Dinosaurs Death Pose: Evidence for Noah's Flood?
-
but according to what i know(which mayb wrong) noah supposedly bring 1 of each kind of the animal up onto the ark right? was dinosaurs brought up to? if yes, we should be seeing dinos now?if not then they could have be there before the flood and got extinct before the flood. Thats assuming it is conceptually possible to bring 1 of all the different kinds of animals up on the ark.
-
hello!when the bible was first written all the dinosaurs had already died out for like 1000 years ago already.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
And the explaination was based on assumptions as well... The kind of assumptions causing you rejecting radiometric dating methods validity....
see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGDrq8rikJc&feature=watch_response
The explanation is based on the Bible being a historically reliable book that tells us what happened in the history of the earth. On the other hand it has been shown that dating of rocks of known ages have given dates that are far in excess. Such anomalies are seldom made known. See http://creation.com/radioactive-dating-anomalies -
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
but according to what i know(which mayb wrong) noah supposedly bring 1 of each kind of the animal up onto the ark right? was dinosaurs brought up to? if yes, we should be seeing dinos now?if not then they could have be there before the flood and got extinct before the flood. Thats assuming it is conceptually possible to bring 1 of all the different kinds of animals up on the ark.
The Bible teaches that Noah brought a pair of each kind of animals, seven pairs of some, into the Ark. Remember though that the animals came to Noah by God's direction, they were not being caught by Noah. Dinosaurs are land animals so representative pairs of the various kinds would also have come to Noah. For more answers on dinosaurs from a Biblical perspective see http://creation.com/dinosaur-questions-and-answers -
bible as historial reliable book? my foot! cant even get the shape of the earth right. and I thought the earth is only 6000 years old only LOL. May I know when did the dino last walked the earth? some hundreds of millions years ago right LOL
when I saw the thread, I was LOL inside, what nonsense, utter rubbish.
I beg to differ. the bible must be the most contradicted and false book even written. even the stories and foibles were constantly changed and twisted. it must be the mother of all tall stories ever written in the history of literature.
-
Originally posted by Army 21:
hello!when the bible was first written all the dinosaurs had already died out for like 1000 years ago already.
Really? I beg to differ. In fact there may be historical records of man having encounters with dinosaurs. Please see the relevant links here http://creation.com/dinosaur-questions-and-answers -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Really? I beg to differ. In fact there may be historical records of man having encounters with dinosaurs. Please see the relevant links here http://creation.com/dinosaur-questions-and-answers
LOL. this is getting more and more funny and hilarious and ridiculous LOL. I am laughing my ass now
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
bible as historial reliable book? my foot! cant even get the shape of the earth right. and I thought the earth is only 6000 years old only LOL. May I know when did the dino last walked the earth? some hundreds of millions years ago right LOL
when I saw the thread, I was LOL inside, what nonsense, utter rubbish.
I beg to differ. the bible must be the most contradicted and false book even written. even the stories and foibles were constantly changed and twisted. it must be the mother of all tall stories ever written in the history of literature.
Not again, these anti-Bible polemics are getting stale, Jacky. Refuting you is easy but it will not be productive with a closed mind such as yours. -
talking about closed mindedness LOL. I really have to hand it to you man.
do you believe in shiva, krishna, lao tzu?
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
LOL. this is getting more and more funny and hilarious and ridiculous LOL. I am laughing my ass now
Laughter, mockery and scoffing is Jacky the atheist's way of covering up his intellectual incompetency to properly deal with the arguments. -
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
talking about closed mindedness LOL. I really have to hand it to you man.
do you believe in shiva, krishna, lao tzu?
No I don't, do you? -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
No I don't, do you?
of course not. then you are an atheist. -
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
of course not. then you are an atheist.
So you are calling me a God-believing atheist? LOL! Please do not abuse definitions. -
A flaming thread.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
The explanation is based on the Bible being a historically reliable book that tells us what happened in the history of the earth. On the other hand it has been shown that dating of rocks of known ages have given dates that are far in excess. Such anomalies are seldom made known. See http://creation.com/radioactive-dating-anomaliesI would believe in trees. They tells us what happened in the history of the earth.
Also evidences over ignorance.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
That's nonsense. Trees and their rings do not tell you anything about earth history. The evidence and facts are silent and do not speak or tell stories. Humans are the ones who interpret the data and tell stories to make sense of them. See http://creation.com/tree-ring-dating-dendrochronologyAs for ignorance, you are seemingly ignorant about the evidence for a young earth. See http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
That's nonsense. Trees and their rings do not tell you anything about earth history. The evidence and facts are silent and do not speak or tell stories. Humans are the ones who interpret the data and tell stories to make sense of them. See http://creation.com/tree-ring-dating-dendrochronologyAs for ignorance, you are seemingly ignorant about the evidence for a young earth. See http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLFKM886l4Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8Ii-dpRrXM
I placed evidences and facts. Up to you to believe. Think about it... before replying.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLFKM886l4Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8Ii-dpRrXM
I placed evidences and facts. Up to you to believe. Think about it... before replying.
Same to you. I also placed evidences and facts, things which need to be interpreted. Up to you to believe. Think about them...before thinking of replying. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Same to you. I also placed evidences and facts, things which need to be interpreted. Up to you to believe. Think about them...before thinking of replying.No you did not... you only presented "arguments" against the evidences.
-
Originally posted by Army 21:
hello!when the bible was first written all the dinosaurs had already died out for like 1000 years ago already.
1000 years.
Damn, which scientific journal did you read?
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
No you did not... you only presented "arguments" against the evidences.
Wrong again. I presented a Biblical creation interpretation that makes better sense of the evidences than your evolutionary interpretation. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Wrong again. I presented a Biblical creation interpretation that makes better sense of the evidences than your evolutionary interpretation.Your creation interpretations depended on the bible.
The evidences presented to you does not deny or contradict the wonderful works of God or creation for the matter. It only point to an older earth than the creationists liked to believed.
-
Originally posted by alize:
Ah, yet another piece of evidence of God.
The dinosaurs drowned. So it must have been a flood.
Not just any flood. It must have been Noah's flood.
Hogwash. All dinosaurs needed to drink and would meet and prey on each other at watering holes. Unsurprisingly they drowned.
If you want to find human or animal remains, look near water.
At construction sites in Singapore, you can find bombs from WW2 just 60 years ago many metres underground. Must everything under sediment be killed by a flood?
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
Your creation interpretations depended on the bible.
The evidences presented to you does not deny or contradict the wonderful works of God or creation for the matter. It only point to an older earth than the creationists liked to believed.
Indeed my interpretations are informed by the Bible. And your evolution interpretations depended on naturalism.
Of course the evidences presented to me by themselves do not contradict the works of God or creation, PROVIDED they are interpreted through the lenses of Scripture i.e. seeing God's world through God's Word. However, it is the evolutionary view of the world that contradicts the Bible's teaching. Honest evolutionists see the world in which there could not be a God who would use such cruel process of evolution to create a world and then call it very good.
It seems then that despite your claim to have read creationist literature you FAILED to note the fundamental issue underlying the origins debate, which is that creationists have long laboured to explain that the issue is not about the evidence, but the INTERPRETATION of the evidence. Both sides have the same evidence and facts since we live on the same planet. The difference is in the way we view the evidence, our worldviews. Our worldviews color the way we look at the evidences.
But it's not too late if you decide to brush up on your reading now.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Indeed my interpretations are informed by the Bible. And your evolution interpretations depended on naturalism.
Of course the evidences presented to me by themselves do not contradict the works of God or creation, PROVIDED they are interpreted through the lenses of Scripture i.e. seeing God's world through God's Word. However, it is the evolutionary view of the world that contradicts the Bible's teaching. Honest evolutionists see the world in which there could not be a God who would use such cruel process of evolution to create a world and then call it very good.
It seems then that despite your claim to have read creationist literature you FAILED to note the fundamental issue underlying the origins debate, which is that creationists have long laboured to explain that the issue is not about the evidence, but the INTERPRETATION of the evidence. Both sides have the same evidence and facts since we live on the same planet. The difference is in the way we view the evidence, our worldviews. Our worldviews color the way we look at the evidences.
But it's not too late if you decide to brush up on your reading now.
You said that because you could not see the fallacity of the creationists arguments or could not reconcile it to be. The one side acknowledges certain facts/ evidences while the other having the capacity to embrace the totality of it.
*Ignores assumptions on my alledged lacking