Meat eaters and the worldwide flood myth

look · #51 8th April 2003, 01:06 AM

Today at 08:27 PM Frumious Bandersnatch said this in Post #50 Except that you have all those allegedly flood deposited fossils that indicate that the animals were carnivores and had those tools you say they didn't need.  Velociraptor fossils don't look much like they came from vegetarians. There is lots of evidence of carnivorous behavior in the fossil record including bones with teeth marks. I have even seen a picture of a fossil of a fish that had eaten another fish. Dinosaur coprolites (fossil feces) have been found containing the bones of the animals they had eaten.
http://www.emory.edu/COLLEGE/ENVS/re.../Dinocopro.htm
The Frumious Bandersnatch

Frum, I appreciate your effort in showing me these things, along with the links. I try to have an open mind when discussing matters such as these. One reason for that is, when someone shows me in an academic way, a possibility or a reasonable hypothesis, I tend to look at it from their viewpoint so I can understand the actual statement made.

I took this opportunity to visualize what circumstances had to occur, for us to find these fossils in their present form and orientation. I have come, with much thought, to form a conclusion to the evidence you have presented.

The first point you have made, was concerning the fact they have these tools that seem fitted for a carnivore. I thought about that, a seeming contradiction to what the Bible teaches. Then it hit me. Even today, we have animals that have these "carnivorous" tools, but they don't use it in that manner. The claws could be used for digging up the soil, stripping dead wood, and the like.One of these animals we have is the armadillo. Although it is an insectivore, the claws are ideally suited for burrowing. the mole has claws with which to dig with. So with that in mind, I can see, in keeping with the record in Genesis, why the dinosaurs had these "implements". They were used for the purpose of turning over soil, possibly stripping tree bark and eating the actual trunks. Nothing goes to waste!

As for the teeth, I saw how it would become useful for eating trees (I realize this sounds ridiculous). Given those teeth (I looked at a website with teeth from many dinosaurs), I saw that the teeth would be well suited for tough wood as well. The article is found here.

The velociraptor has a sickle shaped sharp claw in the middle of each foot. I saw that this could have been used for the purpose of climbing trees. It reminded me of the strap-on jigs the tree surgeons use (telephone pole workers also).

As for the bones with "teeth marks", while it does seem to be from carnivore teeth marks, the marks may have been caused from acidic sediment. The marks also could have been caused from sharp objects that were undoubtedly thrown around by the swirling waters of the flood. These dinosaurs had to have been swirled around, like clothes in a washing machine, in this catastrophic flood.

Have you considered that the fish "eating" a fish when it got fossilized, could be a simple case one on top of another? Or perhaps both were dead and in what must have been a swirling malestrom, one got "stuck" in the other's mouth?

Coprolites, by their nature, are kinda fluid. Most of them are no bigger than a nickel. However, if it was fossilized, then it would be impossible to determine the contents due to the fact the organic molecules were swapped for silica based molecules. If it was not fossilized, then it would be possible to "dissect" the coporlite for checking the contents. I can see how a dinosaur could have died and fell on top of the excrement and decayed with the bones settling into it. But, my question is, "Based on it's fluid nature, how could it fossilize, instead of merely dissolving into the water?" Has any "human" coporlites ever been found? I really would like to see a report of dinosaurs with it's gut intact and analyzed for contents, as the wooly mammoths were done.

I must confess that really, I'm not a "yec" or an "oec", It seems that God created the heavens and the earth a very long time ago. In Genesis, there seems to be a untold span of time between verse 1 and verse 2. My guess is that the earth could be millions of years old. I did some hebrew word studies and found three accounts of Satan having an actual kingdom of which earth was a part of. That kingdom was brought to judgement when Satan fell and the surface of the earth was destroyed. Verse 2, in my thinking, was when God restored the earth, or more specifically, remade the earth and if you will, restocked it with new lifeforms. God did tell Adam to "replenish" the earth. Why would He say that, unless the earth had been "plenished"?

It may be that the dinosaurs were from that earlier kingdom when Satan was given a kingdom (a small one). This is really another topic, but it is all interelated, imho.

I hope you will consider the alternatives I have pointed from the same evidence we have looked at. I understand your viewpoint, and without the Bible record, it appears plausible. I, however, think there is more to it than meets the eye.

look · #52 8th April 2003, 01:13 AM

Yesterday at 08:24 PM Arikay said this in Post #49 So god made a perfect world and adam and eve and satan were able to destroy it without god being able to do anything about it, making adam, eve, and satan more powerfull than god.Hmmm...

Arikay, why did you actually think Adam, Eve and Satan were the ones who destroyed the pre-flood ecosystem? Where did you possibly get that from?

BTW, it was God who destroyed the pre-flood world in rendering judgement against fallen man.

I see that you are still looking for a belt to keep your pants up, eh Arikay?

Cantuar · #53 8th April 2003, 01:41 AM

So you're saying that the exact same things that are adaptations to carnivory these days were not adaptations to carnivory back then? If your only basis for saying that is the Bible, then why even bother to try and present scientific scenarios? Why not just say "it's that way because the Bible says so" and leave it at that? I mean, the notion that one fish arrived in the stomach of another fish by accident and that claws weren't used for catching prey back then and that things that look exactly like tooth marks really aren't tooth marks after all etc etc does seem to be stretching credulity.

Mechanical Bliss · #54 8th April 2003, 01:45 AM

Today at 01:06 AM look said this in Post #51

As for the bones with "teeth marks", while it does seem to be from carnivore teeth marks, the marks may have been caused from acidic sediment.

Sediment itself is not acidic. Some minerals can cause a fluid's acidity to increase when dissolved, however. That is to say, sediments aren't abrasive because of some sort of acidic quality.

The marks also could have been caused from sharp objects that were undoubtedly thrown around by the swirling waters of the flood.

This rests upon the unsubstantiated assumption that a global flood happened when there is, in fact, evidence that no such event happened, and furthermore, that no such event could happen in the first place.

These dinosaurs had to have been swirled around, like clothes in a washing machine, in this catastrophic flood.

...and yet their fossilized remains occur only in a proportion of the geologic record, not mixed in with other remains.

Your post relies on unsubstantiated assumptions including the above comments on sharp objects floating around during a flooding event that never could have happened in the first place.

Arikay · #55 8th April 2003, 01:45 AM

So you mean to tell me that god created the perfect world and then purposly destroyed it himself, possibly because he was angery?

Wow, and I thought satan wanted to destroy gods work, I didnt know god did too.

Today at 10:13 PM look said this in Post #52

Arikay, why did you actually think Adam, Eve and Satan were the ones who destroyed the pre-flood ecosystem? Where did you possibly get that from?

BTW, it was God who destroyed the pre-flood world in rendering judgement against fallen man.

I see that you are still looking for a belt to keep your pants up, eh Arikay?

Mechanical Bliss · #56 8th April 2003, 01:49 AM

Today at 01:13 AM look said this in Post #52

BTW, it was God who destroyed the pre-flood world in rendering judgement against fallen man. 

And there goes omni-benevelence right out the window...not to mention omnipotence seeing as though an omniscient god would have known before creation that his creations would be a failures he would have to destroy out of wrath and unforgiveness in the first place.

...but that's a topic for something like apologetics. This is the science forum. Flood proponents, however, do not typically result to science once they realize it falsifies their position.

Arikay · #57 8th April 2003, 01:55 AM

This is why literal creationists are dangerous to christianity, because, ironically, while trying to prove the flood is true, he is turning god into a rather mean person, and by doing that, he is possibly turning people Away from christianity.

Anyway, back to meat eaters.

look · #58 8th April 2003, 07:25 AM

Today at 01:41 AM Cantuar said this in Post #53 So you're saying that the exact same things that are adaptations to carnivory (sic) these days were not adaptations to carnivory (sic) back then?

For the mentally challenged, yes.

If your only basis for saying that is the Bible, then why even bother to try and present scientific scenarios? Why not just say "it's that way because the Bible says so" and leave it at that?

Well, at least we have a Book with links to a higher intelligence to use in our formulation of the scientific hypothesis of the pre-flood ecosystem.

I mean, the notion that one fish arrived in the stomach of another fish by accident and that claws weren't used for catching prey back then and that things that look exactly like tooth marks really aren't tooth marks after all etc etc does seem to be stretching credulity.

I have to wonder whose "credulity" is at stake here? You sound as if you know better, because you were there. As I have noted previously, we have the advantage of possessing a Book from a Higher Intelligence, while all you can do is come up with a "Oh, please let it be anything but God!" mentality. Nope, your views are the hypothesis' that stretches "credulity" here.

look · #59 8th April 2003, 07:47 AM

[b]Today at 01:45 AM Mechanical Bliss said this in Post #54 Sediment itself is not acidic. Some minerals can cause a fluid's acidity to increase when dissolved, however. That is to say, sediments aren't abrasive because of some sort of acidic quality.

Are you tring to tell me that sediment has no Ph value? Oh please! What's acidity got to do with sandpaperlike qualities?

This rests upon the unsubstantiated assumption that a global flood happened when there is, in fact, evidence that no such event happened, and furthermore, that no such event could happen in the first place.

Oh I wouldn't say that it's an unsubstantiated assumption, I have a question for you. What are "polystrate" fossils and how would that contradict your hypothesis? My guess is that you would not even attempt to find out what a "polystrate" fossil is. Hint: they are found in sedimentary layers... I notice that no one has disputed my rejection of the widely held presupposition of coal taking a long time to form.

...and yet their fossilized remains occur only in a proportion of the geologic record, not mixed in with other remains.

But of course that would have to be the case. Heavier objects tend to settle first. Duh!

Your post relies on unsubstantiated assumptions including the above comments on sharp objects floating around during a flooding event that never could have happened in the first place.

Is there any proof that indeed did not happen? After all, any metal that was thrown around in the malestrom would have been converted to oxides in 4,000 years, would 'cha think? *gotta break it to him slowly...*

look · #60 8th April 2003, 08:27 AM

Today at 01:45 AM Arikay said this in Post #55 So you mean to tell me that god created the perfect world and then purposly(sic) destroyed it himself, possibly because he was angery(sic)?

Wow, and I thought satan wanted to destroy gods work, I didnt know god did too.

Today at 1:49 AM Mechanical Bliss said this in Post #56 And there goes omni-benevelence right out the window...not to mention omnipotence seeing as though an omniscient god would have known before creation that his creations would be a failures he would have to destroy out of wrath and unforgiveness in the first place. ...but that's a topic for something like apologetics. This is the science forum. Flood proponents, however, do not typically result(sic) to science once they realize it falsifies their position.

Today at 01:55 AM Arikay said this in Post#57
This is why literal creationists are dangerous to christianity, because, ironically, while trying to prove the flood is true, he is turning god into a rather mean person, and by doing that, he is possibly turning people Away from christianity.

See, God cannot remain Just and Holy without judging sin. He, by His nature, must and WILL judge all mankind for willfully turning away from His statutes. He has a lot of longsuffering and patience, not willing that any should perish from sin. God is Just. He sent His own Son to pay for our sins (which we didn't deserve) and pardoned all of us. God has pardoned us!!! Did you get that? We've been pardoned! The only problem is, each of us has to take the pardon while still in our bodies, or we can't use it.

The very fact that God had Jesus pay for our pardon is very sufficent evidence for showing He doesn't want any of us to perish. For anybody to say that God is a "meanie" is "way out there" and is showing very substantial ignorance. That is not very smart.

This is why the Christians (well, partly) contest evolution, because it can be shown that God made all of this. If that can be shown, then it would become obvious that God wants to save us.

If creation can be shown to be valid, then man is forced in a stronger way to be honest with himself in the reality of God. You can take it or leave it. He will not force His ways on anybody. However, He will not allow spiritual "outlaws" to go free in His creation, this is why dead sinners are incarcerated in hell to wait for the big court day with Him as the Judge.

To say that God is a "meanie" is pure spin, trying to twist the facts to look like something else.