Dinos in the Ark?

[DJ_Ghost]

Is that how much a spirit weighs?

No.

Guess the guy who claimes 21 grams was wrong.

Probably

My case rests on a real spiritual in the future and past, and present, though seperated.

That you have no empirical evidence for.

Your case rests solely on a baseless claim of a PO future and past.

What case is it i am making then clever clogs?

Don't try to pretend you have something on me in the science department!

Okay, if you say so Professor Tolkien.

Ghost

 

[Dannager]

wow, I'm really jumping in the middle of this.

It's always better to start out asking questions rather than stating your assumptions.

I believe that there were dinos in the ark, he could have gotten small ones.

Well, he could have, but that would have meant the large ones perished. Really, he might as well have taken the large ones as long as he was taking elephants and the like anyway. The problem is the Arc couldn't possibly have supported the number of creatures required for forty days.[/QUOTE]

I believe that there were dinos after the flood because of the passages in Job about Behemoth and Leviathon.

Those passages likely refer to a large, semi-aquatic creature (a hippo, for instance). This is something that has been discussed in other threads, previously. I'm sure with a search you'd be able to find it.

Job was probably the first written book of the Bible, so the dinos may not have lasted long after that.

It is very unlikely that dinosaurs ever existed contemporaneously with humans. Given the degree to which they controlled the ecosystem, evidence of them in early human culture would have been much more prevalent.

The vapor canopy that collapsed to start the flood as many believe would have protected the earth, yielding long life and growth to animals and people. Once it was gone, long life disappears and we only grow so big.

Unfortunately, the vapor canopy theory has been falsified. In addition, no method has been shown of organisms attaining extra-long lives due to this canopy.

I'm no expert, but if you've ever heard of Kent Hovind (www.drdino.com) he has a lot of videos about all these topics and many evidences outlined there.

Kent Hovind, as it happens, is no expert either. Dr. Dino is widely considered to be one of the worst creationist propaganda sites out there. It is based almost exclusively on falsified claims and straight-out lies. If you'd like, many of us would be happy to show you the falsifications.

bainecaileag86, the flood presented in the Bible was almost certainly a large but localized flood that simply appeared to cover the whole world because those experiencing it had no concept of the outside world at that point. To them, their whole world was covered by water. However, we can see now that there are a very large number of things that we should be able to observe if water covered the entire planet in the last few thousand years that we do not observe. Keep an open mind, and decide based on the evidence, not your preconceptions about how things worked. The more you ask yourself about the world around you, the more you'll be able to find out.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Flood geology really can't do all that as it is. The split/merge eats that stuff for breakfast, spits out the bones, then looks around for a challenge for the day.

Actually not. Did all these extinction occur before the split? These animals were supposed to be saved on the ark. Your mythical split is after the mythical flood. These mammals and the dinos for that matter should have all been safely off the ark.

Did God use some pre-split magic just to kill them off after the flood in just order of where they were buried by the flood or in your fantasy during the preflood presplit magical world that allowed thousands of feet of fossils to be buried in some order correlated to their group migrations out of Eden if I understand your fantasy correctly.

You have no more explanation for this correlation in your fantasies than the "mainstream" YECs have in their fantasies.

Here is the list of mammals again.
oldest
Triassic there are 4 genera--no living members
Jurassic 43 genera-no living members
Cretaceous 36 genera-no living members
Paleocene 213 genera-no living members
Eocene 569 genera-3 extant genera
Oligocene 494 genera 11 extant genera
Miocene 749 genera 57 extant genera
Pliocene 762 genera 133 extant genera
Pleistocene 830 genera 417 extant genera
youngest

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/fish.htm



F.B.

 

[dad]

Actually not. Did all these extinction occur before the split?

I am thinking most, likely, yes.

These animals were supposed to be saved on the ark.

Says who? The animals saved were the ones that were alive then, not the ones made in creation week for heaven's sake!

Your mythical split is after the mythical flood. These mammals and the dinos for that matter should have all been safely off the ark.

This thread says I think there may not have been dinos on the ark, if you notice the OP.

Did God use some pre-split magic just to kill them off after the flood in just order of where they were buried by the flood or in your fantasy during the preflood presplit magical world that allowed thousands of feet of fossils to be buried in some order correlated to their group migrations out of Eden if I understand your fantasy correctly.

Are you suggesting that no extictions occured pre flood? Of course there were. The world was changing all the time then. Maybe things like less and less water in some areas, that dinos depended on? Comets? Mammal predators, etc.

You have no more explanation for this correlation in your fantasies than the "mainstream" YECs have in their fantasies.

As you now can see I do, and did.

Here is the list of mammals again.
oldest
Triassic there are 4 genera--no living members

Of course there were, but they hadn't appeared in the record, as the Eden migration was not rolling yet.

Jurassic 43 genera-no living members
Cretaceous 36 genera-no living members
Paleocene 213 genera-no living members
Eocene 569 genera-3 extant genera

Here they start to show up.

Oligocene 494 genera 11 extant genera
Miocene 749 genera 57 extant genera
Pliocene 762 genera 133 extant genera
Pleistocene 830 genera 417 extant genera
youngest

Now we're rolling. Mammals were all over the place.

 

[dad]

No.

Ha, so what is the correct weight then?

That you have no empirical evidence for.

"Empiricism comes from the Greek word εμπειρισμός, a noun meaning a "test" or "trial". " -Wickopedia Testing of the past is no more something you can do than I, and the evidence swings both ways for interpretation. A lot simpler my way, though, remember the monk.

What case is it i am making then clever clogs?

Old agers claim that the past was as the present, and we can use the present to model the past, as if it were PO. That is what every old age assumption, and belief rests on. That is your old age case, or anyone's who believes it is founded on, and nothing else.

Okay, if you say so Professor Tolkien.

Thanks, Professor PO.

 

[dad]

....The problem is the Arc couldn't possibly have supported the number of creatures required for forty days.

Two kitties, gave us all the cat family, apparently, two elephants, the mammoths, African, and Indian elephants, etc. No need for crowding the ark here, as the evidence pours in! It's a new day.

Those passages likely refer to a large, semi-aquatic creature (a hippo, for instance). This is something that has been discussed in other threads, previously. I'm sure with a search you'd be able to find it.

"(e) This beast is thought to be the elephant, or some other, which is unknown. " http://www.studylight.org/com/gsb/view.cgi?book=job&chapter=40&verse=15#Job40_15 More precisely, the mammoth would fit the bill. As for the other 'dino' in Job, as I pointed out, it was found in the deep. "
Job 41: 31 He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment. 32 He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary.

Unfortunately, the vapor canopy theory has been falsified. In addition, no method has been shown of organisms attaining extra-long lives due to this canopy.

No, only the PO imagined past verion, which was a croc anyhow.

Kent Hovind, as it happens, is no expert either. Dr. Dino is widely considered to be one of the worst creationist propaganda sites out there. It is based almost exclusively on falsified claims and straight-out lies. If you'd like, many of us would be happy to show you the falsifications.

Hey, I told you these guys caught flack from science.

the flood presented in the Bible was almost certainly a large but localized flood that simply appeared to cover the whole world because those experiencing it had no concept of the outside world at that point.

Utter rubbish, and an unbeliever point of view.

However, we can see now that there are a very large number of things that we should be able to observe if water covered the entire planet in the last few thousand years that we do not observe.

Really, could you name three?

Keep an open mind, and decide based on the evidence, not your preconceptions about how things worked.

Yes, science does not tell us the past was physical only like the present, so get that right out of your bean!

The more you ask yourself about the world around you, the more you'll be able to find out.

Long as you don't answer yourself with PO speculations, and belief based assumptions of the unknown past.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I am thinking most, likely, yes.


Says who? The animals saved were the ones that were alive then, not the ones made in creation week for heaven's sake!


This thread says I think there may not have been dinos on the ark, if you notice the OP.


Are you suggesting that no extictions occured pre flood? Of course there were. The world was changing all the time then. Maybe things like less and less water in some areas, that dinos depended on? Comets? Mammal predators, etc.

As you now can see I do, and did.


Of course there were, but they hadn't appeared in the record, as the Eden migration was not rolling yet.

Here they start to show up.

Now we're rolling. Mammals were all over the place.

So are you saying the flood was after the Pleistocene and all the mammals before the Pleistocene had appeared, left their fossils and gone extinct during the 1600 or so years that the YEC myth puts between creation and the flood? Are you saying that all the thousands of feet of sediment that contain Cenozoic, Mesozoic and Paleozoic fossils prior to the Holocene are preflood deposits? Talk about making it up as you go along. Now we know for sure that you are a comedian.

F.B.

 

[dad]

So are you saying the flood was after the Pleistocene and all the mammals before the Pleistocene had appeared, left their fossils and gone extinct during the 1600 or so years that the YEC myth puts between creation and the flood?

Why not? In the merged world, 1600 years is a long time, because processes were different. I am seeking to find out where in the fossil record the flood was. So, we need to take a hard look at this.

Are you saying that all the thousands of feet of sediment that contain Cenozoic, Mesozoic and Paleozoic fossils prior to the Holocene are preflood deposits?

Yes, actually. I know it's a shock by todays standard of deposition, but that's how different it was.

Talk about making it up as you go along. Now we know for sure that you are a comedian.

Thank you, as long as I don't try to be funny, people seem to think I am. As I said before, I am sure there is a great comedy routine in the whole old age business.
The new planet, not squished by a world of deep water yet, and where growth rates were supercharged in comparison would have deep layers. Also, the uppiling and such from continental movements may have really piled up some areas. Salt would have come up from the subteranean waters, and mist. This type of thing may have affected deposition as well, with the shifting floods, and drying with the daily windy period, and etc. We have hardly scratched the surface of how different it was. If the ice age did begin after the flood (?) then it had a century of a merged world to go nuts with layers as well!
Some things that affect soil deposition are
"Soil parent material is the material that soil develops from, and may be rock that has decomposed in place, or material that has been deposited by wind, water, or ice. The character and chemical composition of the parent material plays an important role in determining soil properties, especially during the early stages of development.
Parent materials rich in soluble ions-calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium, are easily dissolved in water and made available to plants. Limestone and basaltic lava both have a high content of soluble bases and produce fertile soil in humid climates.
Climate also determines vegetation cover which in turn influences soil development. Precipitation also affects horizon development factors like the translocation of dissolved ions through the so
In the warm and wet tropics, bacterial activity proceeds at a rapid rate, thoroughly decomposing leaf litter. Under the lush tropical forest vegetation, available nutrients are rapidly taken back up by the trees.
http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/soil_systems/soil__development_soil_forming_factors.html

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Why not? In the merged world, 1600 years is a long time, because processes were different. I am seeking to find out where in the fossil record the flood was. So, we need to take a hard look at this.

Yes, actually. I know it's a shock by todays standard of deposition, but that's how different it was.


Thank you, as long as I don't try to be funny, people seem to think I am. As I said before, I am sure there is a great comedy routine in the whole old age business.
The new planet, not squished by a world of deep water yet, and where growth rates were supercharged in comparison would have deep layers. Also, the uppiling and such from continental movements may have really piled up some areas. Salt would have come up from the subteranean waters, and mist. This type of thing may have affected deposition as well, with the shifting floods, and drying with the daily windy period, and etc. We have hardly scratched the surface of how different it was. If the ice age did begin after the flood (?) then it had a century of a merged world to go nuts with layers as well!
Some things that affect soil deposition are
"Soil parent material is the material that soil develops from, and may be rock that has decomposed in place, or material that has been deposited by wind, water, or ice. The character and chemical composition of the parent material plays an important role in determining soil properties, especially during the early stages of development.
Parent materials rich in soluble ions-calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium, are easily dissolved in water and made available to plants. Limestone and basaltic lava both have a high content of soluble bases and produce fertile soil in humid climates.
Climate also determines vegetation cover which in turn influences soil development. Precipitation also affects horizon development factors like the translocation of dissolved ions through the so
In the warm and wet tropics, bacterial activity proceeds at a rapid rate, thoroughly decomposing leaf litter. Under the lush tropical forest vegetation, available nutrients are rapidly taken back up by the trees.
http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/soil_systems/soil__development_soil_forming_factors.html

Like I said a comedian.

 

[dad]

Like I said a comedian.

Yes, you are, with that nonsense about how the old world was physical only, and the same as today. Then, we had the fantastic growth rates, as well as the flooding/drying cycles, almost on a daily basis in some cases, with the daily windy period. This is great for accumulating soil layers. Then, aside from all this horizontal activity, we had it vertically as well!!! Up up up, came the mist, or moisture each day from below, bringing with it things also aiding and abetting rapid soil deposition. Day in, day out. Your 'same' routine is out, out out. Passe, finito, expired, done, kaput, washed up, and the curtain call has come.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Yes, you are, with that nonsense about how the old world was physical only, and the same as today. Then, we had the fantastic growth rates, as well as the flooding/drying cycles, almost on a daily basis in some cases, with the daily windy period. This is great for accumulating soil layers. Then, aside from all this horizontal activity, we had it vertically as well!!! Up up up, came the mist, or moisture each day from below, bringing with it things also aiding and abetting rapid soil deposition. Day in, day out. Your 'same' routine is out, out out. Passe, finito, expired, done, kaput, washed up, and the curtain call has come.

You just get funnier and funnier. The only appropriate response to your posts is to ROTFLMAO.

 

[dad]

You just get funnier and funnier. The only appropriate response to your posts is to ....

Admit you can say nothing against it, and that if the world was different then it was not the same, and indeed PO past speculations are invalid. Don't try and sound as if you got something, when you got nothing, as anyone reading your posts can see.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Admit you can say nothing against it, and that if the world was different then it was not the same, and indeed PO past speculations are invalid. Don't try and sound as if you got something, when you got nothing, as anyone reading your posts can see.

The world couldn't have been that different. Your whole argument is just a variation of the Omphalos hypothesis and makes no sense at all. It is totally irrational. Anyone reading your posts can see that your fantasy world bears absolutely no relationship to reality and that your claims are so totally silly as to only deserve ridicule. Go on with your absurd delusions if it make you happy, just don't expect anyone else to share them. This quote from your previous post is illustrative and really belongs in the archive of goofiest creationist claims.

Yes, you are, with that nonsense about how the old world was physical only, and the same as today. Then, we had the fantastic growth rates, as well as the flooding/drying cycles, almost on a daily basis in some cases, with the daily windy period. This is great for accumulating soil layers. Then, aside from all this horizontal activity, we had it vertically as well!!! Up up up, came the mist, or moisture each day from below, bringing with it things also aiding and abetting rapid soil deposition.

A classic example of making it up as you go along that deserve to be laughed at not to be taken seriously.

I still think you may be parodying YEC. It is really hard to believe that anyone could actually be serious about the nonsense you post.

F.B.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Admit you can say nothing against it,

This much is true, because you change it every 37 seconds. Only a consistent argument can be refuted.

The only thing that stays constant is that the Past Universe is whatever you say it was, which is whatever you need it to be to maintain a literal Bible, which changes depending on whatever "PO speculation" you're attempting to refute.

and that if the world was different then it was not the same, and indeed PO past speculations are invalid.

And if the Past universe was made of cheese, then we're all wrong. Agreed?

 

[dad]

This much is true, ...

Excellent. Just because I got some good answers doesn't mean I suddenly changed them, you just missed most of it before.

 

[dad]

The world couldn't have been that different.

Says who? Of course it could, and this is why you have had it so scewed up for so long!

....Anyone reading your posts can see that your fantasy world bears absolutely no relationship to reality

Thats because the present physical world bears little relationship to the past world that was merged.

A classic example of making it up as you go along that deserve to be laughed at not to be taken seriously.

Anyone locked into a past fantasy world cannot take the bible, or past reality seriously, neither can they say much against it. Your only point, then, being you just don't like it, and fume, but have nothing to say against it.

I still think you may be parodying YEC. It is really hard to believe that anyone could actually be serious about the nonsense you post.

You guys are a scream, and actually more than bordering on schitzopranic! One minute I am a genius, closet evo, making fun of silly YEers, next minute I am a wacky YEer myself, like a yo yo, back and forth you go! Why not try to answer ideas, rather than paint the forum with your particular brand of strange?

 

[duordi]

I thought close to the ark might be a bonus. Also, not molested by men, and good breeders might be an asset, and a few things like that. Man could travel a long way in the, - was it 1600 years, or whatever, from the garden till the flood, and animals even further, perhaps.

I agree and expect the population had filled the Earth.
With the discovery of all the recient underwater cities it would seem the flood water level is still not as low as it was then.

I think the garden was a distant memory by then.

Another interesting thought.
I have never considered that it might have been distroyed before the flood.
How would you propose that they got by the flaming sword?

No, there may have been tens of thousands by then, as we don't know how many years they were in the garden.

Well...

Adam went head over heals for Eve.
They were in perfect physical condition.
God commanded them to reproduce.
Not only would this give incentive but it indicates they were able.
Eve does not concieve until she does so with Cain after being evicted.
It doesn't seem like they were in there for her complete cycle.

When man got the boot, God sent the animals out too, they started the same place man did. Of course they went out from the garden area, at least the animals He knew we needed to live out there, to start, if not all, as I suspect.

There is no indication that I can see that the animals were driven out of the garden. Do you know anything that would indicate this?
Of course some would wander out by themselves.

Duane

 

[dad]

Another interesting thought.
I have never considered that it might have been distroyed before the flood.
How would you propose that they got by the flaming sword?

The angel was there to keep man from getting back in, not for keeping animals out.

Well...

Adam went head over heals for Eve.
They were in perfect physical condition.
God commanded them to reproduce.
Not only would this give incentive but it indicates they were able.
Eve does not concieve until she does so with Cain after being evicted.
It doesn't seem like they were in there for her complete cycle.

Can we be certain of this, just because none were mentioned till Cain and Able? I think the record is of Adam and Eve's offsping, and even there, of the males, in particular. What about females? Who says they may not have had 'litters' full -before and after? Then, here is something else to think about. If Eve had daughters, who had little boys, either in or out of the garden (yes, like rabbits, hard to say who fathered what, except for the official record of the males) -they wouldn't be in the record there, just Adam's boys, and their eldest boy after that, on down the line. There are millions of sexy looholes to be fruitful and multiply with there, you could drive a Mac truck through them!

There is no indication that I can see that the animals were driven out of the garden. Do you know anything that would indicate this?
Of course some would wander out by themselves.

If the garden was closed, and animals were made for man, what would they do in that ghost town?
One of the creatures in Eden, God told this.
" Gen 2:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. "
Doesn't sound like the serpent was to stay in the garden by itself, really, does it? How could there be bruising, and enmity, etc, unless they were together?
Also, if it is true that all creatures (save trilobites, and some made for the earth at large) were in Eden, as this seems to indicate ..
"Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field;"
Not so hard to do if they were all right there nearby! By the power of deduction, we can see that man needed his creatures, so they must have come out as well. This is evidenced by how we see there were sheep, etc out of the garden, as you pointed out, whebn they were out of the garden. (God also made them a fur coat, Greenpeace, eat your heart out!)
I mean, usually, when we name animals in our yard, it is because we own them, and they are like our pets, or our animals. WE are the masters of the planet, remember. Gen 1:26 "..let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. "
If you had dominion over the animals, and maybe even could talk to them, would you not tell them to follow you as you moved? They gave the milk, coats, wool, cheese, plowed the earth, etc. They were more or less the currency of the time, or the riches man had.

PS Someone raised the question a while ago if we know when Cain and Able did their thing, I said I thought we did not know. Apparently, this bible commentary says we do know!

", let it be observed that the death of Abel took place in the one hundred and twenty-eighth or one hundred and twenty-ninth year of the world. Now, "supposing Adam and Eve to have had no other sons than Cain and Abel in the year of the world one hundred and twenty-eight, yet as they had daughters married to these sons, their descendants would make a considerable figure on the earth. Supposing them to have been married in the nineteenth year of the world, they might easily have had each eight children, some males and some females, in the twenty-fifth year. In the fiftieth year there might proceed from them in a direct line sixty-four persons; in the seventy-fourth year there would be five hundred and twelve; in the ninety-eighth year, four thousand and ninety-six; in the one hundred and twenty-second they would amount to thirty-two thousand seven hundred and sixty-eight: if to these we add the other children descended from Cain and Abel, their children, and their children's children, we shall have, in the aforesaid one hundred and twenty-eight years four hundred and twenty-one thousand one hundred and sixty-four men capable of generation" http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=ge&chapter=4&verse=23#Ge4_23
PPS What better way of God driving Adam out of the garden after the fall, then the animals, who were now hostile!? Like living in a zoo with no cages, and snakes that are out to get you!

 

[Opethian]

Hey, all evolutionists, we could invent a world like the one dad invented to explain for the Silmarillion ( the "bible" of The Lord Of The Rings ). The way he does it, we could actually make something of similar "credibility" ( =zero ), that would "prove" that about 2000 years ago, the world was inhabited by elves, dwarves, dragons, and Sauron and Frodo!
Dad, if you have arguments as to why this would be impossible, please state them. I'll be glad to refute them in the same way you "refute" our arguments as to why your ridiculous fantasy world is impossible.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Yes, you are, with that nonsense about how the old world was physical only, and the same as today. Then, we had the fantastic growth rates,

So you admit it's a fantasy. Thanks

as well as the flooding/drying cycles, almost on a daily basis in some cases, with the daily windy period. This is great for accumulating soil layers. Then, aside from all this horizontal activity, we had it vertically as well!!! Up up up, came the mist, or moisture each day from below, bringing with it things also aiding and abetting rapid soil deposition. Day in, day out. Your 'same' routine is out, out out. Passe, finito, expired, done, kaput, washed up, and the curtain call has come.

This doesn't make any sense but what you post rarely if ever does.

The new planet, not squished by a world of deep water yet, and where growth rates were supercharged in comparison would have deep layers. Also, the uppiling and such from continental movements may have really piled up some areas. Salt would have come up from the subteranean waters, and mist.

A salty mist. Another fantasy.

This type of thing may have affected deposition as well, with the shifting floods, and drying with the daily windy period, and etc. We have hardly scratched the surface of how different it was. If the ice age did begin after the flood (?) then it had a century of a merged world to go nuts with layers as well!

So you admit the world you describe was nuts. Thanks.

I don't see any further need for discussion for someone who admits that the fantasy world he describes is nuts.

F.B.