Is the Noah's Ark story true?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Just as a matter of interest. Do you believe that?
If so:
How do you explain the existence of meat eaters today? Did God create them after the flood, or did they evolve from animals living before the flood?
If they evolved, doesn't that contradict your claims about the possible extent of evolution? (Many animals require special organs to eat meat)
Or ...[text shortened]... at maybe all animals alive today are descended from a tiny number of species collected by Noah?

I was asked this and answered it earlier in this thread.
Kelly

Originally posted by Mexico
More important than geographical is chronological.... I mean everywhere floods at some point or other.... Aside from this one consistently timed flood can be explained by thousands of different things...


An angry god being one of the less likely.....

As if you know what is likely when it comes to God?
Kelly

Originally posted by abnoxio
Gen 1:26 says: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

KellyJay, God had given dominion over the animals before the fall of Adam.
I'm only arguing using the Bible out of exercise as i don't believe the Bible as literal truth.

Okay
Kelly

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
God can do anything. My question is how'd he get thosa T.Rex's and the sauropods to play nice for 40 days and nights? And did He just teleport a a couple of polar bears, king penguins, and Pirannhas to the fertile crexcent? Again, I believe Hod is all-powerful --He said flatly tjat Ge could make children of Isreal out of stones--I just am curious about the method. And the 65000000 -year difference in species.

What went on the are were two or seven of each kind, what happen
to them after the left the ark could have been where they evolved
into the creatures we see today out of the various kinds. With respect
to the time difference between creatures you brought up, that is a
man made figure.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I was asked this and answered it earlier in this thread.
Kelly

I have read through all your posts in the thread and cant find an answer. Could you at least tell me which page it is on?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You were speaking to the words I was using and twisting the point
I made, so yes! Duh
Kelly

I exagerrated, yes. I admitted it.

Now you refuse to actually address the point that I made. The exaggerated word was not substantial to the point that I made.

Can you actually address the point I was making instead of obsessing over a mistake I already admitted and apologized for? Or do you even have an intelligent response to it outside of just pointing out the difference?

I already explained how the difference between "babies" and "younger ones" doesn't dismiss the point I was making. If there is something that is unclear about that then please let me know.

Whether you believe it or not, I do intend to have an honest discussion.

Thanks.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have read through all your posts in the thread and cant find an answer. Could you at least tell me which page it is on?

Genesis 1

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food:

30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the heavens, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for food: and it was so.

31 And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I exagerrated, yes. I admitted it.

Now you refuse to actually address the point that I made. The exaggerated word was not substantial to the point that I made.

Can you actually address the point I was making instead of obsessing over a mistake I already admitted and apologized for? Or do you even have an intelligent response to it outside of just p ...[text shortened]... now.

Whether you believe it or not, I do intend to have an honest discussion.

Thanks.

The number required to go on the Ark was limited to just a certain amount of each kind where all the DNA required for the rest to follow
was stored. The age of the creatures would have been young, child
bearing years either before they got on the Ark or shortly there after,
because that did two things reduced the size that the Ark needed to
be and allowed for life to continue afterwards which was the point of
the whole event in the first place.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The number required to go on the Ark was limited to just a certain amount of each kind where all the DNA required for the rest to follow
was stored. The age of the creatures would have been young, child
bearing years either before they got on the Ark or shortly there after,
because that did two things reduced the size that the Ark needed to
be and allo ...[text shortened]... r life to continue afterwards which was the point of
the whole event in the first place.
Kelly

where all the DNA required for the rest to follow
was stored.
you make me laugh...

Do you realize how colossally stupid your position is?

Originally posted by KellyJay
The number required to go on the Ark was limited to just a certain amount of each kind where all the DNA required for the rest to follow
was stored. The age of the creatures would have been young, child
bearing years either before they got on the Ark or shortly there after,
because that did two things reduced the size that the Ark needed to
be and allo ...[text shortened]... r life to continue afterwards which was the point of
the whole event in the first place.
Kelly

Wasn't it just 2 of each kind? I thought that was specified. Correct me if I'm wrong.

What I was saying is that the younger age would usually imply that their max physical size hadn't been attained yet - so they would grow on the ark. Hence, the ark would have to still be big enough to store the creatures of a larger size than when they came on.

The references I found list 40 days or 150 days depending on how you interpret it. For some animals, 40 days or 150 days is a long time, for others not so much and others may have pretty big growth in that kind of time.

The ark would have had to accomodate not only their original size, but the size they would grow to on the ark.

Originally posted by serigado
[b]where all the DNA required for the rest to follow
was stored.
you make me laugh...

Do you realize how colossally stupid your position is?[/b]

Not stored as in a box, but there in a life form that would with time
be able to evolve into the varities we see today, I assume you do
believe evolving life forms are possible?
Kelly

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Wasn't it just 2 of each kind? I thought that was specified. Correct me if I'm wrong.

What I was saying is that the younger age would usually imply that their max physical size hadn't been attained yet - so they would grow on the ark. Hence, the ark would have to still be big enough to store the creatures of a larger size than when they came on.

The ...[text shortened]... e had to accomodate not only their original size, but the size they would grow to on the ark.

Yes you are quite correct the animals would grow, but if you read the
text of the whole book you will see that man lived hundreds of years.
I am assuming that animals before the flood did the same, that would
mean that with some creatures would not stop growing while they
lived. and the time period for growth would be have been from the time
they were born until the flood; which means some of the older creatures
could have gotten quite large. How fast that could have happened we
don't know, we only know some creatures we have fossils for were very
large.
Since man ability to live long ended after the flood I also assume the
same was true with all the other living creatures too, which could be
a reason there is a limited number of creatures who got very large. I
am also assuming if I were God and making that happen the ones
I picked to enter the ark would not have to be the larger of the each
animal set, but smaller ones to deal with the closed quarters, also
if they acted like fish in a fish bowel they would only grow to suit the
size of their area too. There are a lot of things that could have happen
without God making a lot of special things occur to make the Ark
happen as it is written.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Not stored as in a box, but there in a life form that would with time
be able to evolve into the varities we see today, I assume you do
believe evolving life forms are possible?
Kelly

not in 2k-3k yrs.

And it's not a matter of belief. Evolution is a fact.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes you are quite correct the animals would grow, but if you read the
text of the whole book you will see that man lived hundreds of years.
I am assuming that animals before the flood did the same, that would
mean that with some creatures would not stop growing while they
lived. and the time period for growth would be have been from the time
they were ...[text shortened]... thout God making a lot of special things occur to make the Ark
happen as it is written.
Kelly

Having mans lifespan change from hundreds of years to the documented less than 100 years implies something more than just a flood.

It's currently estimated that man's life expectency without modern medicine (which they didn't have back then obviously) is about 30 years. Why did man's life expectency go down from hundreds to 30? And man's life expectancy has been like that for a long long time - long enough to have gotten past the initial effects of a major flood as it is described.

There are a lot of assumptions there as to the existence of and how animal life grew, etc.. that completely contradict how things have appeared to occur after the flood. That would imply a divine intervention of sorts - or a major change in the way these creatures work and grow.

Originally posted by serigado
not in 2k-3k yrs.

And it's not a matter of belief. Evolution is a fact.

I think not. Even the big boys still xall it the Theory of Evolution, not the "fact" of Evolution.