Proof Positive that the Bible isn't a History Book: The Myth of Noah's Ark

Many civilizations thought that the constellations were actual beings. They named them, worshiped them, and drew pictures illustrating the "battles" that would take place in the skies. Guess what? Just because they called them "Gods" and "gave them a life" does not mean that the constellations themselves don't exist!. All it means is that they called them one thing, when we now know them to be another. It does not however take away from the core knowledge that the constellations are there, move throughout the sky (yes, NOW we know how - they didn't then), and "change" positions at varying times throughout the years.

In order to demonstrate that the Bible is a history book, one does not need to be able to rebuild the ark and put the animals on it. As far as history itself is concerned, the question would be: Was there a great flood and were there survivors both human and animal?

The answer to both is yes. The great flood is mentioned in numerous ancient texts and in varying depictions scattered throughout the world. With a lack of technology and transportation, the story could not have spread from one area to another in the amount of time it would have needed to in order to have these texts / depictions close to the same dates.

Originally posted by GrandKitaro777
You must believe the word, no matter how ridiculous the claim maybe. Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence at all. If the bible said that there was a flying cupcake monster pirating DVD's back in biblical times, do not question the claim, simply embrace it.

But the bible doesn't say there is a flying cupcake monster. Everything it says has reasonable explanations to the honest believer. You should always question everything and research everything to better understand it, including the Bible.

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
Localised flooding yes.
Current excavated sites of importance include Ashkelon, Hazor, Megiddo, Gamla and Rehov but nothing definitive yet.

No biblical sites have definatively proven a widespread flood. Rather only localised flooding at different times. The is no evidence of a world wide same time flood.

And I do not think anyone other than the OP has even suggested a WorldWide, Entire Globe, Everything but Noah, swept away in the Flood, occured. It is even questionable if this is what is expressed Biblically, but there is and has been resounding evidence of an event occuring, that has the same sort of Script.

And with all due respect, I believe the "OLDEST" Biblical Sites we "KNOW of are Nineveh, and Ur, both of which are POST Flood Locals. Prior to this, is a clean sheet of UNKNOWN's.

One place that someday maybe located is the City of Enoch, (Cain's Descendant), and it may infact be something that can be found.

The earth would also show this world wide flood of 40 days in its geological layers, this cannot be hidden such a vast flood
The villages of humans would show it in their foundations that they were destroyed by flood.
We are having floods in OZ after a prolonged drought....it happens

I trust you and yours are well and dry. Hopefully this flooding will end soon.

They say it didnt rain on earth in the bible before the flood which is nothing short of ludicrous, we may aswell believe in the tooth fairy.

Rain is not an item that is a requirement in the day to day life of the Living Creatures and Plants on Earth my friend. Water of course is, but there seems to be other manners inwhich water can be deposited upon the Earth to nurture growth.

If every morning, there was a heavy layer of Dew, you would never need to water anything. And to ensure you understand what I mean, I MEAN EVERY MORNING.

I understand the information that followed your above quote, and have no difficulty with the science behind it, but I ask 1 question. Would the resulting details and information provided to "Suggest" it rained prior to the Flood, be the same or different, it those moisture readings originated from the Morning Dew? It's the same water afterall, but just and alternative means of getting it around the planet.

With that said, I would also believe, places like the Sahara, or Negev, or Sahara, or any of the other "Arid Areas" in the Middle East, would not be deserts or less than they are now. It's only the lack of moisture that keeps the earth from producing fruits or crops. Not how the earth recieves it.

We could look at Israel. Rather than "Watering" the Crops, they have done two things. They re-planted forests, which have thrived and are growing beautifully, as well as adopted a "Drip" irrigation System which restricts the amount of water delivered to a drip (Literally) with some period of time between the next drip.

Israel today, is BLOOMING LIKE A ROSE. One of the Major exporter of Fruit and Vegetables, as well as an Exporter of Flowers.

And 50 years ago, it was a pile of sand.

But I would like to know if the results that you have presented would be different based solely on the manner of distribution regardless that it is still water being delivered.

Awiating your reply

Ciao

Shane

1. The size of the Ark itself when compared to it's cargo: According to the Bible, "The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits." The Egyptian cubit, which Genesis' author Moses would have been familiar with, is just over 20 inches (source). Using this, the Ark would have measured a little over 500 feet long, 84 feet wide and 50 feet tall. This is smaller than your average Cruise ship. Since there are no new species here on Earth since the flood (according to the Fundies, not me), it would have had to house over 9,134 mammals, not including humans or seagoing mammals such as whales and dolphins (source), over 16,450 reptiles (source), over 13,196 amphibians (source), over 20,000 birds (source), and over 1,800,000 insects (source) if he marched them in two by two as told by the Bible. Do I even need to mention the amount of food needed to feed so many for a 40 day 'cruise'???

This is easy to debunk. THe world known during that time was far smaller than the world we now know. So maybe it was many if not all of the animals in the middle east. Huhhh what I could be right?

2. The amount of rain needed to flood the Earth in only 40 days and 40 nights: Since the Bible states that "the Mountains were covered", it is safe to assume that the water rose at least 5,000 feet. In order to do this in 40 full 24 hour periods, it would have to rain 5.2 feet an hour! That's over an inch per minite, every minute for every hour for 40 full days... And since the Ark didn't have a bilge pump... Now this is based on 5,000 feet of flooding, but if we take the Bible absolutely literally, then the water covered all of the mountains, including Everest at 29,029 feet which would be over 30 feet of rain an hour! Yeah, not even close to possible!

I would have to say this is through God. But that won't be a good answer for you

3. The lack of genetic diversity in all species: Since with the exception of humans, waterborne mammals and fish, only two of each species survived, the lack of genetic diversity would have spelled the doom for every species on the Ark, yet the world is full of life today. There's a good reason you are not allowed to procreate with your sibling(s), and it's not just a moral reason! This applies to all species, not just humans.

Once again mid east

4. The diversity of ecosystems around the Earth: Marsupials are only found on Australia, Penguins are only found in Antartica, Polar bears are only found in the Artic Circle, all places that Noah never even heard of, so how did he collect these species and then put them back in their respective environments?

Uhhh once again mid east. Their world was smaller. (they thought earth was flat. Durrr

The earth's strata contains a world-wide level of mud.
The entire earth was covered with mud at one time.

I'm so so sorry but when it comes down to godly stuff on earth that is and possibly is attainable to mankind such as the ark, the arc of the covenant in Ethiopia it's always just on the tip of mans nose to attain it. But just too far to reach. This ship at a near plummet. and the Ethiopians doesn't let anyone take a look at the arc.

Nobody can accept the test of God almighty and that is of Faith

[edit on 28-12-2009 by Jordan River]

reply to post by badmedia

I tell you what. When "Christians" actually follow the teachings of Jesus, rather than running around, praising his idol and such while doing all sorts of things contradictory to it, then let me know.

Their are over a billion Catholics alone. Are you saying that these people don't follow the teachings of Jesus?

If you want to consider that as the definition of Christian, then fine - YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN. After 16 pages of discussion on the other thread, I think it is pretty clear that you and I are nothing alike.

The only discussion we had was how you twist and contort the Bible to fit your own ideological view. A true christian excepts that Jesus was born, suffered, and died on the cross for their sins.A true Christian acknowledges 100% of the Bible not just the Gospels and proverbs.A true Christian acknowledges Jesus' existence. You my friend are agnostic at best.

Christianity is the religion of Paul. It is Paul that you follow, not Jesus. You can sit here and claim otherwise all you want. I know better and do not give a crap what you claim.

I know this is really hard for you to comprehend, so here it is again.
Paul followed Jesus. Anyone who follows Jesus is a Christian, hence the word Christianity.

Now if you have something to add to this I suggest you start your own thread and I will be more that happy to continue this there.

Originally posted by kingofmd

The sad thing is, that years ago, an attempt to discredit the Biblical account with such weak/foolish accusations would have been embarrassing. This entire post is packed with "straw man" fallacies. However, even though I am certain no one (including yourself) will even read my response, nor ponder on it, I will answer every single argument, with a non supernatural, easy to understand reply.

Oh, I'm reading and pondering, so fire away...

Originally posted by kingofmd
According to Genesis 6:15, the Ark measured 300 x 50 x 30 cubits, which is about 460 x 75 x 44 feet, with a volume of about 1.52 million cubic feet. Researchers have shown that this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard railroad stock cars, each of which can hold 240 sheep. By the way, only 11% of all land animals are larger than a sheep. Without getting into all the math, the 16,000-plus animals would have occupied much less than half the space in the Ark (even allowing them some moving-around space). (From Answers in Genesis)

You need to research the length of a cubit, the Ark as described was bigger than you suggest. Also, cubic feet don't mean squat! Square feet do! You do not purchase a home based on it's cubic footage, you do on it's square footage, which is it's livable space. It had 126,000 square feet of livable space, which would equate to about 315 standard 40' by 10' railroad cars. And PLEASE, get into all the math, because thus far, your math has sucked! Google is your friend!

Originally posted by kingofmd
Straw man #1:

God specifically commanded Noah to bring land animals ONLY on the ark. Insects and aquatic animals would not need saving for 2 reasons. There would be water covering the entire earth (making it uneccessary to save aquatic life, enough would be preserved on its own), and there would be plenty of floating plant debris and animal/human carcases (insects can float and feed on these, eliminating their need to be on the ark as well.).

Weak/foolish Assumption #1

8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, 9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

Genesis 7: 8-9

I never included aquatic animals or fish, even though the mixing of salt and fresh water would have surely killed off all of them, and I'm pretty sure that insects qualify as things "that creepeth upon the earth". I just love it when you all just start making stuff up to make the story work....

Originally posted by kingofmd
Straw man #2

Yes the Bible says that it rained for 40 days, but this is NOT where the Bible says the water that covered the Earth came from. If you read the creation account in Genesis, the earth was not mostly ocean as it is today. The land was placed on top of water, and the globe was covered by a sort of vapor canopy. It did not rain prior to the flood because there was a sort of greenhouse effect, hence reptile and tropical plant fossils existing all over the planet (including Antarctica). The water the we see on the surface today, was subterranean. It came from the fountains of the deep that burst open, not the rain. Also, the after effects of the flood is what formed the mountain chains and many (if not all) of the geological features we see today, so Mt. Everest didn't even exist at +29000ft during the flood.

Weak/foolish Assumption #2

This completely defies the current understanding of science today, and is just ludicrious! It just shows a complete lack of Earth Science understanding and makes my brain hurt to even ponder. In other words, the Bible is just plain WRONG on this account, unless of course God is The Great Deceiver???

Originally posted by kingofmd
Straw man #3

Humans and the animal today should not procreate with their siblings because of all the mutations and flaws to our genetic code. It's called biological entropy (should make you question Darwinian evolution, but that is another argument). Pre-flood civilization had not yet accumillated all the harmful defects the we have now, so close relation procreation would not have been an issue. Two nearly perfect organisms offspring would be nearly perfect as well, regardless of their genetic relation.
As for genetic diversity, even the modern evolutionist will admit that all dogs came from wolves. There are hundreds of dog species today, from great dane to pekineese. Most of these breeds were developed within the last couple hundred or so years. Is it really so difficult to imagine that the same applies to other kinds of animals having been given 3000+ years?

Do you make this stuff up as you go along??? Total crap! Why don't you start here and then let Google be your guide from there... Biological entropy (2nd Law of Thermodynamics: Order to Disorder) has nothing to do with why it is dangerous for a species to inbreed, and wolves and dogs do have a common ancestor (now extinct), but one is not the ancestor of the other!

Originally posted by kingofmd
Straw man #4

You are assuming the earth looks the same as it did prior to the flood. You are also failing to see that these species are simply genetic variations of the bird, and bear kind. This is simply natural selection at it's finest. Animals migrated themselves after the flood, and their chosen environments took over from there. Keep in mind that during the ice age following the flood, ocean levels were much lower, so the island we now have in the south Pacific, were not yet islands.

The Earth has not changed very much at all, geographically speaking, in the last 10,000 years (except for the receding of the glaciers from North America and Northern Europe). There is not one shred of evidence to suggest otherwise. Also, the flood event that is recorded by almost every ancient civilization WAS CAUSED by the end of the last Ice Age, and there has yet to be another one since that time. Thus my question of how the marsupials made it back to Australia still stands.

Originally posted by kingofmd
I agree with your logic 100%, if one story is false, than who can believe what is true? Unfortunately for the non-believer, it is all true, and it will survive another 1000+ years of ridicule, ban, torture, and imprisonment of its followers because God always wins and will win in the end. Ever wonder why no one even attempts to discredit any other holy book? Hint, they don't have a leg to stand on, so you can't even try to knock them over.

I would point out that you admitted that Darwin was correct and that Evolution is a fact when you stated that, "You are also failing to see that these species are simply genetic variations of the bird, and bear kind. This is simply natural selection at it's finest." Hence you are conceding that the Creation Myth is also false, thus proving my logic to be quite correct and that what is true and what is myth in the Bible cannot be determined. Also, for the past 1,800 years, it has been the followers of the Bible who have been guilty of "ridicule, ban, torture, and imprisonment" of non-followers (and quite a bit of executions as well). Believing it is true does not make it so!

[edit on 29-12-2009 by JaxonRoberts]

reply to post by oliveoil


as ive understood , christians are more or less a branch of extreme jews who belive in martyrdom , so by saying you follow the teachings of hesus you more or less abide to the principle of braking "the law/ a law" in order to make your voice heard so the massen can see the fault you see as broken in society , more or less the same that socrates did, now if jesus "act" is stolen from the tales of socrates is an other matter of discussion but one must not forget what hesus did inorder to achive his "heavently status"....

reply to post by Shane


I'm not sure whether you are more ignorant than arrogant or the other way around... DEADLY COMBINATION! Scary thing is that it's people like you that make me absolutely HATE Fundamentalists! You cherry pick quotes, make stuff up at an alarming rate, and then pat yourselves on the back for doing such a good job! Try rereading the linked post I'm replying to and ask yourself, "What would Jesus think???" I'm sure he's ashamed of you! You just prove that those who adhere to Organized Religions are indeed weak minded fools!

This planet is messed up. It's too cold and dry at the poles. It's too hot and humid at the equator. If the climate was more equalized globally life would be more prosperous. It was made good in the beginning and life was abundant on the planet.

The point of the Flood was to "ruin the earth" because God regretted he had made men. The majority of man did not like him so he busted up his planet because they didn't give a crap about him.

Man was made in God's image. We have all his good traits and all his bad ones.

Originally posted by oliveoil
Lol, no math is not one of my favorite topics However, the Bible is, and it really makes no difference as to the correct figures (no one knows for sure). Its all about probability and all these probabilities, a man making an ark, a man collecting animals and putting them on this ark, Flooding, Raining, all seem to contain one thing in common, Truth that These events that supposedly took place could have very well happened. Even if this is just a made up story,
It still doesn't prove that the Bible doesn't contain history and truth. People always fail to see the meaning behind things.

I have no problem with those who seek meaning from the stories contained within the Bible! I certainly have! It's when those who see it literally try to force their beliefs on others who do not believe that I have a problem. That is becoming a real problem here in the US. I see those who clutch their Bibles tightly (Fundamentalists) condemning those who do not wish to continue a pregnancy, and wish to take the choice away from them, but not one of them is willing to step forward and raise one of these unwanted children... I see those who clutch their Bibles tightly calling those who chose to love someone of the same sex immoral and perverse when the choice is a private one and not theirs to make... I see those who clutch their Bibles tightly claim the moral high ground, yet they tend to be the most vile and narrow minded people I have ever had the displeasure of meeting... And I know this to be true, because I used to be one of them...

Originally posted by oliveoil
Their are over a billion Catholics alone. Are you saying that these people don't follow the teachings of Jesus?

Yes I am saying exactly that. All it does is praise Jesus, and pretend God became their whipping boy in order to save them from their sin. If they followed the teachings of Jesus, then they would be like Jesus.

The only discussion we had was how you twist and contort the Bible to fit your own ideological view. A true christian excepts that Jesus was born, suffered, and died on the cross for their sins.A true Christian acknowledges 100% of the Bible not just the Gospels and proverbs.A true Christian acknowledges Jesus' existence. You my friend are agnostic at best.

Ok, so find me a single quote of Jesus actually saying that. I mean after all, you claim you follow the teachings of Jesus then that should be pretty easy right?

I know this is really hard for you to comprehend, so here it is again.
Paul followed Jesus. Anyone who follows Jesus is a Christian, hence the word Christianity.

Paul didn't even know Jesus. Jesus directly WARNS about Paul. He tells you that which comes after him has nothing for him.

So, if the things you mentioned above are following Jesus, then show me where Jesus said it. If he did not say those things, then it's obviously not him you follow - it's Paul.

You keep on thinking god is your whipping boy. You keep on thinking that the truth has to die in order for you(the lie) to live.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
I do not dispute that there was a worldwide flood event, just not as told by the story of Noah's Ark. There is plenty of evidence that such an event occurred around 8,200 years ago when an ancient glacial lake was released into the Labrador Sea due to the collapse of an ice dam formed by the Laurentide Ice Sheet (source). This did not wipe out mankind, nor did it 'cover the face of the Earth' as described in Genesis.

I also do not dispute that the story has some meaning behind it. The same could be said of Aesop's Fables which also have morals to the stories. The difference is that millions and millions of people do not go the Church every Sunday to pray to Aesop, nor do they claim that his Fables are true stories and should be treated as history. BIG DIFFERENCE!

Well, stories do tend to get exaggerated and such over time. These stories and such were held and told by people and passed on over generations long before they were written etc.

Look at the story of Paul Revere. He only rode a few miles of the run. It was another man who rode the big length of it. But of course, as the story goes - it was all Paul Revere. And the story was written 85 years after it actually happened(1860).

Betsy Ross didn't create the American Flag. That story was written in 1870, nearly 100 years later.

Did you know that George Washington isn't the first president of the US? He is just the first president of the US under the current constitution. He is actually the 8th president.

Charles Lindbergh wasn't the first to fly across the Atlantic either. He was 67th. But he was the first to do it solo.

The Light Bulb was discovered like 30 or 40 years before Edison did. But put that on a test in school, and I bet it's be counted wrong. Same goes for alot of "Edison inventions".

Who invented the radio? If you put Tesla on a test, bet it gets counted wrong(unless you happen to have a teacher who actually knows).

I'd say the bible's account is about as accurate as my high school history book was.

I have no idea what history is actually true in what book. All of history is just a story IMO, and the bible's account is just another story, as are other accounts.



[edit on 12/29/2009 by badmedia]

reply to post by badmedia

Yes I am saying exactly that. All it does is praise Jesus, and pretend God became their whipping boy in order to save them from their sin. If they followed the teachings of Jesus, then they would be like Jesus.

Are you serious? Jesus said this himself

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

.

Ok, so find me a single quote of Jesus actually saying that. I mean after all, you claim you follow the teachings of Jesus then that should be pretty easy right?

Your Joking right

Mark 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

Mark 9:12 And he answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought.


Matthew 17:12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.

Matthew 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

This means that Jesus acknowledges all scripture.

Paul didn't even know Jesus. Jesus directly WARNS about Paul. He tells you that which comes after him has nothing for him.

Paul had a divine revelation, Just like you did with God.. Yo-kay. Show me where Jesus warned about paul. And I will prove you wrong.

You keep on thinking god is your whipping boy. You keep on thinking that the truth has to die in order for you(the lie) to live.

At least your acknowledging that Jesus is God.That really is the first step.

for some one as potentfull as a god , he/she/it sure failed at being born as a man.

you cant have both ways because if you do you start running in loops

Originally posted by oliveoil
Are you serious? Jesus said this himself

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Yeah, but what you failed to do here was put it in context in reference to what he was talking about. In context, it doesn't say anything about the sacrifice.

26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

Those are the verses directly before that verses. The last super is a recreation of Proverbs 9. He is giving them wisdom and understanding is what that is talking about.

Your Joking right
Mark 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

Verses after:

32And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.

33But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

34And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

He says to follow him, it says nothing about ritual sacrifice washing away sins.

Mark 9:12 And he answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought.

Matthew 17:12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.

Matthew 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

Once again, nothing about ritual sacrifice washing away sins. You see the word suffer and blood and forget all the context for some reason. You see those other words around them? They are there for a reason.

Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

This means that Jesus acknowledges all scripture.

He was of course talking about the Torah, as the New Testament did not exist.

Paul had a divine revelation, Just like you did with God.. Yo-kay. Show me where Jesus warned about paul. And I will prove you wrong.

27Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

28Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.

30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.

31But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.

Of course, you just pretend that hasn't happened. Just as most all Christians look everywhere but their own religion in regards to the mystery religion.

At least your acknowledging that Jesus is God.That really is the first step.

I am god and I am arguing with myself. Jesus would be my brother, and the father is greater than all.



[edit on 12/29/2009 by badmedia]

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

You need to research the length of a cubit, the Ark as described was bigger than you suggest. Also, cubic feet don't mean squat! Square feet do! You do not purchase a home based on it's cubic footage, you do on it's square footage, which is it's livable space. It had 126,000 square feet of livable space, which would equate to about 315 standard 40' by 10' railroad cars. And PLEASE, get into all the math, because thus far, your math has sucked! Google is your friend!

Umm, the ark wasn't a cruise ship, nor was it built for travel. Cargo space is all that was important. It was simply a cargo vessel to protect its occupants from the global flood.

Weak/foolish Assumption #1

8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, 9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

Genesis 7: 8-9

I never included aquatic animals or fish, even though the mixing of salt and fresh water would have surely killed off all of them, and I'm pretty sure that insects qualify as things "that creepeth upon the earth". I just love it when you all just start making stuff up to make the story work....

It is possible for a salt/fresh water fish to survive in either or, depending on the rate that you expose them to their new environment. Are you assuming that the ocean had the same ratio of salt as it does today? Does that not violate your uniformitarian beliefs? I can hear Charles Lyell spinning in his grave....

Perhaps you should re-read vs 15, and 22. I know I am a retarded non-science believing Christian, but last I checked insects do not breate through nostrils. They also would have no problem riding a floating tree, or the billions of fossils to be floating bodies.

Weak/foolish Assumption #2

This completely defies the current understanding of science today, and is just ludicrious! It just shows a complete lack of Earth Science understanding and makes my brain hurt to even ponder. In other words, the Bible is just plain WRONG on this account, unless of course God is The Great Deceiver???

Nice red herring. Anyways, I could respond by saying the current understanding of science today will be defied by the science of 10 years from now... but that would just side step the issue. What exactly goes against “science” in my response? Do we not still find water deep underground? Geysers? Ever wonder why there are springs pumping in to the bottom of the ocean? Does not plate/volcanic activity form mountains? Does current science believe that water lays down sedimentary layers? The entire earth is covered in sedimentary rock layers, packed full of fossils. Looks like evidence of a global flood to me...

Do you make this stuff up as you go along??? Total crap! Why don't you start here and then let Google be your guide from there... Biological entropy (2nd Law of Thermodynamics: Order to Disorder) has nothing to do with why it is dangerous for a species to inbreed, and wolves and dogs do have a common ancestor (now extinct), but one is not the ancestor of the other!

I more than answered why animals and humans TODAY should not interbreed. Do you need a punnett to prove to yourself that nearly perfect organisms with no significant flaws, nor mutations (regardless of being siblings) can interbreed w/o negative consequences? I only mentioned biological entropy as a cause for our current genetically flawed condition that was not the case thousands of years ago.

The Earth has not changed very much at all, geographically speaking, in the last 10,000 years (except for the receding of the glaciers from North America and Northern Europe). There is not one shred of evidence to suggest otherwise. Also, the flood event that is recorded by almost every ancient civilization WAS CAUSED by the end of the last Ice Age, and there has yet to be another one since that time. Thus my question of how the marsupials made it back to Australia still stands.

You speak almost as if you lived 10000 years ago to witness this? Ever wonder where all the water that formed during the ice age came from? I’ll give you a hint: a global water event that disrupted the climate of the entire planet..... It is an assumption to assume all marsupials came from Australia in the 1st place. Is the opossum from there as well? Anyways as I said, during the ice age, they could have walked there if they wanted to, look at a satellite image of ocean levels in that area. Now, imagine that area, prior to the melting of all the glaciers

I would point out that you admitted that Darwin was correct and that Evolution is a fact when you stated that, "You are also failing to see that these species are simply genetic variations of the bird, and bear kind. This is simply natural selection at it's finest." Hence you are conceding that the Creation Myth is also false, thus proving my logic to be quite correct and that what is true and what is myth in the Bible cannot be determined. Also, for the past 1,800 years, it has been the followers of the Bible who have been guilty of "ridicule, ban, torture, and imprisonment" of non-followers (and quite a bit of executions as well). Believing it is true does not make it so!

I think you are confusing macro evolution, with micro. I guess we can add strawman #5. No creationist denies micro evolution. Edward Blyth pointed out speciation/natural selection BEFORE Darwin, as this is common sense and observable. You and other evolutionist make an equivocation of the two. “We see dogs changing depending on their environment, therefore, all creatures are descended from a common ancestor”

Do you have any examples of the Christian ridicule, ban, torture, from the last couple hundred years, that have absolutely nothing to do with roman catholocism?


[edit on 29-12-2009 by kingofmd]

Originally posted by badmedia

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
I do not dispute that there was a worldwide flood event, just not as told by the story of Noah's Ark. There is plenty of evidence that such an event occurred around 8,200 years ago when an ancient glacial lake was released into the Labrador Sea due to the collapse of an ice dam formed by the Laurentide Ice Sheet (source). This did not wipe out mankind, nor did it 'cover the face of the Earth' as described in Genesis.

I also do not dispute that the story has some meaning behind it. The same could be said of Aesop's Fables which also have morals to the stories. The difference is that millions and millions of people do not go the Church every Sunday to pray to Aesop, nor do they claim that his Fables are true stories and should be treated as history. BIG DIFFERENCE!

Well, stories do tend to get exaggerated and such over time. These stories and such were held and told by people and passed on over generations long before they were written etc.

I have no idea what history is actually true in what book. All of history is just a story IMO, and the bible's account is just another story, as are other accounts.

[edit on 12/29/2009 by badmedia]

If you believe that the Bible was inspired by God, then you can believe that this is one of the few times in history where the main points of all the accounts are correct. If you don't believe it's from God, then all your points are very valid.

At some point, if the Bible is going to be used by any of us, we must come to the conclusion that God could inspire one single collection of books to be written for us to have the chance to learn the truth.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by shasta9600]