dinosaurs on the ark and other scientific facts

[johnsmith]

Just like Salma's breasts.

Look real to me.

[Bob Lanier]

Satan uses dinosaurs as a tool of deception.

Actually, The dinosaurs lived for at least a few centuries after the Flood, but probably never in the great numbers that there once had been. No one knows exactly when they finally died out. Indeed, here is some evidence that a few dinosaurs and great marine reptiles could still be alive, teetering on the edge of extinction.

In any case, it's not as interesting a topic of discussion as it might seem, since At this point, there is no proof that any of the dinosaurs were as mean and dangerous.

[Mixability]

if dinosaurs are fake, wtf are those things in the ground?

the leftover bones from your last meal at KFC.

[Phenomanul]

"Well even that is debateable isn't it?"

Show me your hard, scientific evidence for Genesis' cosmology.

Could it be proven even if I showed you any....

No.

Neither can statements suggesting that GOD played no hand in the Universe's Creation. I don't believe that this belief can be disproven anymore than what you want can be proven.

[Phenomanul]

There were only two though.

How did the air stay hot?

From heat dissipated as a result of the high metabolism generated by digesting their huge stores of fat.



BTW who says marsupials made their move to Australia right after the flood?

[ChumpDumper]

BTW, when did they then? Why are they only there?

[tlongII]

What if God was one of us?

[Phenomanul]

BTW, when did they then? Why are they only there?

The fact is that they are there.... Who knows when they arrived as the date cannot be proven either way.



How are the Dingoes of that continent able to breed with the Coyotes on ours?

[j-6]

BTW, when did they then? Why are they only there?

I blame the dingos.

[Bob Lanier]

Isn't he Jessica Alba?

What if God were a ewe?

[ChumpDumper]

The fact is that they are there.... Who knows when they arrived as the date cannot be proven either way.

Which part of Noah's story can be proven either way?

How are the Dingoes of that continent able to breed with the Coyotes on ours?

Because the kangaroos kick them when they try to mate with them.

[Extra Stout]

Could it be proven even if I showed you any....

No.

Neither can statements suggesting that GOD played no hand in the Universe's Creation. I don't believe that this belief can be disproven anymore than what you want can be proven.

False dichotomy: creation science or atheism.

And please tell me you are kidding around about the kangaroos and the hot air.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Canines are all interfertile... that should be sufficient proof. Proof of what exactly??.... that our genomes are highly complicated and contain vast genetic wealth beyond what we typically observe and beyond the simple linear, genetic code we see on the outside. Case in point would be to consider that the so called 'dead zones' in DNA actually contribute to the bookmarking of active genes. If they were any longer or any shorter by one base pair the active gene stored in the codon segment would be misread and rendered useless. Another detail widely missed and underrated is the fact that several gene segments code for multiple proteins all determined by how another gene segment is instructed to decode them. That means that there are literally 100's of billions of gene combinations in every genome and that we've only scratched the surface of this transcribing phenomenon. As an example, if gene segment A is known to produce protein/enzyme A that doesn't mean that segment A only codes for said protein. If spurred about by certain biological pathways (as carried and dictated by other gene segments), gene segment A may also code for proteins B through Z, and this doesn't include the effect of gene recombinations. In laymen's terms; our genetic wealth is greater and far more complicated than conveyed by its simple linear code. Genomes contain phenotypic traits that may never be or are rarely manifested by a species' genotype. Or a laymen example would be to consider that this very paragraph can be reconstructed into hundreds of different sentences simply by scrambling the letters therein - each to be deciphered by different filters.



Why not? How many dog 'species' have been created in the past millenium... how 'bout the last 100 years?



Unguided speciation as the proof of evolution... and guided adaptation are two different concepts.

But no, I'm not responsible for you misinterpreting a whole slew of positions on the matter - particularly my own.



Can you be a Christian if you've rejected the evangelistic message of Jesus? Now that would be the more pressing and significant question to be asking.



"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon." - Napoleon Bonaparte

i.e. All history is debateable.



You are en led to think what you want... as long as you don't go around presuming to know exactly why it is I believe what I do..... that is unless I've already stated my position.

Another ridiculously supercilious hegamboa post that reminds us of his credentials and his arrogance.

[Phenomanul]

False dichotomy: creation science or atheism.

Semantics... He was debating whether or not historical accounts were debateable... and attempted to create 'soft' and 'hard' modifiers to suit the argument. I was suggesting, much as Napoleon had suggested before... that all history is debateable. Although in context of his quote, he was attempting to change the perspective of how history would view his legacy.

That off note aside, I'm attempting to show that not everything is subjectable to hard proof. For example, if I said something an hour ago and no one was around to hear it could I prove that it was ever said in the first place? The fact that I couldn't prove it wouldn't necesarily mean that I was lying or that the event never took place. In fact, the event would leave little to no physical evidence that it had ever occurred. But again, that wouldn't make the assertion false. As silly as that illustration may be, it's one that the scientific community can't ignore. Can they really prove from a single tooth that a particular hominid species is a predecessor to sapiens? What scientific basis is used to conclusively make that claim? Or can they prove that the Oort Cloud exists even though insufficient evidence has been given to show that it functions as Jon Oort described? BTW the Oort Cloud theory attempts to refute why bright comets exist while accommodating the old-age universe theory... Without the cloud, bright comets would simply not exist in said model (they would run out of the ice that produces bright tails in such a long span of time ~4.6 billion years old).

Anyhow I realize one need not be a Creationist to believe in a GOD created universe. At the same time I happen to believe in the supernatural... the supernatural, by definition, is not subjectable to the 'natural' laws that define and constrain the Universe and everything therein.

And please tell me you are kidding around about the kangaroos and the hot air.

Of course.... I was trying ChumpDumper's style of sarcasm... Somehow I failed in its delivery.

[PixelPusher]

at the assumption of a worldwide flood that precludes the debate about whether dinosaurs live before or after it.

If you guys simply dismiss geology out of hand, and believe dinosaur bones are tools of the devil, why bother trying to convince other people of a "scientific" validity to your bible stories?

[Phenomanul]

Another ridiculously supercilious hegamboa post that reminds us of his credentials and his arrogance.

^^^ And another weak post that reminds us of your useless trolling.

[tlongII]

Semantics... He was debating whether or not historical accounts were debateable... and attempted to create 'soft' and 'hard' modifiers to suit the argument. I was suggesting, much as Napoleon had suggested before... that all history is debateable. Although in context of his quote, he was attempting to change the perspective of how history would view his legacy.

That off note aside, I'm attempting to show that not everything is subjectable to hard proof. For example, if I said something an hour ago and no one was around to hear it could I prove that it was ever said in the first place? The fact that I couldn't prove it wouldn't necesarily mean that I was lying or that the event never took place. In fact, the event would leave little to no physical evidence that it had ever occurred. But again, that wouldn't make the assertion false. As silly as that illustration may be, it's one that the scientific community can't ignore. Can they really prove from a single tooth that a particular hominid species is a predecessor to sapiens? What scientific basis is used to conclusively make that claim? Or can they prove that the Oort Cloud exists even though insufficient evidence has been given to show that it functions as Jon Oort described? BTW the Oort Cloud theory attempts to refute why bright comets exist while accommodating the old-age universe theory... Without the cloud, bright comets would simply not exist in said model (they would run out of the ice that produces bright tails in such a long span of time ~4.6 billion years old).

Anyhow I realize one need not be a Creationist to believe in a GOD created universe. At the same time I happen to believe in the supernatural... the supernatural, by definition, is not subjectable to the 'natural' laws that define and constrain the Universe and everything therein.




Of course.... I was trying ChumpDumper's style of sarcasm... Somehow I failed in its delivery.

Dude, you are crazy.

[E20]

Just like Salma's breasts.

You know damn well that yourself and all the other guys in this thread would ign hit that like it's a pie right out the stove on Thanksgiving.

[Phenomanul]

Dude, you are crazy.

Why? Just cause I happen to have a dissenting minority opinion. Spare me the pity.

[Buddy Holly]

Dinosaurs can't be real, for god sakes, the universe is only 6,000 years old.

[Phenomanul]

at the assumption of a worldwide flood that precludes the debate about whether dinosaurs live before or after it.

If you guys simply dismiss geology out of hand, and believe dinosaur bones are tools of the devil, why bother trying to convince other people of a "scientific" validity to your bible stories?

READ Sarcasm....

I don't believe Mr. Lanier was stating that as his personal belief.

Dinosaurs existed. I've never said any different. So I also happen to believe in Noah's flood. Big deal.

[tlongII]

Why? Just cause I happen to have a dissenting minority opinion. Spare me the pity.

Dude, I don't pity you. I said you are crazy.

[Phenomanul]

Dude, I don't pity you. I said you are crazy.

Whatever.... Spare me your derision. I have my reasons for believing what I do... And no, I don't expect everyone else to follow suit. You are en led to believe what you may.

[exstatic]

I blame the dingos.

A Dingo's got my baby!!

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Dinosaurs existed. I've never said any different. So I also happen to believe in Noah's flood. Big deal.

when will someone sig this