sooda
Veteran Member
Its a shame really.. Rejecting education is so foolish.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Would sharks and T Rex buried together lean toward the flood?
- Thread starter whirlingmerc
- Start date
Its a shame really.. Rejecting education is so foolish.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
Ice layering is observed in ice sheets and glaciers where the average temperature does remain below freezing.
Annual differences in temperature and irradiation cause ice to form differently from year to year, and this forms alternating layers of light and dark ice, much like tree rings. This method is an accurate method to measure the age of an ice sheet, as only a single layer forms annually. Very rarely do multiple layers form in the same year, this doesn't prevent ice layering from providing a minimum age, because these rare multi-layers that formed in the same year are discernible from single annual layers; thus, they correctly get collectively counted as having formed over a period of one year.
There have been over 700,000 layers found in a single ice sheet, proving the Earth is far more than 10,000 years old. Even if an absurdly high average of 10 layers formed per year, the age of the Earth demonstrated by this method would be at least 70,000 years.
Nevertheless, the age of some ice on the Earth has been determined to be 160,000 years (±15,000 years) as measured by ice layering.
There was never any actual global flooding of Biblical proportions as evident by the fact there is some ice having remained intact and undisturbed on Earth by any global flooding within the last tens of thousands of years.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Galagadon is a shark species that, although now extinct, existed during the cretaceous period. IOW it lived concurrent with the dinos. There are many unusual things that can happen that would explain why a land animal would die in sea water. There is nothing about this find that leads to a global flood explanation.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
If you read the articles supplied they were fresh water sharks. Even today some sharks will swim upstream quite a distance in fresh water. Bull sharks are well known for this. In fact there have even been freshwater shark attacks by bull sharks:
Shark Attack … In a Lake?!
sooda
Veteran Member
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The shores of those seas were changing. And the shark that was found was a fresh water shark that lived largely in rivers:
Galagadon - Wikipedia
"The extinct shark would have traversed the rivers and wetlands of South Dakota some 67 million years ago. The find, dating to the late Cretaceous period, was presented in the Journal of Paleontology."
And I should have noted who first posted this much better link:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/serv...richtian_late_cretaceous_of_north_america.pdf
EDIT: It was @Left Coast , a belated thank you.
sooda
Veteran Member
New Prehistoric Shark Species Discovered Alongside Sue the T. Rex | Science | Smithsonian
ased on comparisons with other fossil shark teeth, the team proposes that Galagadon belonged to a major shark family called orectolobiformes, or carpet sharks. DePaul University paleobiologist Kenshu Shimada agrees with this identification. Galagadon, he says, “serves as another example of the diversification of this shark group not only in oceans worldwide, but also in the freshwater systems in the terrestrial environments near the end of the so-called ‘Age of Reptiles.’” While only the teeth of Galagadon are known so far, their shape suggests that the living animal would have looked something like today’s bamboo sharks, a subset of carpet sharks found in the warm waters of the Indo-Pacific.
Read more: New Prehistoric Shark Species Discovered Alongside Sue the T. Rex | Science | Smithsonian
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
ased on comparisons with other fossil shark teeth, the team proposes that Galagadon belonged to a major shark family called orectolobiformes, or carpet sharks. DePaul University paleobiologist Kenshu Shimada agrees with this identification. Galagadon, he says, “serves as another example of the diversification of this shark group not only in oceans worldwide, but also in the freshwater systems in the terrestrial environments near the end of the so-called ‘Age of Reptiles.’” While only the teeth of Galagadon are known so far, their shape suggests that the living animal would have looked something like today’s bamboo sharks, a subset of carpet sharks found in the warm waters of the Indo-Pacific.
Read more: New Prehistoric Shark Species Discovered Alongside Sue the T. Rex | Science | Smithsonian
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
exchemist
Veteran Member
I say "no of course not".
But then I have read the articles on this, kindly linked by other posters. Perhaps you had not when you started the thread.
Yes, I just read that article Friday.
Interesting, eh?
As more and more evidence is found, it will become more and more clear.
It wasn't just an accurate guess, Moses had, when writing down those ideal modern ratios (Length to Width to Height is 30-5-3), of the Ark's dimensions.
Interesting, eh?
As more and more evidence is found, it will become more and more clear.
It wasn't just an accurate guess, Moses had, when writing down those ideal modern ratios (Length to Width to Height is 30-5-3), of the Ark's dimensions.
Last edited:
sooda
Veteran Member
LOLOL.. Moses indeed. Noah's Ark is a myth.
sooda
Veteran Member
Was Noah's Ark ROUND? 3,700-year-old clay tablet reveals ...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2545494/Was-Noahs-Ark-ROUND-3-700-year...
Jan 24, 2014 · The ancient Babylonian text describes the ark as a round 220-ft diameter coracle with walls 20-ft high. According to the tablet, the ark had two levels and a roof on the top.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I thought you were done with the false claim of ideal dimensions. Or was that @whirlingmerc that finally admitted that the article by Hong looked like a fake?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And how do you think that this supports your myth? I am betting that you did not understand the article or read a distorted version of it from a dishonest source.
EDIT: Sure enough. ICR, a source where one has to swear not to follow the scientific method, has a distorted version of this story:
A T. rex Swimming with Sharks?
Last edited:
Audie
Veteran Member
Audie
Veteran Member
Once a hypothesis is proved false, adding more
"evidence" to a lost cause is naieve, and, dumb.
If you were in Cleveland when the prison -murder took
place in Vladivostok, it really wont help the case against
you to bring in more "evidence" against you.
If you were so accused, this would be obvious.
What goes on in your head that you cannot grasp
the same concept here?
I know Why the original Post is dumb!!!Sarcastically underlining how little you understand
the topic is really something you could leave to
others!
I like bold font size 6 with red.
Are you kidding?!
I only said that AIG has disappointed me, that's all! (Not ICR, or DI.)
And just one time, LISTEN:
It's not the dimensions....it's the ratios of those measurements!
Quit twisting my statements!
Yeah, those measurements would never make a vessel seaworthy!
The Bible's description of the Ark's proportions, though, are modern, and does make a vessel seaworthy.
Lol!
All you ever make are assertions (and very few references). Show where & how they distorted the evidence!
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No creationist has ever found any support for that claim. And such dimensions do not matter any way. Any engineer would immediately see the problem with the square cube law.