Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut still don't produce any answers. You don't have the answers. Of one omportant reason, there isn't any. The bible in its entirety doesn't produce any science. From the genesis to the revelations.
Galvo and i, we are of the same opinion, for we are spiritual brothers!
The genesis myth is just a myth as known at the biblical days. The flooding is another myth told by those who wanted som amusements. Neither has nothing to do with science. If it's your religious views, fine, but they are not scientific.
Either you still think it's science, then you don't know what science is. Or you don't know what your'e talkinga about, and that says something about you.
Stop pretending. Open your eyes. See the world as it is.
Originally posted by ZahlanziI have the bit between my teeth at the moment and just can't let this utter tosh go unchallenged.
in my opinion, proper knob and fabian are tied currently. the competition for the world's most patient man is under way. will they go the distance?
the first one to call the carrobie names loses.
The discussion of evolution in the science forum was bad enough, but this is just frankly absurd.
Originally posted by Proper Knobi have given up long ago. debating the carrobie is like going to the dentist and having the wrong tooth removed: painful and afterwards you are no better than when you first got there.
I have the bit between my teeth at the moment and just can't let this utter tosh go unchallenged.
The discussion of evolution in the science forum was bad enough, but this is just frankly absurd.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://www.answersincreation.org/noahark.htm
read them both and decide which one of those is better documented, more logical and such. which one of them actually gives answers. which one of them uses sources that are reliable and which one of them take some sources for granted even if none of them have been proven in the first place.
Originally posted by ZahlanziI learn a lot about creationists rethorics. They have very similar rethorics as extreem rasists, those are also fun to study.
i have given up long ago. debating the carrobie is like going to the dentist and having the wrong tooth removed: painful and afterwards you are no better than when you first got there.
Robbies strategy is to avoid answering questions about his opinion, and repetedly ask questions about his opponents. When he is as back in his hole as he can go then he starts to accuse others not answering his questions. "I ask you first!"
You know that he feel akward when he try to convert a serious debate into a farse. When he starts using smilies, and lol's, then he knows he's defeated.
But he has a short memory. He starts all over again, using all his funny retorics all over again. Exactly as he did the last time, and the one before that.
If I cannot cannot call names, may I call him robbie carobbie, even if it is attached a pejorative meaning to it?
Originally posted by ZahlanziTalkOrigins, is it those who belives that dinosaurs and humans lived side by side, is it not?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://www.answersincreation.org/noahark.htm
read them both and decide which one of those is better documented, more logical and such. which one of them actually gives answers. which one of them uses sources that are reliable and which one of them take some sources for granted even if none of them have been proven in the first place.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRight, where do we start with this tosh?!
perhaps you had best read this, before you utter your mantra once again, i wouldnt want you beinhg hailed as a false prophet you know!
The “kinds” of animals selected had reference to the clear-cut and unalterable boundaries or limits set by the Creator, within which boundaries creatures are capable of breeding “according to their kinds.” It has b ...[text shortened]... these expanded figures, the ark could easily have accommodated a pair of all these animals.[/b]
First things first the Bible is quite clear that every living thing had to be on board that Ark, none of this floating around on debris rubbish that you seem to have plucked from thin air.
And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive Genesis 6 19
It has been estimated by some that the hundreds of thousands of species of animals today could be reduced to a comparatively few family “kinds”—the horse kind and the cow kind, to mention but two.
I accept common descent, but not in the last 5,000yrs for all life on the planet. Maybe you have reference to a peer reviewed paper that will back this theory up? Otherwise it's nothing but wild postulation.
I would work with your numbers for number of animals given but the data is from the 1940' and 1950's, so i'll work with all known species that exist today. And we won't count insects.
The toal number of species known to exsit today breaks dowm like this -
5416 Mammals
9956 Birds
8240 Reptiles
6199 Amphibians
59,811 TOTAL
http://www.currentresults.com/Environment-Facts/Plants-Animals/number-species.php
The Ark at my calculations is 57,000m3, and that's being very generous and not taking into account the space being lost due to the curved nature of the bottom of the boat.
So we have 59,811 species doubled up to give 199,622 animals on the boat each having 47 cm3 of space each.
But.........
Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female; and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth Genesis 7 2-3
Now we have seven males and seven females of each bird alone, which would make that 139,384 birds to find room for. Now every animal only has 17cm3 of room for itself, and that's not adding on the seven pairs clean animals to the total also.
Then where do we put the 1.2million invertebrates?
And then where do we put all the food for these animals to be able to survive in a cramped boat for 150days???
Rob, the maths still don't add up.
Originally posted by ZahlanziI read the first paragraph that ends with "The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?" The question was put, the answer doesn't. So where is the evidence that a ship this big cold hold together? They don't know, therefore they don't have any answer. Exactly like robbie, he doesn't have any answers.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://www.answersincreation.org/noahark.htm
read them both and decide which one of those is better documented, more logical and such. which one of them actually gives answers. which one of them uses sources that are reliable and which one of them take some sources for granted even if none of them have been proven in the first place.
Originally posted by Proper Knobthe creationists have worked this stuff up: you don't put on the arc horses and zebras and donkeys and deer(if they are related, dunno). you put "kinds" on the arc. therefore you take a horse and a lady horse (or seven if they are clean) and then, after the arc adventure is over, those horse couples spawn not only the world population of horses but also the zebras and the donkeys.
Right, where do we start with this tosh?!
First things first the Bible is quite clear that every living thing had to be on board that Ark, none of this floating around on debris rubbish that you seem to have plucked from thin air.
[i]And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with the ...[text shortened]... e able to survive in a cramped boat for 150days???
Rob, the maths still don't add up.
sounds logical, no? creationists who dismiss evolution (one of their arguments is that if evolution happens, how come we don't see it happening in the wild today) say that zebras evolved from noah's arc horses in an interval less than 4000 years (i use that number loosely, as in from the time of creation to the time of jesus birth.)
taken from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#philosophy last chapter of the noah discussion
Are flood models consistent with the Bible? Creationists who write about the Flood often contradict the very story they're trying to support. For example, Whitcomb & Morris [1961, p. 69n] suggest that large numbers of kinds of land animals became extinct because of the Flood, while Genesis repeatedly says that Noah was ordered to take a representative sample of all kinds of land animals on the Ark to save them from extinction, and that Noah did as ordered. Woodmorappe [1996, p. 3] wants to leave invertebrates (i.e., just about "every creeping thing on the ground"😉 off the ark. Why should we give credence to a story whose most ardent supporters abandon when it's inconvenient?
Genesis 6-8 speaks only of rain, fountains, and a flood; it makes no mention of other catastrophies which many Creationists associate with the Flood. Their proposed Flood models not only contradict geology, they have no Biblical support, either.
How can a literal interpretation be appropriate if the text is self-contradictory? Genesis 6:20 and 7:14-15 say there were two of each kind of fowl and clean beasts, yet Genesis 7:2-3,5 says they came in sevens.
How can a literal interpretation be consistent with reality? How could Noah have gathered male and female of each kind [Gen. 7:15-16] when some species are asexual, others are parthenogenic and have only females, and others (such as earthworms) are hermaphrodites? And what about social animals like ants and termites which need the whole nest to survive?
Why stop with the Flood story? If your style of Biblical interpretation makes you take the Flood literally, then shouldn't you also believe in a flat and stationary earth? [Dan. 4:10-11, Matt. 4:8, 1 Chron. 16:30, Psalms 93:1, ...]
In fact, is there any reason at all why the Flood story should be taken literally? Jesus used parables; why wouldn't God do so, too?
Does a global flood make the whole Bible less credible? Davis Young, an Evangelical and geologist, wrote [p. 163]:
"The maintenance of modern creationism and Flood geology not only is useless apologetically with unbelieving scientists, it is harmful. Although many who have no scientific training have been swayed by creationist arguments, the unbelieving scientist will reason that a Christianity that believes in such nonsense must be a religion not worthy of his interest. . . . Modern creationism in this sense is apologetically and evangelistically ineffective. It could even be a hindrance to the gospel.
"Another possible danger is that in presenting the gospel to the lost and in defending God's truth we ourselves will seem to be false. It is time for Christian people to recognize that the defense of this modern, young-Earth, Flood-geology creationism is simply not truthful. It is simply not in accord with the facts that God has given. Creationism must be abandoned by Christians before harm is done. . . ."
Another Christian scientist said, "Creationism is an incredible pain in the neck, neither honest nor useful, and the people who advocate it have no idea how much damage they are doing to the credibility of belief." [quoted in Easterbrook, 1997, p. 891]
Does the Flood story indicate an omnipotent God?
* If God is omnipotent, why not kill what He wanted killed directly? Why resort to a roundabout method that requires innumerable additional miracles?
* The whole idea was to rid the wicked people from the world. Did it work?
Finally, even if the flood model weren't riddled by all these problems, why should we accept it? What it does attempt to explain is already explained far more accurately, consistently, and thoroughly by conventional geology and biology, and the flood model leaves many other things unexplained, even unexplainable. How is flood geology useful?
Originally posted by FabianFnasdude, don't be a robbie 😛. read it all. you will see that question is sarcastic
I read the first paragraph that ends with "The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?" The question was put, the answer doesn't. So where is the evidence that a ship this big cold hold together? They don't know, therefore they don't have any answer. Exactly like robbie, he doesn't have any answers.
Originally posted by ZahlanziDismiss the theory of evolution, and then use it to suit them when it backs up one of their stories.
the creationists have worked this stuff up: you don't put on the arc horses and zebras and donkeys and deer(if they are related, dunno). you put "kinds" on the arc. therefore you take a horse and a lady horse (or seven if they are clean) and then, after the arc adventure is over, those horse couples spawn not only the world population of horses but also the ...[text shortened]... rs (i use that number loosely, as in from the time of creation to the time of jesus birth.)
You couldn't make it up.