Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Dinosaurs are Awesome!

The Bible talks about dinosaurs. In Job 39-41, God talks about the behemoth and the leviathan. THey behemoth is some type of sauropod and the leviathan is some sort of aquatic dinosaur. After the Flood, most of the dinosaurs became exinct because of the difference in atmosphere from the pre-flood. But some lived longer and became extinct later; Job lived about the time of Abraham, about 1500 B.C. In Texas, there was found a dinosaur footprint with a human footprint inside of it on the same level of rock. There have been found in caves drawings of dinosaurs. So the Bible is scientifically correct.

"THey behemoth is some type of sauropod and the leviathan is some sort of aquatic dinosaur."

No reason at all for believing this. Humans did not live at the time of the dinosaurs. There is nothing in the bible that indicates this.

"After the Flood, most of the dinosaurs became exinct because of the difference in atmosphere from the pre-flood."

The dinosaurs died out tens of millions of years before humans existed.

"In Texas, there was found a dinosaur footprint with a human footprint inside of it on the same level of rock."
No there wasn't. Some incompetent creationists with no background in the subject have made this claim. Real scientists have evalutated it and concluded otherwise. The creationists say that the human footprint was caused by a deformed human. But actual scientists know that the other footprint is also a dinosaur. Dr. Bob Slaughter of Southern Methodist University discussed this on a NOVA episode. Paluxy is a creationist hoax.

"There have been found in caves drawings of dinosaurs."
There are claims like this, but no such pictures have been confirmed by actual scientists. The existence of dinosaurs alongside humans would not necessarily disprove evolution; however, a human fossil that dated to 65 million year ago would pretty much be a nail in the coffin.

" So the Bible is scientifically correct."
That's what your preacher told you. If you do a little actual homework, you will realize that you have been misled. When you finally find do real homework, you should be rightfully outraged that you have been lied to by preachers and other creationists.

some scientist believe that galaxies appear suddenly
, in an instant they are there.

this finding , if true proves that science is in-correct , at least as far as its usage of its laws that they believe governs things.

if stars are light years away from each other then how long would it take for a new galaxy to form , and for the stars to move out and become possitioned where they are?

I honestly dont think that it would take GOD long at all to do something he wanted to do.
and all it would take would be for GOD to make a decission for it to happen.

when I think of how to do something or how to build something I dont first consult the laws of physics to find out if I could do it , I just try to do it.

and then I do it , or I find out how to do it.

if you were driving your car and you came up to a red light and the light was stuck on red , would you stay there till the light became green , or would you break the law and run the red light?

man has tried to govern and run everything in his favor and look at the results from it.

if you are interested in my opinion the bible is far more correct than science can ever hope to be.

if the people who were the story tellers varried in their teachings as they were taught they would meet a certain demise for doing so.
when a teacher or story teller told history he made sure it was correct.

these stories were passed down through the ages by teachers or story tellers until they were written down.

it was not until the romans came along and changed the wording in their favor that these stories changed.

"some scientist believe that galaxies appear suddenly, in an instant they are there."

No there aren't.

ok please explain why there are galaxies so far away that it takes their light many billions of years to reach earth. Why have them there at all if we need equipment to see them that is only made to find them. why have such a huge universe if it were all made for man a few thousand years ago and with the knowledge that he would never reach another galaxy. We only seek the knowledge of those galaxies because we have found there is knowledge there to be found. If that knowledge is contrary to what god wants us to learn, why have it there at all.

Thank you Tim for the wonderful, though weak, attempt at humor. For awhile there I thought you actually were a true believer.

But after reading this I understand that you just have a weird sense of humor. No one could possibly take this seriously.

Dehammer,

Your question is very simplistic and could be satisfactoriy answered in a few different ways.

But I won't, because I don't believe in the premise of a young age universe.

Blacknad.

would you prefer to have only this solar system to look at?

or just the sun and moon?

when you do look at what is there dont it just make you feel so small.

do you realize that everything you see in the night sky may not even be there anymore?

do you ever feel as if one little poof in the right place and you would be space vapor.

man has cognitive powers , he can reason right from wrong , he also has curosity , and a need to know things.

how many other species of life on this planet have you ever talked to while they were reading a book or driving a car or riding a bicycle.

what makes you different from them?
how did you get that way?
why is your species the only species like you
on this planet?

where is it said that everything was made a few thousand years ago?

you have discovered what GOD put there for you to discover you found nothing you may have seen something that has always been there and that is all you have done.

"would you prefer to have only this solar system to look at?"

Then entire universe built just for us to have something to look at. Well, that makes as much sense as anything else you've postulated.

"you have discovered what GOD put there for you to discover you found nothing you may have seen something that has always been there and that is all you have done."

That is a thought. It doesn't explain anything. There is no way to disprove it, if it is wrong. It is a religious thought, not a scientific one.

really... then what if there were no moon , nothing up there except the sun.
would man have traveled into space , to the moon?
would there have been songs written about the stars.
would astronomers gaze for hours into the nothing.

could you ever see anything at night when you were outside?
could you even see your hand in front of your face?
nope.
it would be as if you had no eyes at all.

When GOD does something he does it right.

"When GOD does something he does it right."
God can explain anything and so explains nothing.

Do you have anything at all to contribute in the way of actual science?

yes it is a much better thought than a scientific thought because science is full of falseties and people who claim that science is always correct.

you being a scientist perhaps you can make me a single grain of sand using only science and its associated laws of physics , no material can be used of course because that would be using something GOD made first.

" you must make the material from nothing "

and then you can sudgest that a scientific thought is better.

"science is full of falseties and people who claim that science is always correct."

False. Scientists DO NOT claim that science is always correct. But scientists get to decide what is science and what is not. Science does contain some things that are not true. That is why science has a philosophy and a method for correcting itself. That method is what makes it superior to religion, because religious people go right on believing false and stupid things. If scientists believed that science was always correct, they would not have a method for removing the stuff that was incorrect. But religious people often want to intrude into the area of science without doing any homework. They think that just citing bible scripture or cut-n-pasting things they don't understand are good enough reasons to reject good science.

"you being a scientist"
I never said I was a scientist.

"perhaps you can make me a single grain of sand using only science and its associated laws of physics"
That is irrelevant. Take logic 101 and get back to us.

"no material can be used of course because that would be using something GOD made first."
Speculation and unsupported belief. We don't know who the first matter came into existence.

"and then you can sudgest that a scientific thought is better."
You must produce an orthographic, grammatically correct, and coherent sentence using sound logic and actual evidence, and THEN you can lecture me about what thoughts are better than others.

There are plenty of places for you to spout your admittedly unscientific albeit superior nonsense. This is a science forum. Have you anything in the way of actual science to contribute?

why not just stop at the stars of our galaxy. why not make the galaxy bigger so that we have stars all around us.

creationist claim the earth and the universe is less than 6000 years old. we could search for thousands of year and not discover all there was in those stars, yet were instead finding galaxies that are 10 billion light years away. what can we find out in those that god would go to that leanth rather that put them those things in closer located areas.

all of these would be the same if there was just one galaxy.

Let me show you a great website that is scientific. It is www.icr.org

ICR is a pseudoscientific organization. The founders - Gish and Morris (now deceased) - wrote a paper about how evolution violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Real thermodynamics teachers used their paper to teach thermodynamics. How? They gave it to their freshmen and gave them the assignment of finding all the beginner level mistakes.

ICR is not a science website. It is a pseudoscientific website. It is very convincing to people who are not going to do any real homework on the subject.

Hi Guys:

I wanted to make a commnet on this mixture based on an old mans tollerance. Neither the universe nor the solar system is here for us to observe and enjoy in our consumate ignorance. We various genuses are a local freak entity that just happens to be where we are. We started writing books with the earth as the center of everything and there were brilliant brains devoted to the issue. Now in 2006 are there still people that want to think we are central to anything at all?
There is no adaquate word I know to describe it.
jjw

the word your looking for is religion.

dehammer: why just 1 galaxy?
what would there be to explore once this galaxy has been explored?

by haveing other galaxyies to observe we can see our galaxy clearer.

thefalliblefiend:
what if GOD described everything for us.
and told us everything we need to know.
then there would be nothing new for us
to learn or discover.
there also would be no need for science.

but where is the irrelavence in making a grain of sand from nothing?

if that is too hard for every scientist in this world to accomplish using everything science has learned , then why not just make a single atom or a electron or a photon , make anything from nothing and then get back to me.

fact is all of science put together cant make anything from nothing using nothing.

so where did something come from?

"what if GOD described everything for us.and told us everything we need to know.then there would be nothing new for us to learn or discover."

Of what relevance is that? how is that evidence of anything?

"there also would be no need for science."
The god hypothesis works with any output. Therefore it isn't science.

"but where is the irevalence in making a grain of sand from nothing?"
It has nothing to do with whether the science we now have is correct.

"if that is too hard for every scientist in this world to accomplish using everything science has learned , "
That is irrelevant.

"then why not just make a single atom or a electron or a photon , make anything from nothing and then get back to me."
Argument from ignorance is invalid.

"fact is all of science put together cant make anything from nothing using nothing."
Nobody claims that scientists made the universe.

"so where did something come from?"
Science doesn't know and may never know. That doesn't mean we throw up our hands and put an end to questioning.

Nobody's asking you to disbelieve in god. What I'm saying is that God is irrelevant to science.

that still would not require more than a few. thats even if we as a race can explore even this one galaxy. If we needed to see another galaxy, we would only need andromeda. why would got have to make billions of galaxies.

what does the fact that we dont know everything have to do with knowing things like evolution. Just because we cant create something like an atom, does not mean that we dont know things. We do have science, we do know how to carbon date things, we do know how to add a line of things together. so what if we are not gods. does that mean that we dont have knowledge of somethings that are obvious?

Another great website is www.aig.org a great book to read written by an athiest is called "The Case for a Creator"

Answers In Genesis is also not a scientific website. It contains many factual and logical errors. It presents numerous arguments that have been long refuted by the scientific community.

Science does not support your religion. Science does not support belief in your God. Science doesn't say anything at all about your god.

"Of what relevance is that? how is that evidence of anything?"

Of what relevance is that?

"The god hypothesis works with any output. Therefore it isn't science.
"

Of what relevance is that?

"It has nothing to do with whether the science we now have is correct.
"

Of what relevance is that?

"That is irrelevant. "

Of what relevance is that?

"Argument from ignorance is invalid."

Of what relevance is that?

"Nobody claims that scientists made the universe."

no scientist just think that they know how everything works and that their thoughts are the only ones that count and everything in opposition is wrong.

"Science doesn't know and may never know. That doesn't mean we throw up our hands and put an end to questioning."

you dont throw up your hands you close your minds if something seems out of the known science envelope and that it what our problems arose from
, your instant conclusions that you and you alone are right.

if I make a computer program to perform a task , then run that program , it will perform that task and only that task.

if I ask a scientist to think of something out of his programing envelope he cannot perform this task due to his programming.

when I think of a scientist I consider him as a programed object that cannot think by himself he must rely on his programming , and will not perform anything other than what he is programmed to do.

until some not so well programmed scientist finds something outside the envelope and then the programmers change the scientist programming to reflect the new findings.

The relevance of my comments is that they show your arguments to be invalid.

"your instant conclusions that you and you alone are right."
This was not an instant conclusion. It is a conclusion based on roughly 25 years of reading intently on this issue and debating it. It is a conclusion derived from reading your actual statements and responding to the actual arguments.

You have not done the least bit of homework on the subject of evolution. You want to express your very strong and uninformed opinion on the subject. I am simply relating that you are uninformed and that the logic you use is faulty.

If you have not seen enough to convince you of evolution, it is because you have not examined the issues carefully. It is not the purpose of or a requirement of science to meet whatever logically irrelevant conditions it would take to convince you of evolution's veracity.

You can educate yourself on the subject or you can continue to spout irrelevant nonsense.

Science does not support a belief in your religion. It does not support a belief in your God. It doesn't say anything at all about any god(s).

"what does the fact that we dont know everything have to do with knowing things like evolution."

where exactly do you find evidence that your evolution is exactly correct as you believe?

do you find it in the ground that is now above water?

have you carried out excavations below the oceans
, how do you know in all of your wisdom that there were not men living on earth when the sea levels were much lower?

your evolution may in fact be exactly backwards it may be found that apes evolved from man.
due to environmental reasons , your evolution may in fact be just environmental adaptations.

"You have not done the least bit of homework on the subject of evolution. You want to express your very strong and uninformed opinion on the subject. I am simply relating that you are uninformed and that the logic you use is faulty."

3/4 of the earths surface is water and a good portion is ice.

"the logic you use is faulty"
using your logic lets see what would/might happen.

I am told to go into a city that has 4 districts and search for terrorist.

I search in district #1 only because the other 3 districts were blurred or out of view.

I radio in that all is clear.

the next day hundreds of people are blown up by terrorist in that city that I had cleared.

because my vision of the other districts was blurred the knowledge I had of the size of the city was faulty.
and all the terrorist were hiding in districts #2,#3,and #4

do I trust you as a scientist and believe what you say is correct without a doubt?


so you base your opinion on the remaning 1/4 right.

my odds are better than yours I think.
and judging from the looks only of sea floor maps
the sea levels were much lower in the past.
this would most likely be because ice was the prevailant surface at that time on what is now land.

so if you want to base your evolution on 1/4 of the earths surface and upon something that was mostly covered in ice where humans probably would not want to live , then go ahead.

science takes into consideration all aspects possible to try to find reasons for things to be the way they are.

not just reasons that have been used in the past by people who have closed minds.

"not just reasons that have been used in the past by people who have closed minds."

If men were now only to rely on what is now a scientist for information , then he would not have a correct supply of information because what a scientist believes is sort of controlled by other scientist beliefs and what he is paid to not tell or to withold.

so in my opinion a truthfull thought/opinion is better than a thought/opinion from an oppressed scientist.

Sad but True...

most of this is nonsense.

one there is evidence of life existing several million years ago. according to creationist, thats not possible.

how can apes have evolved from man, when man did not exist then. where is the evidence that man predates the beings that both man and apes evolved from. for that matter who has ever said that man evolved from apes? creationist claim that is what scientist have said, but scientist claim that they both have a common ancester.

If you read the evidence in threads i have posted in a few months, they know how low the sea levels have been for the last several million years. The sea was 120 meters lower about 20,000 years ago, which would have left a lot of land that is not now used. the thing is, why would they stay in such a small area, instead of spreading around the world. It did not take the sea levels that long to fall that far, and it did not take them more than a couple thousand years to rise. If man had lived as man before the sea levels fell, he would have left his mark on other areas. If he only evolved (or was created) during that time. then why was he only in that area. If god had decided to create the garden of eden but had forgotten to put it in a place that would stay there for long, that was not very good planning. If he did put it there, then it was not eve that go man barred from the garden, it was nature. Mother nature, we know thee, and your name is eve. (sarcasm alert) Now the question is, when man had to leave the land that was then recovered by the sea, why did they not leave more evidence. why did their settlements not suddently appear in all the areas that were now sea shore. there is no evidence of a mass migration from the lower land to the new sea shores.

If you want to find the evidence of evolution, go to any natural science museum and look at how things are connected. Look at how old things are. look at how there is a progression. Not all the links have been found, but they have found a lot of links. Then tell me, without saying the words bible or god, why should we disbelieve the evidence right in front of our noses.

how is what a scientist believes controlled by other scientist. In order to be a scientist, you have to learn to ask quetions, something that religious leaders dont want. So if you dont believe something you ask yourself why, and then you find out what evidence is there one way or the other. If what you believe is wrong, then you have a good chance of finding out why. If what you believe is true, then you can find evidence to back up your beliefs, then you use that evidence to convience others. If your beleifs are controlled by another, then what you have is by definition, a religion.

now as to the possiblity that man lived in the sea that coveres 3/4 of the world, please explain how man would live beneith the sea level and still be a man, unless he was brought here by aliens who built a massive underwater city for him to live in.

to use your analogy of the terrorist and the city.

i go to a city to check it out. i check out 1/4 of the city and cant find them. I look at the other 3/4 of the city and i see water. deep water. water so deep that if a man was at the bottom of it, he would not have to worry about drowning, because he would have not lungs, because they had been crushed. I see a small (10 percent) of it that could have under water caves, so i use under water equipment that can find them.

If the terrorist are there, they would be hiding in the shallows or they would be in huge domes that would make them very obvious or they are living in ships that can be found, or they are not human. Knowing that there are suppose to be terrorist hiding there, i set up equipment that will show if anyone approaches the shore.

now either i did not search the 1/4 of the city that was within my reach, or i did not yet have the equipment to find those subs or cities, because they had better science than me, or the terrorist were not in the town at all, but came from somewhere else.

If man was hiding in the sea for all the time that it took for him to become man, who brought him there, and who's science hid him from us.

here is your chance to prove that god (or aliens) existed. prove man was hiding in the ocean at depths that he could not have survived without either god or the aliens.

"so in my opinion a truthfull thought/opinion is better than a thought/opinion from an oppressed scientist."

Your central problem is assumed and not explicitly stated - that you, without careful study, would be capable of discerning the truth from the lie.

dehammer's second fallacy is the assumption that there are oppressed scientists running around academia.

But you are correct. No one but an expert in my field, for example, could tell whether my interpretation of a mass spectrograph was real or fabricated.

what do you mean my assumption. ive already seen you refuse to read links, but now, your refusing to read the threads? i quoted him. that was not my assumption at all. Pay attension some of the time at least.

some have a good one.
and some dont.


Dehammer:
I dont think that you should be telling anyone on this list that they do not read the post.
because from my observance of your replies to my post alone , it seems that you may be reading the post but interpreting the meanings of the posts differently in your brain from their intended meanings.
Granted DA did confuse your post to what I had posted but that is only one occurance , you have repeatedly interpreted my post out of context.

perhaps you are listening to loud music or hearing loud noises that interfere with your brains ability to maintan a streamline pattern of thought while you are reading the post.

this might be a reason for your not knowing what you have learned as sudgested in the footnote of your post.

Have any of you ever studied the human brain? Like how intelligence could come from intelligence? If you do, you can find that we could not have come from inorganic compounds. One atheist did a study upon the fine-tuning of the universe (like for a planet to be in the right orbit, distance from a sun, elements there, etc.) and found that he couldn't even right the odds of it happening on paper because there aren't even that many elements in the universe. Only an intelligent designer could have done it. Read "The Case for a Creator" by an atheist, Lee Strobel.

I see, so rather than understand the impossiblity of what you claim, you attack the sarcasm that i used. If you cant understand the sarcasm, then ignore it and face the facts that i gave you.

1) humans cant possibly live in 95 percent of the ocean, even when it was at the lowest levels even recorded, that was 120 meters below current sea level

2) all the evidence found so far below current levels belong to known civilizations

3) there is no evidence that man ever lived in those areas of the sea that have not had subsidance from above the sea level.

hmmm ... if I look at apx 100 million years ago there seems to be a sea level change of apx 270 meters.

if I look at 20 thousand years ago there seems to be a sea level change of apx 130 meters.

and if I look at apx 475 million years ago there seems to be a sea level change of apx 400 meters.
:according to halam et al

you keep harping about 130 meters.

quit localizing expand your available horrizons time extends further than your 20,000 year example , if not then how did you carbon date those million year old fossils.

The depth of the shelf also varies, but is generally limited to water shallower than 150 meters

READ THIS PLEASE

the contenental shelf is extremely long in places , if the sea level were lower than the shelf , then began to rise again , would not the tides wash in and out , in and out , in and out , until any signs of habitation were sucked out beyond the slope and rise and burried in the silt.

or just burried in place sort of like you standing on a beach and when the tide washes by your feet you sink slightly into the sand.

ive yet to hear of anyone claiming that man lived a million years ago. (not outside of movies atleast) If they had existed then, there would be evidence of their existance since then, or they would have been wiped out. Either way, there is no connections to people that might have lived near the sea when it was 400 meters lower than it is now, and current humans. If you can find it, then you can show the evidence and be quite famous. Evidence suggest that the only time the sea was low enough that the sea would hide evidence of his evolution, is the one that was 20000 years ago. therefore there is no need to discuss anything before that. any attempt to do so is obviously merely an attempt to cloud the issue.

they might be buried, but any civilization that was built on sand would not be very advance to begin with. anything that was built on bedrock would leave evidence that would have been found using sonar and other detection devices. there is one, that im completely drawing a blank on. its used to map the various levels of ground formation. in the early days of it, they used dynomite to set off vibrations and then recorded the reflections of those vibrations in multiple locations. the speed and directions of the echo's were used to determine the different layers of the earth. it was used in geology. hopefully someone will come up with the name. anyway these days they dont use dynomite or anything else as destructive as that. the results is a much more accurate reading. these newer divices can also be used to determine what is below ground in the sea beds. that is how they find oil in offshore areas.

• Im sorry dehammer I was not aware that we were questioning if any of the civilizations built were advanced !!!
• civilizations that if found might reveal older fossils perhaps even fossils of humans that date back
  to when dinosaurs roamed the earth.
• like the bible says "GENESIS 6:4 there were giants in the earth in those days"

there were giants?
and how old is the very first scientific document that contains anything that references giants.

the word dinosaur was not used until someone first found a giants bones and documented the find calling it a dinosaur.

it had already been named by the story tellers it was named giant.

if you and several others found yourself suddenly on an island with nothing modern to use as tools
would you consider yourself advanced.

how would your children learn of everything you know?

would you invent paper and pencils and teach them to do the same.

when you told them of your computer what would you use to describe it?

suppose a mere thousand years go by.
do you think your seed would have accomplished much more that when you were there with them?

how would they describe what you told them about your computer?

"there were giants in the earth in those days"

thats right dehammer...

digging deeper might provide clues to evidence.
you being what is now a scientist "perhaps" , would not want that of course because it may be
evidence that your science religion prevents you from obtaining.

because you scientist have all the answers from what is above sea level.

go up into the mountains of the himalayas and find a civilization there amidst the ice and snow.
its above sea level.
show me the advanced culture they lived in.
because durring a full blown ice age such as the ones millions of years ago what is now above sea level would look much the same.

which ice age are you refering to. the one that was in the last few hundred million years did not reach sea levels in most places. Any civiliation that existed then would have gone towards the warmer climates. there would be evidence there.

if youre refering to the ones that froze the entire worlds sea shores, there would be nothing left of their civilization, as there was nothing bigger than a single cell sea plant that survived. your description of seashores looking like the himalayeas suggest this is what your talking about. Unless your talking about a totally different creature, there could be nothing like man. Anything that existed there has no evolutionary connection with us.

the point that would make the difference is about the northern state line of texas. If the ice gets much past that point, the entire world will freeze. If it does not, then there would be plentry of space near in the lands near Houston, Dallas, Mexico city, and others around the world at that altitude and latitude where the civilization would leave its mark. Very seldom has there been any race on earth that has been so specilized that it would have to remain next to the sea.

scientist dont want to disprove things that might be true, they want to disprove things that cant be true. The one time this is otherwise is that time when they want to prove something by proving that anything else cant exist. or if they are trying to prove their own theories by finding the evidence against it. If no evidence is against it, then it has a good chance of being true. The thing is scientist require evidence not conjectures. The possiblity that man lived in seas thousands of feet deep, is nothing more than a evidenceless conjectures. Even if he lived in the 10 percent or so of sea in the continental shelf, there would be evidence of it. so where is it.

heres more proof of it , if thats what you want than you have provided against it...

would you consider rome to be advanced. scientist do. would you consider many of the ancient civlizations, such as Babylonia? scientist do. what about the inca's, or the ancient chineese civiliations? what about the ancient native americans? what about bronze age civilizations? what do these have in common. they were advanced enough to leave evidence of their existance. Some of the evidence may be nothing more than building, or rock piles, or arrow heads. But they do leave evidence that can be found. They have found evidence of old civilizations from pottery found in the seas and ocean. if the older civilations existed, wouldnt they have left some sort of sign there were there. if man was here 1000000 years ago, he would have left evidence of his existance in more than one spot. he would not have existed only in one sea shore area.

so where are they. if they existed, they would not be bound to the sea. It took man a long time to learn to fish. long before he found that he could eat from the sea, he was eating things off plants near the ground and in trees above the ground. so where did he eat, why would he only be near the sea. after the sea went out, it would take a long time before the land was usable, with all the salt deposits. sand is not the greatest soil for growing things. so it would have taken man a long time to go down to that area because of the plants. he would have been eating and killing land animals long before he went after the sea animals. why did he not leave his imprint elsewhere.

first off, you would have to have the bible proven as reliable to science before you can use it as proof that something exists.

another point is that at that time man was little more than 3 feet tall, a 4 footer would have been big. something bigger than that would seem giant. At that time there were horses that are as big as the ones today. there were elephant. there were giraffes. these all would seem like giants to men.

to my knowledge, there is none that you are refereing too. there has been evidence in science of people that grew to extreamly large size for centuries. I personally am not aware of any race that has been found to be that much larger than the then current humans. Giants are suppose to be human.

that assumes that they were the same thing. most stories of giants refer to them as human shape.

yes i would. i would have some of the knowledge of an advance civilization.

that would not be that difficult to do. paper is dried wood pulp. depending on how the island was made up, there might be things to use to make carbon. there is a way of using charcoal into a paste that can be used for writing. not very good, but easily made.

why would i describe a computer to a child that had little hope of every seeing one.

that depends on what kind of situation it was. i imagine that it would not be inpossible to reconnect with civilation long before i left this world. If it were, then there would have to have been something wrong with civilations, such as a major plague, limited nuclear war that included em pulse bombs, ect. If the island had the resourses, then they would improve, if it did not, then no, they would remain a sea based society. that is because I would have given them the start in that directions. they would not have had to start from eating plants first.

they would never know about it.

why would they think this. the odds are they would end up being bigger than me. I would tell them that what i had learned had been taught me by my forefathers, just as i was teaching them. I would not need to teach them anything they did not need. Anything i did teach them that they did not need would be lost after a few generations.

you provide a picture from a science fiction story as evidence??????????????????? what is there to provide against?

Proven , has science proven that man has never lived below sea level , has he dredged the ocean floor for evidence , the silt that would cover such evidence might be as thick as 10 - 20 meters.

or do scientist just say we have examined what we have to examine and by this we find ourselves correct.

then tell me what a computer is..

remember I have no knowledge of one , and you have nothing you can show me.

and will I remember it so that I can pass it on to the generations to follow?

and will the comming generations name things the same?

now theres a mouthfull..
I wonder just how much information has been lost by people who thought like you do.

so now if people who think as you do , thought that way then , why dont we have that information now.

what if those people who lived along the continental shelf had to suddenly move up hill to avoid being washed into the oceans.

would they take with them anything except their lives , knowing they would be battling rivers of water as it flowed downhill.

and when they got to stable land it was probably ice cold not hardly any food and no shelter.

what would they teach their children , would they even go as far as to burry their dead in the oceans where their relatives are burried?

--------------------
the more I learn, the more I know.

by who, to whom? show me the proof that has been given to science to prove that the bible is infact completely correct. Show me where the evidence is that proves there were giants in the time of eve.

here is the two ways how science works

1) someone finds something that has never been seen before, and a scientist will look at it and begin to ask, where, when, how, what and who. when they have all the answers they can find, they begin to forumlate a hypothesis. when they have this, they go to the second one.

2) either after 1) or sometimes when some thing happens to make the scientist think about something, they make a hypothesis. when they have it, they start testing that hypothesis. "If this is true, then x must be true. so they test x." if this is true, y must be false." so they test y.

if x is true and y is false then they have a theory. they they tell others, who also test it. If they can disprove it, then either the theory is abandoned as disproved or it is taken back to prehyposthesis level and reworked with the new evidence added.

you have a idea, that is man lived near the sea 1 million years ago or longer. so what is your evidence? what is the evidence against it?

the evidence against it is that there is no evidence of anything like modern man that far back anywhere in the world. the evidence is that the sea levels did not stay that low for long (geologically speaking) so man would have had to adapt to the lower levels or moved to higher ground. If he moved to higher ground, then where is the evidence that he existed then.

I know all i need to know about a computer. if our society was to be destroy, a computer would hardly help survival.

why would you. you would never need to see one, you would never need to use one. it would not help in your day to day survival. it would be useless information.

If i were going to teach the next generation about something, and they had no way of ever having known what a computer was, or even anything of our society, what i would teach is what they would need to survive. I would teach about fishing. i would teach about how to use the sun and stars to know what time of day it was, and to know what time of year it was, and to know how to find your way in a trackless ocean.


what information could have been lost. let me tell you, the greeks had something simular to napam called greek fire. no one knows to this day what it was exactly, but it is very possible that it was napam. the greek libray was destroyed with a lot of information that was had there. why do you think this information was lost. because it was not needed. you dont need greek fire to farm. you dont need it to build cities. you dont need it for a lot of things. much of what was lost has been refound.

and yes there have been a lot of civilizations that were destroyed and much of their knowledge was lost. How many of those do you think had computers. how many of them had planes. how many of them had cars that ran on gasoline rather than pulled by ox. So far the only one that possibly could have was atlantis, except they have found it, and it did not have car, computer, planes, ships like ours, or anything else. You see the think is, science can figure out what other civilizations had. if ours is destroyed, many generations from now, another civilization will have the power to discover the remains of our civilization and will be able to peice together many of the things we know. how? because they will have the same sciences that we have.

If there was another civilization that existed since the last snowball earth, then we would know about them. we might not know everything about them, but we would know about them.

first off there has never been evidence that the oceans rose that fast. If they had, there would have still have been lots of room between them and the ice. like hundreds of miles if they were around Houston, or if they were near new york, they would have had dozens of miles to go before then. the land between would not have been much colder than it was near the sea. there would have been a lot of area farther inland that would have had places to grow crops or places to raise cows, or places to pick fruit off trees and vegis off plants.

If the sea had risen that fast, then they would not have the capicity to bury their dead in the same places. they would have had to find new places to bury them. they would in reality have had centuries to move their stuff. the only way they would not is if they had tried to build dikes to keep out the sea and they busted and flooded very quickly. If they had, there would have been evidence of the systems of dikes. any civilization that has the capacity to build dykes is going to spread very far away from the ocean.

so you have a theory that man lived below sea level. there are two ways you can go. prove it, or ask people to disprove it. the people you ask will ask you how did they live, so that they can disprove that the people live like that. then they will ask you where did these people come from, so that they can disprove that. then they will really get into finding questions for you to answer for them to disprove.

unless you can come up with some answers no one is going to bother with disproving it because it is self disproving. you will have to prove it yourself. otherwise its only a hypothesis, and only one that you believe.

There are plenty of dino digs. No one has ever found a single human fossil or artifact in those strata. Not only that, there aren't even any homonid fossils in those strata. There aren't even any pre-pre-cursor fossils in those strata.

The closest thing to a human in those strata are very small mammals. If you go back further, there are the dino-mammal links.