Helix wrote:And why? Because it is incomprehensible for a most on this forum that a book can contain data that might not be correct! Early men, both christians and non-christians alike, have believed that the world was flat. We now know it isn't. This does not mean early men were stupid, it means they had no way of knowing it WASN'T round before.
Actually you are incorrect. The ancient Greeks did not believe the world was flat. Read some of Unconvinced's posts, he seems to have a better grasp of historical truth than you do.
Now tell me, how can anyone of the writers of the old testament know for certain what happened? (Let me guess, it was god who told them, or perhaps they had an oral tradition about remembering epic stories.) There is no mention of dinosaurs in the bible (becasue they are a relatively new discovery), but - in the interest of proving the bible right - it is said that dinosaurs WERE indeed around. (The bible doesn't explicitly say they DIDN'T exist, so it's alright to speculate on this) They were put on the Ark in pairs as well:
The leviathan and the behemouth could very well be dinosaurs. The Bible is not a science textbook. You are assuming a lot and doing the same thing you accuse Christians of doing.
Article on problems with the great flood wrote: According to the Bible, Noah took samples of all animals alive at the time of the Flood. If, as creationists claim, all fossil-bearing strata were deposited by the Flood, then all the animals which became fossils were alive then. Therefore all extinct land animals had representatives aboard the ark.
Here's another quote:
Article on problems with the great flood wrote: The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?
A secular lab that tests ship design decided to see if the ark was a sea worthy vessel. They built a scale model of the ark based on Biblical information and discovered the ark would have been a remarkable barge that could withstand the worst nature could throw at it. No matter what conditions they used the ark could not be swamped. Any ocean going vessel that is hit from the side can be swamped, which is why such vessels head into a wave; but the ark could withstand a side impact and not overturn. Secular science performed these experiments over 30 years ago, but I don't suppose it is being reported in our time since this is not something atheists want to accept.
Both quotes came from
thispage
There are countless other details that just don't add up Naoh had to load an animal into the Ark every 38 seconds if we start calculating with the time given to Noah and the amount of animals the bible says there were. The mass of all of these animals would have sank the ship. The crew to care for these animals was too small. There had to food for all of the animals. What did carnivores eat? (No, they can't be vegetarians. They would not survive - or simply refuse to eat - a herbivorous diet.) Then there are genetic variations within the species we see around us (species that 'suvived' becasue of the ark) that have more variation in their genes than one would expect from animals that we bread from only two parent. (Noah's 2 animals) How would Noah have bought pairs of huge animals (not just elephants, but also brachiosaurs and indricotheriums and, oh yes, all sorts of tyrannosaur-like predators? I'm not even going to start with the whole inbreading problem that would follow. And what did the predators eat when they reached land after 40 days of starvation? They would have killed entire species with every meal they caught!
Lots and lots of assumptions based on lots and lots of assumptions. Before the time of Noah animals were vegeterians. BTW, you cannot disprove this even by appealing to the fossil record.
You support evolution and then deny evolution to support your thesis that the flood as recorded in Scripture is a myth. Do you accept anthropology as a viable science? If you do then maybe you should study what anthropology teaches about cultural myths and legends before you continue you uninformed rants in support of theories that cannot be empirically established as truth.
The paragraph above is based on what is written
here
I find it hard to believe that anyone can seriously believe this STORY, because in my opninion, it's only a story. When people try to 'proof it with science' they draw all sorts of conclusions ('dinosaurs were around') that appear as desperate and in some cases ridiculous attempts to construct a logical story
Is that what you call 'faith'? Believing in fairy tales you KNOW are not true?
As the blind calling the faithful blind. Again, real science does not contradict Biblical truth. Only those who are so desperate to disprove the Bible but "faith" in "fairy tales" based on "theories" that can be supported only when certain factors in formulas are defined as constants.
If truth is really important to you and others then get into a study of truth and not "fairy tales" dressed up in the wrappings of the god of science.
If Talk Origins is your only source of information then I suggest you expand your horizens and read other scientific sources that are willing to seek truth.