.

    the horse.
    Fossils exist for many intermediate froms leading up to the modern horse.
    from a small dog-like crerature right up to our modern horse.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
    the evolution of the horse can be read like a time-lapse movie!
    its accepted as fact (by everyone except literal creationists that is)

    Birds evolved directly from dinosaurs..
    why no bird fossils mixed in with dinosaur fossils?
    why did bird fossils only appear *after* the dinsoaurs were extinct?
    its very easy to explain these puzzles in the fossil record!

    australopithecus afarensis.
    this was a real creature.
    no one made up these fossils!
    How does creationism explain a creature that has both Ape characteristics and Human characteristics? it cant.
    it doesent fit into the bible.
    These creatures were nearly human..wouldnt God have mentioned our more primitive cousins if they were walking around with Adam and Eve?
    why didnt he?
    there were also dozens of other primitive human-like creatures..yet there is zero mention of any of them in the bible..why not?
    just the simple fact that different fossils exist in different layers is enough to blow the flood theory and creationism both out of the water..
    neither theory (flood or literal creationism) can explain why Trilobyte fossils appear ONLY in very old rock layers..and at the same time why mammal and bird fossils exist ONLY in totally different and much newer layers..
    Science has no problems explaining those facts..

    Creationists need to go to MUCH MUCH greater lengths to explain away everything on and in the earth that disproves their theory..
    While scientists have no such problems with geology or fossils..

    I could go on..but you asked for proof, and I gave some..
    Scot

  6. #142

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,265
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]neither theory (flood or literal creationism) can explain why Trilobyte fossils appear ONLY in very old rock layers..and at the same time why mammal and bird fossils exist ONLY in totally different and much newer layers..
    Why can't I? Lets say it starts raining. Puddles quickly form, these puddles become lakes and these lakes quickly become oceans. These oceans eventually cover the earth in a seething mass of water.

    Now, if I were a trilobyte, how fast could I move away from the oncoming water? Not very fast! I would be among the first to die. What about small reptiles and fish? The next to die. The mammals though can run to dry ground for a while, but eventually, they start to tire and the water catches up to them. Bye bye small mammals. The birds are in the same boat (hahaha). Can a bird fly forever?

    This would explain the seeming 'development' of species from simple lifeforms to complex.

    SF [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html312/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif[/img]

  7. #143
    scottychaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Western New York, USA
    Posts
    2,970
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ok..so "slower" animals get buried first, and so appear in the lower layers, and "faster" animals get buried later, and so appear in the upper layers..

    A tribolite was an OCEAN creature..
    why wouldnt it live the longest and so appear only in the upper layers? how does it *speed* have anything to do with it?

    why did fish die before land animals?
    shouldnt they live the longest, (because they can swim) and only be in the upper layers?
    what would cause fish to die before mammals?
    shouldnt fish live much longer than mammals in your theory?
    if not, why not?

    Why did all the dinosaurs die before mammals?
    they were both land animals..
    why dont dinosaur and mammal fossils appear in the exact same layers? they dont..

    What about flying dinosaurs?
    if they died last, along with the birds, because they could all fly, why arent there flying dinosaur fossils ABOVE all the land-dwelling mammal fossils? there are none..

    what about all the land plants?
    should they all die BEFORE the birds and flying dinosaurs?
    Why are there plant fossils in all layers from top to bottom?

    What about austropilicus afarensis?
    shouldnt he be just as fast as "modern" humans?
    then why are his fossils ONLY below the fossils of modern humans? why did he die first?

    what about flying insects?
    shouldnt they have all died last? along with the birds?
    Then why are there flying insect fossils FAR FAR below mammal, and even dinosaur fossils?

    How did fresh water fish survive at all?
    Salt water will kill them..
    there were no heated aquariums on the ark..

    How did animals that exist only in the Americas make it to the Ark? how did new-world monkeys and all the Amazonian birds, that exist no where else in the world, make it to the Ark?
    what about Kangaroos?

    why did some animals only end up in isolated areas AFTER the flood and no where else?
    how did kangaroos end up ONLY in Australia after the flood?
    they cant swim..

    why did new-world monkeys only end up in South America after the flood..and why are old-world monkeys ONLY in Africa? the climates are similar enough..they could live together if they needed to..so why arent they all mixed together?
    Did the South American monkeys all swim across the Atlantic ocean? (and ONLY them?! why?)

    How does your flood theory explain all these problems?

    Scot

  8. #144

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,265
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]A tribolite was an OCEAN creature!
    why wouldnt it live the longest and so appear only in the upper layers? how does it *speed* have anything to do with it?
    Have you ever seen a river bank after a minor flood? What happens? Erosion right? The seas would be filling with silt, washing off the land. It makes perfect sense that the things at the bottom of the ocean that are slow and stupid would get buried easily.

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]why did fish die before land animals?
    shouldnt they live the longest and only be in the upper layers?
    what would cause fish to die before mammals?
    shouldnt fish live much longer than mammals in your theory?
    if not, why not?
    The same thing goes here. If you talk to any aquarium hobbyist, would a fish live long in a swirling whirlpool of sand and silt?

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Why did all the dinosaurs die before mammals?
    they were both land animals..
    why dont dinosaur and mammal fossils appear in the exact same layers? they dont..
    I didn't say that they did. Like I said before, I think there are still dinosaurs today (BTW, if we found one, what would that do to your theory that they're all extinct?).

    The fossils are NOT exactly layed out in a straight line from trilobytes to humans. On different parts of the earth, they are in different orders! That chart I believe you are referring to is not accurate.


    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]What about flying dinosaurs?
    if they died last, along with the birds, because they could all fly, why arent there flying dinosaur fossils ABOVE all the land-dwelling mammal fossils? there are none..
    Let me ask this. If there are hurricane force winds and really nasty weather, do you think a 10 foot SAIL of a pteradon wing or whatever is going to be able to take it? They are not going to be able to fly far at all!! I live in Florida and can tell you that everything flies BEFORE the hurricanes hit. When the hurricane hits, no wildlife can be seen.



    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]what about all the land plants?
    should they all die BEFORE the birds and flying dinosaurs?
    Why are there plant fossils in all layers from top to bottom?
    Easy! Have you ever seen a flood? Or even pictures on the TV? Do you see those trees, bushes and other plant life floating away? I guarantee you the flood I'm talking about was 10 X bigger than any flood we see on TV today!
    [img]http://www.**********.com/iB_html312/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/img]

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]What about austropilicus afarensis?
    shouldnt he be just as fast as "modern" humans?
    then why are his fossils ONLY below the fossils of modern humans? why did he die first?
    I believe that only Noah and his family survived the flood, not the whole human race, not "modern" humans. ALL the human race was destroyed (except for Noah and company). Humans are humans, there is no difference. If austropilicus afarensis lived in a valley, or had some crippling disease, he died first. Its that simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]what about flying insects?
    shouldnt they have all died last? along with the birds?
    Then why are there flying insect fossils FAR FAR below mammal, and even dinosaur fossils?
    Flying insects? If it is pouring buckets of rain, do you really think the insects could fly far? After smashing into about a billion raindrops, they're going to do a little spiral into the puddle below and drown. We're talking a deluge here, not some light sprinkling.

    Does that about cover it?

    SF

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •