MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Mick Harper and the Dinosaurs (NEW CONCEPTS)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
aurelius



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
aurelius wrote:
A terrestrial event such as the flood of lava produced by the Deccan traps could have adversely affected the Dinosauria, marine reptiles and other groups if a significant part of their food chain was knocked out.


Has this ever been observed to extinguish a species?

Then an event such as a meteorite impact, extra-terrestrial in origin could have finished them off.


Has this ever been observed to extinguish a species?


No, thank goodness it hasn't. But just because we have not observed cataclysms on this scale surely does not mean they could not have happened, especially if there are rational arguments to support the theory.

Back in the 1960s the Higgs Boson particle was suspected to exist. It hadn't been observed, so AE would say it didn't exist. In 2013 it is confirmed by two separate experiments that it could be detected/observed. So it does exist after all.

Therefore, even if we don't know how it could have made so many dominant animals extinct, it is possible the Traps were the main cause.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I still say it doesn't exist.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

aurelius wrote:
No, thank goodness it hasn't.


Then AE says it's unavailable to solve the problem. There's no wiggle room.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

aurelius wrote:
Back in the 1960s the Higgs Boson particle was suspected to exist. It hadn't been observed...


In precisely the same way that extraterrestrial species have not yet been observed yet must be surmised from the global extinction of the dinosaurs, as we know that this extinction event most probably occurred in precisely the same manner as every other extinction event ever observed.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

There is of course, another way out of the problem (though I do actually prefer this one).
Send private message
aurelius



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
There is of course, another way out of the problem (though I do actually prefer this one).


Are you referring to the equatorial bulge/pole shift scenario which you introduced on a different thread?

If so do you think that, as well as accounting for the extinction of all Dinosaur species*, it could also account for the varied assemblage of creatures that have survived to this day?

*excluding birds, which it seems are more and more likely to be an evolved form of some Dinosaur species.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

aurelius wrote:
Are you referring to the equatorial bulge/pole shift scenario which you introduced on a different thread?


Nope. Because that suffers from the same difficulty. A "Pole Shift" has never been observed to cause a mass extinction.

To be honest though---I can't recall what it was to which I was referring in this thread as the other way to solve the problem.

*excluding birds, which it seems are more and more likely to be an evolved form of some Dinosaur species.


Personally, I prefer my wife's solution. She says birds came directly from fish.
Send private message
aurelius



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Personally, I prefer my wife's solution. She says birds came directly from fish.


Well there are 'flying fish', I suppose.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

A "Pole Shift" has never been observed to cause a mass extinction.

It may be that the Pacific break-out or The Flood was as catastrophic as the OT claims.
Send private message
aurelius



View user's profile
Reply with quote

It may be that the Pacific break-out or The Flood was as catastrophic as the OT claims.


The OT blames the flood on rainfall though, not inundation from sea level. Not sure about the Epic of Gilgamesh, which predates the OT, without checking.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

aurelius wrote:
The OT blames the flood on rainfall though, not inundation from sea level. Not sure about the Epic of Gilgamesh, which predates the OT, without checking.


Not true. The bible attributes the water both to the opening of heaven's floodgates and the bursting of "the fountains of the deep."
Send private message
aurelius



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Not true. The bible attributes the water both to the opening of heaven's floodgates and the bursting of "the fountains of the deep."


I stand corrected; I'd forgotten that bit; just remembered the rain lasting forty days and forty nights.
Send private message
aurelius



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Most writers, including Creationists, place the Noachian Flood at various times between 8,500 BC and 2,300 BC, with the greatest agreement being between 3,000 and 2,500 BC.

Gilgamesh, King of Uruk, is said to have lived between 2,800 and 2,500 BC.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

aurelius wrote:
I stand corrected; I'd forgotten that bit; just remembered the rain lasting forty days and forty nights.


What is even more strange is that, according to the Bible, before the flood, it never rained!
Send private message
aurelius



View user's profile
Reply with quote

What is even more strange is that, according to the Bible, before the flood, it never rained!


All water supplies for habitation would have to come from springs, and maybe oases, presumably.

Or is it that, before the Flood, it had simply not rained in living memory in the region where the OT story is set...?

There is plenty of corroborating geological evidence of rising sea levels leading to 'localised' flooding -even to the submergence of areas of the continental shelf - and not just in the Middle East, but none of a flood such that only one mountain top rose above it.

By the way, has this topic already been aired elsewhere on this site? If so I'd like to have a look.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Jump to:  
Page 3 of 4

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group