PDA

View Full Version : Dinosaur find raises debate on feather evolution



Dolphan7
03-18-2009, 06:12 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090318/ap_on_sc/sci_dinosaur_feathers


NEW YORK – A small dinosaur that once roamed northeastern China was covered with a stiff, hairlike fuzz, a discovery that suggests feathers began to evolve much earlier than many researchers believe — maybe even in the earliest dinosaurs. Scientists had previously identified feathers and so-called "dinofuzz" in theropods, two-legged meat-eaters that are widely considered the ancestors of birds.
"Perhaps the only clear conclusion that can be drawn ... is that little Tianyulong has made an already confusing picture of feather origins even fuzzier," Witmer wrote.Oops! Wrong again, keep guessing!:lol:

Blackocrates
03-18-2009, 06:25 PM
Why is this in the religion forum?

On a side note, D7 do you believe dinosaurs and humans shared the earth at the same time?

Dolphan7
03-18-2009, 06:30 PM
Why is this in the religion forum?

On a side note, D7 do you believe dinosaurs and humans shared the earth at the same time?
Woops! My bad.

I have such a hard time finding any differences between the belief in evolution and the belief in God.

I'll move it.

tylerdolphin
03-18-2009, 08:26 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090318/ap_on_sc/sci_dinosaur_feathers

Oops! Wrong again, keep guessing!:lol:
And there you have the main difference between science and religion. One is flexible and willing to adjust its beliefs to fit the facts. The other is not. I fail to see how this can be a knock on evolution...they found something out. Feathers evolved sooner than they thought, no big deal. Now they know. Let me know when creationists adjust their theory to the fact that the Earth is not 6,000 years old. To compare evoloution to a religion is ridiculous on many levels. Mainly the one I listed above.

You dont seriously believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old do you?

Dolphan7
03-18-2009, 08:52 PM
And there you have the main difference between science and religion. One is flexible and willing to adjust its beliefs to fit the facts. The other is not. I fail to see how this can be a knock on evolution...they found something out. Feathers evolved sooner than they thought, no big deal. Now they know. Let me know when creationists adjust their theory to the fact that the Earth is not 6,000 years old. To compare evoloution to a religion is ridiculous on many levels. Mainly the one I listed above.

You dont seriously believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old do you?Right. Except those facts, they keep a changing, cha cha cha changing. I could post tomorrow so many articles that contradict what they tell us today is the facts. Kinda funny. Which is it? One thing you can count on from the evolution crowd - the facts of today will be overturned by the facts of tomorrow.... ad infinitum. Hey maybe someday they will have it all figured out ( I know this will never happen), and when that day comes - give me a call.

I believe that God created the universe in 6 days. When that happened I don't know, the bible doesn't say.

Do you believe in Evolution?

tylerdolphin
03-18-2009, 09:22 PM
Right. Except those facts, they keep a changing, cha cha cha changing. I could post tomorrow so many articles that contradict what they tell us today is the facts. Kinda funny. Which is it? One thing you can count on from the evolution crowd - the facts of today will be overturned by the facts of tomorrow.... ad infinitum. Hey maybe someday they will have it all figured out ( I know this will never happen), and when that day comes - give me a call.

I believe that God created the universe in 6 days. When that happened I don't know, the bible doesn't say.

Do you believe in Evolution?
Of course things keep changing...thats good. It shows we are making advances and actually using the scientific method. You are making the things they do change to be be a bigger deal than they are in reality...take this article for example. In the grand scheme of things, how does this conflict with what we already know about evolution? It just mean that feather came a little sooner...its really not the huge flaw or issue you want it to be.

I do believe in evolution. Its what the overwhelming evidence suggests. Do they have it all figured out? Of course not. But they are working towards new discoveries every day. And they do not ignore evidence that contradicts old beliefs like religion tends to do. The thing is, practically every biologist on Earth believes in evolution. Same with geologists. And I'm sure there are even Christians among them. There really is not a debate over whether evolution occurred among the scientific community. That should tell you something.

Dolphan7
03-18-2009, 10:11 PM
Of course things keep changing...thats good. It shows we are making advances and actually using the scientific method. You are making the things they do change to be be a bigger deal than they are in reality...take this article for example. In the grand scheme of things, how does this conflict with what we already know about evolution? It just mean that feather came a little sooner...its really not the huge flaw or issue you want it to be.

I do believe in evolution. Its what the overwhelming evidence suggests. Do they have it all figured out? Of course not. But they are working towards new discoveries every day. And they do not ignore evidence that contradicts old beliefs like religion tends to do. The thing is, practically every biologist on Earth believes in evolution. Same with geologists. And I'm sure there are even Christians among them. There really is not a debate over whether evolution occurred among the scientific community. That should tell you something.
The only reason I posted the article was because I see so many of these articles wherin they have to constantly revise what they swear they know for a fact today. It's is just comical to me.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate science. I think science has been very useful to civilization. My only gripe is when it attempts to speak with authority about our origins, which it cannot possibly know, let alone prove.

Now if you believe in evolution, as you admit, I don't hold that against you. I am not here to make fun of your belief. I used to be a staunch Atheist, and was an evolutionist for the better part of 30 years of my life. I laughed at Christians and their invisible God. There was no changing my mind on it either. I didn't need religion to make me a better person. I didn't need religion as a crutch. This was way before Bill Maher. So I understand where you are coming from.

But.....when I look at both models side by side - there really is no question in my mind that the God of the bible provides the best most logical common sense answer to why we are here. It goes beyond the explanation of life on earth, but how life started on earth, and even moreso how the universe came into existence. Science still can't figure out how, without God, can something simply appear out of nothing. Science still cannot figure out how life on this planet started....from nothing. Please don't post Miller Urey experiements - they have been debunked.

So when I look at it, God is really the best answer to the big questions of the universe, life on earth, and our purpose here on earth.

tylerdolphin
03-18-2009, 10:41 PM
The only reason I posted the article was because I see so many of these articles wherin they have to constantly revise what they swear they know for a fact today. It's is just comical to me.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate science. I think science has been very useful to civilization. My only gripe is when it attempts to speak with authority about our origins, which it cannot possibly know, let alone prove.

Now if you believe in evolution, as you admit, I don't hold that against you. I am not here to make fun of your belief. I used to be a staunch Atheist, and was an evolutionist for the better part of 30 years of my life. I laughed at Christians and their invisible God. There was no changing my mind on it either. I didn't need religion to make me a better person. I didn't need religion as a crutch. This was way before Bill Maher. So I understand where you are coming from.

But.....when I look at both models side by side - there really is no question in my mind that the God of the bible provides the best most logical common sense answer to why we are here. It goes beyond the explanation of life on earth, but how life started on earth, and even moreso how the universe came into existence. Science still can't figure out how, without God, can something simply appear out of nothing. Science still cannot figure out how life on this planet started....from nothing. Please don't post Miller Urey experiements - they have been debunked.

So when I look at it, God is really the best answer to the big questions of the universe, life on earth, and our purpose here on earth.
Im not against the idea of God. I think you are mistakenly trying to say the theory of evolution explains how everything came into existence. Thats not what it is about. It just explains how life evolved into what we see today. God could have started things off. Or maybe we are just using "God" to fill gaps that we currently can't explain. No way to know for sure.

All I do know is that I can't understand how people can take every word in the Bible literally. Noahs Ark is another story thats just as impossible as the 6,000 year old Earth. Every species on a boat that was bult by a few men before iron really came around. Yeah, OK.

How did the animals get down off the mountain?

What did they eat?

How did they get back to their original locations (eg. dingos and kangaroos and polar bears)?

How did they survive in an environment they were not suited for?

Why are there still trees?

What did the animals eat while there was only 2 of each kind on Earth? I mean, if a chicken ate a beetle or something, thats it for that species. Im sure the animals didnt fast until they had produced a few more generations.

Best of all, why is there a uninterrupted timeline of pharohs from before the flood up until Rome conquered them? Did Egypt not get the global flood?

My point is...to believe in a literal interpretation of everything in the Bible, you have to jump through so many hoops. It just is not logical on so many levels. Why would God expect me to literally believe something like Noah's Ark or Young Earth Creation when it makes no sense against the evidence. Its almost as if God is decieving us...

Dolphan7
03-19-2009, 12:19 AM
Im not against the idea of God. I think you are mistakenly trying to say the theory of evolution explains how everything came into existence. Thats not what it is about. It just explains how life evolved into what we see today. God could have started things off. Or maybe we are just using "God" to fill gaps that we currently can't explain. No way to know for sure.

All I do know is that I can't understand how people can take every word in the Bible literally. Noahs Ark is another story thats just as impossible as the 6,000 year old Earth. Every species on a boat that was bult by a few men before iron really came around. Yeah, OK.

How did the animals get down off the mountain?

What did they eat?

How did they get back to their original locations (eg. dingos and kangaroos and polar bears)?

How did they survive in an environment they were not suited for?

Why are there still trees?

What did the animals eat while there was only 2 of each kind on Earth? I mean, if a chicken ate a beetle or something, thats it for that species. Im sure the animals didnt fast until they had produced a few more generations.

Best of all, why is there a uninterrupted timeline of pharohs from before the flood up until Rome conquered them? Did Egypt not get the global flood?

My point is...to believe in a literal interpretation of everything in the Bible, you have to jump through so many hoops. It just is not logical on so many levels. Why would God expect me to literally believe something like Noah's Ark or Young Earth Creation when it makes no sense against the evidence. Its almost as if God is decieving us...There are very logical and common sense explanations to everything you asked. I asked many of those same questions myself once upon a time.

But I don't believe that Christians take every word literally. We do however take everything in the bible in "context". Through the process of Hermaneutics and sound biblical Exegesis, we can determine what the original authors intent was, who his audience was, what the historical and cultural perspective was and then obviously if it was a metaphor, historical or an actual literal text. It really isn't that hard. Scholars with tons more skill and knowledge than you or I have worked on the bible for thousands of years.

God isn't deceiving you. But I would bet that Satan most certainly is.

tylerdolphin
03-19-2009, 01:20 AM
There are very logical and common sense explanations to everything you asked. I asked many of those same questions myself once upon a time.

But I don't believe that Christians take every word literally. We do however take everything in the bible in "context". Through the process of Hermaneutics and sound biblical Exegesis, we can determine what the original authors intent was, who his audience was, what the historical and cultural perspective was and then obviously if it was a metaphor, historical or an actual literal text. It really isn't that hard. Scholars with tons more skill and knowledge than you or I have worked on the bible for thousands of years.

God isn't deceiving you. But I would bet that Satan most certainly is.
Im curious to hear them because I seriously doubt any really sound logic can explain how marsupials got on the ark and back to Australia, how people got on Central and South America, why some people have black skin and some have white, and all the questions I asked before. It simply defies logic.

LouPhinFan
03-19-2009, 10:21 AM
I believe in creation and God, but I also believe the Earth is much older than 6000 years. I believe that every thing in the Bible is truth, but not necessarily literal.

When Moses wrote Genesis, there was very little science or understanding of time. I'm guessing God reveiled the story of creation to Moses using "days" as the time frame because that's something he would have understood. He would not have understood "millions", much less "billions" of anything.

In the end it doesn't really matter how old the Earth is, 6000 or 6,000,000,000. It only matters that God lovingly created it and us for his glorification.

Dolphan7
03-19-2009, 12:15 PM
Im curious to hear them because I seriously doubt any really sound logic can explain how marsupials got on the ark and back to Australia, how people got on Central and South America, why some people have black skin and some have white, and all the questions I asked before. It simply defies logic.Pick one.

tylerdolphin
03-19-2009, 01:09 PM
Pick one.
Ill go with how did polar bears and marsupials get on the Ark, then back to where they came from? Or people in Central America for that matter.

Dolphan7
03-19-2009, 05:51 PM
Ill go with how did polar bears and marsupials get on the Ark, then back to where they came from? Or people in Central America for that matter.Ok then, good question. Basically how did all the animals get on the ark, and then how did they get to their current locations, and how did people get to the Americas?

First off please look at this from a strictly biblical perspective, because that is how I am going to explain it. Please don't try to apply what modern science thinks is the answer, although there is much scientific support for what I am about to answer, believe it or not.

The bible tells us that the animals were brought to the Ark by God.

Ge 6:20 Two of every kind of bird will come to you. Two of every kind of animal will come to you. And two of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you. All of them will be kept alive with you.So basically God selected specific pairs or groups of animals and led them to the Ark.

Now at this point in time I need to explain that the world of the pre-flood era was much different than it is post-flood. We know this because the bible describes a very different climate; lush vegatation that the fossil records supports, temperate climate, based on the fossil record of lush vegatation it must have been temerate to suuport such vast amounts of lush vegatation. Kind of like the Amazon forrest the world over. There was no rain pre-flood,

Ge 2:5 At that time, bushes had not appeared on the earth. Plants had not come up in the fields. The LORD God had not sent rain on the earth. And there wasn’t any man to work the ground.,and longevity was at an all time high during pre-flood times. This supports the idea of a protective atmosphere much more so than today's atmosphere.

Also the bible tells us that the water or the seas were separated from the dry land.


Ge 1:9 God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered into one place. Let dry ground appear.” And that’s exactly what happened.This gives a pretty good picture that there was one giant land mass, and the rest of the world was ocean.

You still with me?

So the animals of a pre-flood era would not have to travel over the vast oceans that separate our continents today.

This is how they were able to get to the Ark, from wherever they were. Since there was only one land mass, then all the kinds of animals, species if you will, lived in relatively the same climate and areas. So the variations of the animals we see today would probably not be seen in a pre-flood era, although the genetic possibilities would remain intact and latent. Not until the post-flood era would we see various adaptations taking place based on the climate and the available diet. So a polar bear in a pre-flood era would probably not look like a polar bear of today, but it probably looked like some sort of large bear.

Ok you still there?

So now how did all those animals fit into the little Ark?

Good question. First I will link to what I feel would be the best explanation. Many studies have shown that there was plaenty of room. But note that not every animal would have to be full adult size in order to survive in the Ark and in a post-flood ea. Certainly eggs, or babies of each kind would suffice. Also only birds and land animals are mentioned going into the Ark, so whales woudn't need to be kept in Noah's Aquarium. Lastly the biblical "kind" is differnt than the modern day species. Having a much richer gene pool available not only in humans but in all life in a pre-flood time would reduce the number of participants required. For instance the wolf, dingo and the dog would not have to have every type, every breed on board. I don't think Labradoodles were on the ark, but their "Kind" was, and the fact the the Labradoodle wasn't really bred until this century. Make sense? Here is the link.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Noahs-ark-animals.html

I am going to stop here and break this into two posts due to length. Next post I will answer how the people and animals got from the Ark to where they are today, and how the different races became what they are.

Dolphan7
03-19-2009, 06:43 PM
Ok so then how did all the animals and people get to where they are today. First off don't think that they just got off the boat and went straight to the current location. Migration took centuries.

Now the post-flood era was pretty bleak and devoid of lot's of the lush vegetation from the pre-flood era. So those large animals that depended on large amounts of such vegetation...like those large dinosaurs.....wouldn't make it beyond the Ark, or for much longer. Just not enough food. So many kinds and species died off, became extinct, as the fossil record shows.

Now the bible tells us that the peoples of the post-flood world all spoke the same language. Only until the Tower of Babel did they split off into separate people groups based on language. Language is one of 7 unexplainable phenomenons Evolution still has struggles with. So migration to the Americas was rather simple. Even secular science believes it to be through the straits of the Bering Sea, when it was still a land bridge. So to with animals and plants. They either traveled there themselves, over time, or were brought there by people groups. Same with Australia and the Pacific Islanders. Boat building would not have been an unknown knowledge, heck Noah just got done building the biggest mankind had ever seen to that point. The skill and knowledge was there.

Where did all the plants and trees come from then? From seeds. I am sure Noah had seeds to begin planting in the new world. But also seeds would have been able to float on the water or in clumps of dead debri floating on the top. Eventually these would have hit land and with an added intensity of the sun, would have flourished. Also it isn't impossible for brush and vegetation that sank to ocean bottom during the flood would have eventully been re-exposed to the air and land after the water receded. Life is that powerful. Ever try to kill weeds in your yard. They grow in the darndest places, and seem to defy all attempts to kill them off.

So where did the races come from? Here is an excellent link explaining just that.

http://answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/are-there-different-races

Go down the the part about Skin Color if you don't want to read the entire thing.

So the bible really does provide a great model and explanation for our origins and surprisingly there is much support for the biblical model in the data and evidence we see in the earth and in our world. Even secular science agrees there was this massive explosion of life in the fossil record called the Cambrian explosion, that they think was a time era of a large creation of life forms, while the biblical model shows that it actually was the extinction of much of the life forms on the planet during the great flood. Even modern science agrees that there was a mass extinction. The only difference is how long ago did it happen. Actually there is a lot of similarity in the biblical model and secular science, the negating factor many times has always been - time.

This is a very rough explanation for a football message board. But there are tons of information on all this stuff if you really want to take the time to learn about it on your own. I don't think the issue with most people is the problem explaining the biblical model, but the fact that some people simply won't accept it no matter what.....for other reasons, namely they don't want to change their POV.

I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn't,
than live my life as if there isn't, and die to find out there is.

tylerdolphin
03-19-2009, 08:02 PM
Ok so then how did all the animals and people get to where they are today. First off don't think that they just got off the boat and went straight to the current location. Migration took centuries.

Now the post-flood era was pretty bleak and devoid of lot's of the lush vegetation from the pre-flood era. So those large animals that depended on large amounts of such vegetation...like those large dinosaurs.....wouldn't make it beyond the Ark, or for much longer. Just not enough food. So many kinds and species died off, became extinct, as the fossil record shows.

Now the bible tells us that the peoples of the post-flood world all spoke the same language. Only until the Tower of Babel did they split off into separate people groups based on language. Language is one of 7 unexplainable phenomenons Evolution still has struggles with. So migration to the Americas was rather simple. Even secular science believes it to be through the straits of the Bering Sea, when it was still a land bridge. So to with animals and plants. They either traveled there themselves, over time, or were brought there by people groups. Same with Australia and the Pacific Islanders. Boat building would not have been an unknown knowledge, heck Noah just got done building the biggest mankind had ever seen to that point. The skill and knowledge was there.

Where did all the plants and trees come from then? From seeds. I am sure Noah had seeds to begin planting in the new world. But also seeds would have been able to float on the water or in clumps of dead debri floating on the top. Eventually these would have hit land and with an added intensity of the sun, would have flourished. Also it isn't impossible for brush and vegetation that sank to ocean bottom during the flood would have eventully been re-exposed to the air and land after the water receded. Life is that powerful. Ever try to kill weeds in your yard. They grow in the darndest places, and seem to defy all attempts to kill them off.

So where did the races come from? Here is an excellent link explaining just that.

http://answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/are-there-different-races

Go down the the part about Skin Color if you don't want to read the entire thing.

So the bible really does provide a great model and explanation for our origins and surprisingly there is much support for the biblical model in the data and evidence we see in the earth and in our world. Even secular science agrees there was this massive explosion of life in the fossil record called the Cambrian explosion, that they think was a time era of a large creation of life forms, while the biblical model shows that it actually was the extinction of much of the life forms on the planet during the great flood. Even modern science agrees that there was a mass extinction. The only difference is how long ago did it happen. Actually there is a lot of similarity in the biblical model and secular science, the negating factor many times has always been - time.

This is a very rough explanation for a football message board. But there are tons of information on all this stuff if you really want to take the time to learn about it on your own. I don't think the issue with most people is the problem explaining the biblical model, but the fact that some people simply won't accept it no matter what.....for other reasons, namely they don't want to change their POV.

I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn't,
than live my life as if there isn't, and die to find out there is.
Most animals could not cross the Bering Straits. Its much too cold. I mean, how are snakes things like that going to cross? They would have frozen to death.

As for the canopy...thats just ridiculous on so many levels. What was holding a canopy of water in place above the Earth? Im pretty sure it was not gravity. And how did Noah survive in what would have been a super pressurized environment? And what was the temperature of the Earth at the time? Jeepers...a thick canopy of a water is not going to let much light through much less heat. Certainly would not create the lush tropical paradise you envision.

Also, why is there no evidence of a flood in any of the polar ice caps? Scientists have take core samples of the ice that have annual layers from 40,000 years ago...nothing to suggest a flood is anywhere to be found. Same with tree rings. We have tree rings from up to 40,000 years ago with zero indication of a global flood.

On the plant thing...you cant seriously expect plants or seeds to survive a global flood. Thats crazy. The bible says that the highest mountains were covered. Do you have any idea what kind of pressure was created by this type of flood? Plenty enough to demolish any plant involved. I dont know if you dive or not, but if you do Im sure you know how much pressure there can be underwater even at 40 or 50 feet. Remember we are talking about 30,000 feet of water here for MONTHS. As for the seeds, theres no way they survive floating around in the water for months. Maybe coconuts could, but even with those, the flood would be so violent it would even be hard for them.
Seeing as we now have no plants on earth, every herbivore would immediatly die upon leaving the ark. Assuming they survived a freaking year on a ancient wooden boat in the first place. Once the herbivore die, then what? What do the carnivores eat anyway even if there are plants? If they eat the herbivores, even one, they lose an entire species.

Furthermore you have the whole issue where you have to assume Noah knew every technology in the world. How did we continue technologically advancing? Think about it...you get dumped somewhere with no food and dont even know where you are. Do you build iron? Who says Noah knows how to? Same with fishing hooks, tools for hunting, ect. Theres no way Noah could have survived so well that humans were building cities and huge towers just 100-150 years later (Tower of Babel). It is impossible. There wouldnt be enough people! There surely wouldnt be the technology to do so.

Another thing...if you follow the Biblical genealogy time line, flood happened years after an uninterrupted series of recorded pharaohs in Egypt. The Egyptians were seemingly not affected by a global flood. Even if they were wiped out, they sure didn't waste much time building back their civilizations. Remarkable people I must say.

Dolphan7
03-19-2009, 09:12 PM
Most animals could not cross the Bering Straits. Its much too cold. I mean, how are snakes things like that going to cross? They would have frozen to death.Was it always too cold? You keep thinking that today's climate and world were the same back then. That is an assumption you are making that is preventing you from seeing the complete biblical model. Animals could have crossed on their own or been helped by people. I don't know the exact details, but that is the general idea. The current ice caps didn't just appear, but were gradually created layer after layer, meaning that it may not have been that cold along the land bridges. When the ice caps melted during the last thaw, it would have removed to land bridges due to rising sea levels, but just enough for the climate to be just right while the land bridges were still functional. That is the geneal idea.


As for the canopy...thats just ridiculous on so many levels. What was holding a canopy of water in place above the Earth? Im pretty sure it was not gravity. And how did Noah survive in what would have been a super pressurized environment? And what was the temperature of the Earth at the time? Jeepers...a thick canopy of a water is not going to let much light through much less heat. Certainly would not create the lush tropical paradise you envision. What canopy are you referring to? And what holds many things together in the world and our universe? There are many unexplained things going on, why wouldn't God be able to create an atmosphere that had more water in it than today, but not too much to not allow light, but allow moisture to water the earth?


How do you know that there would be such a pressurized environment?

Temperate climate ranges from the mid 70's to low 80's. Think of a green house. Filtered light, lots of mists of water...and you have a nice indoor garden able to sustain a wide variety of plants, and animals.


Also, why is there no evidence of a flood in any of the polar ice caps? Scientists have take core samples of the ice that have annual layers from 40,000 years ago...nothing to suggest a flood is anywhere to be found. Same with tree rings. We have tree rings from up to 40,000 years ago with zero indication of a global flood.40,000 years ago. Hmmm...maybe the flood happened more than 40,000 years ago? Maybe those dates aren't 40,000 years ago. Besides if the polar ice caps were created as a result of the flood, meaning the ice formed after the flood, wouldn't you think there would be no evidence of the flood? Sounds logical to me. Same with trees. If all the trees dies, then only trees post flood would we be able to see today. Think of a temperate climate that all the sudden loses it's layer of "whatever", has massive amounts of water in the air, that then freezes almost instantly at the polar regions, trapping the woolly mammoth in it's tracks, standing up, with food still in it's mouth.....such a discovery has been made you know.


On the plant thing...you cant seriously expect plants or seeds to survive a global flood. That's crazy. The bible says that the highest mountains were covered. Do you have any idea what kind of pressure was created by this type of flood? Plenty enough to demolish any plant involved. I don't know if you dive or not, but if you do I'm sure you know how much pressure there can be underwater even at 40 or 50 feet. Remember we are talking about 30,000 feet of water here for MONTHS. As for the seeds, there's no way they survive floating around in the water for months. Maybe coconuts could, but even with those, the flood would be so violent it would even be hard for them.You're not looking at this the right way. Think about the Amazon jungle, covering the entire planet, except for the oceans, which we really don't know how small they were. Now you take that trillions of square miles of lush foilage and add water. What do you think is going to happen? It is going to create this enormous layer of ilk on the surface of the water. Much like some theorists claim how crude oil was formed. Seeds would definitely survive.

Seeing as we now have no plants on earth, every herbivore would immediately die upon leaving the ark. Assuming they survived a freaking year on a ancient wooden boat in the first place. Once the herbivore die, then what? What do the carnivores eat anyway even if there are plants? If they eat the herbivores, even one, they lose an entire species. God commanded Noah to take more than just two of every animal. There were some animals that he told them to take 7. These are the food for the carnivores, and the people. Obviously there would have to have been some sort of Zoology going on after the flood. Otherwise most of the animal kingdom as we know it today wouldn't have survived. And many didn't survive, ala the dinosaurs. But then again, God could have stepped in and assisted. The bible doesn't say that so it is only a possibility, but it certainly is within his character to do so. Remember how bad he felt right after the flood, and made promises to Noah that he would never destroy everything on the earth again.


Furthermore you have the whole issue where you have to assume Noah knew every technology in the world. How did we continue technologically advancing? Think about it...you get dumped somewhere with no food and don't even know where you are. Do you build iron? Who says Noah knows how to? Same with fishing hooks, tools for hunting, etc. There's no way Noah could have survived so well that humans were building cities and huge towers just 100-150 years later (Tower of Babel). It is impossible. There wouldn't be enough people! There surely wouldn't be the technology to do so.It isn't impossible. Why do you think that technology would stop. It probably was slowed down a bit, but humans are pretty clever creatures. Do any population study and it wouldn't take long to re-populate the earth within a thousand years. No problem. In fact technology would increase at an alarming rate due to the fact that they really had to start all over, and needed to do everything by hand. This would drive a huge need for technological advancement wouldn't you think?


Another thing...if you follow the Biblical genealogy time line, flood happened years after an uninterrupted series of recorded pharaohs in Egypt. The Egyptians were seemingly not affected by a global flood. Even if they were wiped out, they sure didn't waste much time building back their civilizations. Remarkable people I must say.I am not sure what genealogy you are referring to. The flood would have wiped out all life on earth. The Egyptians would have had to come after the flood, not before. All peoples would have come from Noah and his three sons. The Egyptians would have come from the split of people groups at the Tower of Babel. They must have. From a biblical standpoint, there is no other explanation. You are trying to mix what your current belief is with the biblical model. I am trying to get you to just view the biblical model all on it's own. Besides, almost every culture on this planet has some sort of catastrophic flood in it's folklore.

tylerdolphin
03-19-2009, 09:36 PM
This is an article I read written by an ex-young earther (still is a Christian too) about how it is impossible that we developed this far after being wiped out 4,000 years ago.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/technologyflood.htm

And as far as the time line...the flood occurred at 2600-2350 BC according to Bible genealogies. They have an uninterrupted line on pharaohs in Egypt from 3100 BC on through 30 BC when they were taken over by Rome.

Dolphan7
03-19-2009, 11:48 PM
This is an article I read written by an ex-young earther (still is a Christian too) about how it is impossible that we developed this far after being wiped out 4,000 years ago.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/technologyflood.htm

And as far as the time line...the flood occurred at 2600-2350 BC according to Bible genealogies. They have an uninterrupted line on pharaohs in Egypt from 3100 BC on through 30 BC when they were taken over by Rome.Your preaching to the choir here. I don't believe we can place the creation week and the flood just 4-6 thousand years ago. I don't think the bible says it clearly, so it is not a firm date for me.

I don't know where you are getting your dates for the flood from, but you miss the point. From the biblical account, there would be no Egyptians until well after the flood, whenever that actually occurred. I don't know why you choose to believe the bible genealogies, yet refuse to believe other parts of the bible.

tylerdolphin
03-20-2009, 12:27 AM
Your preaching to the choir here. I don't believe we can place the creation week and the flood just 4-6 thousand years ago. I don't think the bible says it clearly, so it is not a firm date for me.

I don't know where you are getting your dates for the flood from, but you miss the point. From the biblical account, there would be no Egyptians until well after the flood, whenever that actually occurred. I don't know why you choose to believe the bible genealogies, yet refuse to believe other parts of the bible.
I dont believe them. I was under the impression that you did. I was using them to say that is you take Genesis literally, it can't work.

Dolphan7
03-20-2009, 12:39 AM
This is an article I read written by an ex-young earther (still is a Christian too) about how it is impossible that we developed this far after being wiped out 4,000 years ago.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/technologyflood.htm

And as far as the time line...the flood occurred at 2600-2350 BC according to Bible genealogies. They have an uninterrupted line on pharaohs in Egypt from 3100 BC on through 30 BC when they were taken over by Rome.Oh and I did read the link you posted. I always try to find something to learn in anything I read. The first part about Tazmania was interesting, but the piece quickly deteriorated into nothing new to learn about, and more an attack on the bible. It really didn't add anything to the discussion.