Which makes more sense?

If dinasours existed during the flood how can you explain potassium argon dates that show dinasours existed millions of years before that.

But still, if you had ot put 2 of every animal on earth today, the boat would be the size of Spain. Its impossible a boat that big could have even fit a fifth of the animals existant at the time.

 

the arc story is based off an old Babylon story where the hero got stranded when a river flooded, and then he was swept to the ocean

 

The Bible even states it's on the mountains of Ararat!:

Gen 8:1-5
Genesis 8

8:1 Noah's Deliverance


Then God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the animals that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters subsided. 2 The fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were also stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained. 3 And the waters receded continually from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters decreased. 4 Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat . 5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month. In the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.
NKJV

 

If you believed everything you saw on the discovery channel you would believe in evolution.

And please, give me this "official" info about the discovery of the ark, I've yet to see it...(and are we talking noah, or arc of the covenant? Arc of the covenant is more likely if you ask me...). Your link was seriously lacking.

 

im assuming these are the pictures to which you allude to...

 

Trouble is that as anyone with any knowledge of boat building will tell you, a wooden boat the size of the arc would breakup as soon as it was in the water.

 

Those are the worst pictures ever. These people believe so much they can se an ark on some blobby rocks on a mountain.

I mean, do you really think that a wooden boat would survive intact for thousands of years as it sits on a glacier? Glaciers crush things, it's a huge mountain of moving ice. Get real people.

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/03/25/ararat.shtml

 

well i searched that thread and didn't find any answers to the problem of 2 of each animal packed onto an ark for nearly 200 days. ryu, you say that raptors couldn't have been packed on because "they're vicious; they'd tear the place apart!".... what?? what about cougars, bears, hippos, crocodiles, elephants, there's a enormous number of vicious animals in the world now that i can't imagine surviving in cramped conditions for that long a time.
let alone the problem of packing such an enormous number of animals the average adult elephant would consume 40,000kg of food or more in 200 days! that's one of the animals on board this ark, so how in the world could this ever be possible?

to quote freakersoup from that thread, who posed the question quite well i think:

peace,
sophia

 

I think a reasonable understanding of the two by two ark busines may be explained using Zecharia Sitchin's "Earth Chrionicles" model that intimate that the "Gods" were extra-terrestrials who gene-spliced ancient mankind's DNA with their own, thereby creating the whole "missing link" & "God created man" saga as well as the "trans-species" debate.

Sitchin's work reveals that the "Gods" (ET's) left earth just prior to the deluge, and they may well have taken with them an "ark" (wooden chest or coffer = container) containing DNA & RNA of each species that they had "evolved" by gene-splicing, or provided such a vessel for holding the samples to the "Noah" dude who, strange as it may seem, has a representative one family who survived the flood in every ancient culture.

 

now THERE'S a theory.

 

I wonder if someday erudites will talk about evolution the same way they talk about biblical creationism today?

 

Are you talking about carbon dating? If so, carbon dating science is full of lies and deceit. Carbon dating can only go back to about 4000 years with any accuracy whatsoever, but scientist will claim 4 million and many other crazy time spans just to support the evolution theory.

 

there is more than just carbon dating ther eis also potassium argon dating and one more way to date things... I honestly believe evolution is fact... there is way too much evidence that proves it... the only reason its still been called a theory is because of Christians who refuse to educate t hemselves about evolution.

Evolution an extinction go hand to hand, if you deny that we evolve, than you deny that we become extinct. Its as simple as isolationism... punctuated equillibrium.

 

Carbon dating only goes back about 40 thousand years, tops (after that it's all decayed into stable elements). However, there are other forms of radiometric dating, like potassium-argon, uranium, etc. These go back much farther.

and Mui, evolution is still called a theory because that's what it is. Just like the theory of gravity. Gravity happens (fact), the theory describes how. Likewise, evolution happens, the Theory of Evolution describes how (natural selection being the lead theory, there are (and were) others that are not nearly as well supported).

 

I think man is replanted every 62 million years to wipe out all of the life on the planet, disappears and comes back 62 million years later.

 

Actually, there's proof dinosaurs have coexisted with humans.
For one thing, they found cave paintings with humans and big creatures resembling dinosaurs together.

 

again...ryu, nothign against your word, but i would like to see non-christain links to this...

 

obviously the more proof the better, but thats not what faith is about.

but hey i dont even know what i beleive. i wish i had proof!

 

Above are footprints of a smallish dinosaur, overlain by the footprints of a human. We can only imagine whether the dinosaur or human saw each other, but clearly the imprints were left in a short period of time, with the human coming slightly later. Some of the dinosaur footprints also include the imprint of their tails dragging behind them

This is the same image with tracings around the the footprints to enhance the image. The human footprints are clearly those of a biped. It is less clear whether the three-toed dinosaurs were bidepdal or not, given the large number of imprints, but our best reconstruction suggest they were.

 

have you ever heard of ducks...or large flightless birds? sorry if i seem arrogant, but this has filed to impress me