Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
rosewhite

Littlest Dinosaurs At Bottom Of Sediment = 245 Million Years?

Recommended Posts

So this guy takes me to task for stating that the fast sedimentation of The Flood is what fools so many like him into thinking dinosaurs died out millions of years ago: He mentions some tiny dino that died 241 mya to be precise as measured by radio carbon or something.

 

So I said No, the littlest dinosaurs are at the bottom of the sediment because their bodies have little lungs and bellies so when they drowned they had little air or gas in them and sank quickly compared to the bigger dinosaurs with huge lungs and bellies full of gas and also those big dinos would need much more washing away and be much more prone to get stuck on snags.

 

An interesting experiment would be to get tiny lizards and larger ones and small mammals and birds kill them all at the same time and throw them into a fast flowing river and record how far and for how long each one floats and whether on top, middle depths or seabed and how long it took for each one to finally settle into the sediment.

 

I think the birds with light bodies and hollow bones would float farthest, and the smallest lizards the shortest time and distance and so settle before any other.

Which would be exactly what the fossil record reveals: very few 'modern' birds or furry mammals as these would float farthest and sink slowest and so appear at top of record if their bones survived at all. Also of course if many sea creatures did survive the Flood and all the water getting very muddy then they would naturally eat lots of the floaters as the sinkers would have disappeared from view very quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this guy takes me to task for stating that the fast sedimentation of The Flood is what fools so many like him into thinking dinosaurs died out millions of years ago: He mentions some tiny dino that died 241 mya to be precise as measured by radio carbon or something.

Then you should realize the dinos at the bottom of the column aren't dated to be oldest because they're at the bottom, but due to a completely independent method of dating.

 

 

So I said No, the littlest dinosaurs are at the bottom of the sediment because their bodies have little lungs and bellies so when they drowned they had little air or gas in them and sank quickly compared to the bigger dinosaurs with huge lungs and bellies full of gas and also those big dinos would need much more washing away and be much more prone to get stuck on snags.

So all the big dinos which would have floated because their carcasses became bloated and the speedy velociraptors and the flying pterodactyls just outran the oak trees to the high ground.

 

Sure.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Piasan,

 

There is no 'independent method of dating' as no dating is possible on the mixed up sediment of the flood. This is obviously something the Evo mind is not evolved enough to understand?

 

God granted wisdom is the True Evolution of the human brain.

 

Read my True Evolution! thread to see how your brain needs 'opening up'.

 

The velociraptors would not have the brain power to understand the need to run to higher ground as the intensity of the cataclysmic flood was outside their experience - just as it was to all the humans like you.

Plus the intensity of the downpours and giant water showers from the 'springs of the seas' would have rapidly overwhelmed their senses of direction and physical endurance so they would just fall into the maelstrom and be swept along like all other life.

Every winter we read of people dying from getting lost in fog or snow just a close distance from home - the downpours of the Flood would have been solid water and naturally mists and fogs as the unexpectedly cold water fell through what previously had been a global warmth.

Shock, confusion and panic in all life on earth would have been total in the first day/days of the flood.

 

All the flying pterodactyl types and the feathered birds would face the very same energy sapping drenching and buffeting and quickly fall into the waters and naturally being lighter would travel faster and probably all were drowned in the first day/days.

And as the waters were falling for 960 hours then no flying bird or animal could have survived death by exhaustion, starvation or hypothermia - many birds especially die if they cannot eat each day or if they lose their feather oil which is why most birds spend quite a time each day preening their feathers with oil from their oil glands.

 

Then the raging storms kept stirring up the top sediments and obviously most small creatures would be buried really deep and probably more in the ocean abysses than in shallower lakes that dried out to give the easily accessible fossil beds we see today.

 

Also of course you have to try think that the Pre-Flood seas were teeming with fish and we know that many fish can swallow huge quantities of quite large prey or vegetation so in the first days of the Flood the fish would have had a bonanza feast of drowned birds, animals and humans - except those near the 'fountains of the deep which opened on the first day'. Fish close to those would perhaps have been scared out of their wits for a while?

 

Once you give God the respect He is due and the credit for Creation He just seems to make everything come clear unlike the way that non-believers like you find yourself in a fog of Satan's confusion and willing to accept any nonsense put forward by other non-believers.

 

You claim to be a Christian but then add Theistic Evolutionist whatever that means but obviously it denies everything we know about God and Creation so I have to assume Theistic Evolution is some of Satan's lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this guy takes me to task for stating that the fast sedimentation of The Flood is what fools so many like him into thinking dinosaurs died out millions of years ago: He mentions some tiny dino that died 241 mya to be precise as measured by radio carbon or something.

 

So I said No, the littlest dinosaurs are at the bottom of the sediment because their bodies have little lungs and bellies so when they drowned they had little air or gas in them and sank quickly compared to the bigger dinosaurs with huge lungs and bellies full of gas and also those big dinos would need much more washing away and be much more prone to get stuck on snags.

 

An interesting experiment would be to get tiny lizards and larger ones and small mammals and birds kill them all at the same time and throw them into a fast flowing river and record how far and for how long each one floats and whether on top, middle depths or seabed and how long it took for each one to finally settle into the sediment.

 

I think the birds with light bodies and hollow bones would float farthest, and the smallest lizards the shortest time and distance and so settle before any other.

Which would be exactly what the fossil record reveals: very few 'modern' birds or furry mammals as these would float farthest and sink slowest and so appear at top of record if their bones survived at all. Also of course if many sea creatures did survive the Flood and all the water getting very muddy then they would naturally eat lots of the floaters as the sinkers would have disappeared from view very quickly.

 

Hey RW,

 

I think the primary factor for sorting animals was both ecological habitat and biogeography. Certain regions of the world, whether by their proximity to the water, or tectonic proclivities, would have succumbed to the flood-waters earlier than others. If there were more precise sorting mechanisms based on weight, etc. I think they would only occur on a local level and so the signal of this would often be masked by the overall picture.

 

One example is flowering plants (angiosperms) do not generally appear in the rocks until the Cretaceous layers. This leads me to believe that exclusively lower-mid Mesozoic land animals occupied distinct regions from those animals that show up in the upper Mesozoic-Cenozoic. If all of these animals were living in the same place, then we would expect to find flowering plants with all of them. Though admittedly ad-hoc (practically all of evolution theory is ad-hoc, btw), this could actually be interpreted as an indicator that different animals occupied distinct ecosystems.

 

By the same logic, it would make sense why there is such a dramatic disappearance of dinosaurs at the K/T and appearance of other lifeforms afterwards. This tells me the two assemblages occupied distinct biogeographic regions. (evolutionists are at a loss as to why only all of the dinosaurs were mysteriously eradicated by a meteor but leaving so many contemporaneous animals to thrive)

 

I certainly think differential escape (that some animals could both move faster and had higher endurance) played a major role, but again the signal of this would have been masked by greater factors in many cases, so I think it would be an error to use one factor as absolute criteria.

 

I do tend to think the intelligence, speed, and endurance of land mammals played a significant role, as populations tended to retreat from encroaching floodwaters.. If you compare mammals with reptiles in these attributes it's like night and day. However, like I mentioned, greater regional distributions would potentially outweigh these factors, not to mention any number of reptiles could already be living more inland/higher elevation regions than mammals, which would mask the differential escape signal as well.

 

Another note on sorting factors, one of the first questions I hear about the Paleozoic layers, is why aren't there any whales or other marine mammals in them if creationists say marine life was buried first. A simple explanation is that, while many benthic ecosystems were buried in the onset of the flood, other marine animals, specifically mammals and other big creatures, were not relegated to the sea-floor. They were fast, powerful swimmers that could survive in deep, open water. I would not expect animals like this to become trapped in layers characteristic of these original sea-floor and shallow habitats. So I think there are certain cases where animal physiology plays a much bigger role in how they are sorted.

 

Anyways, I've thought about this subject a lot. I think creationists need to deal with it a lot more than they have been because the general fossil order is such a pivotal subject.

 

But I think one of the reasons it is shied away from is due to its sheer complexity... I doubt such a thing could even be accurately simulated on computers, due to all of the competing variables and parameters that would come into play.

 

A note on the evolutionary model... Evolutionists often posture as if the order of fossil assemblages matches right up with their predictions, but this is not true at all if you examine their theory. For instance, there is nothing implicit in the theory that says the mammals we see in the upper layers could not have "evolved" much earlier on, say, contemporaneously with dinosaurs or even earlier. If these were the fossil trends we found, evolutionists would simply assume that this is when they evolved. Evolutionists could accommodate a great variety of different fossil patterns and thus actually predict very little. So don't let them bluff you in stuff like that. Their model is not nearly as robust as most of them believe it is.... ( and more importantly is contradicted by a wealth of fossil data in other ways. )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is obviously something the Evo mind is not evolved enough to understand?

 

God granted wisdom is the True Evolution of the human brain.

 

Read my True Evolution! thread to see how your brain needs 'opening up'.

 

The velociraptors would not have the brain power to understand the need to run to higher ground as the intensity of the cataclysmic flood was outside their experience - just as it was to all the humans like you.

 

Is that really what you wish to say? Is that proof of your God-given intelligence?

You not only try to insult Piasan, but you insult your fellow Christians by giving such a poor example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...By the same logic, it would make sense why there is such a dramatic disappearance of dinosaurs at the K/T and appearance of other lifeforms afterwards. This tells me the two assemblages occupied distinct biogeographic regions. (evolutionists are at a loss as to why only all of the dinosaurs were mysteriously eradicated by a meteor but leaving so many contemporaneous animals to thrive)….

 

On that note, lifepsyop, do you think human intervention played a significant role? Just a thought. Humans today tend to have quite an impact on ecosystems. Is there a role they could have played before the flood, and after?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On that note, lifepsyop, do you think human intervention played a significant role? Just a thought. Humans today tend to have quite an impact on ecosystems. Is there a role they could have played before the flood, and after?

Possible, but not likely... especially on a global scale. Today we have numbers and technology that was not available to the ancients. We are quite literally able to move mountains, we create lakes much larger than most, if not all natural lakes, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, piasan, doesn't that assume the antediluvians did not have numbers and technology? When I look at the testimony of Scripture, and the evidence around me, I see very intelligent and advanced ancestors. That said, how much technology is really need to impact the environment? Aren't there technologically undeveloped peoples in Africa that are having a great impact on certain species there?

 

Putting your evolutionary beliefs aside, thinking things through from a biblical perspective (exegetically intrpreted), what do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On that note, lifepsyop, do you think human intervention played a significant role? Just a thought. Humans today tend to have quite an impact on ecosystems. Is there a role they could have played before the flood, and after?

 

Before the flood? Hard to say... It might instead have been the lack of human intervention with the rest of the world. If Genesis 11 is any indication of pre-flood human behavior:

 

Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As people moved eastward,they found a plain in Shinarand settled there.

They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. Then they said,

“Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”

 

Then this tells me that pre-flood people were generally gathered together in centralized civilizations... not spread out in nooks and crannies and tribes all over the place... the human distribution we see today, where you have different populations ranging all over the place... from a Biblical standpoint, is really the result of when God confused their languages and scattered them from Babel. If we start with a single tribe from the original creation, mind you they are already highly intelligent, skilled in technology, and speak the same language.. (and not dopey cavemen like in evo-land), then it's easier to see how major centralized cities would result right off from the start...

 

So in this regard we might not expect to find humans mixing in with all of the wildlife regions in the pre-flood world... (I know the last place I would want to hang out is an area dominated by giant carnivorous reptiles. ) and instead have very distinct distribution centers.

 

I also think many populations of the remaining dinosaurs, (or "dragons") from the Ark were specifically hunted to extinction later on because they were seen as a threat to people. (many historical accounts suggest this is the case.)

 

Humans certainly would have had a major effect on plant and animal distribution after the flood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the same logic, it would make sense why there is such a dramatic disappearance of dinosaurs at the K/T and appearance of other lifeforms afterwards. This tells me the two assemblages occupied distinct biogeographic regions. (evolutionists are at a loss as to why only all of the dinosaurs were mysteriously eradicated by a meteor but leaving so many contemporaneous animals to thrive)

The dramatic disappearance of species with the appearance of other lifeforms afterwards is a feature of all five major extinction events. What makes you think dinos were alone in the K-T extinction? The fact is "around 50 percent of all plants and animals alive at the same time also died out."

(Source: http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/dinosaurs-ancient-fossils-new-discoveries/extinction/mass-extinction )

 

It would seem to me the fact there are multiple extinction events may itself be a problem for YEC which has only one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dramatic disappearance of species with the appearance of other lifeforms afterwards is a feature of all five major extinction events. What makes you think dinos were alone in the K-T extinction? The fact is "around 50 percent of all plants and animals alive at the same time also died out."

(Source: http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/dinosaurs-ancient-fossils-new-discoveries/extinction/mass-extinction )

 

It would seem to me the fact there are multiple extinction events may itself be a problem for YEC which has only one.

 

I was referring to the disappearance of the whole Dinosaur clade as compared with mammalian lineages, birds, and other reptiles. The source of confusion among evolutionists is why everything classified as a "non-avian dinosaur" was systematically destroyed yet animals such as turtles, crocodiles, flightless birds, etc. survived. In the evolutionary literature I read explanations that have resorted to essentially claiming some of the surviving animals must have jumped in a cave or some other dumb luck scenario, as there is nothing special about dinosaurs in physiology, lifestyle, or habitat that would include them for total extinction to the exclusion of other groups.

 

For the same reasons as I stated for dinosaurs, I would speculate that other taxa groups that disappear at the K/T would be indicative of a shared environment succumbing to the flood. e.g. plants that go extinct were plants endemic to roughly the same regions as dinosaurs... and by the same token, organisms that bridge the K/T were not strictly endemic to those regions.

 

I don't see how you think extinction events are a problem for YEC, when YEC is predicated on the very occurrence of global mass extinctions as indicated in scripture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think many populations of the remaining dinosaurs, (or "dragons") from the Ark were specifically hunted to extinction later on because they were seen as a threat to people. (many historical accounts suggest this is the case.)

 

Humans certainly would have had a major effect on plant and animal distribution after the flood.

 

Sure makes more sense than naturalistic theories—meteors that targeted dinosaurs, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure makes more sense than naturalistic theories—meteors that targeted dinosaurs, etc.

 

If you insist in a nonsense interpretation of the theory proposed by your 'opponent', you will always find yours making more sense... Well done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calminian: "Sure makes more sense than naturalistic theories—meteors that targeted dinosaurs, etc."

 

If you insist in a nonsense interpretation of the theory proposed by your 'opponent', you will always find yours making more sense... Well done.

 

That's right. What Calminian said was well done. But rather than dealing with what is a very real problem for evolution (i.e. dinosaurs got hit but nothing else did?) you decide to avoid the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem to me the fact there are multiple extinction events may itself be a problem for YEC which has only one.

I don't see how you think extinction events are a problem for YEC, when YEC is predicated on the very occurrence of global mass extinctions as indicated in scripture.

Scripture has only one extinction event.... geology indicates five. What about the other four?

 

Sure makes more sense than naturalistic theories—meteors that targeted dinosaurs, etc.

What makes you think the meteor "targeted" dinosaurs when it wiped out half of the species of plants and animals existing at the time?

 

That's right. What Calminian said was well done. But rather than dealing with what is a very real problem for evolution (i.e. dinosaurs got hit but nothing else did?) you decide to avoid the issue.

What Caliman said was a strawman and is false. Your assertion that "nothing else" got hit is knowingly false since I have already documented half of plants and animals were wiped out in the same extinction event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possible, but not likely... especially on a global scale. Today we have numbers and technology that was not available to the ancients. We are quite literally able to move mountains, we create lakes much larger than most, if not all natural lakes, etc.

But, piasan, doesn't that assume the antediluvians did not have numbers and technology? When I look at the testimony of Scripture, and the evidence around me, I see very intelligent and advanced ancestors. That said, how much technology is really need to impact the environment? Aren't there technologically undeveloped peoples in Africa that are having a great impact on certain species there?

If you have evidence of those who lived before the alleged flood having numbers in the billions and technology equivalent to ours, you can certainly present it.

 

Nowhere have I stated or implied our ancestors weren't very intelligent. However, we have the advantage of "piggybacking" their knowledge with ours. Paraphrasing: "I stand tall because I stand on the shoulders of giants." --- Isaac Newton.

 

Of course, there are lots of locations where humans are impacting the local ecology. But we're talking about doing it on a global scale. Small pockets of humans here and there simply won't have the same global impact as 7 billion of us spread through most of the habital space on the planet.

 

Putting your evolutionary beliefs aside, thinking things through from a biblical perspective (exegetically intrpreted), what do you think?

I think YEC are inconsistent. When reading Genesis, they tell me I should use a "straightforward" reading of the text. Then, when talking about the Fall and how Adam and Eve did not die on the same day they ate of the forbidden fruit (as God had stated in Gen. 2) they take me into a lengthy discussion of ancient Hebrew verb tenses and how the statement didn't really mean what it clearly says in a "straightforward" reading. Most recently, when I used a "straightforward" reading of "kinds" in Leviticus, I was told that the list of "kinds" didn't really mean what it said and was entirely based on conjecture by the translators. In other words, the "straightforward" reading is a matter of apologetics.

 

If YEC don't think they "pick and choose" what to take literally just as much as they accuse me of doing, I think they're fooling themselves.

 

Further, I think that if one is seeking to validate what the Bible (or any other book, for that matter) says, one should approach the question without a preconception that the work being validated is true and any evidence in conflict with that is "invalid by definition" as many YEC say. I realize none of us are completely objective.... but we can at least try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes you think the meteor "targeted" dinosaurs when it wiped out half of the species of plants and animals existing at the time?

 

Half the animals or half the species? How did these meteors manage to single out larges groups in only particular species?

 

The evidence says that virtually all categories of modern animals have been found in dinosaur layers, and thus somehow survived those meteors. When you get a chance, check out Living Fossils, by Dr. Carl Werner. He blows the doors off common misconceptions about animals that lived with dinosaurs. Every category you can imagine, of both plants and animals, has been found in dino layers. Yet they escaped somehow.

 

 

This truly would have had to be an intelligent targeted assault by the meteors that hit the earth. If you have the faith to believe in dino-seeking meteors, more power to you.

 

When I look at something like extinction, I look to observed causes. Men have played a role in animal extinction for thousands of years. And we have dragon slayer legends all over the globe, giving evidence that dinosaurs were indeed a favorite target, resulting in great notoriety for the hunters. Why would I prefer an intelligent dino-seeking meteor theory over this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scripture has only one extinction event.... geology indicates five. What about the other four?

 

That's silly, Piasan. That's like saying there was one house-fire event, yet 5 different areas of the house were consumed at different times, so therefore we can't call it one house-fire. Or because there was 5 separate skirmishes, we can't label it as part of a single war. The flood was a year-long, progressively destructive event, not an instantaneous extermination, thus we see different assemblages wiped out at different stages.

 

What makes you think the meteor "targeted" dinosaurs when it wiped out half of the species of plants and animals existing at the time?

 

Why do you keep mentioning that other groups went extinct as if it is an argument? I never denied this and I can't even tell what your point is. I am basing my argument on the Evolutionists' own literature. Experts that have researched this subject find it highly enigmatic why every dinosaurian animal was wiped out leaving such a large variety of similar animals to survive. That's where I'm coming from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure that the Pre-Flood humans not only were more intelligent and probably much better physically that we Post-Flood humans but also Satan and his Fallen Angels were actively consorting with some humans and revealing the secrets of the universe to them.

It logically follows that just as our atomic age started in say 1930 and 60 years later Doomsday Bomb existed then who knows what weapons were being manufactured in what timescale Pre-Flood?

 

Evolutionists try to claim man had evolved from pondslime to human but then refuse to accept that over the 1600 years from Adam's creation to The Flood no progress was possible but during those 1600 years Satan & Co had free rein to train human followers in all sorts of secrets and deadly arts.

 

The working Baghdad battery may be a poor copy made from memory of a far superior technical product from Pre-Flood rather than some rough experiment by Old Baghdadians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is little proof that the dinosaurs were initially carnivorous as God made all animals to eat grass/vegetation.

 

The dinosaurs huge bellies and long vulnerable necks show them to be fairly defenceless browsers. Those with an upright stance and big teeth like TRex were most likely intended to eat top foliage for which huge teeth are excellent rakes just as combine harvesters have huge teeth today and again their big bellies show them to be vegetarian.

 

Quote: 'scientists HYPOTHESIZE that Ornithomimus ate a variety of vegetation and small animals'. Scientists do too much hypothesizing of nonsense based on childhood exposure to The Flintstones and Jurassic Park.

Ornithomimus lacked teeth in its bird like beak so yes it may have pecked at carrion the way a farmyard chicken may but was it any more actively carnivorous than a typical farmyard chicken or a robin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ark saved dinosaur's later extinction?

Might a possible explanation of the 'apparent' lack of dinosaurs post-Flood be due to reintroduced hunting by Noah's offspring who either remembered how exciting Pre-Flood hunting was or because these same offspring were once again targeted by the demons of the drowned Nephilim and urged to become hunters in the image of Nimrod?

If we accept the truth of the Bible then we have to accept that the spirits of the Nephilim survived and were free to wander the earth. Evolutionists may laugh at this but it is better truth than their nonsenses.

Another better explanation for the lack of dinosaurs post-Flood might actually be that the climate vastly changed over the first 40 days of The Flood when the sky was falling.

The lack of water canopy probably simultaneously caused great cold snaps and a reduced atmospheric pressure which may have been more than the Ark-borne dinosaurs could tolerate once released from the Ark. The evidence is that the icecaps are recent and for some years after the Flood the climate may just have been too cold.

As it is likely that Noah only took small animals on the Ark the small dinosaurs may not have been able to tolerate the new climate enough to reach viable breeding age or if they reached it they never achieved critical mass due to renewed hunting.

Another issue with the disappearance of the dinosaurs could be that they were not as agile as most of the warmblooded animals - practically every animal today from mouse to elephant can easily outrun humans - but vegetarian dinosaurs would be easy prey as they slurped around swamps or thick forests stuffing huge quantities of vegetation into their great bellies.

As the Post-Flood land would be quite denuded - we know one olive tree survived - it may be that there just was not sufficient food to maintain a viable population of dinosaurs against the hunting and or lethal protection of crops by Noah's children and their offspring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either you've been on the magic mushrooms or you're actually an adolescent making up stuff for a joke because every post you've written so far has been utter nonsense. I'm not sure I believe you're the age you say you are, and I also suspect you may actually be an atheist trying to make creationists' beliefs look even more silly than they actually are (if that's possible)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either you've been on the magic mushrooms or you're actually an adolescent making up stuff for a joke because every post you've written so far has been utter nonsense. I'm not sure I believe you're the age you say you are, and I also suspect you may actually be an atheist trying to make creationists' beliefs look even more silly than they actually are (if that's possible)

 

I won't defend rosewhites position but your statement, "you may actually be an atheist trying to make creationists' beliefs look even more silly than they actually are" is as silly as you make us out to be. I am an ex-evolutionist who years ago finally realized that the belief in an accidental world that happened all by itself was pure idiocy and not science. Secondly, the belief that life arose by blind natural processes despite the incredible complexity of even the simplest living organism is also total idiocy.

 

But if that is the way you feel about us then what in the world are you doing here on EFF? Do you really think you are going to convert any of us to your ridiculous theory of accidentalism?

 

You see, I don't waste any of my time trying to persuade those who are mentally deranged nor do I waste time trying to argue with people who think they are space aliens from another world. It makes no rational sense to even try to be rational with such people. SO>..............................since you feel the way you do then WHY are you posting here to us 'silly' folk on EFF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure that the Pre-Flood humans not only were more intelligent and probably much better physically that we Post-Flood humans but also Satan and his Fallen Angels were actively consorting with some humans and revealing the secrets of the universe to them.

It logically follows that just as our atomic age started in say 1930 and 60 years later Doomsday Bomb existed then who knows what weapons were being manufactured in what timescale Pre-Flood?

 

Evolutionists try to claim man had evolved from pondslime to human but then refuse to accept that over the 1600 years from Adam's creation to The Flood no progress was possible but during those 1600 years Satan & Co had free rein to train human followers in all sorts of secrets and deadly arts.

 

The working Baghdad battery may be a poor copy made from memory of a far superior technical product from Pre-Flood rather than some rough experiment by Old Baghdadians.

 

There's some really good movie material there, or maybe even a TV series. Special affects, drama….

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure that the Pre-Flood humans not only were more intelligent and probably much better physically that we Post-Flood humans but also Satan and his Fallen Angels were actively consorting with some humans and revealing the secrets of the universe to them.

We sure lost a lot of technological advancements during the flood. Including any proof of it...

We can check the history of technological advancements and so how much progress we are making.

 

Why do you keep mentioning that other groups went extinct as if it is an argument? I never denied this and I can't even tell what your point is. I am basing my argument on the Evolutionists' own literature. Experts that have researched this subject find it highly enigmatic why every dinosaurian animal was wiped out leaving such a large variety of similar animals to survive. That's where I'm coming from.

You didn't, Calminian did and it was mentioned in reply to that post.

 

There is little proof that the dinosaurs were initially carnivorous as God made all animals to eat grass/vegetation.

 

The dinosaurs huge bellies and long vulnerable necks show them to be fairly defenceless browsers. Those with an upright stance and big teeth like TRex were most likely intended to eat top foliage for which huge teeth are excellent rakes just as combine harvesters have huge teeth today and again their big bellies show them to be vegetarian.

Tooth marks on numerous animals (all pre-'flood' estimated) showed specific dietery preferences.

 

Either you've been on the magic mushrooms or you're actually an adolescent making up stuff for a joke because every post you've written so far has been utter nonsense. I'm not sure I believe you're the age you say you are, and I also suspect you may actually be an atheist trying to make creationists' beliefs look even more silly than they actually are (if that's possible)

You might be correct.

 

 

I won't defend rosewhites position but your statement, "you may actually be an atheist trying to make creationists' beliefs look even more silly than they actually are" is as silly as you make us out to be. I am an ex-evolutionist who years ago finally realized that the belief in an accidental world that happened all by itself was pure idiocy and not science. Secondly, the belief that life arose by blind natural processes despite the incredible complexity of even the simplest living organism is also total idiocy.

 

But if that is the way you feel about us then what in the world are you doing here on EFF? Do you really think you are going to convert any of us to your ridiculous theory of accidentalism?

 

You see, I don't waste any of my time trying to persuade those who are mentally deranged nor do I waste time trying to argue with people who think they are space aliens from another world. It makes no rational sense to even try to be rational with such people. SO>..............................since you feel the way you do then WHY are you posting here to us 'silly' folk on EFF?

This is a forum on the debate evolution vs 'intelligent' design. It is hosted by a christian community. At least that's what I think it is.

Is it a forum that allows only 1 point of view? Is the other to be mocked into silence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms