The Bible is literally true.

[Guest croweater]

As far as evolution goes it isn't that impossible. All you need is something that replicates. Anything that can replicate itself by some means will continue to produce copies of itself. Once you have this ONE thing it can be altered by many different reactions to become something else which still has replicating ability. It's relative to time yes, but not impossible.

 

Still, the question always is "who put them there in the first place?"

 

Edit: Eek, Nanks is on the war path, lucky I agree with him about Job.

[Nighthawk 0]

Personally, I think they are both contradictory if only for the lack of evidence from what I've read in the bible, though I haven't read the whole thing, you'd think that if goats and sheep are continually mentioned, big fuckoff dinasaurs would be too.

 

Although, you're arguing about how you can put both Adam and Eve and fossils in the same story. I don't know if you'll be able to discuss anything other than faith bassed assumptions and guesses at best.

 

If the flood killed and fossilised the dinosaurs, and they existed at the same time as humans,  how come we don't see any today? How come water bassed dinosaurs didn't survive the flood?

 

EDIT

IDRM, don't they carbon date bones to see how old they are as opposed to just do it via the soil layers now?

The big fuckoff dinosaurs are dead just a few chapters in, and they are mentioned twice, in Job. By the way, there's not a one mention of gorillas in the Bible. Goats and sheep are important anyway, because they were used as sacrifices.

 

The dinosaurs were killed during the flood like everything else, and like everything else, must have went on the ark. The pairs that came off the ark must have died shortly thereafter, however, due to changes in climate and atmosphere.

 

There's a couple of proposed answers to the question of water animals in the flood. But, supposing they did survive, it's the ocean. They'd have plenty of time to become extinct (or hell, even still be there) since then virtually undetected. How many times have we seen a giant squid, blue whale, or a coelacanth for that matter? Besides, look at this.

[Guest croweater]

That's one big fuckoff ark!

[Guest Nanks]

That's one big fuckoff ark!

I fuckin' reckon!! The concept of the ark is another ridiculousness that can't be supported by fact.

 

The idea that one man constructed a vessel capable of carrying two of every animal, and now apparently two of every dinosaur is too proposterous to even consider.

 

IDRM, your entire argument has now completely slipped into the world of fantasy and faith.

[Nighthawk 0]

None of that post contained any fact or evidence whatsoever.

 

Your "reference" to dinosaurs in Job is based entirely on your own interpretation. If it's clear that the reference is to dinosaurs, then what kind of dinosaurs? Crocodiles/Alligators are still considered living dinosaurs by many, so that doesn't really help either.

 

As for dispelling the fact that dinosaur fossils aren't found at same level as those of humans by claiming that when/if it does happen it is so flippantly explained away by scientists is garbage. Carbon dating technology throws that argument right out the window. I was finding most of your other posts on this topic most informative and interesting, but this was just evasive and baseless.

Number one, the mention of dinosaurs in the Bible has no relevance to anything. Whether we come away saying "Yes, they are." or "No they aren't" affects nothing. The Bible doesn't mention lots of animals. That was more of a fun answer than anything. What did you expect, that they be called by a name that wasn't invented until the nineteenth century? The tail like a cedar trees is what distinguishes them as dinosaurs, by the way.

 

Number two, carbon dating is essentially worthless. I was hoping you wouldn't bring that up, because I'm going to have to crack the books to back it up, but *sigh*... I'll get to it.

 

Number three, I don't want to reiterate what I've said about universal acceptance again, but it applies here.

[Guest croweater]

remember the food, they all need food.

[Guest Nanks]

And separate carriages. Can't have those T-Rexes & Brontosauruses sharing the same cargo hold.

[Nighthawk 0]

I fuckin' reckon!! The concept of the ark is another ridiculousness that can't be supported by fact.

 

The idea that one man constructed a vessel capable of two of every animal, and now apparently two of every dinosaur is too proposterous to even consider.

 

IDRM, your entire argument has now completely slipped into the world of fantasy and faith.

I knew it would come to this. It's one of the three that always gets them. Don't worry, I can answer this too.

 

First of all, dinosaurs are animals. Now that that's out of the way... nowhere in the Bible does it say that the ark was built by one man. Noah could have had a crew of a thousand. All it says was that the ark was built. Second, people tend to overestimate how many animals are involved. For example, you don't need two rottweilers, two pit bulls, two poodles and so forth, just two dogs. Also, everything that was big, was once small. Take them when they're young.

[Guest Nanks]

So Noah has a crew of thousands build him an impossibly enormous ship that was going to be used for the exlusive purpose of saving his life while the rest of them were killed in a flood??

 

If they didn't take two of every species then how did all those species survive to this day?? If he chose to only take two labradors then when did every other breed of dog come back into existence. I know my whippets aren't great swimmers so I doubt they survived. Also, is this flood taking place in a specific continent or are we still dealing with Pangaea here?? How did Noah round up two of every baby dinosaur and how did he avoid being eaten by its parents???

[Nighthawk 0]

The larger point here, by the way, is that this is a rather important issue, because Jesus believed in the ark literally. He believed all of the old testament and mentioned Noah specifically. So to not believe it might be easy, but leaves you in a rather unpleasant situation theologically.

 

I'll answer those questions shortly.

[Guest Nanks]

Yes, that would put me in an awkward position theologically if Theology wasn't, in itself, the science of belief that is unsupportable by knowledge.

[Guest croweater]

Oh, I believe in the ark, just not as litterally as you do. But the concept of a flawless massive ark which managed to not flood and sink after a really long and heavy rain filled with one of each animal "family" (assuming evolution went very very quickly afterwards to create all the animals in the world today) with heaps of supplies seems rather silly.

[Nighthawk 0]

So Noah has a crew of thousands build him an impossibly enormous ship that was going to be used for the exlusive purpose of saving his life while the rest of them were killed in a flood??

 

If they didn't take two of every species then how did all those species survive to this day?? If he chose to only take two labradors then when did every other breed of dog come back into existence. I know my whippets aren't great swimmers so I doubt they survived. Also, is this flood taking place in a specific continent or are we still dealing with Pangaea here?? How did Noah round up two of every baby dinosaur and how did he avoid being eaten by its parents???

I don't know if he had a crew of thousands, it doesn't say. It doesn't say that he did it by himself either. Anyone who wanted to come on the ark could have been saved. They didn't believe the judgement was coming. It says that they mocked Noah. But, if he paid them, I'd imagine they'd build his ship. He also had children, by the way, the number of which is uncertain. Three of them ended up on the ark with him.

Also, I don't know if you're aware of this, and if you're not will probably make it even more difficult for you, but people at the time lived 8 or 9 hundred years. It took 120 years to build the ark, which was not imposibly huge, by the way, the exact dimensions are given. You can do the math for yourself.

This species question has to do with genetic information again. For example, a lion has the same genetic information as a housecat, except the cat has lost a lot of it. It has devolved, as I was discussing earlier. All you need to produce multiple breeds is one with the genetic code capable of rendering the rest. There's no reason to suppose breeds of dog today are the same as they were then. The earth was young, much diversification was yet to occur. This once again, is not a hill to die on.

The flood is supposed to have been worldwide, which doesn't require (or exclude, for the sake of argument) Pangaea. Anyone will tell you the Native Americans walked there from Asia. Pangaea or no, we can't make any hard exclusions about the geographic makeup of Earth, in the time or the period.

Noah didn't round up any animals, it says that God sent them. Yep, it's a miracle.

[Nighthawk 0]

Yes, that would put me in an awkward position theologically if Theology wasn't, in itself, the science of belief that is unsupportable by knowledge.

Well, just because God tells you something doesn't mean you are incapable of finding out for yourself. Nothing requires more faith than evolution... let me try to get to that carbon dating discussion.

[Guest croweater]

I'm pretty sure your devolution theory is actually evolution. House cats evolved to become housecats. To devolve they would go from house cats back to lions as we would go from humans back to monkeys.

 

The earth must have spun really really really fast back then for them to be that old because Our telomeres aren't long enough to sustain that much cell replication to live to 800 years old.

[Nighthawk 0]

No, because housecats and lions are both cats. If you assume humans and apes are the same species, yes, but Biblically they aren't.

 

You're assuming cell replication at a constant rate.

[Guest Nanks]

But don't you see Croweater? Everyone was kept alive indefinitely because an intangible entity deigned it so. Shortly after this point he changed his mind for no solid reason...

 

The "nothing died before this point" part really doesn't wash with me well at all either. Now that we have established that we had all the dinosaurs and animals, etc. How did the prey of the carnivores manage?? It would be decidedly unpleasant for all the animals and humans alike to be eaten, digested and shit out still alive.

[Guest croweater]

I see the light now Nanks! Damn humans came and ruined everything.

 

Oh, and cats and lions are most deffinately NOT the same species. The deffinition of a species is that they can successfully reproduce. Cats and Lions, much like Donkeys and horses can't reproduce. So what I said in comparing Humans to Apes is in fact correct.

 

Edit: Oh, and the carnivores ate the various soy products available to them.

[Nighthawk 0]

So anyway, the rate of decay in carbon is such that half of an amount will convert back to ordinary nitrogen after 5,730 years, give or take. That's called the half life. After two of those, it has a theoretical age of 11, 460 years, with only a quarter of carbon left to date. At this rate, after about 50,000 years, it should contain no carbon at all. So you must ask how they're using carbon dating to age geological strata containing anything from more than 50,000 years ago, a virtual blip on the evolutionary timescale. So, as useful as carbon dating may be (which is debatable), it becomes useless on anything more than 50,000 years old. It gets more complicated, but there's some basics.

[Nighthawk 0]

Oh, and cats and lions are most deffinately NOT the same species. The deffinition of a species is that they can successfully reproduce. Cats and Lions, much like Donkeys and horses can't reproduce. So what I said in comparing Humans to Apes is in fact correct.

That's fine. It wasn't important.

[Guest croweater]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

That's not carbon dating at all.

 

Carbon dating is the amount of C14 in comparison to its natural state of C12. If Carbon decayed into nitrogen we'd all be in a lot of trouble (ie. nuclear explosions everywhere).

 

Do you have any idea how many billions of atoms would be in a sample. C14 is quite common (I think it's about 4%)

 

if you divide 100000000000000000000 by 2 every 5730 years you're still gonna have oodles left in the end.

[Nighthawk 0]

But don't you see Croweater? Everyone was kept alive indefinitely because an intangible entity deigned it so. Shortly after this point he changed his mind for no solid reason...

 

The "nothing died before this point" part really doesn't wash with me well at all either. Now that we have established that we had all the dinosaurs and animals, etc. How did the prey of the carnivores manage?? It would be decidedly unpleasant for all the animals and humans alike to be eaten, digested and shit out still alive.

Reel it in, tough guy, you're now mocking some straw men. Everyone was not kept alive indefinitely.

 

The nothing died part was in the era of Adam and Eve. Things died after that. The world before then is recorded as a decidedly different place.

[Nighthawk 0]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

That's not carbon dating at all.

 

Carbon dating is C14 reverting back to its natural state of C12. If Carbon decayed into nitrogen we'd all be in a lot of trouble (ie. nuclear explosions everywhere)

You don't understand what I said.

[Guest croweater]

I'm pretty sure you said carbon converts to nitrogen.

 

And yes, that is ridiculus. (though I did mess up my deffinition a little with a typo)

[Nighthawk 0]

But the point was that the half life renders it unreliable for large ages. Give me a break, it's late.

[Guest croweater]

But don't you see Croweater?  Everyone was kept alive indefinitely because an intangible entity deigned it so.  Shortly after this point he changed his mind for no solid reason...

 

The "nothing died before this point" part really doesn't wash with me well at all either.  Now that we have established that we had all the dinosaurs and animals, etc.  How did the prey of the carnivores manage??  It would be decidedly unpleasant for all the animals and humans alike to be eaten, digested and shit out still alive.

Reel it in, tough guy, you're now mocking some straw men. Everyone was not kept alive indefinitely.

 

The nothing died part was in the era of Adam and Eve. Things died after that. The world before then is recorded as a decidedly different place.

dare I ask who recorded it if no one was there?

[Guest croweater]

But the point was that the half life renders it unreliable for large ages. Give me a break, it's late.

and the point is invalid because of the huge amounts of carbon 14 present in nature.

[Nighthawk 0]

dare I ask who recorded it if no one was there?

No, not before that. While they were there.

[Nighthawk 0]

But the point was that the half life renders it unreliable for large ages. Give me a break, it's late.

and the point is invalid because of the huge amounts of carbon 14 present in nature.

This statement is ridiculous.

[Guest croweater]

good point. I hereby retract it.

 

Edit: why is it ridiculous? (I read too much harry potter. RidiculOus!)