Should we take the bible literal?

[carlosMM]

from Phy#s source

Genesis 6:15 gives the dimensions of the ark as 300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits, and the cubit was at least 18 inches long. On this basis, the volumetric carrying capacity of the ark can be calculated as at least the equivalent of that of 522 standard railroad stock cars. A standard stock car can transport 240 sheep, so that the ark could have carried at least 125,000 sheep. The average dry-land animal undoubtedly is considerably smaller than a sheep, as there are only a few large animals.

ah yes, place a lion or tiger next to a small rodent - skin contact, actually, and wait if they will stay like that for 40 seconds...... not to talk abotu 40 minutes... or days.....

The ark had to transport only land animals, of course, so that the mammals, birds and reptiles were essentially all that needed accommodations. The ark was constructed in three stories, and each was fitted with “rooms” or “nests” (Genesis 6:14)—evidently tiers of cages or stalls—to store the different kinds of animals.

aha! stalls! but that significantly lessens the number of 'sheep' fo the above example!

The Genesis “kind” is undoubtedly a more flexible term than our biological “species.” However, even assuming they are the same, there are not very many species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles. The leading systematic biologist, Ernst Mayr, gives the number as 17,600. Allowing for two of each species on the ark, plus seven of the few so-called “clean” kinds of animals, plus a reasonable increment for known extinct species, it is obvious that not more than say, 50,000 animals were on the ark. This is obviously much less than the 125,000 that could easily have been carried. There was also ample room for food storage and for living quarters for Noah and his family.

Absurdly low estimet to begin with - Mayr talk about GENERA, not SPECIES! And, the 125,000 is sheeplike, pressed to each other. See above...... Also, the Genesis 'kind' MUST have been the modern day biological 'species' - otherwise, where do all the species come from? evolution?

Animals can migrate long distances, especially when impelled to do so by imminent weather changes. These still-mysterious “instincts” were implanted somehow within those animals the Lord wanted preserved, and He thus caused them to “come unto” Noah and the place of safety from the gathering storm.

Yes, I cna see Amazonian rainforest tree-dwelling frogs swimming the Atlantic for 50 years to reach the ark in time

most of them very likely settled down for a long period of dormancy, or hibernation. The sudden darkness and chill in the air, when “the sluiceways of heaven were opened,” quite probably set in action those remarkable physiologic powers, which seem to be shared in some degree by all orders of the animal kingdom.

Ah, yes! Indeed, we also share the ability to hibernate

15% I'd say of mammals can really tolerate significantly lower body temps. But try it with a mouse - dead after 10 minutes of 5° temp drop!

Modern biologists, despite much study, have still been unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for the origin and operation of these fantastic capabilities

blantant lie! There's been tons of research. Sure, you can always insist on not believing it

The descendants of those animals (...) have all inherited these capacities in greater or lesser degrees

NO degree, for most, rather!

Before the Flood, it is likely that there was a worldwide warm, pleasant climate. This is indicated both by the fact that such a climate is implied in the fossils and sediments from practically all the so-called “geologic “ages” prior to the Pleistocene ice age, and also by the fact that the Bible record of the “waters above the firmament” points to a great antediluvian canopy of invisible water vapor in the upper atmosphere which would have produced just such a “greenhouse effect” all over the world.

Ah, yes, sure, why do we have indications of dinosaurs living in areas with perpetual snow cover then? These guys choose to totally ignore geology, oh well!

Thus, before the Flood, animals had no need for migration and hibernation, and probably all kinds of animals were dispersed more or less uniformly all over the world. When the thermal vapor blanket condensed and precipitated at the time of the Flood, there was a rapid change of climate, which led finally to the ice age and then eventually to the present climatologic regimes of the world.

see above!

Evidence and documentation for all the above and many other aspects of the great Flood are given in the writer’s book, The Genesis Flood, now in its 29th printing. It is recognized that this is a minority view in science (as a matter of fact, Biblical Christians represent a minority in any field), but there are hundreds of qualified scientists who do agree with it in all essentials. In any case, the actual observed facts agree with it, so far as known at present. The decision to accept or reject any part of the Biblical record (confirmed as fully historical and factual, even in its stories of Creation and the Flood by Christ and His apostles in the New Testament) is therefore not a scientific decision at all but a spiritual decision!

Aha, there are hundreds! Well, all I met (and I met my share) started quoting the bible when I asked for hard evidence...... or got so annoyed with me they openly pleadsed God to send me straight to hell. none of their papers has stood up to the criteria of science. But hey, it is spiritual, not a matter of thinking, whether you believe them

 

[carlosMM]

to give you all a further taste of the great site:

HOW DO WE KNOW THE BIBLE IS TRUE?

(...)There are extensive prophecies dealing with individual nations and cities and with the course of history in general, all of which have been literally fulfilled. Christ Himself fulfilled more than 300 prophecies at His first coming. Other prophecies deal with the spread of Christianity, as well as various false religions, and many other subjects.

Uh, I prophezise that I will fart in ten seconds..... *farts*... u-hu, let me write this down..... u-hu, now I can say whatever I want, it msut be true, my prophecy fullfilled itself

 

[Phydeaux]

Originally posted by Gothmog
The flood would not explain the rock layers and there is no evidence for a global flood since humans have been on the scene. We have very well documented climatologies from a number of independent sources that show this quite clearly. Unless of course God just decided to wipe out all evidence of the flood, and put self consistant evidence that there was no flood here as a test of faith.

Yes it does, first the layers are set side ways, NOT UP AND DOWN.
The rock sort out by there size (which was shown in the lab they also did a test which took months that showed that it forms side ways and it forms banks at the same time) that is why there seems to be layers forming up, but they are just banks. That means that the layer on the bottom is the same age as the one on the top, the way you must date it is from one end to the other. That is why the sea bug is on the bottom [because the sea bug was on the sea bottom]. That means that if there is a sea bug on the bottom and a dino right above they would be living at the same time. The flood would have shown why this water formed rock is 3/4 of the rocks to day. The layers do not support Evolution.

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Phydeaux


Yes it does, first the layers are set side ways, NOT UP AND DOWN.
The rock sort out by there size (which was shown in the lab they also did a test which took months that showed that it forms side ways and it forms banks at the same time) that is why there seems to be layers forming up, but they are just banks. That means that the layer on the bottom is the same age as the one on the top, the way you must date it is from one end to the other. That is why the sea bug is on the bottom [because the sea bug was on the sea bottom]. That means that if there is a sea bug on the bottom and a dino right above they would be living at the same time. The flood would have shown why this water formed rock is 3/4 of the rocks to day. The layers do not support Evolution.

come visit me and I explain geology to you!

You may be talking about ONE SPECIFIC layer, but throwing roughly 1,5 billion years of sediments (and far more if you consider metamorphic rocks that were sedimented a lot earlier) into ONE layer really, get serious!

 

[Phydeaux]

Originally posted by carlosMM
from Phy#s source

ah yes, place a lion or tiger next to a small rodent - skin contact, actually, and wait if they will stay like that for 40 seconds...... not to talk abotu 40 minutes... or days.....



aha! stalls! but that significantly lessens the number of 'sheep' fo the above example!



Absurdly low estimet to begin with - Mayr talk about GENERA, not SPECIES! And, the 125,000 is sheeplike, pressed to each other. See above...... Also, the Genesis 'kind' MUST have been the modern day biological 'species' - otherwise, where do all the species come from? evolution?

Yes, I cna see Amazonian rainforest tree-dwelling frogs swimming the Atlantic for 50 years to reach the ark in time

Ah, yes! Indeed, we also share the ability to hibernate

15% I'd say of mammals can really tolerate significantly lower body temps. But try it with a mouse - dead after 10 minutes of 5° temp drop!

blantant lie! There's been tons of research. Sure, you can always insist on not believing it

NO degree, for most, rather!

Ah, yes, sure, why do we have indications of dinosaurs living in areas with perpetual snow cover then? These guys choose to totally ignore geology, oh well!

see above!



Aha, there are hundreds! Well, all I met (and I met my share) started quoting the bible when I asked for hard evidence...... or got so annoyed with me they openly pleadsed God to send me straight to hell. none of their papers has stood up to the criteria of science. But hey, it is spiritual, not a matter of thinking, whether you believe them

ah I said this before in this thread but.. They did not start eating meat tell after the flood. Well some people say that they can chang so that they will be able to live in all place's on the earth after the flood, but they don't chang kinds just as far as being able to live because they would die. Remember the earth was the same before the flood we just like the Evolution guys think that there was 1 land mass and that would make it so that they could get to the ark. Also the theory for Creation says that the earth was the same temp all around the earth (they get this motle from the Bible), so they could have had all of the tipes in 1 spot, so that means it would not take long for them to get to the ark. There are dinos where it snows? So what.

 

[Phydeaux]

Originally posted by carlosMM


come visit me and I explain geology to you!

You may be talking about ONE SPECIFIC layer, but throwing roughly 1,5 billion years of sediments (and far more if you consider metamorphic rocks that were sedimented a lot earlier) into ONE layer really, get serious!

As far as I know it is for all layers. The only reason why you Evolution people say that it is 1,5 billion years old is because it mach's up with the Evolution motel you have no evidence.

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Phydeaux


ah I said this before in this thread but.. They did not start eating meat tell after the flood. Well some people say that they can chang so that they will be able to live in all place's on the earth after the flood, but they don't chang kinds just as far as being able to live because they would die. Remember the earth was the same before the flood we just like the Evolution guys think that there was 1 land mass and that would make it so that they could get to the ark. Also the theory for Creation says that the earth was the same temp all around the earth (they get this motle from the Bible), so they could have had all of the tipes in 1 spot, so that means it would not take long for them to get to the ark. There are dinos where it snows? So what.

ah, I am sorry to say, but you have no idea whatsoever about the things you are talking about.

Pangea (one landmass) was long since roken up before any animlas resembling todays animals lived.

Getting temperature information form the Bible is kinda weird - after all, how can you prove something by quoting itself as evidence? All SCIENTIFIC methods show different, btw.

And that you dismiss a valid point I made with 'so what' shows that you are not here to discuss - it borders an insult, rather. It is impolite to the point that I would probably spit you in the face if you did it in Real Life. I will assume you are a little kid and thus patiently explain again:

Earths history has been proven to be far more varied and complicated than described in the Bible. If you accept the rules of actualism (laws of physics and so on do not change - e.g. gravity works always), then you cna easily decipher largte parts of the fossil record. Now tell me, if no animal on the ark ate meat - why did all tigers and lions and related animals have teeth made for eating meat before and after your supposed flood? Even those who died in the supposed flood did!

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Phydeaux


As far as I know it is for all layers. The only reason why you Evolution people say that it is 1,5 billion years old is because it mach's up with the Evolution motel you have no evidence.

ahem, will you accept radiactive dating methods? The same measuring methods used to calibrate medical appliances and to build nuclear bombs (which you will have to agree work) can be used to date the age of rocks. They show that the rocks carrying fossils vary widely in age.

and 'what' is for all layers? specify, please!

 

[Gothmog]

@Phydeaux

OK you got me, the flood does not explain the rock layers unless you are willing to exclude all available geological evidence and just make things up as you go along. Then the flood does explain the rock layers .

Heh, the layers are set side ways – some are some aren’t, for completely understandable reasons by those who take the time to look at the available evidence.

As far as the rest of your incredibly weak argument, we already discussed sediment dating and some of the ways that is done in your Neanderthal thread, also carlosMM (an expert in geology) has discussed some of these issues with you before. I wont repeat that stuff here but you can go back and read about sediment dating there again if you like. The conclusion? There are multiple independent methods of dating sediments that contradict your statement that the layer on the bottom is always the same age as the one on the top

Also, this has nothing to do with the climatologies that I mention in my above post. These are gained from ice cores and ocean sediment cores and show no evidence of a global flood. To summarize, ice cores from both the north and south pole agree about the major climate shifts in the last couple hundred thousand years. This continuous climatology would have been greatly altered by a global flood, which would have left an unmistakable signature. These climatologies also agree with one gleaned from ocean sedement cores, which would not have been affected by a global flood, as well as other shorter records.

So unless God changed all the evidence as a test of faith – THERE HAS BEEN NO GLOBAL FLOOD SINCE MODERN HUMANS HAVE WALKED THE EARTH.

 

[carlosMM]

the Evolution motel

is that one of the vanished Elvis songs? [sing] '... at the E'lution motel..... badaDadaDahhhhh' [/sing]

 

[Speedo]

You want to see something really amazing? 2000 years of christianity and christians still waste their time arguing with brick walls

 

[Phydeaux]

Originally posted by carlosMM


ah, I am sorry to say, but you have no idea whatsoever about the things you are talking about.

Pangea (one landmass) was long since roken up before any animlas resembling todays animals lived.

Getting temperature information form the Bible is kinda weird - after all, how can you prove something by quoting itself as evidence? All SCIENTIFIC methods show different, btw.

And that you dismiss a valid point I made with 'so what' shows that you are not here to discuss - it borders an insult, rather. It is impolite to the point that I would probably spit you in the face if you did it in Real Life. I will assume you are a little kid and thus patiently explain again:

Earths history has been proven to be far more varied and complicated than described in the Bible. If you accept the rules of actualism (laws of physics and so on do not change - e.g. gravity works always), then you cna easily decipher largte parts of the fossil record. Now tell me, if no animal on the ark ate meat - why did all tigers and lions and related animals have teeth made for eating meat before and after your supposed flood? Even those who died in the supposed flood did!

We think that there was 1 landmass just we have other guess's on how it split up. In stead of a ice age or a big rock hitting the earth it could have been a world wide flood which would agen be supported by all the rocks for formed by water. Yes Gravity does not stop working I'm not saying that, all though we do not know for sure how gravity works. If not what ever. I can't prove it any more than you can prove Evolution. I did not understand what you where saying that is why I "dismiss" them, could you tell me agen? We don't know for sure if they ate meat, there are kinds that have shap teeth be they do not eat meat but they eat fruit the sharp teeth does not mater. They could have eaten fruit or some other kind of plant then after the flood when there was less fruit started eating meat. Well really the fosil record is more complicated then it should be for the Evolution beliefes.

 

[Phydeaux]

Originally posted by carlosMM


ahem, will you accept radiactive dating methods? The same measuring methods used to calibrate medical appliances and to build nuclear bombs (which you will have to agree work) can be used to date the age of rocks. They show that the rocks carrying fossils vary widely in age.

and 'what' is for all layers? specify, please!

The "radiactive dating methods" are too unstable if the how much C-14 in the world was not all ways the same as it is now the "radiactive dating methods" would not work with out knowing the way it was when it died. The lead uranium datting 1 would not work not all lead is formed by uranium it can be formed in other ways, uranium could be washed away or washed into a rock that rock could have some lead already in it so we do not know.

 

[Phydeaux]

Originally posted by Gothmog
@Phydeaux

OK you got me, the flood does not explain the rock layers unless you are willing to exclude all available geological evidence and just make things up as you go along. Then the flood does explain the rock layers .

Heh, the layers are set side ways – some are some aren’t, for completely understandable reasons by those who take the time to look at the available evidence.

As far as the rest of your incredibly weak argument, we already discussed sediment dating and some of the ways that is done in your Neanderthal thread, also carlosMM (an expert in geology) has discussed some of these issues with you before. I wont repeat that stuff here but you can go back and read about sediment dating there again if you like. The conclusion? There are multiple independent methods of dating sediments that contradict your statement that the layer on the bottom is always the same age as the one on the top


Also, this has nothing to do with the climatologies that I mention in my above post. These are gained from ice cores and ocean sediment cores and show no evidence of a global flood. To summarize, ice cores from both the north and south pole agree about the major climate shifts in the last couple hundred thousand years. This continuous climatology would have been greatly altered by a global flood, which would have left an unmistakable signature. These climatologies also agree with one gleaned from ocean sedement cores, which would not have been affected by a global flood, as well as other shorter records.

So unless God changed all the evidence as a test of faith – THERE HAS BEEN NO GLOBAL FLOOD SINCE MODERN HUMANS HAVE WALKED THE EARTH.

The ice your talking about would not have been there before the flood there fore you would not see it that is the way it should be. I do not plan on disproving all of your "theorys" all at once just one by one tell I have the evidence you are saying that is true that proves all the other theorys to be true.

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Phydeaux


We think that there was 1 landmass just we have other guess's on how it split up. In stead of a ice age or a big rock hitting the earth it could have been a world wide flood which would agen be supported by all the rocks for formed by water. Yes Gravity does not stop working I'm not saying that, all though we do not know for sure how gravity works. If not what ever. I can't prove it any more than you can prove Evolution. I did not understand what you where saying that is why I "dismiss" them, could you tell me agen? We don't know for sure if they ate meat, there are kinds that have shap teeth be they do not eat meat but they eat fruit the sharp teeth does not mater. They could have eaten fruit or some other kind of plant then after the flood when there was less fruit started eating meat. Well really the fosil record is more complicated then it should be for the Evolution beliefes.

no, no flood could do that. laws of physics say so.

no, we DO understand how gravity works.

Yes we know for sure they ate meat - why else would they have sharp teeth? Show me ONE, just ONE, recent animal that has teeth adapted to eat meat (and meat only) that doesn't eat meat!

The fossil record is just fine with evolution. It is absolutely NOT fine with a flood theory. It shoots the flood hypothesis to hell!

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by Phydeaux


The "radiactive dating methods" are too unstable if the how much C-14 in the world was not all ways the same as it is now the "radiactive dating methods" would not work with out knowing the way it was when it died. The lead uranium datting 1 would not work not all lead is formed by uranium it can be formed in other ways, uranium could be washed away or washed into a rock that rock could have some lead already in it so we do not know.

First of all please use proper interpunctation as the way you write at the moment it is very hard to understand your sentences as you tne dto just write on and on and nobody can be sure where what thought starts or ends or bal yadda yadda....

Second: these radioactive dating methods are VERY stable. The slight uncertaintiey by the slight changes in C-14 level have nothing whatever to do with the HUGE time intervals. 15 000 years +/- 10 % and 2 300 Years +/-5% are still different even if you substract 10 % from 15 000 and add 5% to 2 300.

Third, uranium and Argon dating etc. is obviously done for the time the crytals in question were formed. Now, sure the mineal grain can be washed into a sediment - but you know how old the rock was it stemmed from. And, you know the sediment must be younger than that.

Also, dating vulcanic rocks excludes such troubles. If now you ahve a sedmient cut through by a dike or gang, and you cna date that, the sediment MUSTt be older.


Do you not WANT to listen? Or do you WANT to waste everyone's time here?

 

[Gothmog]

The ice your talking about would not have been there before the flood there fore you would not see it that is the way it should be. I do not plan on disproving all of your "theorys" all at once just one by one tell I have the evidence you are saying that is true that proves all the other theorys to be true.

Uh oh, you're starting to babble here. Read my post above again. The ice climatology matches with the sea floor climatology, both are dated by numerous independent methods. Now what were you saying?

 

[Phydeaux]

Originally posted by carlosMM


no, no flood could do that. laws of physics say so.

no, we DO understand how gravity works.

Yes we know for sure they ate meat - why else would they have sharp teeth? Show me ONE, just ONE, recent animal that has teeth adapted to eat meat (and meat only) that doesn't eat meat!

The fossil record is just fine with evolution. It is absolutely NOT fine with a flood theory. It shoots the flood hypothesis to hell!

They tryed it in the lab and it worked.

We think we know part, but isn't there still parts that we do not fully understand?

Well if the Evolution theory was right we would see lots of them. We don't know for sure I heard of some lab test that showed how, but I'm not sure if I heard right. We think that they used to eat fruit and then when there was less fruit they started eating meat, but it's just a theory I'm not sure if they have evidence yet.

 

[carlosMM]

WHO tried WHAT in the lab?

Sure there is parts we do not fully understand. Structures below the size of th wavelength of light are extremely hard to study, because of the dificulty to measure them. But we do understand gravity down to a level that is sufficent to disprove the bible ten times over!

If the evolution theory was right we shoudl see lots of WHAT???? Specify, please (I want a direct answer to this!!!)

Acutally, it si the otehr way round: the first land animals were carnivours, and so were the first dinosaurs and so were the first mammals.... All these lines later developed omnivorous and herbivorous lines, too.

Please refarin from saying 'they' all the time, clarify what you mean! (unless you want to appear to be trying to be intentionally confusing!)

 

[Phydeaux]

Originally posted by carlosMM


First of all please use proper interpunctation as the way you write at the moment it is very hard to understand your sentences as you tne dto just write on and on and nobody can be sure where what thought starts or ends or bal yadda yadda....

Second: these radioactive dating methods are VERY stable. The slight uncertaintiey by the slight changes in C-14 level have nothing whatever to do with the HUGE time intervals. 15 000 years +/- 10 % and 2 300 Years +/-5% are still different even if you substract 10 % from 15 000 and add 5% to 2 300.

Third, uranium and Argon dating etc. is obviously done for the time the crytals in question were formed. Now, sure the mineal grain can be washed into a sediment - but you know how old the rock was it stemmed from. And, you know the sediment must be younger than that.

Also, dating vulcanic rocks excludes such troubles. If now you ahve a sedmient cut through by a dike or gang, and you cna date that, the sediment MUSTt be older.


Do you not WANT to listen? Or do you WANT to waste everyone's time here?

Sorry.

It would not have been "slight changes" more biger changes such as a stronger magnetic field which would make changes. Dike or gang?