28 Sep 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat do you mean when you say marine life was more robust? There were more species or the species that exist were more capable of surviving a flood?
Marine life was more robust in those days and the oceans were not as salty as they are today. Noah's ark was a more sea worthy vessel than others had.
The Instructor
28 Sep 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHinds
Marine life was more robust in those days and the oceans were not as salty as they are today. Noah's ark was a more sea worthy vessel than others had.
The Instructor
Marine life was more robust in those days
More “robust” in what way? And what made them more 'robust'? And what made them less 'robust' in the present day? And what evidence have you for all this? And how do you know all this?
and the oceans were not as salty as they are today.
That would mean many of the current ocean species wouldn't have survived back then for many species cannot survive in water much lower than what is in sea water today. How do you account for that? Exactly what change made them intolerant of fresh water within just the last 6000 years and what caused that change?
Noah's ark was a more sea worthy vessel than others had.
That wouldn't even begin explain why mysteriously nobody else had a ship or boat good enough to survive through the flood. Didn’t anyone else make ships and boats good enough to float those days? 😛 -WOW standards must have been low those days! 😛 Or did not a single one of them think about getting into them and save themselves from drowning as the water levels raised up? 😛 You’re not making any sense.
28 Sep 13
Originally posted by humyThe fact that humans were able to live to be 900 years old is evidence of being robust. The fact that some dinosaurs were so large is evidence that reptiles were living longer than they do today. It seems clear that all biological life on earth has been degenerating from the time of the original creation making them less robust than at the beginning.Marine life was more robust in those days
More “robust” in what way? And what made them more 'robust'? And what made them less 'robust' in the present day? And what evidence have you for all this? And how do you know all this?and the oceans were not as salty as they are today.
That would mean many of the current o ...[text shortened]... nd save themselves from drowning as the water levels raised up? 😛 You’re not making any sense.
The Instructor
28 Sep 13
Originally posted by RJHindsYes, the "FACT" that people lived 900 years. What a joke.
The fact that humans were able to live to be 900 years old is evidence of being robust. The fact that some dinosaurs were so large is evidence that reptiles were living longer than they do today. It seems clear that all biological life on earth has been degenerating from the time of the original creation making them less robust than at the beginning.
The Instructor
28 Sep 13
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
The fact that humans were able to live to be 900 years old is evidence of being robust. The fact that some dinosaurs were so large is evidence that reptiles were living longer than they do today. It seems clear that all biological life on earth has been degenerating from the time of the original creation making them less robust than at the beginning.
The Instructor
The fact that humans were able to live to be 900 years old is evidence of being robust.
what on earth are you talking about? OBVIOUSLY, it is NOT a fact that “ humans were able to live to be 900 years old”! if that is a “fact” then, logically, there must be evidence for it! So WHERE is this evidence? Show us please. I don't know were you get such crap from.
The fact that some dinosaurs were so large is evidence that reptiles were living longer than they do today.
Dinosaurs may or may not have generally lived longer than lizards today but how is merely their large size 'evidence' that dinosaurs lived longer than reptiles today? this is clearly a false inference -Where is the contradiction in an animal being large and having a shorter life span than some of its smaller close relatives?
And, much more to the point, what on earth has dinosaurs lived longer than reptiles today got to do with marine life being “more robust in those days”? I mean, you do know that most marine life doesn't consist of reptiles, right? And how would species of marine life being larger and having natural longer life spans (if that is what you are saying? Is it? ) make them better able to survive sudden changes in salinity? what on earth has one got to do with the other?
And what made them suddenly loose their large size in just the last 6000 years?
And why would them being smaller make them less able to cope with sudden changes in salinity?
Nothing you imply here makes any sense at all.
It seems clear that all biological life on earth has been degenerating from the time of the original creation making them less robust than at the beginning.
No, it isn't. What would CAUSE such 'degeneration'? And why is a lizard being smaller species mean that it has been “degenerated”? In what sense? And why would a smaller species be less “robust”? In what sense? If anything, the evidence shows that small species are generally LESS likely to go extinct than the less adaptable large species! So why could you not argue that small species are more “robust” at least in that sense? You are being very vague in your language with your use of words like “robust” and this indicates to us extremely woolly-headed thinking on your part.
28 Sep 13
Originally posted by humyIt's one of the effects of cognitive dissonance, logic goes out the window as does critical thinking. There is ZERO critical thinking when it comes to RJ Hinds.The fact that humans were able to live to be 900 years old is evidence of being robust.
what on earth are you talking about? OBVIOUSLY, it is NOT a fact that “ humans were able to live to be 900 years old”! if that is a “fact” then, logically, there must be evidence for it! So WHERE is this evidence? Show us please. I don't know were you ...[text shortened]... e of words like “robust” and this indicates to us extremely woolly-headed thinking on your part.
28 Sep 13
Originally posted by humyJust an interpretation of the historical and scientific facts, man. That's all.The fact that humans were able to live to be 900 years old is evidence of being robust.
what on earth are you talking about? OBVIOUSLY, it is NOT a fact that “ humans were able to live to be 900 years old”! if that is a “fact” then, logically, there must be evidence for it! So WHERE is this evidence? Show us please. I don't know were you ...[text shortened]... e of words like “robust” and this indicates to us extremely woolly-headed thinking on your part.
The Instructor
28 Sep 13
Originally posted by RJHindsThere are no 'facts' here, only delusional fairy tales that humans ever lived a thousand years. It is really pathetic that a grown man in the 21st century can still believe that nonsense.
Just an interpretation of the historical and scientific facts, man. That's all.
The Instructor
29 Sep 13
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseIt is pathetic that a grown man over 70 years of age still believes that man came into existence by a series of chance happenings by the delusional fairy tale of Evil-lution.
There are no 'facts' here, only delusional fairy tales that humans ever lived a thousand years. It is really pathetic that a grown man in the 21st century can still believe that nonsense.
From a Frog to a Prince
The Instructor
29 Sep 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsBleat all you want, it won't change the nature of the universe one whit. It goes on in spite of your childish ways.
It is pathetic that a grown man over 70 years of age still believes that man came into existence by a series of chance happenings by the delusional fairy tale of Evil-lution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5W763lQR0tU
From a Frog to a Prince
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMoWfPn2pCI
The Instructor