Dinosaurs on the Ark: How It Was Possible

[Subduction Zone]

Show me the verses that teach that the earth is flat. Book, chapter and verse.
I am a Biblical literalist. Why do you think I believe in 6 days of creation and a global flood? I would believe in a flat earth if the Bible taught that.

We already discussed the Isaiah verse. That does describe the Earth as being flat like or not. There is no justification in your statement that the Earth looks like a circle from the text.

 

[dlamberth]

You seem to have some gaps in your education. There's even disagreement about Lucy being female. Look up Schmid and Hausler and the claim that the Hadar find material is a jumble of species.

Or are you only taught the theories that are convenient for Darwinism? These conclusions are not nearly as agreed upon as we are commonly told.

The bones we call Lucy exist. There may be some minor things to work through, but those bones are there for examination. And I don't think nit-picking in anyway removes Lucy from the basic science around this 3.2 million year ago creature. But she sure doesn't help the 6000 year ago creation story.

 

[MIDutch]

The bones we call Lucy exist. There may be some minor things to work through, but those bones are there for examination. And I don't think nit-picking in anyway removes Lucy from the basic science around this 3.2 million year ago creature. But she sure doesn't help the 6000 year ago creation story.

Nothing helps the 6000 year ago creation story, but that doesn't prevent some people from believing it.

Oddly, the majority of them reside here in the United States, but luckily, that number is dwindling fast.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oddly, the majority of them reside here in the United States, but luckily, that number is dwindling fast.

And do you think that is catching God by surprise?

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

 

[dlamberth]

And do you think that is catching God by surprise?

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

To accept Evolution is NOT departing from Jesus. It's in Jesus, for a Christian, where faith resides.

 

[renniks]

Like it or not even if Schmid and Hausler were correct Lucy would still be evidence for evolution.

Not human evolution. It's plain you really know little about Lucy.

 

[renniks]

The bones we call Lucy exist. There may be some minor things to work through, but those bones are there for examination. And I don't think nit-picking in anyway removes Lucy from the basic science around this 3.2 million year ago creature. But she sure doesn't help the 6000 year ago creation story.

If the bones are just a mix of humans and other species, what does it tell us? It tells us first of all, that modern humans existed at a time they weren't "supposed" to. This is also supported by the modern human footprints. The age of the bone is another issue. And it's not just a creature. They created a theory about a whole species that is highly debatable. The scientists in question went there with the express intention of finding a missing link, so they made sure to interpret whatever they found as being that link. Other scientists disagree about what they really found.

 

[Frank Robert]

If the bones are just a mix of humans and other species, what does it tell us? It tells us first of all, that modern humans existed at a time they weren't "supposed" to. This is also supported by the modern human footprints. The age of the bone is another issue. And it's not just a creature. They created a theory about a whole species that is highly debatable. The scientists in question went there with the express intention of finding a missing link, so they made sure to interpret whatever they found as being that link. Other scientists disagree about what they really found.

What you won't get from creationist apologetics is how well Lucy fits in and extends evidence of human evolution.
Finding Lucy:

Because her skeleton was so complete, Lucy gave us an unprecedented picture of her kind. In 1974, Lucy showed that human ancestors were up and walking around long before the earliest stone tools were made or brains got bigger, and subsequent fossil finds of much earlier bipedal hominids have confirmed that conclusion. Bipedalism, it seems, was the first step towards becoming human.​

Evidence doesn't stop with Lucy.
Analysis of famous fossil helps unlock when humans and apes diverged

While not as widely known as the Lucy skeleton, another Australopithecus individual unearthed in East Africa in the 1970s, Carlson said Little Foot is older and more complete.
"We see incontrovertible evidence in Little Foot that the arm of our ancestors at 3.67 million years ago was still being used to bear substantial weight during arboreal movements in trees for climbing or hanging beneath branches," he said. "In fact, based on comparisons with living humans and apes, we propose that the shoulder morphology and function of Little Foot is a good model for that of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees 7 million to 8 million years ago."​

AIG apologetics is already shoveling dirt on Little Foot's age with their in house scientist. Who would have thought?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not human evolution. It's plain you really know little about Lucy.

LOL! You really have no clue. Why would the sex of Lucy make any difference at all? Please, when your knowledge is lacking don't try to claim others do not know. Why would it make any difference at all if they got the sex of Lucy wrong? And again, you found only one source that disagreed. That does not make it controversial. If you look into the literature their claim is not well accepted. You failed on several levels there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If the bones are just a mix of humans and other species, what does it tell us? It tells us first of all, that modern humans existed at a time they weren't "supposed" to. This is also supported by the modern human footprints. The age of the bone is another issue. And it's not just a creature. They created a theory about a whole species that is highly debatable. The scientists in question went there with the express intention of finding a missing link, so they made sure to interpret whatever they found as being that link. Other scientists disagree about what they really found.

But they are not "just a mix of humans and other species". You are relying on lying sources. There was one, count 'em one bone that was not Australopithecus afrarensis. It was a baboon bone. That did not make any difference. Nor did they "created a species". You are only making yourself look foolish with these claims. Lucy was not the first Australopithecus ever found. As you seem to think She was not the last She was merely the most complete, at that time.

Like it or not she is evidence for human evolution. If you want to claim that she is not the burden of proof is now upon you. You are about as far from being an expert on this topic as possible so I do not know how you are going to do it.

 

[durangodawood]

Again, why would I assume they got creation right or any of the other historical accounts in the Bible, including those about Jesus and assume they got the ark wrong?

Its not about right / wrong. Its about myth / history.

Myth isnt ever wrong because its not trying to be right. Myth is trying to be meaningful.

 

[BNR32FAN]

From Answers in Genisis

How dinosaurs lived with man, how they were preserved on Noah’s ark—likely as juveniles—and what happened to dinosaurs after the flood
​

The Dinosaur "Hurdle"

But the biggest hurdle people have when they see any of our displays of the ark (or visit the Ark Encounter) is seeing dinosaurs depicted on the ark (or in stalls in the Ark Encounter). Due to evolutionary indoctrination, many people can't picture man living alongside dinosaurs, or if they do, they think of the Jurassic Park/World movies and view all dinosaurs as wanting to trample or eat people. Even if they overcome or set aside this stumbling block, we still get questions of how dinosaurs could even fit on the ark, particularly when considering the massive dinosaurs, especially the sauropods. Other oft-cited "problems" with dinosaurs on the ark are feeding the herbivores the massive amounts of vegetation that the adults eat, feeding the carnivorous ones (and avoiding being eaten by them), and cleaning up after them.

It makes more sense to think that God would have sent to Noah juveniles (or sub-adults) or smaller varieties within the same kind.​

Crunching the Numbers

Noah also did not have to bring marine animals, bacteria, fungi, or plants (except as possible food sources) and many (if any) insects onto the ark.​

But How Could Noah Care for the Dinosaurs on the Ark?

We need to keep in mind that Noah was a very intelligent man and was obeying God’s commands by faith (Hebrews 11:7). And it was God’s desire that the animals on the ark were well cared for and able to disembark healthy and repopulate the new world.​

Dinosaurs Were on the Ark and Dinosaurs Came off the Ark
The evolutionary story is that dinosaurs died out 66 million years ago, long before humans evolved. But Scripture tells a quite different account.

Scripture also tells us thru the genealogy records that the earth is only a little over 6000 years old.

 

[AV1611VET]

Its not about right / wrong. Its about myth / history.

Myth isnt ever wrong because its not trying to be right. Myth is trying to be meaningful.

Legend has it that myths can be wrong.

 

[Frank Robert]

Scripture also tells us thru the genealogy records that the earth is only a little over 6000 years old.

It depends on who is interpreting the bible.

 

[Frank Robert]

Scripture also tells us thru the genealogy records that the earth is only a little over 6000 years old.

Depends on who is interpreting the bible

 

[renniks]

LOL! You really have no clue. Why would the sex of Lucy make any difference at all? Please, when your knowledge is lacking don't try to claim others do not know. Why would it make any difference at all if they got the sex of Lucy wrong? And again, you found only one source that disagreed. That does not make it controversial. If you look into the literature their claim is not well accepted. You failed on several levels there.

Oh that's not the only issue. But it's all connected. And you aren't listening. They constantly found human bones in the same strata as australopith bones. They obviously didn't pre exist man, they existed at the same time. Johanson claimed his afarenisis species was extremely sexually dimorphic which he basically just made up to make his ideas work.

Senut and Tardieu see two forms of locomoter anatomy in the knees and elbows and favor a genetic separation of the Hadar find into two groups.

Afarenisis is probably a mixed hypodigm, and an invalid taxon.

 

[renniks]

Like it or not she is evidence for human evolution. If you want to claim that she is not the burden of proof is now upon you. You are about as far from being an expert on this topic as possible so I do not know how you are going to do it.

I'm giving you the real story, not the one we are fed by the media.

 

[renniks]

Its not about right / wrong. Its about myth / history.

Myth isnt ever wrong because its not trying to be right. Myth is trying to be meaningful.

Lol, you are left to just decide for your self what is myth and what is real history then. That's highly problematic and you can basically make it mean what you want.

 

[durangodawood]

Lol, you are left to just decide for your self what is myth and what is real history then. That's highly problematic and you can basically make it mean what you want.

Preferable to letting other people decide for me.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It depends on who is interpreting the bible.

No it just depends on if you know the definition of the Hebrew word shanah and the form that was used in the scriptures for the genealogies.