Were Dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?

Originally posted by KYamato
Shakyamunison,

thank you for confirming that you are an ape, now to the other non primate intelligent life out there...

if evolution of ape to human be true, why do we still have apes, if evolution is the "ultimate" form, then why would apes remain apes? there are some serious wholes in that theory.

kinda like swizz cheessse.

btw, do you like banana's.

and no, if a wild pheasant is kept in captivity the next generation will have a different colour shade - micro evolution

if a wild pheasant is kept in captivity and the next generation turns into dumb asses chickens - cross breeding.

evolution the pheasant looses all the pretty feathers and its beak shortens to that of a chicken that is evolution.

If you really are serious do you even understand evolution and where do you get this "ultimate" form idea from? Evolution doesn't mean or say anything about turning into an ultimate form of anything.

Two posts from another site that should answer your question.

"We did not evolve from monkeys and apes, we evolved from ape-like creatures. We share a common ancestor. Look it up. Science is neat, huh?"

"Man didn't evolve FROM apes, all primates (apes and man included) evolved from the same ancestors.

This is like asking: if all dogs came from wolves, why do we still have wolves? They fill different biological niches and so they survive independant of one another."

There is a while thread about this so how about answering the question of this one 😉

Originally posted by KYamato
Shakyamunison,

thank you for confirming that you are an ape, now to the other non primate intelligent life out there...

KYamato, I never insulted you. By insulting me first, you have shown how ignorant you are.

Originally posted by KYamato
if evolution of ape to human be true, why do we still have apes, if evolution is the "ultimate" form, then why would apes remain apes? there are some serious wholes in that theory.

Again, humans did not evolve from apes. Humans are a subcategory of ape called Hominid (look it up for yourself).

Both Human and other apes evolved from a common ancestor who is now extinct.

The only wholes are in your understanding of evolution. Please go back to school and listen and learn.

Originally posted by KYamato
kinda like swizz cheessse.

btw, do you like banana's.

and no, if a wild pheasant is kept in captivity the next generation will have a different colour shade - micro evolution

Micro Evolution over millions of years is Macro Evolution. If you believe in one and not the other, it is only because of ignorants.

Originally posted by KYamato
if a wild pheasant is kept in captivity and the next generation turns into dumb asses chickens - cross breeding.

evolution the pheasant looses all the pretty feathers and its beak shortens to that of a chicken that is evolution.

You do not know enough about what Evolution is to give an example that makes any sense. No wonder Evolution seems so wrong to you.

Originally posted by Robtard
They believe God (the omniscient and omnipotent creator of all) was born human through a Palestinian virgin and lived some 30 odd years, only occasional dipping into the power cosmic to heal someone or turn water into wine. So, yes, they do believe that.

That statement is not an entirely accurate depiction of the Christian faith. Perhaps if you actually looked information up rather than immediately condemning it you would see that religious beliefs are rarely that simple.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
for the love of GOD! there is no MISSING LINK. because humans didnt evolve FROM apes of today. they both evolved along different paths from ANOTHER pre historic ape which DOESNT exist anymore. HOW hard is this to understand. they are both branches of an OLDER species than either one of them. you will NEVER find middle species the way you want to find them.

But there would be a link between that extinct pre-historic ape and humans. So far none has been found… well there was that one that turned out to be a hoax…

Originally posted by KYamato
evolution the pheasant looses all the pretty feathers and its beak shortens to that of a chicken that is evolution.

That is simply not an accurate statement of the theory of evolution. Perhaps if you actually looked information up rather than immediately condemning it you would see that evolution isn’t that simple. At least Robotard’s statement had a very small amount of accuracy to what Christians believe, but you have completely gotten evolution wrong.

Originally posted by Mandrag Ganon
But there would be a link between that extinct pre-historic ape and humans. So far none has been found… well there was that one that turned out to be a hoax…

Originally posted by Mandrag Ganon
...But there would be a link between that extinct pre-historic ape and humans. So far none has been found… well there was that one that turned out to be a hoax…

There is Lucy.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lucy.html

No they weren't because Noah didn't exist.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
I think he was talking about how most think that there is the missing link between modern ape, as for the missing link from the prehistoric ape and man that will more than likely never be found just as any fossil is very rare.

Oh, I know what he meant. All I was talking about is the fact that no link has been found, so there is indeed reasonable doubt to the theory of evolutoion.

I myself do believe in evolution, to an extent. I may be Christian, but you will never convince me that the world was created in 7 24-hour periods and is only 6,000 years old. Nor will anyone convince me that there were no carnivores before the sin of Adam and Eve, and I even have my doubts that Adam and Eve even existed.

Originally posted by Kinkin
No they weren't because Noah didn't exist.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is Lucy.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lucy.html

Ah, yea. I forgot about lucy... but there was something that I seem to remember when I was studying for a project, hang on, I've gotta look this up.

Noah's ark didn't exist in the sense certain religions portray it as.

The story was first mentioned in the Babylonian Gilgamesh epic ages before the old testament, which probably copied it, the same way most of the books were taken over from the ancient Egytpian stories

Originally posted by Mandrag Ganon
Oh, I know what he meant. All I was talking about is the fact that no link has been found, so there is indeed reasonable doubt to the theory of evolutoion.

I myself do believe in evolution, to an extent. I may be Christian, but you will never convince me that the world was created in 7 24-hour periods and is only 6,000 years old. Nor will anyone convince me that there were no carnivores before the sin of Adam and Eve, and I even have my doubts that Adam and Eve even existed.

Evolution is a continual change over time. Sometimes this change happens fast and sometimes it is slow. All species are transitional from what they were to what they will become. Evolution is like a river, not a staircase. A missing link may never exist in a form that we can easily detect. Also, the chance of any remains turning into a facial is remote at best.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Evolution is a continual change over time. Sometimes this change happens fast and sometimes it is slow. All species are transitional from what they were to what they will become. Evolution is like a river, not a staircase. A missing link may never exist in a form that we can easily detect. Also, the chance of any remains turning into a facial is remote at best.

My apologies Shakyamunison, the intention was not to insult you but to point out the obvious.

if homosapiens and apes are indeed related to the same "ancestor" the why do we still have apes? if indeed "micro evolution over millions of years" created a better species then why the existence of the old one?

my appendix serves no purpose, yet i still have it? would evolution not have "fixed" this?

Originally posted by KYamato
My apologies Shakyamunison, the intention was not to insult you but to point out the obvious.

if homosapiens and apes are indeed related to the same "ancestor" the why do we still have apes? if indeed "micro evolution over millions of years" created a better species then why the existence of the old one?

my appendix serves no purpose, yet i still have it? would evolution not have "fixed" this?

Apes are not old. They are just as modern as we are. The species that is old is gone now. That is the species that all apes (including humans) came from.

Evolution does not "fix" anything. There is no "mind" behind Evolution. Evolution is simply a response to an ever changing environment. Those who do not change die, while those that survive do so because they have changed.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
You can get a facial from a fossil SWEET 😛

Spelling is not my stranth. 😛

Originally posted by KYamato
My apologies Shakyamunison, the intention was not to insult you but to point out the obvious.

if homosapiens and apes are indeed related to the same "ancestor" the why do we still have apes? if indeed "micro evolution over millions of years" created a better species then why the existence of the old one?

my appendix serves no purpose, yet i still have it? would evolution not have "fixed" this?

The appendix would lean more toward evolution than to a creator, why would a creator create a completely useless organ? We are not positive as to the function of the appendix but some say that it helps with the bacteria in the digestive system but this "left over organ" is a common part of evolution.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Evolution is a continual change over time. Sometimes this change happens fast and sometimes it is slow. All species are transitional from what they were to what they will become. Evolution is like a river, not a staircase. A missing link may never exist in a form that we can easily detect. Also, the chance of any remains turning into a facial is remote at best.

All valid points. It really just comes down to what you believe. The fact is that we will never know beyond all reasonable doubt what the origin of life is. Perhaps evolution is the truth, perhaps religion. Or perhaps it is a combination of both. I choose to believe the third option.

Sience will never be able to prove or disprove the existance of God, but religion will never be able to prove or disprove evolution. Evolution has it's share of holes, noone can deny that, but then again what scientific theroy doesn't. Religion relies on a basis of faith, and faith is very hard for people, we like to know with certanty.

But I don't think the answer is in one or the other. Perhaps we did evolve from an ape like species, and perhaps that's how God orchrestrated it. The fact is that we will never KNOW. I think the fact that annoys me the most is these people like KYamoto who look at their dogmatic narrow view from religion and never actually do the research themselves. And people like Robotard who take a gleening of information about religion and make a judgement based on that.

I think the fact that annoys me about all this is that people refuse to step out of their comfort zone and actually do research, in order to find the truth. I mean, believe me, I'll be doing alot of research on Lucy (what little I do know comes from a project I did back in middle school, very little of which I even remember.) And odds are when I am done my views will change a bit to accomidate her. *shrugs* All I know is that I am not happy with narrow views, and simple explanations. I like to look at the wider picture.

It's like Sherlock Holmes once said (in the book "The Sign of Four"😉: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Originally posted by Mandrag Ganon
All valid points. It really just comes down to what you believe. The fact is that we will never know beyond all reasonable doubt what the origin of life is. Perhaps evolution is the truth, perhaps religion. Or perhaps it is a combination of both. I choose to believe the third option.

Sience will never be able to prove or disprove the existance of God, but religion will never be able to prove or disprove evolution. Evolution has it's share of holes, noone can deny that, but then again what scientific theroy doesn't. Religion relies on a basis of faith, and faith is very hard for people, we like to know with certanty.

But I don't think the answer is in one or the other. Perhaps we did evolve from an ape like species, and perhaps that's how God orchrestrated it. The fact is that we will never KNOW. I think the fact that annoys me the most is these people like KYamoto who look at their dogmatic narrow view from religion and never actually do the research themselves. And people like Robotard who take a gleening of information about religion and make a judgement based on that.

I think the fact that annoys me about all this is that people refuse to step out of their comfort zone and actually do research, in order to find the truth. I mean, believe me, I'll be doing alot of research on Lucy (what little I do know comes from a project I did back in middle school, very little of which I even remember.) And odds are when I am done my views will change a bit to accomidate her. *shrugs* All I know is that I am not happy with narrow views, and simple explanations. I like to look at the wider picture.

It's like Sherlock Holmes once said (in the book "The Sign of Four"😉: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Read up on the life of Kepler. He worked most of his life to prove a theory that was false. Once he realized this fact, he did not hold on to it, but moved on to establish the 3 laws of planetary motion. If he had never given up on his life long work, he would have never found the truth.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^makes more sense if noah didnt exist, wudnt u agree? btw, why is mormonism based so much in the new frontier and localised american mythology?

Originally posted by Mandrag Ganon
That statement is not an entirely accurate depiction of the Christian faith. Perhaps if you actually looked information up rather than immediately condemning it you would see that religious beliefs are rarely that simple.

But there would be a link between that extinct pre-historic ape and humans. So far none has been found… well there was that one that turned out to be a hoax…

That is simply not an accurate statement of the theory of evolution. Perhaps if you actually looked information up rather than immediately condemning it you would see that evolution isn’t that simple. At least Robotard’s statement had a very small amount of accuracy to what Christians believe, but you have completely gotten evolution wrong.

none has been found?! really? homo erectus ring a bell? the DIFFICULTY wud be figuring out exactly which of the found fossils was the link from which the two species branched from, after all, it cud just be another linear link in the same branch and not the junction. and seeing as how LITTLE of the remains of dead things turn into fossils, and how LITTLE of those fossils are actually found, it wudnt be unreasonable to assume that we havent found it yet.

as for the, we dont KNOW. EVERYTHING we DO know points towards evolution and almost nuthing we know DENIES evolution. NUTHING we know points towards GOD and EVERYTHING we know points AGAINST god. so its completely wrong to assume "that it cud have been evolution OR it cud have been god".

evolution isnt about PERFECTION. these are exactly the sort of idiots beleifs that have given rise to psuedoscientific bullshit like eugenics. there is no such thing as genetic PERFECTION. a species, can only be PERFECT in reletive to other species in a SPECIFIC "static" enviornment, in the DARWANIAN sense of the word, if the enviornment changes the SLIGHTEST bit, that reletive PERFECTION no longer holds and the impoerfect specie might actuallly becomes MORE perfect than the other specie, and the world is an EVER changing place. just because a species branches off from a parent species doesnt mean the parent specie HAS to die, the parent specie cud still retain enough survivabilyt to remain in its unique niche, if it doesnt conflict with the niche of the evolved specie of resources, BOTH can continue to live on.

and often many variants inside AND outside the species DO live on for long periods UNTIL the time that major enviornmental changes takes place, which significantly shift the definition of perfection and cause mass extinctions, only letting THOSE individuals survive in the varied gene and specie pool, which happened to mutate the likeable traits and live on in the old world having no significant advanteges or disadvantaged due to the traits in question. this also explains the PUNCUTATED EQUILIBRIUM model seen in evolution and the fossil record of explosions of certain newer species at certain times as opposed to uniform and gradual evolution. an example cud be made of the three codon mutation which causes sickle cell anemia in red blood cells, which in todays enviornment, made an individual genetically INFERIOR and yet in places of africa where malaria was prevelant, it actually made the sufferers genetically SUPERIOR to their otherwise healthier peers as the malarial parasite cudnt attack the haemoglobin in cells with sickle cell anemia.

most creationist arguments against evolution have no basis in the science of evolution.

and the ONLY reason creationists even beleive in micro evolution {i.e. non chromosomal mutation} is because it has been demonstrated in the lab and cant be denied, unlike "so called" macro evolution, which takes longer. theyd deny micro evolution if they CUD.