Rebmilc Posted September 27, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 15 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 204 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/29/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/07/1949 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Perhaps the dinos that lived in water didn't have to go on the ark they would have survived the flood, natural habitat and all that. After all Noah didn't take any fish on the ark, or any wales on the ark and they survived. Just a thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebmilc Posted September 27, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 15 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 204 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/29/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/07/1949 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Perhaps the dinos that lived in water didn't have to go on the ark they would have survived the flood, natural habitat and all that. After all Noah didn't take any fish on the ark, or any wales on the ark and they survived. Just a thought And as an afterthought they say that the earths surface is two thirds water and that the moon has been explored more than some of these regions, who knows whats out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondeve Posted September 27, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 117 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,276 Content Per Day: 0.19 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/02/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/21/1986 Author Share Posted September 27, 2006 Firstly, there is evidence that transitional species existed, and given the large amount of surrounding evidence, it is reasonable to presume that the missing link did exist You can re-hash it all you like, you're still making assumptions I would contend that there is a relevant and distinct difference between a baseless assumption and a logical deduction. As, I think, would most people. Perhaps the dinos that lived in water didn't have to go on the ark they would have survived the flood, natural habitat and all that. After all Noah didn't take any fish on the ark, or any wales on the ark and they survived. Just a thought Possibly - there were marine dinosaurs - but something like brontosaurs couldn't have lived in the water, even if it could've been able to swim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondeve Posted September 27, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 117 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,276 Content Per Day: 0.19 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/02/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/21/1986 Author Share Posted September 27, 2006 I think they were on the ark ( babies) !! How stupid I am! Here I was, wondering how an old geezer could have built a boat big enough to hold two specimens of all the animals of our planet, some as huge as elephants or dinosaurs, and then someone comes on this forum and gives me the solution out of the blue... THEY WERE BABIES!! It's obvious that while 1.75 million couples of living beings could not have fit if they were adults. Thank you, carrielles!! I do not think most species of dinos were on the ark. You have to be real careful which definition of dino you use. If you hold all dinos as pre-historic, none of those species were on the ark. If you include crocodiles alligators, etc. then yes, some species of dino were on the ark. The problem with your very sarcastic quote is that there were no where near 1.75 million species of land or air animals alive at the time of the flood. How do you sqaure the idea of pre-historic dinosaurs with the literal word of Genesis, i.e: all animals went onto the Ark? And I would suggest that the 1.75 million species came from an inclusion of insects, birds and other smaller lifeforms of which there are myriad species. These are all still animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billie Posted September 27, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 51 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,849 Content Per Day: 0.44 Reputation: 14 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/17/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/17/1979 Share Posted September 27, 2006 I don't really have anything to say on this subject, just wanted to say HI EVE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondeve Posted September 27, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 117 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,276 Content Per Day: 0.19 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/02/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/21/1986 Author Share Posted September 27, 2006 I don't really have anything to say on this subject, just wanted to say HI EVE! Hi Billie! Sure you don't want to venture an opinion while you're here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bread_of_Life Posted September 28, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 872 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1981 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Dinosaurs are an interesting case study in the fossil record, because they appear between two very sharp "cut-offs" in the fossil record. One the End-permian extinction, before which we find zero dinosaurs. And the other the K-T Boundary extinction, after which we find zero dinosaurs. Flood geology that. Of course, there are plenty such examples, dinos are just famous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted September 29, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted September 29, 2006 I've never heard of people who don't think they existed. I believe they existed and humans existed at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted September 29, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted September 29, 2006 "Proof" is in the eye of the beholder wink.gif I like that. Can I borrow that one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joy in the Journey Posted September 30, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 477 Content Per Day: 0.07 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/17/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted September 30, 2006 "Proof" is in the eye of the beholder wink.gif I like that. Can I borrow that one? Sure! If it helps to get the truth across that modern scientific "proof" is nothing more than man's opinon and never has been nor will be fact- use it as often as you need to Just because a bunch of "experts" say it's so- doesn't make it so - Romans 1:22 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools ....however, because God says something is so- it always is so Cheers, Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts