Why do the anti God crowd attack the bible ?

[AllieBaba]

I don't care if the bible is true or not.

I care if it's in the wrong or not, and it's most indeed in the wrong.

Evil Bible Home Page

Whats this in the bible?
Sacrafice
Rape
Murder
Slavery
AND MORE!


All proof on website.

Yup, just friendly criticism there. No attacks! Ignore the man behind the curtain! Silly paranoid stupid Christians...

 

[JScott]

You don't think elements are in the dust

I didnt say that at all did I?

Sorry,that is what you were saying, i think, but your questions are confusing.

I didnt ask any questions and you are avoiding my statement, as usual.

 

[Dr.Drock]

They all knew they were in the presence of God so they were all temporarily absolved of their animal instincts.


They all most likely started grabbing oars in their mouths to help the Ark move.

No they didn't get those animal instincts until after the flood they were vegetarians.

Gen 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons. And He said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.
Gen 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon the animals of the earth, and upon every bird of the air, upon all that moves on the earth, and upon all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered.
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herb.
Gen 9:4 But you shall not eat of flesh with the life in it, or the blood of it.


Humans and Animals were originally Created to eat Only Plants!




Abstract:
Sharp teeth were not part of the creation, they were part of the curse.

Adam, Eve and all the animals were created to eat only vegetation (see comments on Genesis 1:29-30). Nothing died prior to the spiritual fall of Adam and Eve (see comments on Genesis 3:19 and 3:21).



Did plants die in the Garden of Eden?


Plant "death" is different than animal or human death. Plants eat, drink, grow and respond to stimuli, but they do not have a central nervous system. Nor do they have blood. According to scripture only organisms with blood in them are "alive".

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood…”
Leviticus 17:11 (King James Version)

Plants do not die in the biblical sense of the word, because they are not "alive" in the biblical sense.

Humans and animals also posses a state of consciousness that plants can not. The Hebrew word "nephesh" is the word used in the Bible for consciousness. Nephesh is only used in application to man and animals. Plants are not conscious creatures.

Sin brought death to man and animals only. Plants do not truly die in the sense that humans and animals do. Though they are alive in a biological sense, they do not have a spirit, consciousness or soul.



What did animals who appear today as carnivorous eat in the Garden of Eden?

The Bible tells us that when he created the world, all animals ate only plants. But when we look at the animals in the world today we see that many of them have teeth that appear to have been designed for eating meat. Why is this so? Did animals with teeth and sabers once use them to eat vegetation? Or did their teeth change. And if so, how and when?




When we look at the teeth of the first humans (Neanderthals) we see that they had larger molars and smaller canine teeth than we do. They had thicker enamel (they would need this if they lived longer than we do), and had well worn third molars, or wisdom teeth.

God changed the diet of humans in Genesis 9 when Noah got off the ark. I believe that one of the reasons God did this was that many of the plants that had nourished man before the flood had now died off (or were not as plentiful after the flood). Plant degeneration would also effect the nutritional value of plants.





The diet and dentition of animals however changed before this as is evident from the fossil record.

Animal teeth

If animals were created to eat plants then why do many of them have structures that appear to be created to cause harm? Like Tigers, dogs, Etc.?

None of these harmful things existed prior to the curse God placed on the earth when Adam sinned.

Spiders did not spin webs to catch insects. This is one of the many changes that occurred after "the fall". There is no beneficial use for spider webs when spiders ate only plants.



The spiny puffer fish

The spiny puffer (Diodon holocanthus) fish combines pointy spikes with the ability to inflate three times its normal size as a defense mechanism. There would be nothing to defend itself against in a perfect world before sin.

It seems unlikely that God created animals with such harmful structures simply because he foreknew the entrance of sin and death in this world (through Adams sin).

Also the fossils of animals like Heterodontosaurus "Different-tooth Lizard" and simosuchus (sp), australopithecines etc indicate that many features of the masticatory systems did change in animals after the fall. Heterodontosaurus is a stage in between vegetarian and carnivorous.

These were mutational changes occurring only after the fall. This changed benign structures into harmful ones.



Isaiah 11:6-9

“The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.”
Isaiah 11:6-9 (King James Version)



Hosea 2:18

“And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely. “
Hosea 2:18-30 (King James Version)





One can not even imagine how such things would be useful in a sea of fish that never preyed on other fish. Surely the spiny puffer did not balloon up in order to frighten the vegetation God instructed it to eat.

No, these features (spikes etc) occurred after the fall along with a change of diet for this creature (it now eats: mollusks, crabs, etc.).




Dr. Jack Cuozzo explains one of the many ill effects that the original sin had on the earth:


"Therefore, it is logical to believe that after the Fall, all the harmful isotopes, rays, and gases must have been switched on when God said, "Cursed is the ground because of you" (Gen. 3:17). The restraint in the rocks was removed and the radioactive substances began to open up with a rapid burst, their harmful products possibly still at levels too deep for all of the damaging rays and gases to reach the surface. No doubt, though, some did break through and men and animals began to change immediately post-Fall.
I believe that this is how carnivorous behavior began, with a distortion or breakdown of the genetic messages in tooth and jaw formation. Some herbivorous creatures became carnivorous and were transformed similar to the caterpillar/butterfly transition. Much work needs to be done on this subject, and especially loss of genetic information. Lord willing, this will be my next effort. The radioactive elements probably made an even more disastrous debut on earth as they were spewed forth at the flood when the earth was torn asunder and "all the fountains of the deep burst open" (pg 148 "Buried Alive")


"What happened to the carnivores’ hinge jaws, razor sharp molars, and six-inch fangs? Did they use them to pounce on watermelons? How could they exist on vegetation? Don’t you suppose that they ate straw like an ox and had different masticatory systems, similar to what they will have again and do again in the new creation described in Isaiah 11:7 and 65:25?" (Pg 98-99 "Buried Alive" by Dr. Jack Cuozzo)

A scientists no less....thinks carnivores were plant eaters....what a maroon....(thats Bugs Bunny talk from the 40s).

MooooOOOOOoooooo!

Look at those teeth, obviously those were used to eat grass.


Now I know a big chunk of creationists were science deniers, but now this thread is opening my eyes that there's some of them that are math deniers too what with the dimensions of the ship and it's supposed ability to carry 2 of every species that ever walked the earth.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No they didn't get those animal instincts until after the flood they were vegetarians.

Gen 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons. And He said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.
Gen 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon the animals of the earth, and upon every bird of the air, upon all that moves on the earth, and upon all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered.
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herb.
Gen 9:4 But you shall not eat of flesh with the life in it, or the blood of it.


Humans and Animals were originally Created to eat Only Plants!




Abstract:
Sharp teeth were not part of the creation, they were part of the curse.

Adam, Eve and all the animals were created to eat only vegetation (see comments on Genesis 1:29-30). Nothing died prior to the spiritual fall of Adam and Eve (see comments on Genesis 3:19 and 3:21).



Did plants die in the Garden of Eden?


Plant "death" is different than animal or human death. Plants eat, drink, grow and respond to stimuli, but they do not have a central nervous system. Nor do they have blood. According to scripture only organisms with blood in them are "alive".

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood…”
Leviticus 17:11 (King James Version)

Plants do not die in the biblical sense of the word, because they are not "alive" in the biblical sense.

Humans and animals also posses a state of consciousness that plants can not. The Hebrew word "nephesh" is the word used in the Bible for consciousness. Nephesh is only used in application to man and animals. Plants are not conscious creatures.

Sin brought death to man and animals only. Plants do not truly die in the sense that humans and animals do. Though they are alive in a biological sense, they do not have a spirit, consciousness or soul.



What did animals who appear today as carnivorous eat in the Garden of Eden?

The Bible tells us that when he created the world, all animals ate only plants. But when we look at the animals in the world today we see that many of them have teeth that appear to have been designed for eating meat. Why is this so? Did animals with teeth and sabers once use them to eat vegetation? Or did their teeth change. And if so, how and when?




When we look at the teeth of the first humans (Neanderthals) we see that they had larger molars and smaller canine teeth than we do. They had thicker enamel (they would need this if they lived longer than we do), and had well worn third molars, or wisdom teeth.

God changed the diet of humans in Genesis 9 when Noah got off the ark. I believe that one of the reasons God did this was that many of the plants that had nourished man before the flood had now died off (or were not as plentiful after the flood). Plant degeneration would also effect the nutritional value of plants.





The diet and dentition of animals however changed before this as is evident from the fossil record.

Animal teeth

If animals were created to eat plants then why do many of them have structures that appear to be created to cause harm? Like Tigers, dogs, Etc.?

None of these harmful things existed prior to the curse God placed on the earth when Adam sinned.

Spiders did not spin webs to catch insects. This is one of the many changes that occurred after "the fall". There is no beneficial use for spider webs when spiders ate only plants.



The spiny puffer fish

The spiny puffer (Diodon holocanthus) fish combines pointy spikes with the ability to inflate three times its normal size as a defense mechanism. There would be nothing to defend itself against in a perfect world before sin.

It seems unlikely that God created animals with such harmful structures simply because he foreknew the entrance of sin and death in this world (through Adams sin).

Also the fossils of animals like Heterodontosaurus "Different-tooth Lizard" and simosuchus (sp), australopithecines etc indicate that many features of the masticatory systems did change in animals after the fall. Heterodontosaurus is a stage in between vegetarian and carnivorous.

These were mutational changes occurring only after the fall. This changed benign structures into harmful ones.



Isaiah 11:6-9

“The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.”
Isaiah 11:6-9 (King James Version)



Hosea 2:18

“And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely. “
Hosea 2:18-30 (King James Version)





One can not even imagine how such things would be useful in a sea of fish that never preyed on other fish. Surely the spiny puffer did not balloon up in order to frighten the vegetation God instructed it to eat.

No, these features (spikes etc) occurred after the fall along with a change of diet for this creature (it now eats: mollusks, crabs, etc.).




Dr. Jack Cuozzo explains one of the many ill effects that the original sin had on the earth:


"Therefore, it is logical to believe that after the Fall, all the harmful isotopes, rays, and gases must have been switched on when God said, "Cursed is the ground because of you" (Gen. 3:17). The restraint in the rocks was removed and the radioactive substances began to open up with a rapid burst, their harmful products possibly still at levels too deep for all of the damaging rays and gases to reach the surface. No doubt, though, some did break through and men and animals began to change immediately post-Fall.
I believe that this is how carnivorous behavior began, with a distortion or breakdown of the genetic messages in tooth and jaw formation. Some herbivorous creatures became carnivorous and were transformed similar to the caterpillar/butterfly transition. Much work needs to be done on this subject, and especially loss of genetic information. Lord willing, this will be my next effort. The radioactive elements probably made an even more disastrous debut on earth as they were spewed forth at the flood when the earth was torn asunder and "all the fountains of the deep burst open" (pg 148 "Buried Alive")


"What happened to the carnivores’ hinge jaws, razor sharp molars, and six-inch fangs? Did they use them to pounce on watermelons? How could they exist on vegetation? Don’t you suppose that they ate straw like an ox and had different masticatory systems, similar to what they will have again and do again in the new creation described in Isaiah 11:7 and 65:25?" (Pg 98-99 "Buried Alive" by Dr. Jack Cuozzo)

A scientists no less....thinks carnivores were plant eaters....what a maroon....(thats Bugs Bunny talk from the 40s).

MooooOOOOOoooooo!

Look at those teeth, obviously those were used to eat grass.


Now I know a big chunk of creationists were science deniers, but now this thread is opening my eyes that there's some of them that are math deniers too what with the dimensions of the ship and it's supposed ability to carry 2 of every species that ever walked the earth.

Silly boy,just by looking at those teeth you can determine whether the T-rex was a carnivore ? Wow you're a great scientist.

The T-rex could have been primarily a scavenger ,he had shallowly rooted teeth. Big sharp teeth are found on vegetarians too.

First off have you ever seen the teeth of a panda bear ? They're vegetarians.

And there is the Australian fruit bat what a savage looking creature. He flies around Australia and rips up and eats fruit.


Muskdeerskull,vegetarian.
http://www.nhc.ed.ac.uk/images/collections/mammals/ungulata/muskdeerskull.jpg


omnivorous hedgehog
http://chestofbooks.com/animals/Man...of-the-common-Hedgehog-Eriuaceus-Europaeu.jpg




The bible say's there was no death until the fall of adam. God gave the ok for them to start eating meat after the flood,both man and beast. that is when God said man and animals would be at odds with each other.


Man of science, another thing for you to consider. We creationist believe in Micro-adaptations changes within a species. We know this to be fact because of the darwins galapagos finches. When the droughts came the short beak finche was dying off through natural selection while the finche adapted by growing longer beaks and these finches flourished during times of drought. But what happened when the droughts were over hey the short beak finche made a come back so they were adapting back to what they once were. That is how you get so many finches not evolution but Micro-adaptations.

That is why we have so many different dog's,cat's,horses,monkey's, so on and so on.

 

[AllieBaba]

No they didn't get those animal instincts until after the flood they were vegetarians.

Gen 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons. And He said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.
Gen 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon the animals of the earth, and upon every bird of the air, upon all that moves on the earth, and upon all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered.
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herb.
Gen 9:4 But you shall not eat of flesh with the life in it, or the blood of it.


Humans and Animals were originally Created to eat Only Plants!




Abstract:
Sharp teeth were not part of the creation, they were part of the curse.

Adam, Eve and all the animals were created to eat only vegetation (see comments on Genesis 1:29-30). Nothing died prior to the spiritual fall of Adam and Eve (see comments on Genesis 3:19 and 3:21).



Did plants die in the Garden of Eden?


Plant "death" is different than animal or human death. Plants eat, drink, grow and respond to stimuli, but they do not have a central nervous system. Nor do they have blood. According to scripture only organisms with blood in them are "alive".

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood…”
Leviticus 17:11 (King James Version)

Plants do not die in the biblical sense of the word, because they are not "alive" in the biblical sense.

Humans and animals also posses a state of consciousness that plants can not. The Hebrew word "nephesh" is the word used in the Bible for consciousness. Nephesh is only used in application to man and animals. Plants are not conscious creatures.

Sin brought death to man and animals only. Plants do not truly die in the sense that humans and animals do. Though they are alive in a biological sense, they do not have a spirit, consciousness or soul.



What did animals who appear today as carnivorous eat in the Garden of Eden?

The Bible tells us that when he created the world, all animals ate only plants. But when we look at the animals in the world today we see that many of them have teeth that appear to have been designed for eating meat. Why is this so? Did animals with teeth and sabers once use them to eat vegetation? Or did their teeth change. And if so, how and when?




When we look at the teeth of the first humans (Neanderthals) we see that they had larger molars and smaller canine teeth than we do. They had thicker enamel (they would need this if they lived longer than we do), and had well worn third molars, or wisdom teeth.

God changed the diet of humans in Genesis 9 when Noah got off the ark. I believe that one of the reasons God did this was that many of the plants that had nourished man before the flood had now died off (or were not as plentiful after the flood). Plant degeneration would also effect the nutritional value of plants.





The diet and dentition of animals however changed before this as is evident from the fossil record.

Animal teeth

If animals were created to eat plants then why do many of them have structures that appear to be created to cause harm? Like Tigers, dogs, Etc.?

None of these harmful things existed prior to the curse God placed on the earth when Adam sinned.

Spiders did not spin webs to catch insects. This is one of the many changes that occurred after "the fall". There is no beneficial use for spider webs when spiders ate only plants.



The spiny puffer fish

The spiny puffer (Diodon holocanthus) fish combines pointy spikes with the ability to inflate three times its normal size as a defense mechanism. There would be nothing to defend itself against in a perfect world before sin.

It seems unlikely that God created animals with such harmful structures simply because he foreknew the entrance of sin and death in this world (through Adams sin).

Also the fossils of animals like Heterodontosaurus "Different-tooth Lizard" and simosuchus (sp), australopithecines etc indicate that many features of the masticatory systems did change in animals after the fall. Heterodontosaurus is a stage in between vegetarian and carnivorous.

These were mutational changes occurring only after the fall. This changed benign structures into harmful ones.



Isaiah 11:6-9

“The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.”
Isaiah 11:6-9 (King James Version)



Hosea 2:18

“And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely. “
Hosea 2:18-30 (King James Version)





One can not even imagine how such things would be useful in a sea of fish that never preyed on other fish. Surely the spiny puffer did not balloon up in order to frighten the vegetation God instructed it to eat.

No, these features (spikes etc) occurred after the fall along with a change of diet for this creature (it now eats: mollusks, crabs, etc.).




Dr. Jack Cuozzo explains one of the many ill effects that the original sin had on the earth:


"Therefore, it is logical to believe that after the Fall, all the harmful isotopes, rays, and gases must have been switched on when God said, "Cursed is the ground because of you" (Gen. 3:17). The restraint in the rocks was removed and the radioactive substances began to open up with a rapid burst, their harmful products possibly still at levels too deep for all of the damaging rays and gases to reach the surface. No doubt, though, some did break through and men and animals began to change immediately post-Fall.
I believe that this is how carnivorous behavior began, with a distortion or breakdown of the genetic messages in tooth and jaw formation. Some herbivorous creatures became carnivorous and were transformed similar to the caterpillar/butterfly transition. Much work needs to be done on this subject, and especially loss of genetic information. Lord willing, this will be my next effort. The radioactive elements probably made an even more disastrous debut on earth as they were spewed forth at the flood when the earth was torn asunder and "all the fountains of the deep burst open" (pg 148 "Buried Alive")


"What happened to the carnivores’ hinge jaws, razor sharp molars, and six-inch fangs? Did they use them to pounce on watermelons? How could they exist on vegetation? Don’t you suppose that they ate straw like an ox and had different masticatory systems, similar to what they will have again and do again in the new creation described in Isaiah 11:7 and 65:25?" (Pg 98-99 "Buried Alive" by Dr. Jack Cuozzo)

A scientists no less....thinks carnivores were plant eaters....what a maroon....(thats Bugs Bunny talk from the 40s).

MooooOOOOOoooooo!

Look at those teeth, obviously those were used to eat grass.


Now I know a big chunk of creationists were science deniers, but now this thread is opening my eyes that there's some of them that are math deniers too what with the dimensions of the ship and it's supposed ability to carry 2 of every species that ever walked the earth.

There weren't two of every species that ever walked on earth.

Try to keep it real there, skippy.

 

[Dr.Drock]

A scientists no less....thinks carnivores were plant eaters....what a maroon....(thats Bugs Bunny talk from the 40s).

MooooOOOOOoooooo!

Look at those teeth, obviously those were used to eat grass.


Now I know a big chunk of creationists were science deniers, but now this thread is opening my eyes that there's some of them that are math deniers too what with the dimensions of the ship and it's supposed ability to carry 2 of every species that ever walked the earth.

There weren't two of every species that ever walked on earth.

Try to keep it real there, skippy.

Very telling that you attack my wording, but constantly side with YWC and his assertions that a 145 foot boat carried 2 of every ANIMAL that ever existed, dinosaurs included, and that T-Rex, the sabertooth cat, lions, were all grass munching herbivores.

Skippy, lol kids these days. I'll give you credit though your childish name-calling tactics sound less angry now then they used to, are you on vacation?

 

[Woyzeck]

So your view is that the scientific community finds it to be a fact that a juvenile cow, t-rex, man and velociraptor were all on Noah's Ark and no deaths took place onboard?

Or that you can create and populate a whole species from one male and one female, for all species that were aboard the Ark.

"“Y-Chromosomal Adam” and “Mitochondrial Eve” are the scientifically-proven theories that every man alive today is descended from a single man and every man and woman alive today is descended from a single woman."

What are Y-Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve?

"
Because the Y chromosome is passed down exclusively from father to son, all human Y chromosomes today trace back to a single prehistoric father, "Y chromosomal Adam", whose time we can date to more than 100,000 years ago using statistical methods. "

Cambridge DNA Services - About Genetic Genealogy

I think we can rest assured the wise idiots know nothing of which they speak regarding science.

Exept that doesn't prove there was an Adam and Eve at all or that two humans are enough to populate the entire human species. Don't let the Adam and Eve names fool you, that's just a catchy title. In reality, Adam and Eve are the most recent common ancestors all humans have thier father's and mother's side respectively. Those aren't even actually the most recent common ancestor we actually have, but they are when it comes to the genes they gave us. In fact, in terms of Eve, she is the only unbroken genetic line of matrilineal descent.

The fact of the matter is, replying to my post that was about two humans populating the earth by themselves, as the Biblical duo did and then later Noah's family with about 6 more people, with that is incorrect. For starters, your own link says there were other men and women around at the time:

It is important to note that this does not prove that Y-Chromosomal Adam was the only man alive before he started having children. This only proves that his descendents are the only ones to have survived. Likewise, Mitochondrial Eve was not necessarily the only woman alive before having children. Rather, all we know for sure is that she is at least one of the ancestors of all living humans. While other contemporaries of her may or may not figure into the ancestry of living humans, we can at least say that none of their mitochondrial-DNA has survived.

Which would put the kibosh on anything saying the Bible Adam and Eve was true. After they all, they were the first and only. Anyway it's painfully clear these two weren't the only humans around. In fact, going further, guess what? They never mated. And you know what else? They didn't live at the same time! They lived thousands of years apart. How could they populate the human race from the two of them if they didn't even live at the same time?

I don't think you understand entirely what you posted. It does nothing to indicate an Adam and Eve, and in fact provides evidence against it. My point still stands. You can't populate an entire species from one male and female.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Look at those teeth, obviously those were used to eat grass.


Now I know a big chunk of creationists were science deniers, but now this thread is opening my eyes that there's some of them that are math deniers too what with the dimensions of the ship and it's supposed ability to carry 2 of every species that ever walked the earth.

There weren't two of every species that ever walked on earth.

Try to keep it real there, skippy.

Very telling that you attack my wording, but constantly side with YWC and his assertions that a 145 foot boat carried 2 of every ANIMAL that ever existed, dinosaurs included, and that T-Rex, the sabertooth cat, lions, were all grass munching herbivores.

Skippy, lol kids these days. I'll give you credit though your childish name-calling tactics sound less angry now then they used to, are you on vacation?

Not according to most Hebrew scholars.


Size comparison between average size one-story home and Noah's Ark. Illustration from The World that Perished.

How big was Noah's Ark?

"And God said unto Noah… Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt though make in the ark, and thou shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of… the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. A window shalt thou make in the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side therof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it." (Gen. 6:14-16)


A cubit is the distance between an adult's elbow and tip of the finger, no less than 18-inches [45.72 centimeters]. (Scene from The World that Perished.)

Most Hebrew scholars believe the cubit to have been no less than 18 inches long [45.72 centimeters]. This means that the ark would have been at least 450 feet long [137.16 meters], 75 feet wide [22.86 meters] and 45 feet high [13.716000000000001 meters]. Noah's Ark was said to have been the largest sea-going vessel ever built until the late nineteenth century when giant metal ships were first constructed. Its length to width ratio of six to one provided excellent stability on the high seas. In fact, modern shipbuilders say it would have been almost impossible to turn over. In every way, it was admirably suited for riding out the tremendous storms in the year of the flood.

These dimensions are especially interesting when compared to those given in the mythical, Babylonian account of the Ark. Here the ark is described as a perfect cube, extending 120 cubits in all directions and with nine decks. Such a vessel would spin slowly round and round in the water and from the standpoint of stability, would be a disaster.


Could Noah's Ark really hold all the animals that were supposed to be preserved from Flood?

 

[Dr.Drock]

There weren't two of every species that ever walked on earth.

Try to keep it real there, skippy.

Very telling that you attack my wording, but constantly side with YWC and his assertions that a 145 foot boat carried 2 of every ANIMAL that ever existed, dinosaurs included, and that T-Rex, the sabertooth cat, lions, were all grass munching herbivores.

Skippy, lol kids these days. I'll give you credit though your childish name-calling tactics sound less angry now then they used to, are you on vacation?

Not according to most Hebrew scholars.


Size comparison between average size one-story home and Noah's Ark. Illustration from The World that Perished.

How big was Noah's Ark?

"And God said unto Noah… Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt though make in the ark, and thou shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of… the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. A window shalt thou make in the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side therof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it." (Gen. 6:14-16)


A cubit is the distance between an adult's elbow and tip of the finger, no less than 18-inches [45.72 centimeters]. (Scene from The World that Perished.)

Most Hebrew scholars believe the cubit to have been no less than 18 inches long [45.72 centimeters]. This means that the ark would have been at least 450 feet long [137.16 meters], 75 feet wide [22.86 meters] and 45 feet high [13.716000000000001 meters]. Noah's Ark was said to have been the largest sea-going vessel ever built until the late nineteenth century when giant metal ships were first constructed. Its length to width ratio of six to one provided excellent stability on the high seas. In fact, modern shipbuilders say it would have been almost impossible to turn over. In every way, it was admirably suited for riding out the tremendous storms in the year of the flood.

These dimensions are especially interesting when compared to those given in the mythical, Babylonian account of the Ark. Here the ark is described as a perfect cube, extending 120 cubits in all directions and with nine decks. Such a vessel would spin slowly round and round in the water and from the standpoint of stability, would be a disaster.


Could Noah's Ark really hold all the animals that were supposed to be preserved from Flood?

Ok my apologies, it's equally crazy to think a 450 foot long boat could carry 2 of every species of dinosaur ever "created" along with every other animal, and it's even crazier still to say T-Rex, lions and sabertooth cats were grass munching herbivores.

The Bible saying it doesn't make it any less crazy.

 

[cbirch2]

My point is if we are all made up of elements in the universe how come there is no other life detected out there yet ?

So earlier you said don't discuss evolution with anyone who does not understand it,well i understand it .well let's see if we are a product of evolution or creation.

"if we are all made up of elements in the universe"

So wait....If im correct in understanding that, do you not believe everything in the universe is an element...?

Yes,but we are only made up of 6 major elements but as many as 28.

Wow. Everything you touch is an element. Theres 92 natural elements, and were made up of iron, phosphorus, calcium, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc etc. What are we made of that isnt an element??? What in the world have you ever touched that isnt an element. By definition you can only interact with elements.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Or that you can create and populate a whole species from one male and one female, for all species that were aboard the Ark.

"“Y-Chromosomal Adam” and “Mitochondrial Eve” are the scientifically-proven theories that every man alive today is descended from a single man and every man and woman alive today is descended from a single woman."

What are Y-Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve?

"
Because the Y chromosome is passed down exclusively from father to son, all human Y chromosomes today trace back to a single prehistoric father, "Y chromosomal Adam", whose time we can date to more than 100,000 years ago using statistical methods. "

Cambridge DNA Services - About Genetic Genealogy

I think we can rest assured the wise idiots know nothing of which they speak regarding science.

Exept that doesn't prove there was an Adam and Eve at all or that two humans are enough to populate the entire human species. Don't let the Adam and Eve names fool you, that's just a catchy title. In reality, Adam and Eve are the most recent common ancestors all humans have thier father's and mother's side respectively. Those aren't even actually the most recent common ancestor we actually have, but they are when it comes to the genes they gave us. In fact, in terms of Eve, she is the only unbroken genetic line of matrilineal descent.

The fact of the matter is, replying to my post that was about two humans populating the earth by themselves, as the Biblical duo did and then later Noah's family with about 6 more people, with that is incorrect. For starters, your own link says there were other men and women around at the time:

It is important to note that this does not prove that Y-Chromosomal Adam was the only man alive before he started having children. This only proves that his descendents are the only ones to have survived. Likewise, Mitochondrial Eve was not necessarily the only woman alive before having children. Rather, all we know for sure is that she is at least one of the ancestors of all living humans. While other contemporaries of her may or may not figure into the ancestry of living humans, we can at least say that none of their mitochondrial-DNA has survived.

Which would put the kibosh on anything saying the Bible Adam and Eve was true. After they all, they were the first and only. Anyway it's painfully clear these two weren't the only humans around. In fact, going further, guess what? They never mated. And you know what else? They didn't live at the same time! They lived thousands of years apart. How could they populate the human race from the two of them if they didn't even live at the same time?

I don't think you understand entirely what you posted. It does nothing to indicate an Adam and Eve, and in fact provides evidence against it. My point still stands. You can't populate an entire species from one male and female.

Let me give you a couple of scenarios in which i think you could be wrong.

Man was created perfect without blemish. Man according to the scriptures lived much longer then we do today. I believe God punished for us sin through our genetics. I think over time as there became more and more bad genes being passed back and for and the gene pool became filled with the defective genes we started dying much sooner. Through science and medicine we been able to improve the life expectancy for humans. But there are now many thousands of negative mutations thank God for Natural selection or we would all be deformed or dead.

So that being said,at that time inbreeding would have been safer until family's grew far enough apart that they could produce offspring that could be normal. Now for another scenario that i think piles on this thought is that God when he banished cain instead of destroying him he used him to help populate the earth. He sent him to the land of Nod and that is where he came upon his wife.

Maybe Adam and eve were the first and God's chosen line to produce his people and he simply did not mention that he created this other line of people that was in the land of Nod.







The Mitochondrial Clock:
The story of Mitochondrial Eve.

Does our mitochondrial DNA show that all humans came from the same mother? If so, did this mitochondrial Eve live 200,000 years ago or did she live at the calculated value of 6500 years ago? Portions of Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected yet there has been a lot of opposition to this possibility because it goes against the calculated speed of the molecular clock that is based on having chimpanzees and humans diverge 5 million years ago.

The FBI also got into the act by setting new guidelines for mtDNA, to account for a faster mutation rate. Panic filled the air as many saw that this new mtDNA data did not agree with established evolutionary rates of change. One letter to the editor (listed below) titled: "mtDNA mutation rates-no need to panic", shows the climate of the times. The "First International Workshop on Human Mitochondrial DNA was held in 1997 to look into the problems of mtDNA mutation rates.

Ann Gibbons reported on the workshop giving a very interesting introduction to problems as they were seen at that time: "Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock": Science Volume 279, Number 5347, January 2, 1998, pp. 28-29. The abstract for Ann Gibbons's article: "Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected, prompting new DNA forensics procedures and raising troubling questions about the dating of evolutionary events."

The following links will help introduce to you various aspects of the controversy.


Introduction to the Mitochondrial Eve story. Is it true that scientist have found the mother of us all? There are two opposing view points on the history of mankind. The Mitochondrial Eve story seems to support the "Out-of-Africa" viewpoint, while those who hold the "multi-regional continuity" theory, continue to point out the problems in the Eve research.


Is the Mitochondrial Clock speed faster than we thought? Some have calculated that the "mitochondrial Eve" probably lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. However it has been found that mtDNA can experience a much faster mutation rate. Using this faster mutation rate as a new clock speed, Eve can be calculated as living a mere 6500 or 6000 years ago.


A continuation of the Mitochondrial Eve story. Is the clock speed still faster than we thought? Is the idea of maternal mitochondrial inheritance correct? Or is the evidence for Recombination and Paternal inheritance of mitochondrial DNA a convincing argument? How dependable is the sperm mitochondria-specific translocator in destroying the sperm mitochondria DNA and establishing the maternal inheritance of mtDNA?


There are more articles you can look at dealing with this issue at Professor Browns site.

The Mitochondrial Clock: Is the clock speed faster than we thought? MHRC

 

[Youwerecreated]

Very telling that you attack my wording, but constantly side with YWC and his assertions that a 145 foot boat carried 2 of every ANIMAL that ever existed, dinosaurs included, and that T-Rex, the sabertooth cat, lions, were all grass munching herbivores.

Skippy, lol kids these days. I'll give you credit though your childish name-calling tactics sound less angry now then they used to, are you on vacation?

Not according to most Hebrew scholars.


Size comparison between average size one-story home and Noah's Ark. Illustration from The World that Perished.

How big was Noah's Ark?

"And God said unto Noah… Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt though make in the ark, and thou shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of… the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. A window shalt thou make in the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side therof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it." (Gen. 6:14-16)


A cubit is the distance between an adult's elbow and tip of the finger, no less than 18-inches [45.72 centimeters]. (Scene from The World that Perished.)

Most Hebrew scholars believe the cubit to have been no less than 18 inches long [45.72 centimeters]. This means that the ark would have been at least 450 feet long [137.16 meters], 75 feet wide [22.86 meters] and 45 feet high [13.716000000000001 meters]. Noah's Ark was said to have been the largest sea-going vessel ever built until the late nineteenth century when giant metal ships were first constructed. Its length to width ratio of six to one provided excellent stability on the high seas. In fact, modern shipbuilders say it would have been almost impossible to turn over. In every way, it was admirably suited for riding out the tremendous storms in the year of the flood.

These dimensions are especially interesting when compared to those given in the mythical, Babylonian account of the Ark. Here the ark is described as a perfect cube, extending 120 cubits in all directions and with nine decks. Such a vessel would spin slowly round and round in the water and from the standpoint of stability, would be a disaster.


Could Noah's Ark really hold all the animals that were supposed to be preserved from Flood?

Ok my apologies, it's equally crazy to think a 450 foot long boat could carry 2 of every species of dinosaur ever "created" along with every other animal, and it's even crazier still to say T-Rex, lions and sabertooth cats were grass munching herbivores.

The Bible saying it doesn't make it any less crazy.

Why are you willing to accept explanations from evolutionist that have no backing, but reject explanations of a creationist that looks at the same evidence ?

Use some common sense man,if you were in noahs shoes would you take juveniles or fully grown adults ?

You do know that most dinosaurs were about the size of a dog don't you ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

"if we are all made up of elements in the universe"

So wait....If im correct in understanding that, do you not believe everything in the universe is an element...?

Yes,but we are only made up of 6 major elements but as many as 28.

Wow. Everything you touch is an element. Theres 92 natural elements, and were made up of iron, phosphorus, calcium, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc etc. What are we made of that isnt an element??? What in the world have you ever touched that isnt an element. By definition you can only interact with elements.

Why So few elements ?

Because they were chosen by the creator.

While you're at it you guys keep throwing mathematic figures around to disprove why don't figure out the chances of non-living matter becoming living matter ?

 

[cbirch2]

You'll notice the OP is ALWAYS pushing the Bible, and telling EVERYBODY to read it. When we don't, he considers us ATTACKING the Bible.

He uses the Bible to attack non-christians calling us the anti-christ.

YIKES

And the moderates sit back and snooze.

OP has no idea about astronomy, genetics, evolution, biology, nuclear physics, or radiometric dating. He has nothing but vague notions of all of them. He only knows the generic talking points of creationist tards.

Lol atoms decayed at different rates in the past....no 8th grader with a general understanding of how atoms work would claim such things.

You really are brainwashed believing what you spew.

Let me show you why you believe lies. Most everything you believe is built on imagination.

Natural selection is what keeps the gene pool strong and helps keeping the group alive and removing the weaker genes and defective genes and of course mutations.

If there was no natural selection we and all organisms would die off.

Natural selection is what would work against evolution because it would remove mutations that are not solidified in the gene pool.

How could a non-thinking and non-intelligent natural process think and create all the vital organs it would take for an organism to live ?

Micro-adaptations;

Fact #1 produce the same kind of plant or animal because of the DNA code barrier. Never will a cow produce a non-cow.

Micro-adaptations ;

Fact #2 result from the sorting or the loss of genetic information.

Fact # 3 scientist know of no way for nature to add appreciable amounts of new & beneficial genetic information to a gene pool.

Neo-darwinism is based on three false assumptions.

1. Mutations create new & beneficial genetic data.
2. Natural selection lets the mutant gene take over the population.
3. Needs long ages for this to happen millions of years ,given enough time they claim a bacteria cell overcame the law of abiogenesis and all mathematical possibility and came to life and then mutated its way to everything alive now,whew talk about faith. and they say it ended up the thing they call the ultimate mutation,you and I.

Here is a problem for you darwinist.

All observed mutations after millions of observations,mutations are caused by the sorting or loss of pre-existing genetic data. This is Gene Depletion. Gene depletion applies to Micro-adaptations and mutations,so they get weaker and weaker until they're removed by Natural Selection.

NATURAL SELECTION PREVENTS EVOLUTION FROM BEING POSSIBLE.

So you're being taught mutations + Natural Selection leads to Neo-darwinian Evolution.

But real science reveals based on millions of observations; DNA code barrier + Gene depletion + Natural Selection is what prevents Macro-evolution. Macro-evolution is an impossibility.


Example; You see , when breeding you breed out information you're not breeding in new information.

Let's say you're breeding boxers two purebreds.well it took several different breeds to create the boxer to begin with, what happens is through natural selection every generation after the first two boxers they would breed out information and the gene pool gets smaller and smaller and than Natural Selection weeds out the information of the other dogs it took to create the boxer in the first place. So unless another breed is introduced to the gene pool those boxers will only have genetic information to produce boxers and this is factual evidence.


Since you probably subscribe to this Neo Darwinism and believe that Natural selection allows a mutant gene to take over a gene pool.

Since most mutations are neutral or harmful to the organism how come humans are not crippled ,deformed,or dead since Nathral selection would allow harmful mutations to take over a population according to your faulty belief ?

That was that stupidest thing ive ever heard.

Natural selection is mutation. If you think that a cow has to give birth to a non-cow your a ******* idiot, that would disprove evolution, not prove it. Evolution is based on genetic drift of entire segments of populations, not on one animal giving birth to a different one.

You obviously have no idea what your talking about with genetic mutations. What do you mean there are no beneficial genetic mutations? What do you mean the gene pool gets smaller? The gene pool is a reference to an entire population, not a single individual. Thats probably the stupidest thing ive ever heard. Your dog analagy was just wrong. The DNA cannot lose information during reproduction, if it did it wouldnt be a dog. I think your talking about recombination, which doesnt result in the loss of information.

The DNA of no single dog is mutated in any 'direction', good or bad, and evolution certainly doesnt weed out DNA from other species. A large portion of the human genome is remnants from million year old retroviral infections. Mutations in one single animal have no 'direction'. The replication of DNA in any single organism is totally random. The replication process itself is not what drives natural selection, competition is.

You say things like "Fact #1 produce the same kind of plant or animal because of the DNA code barrier. Never will a cow produce a non-cow."

But evolution doesnt claim that a cow will give birth to a non-cow. There is no such thing as a "DNA code barrier", thats a term you totally made up. After googling it i find it in a bunch of creationist websites, not one legitimate one. All dogs are the same species, meaning the DNA from one dog to another doesnt vary much more than it does from person to person. Meaning there is no need to weed out DNA from other species, even if it worked in such a sensible manner like that. The DNA that codes for the species dog in general would be the same, and the rest of the DNA that codes for physical traits would just mix and match. No information is going to be lost. You clearly dont understand what evolution is and thats why you dont understand it.

"Micro-adaptations ;

Fact #2 result from the sorting or the loss of genetic information.

Fact # 3 scientist know of no way for nature to add appreciable amounts of new & beneficial genetic information to a gene pool."

The problem is you have no idea what your talking about. Neither of those things are facts. Find me one reference thats says they are, they arent. The addition of genetic information, nitrogenous bases, is just one of the few types of mutation, like deletion, addition, translation, etc.

 

[AllieBaba]

Good grief, you just aren't very smart, are you?

And here I thought you were...

THE SMARTEST POSTER ON THE BOARD!!!

 

[editec]

Why do the anti God crowd attack the bible ?

If by "attack" you mean why do non-believers laugh at the logical inconsistencies found within the standard Christian Bible?

I don't know, really.

Perhaps because they were once harrassed by Christian idiots?

That would be my guess.

 

[cbirch2]

Not according to most Hebrew scholars.


Size comparison between average size one-story home and Noah's Ark. Illustration from The World that Perished.

How big was Noah's Ark?

"And God said unto Noah… Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt though make in the ark, and thou shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of… the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. A window shalt thou make in the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side therof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it." (Gen. 6:14-16)


A cubit is the distance between an adult's elbow and tip of the finger, no less than 18-inches [45.72 centimeters]. (Scene from The World that Perished.)

Most Hebrew scholars believe the cubit to have been no less than 18 inches long [45.72 centimeters]. This means that the ark would have been at least 450 feet long [137.16 meters], 75 feet wide [22.86 meters] and 45 feet high [13.716000000000001 meters]. Noah's Ark was said to have been the largest sea-going vessel ever built until the late nineteenth century when giant metal ships were first constructed. Its length to width ratio of six to one provided excellent stability on the high seas. In fact, modern shipbuilders say it would have been almost impossible to turn over. In every way, it was admirably suited for riding out the tremendous storms in the year of the flood.

These dimensions are especially interesting when compared to those given in the mythical, Babylonian account of the Ark. Here the ark is described as a perfect cube, extending 120 cubits in all directions and with nine decks. Such a vessel would spin slowly round and round in the water and from the standpoint of stability, would be a disaster.


Could Noah's Ark really hold all the animals that were supposed to be preserved from Flood?

Ok my apologies, it's equally crazy to think a 450 foot long boat could carry 2 of every species of dinosaur ever "created" along with every other animal, and it's even crazier still to say T-Rex, lions and sabertooth cats were grass munching herbivores.

The Bible saying it doesn't make it any less crazy.

Why are you willing to accept explanations from evolutionist that have no backing, but reject explanations of a creationist that looks at the same evidence ?

Use some common sense man,if you were in noahs shoes would you take juveniles or fully grown adults ?

You do know that most dinosaurs were about the size of a dog don't you ?

It doesnt matter the size, because theres still tens of thousands of species of mammals alone. Add reptiles and insects, thats hundreds of millions of species of animals on your boat.

Lol you say evolution has no evidence, but you dont even know enough about the subject to sound like you know what your talking about.

What do you say about those three hominid skulls that none of you want to comment on. What about Austrolipithicus, Homo Habilis, and Homo erectus. Those are just a few fossils between ape and man. How do you explain those?

 

[Youwerecreated]

"if we are all made up of elements in the universe"

So wait....If im correct in understanding that, do you not believe everything in the universe is an element...?

Yes,but we are only made up of 6 major elements but as many as 28.

Wow. Everything you touch is an element. Theres 92 natural elements, and were made up of iron, phosphorus, calcium, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc etc. What are we made of that isnt an element??? What in the world have you ever touched that isnt an element. By definition you can only interact with elements.

If we all evolved how come animals and humans are not made up of the same elements ? Why do animals have different elements helping with the the digestive system and other functions ?

Why would you mock my legitmate questions ?

 

[cbirch2]

Yes,but we are only made up of 6 major elements but as many as 28.

Wow. Everything you touch is an element. Theres 92 natural elements, and were made up of iron, phosphorus, calcium, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc etc. What are we made of that isnt an element??? What in the world have you ever touched that isnt an element. By definition you can only interact with elements.

Why So few elements ?

Because they were chosen by the creator.

While you're at it you guys keep throwing mathematic figures around to disprove why don't figure out the chances of non-living matter becoming living matter ?

Because the nucleus of the atom is unstable at higher masses. Not to mention all matter heavier than iron formed during the death of stars, which is why the higher elements are rare.

If god is the creator of the elements why can we create our own? There are about 20 elements heavier than the 92 natural ones that have only been synthetically produced through nuclear reactions.

Besides, the point of that post was to point out that you didnt know that everything in the universe was made of atoms, therefore made of elements. I could have told you that in 8th grade. your not intelligent enough to speak on these topics, that much is clear.

 

[cbirch2]

Yes,but we are only made up of 6 major elements but as many as 28.

Wow. Everything you touch is an element. Theres 92 natural elements, and were made up of iron, phosphorus, calcium, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc etc. What are we made of that isnt an element??? What in the world have you ever touched that isnt an element. By definition you can only interact with elements.

If we all evolved how come animals and humans are not made up of the same elements ? Why do animals have different elements helping with the the digestive system and other functions ?

Why would you mock my legitmate questions ?

'If we all evolved how come animals and humans are not made up of the same elements?' You clearly dont know what elements are....all life is mostly carbon, and hydrogen and oxygen in the form of water. All DNA is made of a sugar phosphate backbone and nitrogenous base pairs. All life is made of the same elements. Theres minor variation, like plants have a cellulose cell wall and animals do not. But life is pretty much made of all the same elements. Im pretty sure you dont know what elements are.

What different elements are helping with the digesting system. The digestive system doesnt just work on basic elements. If anything different animals use different enzymes to digest specific chemicals, but those enzymes are just built from atoms, and those atoms of the same elements that exist in our body and all around you every day. You only interact with probably about 30 different elements on a daily basis.

BTW the use of different enzymes evolved from being forced to eat a specific diet over millions of years.