Science vs. Creationism

[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.

 

[carolinajazz]

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.

....who's to say that toads and frogs were not on the ark? They could very well have been. What we do know is that our Creator said for Noah to bring in "2 of the unclean animals and 7 of the domestic ones." That would have been sufficient to repopulate the animal Kingdom to what we have today!
What do you not understand about reproduction? The USA is a relatively "new" country....been in existence for just over 200 years.....yet in that time period we have over 300,000,000 people (300 million....for people that don't "ob-la") living here now! SO your saying that 4,000 years of animal reproduction is a stretch?

And what is your specific question again about the koala bear? I'm sure it is a unique animal that absolutely rules out any possible "evolutionary" development whatsoever!

 

[MVP]

....who's to say that toads and frogs were not on the ark? They could very well have been. What we do know is that our Creator said for Noah to bring in "2 of the unclean animals and 7 of the domestic ones." That would have been sufficient to repopulate the animal Kingdom to what we have today!
What do you not understand about reproduction? The USA is a relatively "new" country....been in existence for just over 200 years.....yet in that time period we have over 300,000,000 people (300 million....for people that don't "ob-la") living here now! SO your saying that 4,000 years of animal reproduction is a stretch?

And what is your specific question again about the koala bear?

Dud are you drunk or smoking something? You are arguing in this all thread that evolution is not true yet you are trying to convince me and yourself that 10 pair of reptiles EVOLVED into thousands of reptile species ( not numbers but kinds we are talking ) in 4k years?
Nice escape about toads. So just few posts ago you mentioned numbers of reptiles, mammals and birds and said nothing about amphibians and now you twisting your tail and trying to tell that they MAY have been on ark. LMAO. And I laugh how you avoid or ignore simple questions. Again was koala on ark?

 

[MVP]

....who's to say that toads and frogs were not on the ark? They could very well have been. What we do know is that our Creator said for Noah to bring in "2 of the unclean animals and 7 of the domestic ones."

"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."

That's what you posted in few pages back. Getting mixed up between your creationist websites when doing copy/paste?

 

[carolinajazz]

"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."

That's what you posted in few pages back.

...when the Genesis account says "2 of the unclean" it's not specific in regard to the various "kinds" of unclean animals that were put on the ark. Could have easily been 2 snakes, maybe 2 venomous 2 non-venomous, 2 land turtles, 2 lizards, etc. etc. etc! Certainly there would have been enough room since such critters don't take up much space! In any case, we have the variety of creatures today, not because of some evolutionary process, but because of a Grand Creator that originally created them....and then made sure sufficient "kinds" survived the flood with Noah and his family.