Noahs Arc and Dinosaurs???

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

neanderthal was people with arthritis.

This is so astonishingly... inaccurate is the politest word that I can come up with... that it left me stumped. I then had to stop laughing. Neanderthal man was modern man with arthritis? No, I think not. The bone structure is very clear, as are the length of the limbs and the DNA evidence. The Neanderthals were cousins of modern man. Science, which does not have a political agenda, has proved that.
Lucy is a fact, as well. The amount of work that the various generations of Leakeys have been doing on the sites there is incontrovertible.
I find the views of creationist laughable and deeply worrying at the same time. But then I'm British, and as such am a part of the rest of the world that has long since accepted that science has won the battle against the bible and has moved on to more important things.

[edit on 6-9-2005 by Darkmind]

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
so what you are saying, is that if I go down to the ocean floor, with a north seeking compass and come near one of those rocks that have reversed polarity, its going to point the other way?

no there are no polar reversals in the ocean floor,

when the graph was sketched out someone drew the line through all of the readings. making it look like anything below the line was reversed. that is simply not true. there are only signs of stronger and weaker magnetic strength, not reversals.

if you know somethiing about magnets and how they can lose strength due to heat\, you would know a little something about the ocean floor.
first, its near the oceanic ridge, where some kind of extreme event might have taken place that allowed very very hott water to eject from the ridge. sometime in the past this probably took place.

are these reversals found anywhere else in the world?

EC

This is just as stunningly ill-informed. Magnetic anomaly scans of the ocean floors have revealed the charecteristic zebra stripes of field reversals. The magnetic pole has been flipping around like a damn light switch for millions of years and it's all there in the rocks under the sea. The rock is formed at a mid-ocean ridge, the metals within it metaphorically pointing to the magnetic pole and then it moves away, to make way for the next load of rock, like a conveyor belt. The pole flips and the next load points the other way. It's too weak to detect with a compass by the way.
Incidentally, judging by the weaking of the earth's magnetic field, we might be seeing the start of a new flip. We have no idea why, it's to do with the Earth's core.

Science, which does not have a political agenda, has proved that.

in case you are not aware. science has become very political. ill explain in another post if you care to even read it. lucy is a fact but what they made it out to be was a fake. they put human feet on lucy when in fact no feet bones were found. lucy was actually just an ape with bigger bones and there are apes today that are very similar to lucy and are still alive. lucy is no proof for evolution. and yes neanderthal man was old people with arthritis. they bent over because they were slowly going down, not slowly going up. the heads were bigger because of old age. the brow ridges were biggers for the same reason. it has nothing to do with evolution, it had to do with getting old.

EC

:shk:
Neandathals were not human. This has been PROVEN with dna. It would be nice for a change that you actually researched some REAL science instead of swallowing fiction from creationalist sites.. old people don't grow bigger heads.. and you clearly know NOTHING about athritis.. what you have written makes you look desperate, foolish and serves only to undermind you own agenda.

[edit on 6-9-2005 by riley]

shauny it really has nothing to do with noahs arc but alot of people are yelling about evolution, so i thought i throw it out there, im still waiting for what evolution cruncher has to say to it.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

Science, which does not have a political agenda, has proved that.

in case you are not aware. science has become very political. ill explain in another post if you care to even read it. lucy is a fact but what they made it out to be was a fake. they put human feet on lucy when in fact no feet bones were found. lucy was actually just an ape with bigger bones and there are apes today that are very similar to lucy and are still alive. lucy is no proof for evolution. and yes neanderthal man was old people with arthritis. they bent over because they were slowly going down, not slowly going up. the heads were bigger because of old age. the brow ridges were biggers for the same reason. it has nothing to do with evolution, it had to do with getting old.

EC

You seem to be unaware of the logical inconsistency you just made in your last post. If Lucy was an ape with bigger bones, then surely she must have been an evolutionary step up from the apes - and therefore one of our ancestors.
I'll quote from Archaeologyinfo.com, which is far better suited to point out the differences between apes and Lucy:

(www.archaeologyinfo.com...)

The lateral corner of the supraorbital torus is vertically thicker than both common chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and bonobos (Pan paniscus).
The roof of the supraorbital torus slopes evenly up the frontal squama, rather than being separated by a sulcus, which is common in the African apes.
The bone of the squama is thicker than the African apes.
The outside of the squama that forms the internal wall of the temporal fossa slopes inward toward the midline, rather than being vertical as in the African apes.
The upper border of this sloping internal wall ends in a temporal line that runs parallel to the back of the supraorbital torus and then angles strongly towards the midline rather than swinging backward at the outside corner of the supraorbital torus and not parallel to it, as in the African apes.

As for your other comment, I take it that you haven't had much experience of meeting older people. My grandmother was 95 when she died, and she had arthritis. Her browridges had not thickened and her nose had not changed, neither had her arms lengthened. She also wasn't 20,000 years old. Odd that all these arthritic deformed people seem to have died out millennia ago. I wonder why you can't see them nowadays? Certainly not in old peoples homes in Britain, where none of the people that I saw resembled Neandertals.

And as for science becoming political, that is a facile remark. Claiming that it has become political is a great way of denigrating it. Recent efforts by the White House to edit scientific reports into global warming have left the scientific community appalled. You can't mess with the truth, it always comes back to bite you on the ass, pardon my french. And DNA is an ultimate truth. Neandertal man is not human as we know the term.

science isn't nearly as political as george bush (christian) vs. iraq and afghanistan (mainly islamic beliefs). so where in the world is this political science going on?

george bush so many times said 'we will fight the evil ones, we will find the evil ones' mostly in an attempt to subdue the american population in to thinking they were fighting satan, hence making the war right. so yeah...again, i don't get why you think science is so political at the moment.

as for this evolution debate and evolution cruncher screaming all his misinformation, it'd be a good idea if you laid down some evidence for your arguement, rather than just stating so-called facts. then we might actually be getting somewhere...

If Lucy was an ape with bigger bones, then surely she must have been an evolutionary step up from the apes - and therefore one of our ancestors.

just because I find a horse in the dirt with bigger bones than normal does not mean its evolving into an elephant. it could be a species of horse that already exists and something we just dont know about. it doesnt mean its evolving. and apes similiar to luci are very much alive today.

EC

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
and yes neanderthal man was old people with arthritis. they bent over because they were slowly going down, not slowly going up. the heads were bigger because of old age. the brow ridges were biggers for the same reason. it has nothing to do with evolution, it had to do with getting old.

Muhahahahaha. That's one of the silliest things I've ever read. A race of old people? Anyway, who the hell develops prominant brow ridges when they get old. You are just making it up as you go along now.

EC - you can type this crap but that doesn't make it true.


[edit on 7/9/05 by FatherLukeDuke]

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
just because I find a horse in the dirt with bigger bones than normal does not mean its evolving into an elephant.

is there not an award for 'way below top secret'??

evolution cruncher you just get funnier and funnier. it's like you don't even care that what you write doesn't make sense. if there's any holes it's the one inbetween your ears!!

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

If Lucy was an ape with bigger bones, then surely she must have been an evolutionary step up from the apes - and therefore one of our ancestors.

just because I find a horse in the dirt with bigger bones than normal does not mean its evolving into an elephant. it could be a species of horse that already exists and something we just dont know about. it doesnt mean its evolving. and apes similiar to luci are very much alive today.

EC

Well, that's a new one on me. That would put them totally outside the current list of species of chimp. Lucy was one of the first steps that led to us. She is a part of the fossil record. She has been dated, pored over, yes argued over and accepted as a part of the family tree of the human race. She was an ape that was on the road to trousers and ice-cold coors.
And if you find a horse that's bigger than others, then that's a horse that might be evolving. It might be a sub-species of horse. It's never going to become an elephant, so what's your point?

Originally posted by Darkmind


Well, that's a new one on me. That would put them totally outside the current list of species of chimp. Lucy was one of the first steps that led to us. She is a part of the fossil record. She has been dated, pored over, yes argued over and accepted as a part of the family tree of the human race. She was an ape that was on the road to trousers and ice-cold coors.
And if you find a horse that's bigger than others, then that's a horse that might be evolving. It might be a sub-species of horse. It's never going to become an elephant, so what's your point?

According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson is probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is ‘imagination made of plaster of paris’.1 Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.
www.answersingenesis.org...

well if it's not conclusive that it's ape or human, then it's still open for debate that it could be 'the missing link', hence halfway inbetween ape and human?

evolution cruncher...are you a christian? if so can you explain to me why you say there is absolutly no evidence for evolution and that it has huge holes in it, yet some people of your exact same faith accept evolution as a process and say god put it in motion? i would just like to know...that's all.

Originally posted by dbrandt

Originally posted by Darkmind


Well, that's a new one on me. That would put them totally outside the current list of species of chimp. Lucy was one of the first steps that led to us. She is a part of the fossil record. She has been dated, pored over, yes argued over and accepted as a part of the family tree of the human race. She was an ape that was on the road to trousers and ice-cold coors.
And if you find a horse that's bigger than others, then that's a horse that might be evolving. It might be a sub-species of horse. It's never going to become an elephant, so what's your point?

According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson is probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is ‘imagination made of plaster of paris’.1 Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.
www.answersingenesis.org...

40% of Lucy was discovered, which for a fossil is damn good. And enough of her skull was found to give us an estimate of her brain size. Did you read the comments in my link above? Lucy was not an ape. She wasn't a human either, she was an intermediate species. The problem is that there's a lot that we don't know about early man. There were several species, that seem to have lived in the same area. The Leakey's have found other fossils of early hominids since 1983 (I wasn't able to find a copy of the Weekend Australian, so I couldn't check the quote), so your comment about Richard Leakey is a bit out of date. An almost intact skull of a similar hominid to Lucy was discovered I think about ten years ago. And here a link to the Leakey Foundation website and one of their latest finds: www.leakeyfoundation.org...
It's fascinating. As I said, Lucy was a part of our family tree - a tree that has a lot of broken branches and snapped-off twigs. Like the Hobbits of Java.

Originally posted by Darkmind
It's fascinating. As I said, Lucy was a part of our family tree - a tree that has a lot of broken branches and snapped-off twigs. Like the Hobbits of Java.

www.forerunner.com...

What's more fascinating is that there is a God who lives.

Posting creationalist PROPAGANDA [what this forum is fighting against] does not invalidate the scientific evidence.

If people would like to know more about Lucy.. like.. actual scientific FACTS, minus the video sales pitch [the collection plate for this 'not for profit' organisation ] they can look here:

www.asu.edu...

evolution cruncher...are you a christian? if so can you explain to me why you say there is absolutly no evidence for evolution and that it has huge holes in it, yet some people of your exact same faith accept evolution as a process and say god put it in motion? i would just like to know...that's all.

sorry for not posting lately, my wife is about to have a baby and I have ben working a lot and changing hours...anyways.

you guessed it, I am a bible believing christian who has his focus on creation. I believe the rest of the bible too, I simply study the creation parts of the bible so I can get a better idea of it and help explain it to others.

now let me correct myself. there is evidence for evolution. however its only one type of evolution and that is MICRO evolution. all other forms have never been witnessed therefore its not scientific. micro evolution has been observed and the bible does not disagree with micro evolution. everything brings forth after its KIND. a kind is those that can bring forth. now I understand that some species within the same kind have gone so far that some species cannot produce offspring. they are still the same kind, but cannot bring forth. this is simply because of a loss of information.

some christians accept evolution becuase other people believe it. some people believe it because thats what they were taught. some people believe in creation because they know that spontaneous generation is impossible and proven wrong years ago. some christians believe in evolution because many people claim that the earth is billions of years old. there are many reasons why people acccept evolution, the biggest reason (I believe) is because they are given one definition and not the others. the only definition that is actually scientific is given and then later the others are tied in.

Micro evolution is scientific, but all other terms of evolution is what makes up the big hole in the theory. the rest is assumed to happen.

EC

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
they bent over because they were slowly going down, not slowly going up. the heads were bigger because of old age. the brow ridges were biggers for the same reason. it has nothing to do with evolution, it had to do with getting old.

Do you read what your typing or just mashing keys? I have never heard of old people getting bigger brow ridges, or bigger skulls. I have never seen old people with bigger brow ridges or bigger skulls. Where are your sources?

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
now let me correct myself. there is evidence for evolution. however its only one type of evolution and that is MICRO evolution.

True to a point, but many factors are point towards macro-evolution.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
all other forms have never been witnessed therefore its not scientific. micro evolution has been observed and the bible does not disagree with micro evolution.

Do you know why macro evolution has never been observed? Lets just say humans have only been around for 6-10,000 years, for arguments sake. Do you remember the part where macro-evolution is supposed to take place over millions of years?

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
the rest is assumed to happen.

Like all of creation?


[edit on 8-9-2005 by Charlie Murphy]

I'll try and get this back on topic, plenty of threads around here to debate evolution.

This is a great read on Noah's Ark origins and where it may possibly rest. From: www.theoutlaws.com...

The Biblical account of Noah is very similar to The Epic of Gilgamesh which is believed to have been written thousands of years before Genesis.

The Babylonian poem, The Epic of Gilgamesh, has Utnapishtim acting on the instructions of his god, Ea, and building an ark of "seven stories" with "nine chambers" in each story. Utnapishtim then went into the ark with his sons, and his wife, and his wife's sons, before the waters of the flood. "All that I had, I caused to be put on board, the seed of many kinds of living creatures. I brought into the ship my family and all my kindred, herds and flocks of the fields, wild beast of the fields...."

There seems to be evidence of "the" flood in that so many different cultures have similar stories.

In fact, no fewer than 200 cultures worldwide tell of the legendary flood upon the earth. Yet in all the cultures, the story of Noah is practically identical in all the different sorts of ancient languages, whether it's Persian, Babylonian, ancient Egyptian, Chinese, Sanskrit, and so forth. The only thing that changes occasionally is the name of Noah. Not only does the story appear in the Christian Bible, but also in the Koran.

Mount (Great)Ararat is located in east Turkey, near the Iranian and Armenian borders.

For years however, no one has come back with anything much more impressive than a few chunks of wood from Mount Ararat, which scholars have determined does not come from any tree that grows in the vicinity of the mountain. As a matter of fact, the area around Mount Ararat is virtually treeless in any direction for about 300 miles, and as far as is possible to determine, no forest has ever grown there.

In July '55 french demolition engineer Fernand Navarra and his son discovered a large wooden object in a crevice at 13,500 feet. He removed about a five foot section and brought it back for testing.

Navarra had the wood tested in three different laboratories. He was told that the age was more than 5,000 years and of a type that does not grow near Mount Ararat. The scientific tests proved that something old, something mysterious was definitely on the mountain. It was the perfect fuel for other explorers, but Mount Ararat was not for the inexperienced climber.

There's much more at the link i provided above, highly recommend reading it if your interested in the ark.


And if you really wanna go way out there check out this one(a very detailed paper).
NOAH'S ARK – Verification of Alien Contact By Dr. Barry M. Warmkessel
With Support From Lawrence P. Giver, Sonja M. Kawamoto and Jane Yin

From the "who built it" section of the paper.
Most people assume that Noah built the Ark. But the Book of Noah clearly states that the angels were its builders. Perhaps the angels mentioned therein were extra- terrestrial aliens. The record suggests that human's fear and distrust surround their efforts. Either that (or deception by their leaders) was why only eight choose to board the Ark while the rest waited in ignorance of the impending catastrophe. The Ark was large enough to carry many to safety. Selected verses from the Book of Noah (found within the Book of Enoch) are listed below. Comments possibly related to aliens are italicized.

Wow so the ark was an alien ship, which BTW has already been discovered.!?(told ya it was a good one) enjoy

Just to be clear i'm a Christian who believes in a local flood(Mount Ararat fits nicely) and an old Earth. Check out this link to get a more "sensible" view of Noah's Ark from a Christian perspective. www.reasons.org...


For the fellow believers out there, just to be clear, i do believe that Noah was a real person and that he did build a boat per GOD's instruction. Just that the flood was not world-wide and didn't need to be to wipe out civilization, hence no need for every animal on Earth to be onboard either, only those that would have been affecting by the flood waters(still admittedley a vast amount but within specs. imo),and scipture can be used to support this position.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
sorry for not posting lately, my wife is about to have a baby and I have ben working a lot and changing hours...anyways.

congrats on the baby

some christians accept evolution becuase other people believe it.

Then it shows how much of a bunch of blind followers christians really are if that is the case. They most likely became christian because 'other people believed in god', and they are also going to accept evolution because 'other people believe it'.

some people believe it because thats what they were taught.

as i've said before evolution is only a tiny part of science taught in school. that's why if there were ever any religious people in our science lessons, there would never be an arguement as evolution was only brushed upon in very few lessons.

some people believe in creation because they know that spontaneous generation is impossible and proven wrong years ago.

it's never been 'proved wrong', and it's not been proved to be 'impossible'. evidence, facts, and information are still being put together on the evolution front. gravity has been an idea for 400 or more years, yet still remains theory. evolution has been around for 150 years, it is therefore inevitable that it would also still be a theory.

the common misconception most christians have with evolution is that we evolved from the apes that are living today. this obviously goes hand in hand with poor education on the subject, either given to them by their church leaders, friends, or family. when it comes to things like the da vinci code, or evolution christians might turn away. however, when it comes to things like the bible code, they are willing to jump on the band wagon as anything that tries to show more devinity to the bible is good

Originally posted by Rren
There seems to be evidence of "the" flood in that so many different cultures have similar stories.

i don't think the fact that there were many flood accounts necessarily proves noah's ark actually happened globally or locally. these myths and legends were created for one purpose, 'to show how strong their god was, how devine he was etc'. and if noah's ark was just a localised flood, a story of a farmer saving his livestock, who turned it in to a globalised, wraith-filled action of god? most civilisations lived on flood plains, as they needed to be close to rivers for trading, it is therefore very likely that many encounted floods. in the case of noah's flood (if it ever happened), it is likely that it was recorded first as word of mouth, passed down generation to generation, until finally someone heard it and changed it to prove something from nothing. hence, prove their god was really powerful and strong and this is what he could do if you got on the wrong side of him, so you better believe in him and pray to him... also if people still lived near these flood plains, or wanted to make sure they had plenty of rain water for their crops, they would pray to this god. it's that age old way of getting people to believe, and it worked very well, as it most likely frightened people in to believing in this god. because if they didn't...they might face a flood, drought, famine etc.

In July '55 french demolition engineer Fernand Navarra and his son discovered a large wooden object in a crevice at 13,500 feet. He removed about a five foot section and brought it back for testing.
Navarra had the wood tested in three different laboratories. He was told that the age was more than 5,000 years and of a type that does not grow near Mount Ararat. The scientific tests proved that something old, something mysterious was definitely on the mountain.

i'm no expert in the field of wood, but does wood not decay after 5000 years? maybe the cold air kept it in fair condition.

also i like how when we talk about dating things that prove the earth to be a great age, or fossils of dinosaurs or fossils of animals and early human-type species, and christians say carbon dating is flawed. yet, when it comes to proving a piece of wood is 5000 years, there's absolutly no question at all that this is conclusive proof ...talk about a bunch of hypocrits!

[edit on 9-9-2005 by shaunybaby]