Originally posted by Coletti
And how may species may have evolved since then?

Since when do you accept speciation through evolution? I thought that according to the creation account, God created all the animals, and then man, and that was it. Are you telling me new species can come into existence through evolution?

Let us assume that such speciation has occurred since the flood. I allow you to give your best estimate of the number of species in existence at the time of the flood. How many were there? 10? 100? 1000? 10,000? What's your best guess? Then we can analyze how reasonable it is to believe the flood account.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Is it reasonable? Given that all mentions come from Genesis, probably not.

Super.

Now, given that Coletti says, "Reason is a necessary condition of faith. You can not believe in something if you think it is unreasonable," it must be true that either

Coletti is wrong, or

One cannot believe in the Genesis account as a whole.

Which do you think it is?

Originally posted by Coletti
Observed? I don't think you were around then.

Aging has is mainly a genetic issue. Theoretically, scientist are close to solving the problem of aging. In another 20 years, aging may be just another disease we have a cure for.

There's really nothing outrageous about it.

If one man observed the tortoise's birth, and made careful observations of the tortoise until the man died, and kept careful written records of his observations, and then another person took over and continued the observation, then the tortoise's lifespan would be legitimately observed. It takes some extreme skepticism to deny that!

Originally posted by Coletti
What talking snakes? Who have you been taking to?

How many species were there then? I don't believe we have an inventory. And "species" has a loose definition according to modern biologist. And how may species may have evolved since then? Then how many of the animals where full grown and how many might have been infants. And do you know the gestation period for dinosaurs eggs? Most of the answers to these questions would be speculation.

I think he's referring to the snake that supposedly tempted Eve.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You must be refering to the creation scientists.

No, one of my friends was working on this for a long time at UCLA, and he's an atheist.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Super.

Now, given that Coletti says, "Reason is a necessary condition of faith. You can not believe in something if you think it is unreasonable," it must be true that either

Coletti is wrong, or

One cannot believe in the Genesis account as a whole.

Which do you think it is?

Or Coletti thinks Genesis is reasonable.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I think he's referring to the snake that supposedly tempted Eve.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

Genesis 3:1

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Or Coletti thinks Genesis is reasonable.

Even if Coletti thought Genesis was reasonable, one or the other of the two alternatives I presented must be true from lucifershammer's perspective.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
No, one of my friends was working on this for a long time at UCLA, and he's an atheist.

I guarantee no paper has ever been published out of UCLA claiming that genetic manipulation could potentially yield human lifespans of 1000 years.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
If one man observed the tortoise's birth, and made careful observations of the tortoise until the man died, and kept careful written records of his observations, and then another person took over and continued the observation, then the tortoise's lifespan would be legitimately observed. It takes some extreme skepticism to deny that!

I was referring to Moses - not a tortoise. I have no dispute with the longevity of the tortoise.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I guarantee no paper has ever been published out of UCLA claiming that genetic manipulation could potentially yield human lifespans of 1000 years.

If theoretically aging could be cured - I don't know what limit there would be on "life-span." The term would not have the same connotation. It would become a reference to the probability of dieing from some disease or accident over a given period of time. For instance - even if aging were solved - the probability of getting killed by something else over a 500 years period may be fairly high. Although - I don't think you could reasonable assume condition are the same in 500 years.

Hmmm. Now that I think about it, it's hard to assume what the conditions were like that existed 1000 years in the past.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I think he's referring to the snake that supposedly tempted Eve.

Oh yes, the serpent. The Bible does talk about a talking "serpent", but I don't know if we can assume there have ever been talking snakes. The serpent was Satan, in at least the appearance of a serpent. But that does not mean he was a talking snake.

Demons, angles, and God himself, have taken on different forms in scripture - as men, a burning bush, a pillar of fire, like a Dove (the Holy Spirit). We don't really know what Satan looked like to Eve except that he appeared as a serpent, and that is a rather broad term. Nor is that detail very important.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Even if Coletti thought Genesis was reasonable, one or the other of the two alternatives I presented must be true from lucifershammer's perspective.

Oh sorry. You were talking to LH. My mistake!

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Super.

Now, given that Coletti says, "Reason is a necessary condition of faith. You can not believe in something if you think it is unreasonable," it must be true that either

Coletti is wrong, or

One cannot believe in the Genesis account as a whole.

Which do you think it is?

I wouldn't say that one cannot believe in Genesis as a whole. For instance, if Genesis says, "Abraham slept," then there is no reason for me to reject it right away.

I would put it thus - it is less reasonable to believe in an improbable event from Genesis than similar events in most other books of the Bible.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I guarantee no paper has ever been published out of UCLA claiming that genetic manipulation could potentially yield human lifespans of 1000 years.

This is true. However there is a great deal of speculation about what the possibilites are among the scientific community.

You asked

Is it reasonable to believe that a human lived 5 times as long as this creature, which has the longest observed longevity, and which itself lives twice as long as the most aged observed humans of modern times?

It could easily be reasonable to someone that this may have happened.

However, when Coletti said

Aging has is mainly a genetic issue. Theoretically, scientist are close to solving the problem of aging. In another 20 years, aging may be just another disease we have a cure for.

His statement was probably somewhat too strong.