Evidence Dinosaurs Lived With Man (and yes, went on Noah's Ark)

No Robert, it's all true, I was there. I saw the whole thing first hand. Oh, cleaning up after them on the ark was a never ending job.

:)

Don't you know Noah lived for 600 years that gave him super power, the magic of the Ocean, and stuff.

I mean you can't possablity think the whole flood story is simply the tale of survivors of a massive regional flood embellished through emotion and time.

Horse Feathers! How many times must these morons be told that the Flintstones was NOT a animated documentary! I have seen several programs on channels recently that explain in a logical scientific manner that the great flood was the result of NATURAL occurrences and not some fantasy spun out of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Um, then where did the dove get the olive branch? They take time to grow. . . .

If, and this is the biggest IF since santa claus, Noahs ark existed, then yes they shared it with dinosaurs. Funny part is by stating that they have to accept evolution because Birds are dinosaurs. Sort of funny that by stating that they both disprove themselves and prove evolution, all in one argument.

What is it with certain groups of people they think that just be stating something it must true - regardless of the facts staring them in the face. highly amusing and scary in equal measure I think!

Evidence Dinosaurs Lived With Man

I mean really, haven't any of you people seen the Flintstones ?

there is your "proof" all the proof, any reasonable well informed man needs (LOL)

The so called article looks to be nothing but a commercial designed to sell the Top ten proofs complete DVD set. A value of $130 dollars but if you order now you'll get it for $99 dollars, but wait! That's not all!!! If you order now they'll include 2 fresh dinosaur bones! Imagine the look on your friends' faces when you serve them Dinosaur soup! And as an added bonus they'll include a beautiful copy of the Bible with the word dragon crossed out and dinosaur put in its place in BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS! So act now while supplies of fresh dinosaur bones last. This offer is not available in stores.

neoatg, please tell me you are joking.

One part is a joke the other is the possable truth behind such a story.

When we look at dinosaurs, we need to realize that they are nothing more than different types of reptiles, lizards, etc., that continued to grow in size for as long as God allowed them to live.

OMG, LOL, LMAO..........phew, my side hurts.

Well, of course, because

Most people are unaware of the fact that reptiles never stop growing in size while alive.

roflmao roflmao roflmao roflmao roflmao roflmao roflmao roflmao roflmao roflmao roflmao roflmao

This is just one more example of the aggressive ignorance that theocons promote. If facts are not on their side, well, just change the facts! It worked in Orwell's world, didn't it?

I don't think "evolutionists" would argue that we live with dinosaurs NOW if you want to be technical about it. Alligators have been around for well over 65 million years....oh wait, forgot that its a creationist "6000 year old earth" article where science, logic and reason take a back seat to religious fundamentalism. Never mind. Watch out for those dreaded T-rex crossings!

I'm going to look at this as a Christian Barnum trying to sell his CD to the suckers. Just like Dr. Hypums rejuvenation serum it will make them feel better but it won't cure the underlying disease.

Er, jsut how big would the Ark have to be to hold all the dinosaur species?

Wouldn't have to be the size of Bermuda or something?

Spox you've just got to stop using logic.

http://creationmuseum.org/

This is the website for the creationist museum in Kentucky. Adam and Eve look like Elvis Presley and Dolly Parton (after breast reduction).

since when did they decide to change the explanation of dinosaurs from the devil planted the bones to confuse us to this miserable story?

they cant even keep their own myths in order, its like people have actually been taking notes when the crazy corner hobo starts hollering and weaving his hobo tales of dino mischief and t-rex bronc bustin'

Personally I think it must have been awesome to ride on the Ark with dolphins playfully greeting and jumping in the air, only to get snatched mid-jump by a plesiosaurus or mosasaurus.

:D

I'll happily listen to ANY EVIDENCE you have to provide for this silliness. But I'll not buy your CD to do it. Silly sales pitch to the easily confused. Shouldn't this whole story qualify as SPAM?

Responsible-Adult, every once in a while they do focus groups to see what plays best. That's how Jesus ended up looking like Jim Morrison.

I KNOW why the dinosaurs died off.

Someone needs to gently explain, in words of one syllable,to this jamoke that dinosaurs were not reptiles, they were a completely separate species and some of the larger ones show evidence in their bones that they were warm-blooded and gave live birth. Plus, they are still here, chirping in the trees.

Jesus looked more like Mel Brooks than Jim Morrison. ;)

Well Scarlet, much as I love Mel Brooks I have to disagree. Have a look at this and tell me what you think.

LOL! Thanx for the chuckle, Robert.

Although in one sense they're right: it's pretty widely accepted among paleontologists and evolutionary biologists now that birds are, in fact, living dinosaurs.

Well Scarlet, much as I love Mel Brooks I have to disagree. Have a look at this and tell me what you think.

Still goin' with Mel, Ditto! :)

But remember, the evolutionary scientists need to convince you dinosaurs lived long before man so they can continue to sell their evolutionary theory.

And remember, the person who wrote this article needs to convince you just enough that dinosaurs may have lived with man so they can continue to sell their cd set.

If dinosaurs were alive in just the last few thousand years, Darwin's Theory of Evolution goes out the window...

It astounds me how little most people understand about Darwin. If a dinosaur walked through my back yard as I typed this, it would not disprove anything Darwin said (although I would be trying to get ahold of Jeff Goldbloom). Darwin's theories do not hinge on dinosaurs living millions of years ago. I guess you really don't have do any sort of research to make and sell a crappy cd set.

I was starting to get worried. Nobody had mentioned Jurassic Park. There were lots of dinosaurs with those folks. There is all the incontestable proof anyone would need.

Unfortunately, we have been so conditioned to believe that dinosaurs are these prehistoric beasts that lived until 65 million years ago, that if you dare suggest they went on Noah's Ark, then eventually went extinct just recently, you are laughed at for following fables instead of science.

Wow, so an impossibly big boat (large enough to hold 2 of every species) just got bigger.

Dinosaurs on Noah's Ark is actually a much simpler prospect than people assume. First, the fossil record confirms that very few dinosaurs were large in size. Of course, while there were a handful of dinosaurs types that grew to the large size of Tyrannosaurus Rex or Brachiosaurus, the fossil record itself confirms the overwhelming majority of dinosaurs were about the size of a sheep, approximately 3 to 5 feet in length. The fossils of the giant dinosaurs are certainly more fun to look at in the museums, but the fact is that most dinosaurs were small and only a few grew to large sizes. So, for most dinosaurs, getting on the Ark wouldn't be a problem at all, and as for the occasional larger type of dinosaur, God would have merely sent babies to Noah. Think about it. When God sent 2 elephants to Noah, do you really think God would have sent 2 full grown, massive, 12 foot tall, 5 ton elephants that are past their reproductive prime, or do you think maybe he would have sent a couple of babies that would eventually grow and repopulate the Earth after the flood? Common sense dictates he would have sent baby elephants, Rhinos, Giraffes, etc., as well as a couple of cute little baby Tyrannosaurus lizards, that, just like cute little lion cubs, would eventually one day grow into fierce and dangerous beasts.

Well, as long as they're cute....

[smacks forehead]

Not to play Captain Obvious, here, but if dinosaurs have now evolved into birds, isn't this entire story another way to say Noah included birds on his ark? If this is the situation, then isn't this just a repitition of what the bible already wrote ... ? They might just as well have written "Evolved Pteradactyl returns with olive branch". In the thousand or so odd times that book has been translated, it is very likely "Evolved Pteradactyl" became "bird". Easier to write with a quill pen and bottle of ink.

Somebody should hand this guy a cute and cuddly Great White Shark pup and see how that works out for him.

Uncommon Sensibility, pteradactyls weren't dinosaurs I'm afraid, and are not ancestral to birds.

I think we can all agree that this guy probably can't see past the tip of his enormous and still-growing nose.

When we look at dinosaurs, we need to realize that they are nothing more than different types of reptiles, lizards, etc., that continued to grow in size for as long as God allowed them to live.

Ah, but then the powerful reptile & lizard lobby ran out of money, and God started killing them off earlier. It's all right there in one of the, ahem, noncanonical appendices of the Bible.

Er, jsut how big would the Ark have to be to hold all the dinosaur species?

Wouldn't have to be the size of Bermuda or something?

Wait, maybe Bermuda is the Ark. Oooh, I can just feel the tingling of a scifi B-movie plot: it will involve drunken spring breakers, old things that mysteriously start glowing, and Jeff Goldblum.

I was starting to get worried. Nobody had mentioned Jurassic Park. There were lots of dinosaurs with those folks. There is all the incontestable proof anyone would need.

Best. Documentary. Ever.

Wait, maybe Bermuda is the Ark. Oooh, I can just feel the tingling of a scifi B-movie plot: it will involve drunken spring breakers, old things that mysteriously start glowing, and Jeff Goldblum.

You mean they haven't written them into the plot (or lack thereof) of "Lost?"

Dungbeetle ... they were in the article mentioned here!

Quite a few contradictions within the story, one might add. You can get copies of all of them for the low low price of ... !

I'm going to have to show my ignorance here, because I read the pterodactyl is actually a flying ... lizard? Maybe I'm bending the map here, but if it flies, isn't it related to a bird, albeit tenuously?

Uncommon Sensibility, they were reptiles but not dinosaurs. Sorry, I missed the claim that they are in the article, my bad. There were many reptiles around at the time of the dinosaurs, but only some were dinosaurs.

Look.. There was Barney. All the proof you need is right there. Once I saw that show I knew why god left those overgrown chickens to drown. Barney just missed the boat and that's all there is to it.

Trying to drum attacks of PTSD, Jason? I've been trying to forget about that weird purple dinosaur for years. ;)

I gotta go with Jack. Jurassic Park is the best documentary ever for this.

The meaning of "dinosaur average size" is debatable. However it is defined, current evidence suggests different values for average size in the Triassic, early Jurassic, late Jurassic and Cretaceous periods. According to Bill Erickson, "Estimates of median dinosaur mass range from 500 kg to 5 metric tons, Eighty percent of the biomass from the Late Jurassic Morrison formation of the western United States consisted of stegosaurs and sauropods; the latter averaged 20 tons. The typically large size of the dinosaurs, and the comparatively small size of modern mammals, has been quantified by Nicholas Hotton. Based on 63 dinosaur genera, Hotton's data yield an average generic mass in excess of 850 kg (about the size of an average grizzly bear) and a median generic mass of nearly 2 tons (which is comparable to a giraffe).

http://www.dinosauri.info/eng/dinosaur.html

That's a big freakin' sheep.

Of all the things that are none of liberals' business, why are they so OBSESSED with Christianity?? Why not discuss the theology of South Pacific Cargo Worshippers. Why not poke fun at Mohammad? Do YOU believe that most women go to hell? Do YOU believe in keeping your wife in line by beating her?

I suggest you research an animal in the Bible called the "behemoth." And tell us what that describes.

Truths About Liberals #12. A liberal's business is nobody's business, but everyone's business is a liberal's business.

Erm, there are a ton of "liberals" who are Christians. Republicans do not have an exclusive hold on Christianity. None of what you posted even makes sense.

If dinosaurs were mentioned in the Bible.. and had they been "extinct" for "millions of years" the men who wrote the Bible would have had no clue wtf a dinosaur was now would they? Make you think a little...... being how dinosaurs have only been discovered and understood what they were in the past few centuries...

How would they know?

Erm, there are a ton of "liberals" who are Christians.

There are also many who are conservative, and Christian, who don't buy into the fundies' paradigm.

Amen to that.

I suggest you research an animal in the Bible called the "behemoth." And tell us what that describes.

Mammoths.

Why not discuss the theology of South Pacific Cargo Worshippers. Why not poke fun at Mohammad?

Well, we can, if you like. But they don't represent much of a voting block, so their moral dictates aren't likely to be codified into law.

There are also many who are conservative, and Christian, who don't buy into the fundies' paradigm.

They need to speak up more.

Mammoths.

Umm, mammoths had tiny tails, not a tail that would compare in size to a cedar tree!

Found a recipe here for anyone interested in cooking up a Dino-steak for dinner.

But first ask yourself...What Would Jesus Grill?

There are also many who are conservative, and Christian, who don't buy into the fundies' paradigm.

They need to speak up more.

I do quite regularly, but do not specifically identify myself as such, because I prefer my ideas to be the subject, not my self-identification. I also don't wish to get into long, fruitless discussions regarding what constitutes a "true" conservative or a "true" Christian, since there are areas where my understanding of each directly contradicts either the mainstream thinking or the constructs of their opponents.

Luke, if you really think the Bible was talking about dinosaurs...well, best regards to you.

I don't know about dinosaurs on the ark but here's for all you non believers.... read for yourselves.

http://www.squidoo.com/noahsarkfound

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060905_noahs_ark.html

"there is now actual photographic evidence that Noah's Ark really does exist.... Scientists have used satellites, computers, and powerful cameras to pinpoint the Ark's exact location on Mt. Ararat."

http://noahsarksearch.com/ararat.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2000/sep/14/internationalnews.archaeology

These sites are a great read.

Luke, if you really think the Bible was talking about dinosaurs...well, best regards to you.

I don't know what it was talking about but it wasn't a Mammoth. The verse says that the behemoth had a tail that swayed like a cedar tree. A Mammoth had a tiny tail like an elephant.

I suggest you research an animal in the Bible called the "behemoth." And tell us what that describes.

The Bible also mentions dragons, satyrs, sea monsters, unicorns and fiery flying serpents.

Umm, mammoths had tiny tails, not a tail that would compare in size to a cedar tree!

And dinosaurs didn't drink entire rivers dry (Job 40:35). Taken literally, the Bible verses describe something like a gigantic walking shopvac. Good luck trying to find that thing.

I don't know about dinosaurs on the ark but here's for all you non believers.... read for yourselves.

Those sites contain nothing but speculation mixed with a bad case of Biblical confirmation bias. A geological formation that kinda looks ark-shaped, a few splinters of wood, and an absolute ban of anyone ever getting near the supposed ark?

Yeah, that definitely proves the veracity of the story of a worldwide flood being weathered by an old couple riding in history's largest floating sex den.

Keep reading Jack. If you want speculation, read most of the comments already posted or reread yours several times over again.

"there is now actual photographic evidence that Noah's Ark really does exist.... Scientists have used satellites, computers, and powerful cameras to pinpoint the Ark's exact location on Mt. Ararat."

For decades, people have been pointing to some grainy satellite pictures. If it actually exists, why not just go there?

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060905_noahs_ark.html

Funny you should post this link. It's good reading. The author is a skeptic who pretty much shoots down every claim that the ark has supposedly been found.

If dinosaurs were mentioned in the Bible..

Chapter and verse?

@http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060905_noahs_ark.html re: post 2.57 the author of the article says in conclusion:

Yet the question is not about faith, hope, or God; the question is if Noah's Ark is real and has been found. Like Atlantis, the ever-elusive Ark will continue to be "found" by those looking for it—whether it exists or not.

B.S.

The article refers to eyewitness accounts such as Marco Polo's. Hmm, let's see--Polo also describes folks walking around with heads where their stomachs are. I'm still waiting to find the giants created from angels having sex with humans, not to mention the unicorns and cloven-hoofed rabbits mentioned in the Bible. Oh, and let's not forget Noah's Ark, which remains like the Ark of the Covenant, conveniently lost.

Dont worry!!! All this is a HUGE misunderstanding. Bart is talking about BIRDS, because they are the sole living dinosaur descendants, and by the Ark he might be refering to the Titanic. It would be hilarious, even for his standards, to claim that Noah rode on an 8 ton T-Rex to push a 25 ton Brachiosaur inside a woden boat while the boat was pushed by Liopleurodons.

If the Ark had been found, there would be endless pilgrimages going to it
and round the clock security to make sure people dont destroy it by trying to break parts off to take with them

to me THATS the biggest evidence against it having been actually found

I have proof that early man passed on his knowledge of the dangers of living with dinosaurs.

˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ʇı uı ʇsooɹ oʇ ǝʌɐɥ ʇ,upıp sʇɐq sn ʇsɐǝן ʇɐ

No Robert, it's all true, I was there. I saw the whole thing first hand. Oh, cleaning up after them on the ark was a never ending job.

:)

lol....the ark....like I said, don't mention glacial movement- their heads will explode.

Liopleurodons Chaaarlie!

XDDD

Umm, mammoths had tiny tails, not a tail that would compare in size to a cedar tree!

note to all bible thumpers who claim noah's ARK existed... you go with these satellite images etc that look like a boat. The Ark of the bible story (spelled with a "K" not a "C" was not boat like at all. The bible describes this vessel in detail. It gave exact dimensions which were not big enough to hold all the animals around today let alone those that have gone extinct. Also not it was not just 2 of each, the bible says 2 of some and SEVEN of others, and the shape of the alleged vessel was a big rectangular prism.... try reading your own book before using it to support your half baked theories

"As humans, we know that our noses and ears never stop growing, but the rest of us does."

Denial.

I step on my scale weekly and can disprove that statement! I'll share that fact with y'all for FREE!!

I LOVE ROBERT'S ARTICLES!

This one is still making me laugh! 8-)

Dinosaurs had a cruise ship? With a snack bar? Those tasty unicorns didn't stand a chance!

Uhm... well I could have told them that not all the dinosaurs died out... those would be our modern birds' ancestors.

But yes, I completely agree sushicat... at this point I just want to see his evidence, out of morbid curiosity (probably the same reason why I pause on COPS or Cheaters for a good 30 seconds while flipping through the channels).

I, too, want to see evidence. Are these people reading Dinotopia like it was an encyclopedia?

Are these people reading Dinotopia like it was an encyclopedia?

Wait... It's not?

So how did people 2000-3000 years ago know exactly what dinosaurs looked like? There's really only 2 options. Either they saw the dinosaurs with their own eyes, or they constructed the skeletons.

Well as I witnessed a Republican woman Representatives state that the earth is only 6,000 years old...? Next Cristian's will be covertly planting evidence on Mt. Ararat...? I will just observe quietly out of respect for my fore-monkey relatives... Smile :-) I will also stay away from the LSD...

Why do they need evidence anyway? Faith is not based on "evidence". That's why it's called FAITH!

Why do they need evidence anyway? Faith is not based on "evidence". That's why it's called FAITH!

To shut up all us non-believers, silly. So they can say, "Nyah, nyah, nyah."

And now he's back in the religion business, apparently... and peddling his Top Ten Proofs™ series... you CAN get the whole set for just ***Ninety Nine Dollars***... yes, you read that right... for a limited time only, the complete set of Top Ten Proofs™ for just $99!!!

Yup, "There's a sucker born every minute."

litterdog..yep and those are the ones who pick up read such piffle...

Piffle; a word that isnt used enough!

Top ten proofs implies there is more. I've yet to see one.

Wish Noah would have forgot the roaches. . .

(Full disclosure: I totally stole that joke from a thread a couple of months ago)

So did Noah have one of those high-voltage paddocks for the velociraptors like in Jurassic Park? Otherwise, I can imagine that a lot fewer species got off the ark than got on.

Oooohh ... the UNICORN song!

"I got some green alligators and some long-necked geese; humpy backed camels and some chimpanzees. Cats and rats and elephants, as sure as your born, but they all forgot the unicorn!"

Nope. No dinosaurs there.

Douglas, maybe that is what happened to those cute unicorns... Either that, or the red bull really did get them all...

Size of Noah's ark:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/am/v2/n2/ships.jpg

Yeah. . .I don't see it even close to happening with the dinosaurs AND the animals.

It's not only that, but two of ANY* species of animal is not enough to sustain a viable population base. The rampant inbreeding would kill them all off in a matter of years. And if there were dinosaurs on the ark, where did they go? Are they saying that every other animal survived except for dinosaurs? Consider my mind blown!

Come now, let's put on our thinking caps. If an infinite number of angels (and they are BIG) can dance of the head of a pin, a dozen or so dinosaurs should easily fit into the magic ark.

It's not only that, but two of ANY* species of animal is not enough to sustain a viable population base. The rampant inbreeding would kill them all off in a matter of years.

Even true of humans. Three brothers and their wives could not possibly produce viable progeny through multiple generations. Especially if, as alleged, Shem went one way, Ham went another and Japheth went a third direction. As with Adam and Eve's kids, each of them would have had their sons and daughters marrying each other, a sure recipe for inbreeding to the point of extinction.

Dave-792879

As with Adam and Eve's kids, each of them would have had their sons and daughters marrying each other, a sure recipe for inbreeding to the point of extinction.

Actually I saw a Fundie web site a few month ago explaining that one away: you see, the reason inbreeding is a problem now is because there has been "genetic drift" over the last 6000 years; but when Adam & Eve were created, their genetic code was perfect, so there were no problemattic traits to be passed along. Seriously, that was the argument.

The rampant inbreeding would kill them all off in a matter of years

Let's hope so! (You were talking about young earth creationists, right?)

a dozen or so dinosaurs should easily fit into the magic ark.

I don't know. Maybe if Noah had studied how to stuff a dozen or so clowns into a volkswagen, but clowns hadn't been invented yet.

Come now, let's put on our thinking caps. If an infinite number of angels (and they are BIG) can dance of the head of a pin, a dozen or so dinosaurs should easily fit into the magic ark.

Noah's Ark: the original TARDIS.

If you could get all those dinosaurs on a big boat, do you think Michelle Duggar could give birth to one?

yabba dabba dooooo. haha

This is hilarious

Great now that In Living Color "yabba Dabba Doo Ya dabba de" parody rattling around inside my head.

Was Hanna-Barbera listed as a source?

Since Creation only happened about 6,000 years ago, it's simple.

Simple. See, the peoples were really sad for the dead dinosaur type am-minals and buries them up real pretty like. But wait, there's more. See, just to mess with the future generations heads, they messed up the puzzle pieces and lost a few even.

Cause the dinos didnt just die

they died, and came back as zombies
and humanity was reduced to just Adam and Eve
and over time the zombie menace ended by the zombies decomosing to bones
and the decendants of Adam and Eve heeded the warning and bured the bones deep as to make sure the zombie threat was ended once and for all

"But this makes no sense"

DAMNIT I SAID ONCE AND FOR ALL!!

Zombeh-dinos!

*nomnom*

Zombeh-dinos!

I think I see a movie in the making!

That wasn't a rat, that was a glennbeckosaur.

An understandable mistake, no doubt.

Asheville Jack, I hope you are joking. That's not really there is it?

sushicat ~

No, it's not really there. Just funnin' the Texas school board for their neanderthal like outlook towards Texas education. But that's another story.

No, it is the same story. The perpetuation of selling misinformation and lies to the gullible. And the gullible, when misinformed, can be deadly. Look at the Spanish Civil War, where the yokems did in the intelligentsia. Our sociopathic elite is fomenting the same type of crap that led up to that war.

Expect an American "Franco" to come along to "save" America. The means and ways are already emplaced. Our "elite" are still working on a sellable ideology. The Tea Party is an experiment, led by a Harvard graduate who is a member of that sociapathic elite.

Yeah...and I got a dinosaur farm in my back yard.

No, it's not really there. Just funnin' the Texas school board for their neanderthal like outlook towards Texas education. But that's another story.

The sad thing is that the majority of textbooks used in all US schools today are printed in Texas.

Hmmm...how do you build an ark large enough for Cthulhu?

On the other hand, at least it's a singular entity, so you don't have to fit two on the ark. Plus, he can survive submerged in R'lyeh dead/dreaming, so I suppose he doesn't have to go on the ark in the first place. Problem solved - just leave Cthulhu underwater and the ark doesn't have to be so large...

Everyone knows that alien madness-inducing godlike entities from beyond time and space grow continually as long as they live.

Remember the mermaid myth? Sailors mistook manatees for mermaids. . .

Part of me questions how you can screw those two up, but. . .If you were on a ship for a long period of time with no women around. . .you would probaby think that manatee was gorgeous.

lol

lol-randommilitary-yeah, they just tied a tether to him and pulled him behind the ark so he wouldn't get lost. XD

If you were on a ship for a long period of time with no women around. . .you would probaby think that manatee was gorgeous.

Hey now Checkmate! Ex-sailor here, and that statement hits too close to home.

Anathema6205

And what of the plants? Not worthy enough, huh? Land based plants CAN'T survive submersed under water. How do they speculate what happened to them?

And how do you explain extinct varieties of dinosaurs who lived in the water?? They wouldn't care about a silly little global flood, would they??

Depends on how they're affected by salinity. Pretty much all freshwater and saltwater fish in the world would have had to have been on the ark as well, since the rapid mixing of freshwater and saltwater on a global level would have changed salinity levels to a point where almost all fish species would die out.

Hmmm...how do you build an ark large enough for Cthulhu?

Cthulu didn't need to be on the ark because pure evil floats like pond scum;)

So THAT'S why we can't waterboard Cheney!

I know it's shocking, but would you mind using your OWN palm next time?

i almost used my desk. :(

LOL!

Actually, you see, its just the heads shrinking makes it look like the ears and noses are still growing.
*wink*

Into Yoda they are turning!

I especially liked the part about continuing to grow "just like human noses and ears do.";)

Love this!

Sad thing about these people is, once all this is debunked, they'll throw ALL of the fossils out of their plan and claim they never existed.

It is not a question of whether or not dinosaurs and primitive man lived at the same time, but whether Dinosaurs and mankind lived together during the last 6000 years of recorded history.

Adam and the T-Rex what a story that would have been, in fact I think it would have made a much greater story and been a even better story than Cain and Able.

When referring to these people, shouldn't that read:

Cracked. Must be more cracked.

I couldn't agree more. Logic is related with science, and both are not related with faith at all!

i would tend to disagree here, of course im not saying dinosaurs on the ark is logical or scientific, but faith and science in my opinion arent mutually exclusive, i would say main stream christianity and science are by far more like oil and water than anything

case and point, science of mind/ religious science, no its not scientology, its way better

you dont have to give up your sanity to be spiritual or religious

Science compels us ask questions. Religion tells us to stop being scientific.

They inevitably influence each other, but probably shouldn't.

Responsible adult, you have to give up logic to rely on faith.

Responsible adult, you have to give up logic to rely on faith.

Thats pretty absurd, simply because I have faith in a higher power doesn't mean I can't work out the logic system in science. Don't think faith is a exclusively Christianity, or creationism, or in this case a "dinosaurs lived with man" trait. Some of us believe in a higher power, but view science as a way of discovering his method.

I find it disgusting that so many atheist today have blasted religion to the ground because they hate the church so much.

Some of us believe in a higher power, but view science as a way of discovering his method.

Couldn't agree with you more!

If you need faith to believe something, then logic doesn't apply. You don't need faith if the logic of it is self-evident. That's what I was saying. I didn't mean to imply that someone who has faith in something they cannot know is immune from logic. I just happen to be someone who cannot have faith in something I cannot know.

talk about blanket statements, and assumptions based on your own view of the world, sheesh

I think you continue to assume that all religions are the same as evangelic christians, not all religions ask you to stop asking questions, or even shut off your logic to believe something completely unbelievable, they are different from church to church even. in reality, religion was the beginning of asking and answering questions, if you look at them they have vast and imaginative answers to the questions earlier man had about the world, even if they were 'scientifically' wrong, however they got wrapped up in tradition and became very rigid and unwilling to change after they had a different answer. Dyed in the wool as they say. 'To defy the laws of tradition is a crusade only of the brave' You could equate this to the literalists of today, people who believe the stories in the bible, koran, eddas, etc. to be exact literal records of things that happened as if the epic of Sigurd was historic.

The same applies to logic, if you demand to be logical about everything then you are simply going to be the same as these evangelicals, just on the other end of the scale. Cold, hollow and unfeeling of the world around you, in a rigid box of your own design. Surely there are things you don't know, or at least cannot exactly explane with science or logic right now, but they are still there, you use logic to assume that gravity will still be there in the morning? Your thoughts are just by products of an organic brain? theres nothing else in the world other than what can be determined and examined by men in white coats? what a sad rationalist view of the world. science and logic are there to measure the measureable, but there are things in this world that it cannot measure. Quantum mechanics takes a whack at it, but even then its trying to determine something that we cannot observe and arent even sure is there. So right there you have science that is driven by faith that what they are equating is there, but they arent sure either. How many times has science had to change their theorums, equations, and proved ideas? the world use to be flat, science can still be just as wrong in its ideals, scientists are still human if memorys serves.

In the end, I wish you the best of luck on your journey wether or not you choose to believe in something larger in scope than what you can see, touch, taste, smell, hear. We all have our own paths we must walk and we must do it the only way We know how to.

in reality, religion was the beginning of asking and answering questions, if you look at them they have vast and imaginative answers to the questions earlier man had about the world, even if they were 'scientifically' wrong, however they got wrapped up in tradition and became very rigid and unwilling to change after they had a different answer.

Indeed, religion did a serviceable job of "explaining" the unexplained back when people knew diddly-s--- about science.

The same applies to logic, if you demand to be logical about everything then you are simply going to be the same as these evangelicals, just on the other end of the scale. Cold, hollow and unfeeling of the world around you, in a rigid box of your own design.

Ah yes, because only sociopaths are rational.

Surely there are things you don't know, or at least cannot exactly explane with science or logic right now, but they are still there, you use logic to assume that gravity will still be there in the morning?

Yes, inductive logic.

Your thoughts are just by products of an organic brain?

Deductive logic, stemming from neuroscientific evidence.

theres nothing else in the world other than what can be determined and examined by men in white coats?

There very well could be. So far, there's diddly-s--- supporting the existence of such. Most rational people aren't in the habit of assuming the existence of something for which there's zero evidence--unicorns, for example.

what a sad rationalist view of the world.

What a sad list of reductionist lies.

science and logic are there to measure the measureable, but there are things in this world that it cannot measure.

For example? I hope you're not going to start listing entirely subjective items.

Quantum mechanics takes a whack at it, but even then its trying to determine something that we cannot observe and arent even sure is there.

Yeah, we sure can't observe electrons. I mean, they could be imaginary for all we know, right?

So right there you have science that is driven by faith that what they are equating is there, but they arent sure either. How many times has science had to change their theorums, equations, and proved ideas?

Science is never sure of any generalized theory. That's why the things are called "theories," not "truths." Unlike religion, science doesn't make a habit of intentionally and flagrantly lying to people.

the world use to be flat,

Yes, up till Greek philosophy dating from the 6th century BC. Of course, religious leaders had no problem perpetuating the flat Earth lie for centuries afterward.

science can still be just as wrong in its ideals, scientists are still human if memorys serves.

And science never claims otherwise. No bulls--- about declaring immutable truths of the universe.

good lord jack ( pun intended ) maybe you should warn people when you plan on snipeting their comment up to the point where it doesnt even resemble the original meaning, and you could definately do with a tad less dry sarcasm.

I came here for a civil and fun conversation, not to be talked down to like a child, I was going to address all of your little snipes individually but decided against it feeling that it ultimately had no point other than creating a circular argument and nothing but angst.

I never said that religion trumps logic, or that your priest would know the immutable answers to the universe, what i am saying is that logic and faith arent exclusive, more like two sides of a coin that work in tandem with eachother. And youre dead wrong about science not claiming truths or flagrantly lying to people, do you have any experience in the medical field?theres many things that are outside the grasp of science, that doesnt mean they will always be that way, its all building blocks, but I still believe there is that which cannot be written or measured or explained, but only experienced.

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged is scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.' It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with.”

Max Planck German theoretical Physicist who originated quantum theory, 1858-1947

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”

Today we find increasing numbers of scientific men emerging from the age of materialism. This is due to the fact that modern science has not theoretically been able to resolve the material universe into purely mechanical energy, but has discovered that the smallest particles which it supposes to exist exercise a sort of volition, which of course leaves room for freedom ( Heisenberg's theory of indeterminacy) Once you establish freedom and volition as an operating factor in connection with the energy which becomes from (Einstein's theory of equivalence of energy and mass ), then you have established a universe of consciousness. And once you establish a univers of consciousness you establish the possibility of communion, and arrive at a logical basis for faith, prayer, the relgious and the mystical life.

This is what is meant when we speak of a scientific religion. We do not mean that religion is reduced to coldness, without sentiment or feeling, but rather that law and order are added to the sentiment and the feeling. We have a perfect right to speak of a scientific religion, or a religion of science. But upon what could such a scientific religion be based? it could only be based upon the principle of Mind, of Intelligence and Consciousness, which many outstanding scientists today assert is the ultimate and fundamental reality.

Science, in affirming consciousness in the universem that is, a spiritual Presence and an Intelligence, also affirms that the individuals consciousness is of similar nature.

"Consciousness is a singular of which the plural is unknown; that there is only one thing and that, which seems to be a plurality, is merely a series of different aspects of this one thing"

Erwin Schrodinger

Therefore a scientific religion does not exclude what we call prayer or communion even though it lays greater stress on communion than on petition. For instance, a scientific religion could not believe that man's petitions to God can change the natural order of the universe or reverse the laws of nature.

However, prayer now becomes the communion of the lesser with the greater, which makes it possible for man not to reverse natural law, but to reverse his position in it in such a way that bondage becomes freedom.

*Thanks to Ernest Holmes with helping explain what I do not have the words for

Take care

talk about blanket statements, and assumptions based on your own view of the world, sheesh

you could definately do with a tad less dry sarcasm.

You first. :-)

theres many things that are outside the grasp of science, that doesnt mean they will always be that way, its all building blocks, but I still believe there is that which cannot be written or measured or explained, but only experienced.

Sure, anything completely subjective is potentially able to remove itself from the measurable or explainable.

And youre dead wrong about science not claiming truths or flagrantly lying to people, do you have any experience in the medical field?

I have a bit of familiarity as an outsider. Did you have anything to actually support your point, or are you content with simple "Hur, I know more than you" browbeating?

This is due to the fact that modern science has not theoretically been able to resolve the material universe into purely mechanical energy, but has discovered that the smallest particles which it supposes to exist exercise a sort of volition, which of course leaves room for freedom ( Heisenberg's theory of indeterminacy)

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle (which describes an absolute lower limit on measurement precision) has nothing to do with some idea of sentient fundamental particles. If you disagree, feel free to support your claims.

Once you establish freedom and volition as an operating factor in connection with the energy which becomes from (Einstein's theory of equivalence of energy and mass ), then you have established a universe of consciousness.

E=mc^2 proves universal consciousness? Again, feel free to support such a claim--better yet, define what you mean by consciousness first. I don't particularly want a rehash of numerous conversations I've had with people pretending to prove the existence of souls, only to find their goalposts changing faster than Lindsay's Lohan sexual partners.

And once you establish a univers of consciousness you establish the possibility of communion, and arrive at a logical basis for faith, prayer, the relgious and the mystical life.

Even assuming your completely unevidenced assumption to be absolute truth, the "possibility of communion" provides a logical basis for only the vaguest notions of supernatural faith. It does nothing to create a logical basis for specific beliefs about prayer, any significant number of religious beliefs, nor any number of mystical beliefs.

Try again.

However, prayer now becomes the communion of the lesser with the greater, which makes it possible for man not to reverse natural law, but to reverse his position in it in such a way that bondage becomes freedom.

Feel free to restate that without the obfuscating folds of abstract platitudes.

Geez, Jack, would it be nicer to ask for a more refined, disciplined answer before you go whacko on the dude?

You always seem to be in attack mode whenever a theological viewpoint is presented.

I suggest you exercise some restraint and allow an opportunity for others to participate. Unless it is your intent to shut down any and all theological discussions, which you have done before.

I will ask the Newsvine community to sanction your ass if you continue this incessant "I'm a bad ass atheist" act any further. One only has to look at all the comments you have made during your time. It's attack, attack, attack, without contributing one iota of theology to any discussion concerning theology.

Ps. I'm a secularist but I'm well acquainted with various theologies. Would you poo-poo on American Indian Navajo lore? I thought some of it was quite marvelous.

It's rather ironic that you're somehow threatening to "ask the Newsvine community to sanction [my] ass" in a comment that is nothing but a longwinded ad hominem attack. The implication that somehow you've actually looked through my entire four-year history of commenting is rather amusing, though. Apparently, you really really care about me lots and lots. I'm... almost touched.

Anyway, if you have anything at all of substance or relevance to add to the discussion, feel free to share it with the class. Take your time.

I find it disgusting that so many atheist today have blasted religion to the ground because they hate the church so much.

hmmmmm... i believe it has been the church that despised non believers so much in the past 2000 years that they have tried everything in their power to erase us from existence, labeling us as heretics, blasphemer's etc. We don't hate the Church, we just call them out on the ignorance they continue to espouse

Jack, can you point out one contribution to any theology discussion besides dumping on it? You do troll sites where theology would be an inherent component of the discussion.

Stating a fact is not an ad hominem attack.

Im done with you jack, im not going to spend my entire day digging for research that you wouldnt care about or even entertain anyways, youve added nothing to this conversation other than "hur your wrong" except you enjoy using long winded descriptive words to try and assert your mental superiority over others. I cant give you the evidence that you demand, im not trying to prove to you theres a soul, or a god, or that jesus was your savior, or that Odin was the father of all, All I was trying to do was entertain a discussion of the codependency of faith along with science, which apparently to you is impossible.

youve done nothing but tear this conversation down in your futile attempt to interject yourself as the most intelligent and most 'correct'. I didnt come here and tear anyone down, I responded to you politely and with openess, and (imho) very little sarcasm and i dont believe i ever 'brow-beat' you over anything. I never even told you that you were wrong about anything or that logic and science didnt have a place, i did however present a different idea about something. its people like you that making discussing things on newsvine tedious and worthless. I never wanted to get into this argument of " prove unto me the validity of your faith or be deemed invalid by science" You have no 'proof' that something greater Doesnt exhist other than your lack of personal evidence. Personally I think you should go deeper, but its none of my business and honestly its completely up to you in the end. Its not my job to give you proof, go find it yourself, and if you do, id hope youd be a little more open then you were with me.

good day sir, take care, you can respond if you want but I wont be coming back to this thread again, so go ahead and take the last word if you really must, i can see it now " just like those theists, cut and run when they cant compete" or something along those lines?

Jack, can you point out one contribution to any theology discussion besides dumping on it? You do troll sites where theology would be an inherent component of the discussion.

Stating a fact is not an ad hominem attack.

Merely restating an ad hominem attack does not make it a fact, just FYI. Again, feel free to add anything of substance, if only for novelty's sake.
As for R-Adult, apparently no support for any aforementioned empty claims is forthcoming. However, lying is apparently a choice manner of farewell:

And youre dead wrong about science not claiming truths or flagrantly lying to people, do you have any experience in the medical field?

I never even told you that you were wrong about anything or that logic and science didnt have a place, i did however present a different idea about something.

Interesting.

Adieu. :-)