Science vs. Creationism

[carolinajazz]

If you think people lived along side dinosaurs.... you might be a creationist.

.....not true at all! Where did you come up with that idea? Dinosaurs were long gone before the creation of Adam and Eve! If some "Creationist" have drawn the conclusion that Dinosaurs co-existed with the first human couple, they didn't get that from the Genesis account! Dinosaurs were created on the 5th day and/or possibly the beginning of the 6th day. Those creative days were not 24 hours long but an un-determinable amount of time!


When the dinosaurs had fulfilled their purpose, God ended their life. But the Bible is silent on how he did that or when. We can be sure that dinosaurs were created by God for a purpose, even if we do not fully understand that purpose at this time. They were no mistake, no product of evolution. That they suddenly appear in the fossil record unconnected to any fossil ancestors, and also disappear without leaving connecting fossil links, is evidence against the view that such animals gradually evolved over millions of years of time. Thus, the fossil record does not support the evolution theory. Instead, it harmonizes with the Bible’s view of creative acts of God.

If you think jonah actually lived inside a whale for the better part of a week... you might be a creationist.(I think it was Jonah)

The whale shark is the largest of living fish, averaging some 25*feet [7.5*m] in length. However, some can reach nearly twice that size. Its mouth can be up to four feet [1.4*m] wide, easily capable of swallowing a man. But far from being a ferocious predator of other large sea creatures, this gentle giant feeds on tiny plankton and small fish. “The whale shark’s unusual digestive anatomy,” reported National Geographic magazine, “lends itself to Jonah stories,” referring to the Biblical incident about the prophet Jonah being swallowed by a great fish. Whale sharks have “a nonviolent way of getting rid of large objects of dubious digestibility they swallow accidentally.”—Jonah 1:17; 2:10.

“The whale shark’s unusual digestive anatomy lends itself to Jonah stories. It is easy to imagine yourself being inadvertently sucked into a whale shark’s mouth, which is huge .*.*. The cavernous mouth of even a small adult whale shark could easily accommodate a pair of Jonahs.”

The whale shark feeds on tiny plankton and krill, which “wash down through the esophagus into the immense and elastic banquet hall that is the cardiac stomach.” Yet, how could anyone get out? National Geographic says: “Sharks have a nonviolent way of getting rid of large objects of dubious digestibility they swallow .*.*. A shark can slowly empty its cardiac stomach by turning it inside out and pushing it through the mouth. .*.*. So, you could come gliding out on a mucus-covered carpet, slimier but perhaps wiser for the experience.”

Because of its large head and gullet, the sperm whale is capable of swallowing a man. Although whales are rare in the Mediterranean, whalers once docked at Joppa.

If you think the earth is thousands of years old... you might be a creationist.

The opening words of Genesis tell us: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) Do these words of Genesis say that this happened about ten thousand years ago? No, it gives no time period. “The beginning” could therefore have been billions of years ago.

Was each one of those six days a literal 24-hour day? That is not what Genesis says. The word “day” in the Hebrew language (the language in which Genesis was written) can mean long periods of time, even thousands, perhaps millions of years.


If you think two of each "kind" spent forty days on a wooden boat at altitudes of 23,000+ feet.... you might be a creationist.

It is true that encyclopedias refer to over a million species of animals. But Noah was instructed to preserve only representatives of every “kind” of land animal and flying creature. Some investigators have said that just 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles could have produced the great variety of species of these creatures that are known today. The ark had about 40,000 cu m (1,400,000 cu ft) of usable space—ample for the passenger list

....were did you get the "altitudes of 23,000+ feet"???

 

[♪alt13]

....were did you get the "altitudes of 23,000+ feet"???

fyi I can't quote you when you put your response inside the quotation.

I'm glad to see your not so crazy as to believe in a Flintstones past. Why did I reference that? The creation "museum".

Living for days inside a whale. lol

I'm also glad that you don't accept ridiculous age of the earth estimates based on a biblical account of years from adam to abraham.

The ark story is sooooo outlandish that I cannot believe that anyone takes it srsly.

Everest is that high.

 

[MVP]

Everest is that high.

Based on that legend Noah's arc ended up on mount Ararat ( which makes no sense as there were higher mountains in the area) . Nobody ever mentions Everest in that myth.

 

[♪alt13]

Based on that legend Noah's arc ended up on mount Ararat ( which makes no sense as there were higher mountains in the area) . Nobody ever mentions Everest in that myth.

If it flooded the whole world. Must have flooded all of tibet and left the sinful tibetans nowhere to run.

 

[MVP]

If it flooded the whole world. Must have flooded all of tibet and left the sinful tibetans nowhere to run.

nah.. humans have not migrated to Asia, America or Oceania based on that myth yet. We were all repopulated by Noah and his arc survivors lol.

 

[LogGrad98]

Based on that legend Noah's arc ended up on mount Ararat ( which makes no sense as there were higher mountains in the area) . Nobody ever mentions Everest in that myth.

Just because there are higher mountains than Ararat does not mean it would be impossible for the ark to end up there. What do you think the ark was built with some kind of "tallest mountain" magnet that forced it to constantly hover above the tallest possible point under the water, so landing on Ararat would be ridiculous?

 

[MVP]

Just because there are higher mountains than Ararat does not mean it would be impossible for the ark to end up there. What do you think the ark was built with some kind of "tallest mountain" magnet that forced it to constantly hover above the tallest possible point under the water, so landing on Ararat would be ridiculous?

Well if it flooded whole world and only survivors were on Noah's arc it would make sense that they landed on highest mountain in the area. If not, means there was a possibility for numerous life forms including humans to survive on higher mountains than Ararat ( more than 200 at least). Thus all this myth is just a myth without any value at the end of the day.

 

[LogGrad98]

Well if it flooded whole world and only survivors were on Noah's arc it would make sense that they landed on highest mountain in the area. If not, means there was a possibility for numerous life forms including humans to survive on higher mountains than Ararat ( more than 200 at least). Thus all this myth is just a myth without any value at the end of the day.

No, it doesn't make sense that it could have only landed on the highest mountain. Maybe as the water receded they saw the highest mountain start poking out of the water and decided it was a bad place to land so they figured out how to steer around it so they wouldn't land there. Or maybe they were nowhere near the tallest mountain when the water started to recede and therefore they ended up on Ararat because it was the closest mountain to where they were. By that logic they should have landed on Everest but they were thousands of miles from there so of course they didn't.

 

[carolinajazz]

Just because there are higher mountains than Ararat does not mean it would be impossible for the ark to end up there. What do you think the ark was built with some kind of "tallest mountain" magnet that forced it to constantly hover above the tallest possible point under the water, so landing on Ararat would be ridiculous?

....excellent point! And to substantiate your observation I give you this!

For the Flood to have happened, the pre-Flood sea basins would have to have been shallower, and the mountains lower than they are now. Is this possible? Well, one textbook says: “Where the mountains of the world now tower to dizzy heights, oceans and plains once, millions of years ago, stretched out in flat monotony. .*.*. The movements of the continental plates cause the land both to rear up to heights where only the hardiest of animals and plants can survive and, at the other extreme, to plunge and lie in hidden splendor deep beneath the surface of the sea.” Since the mountains and sea basins rise and fall, it is apparent that at one time the mountains were not as high as they are now and the great sea basins were not as deep.

What happened to the floodwaters after the Flood? They must have drained into the sea basins. How? Scientists believe that the continents rest on huge plates. Movement of these plates can cause changes in the level of the earth’s surface. In some places today, there are great underwater abysses more than six miles [more than 10*km] deep at the plate boundaries. It is quite likely that—perhaps triggered by the Flood itself—the plates moved, the sea bottom sank, and the great trenches opened, allowing the water to drain off the land.

So, is the idea of the whole earth’s being flooded too farfetched? Not really. Indeed, to some extent the earth is still flooded. Seventy percent of it is covered by water and only 30*percent is dry land. Moreover, 75*percent of the earth’s fresh water is locked up in glaciers and polar ice caps. If all this ice were to melt, the sea level would rise much higher. Cities like New York and Tokyo would disappear!

Another evidence for the Flood appears to exist in the fossil record. At one time, according to this record, great saber-toothed tigers stalked their prey in Europe, horses larger than any now living roamed North America, and mammoths foraged in Siberia. Then, all around the world, species of mammals became extinct. At the same time, there was a sudden change of climate. Tens of thousands of mammoths were killed and quick-frozen in Siberia. Alfred Wallace, the well-known contemporary of Charles Darwin, considered that such a widespread destruction must have been caused by some exceptional worldwide event.19 Many have argued that this event was the Flood.

 

[carolinajazz]

The ark story is sooooo outlandish that I cannot believe that anyone takes it srsly.

.....the theory of evolution is soooooo outlandish that I cannot believe that anyone with half a brain takes it srsly!

Such an awesome catastrophe, if it really happened, would never have been completely forgotten. Hence, in many nations there are reminders of that destruction. Consider, for example, the precise date recorded in the Scriptures. The second month of the ancient calendar ran from what we now call mid-October to mid-November. So the 17th day corresponds approximately to the first of November. It may not be a coincidence, then, that in many lands, festivals for the dead are celebrated at that time of year.

Other evidences of the Deluge linger in mankind’s traditions. Practically all ancient peoples have a legend that their ancestors survived a global flood. African Pygmies, European Celts, South American Incas—all have similar legends, as do peoples of Alaska, Australia, China, India, Lithuania, Mexico, Micronesia, New Zealand, and parts of North America, to mention only a few.

Of course, over time the legends have been embellished, but they all include several details indicating a common source narrative: God was angered by mankind’s wickedness. He brought a great flood. Mankind as a whole was destroyed. A few righteous ones, however, were preserved. These built a vessel in which humans and animals were saved. In time, birds were sent out to search for dry land. Finally, the vessel came to rest on a mountain. Upon disembarking, the survivors offered a sacrifice.

What does this prove? The similarities cannot possibly be coincidental. The combined evidence of these legends corroborates the Bible’s ancient testimony that all humans descend from the survivors of a flood that destroyed a world of mankind. Hence, we do not need to rely on legends or myths to know what happened. We have the carefully preserved record in the Hebrew Scriptures of the Bible.—Genesis, chapters 6-8.

 

[MVP]

No, it doesn't make sense that it could have only landed on the highest mountain. Maybe as the water receded they saw the highest mountain start poking out of the water and decided it was a bad place to land so they figured out how to steer around it so they wouldn't land there. Or maybe they were nowhere near the tallest mountain when the water started to recede and therefore they ended up on Ararat because it was the closest mountain to where they were. By that logic they should have landed on Everest but they were thousands of miles from there so of course they didn't.

You did not answer my second point. If they landed on Ararat there were at least 200 or more higher mountains for other life forms to survive, thus all this Noah story is just a nice tale.. And I have suspicion Ararat was quite a few thousands miles away from where Noah lived as well - or was he turkish or armenian?
I can't even believe we are discussing validity of this myth. How about Minotaur or Medusa Gorgon? Sounds more legit than Noah's tale.

 

[MVP]

... At one time, according to this record, great saber-toothed tigers stalked their prey in Europe, horses larger than any now living roamed North America, and mammoths foraged in Siberia. Then, all around the world, species of mammals became extinct. At the same time, there was a sudden change of climate. Tens of thousands of mammoths were killed and quick-frozen in Siberia. Alfred Wallace, the well-known contemporary of Charles Darwin, considered that such a widespread destruction must have been caused by some exceptional worldwide event.19 Many have argued that this event was the Flood.

Dude it was Ice Age not flood. Enough with this myth.

 

[LogGrad98]

You did not answer my second point. If they landed on Ararat there were at least 200 or more higher mountains for other life forms to survive, thus all this Noah story is just a nice tale.. And I have suspicion Ararat was quite a few thousands miles away from where Noah lived as well - or was he turkish or armenian?
I can't even believe we are discussing validity of this myth. How about Minotaur or Medusa Gorgon? Sounds more legit than Noah's tale.

I am purely arguing the logic of your claim that they could ONLY have landed on a taller mountain than ararat. What do other life forms surviving have to do with where the ark landed? That makes no sense. Because it landed on a smaller mountain then other life forms must have survived? Logically that makes no sense. What if it drifted far enough that it landed in a valley when the waters went away, or what if it ended up floating on one of the actual oceans. WHERE the ark landed in the end has absolutely NOTHING to do with how other life forms could have survived.

 

[MVP]

WHERE the ark landed in the end has absolutely NOTHING to do with how other life forms could have survived.

Absolutely it does. Since based on the myth all life survived inside the ark and repopulated the earth . Gen. 7:21-23 says every land creature not aboard the ark perished. While LOGIC says that if there there must have been numerous mountains some of them about 9000 FT higher than Ararat where life had perfect chance of surviving in case of the flood. Based on ridiculous numbers carolinajazz pulled out of some myth book only 10 pairs of reptiles was enough to restore all reptile kingdom in the world, lol. BTW he never mentioned any land dwelling amphibians as if they are not present in today's animal kingdom. Guess they ( ding, ding ding!!!!) evolved from fish since flood? How about Koalas and other marsupials? Did Noah shipped them from Australia to save them? The more you look into this myth the more it tells you that it is just a nice tale, legend, myth without any base. I get when carolinajazz arguing about it but is is kind of sad that you are trying to take it seriously.

 

[LogGrad98]

Absolutely it does. Since based on the myth all life survived inside the ark and repopulated the earth . Gen. 7:21-23 says every land creature not aboard the ark perished. While LOGIC says that if there there must have been numerous mountains some of them about 9000 FT higher than Ararat where life had perfect chance of surviving in case of the flood. Based on ridiculous numbers carolinajazz pulled out of some myth book only 10 pairs of reptiles was enough to restore all reptile kingdom in the world, lol. BTW he never mentioned any land dwelling amphibians as if they are not present in today's animal kingdom. Guess they ( ding, ding ding!!!!) evolved from fish since flood? How about Koalas and other marsupials? Did Noah shipped them from Australia to save them? The more you look into this myth the more it tells you that it is just a nice tale, legend, myth without any base. I get when carolinajazz arguing about it but is is kind of sad that you are trying to take it seriously.

That's not logic, that is an assumption. You are assuming that because the ark may have landed on ararat then the flood never got any higher than ararat. What if it did? What if it got 5 miles higher than everest, then when the waters receded the ark just happened to land on ararat.

Notice I am not arguing about whether the flood happened or not, I am just questioning your "logic" that if the ark landed on ararat then the flood never got any higher than that. That is an assumption and has nothing to do with logic and in the end disproves nothing.

 

[VINYLONE]

Currently listening to this:

https://www.wnyc.org/radio/#/ondemand/371229

It's a quick listen at 13 minutes. I thought it might fit in this discussion you all are having.

Today, the story of one little thing that has radically changed what we know about humanity’s humble beginnings and the kinds of creatures that were out to get us way back when.

Wits University Professor Lee Berger and Dr. Chris Stringer from London’s Natural History Museum explain how a child’s skull, found in an ancient cave, eventually helped answer one of our oldest questions: Where do we come from? Then Lee takes us on a journey to answer a somewhat smaller question: how did that child die? Along the way, we visit Dr. Bernhard Zipfel at Wits University in Johannesburg to actually hold the skull itself.

 

[carolinajazz]

You did not answer my second point. If they landed on Ararat there were at least 200 or more higher mountains for other life forms to survive, thus all this Noah story is just a nice tale.. And I have suspicion Ararat was quite a few thousands miles away from where Noah lived as well - or was he turkish or armenian?

....I can't, for the life of me, figure out how AKMVP KNOWS exactly how high ANY mountain was some 4,000 plus years ago? I'm just spit balling here, but I'm guessing you were not an eye witness....were you? You and your evolutionary buddies just love to throw out astronomical numbers and years and then try and fit them to your preposterous cockamamie theories and ideas of what happened when and how! Are you an "authority" on something that took place thousands of years ago? I'm giving you a written record based on eye witness accounts that has been substantiated a half dozen different ways! You give us wild guess work and assumptions based on preconceived ideas that have been debated and disagreed upon by the same so-called "experts" you put so much faith in!

 

[MVP]

....I can't, for the life of me, figure out how AKMVP KNOWS exactly how high ANY mountain was some 4,000 plus years ago? I'm just spit balling here, but I'm guessing you were not an eye witness....were you? You and your evolutionary buddies just love to throw out astronomical numbers and years and then try and fit them to your preposterous cockamamie theories and ideas of what happened when and how! Are you an "authority" on something that took place thousands of years ago? I'm giving you a written record based on eye witnesses accounts that has been substantiated a half dozen different ways! You give us wild guess work and assumptions based on preconceived ideas that have been debated and disagreed upon by the same so-called "experts" you put so much faith in!

Ahahaha, to funny.... written record of uneducated dark people who though earth is flat. You know natives just about 600 years ago thought of Spanish conquistadors as Gods and worshiped them. You know Greek mythology is a bit younger than that "written record" of yours - lets believe in Centaurs, Minotaurs, Cyclops and Medusa Gorgon.
What happened to toads who where not on ark according to your myth and perished. Where did they came back from. And 4000 years according to you was enough for 10 reptile pairs to create all reptile kingdom today? Do you even understand how stupid you sound???

 

[carolinajazz]

Ahahaha, to funny.... written record of uneducated dark people who though earth is flat.

The Bible indicated and recorded that the earth was ROUND or a "circle" thousands of years ago, way before the advent of high powered binoculars and telescopes!
(Isaiah 40:21-23) 21 Do YOU people not know? Do YOU not hear? Has it not been told to YOU from the outset? Have YOU not applied understanding from the foundations of the earth? 22 There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell, 23 the One who is reducing high officials to nothing, who has made the very judges of the earth as a mere unreality.


What happened to toads who where not on ark according to your myth and perished. Where did they came back from.

Do a little more research....before you blurt out your foolishness! Check out this link! I like point number 5, don't you?. Ability to lay eggs in all kinds of water bodies

https://www.livescience.com/6055-7-terrific-toad-survival-tactics.html

....and remember, oh, you already forgot? Animals can reproduce way faster than humans, and especially is that the case with Reptiles! I go to reptile shows all the time....and these guys are able to morph out various colors in just a couple of years of trying! 4,000 years is PLENTY of time to reproduce all the various kinds of reptiles we have today! Remember, given enough time ANYTHING can be accomplished, right? (I wanted to call you a "Galactically stupid numbnut.....but have refrained from doing so!)

 

[MVP]

....and remember, oh, you already forgot? Animals can reproduce way faster than humans, and especially is that the case with Reptiles! I go to reptile shows all the time....and these guys are able to morph out various colors in just a couple of years of trying! 4,000 years is PLENTY of time to reproduce all the various kinds of reptiles we have today!)

Your stupidity is reaching new highs with every new post. I just can't wait for more. I find it hypocritical that you say few millions of years is" sudden" appearance when arguing about fossil records yet 4000 years is enough for thousands of species to happen from 10 pair of reptiles? DO YOU EVEN COMPREHEND HOW RIDICULOUS YOU ARE?
About toads an other amphibians who do not live in water. They drown. Had the flood happened and they were not on ark according to your little myth, no toads, tree frogs, horned frogs ( or pacman frogs) had survived. They all should have perished. Since they all are well and sound we can put another nail in the coffin of flood myth.
And I am still waiting for answer about koalas.