Dragons exist, cavemen rode dinosaurs, and evolution is a hoax, apparently.

[Muslim]

I'm not eating my hat.  Archaeopteryx was not a feathered dinosaur.  It was just a reptile that had feathers, and from what I heard, could not fly very well.  It's like saying all reptiles are dinosaurs.  Although it is controversial, I won't eat my hat since there isn't 100% chance that is a dinosaur.

are you serious

[Ad Bot]

[Katadeus]

are you serious

yeah I don't even understand
it took me like 5 minutes to formulate a response

[XR-7]

what are you talking about
Archaeopteryx is the transition between feathered dinosaurs and birds.
There are things in-between birds and dinosaurs, and it is one of them. Birds are not dinosaurs, they are descended from them.

Sure, I agree with you.  It could very easily be the missing link/transition between species of reptiles turning into birds.  It could also just as easily be a seperate species.  Because scientists do not know anything about the DNA, they have no way of proving that it is a missing link either.  I'm not saying that I am right, I'm just saying I'm not sold out on it.

[ghost_man]

that was one hell of a chain yank
but if he was serious
then that one episode of futurama really is going to happen.

[SWAT One]

are you serious

Hello Mr. self-righteous prick.

Honestly, how do you think fossils formed?  By what means?  All documentaries I have seen relate to a meteor, volcano, or the aftermath created by it.  If you can explain these, I can lend some more credibility to evolutionists.

However, evolutionists have dodged the idea of a torrential flood because they didn't want to give any reference to the Biblical flood.  The conditions for fossils to be preserved is that it must be buried quickly by sediment* and that no intense shifting occur that would break it apart.  A flood would satisfy both of these conditions.  Dinosaurs 5000 years ago buried by sediment moved by a flood would be preserved quickly, and can also explain human footsteps alongside dinosaur tracks.  In the event of volcanic eruption or meteor strike, the Earth's surface would be in turmoil, and would not provide conditions for fossils to be preserved.  Rock cycles provide doubt for the 65 million + theory, as metamorphic rock would be jumbled by tectonic movements and eventually make it down to the igneous layer, where the bones would both fall apart due to immense heat and pressure, and be inaccessible to us.  The findings of polystratic fossils is also supported by a flood.  In the event that a stick or bone would be caught in the mud, it could point vertically.  With layers considered thousands or millions of years old, the object would have fallen apart.  When quickly covered with mud, this makes more sense.  Another issue is that fossil fuels are found all over the world.  Can this be explained by a flood?  Yes.  The conditions for fossils are the same as for fossil fuels.  When quickly burying trees and animals in sediment, the conditions become suitable for oil and coal.  The creatures (and sadly, thousands of humans at the time) and trees were buried quickly and were eventually pressurized into fossil fuels, aided by heat treatment.  As floodwaters would cover the whole planet, oil and coal can be found pretty much anywhere.

*The exception would be a tar pit, but according to my stance, oil didn't exist at this time, so this could be discounted.  Can also be discounted by the rarity of them.

[Steemer]

-snip-

I'm pretty sure fossils are primarily found in areas that were naturally being covered in sediment, such as rivers, at the time. Sediment does not only refer to water-borne particles, volcanic ash and sand could both be counted, even though they are moved by air.

You don't generally find fossils in metamorphic rock, they are found in sedimentary rock, and even then, none of this rock is old enough to be at a depth where heat is an issue, unless it was close to a plate boundary or something.

Fossils aren't the bones of the animals, they are the imprint of the bone in the rock which has then filled with minerals over a period of time. They would not fall apart from age.

Also, oil would have existed then, but less of it, because plants (and algae) had still been around for a long while before dinosaurs, so oil (and other fossil fuels) would have had plenty of time to form.

[dkamm65]

It's funny you're trying to use logic to explain this, but are completely ignoring one very important thing.

Where the hell would all that water come from, and where did it all go? Even if the ice caps melted entirely, the water would barely modify the coastline, never mind flood the entire planet with enough water to wipe out entire species.

This is why people laugh at creationists.

[.::Taboo::.]

Not one evolutionist called in.

hahaha, hoo boy, guy demonstrates a complete lack of basic logic skills within three sentences.

also, why is an article from 2004 randomly being posted
did op just feel like starting an argument

[Mysteroo]

Where the hell would all that water come from, and where did it all go?

HMM
>believes in a God that can create an entire freaking universe with his words
>apparently can't believe that the same God can make water appear out of nowhere and then disappear when the world has been flooded

Seriously, think for a second. The story goes that God wanted to flood the whole earth. So what's the obvious thing to do? Make water appear and flood it. So now what does he do with all the water? Make the excess water disappear.

And even though nobody really has to, a more scientific answer could be given. There's geysers at the bottom of the ocean constantly pumping out water, and some people think the verse stating "the fountains of the deep broke open" implies that those opened and started jetting out water.
Some people also think there was another layer of the atmosphere made of ice, which would have made the air pressure higher and could theoretically allow for some things in the bible to be more plausible. God could have easily melted that layer, which then fell to the earth and flooded it.

When you're debating people who believe in God, you're going to have to accept that sometimes we're going to think that God actually did something.

also, why is an article from 2004 randomly being posted
did op just feel like starting an argument

probably

[XR-7]

I'm pretty sure fossils are primarily found in areas that were naturally being covered in sediment, such as rivers, at the time. Sediment does not only refer to water-borne particles, volcanic ash and sand could both be counted, even though they are moved by air.

Explain fish fossils on top of mountains.  If you don't believe me, Google saves all.

You don't generally find fossils in metamorphic rock, they are found in sedimentary rock, and even then, none of this rock is old enough to be at a depth where heat is an issue, unless it was close to a plate boundary or something.

Fossils aren't the bones of the animals, they are the imprint of the bone in the rock which has then filled with minerals over a period of time. They would not fall apart from age.

Sedimentary rock supports both evolution AND the Flood.  In these days, sediments are not deposited on river bottoms quickly or often enough, which supports 65+MYA, but in a catastrophic flood, these sediments would be stirred up all over the planet and deposited rapidly, thus covering drowned organisms that had not yet decayed.

He's stating that the imprints would mostly have gotten broken up due to tectonic movements over the last 65 million years and beyond.  If we allowed 65 million years (even not that long), earthquakes, volcanoes, erosion, and a number of other natural phenomena would have destroyed almost all fossils that ever existed.  On top of that, the fossilization process is so complex and requires just the right conditions, that if 65 million years had actually passed, humans wouldn't even know what a fossil is, having never seen one.

It's funny you're trying to use logic to explain this, but are completely ignoring one very important thing.

Where the hell would all that water come from, and where did it all go? Even if the ice caps melted entirely, the water would barely modify the coastline, never mind flood the entire planet with enough water to wipe out entire species.

This is why people laugh at creationists.

I'm gonna answer this with quotes from a different thread, as it's very long to type out:

Ya, FACT.  Scientific Law.  No flaw.  Books stacked up of proof [of evolution proof].  I'll give you my opinion on the Great Flood.

The Epic of Gilgamesh contains parts of the Flood from how other people viewed it.  It was written by the pagan Mesopotamians if I remember right.  Noah's Ark is how Christians relate to it.  There are other stories too, such as that of Sargon (also Mesopotamia).  Similar stories come from Hawaii, Australasia, China, old England, etc.  Look at it as Noah's Ark originated from the Flood itself, along with all the other stories, it really seems that a Great Flood did in fact happen (otherwise, how would stories originate from all over the world with no means of international communication).

The Bible says "the fountains of the deep burst open".  This leads to the Wiffle Ball Effect (as some call it).  Take note of the Pacific Rift Valley.  It is a deep lowland that occupies the very center of the Pacific Ocean.  On the exact other side of the world is the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, which is a mountain range that runs down the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.
   In the Wiffle Ball Effect, there are cusps that are formed in the corners of the Pacific that looks almost like a big thumb pushed into a wiffle ball.  It seems that the Pacific Ocean "caved in" if you will.  When (or if) this happened, it caused the mass underneath to push through the planet, jutting the Atlantic's ocean floor upwards.  If such a catastrophic event occured, it would fire water into the air (it would also cause massive tsunamis).  When the water shot into the air, it came down again as very heavy torrential rain.
   Now where would "of the deep" come from?  Does that mean there was water under the surface of the Earth.  Yes.  There are two "oceans" underneath the surface of the Earth (one is underneath Asia).  Theories say that ocean water seeps under the ocean floor and collects underneath.  When such an event would have happened, the underground "floodgate" would have ruptured releasing trillions of tons of sea water a vapor.
   What about Pangaea, the massive supercontinent?  That could very well have existed.  When the ocean floor ruptured, causing the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the continents slid down the sides of it, parting (Continental Drift).  South America and Africa are still drifting apart to this day.
  The Flood can also link to the formation of comets.  Although this seems unlikely (I don't know enough about it to consider it true), the water and vapor that shot into the sky theoretically made it to the atmosphere.  Any of it that was moving too fast to be pulled back by Earth's gravity kept moving out into space.  In space, anything that exists has gravity.  The frozen water crystals used their own gravity to lure in more water crystals.  When the ball of crystals grew big enough to be pulled my the sun's gravity, it went into orbit and became a comet.  Where else would ice come from in space?

I learned most of this going to lectures on the subject.  Don't freaking tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.  I don't know about the reliability of these sites, but they seem to support what I've heard and believe.

Huge oceans under the Earth
Comet formation
Where did the water come from?

Well then, let me include some equal sites on proof that it didn't happen, and I'll try proving them wrong.

"God would not massacre everyone."

Proof: The verses on this site do not show the rest of the context.  The people were being punished.

"God senselessly murdered millions of humans and billions of animals in the flood."

My retort: Genesis 6:1-8

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter6.html

"we have a god who has to modify virtually all of his creations for the solely expressed reason of the people having become wicked and evil (Genesis 6:5), yet wicked and evil people continue to exist throughout the Bible."

My retort: Genesis 3:1-24

"A little known but important piece of information about the Genesis flood is that the extremely similar Epic of Gilgamesh in the Sumerian legend predates Noah’s story by at least one thousand years in the written form and at least five hundred years for the setting."

My retort:

"The amount necessary to produce a flood of global proportions far exceeds the current amount available on, in, and above the earth."

I already explained this^

"One should also realistically expect at least a scant amount of geological or natural evidence for a global flood if the supernatural catastrophe took place, but the signs overwhelmingly point to the contrary."

Explained this too, the Pacific Rift Valley and Mid-Atlantic Ridge don't look like catastrophes now, but they probably caused the flood when the Pacific's floor caved in.

“How did Noah get all those animals to fit on the ark?”

My retort: Back thousands of years ago, there was not as much animal diversity (as in not as many breeds of different animals, since there was scant enough time for inter-breeding to occur that far back in the planet's history)

" The seemingly immune marine life could have fared no better than their terrestrial counterparts because, first of all, the rapid mixture of salt and fresh water from the conglomeration of various pure water sources would have killed all known marine creatures in a matter of hours. End of story."

Retort: A lot of marine life WAS wiped out.  Also, the concentration of all these substances would have been much lower in so much water.

" The world’s vegetation should also join the growing list of organisms without immunity from the effects of the morally shameful flood."

Retort: A lot of plants DID go extinct.  Seeds that survived the flood or could go dormant after buried under sediment would have survived the flood.

" It’s painfully obvious that the story is burdened with a number of significant problems. For this reason, many apologists will attempt a hopeless defense for it by suggesting that the tale was speaking of a local flood."

Retort: How would a local flood be that deep?  How would stories originate all over the planet?

Before telling me what I didn't point out, I only covered what I thought were major points of how the flood could NOT exist.

[dkamm65]

Magic. Got it.

[dkamm65]

If you're going to use pravda.ru, creationscience.com, and answersingenesis.org, i'll use:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_flood

[XR-7]

If you're going to use pravda.ru, creationscience.com, and answersingenesis.org, i'll use:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_flood

If you want me to, I'll work on using Christian perspective to prove key atheistical beliefs to be false here.

The flood, according to the Bible, was brought on because every person in the whole world — except eight people God chose — were wicked and needed to be killed. The narrative does not specify if the very young children, babies (or even the unborn), and almost all the world's animals were killed because they were wicked or if they were just collateral damage.[1]

This almost contradicts itself.  Of course the young children and the world's animals were killed.  The Bible also states that God was sad because the Earth had turned wicked, and decided to start over with a new earth.  He chose a man, Noah, to save his family and animals to repopulate the Earth afterwards.  The young children and unborn would have just followed in their parents' footsteps, and God wasn't just going to save all the animals, as that would be a population problem.

Fundamentalists, as usual, miss the forest entirely and end up focusing on the leaves of the trees; insisting on the literal historicity of the flood account because if this was made up, then the entire Bible was made up.

That's pretty handicapped.  That's like a Christian saying, "If radiocarbon dating didn't exist, then the whole theory of evolution is false."

This raises the question of where did that much water come from, and more importantly, where did it all go?

The Bible says "the fountains of the deep burst open".  This leads to the Wiffle Ball Effect (as some call it).  Take note of the Pacific Rift Valley.  It is a deep lowland that occupies the very center of the Pacific Ocean.  On the exact other side of the world is the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, which is a mountain range that runs down the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.
   In the Wiffle Ball Effect, there are cusps that are formed in the corners of the Pacific that looks almost like a big thumb pushed into a wiffle ball.  It seems that the Pacific Ocean "caved in" if you will.  When (or if) this happened, it caused the mass underneath to push through the planet, jutting the Atlantic's ocean floor upwards.  If such a catastrophic event occured, it would fire water into the air (it would also cause massive tsunamis).  When the water shot into the air, it came down again as very heavy torrential rain.
   Now where would "of the deep" come from?  Does that mean there was water under the surface of the Earth.  Yes.  There are two "oceans" underneath the surface of the Earth (one is underneath Asia).  Theories say that ocean water seeps under the ocean floor and collects underneath.  When such an event would have happened, the underground "floodgate" would have ruptured releasing trillions of tons of sea water a vapor.

The change in atmospheric conditions required to support enough vapor for 112 million cubic kilometers of rain per day - about 120,000 times more than the current daily rainfall worldwide[5] - would have rendered the air unbreathable.

The atmosphere must not have been that dense then.  Some theories speculate that there was a "canopy" of water vapor in the atmosphere during the flood, which contributed to the high water.  However, I don't know if that's true or not.  Their could also have been much, much, more groundwater then too.  If the entire Atlantic Ocean practically exploded, and the Pacific caved in, releasing all of it's contents, that would be a heck of a lot of water.

Some animals would have had to make incredible journeys all the way from places like South America and Australia.[8]

Oh, so Pangaea doesn't exist now?  Okay then....

Still that is a long distance, but according to the Bible, God helped Noah collect them all.

Another problem is, "How did all those animals fit in the Ark?"  If he brought small/baby animals of each love, that's a lot less space.  With all due practicality, I'd do that too, since it uses less food supply, less clean-up, etc.


I can do plently more, but I have to go to school now.

[Zeblote]

lol nonsense

[Duhman115]

I wouldn't call RationalWiki a source for ANYTHING.