Noahs Arc and Dinosaurs???

Noahs Ark
Evolution Cruncher- I have updated my link and you still did not answer my other problem of animals needing special diets.

however, there are also many animals that do not rely on parents for teaching. the mother bird does not teach baby bird how to fly

We aren't talking about just one animal, we are talking about every"kind" of animal on Earth. Most that I know of need their parents guidance until they can care for themselves.

probably because they didnt eat animals back then

What????

now for food spoilage, all they had to do was dump it

That wasnt my point. They would need to bring much more food than assumed because alot of it would go bad.

You sound familiar, and since you registered recently I have to think maybe you are Expert999? I would like to discuss Noahs Ark, but if you are Expert please tell me right now and I will leave.

Riley- Yes, the Koala needs eucalyptus leaves, silkworms need mulberry leaves, other inescts need special diets too. Not too mention that other animals only eat live prey, and are very territorial.

Yeah I thought about what you said.. and was shocked over how ignorant it was.

Koalas are marsupials which means they are more related to kangaroos.. and definently not decended from bears. You may as well say that they came from elephants.. please educate yourslelf on australian fauna a little more before continuing with the same argument.

Riley- Yes, the Koala needs eucalyptus leaves, silkworms need mulberry leaves, other inescts need special diets too. Not too mention that other animals only eat live prey, and are very territorial.


The Koala's, silkworms and other insects are the dissendents of a common animal ancestor from Noah's boat. The animals could have been completely different back then. And about the animals not eating other animals back then. The bible states that animals and humans did not start eating meat until after the flood. This means that seperating the meat eating animals would be simple; there were no meat eating animals.

For 3 million years the earth had done its thing when it comes with the cycles of warm weather and cold weather that mark the ice ages span.

Takes between 40,000 to 100,000 years for this periods to last. We are at the 40, thousand mark of the last period hardly the 6000 mark of the so call young earthers earth age.

But recent enough for ancient civilizations to remember epic tales of such a flood from a time before their own after all we survived the last one.

The flood of the bible may have been copied by the epic tales of an overall flooding from a time long ago before the bible time frame, and then integrated in the bible "tales" to show the ancient Hebrew God's might.

Remember the old testament was a collection of tales gathered through a period of thousands of years and people in the time was not very literate to separate the truth from the myth or by the time to writte the story of the jewish people down and their ancient roots the fantasy was mix with reality.

I guess that creationist should start building the next “Noah’s Ark” because “Mother earth” is about to go through another of her cycles very soon.

This time dinosours will not be a problem and a bitter pill to swallow for the creationist time frame of earth age.

[edit on 27-7-2005 by marg6043]

I think Evolutionists better get up to speed with God because he is going to judge them some day and it will not be a fancy little tea party.
Think of 1 Million years right now for me. You CAN'T, it is incomprehendable. Why do people try to pass off the coming of man with millions of year babble. A million years cannot be comprehended in the eyes of you or me. What if in a million years the earth would have been sucked into the sun. I mean who knows... it is an incomprehendable subject to even reason about. We hardly know what happened several hundred years ago. I personally am going to stick with a thousand year theory that was actually document from close to the time when such events were said to have happened. And sure it is written by humans and thus subject to error, but then agian so is Evolution theory...

How did all plant life survive the flood? Did they count as 'kind of animal'?

Originally posted by SupaSmoove101
The Koala's, silkworms and other insects are the dissendents of a common animal ancestor from Noah's boat.

So.. how exactly do they get all the way to Australia? I'm unfamilar with that part of the bible. As for 'decendents'.. Koalas have remained unchanged for several thousand years.. but I'll humour you. Decended from what exactly? Why are there no other marsupials on the planet apart from whats native to Australia?


[edit on 27-7-2005 by riley]

Why are there still ape's if we are their advanced form? I thought evolution was survival of the fittest... Questions to answers that you are asking cannot be answered, just like the countless questions I could ask you. I have what is called faith, and that faith is in the story of Creation. Trust me all you have is faith in Evolution, there is no way that it will ever be undeniably prooven. Even if it is universally accepted there is still those unanswerable questions that you have to pass by with a whole lot of faith. So why would people even try to tell me that I am argueing for religion and you are argueing for Science?

Hit me with as many scientific facts as you want but at the root of your belief is still going to have to be faith.

How do you know that Koala's have remained unchanged for thousands of years? Did anyone see that happen? No they did not. Science is meant to only include observable and testable subjects. Thus you are argueing faith instead of Science.

Originally posted by SupaSmoove101
Hit me with as many scientific facts as you want but at the root of your belief is still going to have to be faith.

Science knows that animals evolved and has most certainly proved this to be the case. Climate, habitat, food supply and many other things factor into that evolution. Some animals remain the same over a time because those factors have not forced a change. Look at the crocodile. A strong predator with almost no natural enemies - mostly unchanged.

This can be proven by the fossils found and noting the bone structure and more. You can calculate height, weight, muscle density, etc, etc.

Now with Humans, there are the various stages of Australopithecus lineage:

Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei

And there are the various stages of Homo lineage:

Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Homo sapiens
Neanderthals
Cro-Magnons

All facts that lead could to a conclusion...

Now, give just one fact that could lead to the proof of creation.

How do we define the 'Flood'? We naturally presume it means water, or is it just a descriptive way of telling somebody something in a really simple way?

Was the Ark a boat? Were the animals physically herded onto a boat? or is the Ark something entirely different?

ZeddicusZulZorander please watch the Creation vs. Evolution videos by Kent Hovind and they will explain away all of your Neanderthals and other half human bones that people find. I could try to explain for you but it is much to long a subject and in more depth than I wish to go at this forum.

Science knows that animals evolved and has most certainly proved this to be the case.

how does science know? it doesnt know, it assumes that it happened because thats the only other option aside from "God made it that way"

the textbooks will say that "the first selfreplicating organisms must have emered in this organic soup. they say it must have evolved because the only other choice would be God made it.

The homo lineage are all human. just either bigger skull becuase they live longer, study the skull and how some parts never stop growing.

Luci along with the other varieties you mentioned dont have enough bones to determine what it is. Luci is not a missing link. and some of the other so-called missing links have proven to be a hoax.

yes I would agree to take a look at Dr Hovinds Video series and check it out for yourself. I looked up his work and he is right.

Dr. Hovind is a self appointed creationist expert that his work goes around disproving evolution without Scientific research and twisting what the scientific community has proven.

His motives are under the “higher call” fro “above” and under that call he really doesn’t have to do much, but come to his own conclusions as how things are to be.

Dr. Hovind's goal is to strengthen the faith of believers, to confound and to convict the evolutionists, and to win the lost to Christ.

I easier words to understand: ( He as any self proclaim expert in creationism all it has to do is wait for the scientific community to exposed findings and just call them wrong and against the teachings of the bible and God.) that will be enough to his followers but not for the seekers of truth.

Very typical in his line of work.

Marg... have you seen his videos?

Originally posted by SupaSmoove101
ZeddicusZulZorander please watch the Creation vs. Evolution videos by Kent Hovind and they will explain away all of your Neanderthals and other half human bones that people find. I could try to explain for you but it is much to long a subject and in more depth than I wish to go at this forum.

Kent Hovind has been disccussed many times, and I think the general understanding is that he is a fraud. He claims to be a doctor but is just spewing lies.

Evolution Cruncher could you please respond to my post?

Kent Hovind talks about his unsanctioned Doctoriate in his videos. He tells people straight out that if they do not wish to acknowledge his schooling then they do not have to call him Dr.. A complete moron can graduate from a sanctioned University, probably even a rapist could have a PhD. A PhD from a sanctioned school does not make you an all knowing incredible person. Stop using that arguement. Even the smartest person in the World does not have to go to a sanctioned Evolution teaching school.

Dr. Hovind is a scientist because that is his line of studies, and he is smart enough not to put himself too distant from his own line of study.

He is smart enough as not to deny evolution but make sure that "evolution could not happen without God."

He is a man of science after all and occurs he will not by any means make himself target of his own "theories" by deniying science all together, he just modify what the scientific comunity has done to his own advantage.

But as ususal his own views are riddle with errors.

What it surprise me the most is that Dr. Hovind even has his own version and iterpretations of Genesis accounts.

Creation is a religion no a science and will never be part of the science study curriculum.

His so called "challenge" to the scientific comunity has been prove to be a fraud.

I see a couple things wrong with Hovind. I see a couple things wrong with his theories. I see thousands of things wrong with Evolution. I also see several accounts of evil that comes directly from the teaching of Evolution. I pick the guy who is trying to improve people's lives rather than the mob who is using science to ruin peoples. Why would you tell someone they came from nothing and thus thier life is only as meaningfull as they make it? That is extremely difficult for a child to handle. I don't know about you but I think that Hovind touches people's lives in an amazing way. Why would you try to discredit someone like that?