Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
You Might Not Want To Read This Chris....

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Sam Patterson on October 10, 2002 15:51:37 UTC

"Dinosaurs not fully grown"...That is all based on circumstance. This isn't enough to prove in a court of law that Creationism is true...Everything is built on "if's"...if the dinosaurs were small;if a mother T-Rex or mother velociraptor didn't eat Noah like a power bar..."

Yes, but am I trying to prove creation in a court of law? This is a theory, just like your beloved theory of evolution.

"Just for my info, could you tell me how long Noah had to "round up" these creatures? It would have to be after the boat was pretty close to being finished, right?"

Noah did not 'round up' the creatures. God did that for him.

This argument of yours below is great.

You: "My Favorite.....

Me: "Yes, the ark was used for dinosaurs. The reason for dinosaurs dying after the flood was the fact that they were cold-blooded(This is not the only factor, but a large one)...."

I am going to break this in two parts for a reason....(By the way, I love how easy you just made it for me)

You are correct that they were cold-blooded. I will give you that. Now I need you to think for me here...After the flood, the climate changed...It got WARMER...

Part two...

You: "Humams and mammals can heat themselves up because we are warm-blooded, dinosaurs cannot..."

The climate got warmer, so the dinosaurs wouldn't die becuase they couldn't warm themselves up--it was already warm!"

You say after the flood the climate changed. That is correct. But it changed into something we know as the ICE AGE. If I must remind you, the ice age was VERY COLD! So this 'point' of yours, which I made so easy for you, turns out to be completely invalid. (Sorry. That probably hurt)

Me: "By the way, dinosaurs were not the only 'mass extinction' after the flood."

You: "In one of your earlier posts, you stated that you didn't believe that dinosaurs died in a mass extinction...now you are saying that they weren't the only ones! (I really got you on that one)"

Umm...No, you did not get me on this one.
I do believe that the vast majority of dinosaurs died out (mass extinction) after the flood. When did I claim that dinosaurs did not died out in mass extinctions (except for a few)? Maybe you should quote me.

Finally, here is another of your great arguments below:

You: "Finally...

Me: "Why do you say that they couldn't cross the Bering Strait? The Native Americans slowly migrated to America over a land bridge connecting Asia and North America. Maybe you could give me some evidence that there was not a land bridge."

This is another good one...

First, where is that land bridge now? If the native Americans crossed over that land bridge AFTER the flood, as you say, the climate would have been the same as it is now. So, the land bridge would have to still be there. So why isn't it?

Second, during the Ice Age, alot of the ocean's water was "locked" in the polar ice caps...that would make the sea level lower. Now, when the sea level was lower, the land bridge appeared between the two continents...

Third, I never said that I believed that there was no land bridge...I said that the Ice Age is what created it, and if the Ice Age was more than 6,000 years ago, (for you)there could be no land bridge(I was using your logic)."

Oh my. This is just like your dinosaur point. Aparentally you are counfused about the flood and the ice age. Let me clarify this, so you don't make these terrible arguements again.

The ice age happened after the flood.

Got it? So dinosaurs died after the flood because of the ice age, and a land bridge existed between asia and north america, because of the lowering of the ocean (which you explained nicely).

Let me recap this post. You had four arguments.

1. The dinosaur on the ark.

What happened to that arguement? Nothing. I showed that it was a theory, like evolution.

2. The climate after the flood was warmer than before, so this would not kill the dinosaurs.

What happened to this arguement? I showed it was completaly wrong. The ice age happened after the flood, and that was definitally not warmer.

3. The land bridge did not exist after the flood, so how could humans and animals get over there?

What happened to this argument? I showed the land bridge did exist. Remember, the ice age.

4. I condradicted myself about mass extinctions.

What happened to this arguement? I showed that it was without merit. I believe the vast majority of dinosaur did die out quickly (mass extinctions).

Those were your arguments. They are in shambles. I feel sorry for you, you were so proud of yourself.

"Now I am sorry that I tore into you like a monkey into a cupcake, but I had fun."

I could come back with some witty saying insulting you, but I would say my reply is insult enough.

"P.S. "CRACK!!!"

Lol. You are funny.

Sam, KC2GWX

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2021 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins