(May 5, 2014 at 4:03 pm)Godschild Wrote: and who knows maybe they did kill some animals that were on the ark, those that God desired to go into extinction and feed the wolves, there's nothing wrong with my biology nor my population mechanics.

Doubtful. God explicitly told Noah to bring the animals on the ark specifically to save the species from the flood.

Genesis 7:1-3

Quote:1 And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

2 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.

3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

(Emphasis mine)

(May 5, 2014 at 4:32 pm)Godschild Wrote: You ask for evidence, yet you haven't given one scientific fact to discredit what I've stated.

It's because you're asserting baseless crap and demanding I prove it wrong. What you're doing is failing at induction. You take a small bit of evicence which applies to a certain population in a certain situation, and you expand it to say that maybe it would have worked for every surviving species of the ark, because you say so. This is no different than me noting that I am capable of growing a beard, therefore all men must be capable of growing beards.

But, if you insist:

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/6flood.htm
http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter6.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html


Now, I think it's fair that you provide evidence for your claims. After I said the flesh would have rotten off the bones, you told me that the animals can survive by eating marrow. Your citation was to call me a "city boy".

I can only find one animal that specializes in eating bone marrow, yet you're insisting that every animal can do it. Also, how long does bone marrow last? Does it take longer to decompose than the rest of the flesh?

(May 5, 2014 at 4:32 pm)Godschild Wrote: As for finding the leaf, I answered that possibility in a earlier post, I'll state it again, why did the dove have to go in the direction of the tree the first time out. The scripture doesn't say the dove lit on anything to get the leaf, what makes you think the dove couldn't hover at the very small tree and pull the leaf from the tree. Have you ever watched a dove city boy, they are able to hover with great skill.

So... the trees were growing under water now? I thought you said earlier that they didn't grow under water. Which is it? In order for your "doves don't hover, city boy!" argument to hold, you have to assert that trees were growing under water so that the branches weren't available for doves to land on them, and that in 47 days, they'd be large enough to sustain herbivores.

Weird.

(May 5, 2014 at 4:32 pm)Godschild Wrote: After the dove returned with the leaf the scriptures say it took 1 month and 17 days for the land to become dry, it was at this time that God told Noah to release the animals not when the dove returned with the leaf. Want to take a guess at why, no, I thought so, could it have been to muddy and silty for the animals at the time of the doves return with the leaf.

Did you mean "too" muddy and silty? So... now we go from at day X + 7 that the tree finally had a branch for the dove to land on to at day X + 7 that the waters are completely abated, yet it's too muddy and silty.

You really need to make up your mind. Come up with a single, consistent story that holds true to what Genesis says, and we can discuss whether or not it's scientifically possible, or whether or not God would have had to intervene. As it stands, you are shifting the goal posts left and right to try to maintain a "scientifically accurate" version of the flood as I poke holes in your earlier musings.

Hello all, new poster here, I've been reading for a while, but this thread has made me want to contribute....

Of all the great arguments laid out in front of those who wish to believe the flood story is true, there is one obvious point that I think has been missed.

It is, with current technology, let alone x thousand years ago, utterly impossible to build an ark big enough to house the animals, food and water required. Totally impossible.

Another point our Christian friends seemed to have missed is that it was not 2 of each animals bundled onto the Ark, it was 7 of the "clean" animals (Could have been 14, but to be kind, we'll go with 7) and 2 (or 4) of the "unclean." Which makes the story even more implausible.

Again, just to be clear, to build a vessel of the size required is not possible now. It just isn't possible, let alone trying to build it out of wood.... with a hammer, beard and some elbow grease.

That's without all the logistical questions of actually housing and taking care of said animals.

The fact that this story is being debated I find genuinely staggering.

@ RobbyPants, you must be the blindest person here, and your math skills lake much. Bone marrow is eaten by many carnivores and it does outlast the flesh by a long shot. As for the species being save from the flood, they were but to what eventual end. The only reason wolves were in the conversation is because someone else brought it up. If other things needed to be discussed they should have been brought up. I didn't say the olive tree was growing under water, I've stated all along that the tree could have sprouted as the water slowly receded and with in 7 days easily put out a leaf or two or three. I also said in a earlier post that the dove may not have found a place to land because of mud, silt and water. Your short sightedness show you have much to learn about plants and animals, I'm not saying I know everything about them and I'm not saying I have answers for every situation before, during or after the flood. Also I said God did use His omnipotence and power for the flood, most of it at creation. God was the One who called the animals to the ark from all over the single land mass world. Yes I stated earlier that at the time of the flood there was on single land mass, also the animals had many years to get to the ark. The Monarch butterfly travels from the middle and northern United States to South America in only a few months. I do not remember the birds name but it also travels from South America to the arctic in just a few months, great herds of animals make thousand mile migrations in just months. There are many sound possibilities and there are the problems also, but the answers there some where even if it's God did it.

GC

Single land mass? You believe that 5,000 years ago, the Earth's land mass was one?

Someone believing that every animal on Earth lived in a wooden Ark for a year telling someone they don't know much about animals .... the mind boggles.

(May 7, 2014 at 7:27 am)Hoopington Wrote: Single land mass? You believe that 5,000 years ago, the Earth's land mass was one?

You're new, so let me help you understand: GC believes whatever he needs to in order to validate the bible, up to and including things that directly contradict other things he's had to believe to validate the bible in the past. His response to your question will roughly be "you can't prove it didn't happen," and it will be phrased in the most condescending way he can muster.

It makes interacting with him deeply pointless.

Edited to add: As regards migrations, did all the Australian animals, many of whom are not aquatic, swim to the ark?

(May 7, 2014 at 7:29 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(May 7, 2014 at 7:27 am)Hoopington Wrote: Single land mass? You believe that 5,000 years ago, the Earth's land mass was one?

You're new, so let me help you understand: GC believes whatever he needs to in order to validate the bible, up to and including things that directly contradict other things he's had to believe to validate the bible in the past. His response to your question will roughly be "you can't prove it didn't happen," and it will be phrased in the most condescending way he can muster.

It makes interacting with him deeply pointless.

So proving it would be pointless?

I'm going to have some fun here I think

(May 6, 2014 at 8:56 am)RobbyPants Wrote: But, if you insist:

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/6flood.htm
http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter6.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Those links are why it is futile to bother to discuss the global flood with anyone who believes that it really happened, and that it happened approximately 4,500 years ago. I don't see how a person can dismiss that much evidence and still discuss the matter rationally. You are dealing with a person who is willing to put reality aside to make his case, and therefore he can continue to argue the point indefinitely. You cannot convince him because he has rejected all available evidence, and he cannot convince you because you are not certifiably insane.

(May 7, 2014 at 7:15 am)Godschild Wrote: ...Also I said God did use His omnipotence and power for the flood, most of it at creation. ...

You fucking asshole!

The whole premise of this thread was that God used magic (or you say "omnipotence" because "magic" offends you) to create the flood, so why didn't he use magic to save the children. That was the whole premise. You have just spent half a dozen pages shitting in this thread saying how it's possible without magic due to your poor understanding of science. You argue the most ludicrous assertions to death... and then you say but it doesn't matter cuz God used magic!

You disingenuous fuck! I am done talking to you regarding any topic forever.

(May 7, 2014 at 11:38 am)RobbyPants Wrote:

(May 7, 2014 at 7:15 am)Godschild Wrote: ...Also I said God did use His omnipotence and power for the flood, most of it at creation. ...

You fucking asshole!

The whole premise of this thread was that God used magic (or you say "omnipotence" because "magic" offends you) to create the flood, so why didn't he use magic to save the children. That was the whole premise. You have just spent half a dozen pages shitting in this thread saying how it's possible without magic due to your poor understanding of science. You argue the most ludicrous assertions to death... and then you say but it doesn't matter cuz God used magic!

You disingenuous fuck! I am done talking to you regarding any topic forever.

I'm not sure Robby likes you too much child of god.

(May 7, 2014 at 11:38 am)RobbyPants Wrote: You fucking asshole!

The whole premise of this thread was that God used magic (or you say "omnipotence" because "magic" offends you) to create the flood, so why didn't he use magic to save the children. That was the whole premise. You have just spent half a dozen pages shitting in this thread saying how it's possible without magic due to your poor understanding of science. You argue the most ludicrous assertions to death... and then you say but it doesn't matter cuz God used magic!

You disingenuous fuck! I am done talking to you regarding any topic forever.

The more important issue is why you're this surprised that GC went there. His entire posting history has been nothing but ad hoc reasoning to support his god, every part of which is considered in a complete information vacuum so as to preserve it from contradictions and outside knowledge, to be retracted or expanded upon at will in order to accomplish any task of argumentation he requires. He doesn't care about internal consistency because a: he doesn't have a consistent worldview, just a need to defend the bible against any and all attacks, sight unseen, and b: he doesn't care about whatever argument he's in, just injecting as much bizarre, self important nonsense into them all as possible until you give up.

He's not after understanding, he's after everyone else's silence. It's his victory condition.