Dinosaurs on the Ark: How It Was Possible

AV1611VET said:

Is there ONE THING you can think of that science has gotten wrong here because the Bible says otherwise?

Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm unable to come up with single thing.

The problem is that the Bible is not about science. It's about bringing a person to God. And that's a completely different chapter that has nothing to do with science.

AV1611VET said:

Is there ONE THING you can think of that science has gotten wrong here because the Bible says otherwise?

Click to expand...

Is there ONE THING you can think of that science has gotten wrong here because the “Cat In The Hat” says otherwise?


Hmmmmmmmm?

KomatiiteBIF said:

What is the creationists explanation for the fossil succession?

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

Joe: If ten thousand people work in this ten-story building, why are accountants only found on the third floor?
Tom: That's where their offices are.
Joe: But you'd think you'd see one on another floor from time to time, wouldn't you?
Tom: Out of ten thousand people?

Click to expand...

Exactly. There is a mechanism, a reason why all accountants are on the same floor. It works better to have all members of a department together. There is an explanation.
You can apply that to the way goods are displayed in a supermarket etc. There is an explanation.

So what explains the explanation for the fossil succession?
Why are dinosaurs only found in the Mesozoic and not the Paleozoic or cenozoic?

MIDutch said:

Sitting in the woods or by the sea and contemplating is also inspirational for making art, but no one would call that science. Boring bones (more likely fossils) are evidence that merely sitting in the woods and contemplating will never be able to replace.

Saying "puppies iz cute and flowers iz pretty" is not a rebuttal of hard science and is UNproductive at producing anything other than warm fuzzy feelings..

Click to expand...

But that is exactly what most creationists want. Warm fuzzy feelings. Listen to Kent Hovind. His "science" stays at the cute level. He talks about dogs and cows an lions and other cute animals. He goes never deeper than what the average 10-years old knows. He stays cute. Digging deeper than that would make his audience uncomfortable. And the few times he dare to go beyond that level of understanding he goes awfully wrong:

In a Youtube debate Kent Hovind is challenged to explain what a change in allele frequency is.From 1:49:50 on Kent Hovind explains what a change in allele frequency is. I made a transcript of that. There is literally no sentence without serious error against very basic science. Kent Hovind has never read any textbook on genetics past chapter 1. Enjoy Kent Hovind's explanation: Kent Hovind: “ The chromosomes found in all organisms, man has 46, different animals have different numbers of chromosomes are unbelievably complicated like a long twisted ladder. The rungs of the ladder would bet he genes, these can have the alleles, the variant of a gene. These things can vary from person to person. So i have to do some refreshing but the twisted ladder, the long twisted chromosome ladder has the rungs across it – the genes. There can be frequency differences between different people. You may have some insertions like an ERV. Let’s do a whole debate about that at another time and I’ll go I don’t have slides ready fort hat right now but are you saying that because there are frequency changes, changes in the frequency of the alleles of the genes in the DNA that is proof that we all came from a rock? Is that what you’re trying to lead to? "

driewerf said:

Exactly. There is a mechanism, a reason why all accountants are on the same floor. It works better to have all members of a department together. There is an explanation.
You can apply that to the way goods are displayed in a supermarket etc. There is an explanation.

So what explains the explanation for the fossil succession?
Why are dinosaurs only found in the Mesozoic and not the Paleozoic or cenozoic?

Click to expand...

One day creationists will actually understand the question. I'll keep dreaming of that day.

But to answer the question, that's when they lived.

driewerf said:

So what explains the explanation for the fossil succession? Why are dinosaurs only found in the Mesozoic and not the Paleozoic or cenozoic?

Click to expand...

As I said in Post 65, it is an optical illusion.

AV1611VET said:

As I said in Post 65, it is an optical illusion.

Click to expand...

And how specifically is it an optical illusion? How does it fools thousands of paleontologists for 200 years? And how did you manage to not be fooled by this illusion?

The only dinosaur on the Ark was my mates mother in law!

driewerf said:

And how specifically is it an optical illusion?

Click to expand...

Because what you call the Paleozoic Era, Mesozoic Era, and the Cenozoic Era, is actually the Old Testament Era.

And all three of your eras started in Genesis 1, namely in 4004 BC.

driewerf said:

How does it fools thousands of paleontologists for 200 years?

Click to expand...

Thousands of paleontologists get a head start in being fooled when they start believing in deep time.

driewerf said:

And how did you manage to not be fooled by this illusion?

Click to expand...

By reading the History Book of what actually happened.

AV1611VET said:

Because what you call the Paleozoic Era, Mesozoic Era, and the Cenozoic Era, is actually the Old Testament Era.

Click to expand...

A change of name doen't cause an illusion. As the saying goes:" A rose by another name..."

And all three of your eras started in Genesis 1, namely in 4004 BC.

Click to expand...

Nope.

Thousands of paleontologists get a head start in being fooled when they start believing in deep time.

Click to expand...

Except they don't believe... You should know that by now.

By reading the History Book of what actually happened.

Click to expand...

What history book? There are many.

Hans Blaster said:

Given the way "seed" is used in such contexts, it is the seed of one animal deposited in the womb of another to use the antiquated language. (Test-tube babies excepted.)

Click to expand...

You said "we" and since none of the participants, or even passive readers, on this board are "Adam", he is irrelevant.

Frank Robert said:

Of course it is because is in your mind everything you don't agree with or don't like is biased. What does AIG mean when they ask?
Who Are You Going to Believe—God or Men?

Click to expand...

"Send us (me, Ken Ham) your money!!!!"

That's what they mean. They are hucksters fleecing the most dedicated believers.

Hans Blaster said:

You said "we" and since none of the participants, or even passive readers, on this board are "Adam", he is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Cute.

Hans Blaster said:

"Send us (me, Ken Ham) your money!!!!"

That's what they mean. They are hucksters fleecing the most dedicated believers.

Click to expand...

If you're referring to the Ark Encounter, you do realize that many atheists, including Aron Ra, have visited it, don't you?

Were they "fleeced" as well?

(Have you been there?)

AV1611VET said:

If you're referring to the Ark Encounter, you do realize that many atheists, including Aron Ra, have visited it, don't you?

Were they "fleeced" as well?

(Have you been there?)

Click to expand...

Atheists go to the Ark Encounter, presumably to be entertained, but not informed (at least informed of facts). It holds a certain morbid curiosity, like a car crash on the side of the highway. (Come to think of it, it kind of looks like a boat crashed on the side of I-75.)

I've driven past it a few times, and will certainly drive past it again. I'd consider stopping for a chuckle if: 1. it wasn't so expensive, 2. they didn't also charge for parking (a modest parking fee is appropriate when parking space is limited, but not when it's the only thing around, that's just cash extraction).

Hans Blaster said:

Atheists go to the Ark Encounter, presumably to be entertained, but not informed (at least informed of facts).

Click to expand...

Do they get fleeced?

AV1611VET said:

Do they get fleeced?

Click to expand...

Overcharged, yes, but if they knew what they were getting into (how deceptive and untrue it is) then, no they were not fleeced (the skeptics that is, atheist or otherwise).

AV1611VET said:

Do they get fleeced?

Click to expand...

Since they did not expect value for their money, no.

Ponderous Curmudgeon said:

Since they did not expect value for their money, no.

Click to expand...

What's that saying?

An atheist and his money are soon parted?

Hans Blaster said:

Overcharged, yes, but if they knew what they were getting into (how deceptive and untrue it is) then, no they were not fleeced (the skeptics that is, atheist or otherwise).

Click to expand...

This is actually one of my favorite videos.

I've watched it more than once (three times, if I recall).