He is stating this could have been when they died out, not that this is when they died out. The account also states it was only land dwelling creatures that were brought aboard, not fish or water dwelling creatures.

The catastrophic geological theory makes even less sense that it would wipe out most all reptiles/dinosaurs, but not mammals, etc. Especially given that again, there were water dwelling dinosaurs that should have been able to survive where their land dwelling relatives did not. Every explanation requires a degree of belief.

for someone saying people need to read first you sure didnt.

clearly i put *other then the fish

The Ark of Noah was a barge-like structure probably built of cypress or cedar ("gopherwood"). It was about 450 feet long by 75 feet in beam, and 45 feet high. Such a boat would displace 20,000 tons and have a gross tonnage of 14,000 tons. There were three decks, one door (in the side) and a window 18 inches high probably running around the top of the vessel under the roof. The ark was caulked "within and without" with pitch (Hebrew: kopher = "to cover,"---translated "atonement" elsewhere in the Old Testament).

The capacity of the ark was about 522 railroad cars, (1.4 million cubic feet). Only 188 railroad cars would be required to hold a pair of each of the 17,600 species of animals presently known to man, according to Dr. John Morris of the Institute of Creation Research. (This number of cars includes food supplies for a year's subsistence). From this we can assume that many perhaps as many as two-third of the species originally created by God are already extinct.

The original quote included many more than that. To clarify further, we have passenger ships that have capacities of over 6000 people. These are pretty luxurious boats that have ample room for all passengers to enjoy themselves without feeling crowded. Many creatures are much smaller than humans, and most could be assumed to require much less space. A boat to house only 62k things really isn't all that ridiculous sounding, when you consider that it's really not that much. For instance, most birds are relatively small, and you could fit thousands into a single small room.

You have ignored everything else on this topic. Your original ignorant quote of:


Has been thoroughly refuted, but you have chosen to ignore the things I posted in regards to it. The one you replied to was someone replying to something I wrote, proposing an alternate theory on where the dinosaurs all went.

it doesn't explain it using any type of scientific reason or logic, it pretty much just says "This is how it is". that's not explaining anything.

What language are you using? It fits every definition of the term explanation. Just because you choose to use a different metric to come to an explanation does not necessarily mean another explanation is less valid. Neither is empirical, and both require belief.

inkanddagger: Regarding the image, I agree, the image was not necessarily the best choice for the example, especially considering Egyptians did mostly use scale in their art, but they are not considered "ancient" either. You can find out of scale art within their culture, however, and the point remains regarding scale.

Science is progressing toward a truth while* religion is moving backwards.

This post was edited by VxDoomxV on May 23 2011 09:51am

he is explaining their belief works unlike formal logic

I have never heard of humans[homo-sapiens] being around for 6 million years, can you point this out?

This post was edited by majorblood on May 23 2011 09:51am