[muerteverde]

Originally Posted by Minotauro693

^^^^Bro I think he was fucking around...but very nice if he was using his explanation as an argument.

I am a stand in for the flood believers here, because these are the explanations that I have heard time and time again. From my sister, from my church, from Hovind videos. And when you find one you cannot answer, make something up and make it sound good (you like mana from ehaven one?)

About the baby animals, I don't know if it is Biblically correct, but it is what I was taught as a kid in church each week. When I asked them how elephants and dinos fit, they would say "Of course they didn't put an adult diploticus on the ark, but rather a baby, or maybe an egg".

Personally, I find the whole thing absurd. Yes, maybe there was an ark that survived a flood, but there is zero evidence of a complete global flood, and no, I don't really believe that all the species on Earth could fit there, or if not all the species, that we could have the diversity we do today if there were only a fraction of them on there. How many millions of types of insects are in the world? How many species of rodents?

But keep the debate going, don't let me spoil your fun.

[Colossus]

Originally Posted by muerteverde

I am a stand in for the flood believers here, because these are the explanations that I have heard time and time again. From my sister, from my church, from Hovind videos. And when you find one you cannot answer, make something up and make it sound good (you like mana from ehaven one?)

About the baby animals, I don't know if it is Biblically correct, but it is what I was taught as a kid in church each week. When I asked them how elephants and dinos fit, they would say "Of course they didn't put an adult diploticus on the ark, but rather a baby, or maybe an egg".

Personally, I find the whole thing absurd. Yes, maybe there was an ark that survived a flood, but there is zero evidence of a complete global flood, and no, I don't really believe that all the species on Earth could fit there, or if not all the species, that we could have the diversity we do today if there were only a fraction of them on there. How many millions of types of insects are in the world? How many species of rodents?

But keep the debate going, don't let me spoil your fun.

I figured that you were joking around, but no one else was answering so I throught I'd see if someone could come back at me on my responses.

[Lubaolong]

Actually the bible said take 2 of each kind. It's possibly a number as little 2,000 species (this is excluding things that live in the water, insects, etc). That's not too hard to believe considering the arc was large enough to hold 16,000 full grown animals.

When the facts are examined, there is no scientific evidence that the biblical account of the ark is false. It's what you choose to believe.

[Colossus]

Originally Posted by Lubaolong

Actually the bible said take 2 of each kind. It's possibly a number as little 2,000 species (this is excluding things that live in the water, insects, etc). That's not too hard to believe considering the arc was large enough to hold 16,000 full grown animals.

When the facts are examined, there is no scientific evidence that the biblical account of the ark is false. It's what you choose to believe.

As I said before--and you are obviously using the same ideas presented to you--the "kinds" used in these calculations were genera. Taking individual species, which is a much more reasonable definition of kind in the context of the ark, increases the load three- or fourfold. The changes necessary to reflect the diversity currently in the world would certainly be considered "macroevolution" by creationists.

[cakewalkbaby]

who cares about geting the animals on board ... the arc would have broken up and sunk within minutes of the flood waters rising.

According to the bible gen6:15 the ark was approx 450 feet long. The longest wooden ships in modern times ever got built was 300 feet long. Longer than this the stress from rolling seas would open up the joints. Even ships at 300 feet long had to have steel reinforced strapping and bilge pumps operating constantly. Only after iron ships were developed could the 300 foot barrier be broken.
Building the 450 foot arc is beleiveable. Having it be seaworthy and survive in open seas and aglobal flood is a joke. Even the great ship designers and builders of the 18th and 19th centruies could not match what an ancient goatherder with golpherwood, pitch and tar alledgedly managed to do.

[Dominic Kihlstrand]

Originally Posted by Colossus

Creationists claim that the Great Flood of biblical times destroyed the ancient earth and remade it as it is today. Noah and his family, and the animals of the world are believed by creationists to have survived on the Ark and then repopulated the world from such a pool.

Creationists, explain your rational on how exactly all the species of the world could possibly fit on the ark like that?

This has been dicussed in other threads, but perhaps it can become a focused discussion here.

Hella big ark.

[one80to1]

According to the Davinci Code, the bible was written by a counsel of "experts" many years after Jebus died. They decided what was true and what was false. Now how anyone can use this as their sole source of their scientific knowledge is beyond reason.

[Pennywise03]

This is so stupid, if you believe God talked to Noah and told him to build an arc then you can fathom that God would do things like ensure the arc wouldn't break up, feed the animals, make sure the animals didn't kill each other. I can't believe what I'm reading.

[Dominic Kihlstrand]

Originally Posted by one80to1

According to the Davinci Code, the bible was written by a counsel of "experts" many years after Jebus died. They decided what was true and what was false. Now how anyone can use this as their sole source of their scientific knowledge is beyond reason.

Did you seriously, actually, just use the Davinci Code as a reference?!?!

Using that reasoning...I could say,

According to Harry Potter, I could do magic if I wanted, but I do not have magic in my blood, so it is difficult.

[Colossus]

Originally Posted by Dominic Kihlstrand

Did you seriously, actually, just use the Davinci Code as a reference?!?!

Using that reasoning...I could say,

According to Harry Potter, I could do magic if I wanted, but I do not have magic in my blood, so it is difficult.

Bummer, you can't do teh magic unless you have magic blood?