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.