1. And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark; and God made a wind to pass over the earth; and the waters asswaged;

What does "asswaged" mean? I looked it up in the Websters Dictionary and it's not there. It sounds painfull...

2. The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;

3. And the waters returned from off the earth continually; and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.

4. And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

5. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month of the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

6. And it came to pass, at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:

7. And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.

A raven? I thought it was a dove.

8. Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground:

There goes the dove.

9. But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unot him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth; then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.

No olive leaf, yet.

10. And he stayed yet other seven days and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark:

11. And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf, pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

There goes the olive leaf.

12. And he stayed yet other seven days, and sent forth the dove, which returned not again unto him any more.

13. And it came to pass, in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dry.

14. And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.

I don't understand Genesis::8::14. Was it the 7th or 20th day?

15. And God spake unto Noah, saying

16. Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wifes with thee.

17. Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of attle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.

18. And Noah went forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him:

19. Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark.

20. And NOah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

21. And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

There it seems that god sees how good people can be and he states that not only will he never again create a flood, but never again will he smite the earth with such an apocolypse. There goes all those bible thumpers talking about the apocolypse...

24. And the water prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

Cheers,

Lost

1: 7 AND 20, what is the sum f those numbers?

2: God says he wont destroy the world with a flood.

Lost, are you ok? My ex-wife used to go on cleaning binges when she was upset (she looked like Mrs. Howell on sugar beets). It was like she was on a mission of life or death.

Are you ok?

Thanks for asking, but I'm fine. I've just got some free time and I'm catching up on some shit I've been neglecting.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Lost, are you ok? My ex-wife used to go on cleaning binges when she was upset (she looked like Mrs. Howell on sugar beets). It was like she was on a mission of life or death.

Are you ok?



ok, thats good... i thought maybe with all the locked out threads and hunting for answers, that maybe you were on a house cleaning mission...

good night mrs howell...errr, i mean lost http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

No. Again, thanks for asking, but I locked all those threads to demonstrate a concept.

I think those threads are either stupid/typical/redundant or I just don't like them. Most of the time I let them go because they're valid to the others who don't realize that they're stupid/typical/redundant. But, I can lock or delete all the thread, even the valid ones, if I want to. I don't because... I just don't.

There's no real rhyme or reason to it other than I can and I feel like it.

This is a religion forum. If they/you don't get the symbolism then that's too bad.

After this, I'll probably go back to letting all the dumb threads stay, just like before - when I only lock the ones that are stupid to the point of being universally offensive.

Also, the bible chapters I posted I already had typed up. I just needed to add the commentary, so it wasn't as much work as it looked like.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

No. Again, thanks for asking, but I locked all those threads to demonstrate a concept.

This is a religion forum. If they/you don't get the symbolism then that's too bad.

Cheers,

Lost

I'm glad things are good with you.

My first thought about the locked threads was, she's playing god. But my second thought was "why", which was the reason for the questions.

The Mrs Howell comment made me chuckle so i desided to tease you alittle http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LostCause:

What does "asswaged" mean?

i think it's spelled "assuage" and it means to soften or allay.

There it seems that god sees how good people can be and he states that not only will he never again create a flood, but never again will he smite the earth with such an apocolypse. There goes all those bible thumpers talking about the apocolypse...

If i remember, the answer for this is from reading the original Hebrew... i think the wording is kinda like... I wont smite like this until the end.

But i can not recall, and right now i'm not going to look it up... if it is a major thing to you, let me know and i'll check it out and post it.

A boat able to hold all those creatures would have been larger than any ship made to this day. It would have had to hold tons and tons of food, and have one of the most complex waste removal systems EVER. Besides that, it would be impossible to gather all the animals from each and every corner of the world; and dont tell me any bullshit about Pangea because that was years before the dinosaurs. Oh, but wait, you dont believe in dinosaurs, and the earth is only 6-7,000 years old, right? Fuck you. Shove some radio-carbon dating up your ass, and go to a museum.

Simply put, a ship of this scale and complexity would have been impossible to build back then, and still impossible to build with today's modern technology. We dont have any shipyards large enough, and if you think some old man and his family could pull all of this off, you're seriously stupid.

All the insults in my post were not directed at anybody in particular, especially not Lost Cause, I like you.

[This message has been edited by unchewed_meat (edited 03-31-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by unchewed_meat:

A boat able to hold all those creatures would have been larger than any ship made to this day. It would have had to hold tons and tons of food, and have one of the most complex waste removal systems EVER. Besides that, it would be impossible to gather all the animals from each and every corner of the world; and dont tell me any bullshit about Pangea because that was years before the dinosaurs. Oh, but wait, you dont believe in dinosaurs, and the earth is only 6-7,000 years old, right? Fuck you. Shove some radio-carbon dating up your ass, and go to a museum.

Simply put, a ship of this scale and complexity would have been impossible to build back then, and still impossible to build with today's modern technology. We dont have any shipyards large enough, and if you think some old man and his family could pull all of this off, you're seriously stupid.

All the insults in my post were not directed at anybody in particular, especially not Lost Cause, I like you.



Stay out of religious topics because you dont know anything about anyones religion and even less about what we believe. Ever heard of Peleg? Hes listed inone of the geneologies. The verse that mentions him also mentions a great earthquake happened during his lifetime. Pangea split? I think so.

The bible says God brought the animals to Noah, so problem slved there. And no one said that they werent small animals, even infants.

Plus the Ark WAS BIGGER THAN ANY SHIP EVER MADE!!!

Radiocarbon is a very inaccurate way to find the age of anything. Often the precision is so bad to account the age of a specific sample to have ages, note i said AGES, differing between many orders of magnitude. Ages, what did i mean? That for any given sample, the radiocarbon dating method will, for all intents and purposes, give various ages for said sample. Is it 100 years old, or 1000? The measurement then becomes subject to the users interpretation and since only evolutionists use it (for the most part) there is no wondering why they would date something millions of years old.

The ark was simply a rectanglular prism with a deck. How simple is that? Even children can make more complex boats out of paper!

Noah and his family took 120 years to build it, so then why is thatso hard to believe when we build Nimitz class aircraft carriers in only months time?

Whoever said that the earth wasnt billions of years old before A&E sinned? WHY DOES NO NE REALIZE THAT???!!! Does it kill their theories that easilly?

What about the footprint ,not only in the same rock formation, nt only in the same strata, not only within feet, not only within inches, BUT ACTUALLY INSIDE A T-REX's FOOTPRINT!!!! Whatdoesthat say for evolution then? Job describes very large sea creatures, and even those that breathed fire and had scales. If not for the fire breath, what does that sound like? Sounds like a dino.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Whoever said that the earth wasnt billions of years old before A&E sinned? WHY DOES NO NE REALIZE THAT???!!! Does it kill their theories that easilly?

Err, creation in 6 days in the Bible then Adam and Eve sinning before they were billions of years old? Unless of course you want to play the "I can tell what is literal and what's not!" game.

quote:you dont know anything about anyones religion and even less about what we believe

Wrong. I used to go to a Christian school. I reject Christianity because I know so much about it, and I have loads of (what seems to be) not-so-common sense. You dont know anything about me, so you cant make a statement like that.

quote:Whoever said that the earth wasnt billions of years old before A&E sinned? WHY DOES NO NE REALIZE THAT???!!! Does it kill their theories that easilly?

Goddamnit. It's called the gap theory, and I wrote a long ass essay showing how it's wrong a long time ago, I guess I'll just rewrite a shorter one.

The gap theory basically states that god made the earth @ Genesis 1:1. Then, all your evolution, dinos, etc happened. Then, there was a huge catastrophe, and everything died, and the earth was left shapless and void (Genesis 1:2). What was left were the old ass fossils of dinosaurs, and all that stuff, which explains radio-carbon dating.

This is so easily proven wrong, you see, if there was a catastrophe large enough to destroy the entire crust of the earth, leaving it shapeless, there would be abosolutely no fossils because they are located in the crust. They would have all been destroyed.

Also, the gap theory details death and destruction before Adam's sin.

quote:The verse that mentions him also mentions a great earthquake happened during his lifetime. Pangea split?

Im willing to be there is no geologic evidence of an earthquake around the time of this Noah's arc fairytale, or even a flood, for that matter.

quote:

The bible says God brought the animals to Noah

Oh, how convenient. Did he just float them over, or did he teleport them?

quote:And no one said that they werent small animals, even infants.

What does that have to do with anything?

quote:Plus the Ark WAS BIGGER THAN ANY SHIP EVER MADE!!!...The ark was simply a rectanglular prism with a deck....Noah and his family took 120 years to build it, so then why is thatso hard to believe when we build Nimitz class aircraft carriers in only months time?

You obviously know nothing of ship building, shut-up.

quote:The bible:

The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high

You cant fit 2 of every animal on earth, and enough food to feed them on a boat that small. Some animals can eat twice their own weight in food every day.

quote:Radiocarbon is a very inaccurate way to find the age of anything.

Yes, it is when you lie by omission. Radiocarbon dating is inaccurate on RECENT deposits. It is accurate for older ones.

Trust me, you can't win. The next thing you'll probably say is, "well, god can do anything." Yeah, dont get me started on circular logic.

quote:Originally posted by unchewed_meat:

A boat able to hold all those creatures would have been larger than any ship made to this day. It would have had to hold tons and tons of food, and have one of the most complex waste removal systems EVER. Besides that, it would be impossible to gather all the animals from each and every corner of the world; and dont tell me any bullshit about Pangea because that was years before the dinosaurs. Oh, but wait, you dont believe in dinosaurs, and the earth is only 6-7,000 years old, right? Fuck you. Shove some radio-carbon dating up your ass, and go to a museum.

Simply put, a ship of this scale and complexity would have been impossible to build back then, and still impossible to build with today's modern technology. We dont have any shipyards large enough, and if you think some old man and his family could pull all of this off, you're seriously stupid.



The Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits which is about 140x23x13.5 metres or 459x75x44 feet, so its volume was 43,500 m3 (cubic metres) or 1.54 million cubic feet. To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard American railroad stock cars, each of which can hold 240 sheep. (somebody figured that the average size of animals is about the size of a sheep)

If the animals were kept in cages with an average size of 50x50x30 centimetres (20x20x12 inches), that is 75,000 cm3 (cubic centimetres) or 4800 cubic inches, the 16,000 animals would only occupy 1200 m3 (42,000 cubic feet) or 14.4 stock cars. Even if a million insect species had to be on board, it would not be a problem, because they require little space. If each pair was kept in cages of 10 cm (four inches) per side, or 1000 cm3, all the insect species would occupy a total volume of only 1000 m3, or another 12 cars. This would leave room for five trains of 99 cars each for food, Noah’s family and ‘range’ for the animals. However, insects are not included in the meaning of behemah or remes in Genesis 6:19-20, so Noah probably would not have taken them on board as passengers anyway.

Potty break

It is doubtful whether the humans had to clean the cages every morning. Possibly they had sloped floors or slatted cages, where the manure could fall away from the animals and be flushed away (plenty of water around!) or destroyed by vermicomposting (composting by worms) which would also provide earthworms as a food source. Very deep bedding can sometimes last for a year without needing a change. Absorbent material (e.g. sawdust, softwood wood shavings and especially peat moss) would reduce the moisture content and hence the odour.

oh ya, i almost forgot "tons and tons of food"

The Ark would probably have carried compressed and dried foodstuffs, and probably a lot of concentrated food. Perhaps Noah fed the cattle mainly on grain, plus some hay for fibre. Woodmorappe calculated that the volume of foodstuffs would have been only about 15 % of the Ark’s total volume. Drinking water would only have taken up 9.4 % of the volume. This volume would be reduced further if rainwater was collected and piped into troughs.

Boy i love this copy/paste...

[MY MATH HERE IS WRONG, I FIXED IT IN A LATER POST]

There is a large number of animals that can't fit in a cage 1.6ft x 1.6 ft. x 1ft. You also have to account room in that cage for, as you said, bedding, shit, and food.

Also, your copy/paste report says there are only 16,000 species in the world. The actual number is unknown, but:

quote:Around 1.5 million species of animal have been named and described by scientists - and over a million of these are insects.

That leaves at least 500,000 species of animal that we've discovered. Far greater than your 16,000.

Besides that, the math is wrong.

quote:459x75x44 feet, so its volume was 43,500 m3 (cubic metres) or 1.54 million cubic feet

459x75x44= rougly 1.51 million (not 1.54), which means there is roughly 511 stock cars, not 522

quote:that is 75,000 cm^3...16,000 animals ... only occupy 1200 m^3

There are 100 cm in a meter, so 75,000 cm^3 is 750 m^3.

750 m^3 (per cage) x 16,000 (animals)= 12,000,000 m^3.

12,000,000 m^3 is 10,000 times greater than the orginal WRONG figure of 1,200. The original number of stock cars (14.4) would have to be multiplied by 10,000 as well to match. 14.4x10,000 = 144,000 stock cars, far more than 511. You have already been proven wrong, but I'm going to continue...

There are actually at least 500,000 animals, not 16,000. To do this easily, 500,000/16,000 = 31.25

We would have to multiply the number of stock cars by 31.25 to compensate for the measly estimate of 16,000 animals. 144,000x31.25 = 4,500,000 stock cars.

To recap, the arc was supposedly equal in volume to 511 stock cars, but I have shown that the animals would require at least 4,500,000. Once again, I state that it is impossible to build a ship large enough to house all those animals.

Nice try, though.

[MY MATH HERE IS WRONG, I FIXED IT IN A LATER POST]

[This message has been edited by unchewed_meat (edited 03-31-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



It is doubtful whether the humans had to clean the cages every morning. Possibly they had sloped floors or slatted cages, where the manure could fall away from the animals and be flushed away

If that were the case, the cages could only line the outer perimeter of the ship, not utilizing it's full volume (which I have just shown to be impossible anyways).

quote:... blah blah blah something about worms ...

I'm pretty sure that an animal can shit much faster than a worm can decompose it.

As for your section about food and water, where are the numbers? Did the author just pull these percentages out of his ass? 15% x 31.25 (to compensate for the more realistic number of animals) is about 469% of the arc's total available space. I feel that I dont need to even talk about the water, but if you want, do 9.4x31.25 and you will see it is far more than 100%.

QUOTE Originally posted by unchewed_meat:

It's called the gap theory, and I wrote a long ass essay showing how it's wrong a long time ago, I guess I'll just rewrite a shorter one.

your right, the gap theory is hogwash for the simple fact that you pointed out, namely death before the 'Fall'

quote:

The bible says God brought the animals to Noah

Oh, how convenient. Did he just float them over, or did he teleport them?

One continent divided by catastophic plate techtonics caused by the flood.... the animals only had to walk (or fly)

quote:And no one said that they werent small animals, even infants.



What does that have to do with anything?

It has quite a bit to do with the size of the animals vs the volume of the ark...

some reptiles continue to grow there whole life... why put a huge (and possibly old) bronto on the ark when a young one would be smaller, eat less and afterwards also be sexually mature.

You cant fit 2 of every animal on earth, and enough food to feed them on a boat that small. Some animals can eat twice their own weight in food every day.

two of every animal? no, two of every kind or sort.

just for example, how many canines would be needed? wolf, coyote, dingo, fox, dog.... no, just two from the "dog" kind.

As far as eating goes, is hibernation a possiblity for some? I know how you love "God dunnit" arguements, but if we are talking about a worldwide flood that God says happened, then "God holding back an animal's appitite" is a valid possibility.

Trust me, you can't win. The next thing you'll probably say is, "well, god can do anything." Yeah, dont get me started on circular logic.

Whether it is circular or not, if God is real, and if the Bible is His word, "God dunnit" and "God can do anything" are most definitly valid. Now if God is not real and/or the Bible is not His word, then those arguements are not valid. If God is real, then the reality of God is not dependant on anyones belief. If god is not real, then belief is the only thing that makes a god real.

quote:Originally posted by unchewed_meat:

If that were the case, the cages could only line the outer perimeter of the ship, not utilizing it's full volume (which I have just shown to be impossible anyways).

... blah blah blah something about worms ...

I'm pretty sure that an animal can shit much faster than a worm can decompose it.

As for your section about food and water, where are the numbers? Did the author just pull these percentages out of his ass? 15% x 31.25 (to compensate for the more realistic number of animals) is about 469% of the arc's total available space. I feel that I dont need to even talk about the water, but if you want, do 9.4.x31.25 and you will see it is far more than 100%

check out his book...

John Woodmorappe’s

Noah’s Ark: a Feasibility Study.

It doesn't matter. Check your post, and then check mine. Even when using YOUR estimates, I still proved you wrong simply because your multiplication was off.

quote:Originally posted by R_I:

Err, creation in 6 days in the Bible then Adam and Eve sinning before they were billions of years old? Unless of course you want to play the "I can tell what is literal and what's not!" game.



WTF are you tryingto say? Creation taking six days and living billions of years have no coorelation whatsoever.

Goddamnit. It's called the gap theory, and I wrote a long ass essay showing how it's wrong a long time ago, I guess I'll just rewrite a shorter one.

The gap theory basically states that god made the earth @ Genesis 1:1. Then, all your evolution, dinos, etc happened. Then, there was a huge catastrophe, and everything died, and the earth was left shapless and void (Genesis 1:2). What was left were the old ass fossils of dinosaurs, and all that stuff, which explains radio-carbon dating.

This is so easily proven wrong, you see, if there was a catastrophe large enough to destroy the entire crust of the earth, leaving it shapeless, there would be abosolutely no fossils because they are located in the crust. They would have all been destroyed.

Also, the gap theory details death and destruction before Adam's sin.

"Umm, its not gap theory moron. Im saying that God created Man & Woman and they lived for billions of years. Are you that ignorant you cant tell what im saying?"

quote:The verse that mentions him also mentions a great earthquake happened during his lifetime. Pangea split?



Im willing to be there is no geologic evidence of an earthquake around the time of this Noah's arc fairytale, or even a flood, for that matter.

"Peleg and Noah werent close togethern any timeline. And howcome nearly every culture has some account of a world-wide flood?"

quote:

The bible says God brought the animals to Noah



Oh, how convenient. Did he just float them over, or did he teleport them?

"Pangea you ignorant dick"

quote:And no one said that they werent small animals, even infants.



What does that have to do with anything?

"Small animals=less volume, for someone who says they know alot about Christianity sure lacks knowledge about eleentary mathmatics"

quote:Plus the Ark WAS BIGGER THAN ANY SHIP EVER MADE!!!...The ark was simply a rectanglular prism with a deck....Noah and his family took 120 years to build it, so then why is thatso hard to believe when we build Nimitz class aircraft carriers in only months time?



You obviously know nothing of ship building, shut-up.

"And yet you dont say anything in your own defense except an argument a third grader could pwn you win"

quote:The bible:

The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high



You cant fit 2 of every animal on earth, and enough food to feed them on a boat that small. Some animals can eat twice their own weight in food every day.

"But that says little about the plant life that existed back then. How can you be so sure that the food of yore would have the same caloric value as todays? So neither of our arguments work for this because of ignorance on the part of Prediluvian fauna."

quote:Radiocarbon is a very inaccurate way to find the age of anything.



Yes, it is when you lie by omission. Radiocarbon dating is inaccurate on RECENT deposits. It is accurate for older ones.

"Statistics show that any dating method based on radioactive decay is highly suspect to error"

Trust me, you can't win. The next thing you'll probably say is, "well, god can do anything." Yeah, dont get me started on circular logic.

"I wont, evolutionists tend to get their head caught in their asses when they use it. I dont generally subscribe to the above comment because God always accomplishes anything through the physics he implimented."

I like how you quote yourself, idiot.

You see, as an athiest, the whole "god dunnit" thing, as xtreem5150ahm stated, does not mean ANYTHING to me.

When you said "small animals" I assumed you meant he only took things like ferrets and other "small animals", I didnt know that you meant YOUNG animals, because you dont have a very good vocabulary.

quote:And yet you dont say anything in your own defense except an argument a third grader could pwn you win

Read what xtreem5150ahm said, and then read my counter a few posts up. I explained everything in relation to size right there. The ship itself is impossible to build.

quote:But that says little about the plant life that existed back then. How can you be so sure that the food of yore would have the same caloric value as todays? So neither of our arguments work for this because of ignorance on the part of Prediluvian fauna.

Oh, as if you know about plant life back then? It (supposedly) wasn't even that long ago. If you ate a single cracker, that somehow contained 1000 calories, would your stomach be satisfied? No.

QUOTE Originally posted by unchewed_meat:

There is a large number of animals that can't fit in a cage 1.6ft x 1.6 ft. x 1ft. You also have to account room in that cage for, as you said, bedding, shit, and food.

first off, i'm sorry i misquoted the average size of animal that he said. I quoted it as being the size of a sheep, but he says, "Third, the Bible does not say that the animals had to be fully grown. The largest animals were probably represented by ‘teenage’ or even younger specimens. The median size of all animals on the ark would actually have been that of a small rat, according to Woodmorappe‘s up-to-date tabulations, while only about 11 % would have been much larger than a sheep."

it was your post that brought it to my attention... 1.6' x 1.6' x 1' seemed alittle small for a sheep. No matter, i do agree that this seems rather small for a median size but it's his calculations.

Also, your copy/paste report says there are only 16,000 species in the world.

no, you assumed that i was talking species. The Bible says 'kinds'.

here is what copy/paste says:

One common definition of a species is a group of organisms which can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and cannot mate with other species. However, most of the so-called species (obviously all the extinct ones) have not been tested to see what they can or cannot mate with. In fact, not only are there known crosses between so-called species, but there are many instances of trans-generic mating, so the ‘kind’ may in some cases be as high as the family. Identifying the ‘kind’ with the genus is also consistent with Scripture, which spoke of kinds in a way that the Israelites could easily recognize without the need for tests of reproductive isolation.

So at about 8000 'biblical kinds' and 2 to a pair = 16000

Besides that, the math is wrong.

i'm going to stick with feet because when i did a ssearch on boxcar size, that is what was used.

quote:459x75x44 feet, so its volume was 1.54 million cubic feet

you are right, it is roughly 1.51 million. When i did a quick doublecheck of your/my math, i used 460x75x45 which is 1.5525 million.

which means there is roughly 511 stock cars, not 522

i'm not sure of the dimensions of stock cars but my search on boxcars came up as:

17' max height, 40' - 90' length.. i couldnt find a standard width but i did find dim. of two particular cars: one was 9'3" and the other 9'1"

ok dim of those cars:

64' x 9'3" x 11'9" cubic capacity 6900 ft^3

50' x 9'1" x 9'6" cubic cap 975 - 4269 ft^2

these i think were conversions

lets take 6900 ft^3 multiplied by 500 cars =

3,450,000.... this is in the ball park of 1.51 or 1.54 million ft^3

ok i'll leave your/our metric in this next part.. its late and dontwanna convert

that is 75,000 cm^3...16,000 animals ... only occupy 1200 m^3 /quote

There are 100 cm in a meter, so 75,000 cm^3 is 750 m^3.

we have a problem with something here; the article said 50cm x 50cm x 30cm = 75000 cm^3

that's half a meter by half a meter by about a third of a meter... there is no way that 750 m^3 is right when 1m x 1m x 1m = 1m^3

i think your math should have came up with .750 m^3 (3/4 of a meter cubed), but like i said, it's getting late (and tired)and i could be wrong on this.

750 m^3 (per cage) x 16,000 (animals)= 12,000,000 m^3.

if i'm right on this than .750 m^3 x 16000 = 12000 m^3, which is still off from woodmorappe (he said 1200)

Ok time for bed, maybe it'll be clearer tomorrow evening.

**********************

ArgonPlasma2000:

WTF are you tryingto say? Creation taking six days and living billions of years have no coorelation whatsoever.

Well, you said in a previous post, "Whoever said that the earth wasnt billions of years old before A&E sinned? WHY DOES NO NE REALIZE THAT???!!! Does it kill their theories that easilly?".

If everything was created in 6 days, and the earth was then billions of years old before Adam and Eve sinned, either:

-Adam and Eve lived to be billions of years old before sinning.

I'm not sure about this. Wasn't Methusalah(sp?) the oldest ever person? Also, why is there no mention in the Bible of the billions of years before Adam and Eve sinned?

-Adam and Eve weren't around for a hella long time or weren't the first humans.

Well, where's the justification for believing either of those? Existence of 2 different creation accounts?

Tell me if I've missed out on any other options.

What's your personal belief on this matter? Creation in 6 literal days? Adam and Eve sinning soon after creation or ages after when they are billions of years old? Do tell.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

I'm glad things are good with you.

My first thought about the locked threads was, she's playing god. But my second thought was "why", which was the reason for the questions.

The Mrs Howell comment made me chuckle so i desided to tease you alittle http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

*punch in the shoulder*

Keep it coming.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

that is 75,000 cm^3...16,000 animals ... only occupy 1200 m^3 /quote

There are 100 cm in a meter, so 75,000 cm^3 is 750 m^3.

we have a problem with something here; the article said 50cm x 50cm x 30cm = 75000 cm^3

that's half a meter by half a meter by about a third of a meter... there is no way that 750 m^3 is right when 1m x 1m x 1m = 1m^3

i think your math should have came up with .750 m^3 (3/4 of a meter cubed), but like i said, it's getting late (and tired)and i could be wrong on this.



Yeah, as I went to sleep last night, I thought 750m^3 seemed a little big. I hate voume. I'll figure something out later.

All im trying to say is that it is completely possible that Adam and Eve sinned billions of years after creation. Thats all! The bible gives us no dates whatsoever on the sate of their sin, therefore we cant have any certainty setting a date on it. Thats why i say its possible that billions of years passed.

And if they were immortal, age would be meaningless to them. Sin is a curse that causes the death of ones soul, and by relation, body. After they sinned, one can say that "their days are numbered" ehh?

That would mean that there was death and suffering before their sin, which contradicts the bible.

http://home1.gte.net/bridavis/timeline.htm

This website details the age of the earth, in bible terms, using people's ages and such. It totals out to about 6418+/- years old.

___________________________

You were right, xtreem, I made a mistake and then it fucked up near-everything I calculated afterwards. Also, I said there were about 500,000 species of animal, yet I failed to remember that he took TWO OF EACH KIND, which equals 1,000,000

(in centimeters) 50cm x 50cm x 30cm = 75000 cm^3

(in meters) .5m x .5m x .3m = .075 m^3

.075m^3 x 1,000,000 = 75,000 m^3 required for the animals (using these estimates)

43,500m^3/75,000m^3 = 511/x (where x = number of boxcars required for the animals)

x = about 881 boxcars

That leaves negative 370 boxcars. You claimed that food would require 15% of the arc's volume (which I think is an extremely low estimate) 15% of 511 is about 76 boxcars.

You state that water would require 9.4% of the arc's volume, which is 48 boxcars.

So far, we have 48+76+881, which equals a total number of 1035 boxcars, out of an available 511.

This has only taken into consideration animals, an idealy tiny food supply, and water.

We must remember that there is a good number of carnivorous animals in the world. They eat meat (so argon's idea of an old heavy calorie plant should be discarded). There are also things like koala bears that eat only eucalyptus trees. We must not discount the insects either, even though your copy/paste report says we should. There is a good number of bugs that can't survive in water.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



two of every animal? no, two of every kind or sort.

just for example, how many canines would be needed? wolf, coyote, dingo, fox, dog.... no, just two from the "dog" kind.



This has to be wrong, because if it were the case, then all your wolves, foxes, coyotes, dingoes, and foxes would be extinct.

Ed: grammar

[This message has been edited by unchewed_meat (edited 03-31-2005).]

ArgonPlasma2000:

All im trying to say is that it is completely possible that Adam and Eve sinned billions of years after creation. Thats all! The bible gives us no dates whatsoever on the sate of their sin, therefore we cant have any certainty setting a date on it. Thats why i say its possible that billions of years passed.

And if they were immortal, age would be meaningless to them. Sin is a curse that causes the death of ones soul, and by relation, body. After they sinned, one can say that "their days are numbered" ehh?

Hmm, fair enough. I find it to be an interesting and plausible explanation. I've never thought about it that way before. Although I do wonder why the serpent would wait for so long before talking to Eve.

quote:Originally posted by unchewed_meat:

That would mean that there was death and suffering before their sin, which contradicts the bible.

http://home1.gte.net/bridavis/timeline.htm

This website details the age of the earth, in bible terms, using people's ages and such. It totals out to about 6418+/- years old.



How does that indicate that pain and suffering was in the world before-hand?

Is it because fossils and whatnot arein the earth at the time? Youd be mistaken. Because if you subscribe to my A&E billion years old theory then you cant discount Noah either http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

And the calculation of the age of earth is by age. Like i said, age is irrelevant to an immortal being.

ArgonPlasma2000:

Like i said, age is irrelevant to an immortal being.

Well, perhaps to an eternal being age is irrelevant but if it's just an immortal being that began to exist at one point in time then you could still want to know how old they are so far.

I'm pretty sure that age is oftened mentioned in stories with immortal characters for some sort of effect.

quote:Originally posted by unchewed_meat:

This has to be wrong, because if it were the case, then all your wolves, foxes, coyotes, dingoes, and foxes would be extinct.

i was going to start with the 'math problem', but i think this needs to be covered first.. atleast for this conversation's purpose.

Creationist (young age creationist, atleast) do not say that evolution has not happened. Just that it is limited by the Biblical timeframe that you already posted to ArgonPlasma2000, although they arent quite as dogmatic about 6000 years or so. They give the range at between about 6000 yrs to about 12000 yrs. This is because there are possibilities that some of the geneology (the begats) may be somewhat incomplete. I personally subscribe to the belief that it is near the lower end of that range.

I'm gonna be brief, this is more for clarification of the 'math problem'.We can get back to this later, if you like, but we are working out the size of ark vs. number of animals.

Anyway, back to what young earth creationists say about evolution.. or rather, the Biblical "kinds". If the original dog "kind" had all the genetic info of canines (wolves, coyotes, etc.), the creationists view on evolution is that the more specific an organism gets, it loses genetic info... basically, if one were to somehow combine all the genetic info of all types of canines, you would have the genetic info of the original dog 'kind'.

So from this line of thinking, the wolves, foxes, coyotes, dingoes, foxes etc., would not be extinct, as the would not have evolved before God loaded the boat, but rather sometime after getting off the ark.

The reason i felt this was where to start, is because this plays an important role in determining the amount of animals on the ark... you say 500,000 times 2

and woodmorrape says 8000 times 2

although i dont recall what his total reasoning for 8000 "kinds" was, but you and i are just discussing math for right now... fair enough?

quote:Originally posted by R_I:

ArgonPlasma2000:

Like i said, age is irrelevant to an immortal being.

Well, perhaps to an eternal being age is irrelevant but if it's just an immortal being that began to exist at one point in time then you could still want to know how old they are so far.

I'm pretty sure that age is oftened mentioned in stories with immortal characters for some sort of effect.



In this case, it is a time between two events that you must record the time delta. But Adam did not know WHEN he was created, so he cannot get a sense of a time delta. Also, there was no need for a time delta when nothing affected his schedule. When he sinned, he had to work. Time was then necessary.

I'm talking about it from God's perspective. He's the one that inspired the Bible writers, right? He would've known the age of Adam when he had sinned.

The Bible also talks about the cool of the day or something. I'm pretty sure that Adam and Eve had a concept of day and night at least by watching the sun.

unchewed_meat

sorry, i started out with energy to do this, but i had a few things to do around the house and i spent some time talking to my wife.. now i'm pretty much burnt out for the night, so i'm making this very short, and i'm not going to read anymore posts from anyone tonight cuz then i'll just get sidetracked and not go to bed until the wee hours...

your numbers are from the assumption of a million or so animals but woodmorappe's assumption is for 16000, which i've already posted why he does not think that the biblical kinds are the same as modern scientific classification of species.

Sorry, thats all the better i can do for tonight.

p.s. remind me of the 'carnivorous animals' statement.

night

No, I dont care, its not worth typing another word for. You people will just bend all the rules you want so your way is plausable. I'm done.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

How does that indicate that pain and suffering was in the world before-hand?

Not worth typing another word for, except this last note:

Fossils indicate pain and suffering, because in order for there to be fossils, something had to die. Goodbye FOREVER!!!!!!!!!1111111111111111111`

Hmmm... Science!

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH512.html



Hmmmm.. even more Science!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-01-2005).]

quote:Posted by Unchewed Meat:

That leaves at least 500,000 species of animal that we've discovered. Far greater than your 16,000.

Do you presume that all the birds needed to be housed on the Ark ?

What of the marine animals ? Those account for NUMEROUS species in that 1.5 million.

When you break this all down, it is logically provable.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

All im trying to say is that it is completely possible that Adam and Eve sinned billions of years after creation. Thats all! The bible gives us no dates whatsoever on the sate of their sin, therefore we cant have any certainty setting a date on it. Thats why i say its possible that billions of years passed.

And if they were immortal, age would be meaningless to them. Sin is a curse that causes the death of ones soul, and by relation, body. After they sinned, one can say that "their days are numbered" ehh?

It is not possible.

God is specific in detailing each sunRISE ans sunSET after each day of His creation.

That means it was literally 6 days in the making.

Man did not come long after that. Maybe a 1,000 years, but that would be pushing it, in my opinion.

The soul never dies, friend.

The "death" attributed to sin is physical death and separation from God for eternity.

Even in Hell, the soul lives on forever.

quote:Originally posted by unchewed_meat:

No, I dont care, its not worth typing another word for. You people will just bend all the rules you want so your way is plausable. I'm done.

*lol*

Tantrums are so respectable.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Hmmm... Science!

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH512.html



Hmmmm.. even more Science!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html



*LAUGHS*

Just can't rid yourself of your crutch, can you ?

How about some OTHER science...perhaps some that isn't biased ?

You require the very same thing of "us".

I don't know if this was covered already (I detest MATH !!), but here:

Most Hebrew scholars believe the cubit to have been no less than 18 inches long [45.72 centimeters]. This means that the ark would have been at least 450 feet long [137.16 meters], 75 feet wide [22.86 meters] and 45 feet high [13.716000000000001 meters].

The total available floor space on the ark would have been over 100,000 square feet, which would be more floor space than in 20 standard-sized basketball courts.

The total cubic volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet [462,686.4 cubic meters] --that would be equal to the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars.

Now comes the question, how many land dwelling air breathing animals would have had to be taken aboard the ark to survive the flood?

According to Ernest Mayr, America's leading taxonomist, there are over 1 million species of animals in the world.

However, the vast majority of these are capable of surviving in water and would not need to be brought aboard the ark. Noah need make no provision for the 21,000 species of fish or the 1,700 tunicates (marine chordates like sea squirts) found throughout the seas of the world, or the 600 echinoderms including star fish and sea urchins, or the 107,000 mollusks such as mussels, clams and oysters, or the 10,000 coelenterates like corals and sea anemones, jelly fish and hydroids or the 5,000 species of sponges, or the 30,000 protozoans, the microscopic single-celled creatures.

In addition, some of the mammals are aquatic. For example, the whales, seals and porpoises. The amphibians need not all have been included, nor all the reptiles, such as sea turtles, and alligators. Moreover, a large number of the arthropods numbering 838,000 species, such as lobsters, shrimp, crabs and water fleas and barnacles are marine creatures. And the insect species among arthropoda are usually very small. Also, many of the 35,000 species of worms as well as many of the insects could have survived outside the Ark.

But, let's be generous and add on a reasonable number to include extinct animals. Then add on some more to satisfy even the most skeptical. Let's assume 50,000 animals, far more animals than required, were on board the ark, and these need not have been the largest or even adult specimens.

Remember there are really only a few very large animals, such as the dinosaur or the elephant, and these could be represented by young ones. Assuming the average animal to be about the size of a sheep and using a railroad car for comparison, we note that the average double-deck stock car can accommodate 240 sheep. Thus, three trains hauling 69 cars each would have ample space to carry the 50,000 animals, filling only 37% of the ark. This would leave an additional 361 cars or enough to make 5 trains of 72 cars each to carry all of the food and baggage plus Noah's family of eight people. The Ark had plenty of space.

It is evident, when all the facts are examined that there is no scientific evidence that the biblical account of Noah's ark is a myth or fable. The facts support the view that Noah's ark was large enough to carry the number of animals required to repopulate the earth after the flood and that Noah and his family were capable of caring for the animals during their time on the Ark.

Does that help, Lost ?

Attention Fundies:

There was never a global flood

and modern animals evolved from

simpler organisms

There is no debate on this in the

legitimate scientific community.

The creation "scientists" are

just liars and con men, so they

never submit their research for peer

review by real scientists.

(Of course, their bullshit would

be ripped to pieces.)

Instead, they waste their lives

convincing uneducated hillbillies

with distortions and outdated science,

and attacking theories that conflict

with their myths.

Real scientists don't care to,

and don't have time to,

correct fundies' retarded ideas.

They are working hard to learn more

about how life and reality works,

instead of thinking old fairy tales

have all the answers.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

*LAUGHS*

Just can't rid yourself of your crutch, can you ?

How about some OTHER science...perhaps some that isn't biased ?

You require the very same thing of "us".

Show me how the 2nd link he gave is biased in it's arguments (not including the introduction).

I said I wouldn't say anything else, but I cant help it - super bored.

So you would want him to post a website showing how the Ark is plausable with science, as well?

... but it's already been shown to be impossible.

Well, it's not actually the "science" on Talk Origins that is biased...science is science.

It is the motivation of the authors of that site that is biased, and they have formulated an entire website devoted to debunking Christianity.

Which is fine, but I think that it is not only preposterous, but hypocritical to use it as evidence for someone who claims they are objective, and requires all the Christian posters here on Totse to provide unbiased scientific evidence supporting Creation.

Digital_Savior:

Well, it's not actually the "science" on Talk Origins that is biased...science is science.

It is the motivation of the authors of that site that is biased, and they have formulated an entire website devoted to debunking Christianity.

Which is fine, but I think that it is not only preposterous, but hypocritical to use it as evidence for someone who claims they are objective, and requires all the Christian posters here on Totse to provide unbiased scientific evidence supporting Creation.

If someone provides scientific evidence even when they have a bias, it's still objective evidence. I don't think that we would care if the evidence came from a biased Christian site devoted to showing that Christianity is true if the evidence itself was scientific. In the end, the important thing that we receive is the scientific evidence and if it itself is valid then I'm pretty sure it's all good.

So go on then, give us evidence that goes against what the talk origins site provided. Personally, I don't care where you get it from as long as it's proper scientific evidence.

[This message has been edited by R_I (edited 04-05-2005).]

Well, that's cool of you R_I, but the majority of the community here doesn't agree with you.

I can say that with utmost certainty, because I have been ridiculed for posting Creation Science.

They cry, "It's biased ! No good. You're stupid."

Heh....

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

Attention Fundies:

There was never a global flood

and modern animals evolved from

simpler organisms

There is no debate on this in the

legitimate scientific community.

The creation "scientists" are

just liars and con men, so they

never submit their research for peer

review by real scientists.

(Of course, their bullshit would

be ripped to pieces.)

Instead, they waste their lives

convincing uneducated hillbillies

with distortions and outdated science,

and attacking theories that conflict

with their myths.

Real scientists don't care to,

and don't have time to,

correct fundies' retarded ideas.

They are working hard to learn more

about how life and reality works,

instead of thinking old fairy tales

have all the answers.

Hmmm...

Can anyone say: BIAS ?

Yeh.

Bo Jimmy:

Creationists debating evolutionists...

1. http://www.creationists.org/debates.html

2. http://www.creationists.org/switch.html

3. Creationists: Pseudo-Scientists ? http://www.creationists.org/outstanding.html

4. Dr. Raymond Damadian, inventor of the MRI, and a Bible-believing Christian: http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i3/science.asp

5. Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals ? http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp

Your ignorance is not only annoying, but a disgrace to your 'kind' (anti-Christian bigots).

I suggest you try and learn something about your position, before you go spouting off your uninformed opinions again.

I think you should also consider the fact that the Evolutionary scientific community doesn't WANT Creation Science to have it's fair chance.

Religious/Scientific Bigotry in the Public Schools and Scientific careers: http://www.creationists.org/bigotry.html

It is classic throughout the history of man...what is not understood is feared, and subsequently oppressed.

This should not be surprising to someone of your intellectual calibre.

quote:Originally posted by unchewed_meat:

So you would want him to post a website showing how the Ark is plausable with science, as well?

... but it's already been shown to be impossible.

No, actually I just want him to stop whining about the idiocy of Christian scientists.

As it has been pointed out, science is what it is.

When I post science in relation to proving Creation, it is cast off as being "unreliable", and "worthless" because it comes from (oh the horrors !) CHRISTIANS !

And in the same breath, he and others like him, have the nerve to accuse ME of being hypocritical !

Scientists that provide a substantial case for Creation:

1. http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

2. http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v5i10f.htm

"We would like to recommend the book In Six Days (why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation) edited by John F. Ashton. It is a collection of fifty essays, each written by a different scientist. Each author’s (impressive) academic credentials are listed at the beginning of his or her essay. They span a wide variety of academic disciplines.

The 50 essays are, on average, seven pages long. Each one gives the author’s reason for believing in the Biblical creation story rather than the theory of evolution. "

I suggest you Google the following scientists: Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Linnaeus, Euler, Faraday, Babbage, Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, and Werner von Braun.

Why ? They believed in the Bible, and they certainly weren't idiots.

"...some might argue, DeHart, Haley, and LeVake aren’t really scientists. They are just high school science teachers (that believe evolution is full of holes).

If high school science teachers aren’t really scientists, then we have to accept the fact that a large segment of the general public (specifically, people who have high school diplomas and no higher education) were taught everything they know about science from unqualified non-scientists. This line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that many people have been taught that evolution is true by non-scientists who don’t know what they are talking about.

We consider science teachers to be real scientists. We think engineers are real scientists. We don’t limit the term “scientist” to professors of evolutionary biology.

3. "300 debates between ICR scientists and evolutionists have been conducted, as well as debates involving other creation scientists." http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-275.htm

(these 300 debates have been conducted by ICR scientist's alone ! Imagine how many countless others there have been.)

Mitochondrial Eve: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html#wp1273100

Dating Methods: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences24.html

Liquefaction: The Origin of Strata and Layered Fossils: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Liquefaction2.html

The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview2.html

And that's all just from ONE SCIENTIST (Dr. Walt Brown, PhD in Mechanical Engineering from MIT) !

He must be an IDIOT, because he is a Christian !

He's nothing but a pseudo-scientist, right ?

Shouldn't it be considered pseudo-science to believe that the atoms that make up DNA naturally fall into place if given the right environment, even though this is not reproducable or observable (which is a requirement for it to be scientifically analyzed) ?

Yet that is what the entire evolutionary theory is based upon.

So, once again...I have to commend Bo Jimmy on his ability to see his perspective with objectivity and a desire for TRUTH !

Also, check this out...

Creation Research Society: http://www.creationresearch.org/

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 04-05-2005).]

Well, that's an awful lot to wade through. Can you give me anything specific that goes against or answers the points raised by the talk origin's page on the flood so we can focus on one topic first?

I see it this way. I've heard and seen pictures of floods before, but never a flood that covered the entire Earth with a man and his family being in a large boat that carried a whole heap of animals. I find this to be a fantastic claim and would like some pretty convincing evidence for me to believe it. You have not provided any evidence for it so far(well, to be fair I haven't looked through the whole heap of stuff that you've posted) and there's counter evidence and points raised.

So, please give us the evidence for a global flood and stuff that deals with the questions and points raised by the talk origins article.

After a reading of the article, the below are a few points that I found interesting:

How did all the modern plant species survive?

How did short-lived species survive?

The whole idea was to rid the wicked people from the world. Did it work?

Just as a side note, I find claims of miracles to be poor explanations. Other people from other religions can use miracles to deal with issues as well and if I buy your explanation using miracles, to be fair I would have to buy theirs too.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

It is classic throughout the history of man...what is not understood is feared, and subsequently oppressed.

This should not be surprising to someone of your intellectual calibre.

Let's make this simple then.

I'll list just a few bullet points

and you tell me if that fits

with your version of history, ok?

All the layers of rock and fossils

were made not in millions of years,

but more like 1 year, as the whole

globe was covered in water, by god.

Tyrannosaurs, wolves, cave lions

and people all coexisted peacefully,

and they ate plants originally.

All the troubles we deal with were

originally caused by a talking snake.

The universe is only a few thousand

years old.

More complex creatures are found

higher in the fossil layers, not

because they existed later in time,

but because they climbed higher

up the mountains.

The grand canyon was made instantly

by the great flood, not over millions

of years of erosion.

God did all these things miraculously,

but now he tends to make things

happen as if they behaved the way

science would predict.

There is some kind of conspiracy

among scientists worldwide to

conceal the truth and distort reality.

I'll end it there.

quote:21. And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

There it seems that god sees how good people can be and he states that not only will he never again create a flood, but never again will he smite the earth with such an apocolypse. There goes all those bible thumpers talking about the apocolypse...

I think Moderator cant read 6th grade English.

Jimmy, why don't you try and be intelligent for once ?

Read the links.

You all whine about how there isn't any proof for Creation Science, and then when I post it, you don't read it.

You are coming dangerously close to being "stupid", instead of just "ignorant".

Do I need to post the definitions of each for you ?

R_I

You're right.

It IS a lot to wade through.

But I had to do it, so that I could come to the logical conclusions that I have about the existence of a God, and how we came to be.

I think you should, too.

I am not saying that because I can't, or don't want to, but because I feel the necessity to challenge everyone here that disagrees with the tenets of Christianity to START THINKING FOR THEMSELVES.

That means doing your own research, actually studying the Bible, and turning off the garbage you see on ABC.

These statements are not directed specifically at you, R_I. I appreciate your questioning, and your desire to learn.

But I spent a LOT of time composing those posts, and the information contained in the links is not only very interesting, but completely scientific.

That's what you all wanted, so please do the Christians a favor and either read it, or be quiet.

I would also like to point out that pagans commonly accuse Christians of being idiots on Totse, so I challenged them to listen to 2 teachers...

Ravi Zacharias ( http://shop2.gospelcom.net/epages/rzim.storefront/4253a23d0200227e271d45579 e7c0623/Product/Specials (http://shop2.gospelcom.net/epages/rzim.storefront/4253a23d0200227e271d45579e7c0623/Product/Specials) )

Russ Miller ( http://www.creationministries.org/resources.asp ).

A lecture by Ravi Zacharias: http://www.rzim.org/publications/jttran.php?jtcode=JT05WRZ

I even offered to pay for the CD's of their lectures, and mail copies to whoever asked for them.

GUESS HOW MANY PEOPLE HERE TOOK ME UP ON THAT OFFER ?

Not a single person.

You guys sure are objective, aren't you ?

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 04-06-2005).]

Also, Jimmy, why didn't you address the evidence I presented which proves that Creation Scientist's DO in fact publish for the whole world to see ?

quote:Originally posted by R_I:

How did all the modern plant species survive?

1. How did plants survive the biblical flood ? http://nwcreation.net/plantsurvival.html

2. How did freshwater and saltwater fish survive the Flood ? http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/fish14.asp andhttp://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/444.asp

quote:How did short-lived species survive ?

Such as the mayfly ?

quote:The whole idea was to rid the wicked people from the world. Did it work?

No, it wasn't.

You have to remember that God knows all things, including the future.

When He sent the flood to destroy the earth, it was just as much to rid it of sinners as it was to clean the mountains.

God knew that Noah and his family were still sinners, since we are all born into sin. If Noah and his family weren't sinners, they would have been perfect, and therefore an anomaly from the scriptures that teach that Jesus was the only perfect human being to ever walk the face of this earth.

The purpose of the flood was to make an example of those who had perished.

It also served to enable God to logically present a covenant with His people stating that He would never again be a God of wrath. This is a very pivotal moment in the history of our existence, because it sets the stage for our need for salvation through Christ.

God must be able to exhibit His grace and mercy so that we can understand His love for us, and He couldn't do that pre-flood. Why ? Because He had established a different system.

Anyway, the point of it was, "what is joy without pain ?" Joy is empty, and unachievable without a comparison of the exact opposite effect.

quote:Just as a side note, I find claims of miracles to be poor explanations. Other people from other religions can use miracles to deal with issues as well and if I buy your explanation using miracles, to be fair I would have to buy theirs too.

You're absolutely right.

The Egyptian magi copied Moses very well in turning water into blood.

How then could Pharaoh honestly believe that they were messengers of God ?

Satan is good at one thing, and one thing only: copying God.

And your opinion of "miracles" is exactly why he does it.

Clever, ain't it ?



[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 04-06-2005).]

Silly devil, tricks are for jews.