Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8973 total)
183 online now:
dwise1, PaulK (2 members, 181 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,676 Year: 7,424/23,288 Month: 1,330/1,214 Week: 0/342 Day: 0/71 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's the creationists thought on this?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8930
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 5 of 136 (36978)
04-14-2003 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by booboocruise
04-14-2003 5:23 AM


There oughta be a prize
For the most rediculous posts in the shortest period of time.
quote:
Anyway, the dinosaurs died out slowly in the years following the flood--because they were the biggest animals among the others, and since the flood killed off most of the vegetation on the earth, the largest animals began to die off by lack of food

Oh, and why did the dinosaurs who were small die? And the elephants (bigger than many dinosaurs) not die?

quote:
the rest of the animals began eating the vegetation that began, after living off the large animals that had died.

So the elephants survived by being temporarily carnivorous?

quote:
The Ceolocanth was thought to be a fish that was part-dinosaur and was extinct for millions of years,

LOL LOL LOL LOL -- part dinosaur!!!

quote:
At the Grand Canyon and In Utah caves there are numerous ancient drawings of dinosaurs--and they are very detailed and precise

Now that's very interesting! Of course, since you credibility is resting on a solid foundation of part dinosaur fish you'll have to post some very good references for this. :-)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by booboocruise, posted 04-14-2003 5:23 AM booboocruise has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Brian, posted 04-14-2003 12:54 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 7 by booboocruise, posted 04-14-2003 1:04 PM NosyNed has responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8930
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 8 of 136 (36991)
04-14-2003 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by booboocruise
04-14-2003 1:04 PM


Dinosaurs
You said the Coelocanth was part dinosaur, is that what you studied in school?
The Coelocanth was never considered as a missing link. It is similar to the type of fish that show a transition from fish to amphibians but that transition happened more than 100 million years earlier.

It's odd that you don't have any archeological references for this "art". Could you supply some trustworthy references?

Dr. Dino is a site which supports a pretend offer a $250,000 prize but misrepresents what it is offering. And makes statments like "Nebraska Man was a key evidence at the Scopes trial in July 1925 (The evolutionists had little else to offer!). " And puts forth the idea that Archeopteryx is a hoax on nothing more than speculation.

The ICR has this on their site:
"but there is also firm evidence that evolution never could take place. The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable barrier which no evolutionary mechanism yet suggested has ever been able to overcome. Evolution and entropy are opposing and mutually exclusive concepts. If the entropy principle is really a universal law, then evolution must be impossible.
"
That is bunk and they have had many years to know it. My conclusion is that they are deliberately misleading.

And the last one uses the decaying magnetic field as evidence for a young earth. They have had time to know that his is junk.

You'll have to supply reliable references.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by booboocruise, posted 04-14-2003 1:04 PM booboocruise has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by booboocruise, posted 04-22-2003 4:05 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8930
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 19 of 136 (37742)
04-23-2003 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by TrueCreation
04-23-2003 5:00 PM


creationist research
He did say "goes for nearly everything" and then mentions "maybe two examples". So you comment about disagreeing with the "all" isn't pertinant.

I'd be interested in the research that has been conducted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by TrueCreation, posted 04-23-2003 5:00 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by TrueCreation, posted 04-23-2003 11:04 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020