Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Niik, Didn't you say all animals were vegans in that time? Below is a exerpt from the site you linked to....
What Did the Dinosaurs Eat?
Dinosaurs could have eaten basically the same foods as the other animals. The large sauropods could have eaten compressed hay, other dried plant material, seeds and grains, and the like. Carnivorous dinosaurs—if any were meat-eaters before the Flood—could have eaten dried meat, reconstituted dried meat, or slaughtered animals. Giant tortoises would have been ideal to use as food in this regard. They were large and needed little food to be maintained themselves. There are also exotic sources of meat, such as fish that wrap themselves in dry cocoons.
I linked to that site to show human ancestry and the movement of people. Bill Cooper is great in linguistics and Translation of manuscripts. I agree with much of what he says. But, Creationists are just like Evolutionists, we all have our own ideas of the way things happened. So, do I reject Bill Cooper on some things like what the dinosaurs ate before the flood? No! I think the bible is clear that Animals were Herbavoirs before the flood. Bill links to Answers in Genesis and Ken Ham, so he has read, I am sure, what they teach and that would be a recent flood. Ken's site also emphasizes herbavoirs prior to the flood.
I am sure that there are many Evolutionist who do not agree with you on every point. Does that belittle you arguement? I hope not, because no two evolutionist agree on the same thing every time. This even includes the definition of Evolution.
So, I am not sure what your point is in the statement above. Except that not all humans agree on everything, which is an eternal common knowlege point.
See the Archer Fish. This fish has its eyes on the side, yet it has incredibe acuracy at shooting insects out of foliage above the water with a spit of water. They even account for the refraction of water. So, eyes on the side do not necessarily cause you to loose a sense of depth perception.
What an Ironic red herring. Yes, you are right Nikk. There are other ways in which we can get depth perception and we even use some of them for when one of our eyes is unavailable. Here is a list:
You seem to be in a rush to deny that predators use stereopsis as their primary way of judging whether or not the prey is within pouncing distances but thats a fact which relates to how carnivores have razor sharp teeth and all those hunting habits. The study of bones btw is called osteology which is used in anthropology, archeology and forensics. It's quite interesting and I'm sure you could learn quite a bit on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
Coosjoaquin, your ideas are more based in opinion than fact.
I know my facts thank you:
-Carbivores are designed to eat other animals. Their physique is that of a predator.
(fact)
-Herbivores are designed to eat plants. Ruminant species also have diastema(that gap) and multiple stomachs for digesting grass.
(Also a fact)
(cool as hell but not a fact)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk
Don't you think that is defeating the purpose of the discussion?
Huh?
1) You only consider your own words as facts
2) This is a discussion board, the intent for these things is to make a case for your opinions based on facts
3) When the discussion starts becoming about the people and not about the topic is the time the mods get involved.
Thanks for the link Nikk....Very interesting little fish, but..
"Archer Fishes are like submarine water pistols and can spit out a strong and accurate jet of water. With their tongue against the groove on the roof of their mouth, they form a tube, and force water powerfully out by snapping shut their gills. To get a good jet of water, the snout sticks out of the water, but the rest of the fish remains underwater. They direct the jet of water with the tip of their tongue. For accurate aim, they have large eyes located very near the mouth, which give good binocular vision."
Yet, they are on the sides of the head. So, this still shows that eye placement does not dictate loss of depth perception.
And those Fishes have a lot of Good Will for the future of Fishkind. One judges the World to be for man equivalent to Fish, and then the Good will may apply to Man.
I capatalize 'Man' just because I can know what you're thinking my dear French Hen.
In France the poltical correct range of debate is with Man the animal on the Right, and Animal the man on the Left.
You are using the badly defined term "species". The bible refers to Baramim, or Kinds of animals. For example Horse Kind, Dog/Wolf Kind, Elephant Kind, etc...
Ok then, I guess you do believe in evolution then if the 8,000 "kinds" of creatures became 50 million species.
What an Ironic red herring. Yes, you are right Nikk. There are other ways in which we can get depth perception and we even use some of them for when one of our eyes is unavailable. Here is a list:
You seem to be in a rush to deny that predators use stereopsis as their primary way of judging whether or not the prey is within pouncing distances but thats a fact which relates to how carnivores have razor sharp teeth and all those hunting habits. The study of bones btw is called osteology which is used in anthropology, archeology and forensics. It's quite interesting and I'm sure you could learn quite a bit on that.
I know my facts thank you:
-Carbivores are designed to eat other animals. Their physique is that of a predator.
(fact)
-Herbivores are designed to eat plants. Ruminant species also have diastema(that gap) and multiple stomachs for digesting grass.
(Also a fact)
(cool as hell but not a fact)
Huh?
1) You only consider your own words as facts
2) This is a discussion board, the intent for these things is to make a case for your opinions based on facts
3) When the discussion starts becoming about the people and not about the topic is the time the mods get involved.
Ok then, I guess you do believe in evolution then if the 8,000 "kinds" of creatures became 50 million species.
No, dogs are still dogs, Cats are still cats, etc. There is no Dog/Cat ancestor.
I believe in change. I know that I do not look like the twin of my father. I agree that there is natural selection and mutations. But they cannot cause new kinds of animals to arise. Mutation and Natural Selection can only cause a degredation of the original kinds of animals that were created by God.
Look at the variety found in living humans. This variety all comes from two original humans, Adam and Eve. The same is for the Dog, every animal that we call dog from the Great Dane, to the English Terrier are all just dog decendants of the original dog kind created by God.
This diversity of color of fur, color of eyes, size, etc. comes at a price. The bread out varieties are weeker in areas. For example arthritis in German Shepards, Poor teeth in Poodles, etc. To problems even more severe.
If we put all of the dogs of the world in one room without barriers, we would have something that looked like original dog within a few generations. Of course some true genetic material from the original dog has been lost over the years.
Dolphins have the bone structure more like a dog than a fish. They are mammals. They descended from land creatures that moved into the water because of the environment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What an Ironic red herring. Yes, you are right Nikk. There are other ways in which we can get depth perception and we even use some of them for when one of our eyes is unavailable. Here is a list:
