Dinosaurs on the Ark

[HeirofSalvation]

There is no evidence that world climate change killed off any species ever. We do know that local change has killed off animals in a certain local but not world climate change. Even with local change they are not killed of world wide.
More likely they were hunted to extinction

The "climate issue" is only supplied assuming some sort of "canopy theory" of the pre-flood world, or something to that effect. It may or may not be accurate...I think the theory has legs. I agree that hunting had a major effect on them as well.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Could it be they were on the ark in egg form?

I'm think more along the line that they were juveniles.

 

[preachinjesus]

Today Ken Ham had a interesting thing to say in his podcast about the Dinosaurs. According to him they were on the Ark (small ones at least) but after the ark they could not survive in the new climate of the earth.

There were no dinosaurs on the ark.

It never ceases to amaze me about the lengths YEC proponents will go to have to justify their claims. Just stunning sometimes.

Why did the climate of the earth change after the flood? Some have said that were was more land mass and less of a sea in the pre-flood world. What do you say? There always was a sea, but perhaps much smaller at one time.

Well it seems the antediluvian world was markedly different than what we have currently. If we understand (as dimly as we can) the explanations there seems to have been a unique earth prior to the floor that facilitated the flood. I don't have a problem with this given how immense the pressure on the surface of the earth would have been for a year.

The truth is any conclusions about the nature of the antediluvian world is pre speculation.

 

[preachinjesus]

Here's an interesting study on Job being post-Flood.

http://www.setterfield.org/Jobab's_identity.html

Just a for what it's worth, Settlerfield isn't credible for nearly anything he puts together. I'm sure this is a nice study, but it is not too helpful.

 

[freeatlast]

Based on what Scripture? Or is it just a hunch?

Based on scrpture.

 

[Arbo]

Based on scrpture.

Where in Scripture? What reference?

(I think you misspoke and are too proud to admit it.

 

[Arbo]

I'm think more along the line that they were juveniles.

They certainly would be smaller- and less threatening at feeding time.

 

[kyredneck]

....
Some people call these waters above the sky a canopy. Others call it a shell. Whatever you wish to call it, the Bible states that it was there and that this is the reason for no rain (or at least no water falling from the expanse).

Also, it's apparent, at least to me, that this shell or canopy of tremendous amount of water interfered with solar rays being able to (1) penetrate the atmosphere in the same quantity as they do today and with the same affect on the living creatures and (2) refract through mediums such as water vapor in the air in the same way that they refract through the air. ...

The planet Venus comes to mind....

 

[freeatlast]

Where in Scripture? What reference?

(I think you misspoke and are too proud to admit it.

I already gave it. Go back and read previous posts to see.

 

[freeatlast]

They certainly would be smaller- and less threatening at feeding time.

Why would they be threatening?

 

[Arbo]

Gen 6:19
And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every [sort] shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep [them] alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
For one thing It would be sort of difficult to look at an egg and tell what its gender would turn out to be.

I already gave it. Go back and read previous posts to see.

Your above passage says nothing other than that they were to bring two of each kind into the ark. There's nothing mentioned about how old or what stage of development the animals were or required to be. You are reading into things, buddy. :laugh:

 

[Arbo]

Why would they be threatening?

Big dinosaurs eat people. Didn't you know that? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[freeatlast]

Your above passage says nothing other than that they were to bring two of each kind into the ark. There's nothing mentioned about how old or what stage of development the animals were or required to be. You are reading into things, buddy. :laugh:

It says they must be male and female. It is not possible to tell what is in an egg as you suggested. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[freeatlast]

Big dinosaurs eat people. Didn't you know that? :smilewinkgrin:

What makes you think that?

 

[Arbo]

It says they must be male and female. It is not possible to tell what is in an egg as you suggested. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Ye of little faith,
It's also not possible to know that it's going to rain enough tp flood the earth and destroy every living thing (save the occupants of the ark) decades beforehand, yet it happened.

 

[Arbo]

What makes you think that?

Movies, of course.:laugh:

 

[freeatlast]

Ye of little faith,
It's also not possible to know that it's going to rain enough tp flood the earth and destroy every living thing (save the occupants of the ark) decades beforehand, yet it happened.

And that means what?

 

[freeatlast]

Ye of little faith,
It's also not possible to know that it's going to rain enough tp flood the earth and destroy every living thing (save the occupants of the ark) decades beforehand, yet it happened.

Noah, his wife their sons and their wives knew. It is called faith/believing God.

 

[Arbo]

Noah, his wife their sons and their wives knew. It is called faith/believing God.

That is my point. If He wanted to show them how and which individuals to collect, He could.

 

[freeatlast]

That is my point. If He wanted to show them how and which individuals to collect, He could.

It does not matter what could have been. Scripture already tells us what happened and you as usual reject scripture for some opinion not even closely related to what it says. Believe God instead of your own opinion.