-
-
Re: 125 million year old Flying Squirrel
I've seen this before, but it's not considered any more likely than any of the UFO abductions, possible locations of Atlantis, etc. There's really no reason for anyone to think that it's actually Noah's Ark besides the fact that it vaguely resembles a ship, and people really want it to be true.Comment
-
Re: 125 million year old Flying Squirrel
Even if it was 'Noah's ark' that does not mean there was a world wide flood nor was there 2 of every animal on this ark. I already proved there was no world wide flood, so great, Noah has a boat and it ended up in a mountain.
Considering how fanatical some people are maybe it was placed there. It wouldn't surprise me at all.
Which would just further support the fact people like to believe in things that didn't happen, or they like to blow things out of perportion and tell people things that are half truths. What probably happened is there was a local flood and some guy had a wooden boat and was sailing it across some flooded area or whatever, and people saw it and this whole myth was created.
Anyway, this has nothing to do with a really old flying squirrel.Last edited by Reach; 12-27-2006, 04:12 PM.
Comment
-
Re: 125 million year old Flying Squirrel
Umm, just because an old boat was found on top of a mountain, doesn't mean 1) the whole world was flooded or 2) give a date as to when the boat got there. In fact, from the person who doesn't believe in carbon dating, I'm not sure how they'd be able to TO date the boat, since the flood obviously would've caused enough damage.Comment
-
Re: 125 million year old Flying Squirrel
It could be possible. I was learning about something in BIO about evolution...I forget the name. Something along to lines of isolation and the ability to adapt over time.
Comment
-
Re: 125 million year old Flying Squirrel
this applies to all radiometric dating
quote(Science says that carbon dating is relatively accurate, so your religious views must be checked at the door and not stated as fact without any evidence.)
who are you going to believe, a book with thousands of witnesses to the events that are written inside, or, some scientists that proposed thier own answer?
more quotes(I'd really like to see some sources along with this claim, because I'm finding it pretty hard to believe that a flood cause the decay of all carbon to change (especially 1000 fold?!). Also, why wouldn't science as a whole take this into account? If you somehow know how it was before the "flood" and they don't, then how the heck DO you know? You DO know how bold of a statement that was, right?)
my source is my parents sundy school teach, Mr. Robert Ridlon Jr.
science does not want to admit that there is a higher power out there that they can't explain. everybody knows that that is the scientist's greatest fear, not being able to explain something.
i know because it sure makes more sense than organisms mutating for years and years.
oh, and since this is critical thinking, i think that i can give this stuff to you guys to keep something on your mind to think about.
Last edited by CPUGenuis; 02-21-2007, 09:20 PM.i like pie +1Comment
-
Re: 125 million year old Flying Squirrel
Source? Maybe I'm unclear exactly on what you mean, but if by the "great flood" you mean some huge flood that overtook the earth, I'm going to have to disagree. As Reach pointed out, there is documentation of civilizations who made no note of this throughout the period when this was projected to happen.
EDIT:
Some scientists is a gross understatement, we aren't talking about a few hundred scientists who believe this, I'm going to go ahead and say there is several thousand, if not several hundred thousand scientists who trust in carbon dating. I'd also like to point out that I'm fairly sure the bible doesn't say carbon dating is inaccurate, therefore you're only person of reference is a Sunday school teacher.Originally posted by CPUGenuisOriginally posted by pntballa18
Comment
-
Re: 125 million year old Flying Squirrel
the great flood has probably been recorded in many different civilazations, i just don't know which ones (i am about to call it a night, you can do that research), but a while ago, a great flood overswept the earth and flooded it for 40 days and nights (according to math, rained at .5 feet per minute), and one male and female of each species was carried on a friggin huge boat, along with 6 humans. this is sparratically throught genesis i think.
geological evidence for this is pangea, which prolly did happen considering plate techtonics. (if it rained out all of the clouds, so it seems that water from the earth (geysers) helped too, which could have majorly moved some land masses)
some scientists refers to those who arn't chrisians (or religions similar to), and the bible does not say at all that CO2 dating is innacurate (i don't think that it even says CO2...), but as soon as i go to church on sunday i am gonna ask the guy what his references are if you want. considering that he has a couple of books that he has written, you would assume that he has plety of references...
when you really think about it though, do you even know how CO2 dating works? it works by radiation, usually from the sun. now, how on earth could UV radiation seem to be decreased, simple, the UV rays wouldn't get to the CO2, how would that happen, mabe thick dense clouds that were there BEFORE they were rained out blocked the rays, causing a big greenhouse effect? probably, unless you have a better excuse? (for what i mean here about CO2 dating also applies to all radiometric dating, and somehow, includes dating in uranium and lead)
did i also mension that this teacher has a plenty of degrees and KNOWS what he is talking about (not some freaky senile old guy with rotting teeth and brains)Last edited by CPUGenuis; 02-21-2007, 09:52 PM.i like pie +1Comment
-
Re: 125 million year old Flying Squirrel
Do you understand how science works?
In order for the entire scientific community to accept a tool for gathering evidence, it has to be tested and confirmed by more people than are named in the Bible...
Also, eyewitness accounts are the best evidence you can have in a court of law, but they're the most useless evidence in scientific study. If we believed everything that people said they saw, aliens would therefore be buzzing around our planet nightly, we would have cold fusion, would have found the alien species that dug the canals on Mars, be studying N-rays, and going to an acupuncturist for pain relief.
Thirdly, do you believe everything you read? Millions of people have read the Left Behind series of books; does that make them scientifically accurate?
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG!science does not want to admit that there is a higher power out there that they can't explain. everybody knows that that is the scientist's greatest fear, not being able to explain something.
Look up even basic definitions of science. NOBODY will tell you that scientists are afraid of the unknown. In fact, science THRIVES on the unknown. The GUT is the pinnacle of physics, and scientists are working every day, around the globe, to find it, even though they can't yet explain it!
Religious matters ARE NOT SCIENCE. Period. They cannot be disproven and make no testable predictions. They are based on constructs.
As such, the reason that they aren't studied is because they are scientifically worthless.
Scientists are HAPPY to believe in God because doing so does not affect their scientific tests in the slightest.
Do YOU even know how CO2 dating works?do you even know how CO2 dating works?
Wow, you must be very knowledgeable in your physics if you're able to give such a complete and thorough explanation!it works by radiation, usually from the sun.
Wait a second, though. What's CO2 dating?
You expect us to believe what you have to say when you not only don't understand yourself how radiometric/radiocarbon dating works, but also don't even know enough about what it is to distinguish it from a phantom process that you just made up?
Do you even know what CO2 is?
--Guido
Last edited by GuidoHunter; 02-21-2007, 11:48 PM.
Originally posted by GrandiagodComment
-
Re: 125 million year old Flying Squirrel
"If we believed everything that people said they saw, aliens would therefore be buzzing around our planet nightly, we would have cold fusion, would have found the alien species that dug the canals on Mars, be studying N-rays, and going to an acupuncturist for pain relief."
i would like to blame scientologists on trying to bring that crap up :P
"Thirdly, do you believe everything you read? Millions of people have read the Left Behind series of books; does that make them scientifically accurate?"
not entirely, i have my own ways of checking out is something is reasonable or not. teh left behind seires (to you) is a persepective, Right? to me, it isn't all correct, the charachters might not exist, but the whole theme is accurate.
"Look up even basic definitions of science. NOBODY will tell you that scientists are afraid of the unknown. In fact, science THRIVES on the unknown. The GUT is the pinnacle of physics, and scientists are working every day, around the globe, to find it, even though they can't yet explain it!"
they can't explain it because they REFUSE to accept that a simple book around for thousands of years holds the answers, this area of the unknown is what they fear.
"Do YOU even know how CO2 dating works?"
yeah, well, mosty. SOME of this guys lesson i couldn't catch bcause i heard it when i was, like, 5 and had the mental capacity of a catapillar.
"Do you even know what CO2 is?"
carbon dioxide, deet de dee
simple, when i go to church on sunday, i will ask this guy what his book is and its sources and tell you guys.i like pie +1Comment
-
Re: 125 million year old Flying Squirrel
::bangs head on desk repeatedly::
You clearly didn't understand a word I said.
I hereby challenge you to ask ANY particle physicist why there isn't a GUT when the answer is clearly in the Bible. Then quote passages from the Bible where God explains the relationships between the strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces.
I'm sure he'll accept your views instantaneously.
Huge font so that you don't miss it this time:
IF WE ACCEPT THE BIBLE AS A SCIENTIFIC SOURCE THEN THERE WILL BE NO USE FOR SCIENCE.
If we begin to say that any phenomenon in this world can be explained by a God of whimsy, then every single phenomenon could be explained that way, too. Since there would be an explanation for everything, science and technology would stagnate, and we would no longer progress. Had we adopted this route two hundred years ago, we wouldn't even have widespread electricity, bridges, cars, or anything technological.
It is because of a HEALTHY skepticism and a complete disregard of scientific constructs that we are where we are today.
EDIT: Also, science only concerns itself with that which can be disproven. This is the very nature of science. God and anything religious cannot be disproven, so science completely ignores it. Note: scientists do not ignore it because they have giant, fragile egos. Many of history's greatest scientists have been devoutly religious. They saw no problem with science and God, so why do you?
EDIT2: And please, for Pete's sake, use the [quote]text[/quote] tags so that you're not quoting me twice.
--Guido
Last edited by GuidoHunter; 02-22-2007, 06:39 PM.
Originally posted by GrandiagodComment
-
Re: 125 million year old Flying Squirrel
Note: I skipped mosts of the posts, so sorry if this was stated before.
Please tell me if it doesn't make sense.......
I think it would actually make sense that the first "flying" mammals came before the birds. But think about it, and understand why I put quotation marks around the word 'flying': These things didn't fly, they would glide. You have to remember, flying and gliding have completely different meanings (Let alone trajectories, which I shouldn't have to explain).
Flying is much different. You don't see flying squirrels flapping arms and staying in the air as long as their body can support it.
Comment
-
Re: 125 million year old Flying Squirrel
Oh, PLEASE. You have no idea what you're talking about. There is no such thing as "CO2" dating. Carbon dating is based on Carbon only. Carbon is an atom, amongst the periodic table. Oxygen (O), is another atom. If you take two Oxygens and one Carbon, you get.... CO2. It's a much different thing than Carbon.
C =/= CO2
Ok?Truth lies in loneliness, When hope is long gone by -Blind Guardian, The Soulforged
Image removed for size violation.Comment
-
Re: 125 million year old Flying Squirrel
Also, Bible Boy, can you say that definite humans or human roots with a written language and religion were able to cast off the Ark during PANGEA? I'm reading the WikiPedia article for Earth, and I didn't see much major continental movement in the growth of the "modern" multicellular organisms.
On top of that, you have to remember that much of the New World wasn't discovered - or believed - until men like Columbus and Magellan set sail. This is just a thought, but it was probably the region that Noah lived in that flooded rather than the entire flood. The flood was great, but not that great.
Comment
Comment