Science And The Bible - Introduction

[Tiberius]

I agree, please explain how the flood could have happened, and the evidence that points to it happening. If you've already posted about it then please link to that post as I didn't read it (I would have called you out on it if I had).

[leo-rcc]

I'd love to hear how the flood was possible in your opinion, and how come we have no scientific evidence to support that claim.

[Daystar]

I'd love to hear how the flood was possible in your opinion, and how come we have no scientific evidence to support that claim.

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)

It had three decks so about 96,000 square feet (8,900 sq m) of floor space. It had a gross volume of about 1,400,000 cubic feet (40,000 cu m) which is roughly the same as what the Titanic had.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

[Edwardo Piet]

So you are saying that there is probably nothing factual about the Bible without ever having read it or checked its facts? You do this in the name of evidence and science and you think I can't call you out on it?

You see that? What I did there?

I have read bits of the bible. Scanned through parts. Mostly read genesis etc. I just haven't read the whole thing. I've read stuff about it on SAB, etc. I've heard stuff about it though Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, etc.
And the point is, I don't even need to have done or know any of this. Asking me if the bible is factually true or not is like asking me :"How do you KNOW that other countries in the world exist if you've never been outside the UK? How do you know? You've only seen it on maps and TV and in books. You've never actually been there, how do you know?". Or asking: "How can you trust that evolution is correct until you've seen every single fossil on the planet and had you yourself have had DNA sequenced?" questions like that are stupid. You however justify the bible as facts when there's not even any evidence in the bible. Never mind strong evidence, there's not even any WEAK evidence.

Some people say that the Bible is scientifically inaccurate and therefore unauthentic, not possibly the inspired word of the Creator, Jehovah God. I have addressed these accusations and demonstrated them to be misunderstandings.
1. Was the Earth created in 6 literal days? No.

2. Was the flood possible? Yes.

3. Does the Bible say that the earth is flat? No.

4. Does the Bible say that bats are birds? No.

5. Does the Bible say that insects have four legs? No.

6. Does the Bible say that Rabbits chew their cud? Refection.

You're talking an awful lot more about what it DOESN'T say than what it actually does says. So you're talking about whats not in the bible not whats in it? Its what IS in it that I have problems with. It claims God but there is no evidence of God. And there's a lot of evil in the bible.

Since you are criticising the Bible where do you get your facts from in doing so?

You will notice that I have said in the past that I don't think that science actually does conflict with the Bible. I am trying to demonstrate this but I can't even get any of you guys to tell me what a picture of some sculls are, you are so confident in your facts!

---

I don't need facts to criticize the bible. The burden of proof remember? If you don't have evidence I can just dismiss the bible. I don't need any facts to dismiss nonsensical claims about the universal.
Yes claims about the universe. The bible DOES conflict with science. Miracles? God? Creation? And the supernatural altogether? All of this stuff conflicts with science.
EDIT: Corrected mistake where I accidentally quoted the end of one of my lines as Daystar at the start of this post. I deleted that part now.

[allan175]

I realise you are off to hospital today (good luck by the way, I hope it all goes well), but I have a few questions about your post.

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)

It had three decks so about 96,000 square feet (8,900 sq m) of floor space. It had a gross volume of about 1,400,000 cubic feet (40,000 cu m) which is roughly the same as what the Titanic had.

I've heard this sort of statement before (obviously the figures are available in the bible), but ould it actually be possible to build something the size of the Titanic out of wood? I expect there would be a lot of stresses & strains that would make wood impractical.

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./quote]
The Earth's *surface* is is around 70% water, the actual percentage of the Earth that is water is tiny.
As an aside, I had a quick search and someone has calculated that if the Earth was a perfectly smooth sphere it would be covered to the depth of 2.5km, so there is quite a lot of water around really. Although surely lots of mountains disappearing and seabeds rising would have been mentioned in the bible too.

[quote='Daystar' pid='5777' dateline='1228968475']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.

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

Hmmm......Flash floods may well produce sudden deaths, but isn't it supposed to have rained for 40 days & 40 nights? Not exactly a quick thing.

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

To me, this is the weakest point of everything you have said. I'd say this is exactly how primitive man would have thought rain worked.
I'm sure one of them said "*Obviously* there must be loads of water around the Earth, where else does the rain come from?" (only not in English ).

[Kyuuketsuki]

I don't recall who originally posted this but it's as relevant in response to Daystar's argument as any other I've heard:

That Boat Don't Float - For Jessica

In 1898 the U.S.S. Wyoming was launched. She was the state-of-the art in wooden hulled shipbuilding. She was a six masted schooner and, at 329 ft., the longest ship with an all wood keel and hull ever built. She was one of nine six masted schooners build around the turn of the century. All were 300 ft. or more in length. They were all state-of-the art.

The Wyoming had steel cross-bracing. Even while she was yet on the drawing boards the marine engineers who designed and built her knew from experience with shorter ships that the length of the Wyoming would exceed the structural limits of wood. For this reason they attempted to defeat, or at least support, the laws of physics with steel. It was all to no avail. Not even the steel bracing could prevent the flexing and twisting that resulted in a separation of the hull planking. The Wyoming leaked, badly, from the day she hit the water until the day, 4 years later, when she was decommissioned. The Wyoming required constant pumping, as did her sister ships.

It is said that she could be seen to snake (movement of the bow from side to side in relation to the stern) and hog (movement of the bow up and down in relation to the stern) while underway. The action of the waves, in even calm seas, caused the planking to be sprung beyond the capabilities of any caulking that could be devised. The Wyoming (and all eight of her sister ships) were considered unseaworthy. They were used for short (too long under way and the leakage became more than the pumps could handle), close-in coastal hauls, generally in sight of land. At the first sign if inclement weather, they were required to run for port (any port in a storm).

I have always had a great love for windjammers. I have some very expensive books that deal with the minutia of their construction and for years my hobby was to build full rigged wooden models. I spent hours climbing over the decks of the U.S.S. Constitution in Charleston Navy Yard, admiring her construction. The Wyoming must have been a beautiful vessel. But she was a beautiful anachronism. At about 300 ft. the structural capabilities of wood were exceeded beyond the abilities of engineering and design to remedy. After the Wyoming and her sisters, wood was abandoned as construction material for major vessels.

And yet, creationists want me to believe that a 450 ft. (minimum) vessel of ALL wood construction was able to withstand a storm of 40 days and then remain at sea for almost a year, manned by only eight people, without the efficient steel pumps of the turn of the century, caulked with nothing more than "pitch inside and out". Not to mention the overwhelming necessity of the limited crew to feed and water thousands of animals and to muck out thousands of cages (and then carry the result of the mucking up two decks in order to throw it overboard). When was there time for pumping (24 hours a day as indicated above) and the constant recaulking in a futile attempt to stem the flow.

You may perceive this as an argument from incredulity similar to those that are so typical of creationists, but I just can't believe such a fairy tale. Experience with real wooden ships sailing in real oceans indicates that Noah's ark would not have survived many days of the 40 day storm.

My opinion of Noah's ark is that that boat don't float.

Noah's Ark is a crock! Don't even get me started on the stupidity of the flood!

Kyu

[Daystar]

Noah's Ark is a crock! Don't even get me started on the stupidity of the flood!

This is so typical of the bullshit no fucking substance criticism of the typical myopic Atheist. Look at my evidence and look at yours. No contest.

[leo-rcc]

Good luck on your surgery. I hope its nothing too serious.

[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.

[Purple Rabbit]

This is simply not how geology works.

That doesn't sound like any evidence to me, lukec. And why should Daystar be concerned about how geology works? It seems that it's your concern that geology is supposed to work at all.