Cloning a Mammoth? - Page 18
+ Reply to Thread
Page 18 of 19 FirstFirst ... 8141516171819 LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 181
Like Tree58Likes

Thread: Cloning a Mammoth?

  1. #171
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    So if there is a fossil hat and fossil bears why again aren't there any fossil people even remotely near dinosaurs? I mean- doesn't the "fossils are so easy to make" thing sortov work against your idea that prehistoric people were amazing seismologists/geologists/fortune tellers able to better predict volcanic eriptions than modern man and whatnot? It just doesn't add up to me. I'm still curious about the claim that they were able to stay far away from dinosaurs- what do you think earths climate was like then where earth could support human life and massive land animals like the fossils that have been found in separate places?

  2. #172
    Community Host Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,771

    Default

    This debate has been a wild ride. Dinosaurs, volcanoes, giant boats full of baby animals, hats! I cant wait to see what we're going to talk about next!
    mommydearest and Jessica80 like this.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  3. #173
    Posting Addict Rivergallery's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    9,766

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Potter75 View Post
    Actually yes. We walked over to Australia last summer. Mate.
    No need for rudeness. there is LAND under the water.. if there was less water.. IE if it was in the air.. or in the earth there would be less in the oceans
    DH-Aug 30th 1997 Josiah - 6/3/02 Isaac 7/31/03

  4. #174
    Posting Addict Rivergallery's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    9,766

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ClairesMommy View Post
    No, what I said was an animal would have to be quickly covered up by earth or whatever for fossilization to happen, like in a mudslide or falling into a tar pit or after an asteroid strike. Fossilization can't happen on top of the ground with lots of air. Lack of air, light, parasites, etc. are the ideal conditions for fossilization.
    Agreed. Would you agree a flood (even a localized one) might cause a severe mudslide and fossilization? Lack of air and light sounds a lot like the bottom of the ocean.. baring being eaten by other animals..
    DH-Aug 30th 1997 Josiah - 6/3/02 Isaac 7/31/03

  5. #175
    Posting Addict Rivergallery's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    9,766

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Potter75 View Post
    So if there is a fossil hat and fossil bears why again aren't there any fossil people even remotely near dinosaurs? I mean- doesn't the "fossils are so easy to make" thing sortov work against your idea that prehistoric people were amazing seismologists/geologists/fortune tellers able to better predict volcanic eriptions than modern man and whatnot? It just doesn't add up to me. I'm still curious about the claim that they were able to stay far away from dinosaurs- what do you think earths climate was like then where earth could support human life and massive land animals like the fossils that have been found in separate places?
    Climate - some theorize it was much richer in oxygen this theory would explain animals and men growing the way they did.. larger and older. oxygen chambers are used even today to help promote healing.

    People have not been found fossilized near dinos.. doesn't mean they didn't live at the same time.. simply means they were not buried at the same time at the same place.. however, other mammals and "modern" birds have been found fossilized with dinosaurs.
    DH-Aug 30th 1997 Josiah - 6/3/02 Isaac 7/31/03

  6. #176
    Posting Addict Rivergallery's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    9,766

    Default

    Wanted to address the number of people on the earth at the time of the flood - according to Genesis Noah's Flood happened around 2348 BC - Adam lived 930 yrs he could have known Noah's Father Lamech ..
    According to the timeline laid out genologically in the Bible
    the Flood happened 1656 years after Adam was created.

    Mathematically - it is not possible to know what values to put in .. alot of assumptions have to be made. Biblically people lived longer about 800-900 years was a normal lifespan till after the flood, after that it was dramatically less.
    People were told to be fruitful and multiply and Noah had his three sons when he was in his hundreds.. he may have had girls earlier but they are not mentioned.. it is not known if he had other sons that turned away from the Lord either, as they are not mentioned.. so that would be presumptive..

    After the flood man essentially started over (not to unlike an evolutionary idea) we all came from a set of DNA.. creationists agree with evolutionists here.. There were Noah his wife his 3 sons and their wives.. it doesn't indicate what the wives looked like so them having all the DNA needed for current racial differences doesn't seem to be outside the realm of scientific nor religious probability.

    After the Tower of Babel later in Genesis it is talked about people's languages being confused and them heading in different directions.

    Keep in mind genealogically in the Bible most of the lineage both Jewish/Israelite/Hebrew/Christian were traced paternally and often no mention were made of women in the Bible or Torah.

    There is mention of how people lived, and if people are similar in thought over the last 5000 years why would they live with large animals? Even if the large animals didn't eat them.. they could destroy villages etc just like an elephant herd on the run etc.
    DH-Aug 30th 1997 Josiah - 6/3/02 Isaac 7/31/03

  7. #177
    Posting Addict ClairesMommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    12,517

    Default

    I hope I look kick-a$$ when I'm 600 or 900 years old or whatever. I should get on the botox now.
    Rivergallery and blather like this.

  8. #178
    Posting Addict Spacers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    My avatar is the tai chi -- a symbol of the eternal cycle of life
    Posts
    16,499

    Default

    No, not the Botox. The treadmill. Gotta keep those 600-year-old muscles from atrophying.

    I've had so much fun reading this thread. Sorry I can't participate because I'd probably get banned for saying what I really think, but y'all are giving me a lot of good laughs before bed the last few nights. People & dinosaurs together on the ark, tigers & my little house cat evolving from the same ancestor in less than 4000 years, fossilized hats, what fun! Carry on, now!
    blather likes this.
    David Letterman is retiring. Such great memories of watching him over the past thirty-two years!

  9. #179
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,132

    Default

    There is mention of how people lived, and if people are similar in thought over the last 5000 years why would they live with large animals? Even if the large animals didn't eat them.. they could destroy villages etc just like an elephant herd on the run etc.
    Because humans are one of the most if not the most adaptable animals on the planet and aren't known for their qualities of "shying away from spreading" How long have humans lived with elephants....a pretty long time.

    Really this conversation is going to go nowhere. One side is going to find it absurd and the other is going to do whatever they can to make it all make sense.

    I mean really, believe it all you want. The only thing that really gets me is trying to use these theories of fake fossils and bogus ancient artificats (seriously....any reading about these outside of creationist sources are hilariously pitiful) to prove your points. Trying to use bad..no not bad, TERRIBLE, science to debunk actual science.

    If you are going to believe in some world made a few thousand years ago in 7 days, i like Bonita's explaination earlier a lot more. That God did it in 7 days and just purposely made all this fake, sort-of-real-but-its-really-fake stuff in it. Lets keep the super natural, super natural.

    But to talk about how science is wrong, and then try to use fossilized hats subject to entirely different conditions than other types of fossils, or a hammer stuck in old geological rock that has never been proven to actually be PART of that geological formation...

    really, its just shameful.
    mommydearest, Spacers and blather like this.

  10. #180
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    It is shameful and it's why people lose respect for the view. It would be so much more honorable or relatable to just say "I don't know how or why God did it and I realize that it doesn't seem to jive with scientific theory. But I have faith in gods word being true as a believer- and that's good enough for me".
    This sneering at real science stuff and grasping at the least plausible truth (people back then didn't die from volcanoes? They em walked underwater? C'mon Dino eggs and baby tigers?.) makes people not have any respect for anything about the belief, in truth.
    Spacers likes this.

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions