Science And The Bible - Introduction

[lukec]

Probably you'll get this after your surgery, so I hope it went well!!!

Noah's ark was 300 cubits (438 feet or 134 m) long, 50 cubits (73 feet or 22m) wide, and 30 cubits (44 feet or 13 m) high. (Genesis 6:15)

This was built by a small family? And could float?

It has been estimated by some that of the hundreds of thousands of species of animals today they could have all came from a comparatively few kinds as the Bible uses the term. There could have been as few as 43 kinds or mammals, 74 kinds of birds and 10 kinds of reptiles in the ark. That would have been sufficient to produce what we have today. More liberal estimations conclude 72 kinds of quadrupeds and less than 200 bird kinds.

Estimated by who, Daystar? Whoever it was grossly misunderstands evolution. There are between 4500 and 5000 mammal species alone, which means they CANNOT interbreed, and so have been involved in macroevolution (which you dismiss as even possible). There is simply no way at all, in the span of time since the Ark was supposed to have landed, for even 72 mammal species to evolve and diverge so quickly. If the estimator thought so, they either don't understand, or are deliberately reaching (and misleading) to make the facts fit their beliefs. The same problem applies with the reptiles- of lizards alone there are almost 5000 different species. How could 10 change over a very short few thousand years into so many? Wrong.

Though there are upwards of 1,300,000 species of animals over 60 % of these are insects and of the 24,000 amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals 10, 000 are birds, 9,000 are reptiles and amphibians and could have survived outside of the ark. Only 5,000 are mammals, including whales and porpoises which would also be outside of the ark. Only about 290 species of land mammals larger than sheep and about 1,360 smaller than rats.

I believe the figure is more like 5 million? Birds could not have survived outside the ark, because there are only a very few which fly more or less continuously (that is, if any more than the Albatross do so). Insects also pose a huge problem- take beetles for example. There are over 350000 species of beetle, and, since we know there was not enough time for them to speciate since the ark, we must assume they were all on there, and if you need a mating pair of each, that is 700000 beetles alone. Now, bugs are small on their own, but if you needed two of every species... you'd fill several arks in short order. Are you expecting reptiles to survive outside of the ark? Because maybe the crocs and such could, but not all reptiles swim. Amphibians are a worse problem- there is only one amphibian which can even tolerate salt water, and the rest are exclusively freshwater. They can't deal with salt- dries 'em right out. Further, what happened to the ancient marine animals? Why are they NEVER found in the same strata as dolphins?

So with inbreeding within the boundaries of the Creator, and kinds, and the expanded figures of the possible result of that as seen today, the ark could have easily have accommodated all.

Think for a moment Daystar.

Now as for scientific evidence. Believe it or not science is subject to interpretation. You are not likely to find two archaeologist who agree on dates or details. They fill in their gaps with their own imaginations. And science is not hell bent on proving the Bible is accurate it is hell-bent on proving that evolution is accurate.

Wrong. So wrong. Science is self-correcting, but you refuse to believe anything that goes against what you say, and instead attribute it to a conspiracy?

The earth is 70% water. Not entirely out of line with a possible worldwide deluge. The thin crust of the earth would likely have shifted with billions of tons of water, and mountains would have been thrust upward. Old mountains rising to new heights and new shorelines would have been established. Shallow sea basins were deepened and new shorelines established.

This is simply not how geology works.

Mammoths and rhinoceroses have been found in different parts of the earth, such as Siberian cliffs. Some preserved in ice, and some with food undigested in their stomachs or still unchewed in their teeth. They died suddenly.

And yet dinosaurs are never found "chilling" with them in the same strata. Why?

Lions, tigers, bears and elk have been found in common strata which may indicate they were destroyed simultaneously.

Yes, as in they lived at the same time (about, and within a few thousands of years).

Flood legends world wide could have been passed down from generations after the flood as they spread out.

Which in no way proves a global flood.

Often water damage as seen with floods can at first be mistaken as other forces which has happened before.

In the case of the geological column there is not one shred of evidence or a geological strata which has ever been pointed to and claimed to be evidence for a flood.

Where did the water come from? There was a canopy of water around the earth from creation until the flood.

Genesis 1:6-7 - And God went on to say: “Let an expanse come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters.” Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse.

2 Peter 3:5-6 - For, according to their wish, this fact escapes their notice, that there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; and by those [means] the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water.

So you're telling me that enough water to drown out the world was just hanging out in the stratosphere. Ok Daystar, you're really just reaching.