steaknchips Posted November 7, 2011 Author Share Posted November 7, 2011 To answer my own question from one of SAC's many links: Now, what about dinosaurs, were they on the ark and could they fit? (If you do not understand that dinosaurs and humans were alive at the same time, you need to read our Dinosaurs Page.) We believe dinosaurs were on the ark. The solution to getting the large ones on the ark is in using young dinosaurs. They take up less room, they eat less, and they have more of their reproductive life left for restarting the population. Although out of context for this page, we offer one explanation regarding why most dinosaurs disappeared (after the flood was over and they left the ark) here in our frequently asked questions section. :? EDIT it gets better If you have flown on a plane, you probably noticed how different mountains look from the air than they do from the ground. They look more “wrinkled” than you would expect, and almost “artificial” in appearance. The canyons and rivers that flow out of them look different also—sort of like the seashore after the tide runs out and you see little “grooves” in the sand. This is especially noticeable if you are flying over a part of the world that does not have much vegetation to hide the shape of the land like Arizona, Nevada, and Utah in the United States. The next time you are in a plane and over such an area, look down and see if it makes sense that this appearance could have been caused about 4,000 years ago if everything had been covered with water for a year and then drained off in a short time. We do not claim this as proof, by the way—but this is one of many such observations that make one wonder. muhaha Thats it, you laugh...Read it all, then read the evolutionist's theory..The earth billions of years old? lol Life forms from the Cambrian explosion(caused by the flood) which have eyes and fully formed..Evolutionists think they are millions of years old..Which dosnt make sense...Millions of fully formed life forms reproducing for millions of years to get a world like we have today? Have you seen our planet? It would be far more crowded that it is, in the seas on deserted islands etc, our planet is young. The sun is young(check it out), mercury is young(check it out), the moon is young(check it out).. Then there's the strata layers which evolutionist's think defines miilions of years(so to speak) one after another, each layer is said to donate millions of years...Yet we have polystrate fossil trees and animals,which are living things that stretch through the layers. Also a global flood gives far better evidence of how the layers came about...Small creatures at the bottom, larger higher up...Think about it in a catastrophic global flood what would happen? The small creatures would naturally be the ones to struggle in the landslides and mass underwater currents, quickly being buried..The larger creatures and land creatures would swim or make to higher ground, being drowned after and on top of the smaller creatures. http://www.space.com/12658-moon-younger-lunar-age-evidence.html http://creation.com/mercurys-magnetic-field-is-young http://www.icr.org/article/evidence-for-young-sun/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted November 7, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted November 7, 2011 Dinosaurs?! Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 So without flicking through did we come up with some good Ark theories or did this descend into a Religion v's Science thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted November 7, 2011 Administrator Share Posted November 7, 2011 What's more our entertainment media is now saturated with the supernatural - when it comes to Vampires, Ghosts, Demons, Witchcraft etc and Atheists don't seem to have a problem with it being consistently portrayed as entertainment to everyone including children. However when someone follows the Bible and forms an opinion of a personal God that's a different kettle of fish all together. So the bible is the same as entertainment? Does that mean that people trying to explain away every little inconsistency in it are like trekkies? Star Trek is after all the literal word of Roddenberry. If only he'd shortened his surname to "Rod", he could have given the bible a real run for it's money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Steaknchips. who would win in a fight? God or Gerard Houllier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 What's more our entertainment media is now saturated with the supernatural - when it comes to Vampires, Ghosts, Demons, Witchcraft etc and Atheists don't seem to have a problem with it being consistently portrayed as entertainment to everyone including children. However when someone follows the Bible and forms an opinion of a personal God that's a different kettle of fish all together. Vampires, Ghosts, Demons, Witchcraft etc Fantasy and accepted as such. when someone follows the Bible and forms an opinion of a personal God Fantasy but taken literally and used to dictate peoples lives and actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted November 7, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted November 7, 2011 I'll be sad when this thread dies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 So without flicking through did we come up with some good Ark theories or did this descend into a Religion v's Science thread?I came up with a good Ark theory, it's bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 So without flicking through did we come up with some good Ark theories or did this descend into a Religion v's Science thread?I came up with a good Ark theory, it's bullshit. Close thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 7, 2011 Moderator Share Posted November 7, 2011 I'll be sad when this thread dies. This thread will never die, it is immortal, it is on the ark of information Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted November 7, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted November 7, 2011 To re-iterate a point that has been made a few times in this thread, but conveniently missed: Let's the "God exists/doesn't exist" argument go. We're talking about the literal interpretation of the Bible. The vast majority of Christians don't even believe it, never mind atheists. Sure, we "can't disprove the existence" of God, blah blah. But we most certainly CAN disprove the nonsense that is being spouted about the "young earth", six days of creation, Noah's ark, etc., etc. If you refuse to accept the massive, overwhelming body of evidence in front of you, you may just as well believe in a flat earth, the sun revolving around the earth, witches... and that the computer you are reading this on works by magic. Plenty of people cling to superstitions - it's human nature - but to hold them up to others as credible is to be like Lewis Carroll's White Queen - who was capable of "believing six impossible things before breakfast". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 It is similar. Repeated indoctrinations through sermons? Check. Discouraged from questioning? Check. Publication of literature to fill up private coffers? Check. It's still a cult, the only difference is that it is a mainstream one and hence most of us euphemistically call it a "religion". Not that I (generally) have any problem with people believing in it mind, but it's still all quite silly to me. To the hardcore believer, all other religions are cults. I could take your arguments and apply them to atheism with the sole difference being it does not call itself a religion.... .... even though it's believers act very much like believers of any other religion. Really? Do atheists hand out threats about hell when faced with dissident views? How atheism - or more accurately, science - can be considered "discouraging questioning" just beggars belief. Unlike organised religions, freethinkers do not follow a central authority, rather we rely on discussion and debate that is the very definition of science. The fact that you've implied that atheism is some sort of philosophy in itself just shows how little you know about the general freethinker's psyche. Atheism is an non-belief in God, or a belief that there are no gods, no more no less. FWIW btw I don't consider myself an atheist, "freethinker" does well by me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steaknchips Posted November 7, 2011 Author Share Posted November 7, 2011 To re-iterate a point that has been made a few times in this thread, but conveniently missed: Let's the "God exists/doesn't exist" argument go. We're talking about the literal interpretation of the Bible. The vast majority of Christians don't even believe it, never mind atheists. Sure, we "can't disprove the existence" of God, blah blah. But we most certainly CAN disprove the nonsense that is being spouted about the "young earth", six days of creation, Noah's ark, etc., etc. If you refuse to accept the massive, overwhelming body of evidence in front of you, you may just as well believe in a flat earth, the sun revolving around the earth, witches... and that the computer you are reading this on works by magic. The earth is said to round in the bible.. Where's this overwhelming body of evidence that world is as old as evolutionists tell us it is? And please dont tell me its the flawed radiometric dating.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 To re-iterate a point that has been made a few times in this thread, but conveniently missed: Let's the "God exists/doesn't exist" argument go. We're talking about the literal interpretation of the Bible. The vast majority of Christians don't even believe it, never mind atheists. Sure, we "can't disprove the existence" of God, blah blah. But we most certainly CAN disprove the nonsense that is being spouted about the "young earth", six days of creation, Noah's ark, etc., etc. If you refuse to accept the massive, overwhelming body of evidence in front of you, you may just as well believe in a flat earth, the sun revolving around the earth, witches... and that the computer you are reading this on works by magic. The earth is said to round in the bible.. Where's this overwhelming body of evidence that world is as old as evolutionists tell us it is? And please dont tell me its the flawed radiometric dating.. Correct me if I'm wrong but.....to use your bone and mud analogy, are you suggesting that qualified scientists make the mistake of not measuring the ages of the bone and mud separately? If so, that is just not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted November 7, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted November 7, 2011 You could fertilise a farm with the a mount of shit in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDuck Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 You could fertilise a farm with the a mount of shit in this thread. A really really big farm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Steaknchips, you're the craziest person on VT since those nice chaps from Strong City pitched up. Mad as a pint of cake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted November 7, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted November 7, 2011 We all have a choice as to how to approach an understanding of the world around us. Note that I'm NOT talking about wisdom, ethics, philosophy, etc., here - I'm talking about physical processes and phenomena, and geological and human history. The choice is: a) The scientific method or The Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Book of Mormon, etc., etc. My choice? Well... I wouldn't consult "Wuthering Heights" to find a chocolate cake recipe; I wouldn't consult Delia Smith's cookery books to find the history of Wigan Rugby League Club; I wouldn't consult The Highway Code to learn about the battle of Agincourt; I wouldn't consult Wisden to see who's in the next series of "I'm a Celebrity"; I wouldn't consult a Haynes manual for moral guidance; I wouldn't consult Shakespeare for the racing results.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethRDR Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 I wouldn't consult "Wuthering Heights" to find a chocolate cake recipe Heathcliff does make a cracking schwarzwälder kirschtorte in chapter 19. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steaknchips Posted November 7, 2011 Author Share Posted November 7, 2011 Why Does ICR Study the Mount St. Helen's Eruption? by John D. Morris, Ph.D. * Ever since the May 18, 1980, eruption of Mount St. Helens, ICR has made it a focus of intense research. From it we have learned a great deal about the origin of rocks and geologic features, and the processes needed to form them. In general, ICR holds that most of earth's rocks were formed rapidly during the great Flood of Noah's day, not over the millions of years of supposed geologic history. But here's the problem. Geologists like to study modern rocks and the processes which form them, and infer past circumstances. Yet Noah's Flood was a totally unique event, unlike any in our experience. Those geologists who assume uniformity in history thus seem to have an advantage. But the rocks really do appear to have been formed by dramatic processes operating at rates, scales, and intensities far beyond those we experience. Only modern, local catastrophes, such as the eruption of Mount St. Helens, can give us a glimpse into earth's geologic power, particularly as we expand our thinking onto the worldwide scale of Noah's Flood. Thus the Mount St. Helens catastrophe becomes a scale model for the great Flood. Keep in mind that most of the damage done by the eruption was water related. Mount St. Helens had been glacier-covered, and when it got hot, water raced down the mountain as a mighty flood, eroding soil, rocks, trees -- everything in its path -- eventually redepositing them at the foot of the mountain. Volcanic episodes added to the fury. When the eruption calmed, up to 600 feet of sediments had been deposited, full of plant and animal remains. Now the sediments have hardened into sedimentary rock and the dead things have fossilized. Furthermore, wood is petrifying. Peat (the precursor to coal) has formed. A deep canyon has been gouged out. Many features which geologists are taught take long ages to form, were seen to happen rapidly. Igneous rocks which formed since 1980 yield radioisotope dates of millions of years, but are obviously much younger in age. A catchy slogan helps illustrate this. To form geologic features, it either takes a little bit of water and a long time, or a lot of water and a short time. Even though we didn't witness the Flood, we do see modern catastrophes, and they rapidly accomplish things the Flood did on a grander scale. In a short, Biblically compatible time scale, such a Flood can account for the features we see on earth, features which many geologists mistake for evidence of great age. Earth doesn't really look old, it looks flooded. http://www.icr.org/article/3267/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts