Could Noah's Ark hold all the animals?

[TheDon]

You have to understand here, that its hard for a scientist with great academic record to side with creation...Its would almost dishonour him/her in the field of which they operate.

No, it's not.

It's easy.

First you go find some evidence, then you publish a scientific paper stating such evidence and put forward a theory based on it.

Yet no creationist ever goes for publication in a scientific journal because they never meet the criteria, that being, having evidence to back up their claims.

What it's hard to do is to put out claims based on pure fiction with no real evidence and expect to be taken seriously by the scientific community.

You're talking like the scientific community is some closed group of atheists who constantly denounce god. It's not, it's open to anyone, even people who never want to university. You just have to be able to support your ideas.

And trust me here, there's nothing the scientific community loves more than the idea that someone will come along and provide evidence against a long established theory that has universal support, because that's what science is all about. It's not about a group of people that all believe the same thing getting together and patting each other on the back.

[steaknchips]

Look at the bottom of this page, all the sources are evident in writing..

http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/

God that article is bad.

I especially like the section on entropy. One of creationists favourite weapons... except it's complete crap and is just based on a flawed understanding of what entropy is.

Entropy is a measure of the amount of ways a system can achieve a certain state.

For instance, if a throw a load of marbles onto my bed they're probably going to end up fairly evenly distributed across it in a fairly random pattern. That state has high entropy, that is, a high chance it'll occur.

There's also a chance that they'll land in a perfect image of Jesus Christ our lord and saviour, but there's not very many ways that can happen, so it has low entropy.

Systems tend towards having high entropy simply due to there being more chance of them occurring. If I pick up my marbles that formed the face of Jesus Christ our lord and saviour and threw them again, they'll probably land in a random pattern. But there's also a chance they'll land in a representation of the Virgin Mary holy mother of God, maybe even a more lifelike representation than the first, leading to a decrease in entropy.

That doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics (that being that over time systems will tend towards high entropy) for a key reason, we're looking at a localised section of an open system. The second law of thermodynamics deals with CLOSED systems, not localised events. To show that evolution is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics you'd have to prove that the entropy of the entire universe decreased as a result of it. And it hasn't, because the events that need to occur for evolution result in an increase in entropy elsewhere in the system. The overall effect will be an increase in entropy, despite the fact that on a local level entropy might have increased.

To see just how absurd the argument that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics is you only have to look as far as pregnancy.

In pregnancy there is a dramatic change from a high entropy to a low entropy system. Sperm and eggs are extremely high entropy. The early stages of cell division are extremely high entropy. Then entropy continuously decreases throughout the term of the pregnancy.

If evolution violated the second law of thermodynamics you wouldn't be here today because pregnancy would as well.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html

[steaknchips]

You have to understand here, that its hard for a scientist with great academic record to side with creation...Its would almost dishonour him/her in the field of which they operate.

No, it's not.

It's easy.

First you go find some evidence, then you publish a scientific paper stating such evidence and put forward a theory based on it.

Yet no creationist ever goes for publication in a scientific journal because they never meet the criteria, that being, having evidence to back up their claims.

What it's hard to do is to put out claims based on pure fiction with no real evidence and expect to be taken seriously by the scientific community.

You're talking like the scientific community is some closed group of atheists who constantly denounce god. It's not, it's open to anyone, even people who never want to university. You just have to be able to support your ideas.

And trust me here, there's nothing the scientific community loves more than the idea that someone will come along and provide evidence against a long established theory that has universal support, because that's what science is all about. It's not about a group of people that all believe the same thing getting together and patting each other on the back.

Kurt Wise nearly kicked out of Harvard, just for believing in creation...Proves Science dont like it...Gould was the one that wanted him to stay, as he was a very bright student.

[bickster]

The scientists are just normal scientists that believe in creation rather than evolution..

No most of them got their degrees by mail order

A great example of a non creationist scientist thats become questionable over the scientific method(evolution) is Michael Denton..

This will be the Michael Denton - Author of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, who is still to this day a scientist that believes in evolution albeit in a non-Darwian way.

You have to understand here, that its hard for a scientist with great academic record to side with creation...Its would almost dishonour him/her in the field of which they operate.

And you have to understand here that, there is a good reason for this.

[TheDon]

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html

Read what I said and understand instead of linking to another page that makes the same crap argument making the same idiotic misunderstandings about basic scientific principles.

I can google a ton of pages showing they're wrong about evolution violating the 2nd law, but I'm not going to bother, because you could do it if you wanted to, but you don't, because you're a close minded idiotic fool.

Like I said, if evolution violates the 2nd law, so does pregnancy. Are you here today as a result of pregnancy?

[NowDoINotLikeThat]

well could you do a quick summery?

Dinosaurs lived with man. They were just called different names, amongst them was tanniyn, bahemowth and livyathan.

The earth is less than 10000 years old.(accurate age would be between 6000-7000 years old)..

After the global flood the earth has been populated by the contents of the seas and the Ark.

Right....and you are saying these were killed in the flood?

Leviathan the sea beast ...i thought was a demon?

are you saying dinosaurs were demons ??

[steaknchips]

Some where killed in the flood.The ones that lived didnt last long, food was scarce..

The names for all the dinosaurs came in recent times..

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

lol

[steaknchips]

Nothing as been dis-proven as of yet in the bible..

It mentions a global flood, the evidence is here of such...But scientists wont accept the easy answer written in scripture.

It also mentions that the earth will end in fire(would you back against it?).

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

[Sie]

Kurt Wise nearly kicked out of Harvard, just for believing in creation...Proves Science dont like it...Gould was the one that wanted him to stay, as he was a very bright student.

The language you use in your posts like this is very telling, referring to science as if it were a rival conspiring against your position. In fact, I'm pretty convinced this is exactly what you think.

And Kurt Wise being removed from an academic institution for being non-academic when (mis)representing them is just that. It doesn't prove or even suggest anything remotely approaching "science don't like creation".

Some where killed in the flood.The ones that lived didnt last long, food was scarce..

The names for all the dinosaurs came in recent times..

You couldn't make it up coul....oh wait, you just did. My bad.

[bickster]

Nothing as been dis-proven as of yet in the bible..

It mentions a global flood, the evidence is here of such...But scientists wont accept the easy answer written in scripture.

Where is the evidence for this global flood then and I don't mean the Bible mentions it, I mean actual real proper, researched proof with facts and supporting evidence etc

[Sie]

Nothing as been dis-proven as of yet in the bible..

It mentions a global flood, the evidence is here of such...But scientists wont accept the easy answer written in scripture.

Where is the evidence for this global flood then and I don't mean the Bible mentions it, I mean actual real proper, researched proof with facts and supporting evidence etc

Link to creationist website in 5...4...3..2...

[ED]

So what is the name of your branch of christianity?

Its difficult to explain but I dont put myself into a brand/branch, cult, sect, etc..They are all money grabbing, corrupt, broken in my eyes.

Im just a christian that believes the bible as it is written literally..

Why? The Bible is a collection of scriptures some random blokes decided to put together over a period of a few hundred years. It's just stories

[TheDon]

Some where killed in the flood.The ones that lived didnt last long, food was scarce..

....Good look eating a t **** rex.

Gonna be interesting trying to get into a stegosaurus too, anyone have a can opener?

Do you not see how dumb this idea is?

Rather than eating the nice soft animals, they went for the ones with **** armour.

[NowDoINotLikeThat]

Some where killed in the flood.The ones that lived didnt last long, food was scarce..

The names for all the dinosaurs came in recent times..

OK so you are saying Leviathan , Behemoth were dinosaurs.

Leviathan was beast of the sea speciifcally is refered to as a demon isn't it ?

Even makes a reappearance in Book of Revelations

So in your take - you believe dinosaurs to be demons??

:?

[Eames]

So what is the name of your branch of christianity?

Its difficult to explain but I dont put myself into a brand/branch, cult, sect, etc..They are all money grabbing, corrupt, broken in my eyes.

Im just a christian that believes the bible as it is written literally..

Ok, I'll run with this.

How then do you explain then that 4 gospels are flawed and contradictory accounts of the same events? That none can agree on who was present at the resurrection? That the Council of Nicea edited and agreed the versions of the Gospels that would ultimately appear in the Bible?

Do you throw your mother, wife, girlfriend out of the house once a month for 5 days whilst she is unclean? Do you condone the stoning of adulterers?

You don't.

I admire people of faith, and some of the values espoused by the Abrahamic religions are indeed noble and worthy. But I also believe you are just a pisstaker. Albeit a good one.

If I.wanted some fundamentalist nutcases opinion I'd have googled it. I want your opinions. Your reasoning, not well researched epigrams.

Any Christian apologetics site can answer all these questions you have..I suggest this one. Its fair and well researched.

http://carm.org/

[steaknchips]

Some were killed in the flood.The ones that lived didnt last long, food was scarce..

....Good look eating a t **** rex.

Gonna be interesting trying to get into a stegosaurus too, anyone have a can opener?

Do you not see how dumb this idea is?

Rather than eating the nice soft animals, they went for the ones with **** armour.

lol...Have you seen some of the evolution theories to why dinosaurs became extinct?

What dinosaurs did go into the ark would have been small, eggs etc..Perfectly reasonable..Then as the water subsided and they went out on land, food, disease, the climate would have all been different than before the flood..The world would have changed..Many animals, not just the dinosaurs may have died out.

[Juju]

Oh, god, arguing with a creationist is like arguing with a pig. (Lifted liberally from from Sir C G Krulak). forgive me for preparing to get dirty......

If you believe in the written word of the bible (heaven help us, quite literally!) can I ask why? I don't mean in terms of your beliefs, but what is it about the King James Bible written in er, 1644ad, that you find specifically convincing, over say, the other versions written previously. Given that the bible only contains iro 66 ish books, and I presume you include the Old Testament including Leviticus (and we can address THAT later, do you acknowledge that when the early christian church sat down to compile a "New Testament" "bible the council of Rome considered, and ejected something in the order of 350 other scripts, such as the Book of Enoch, and as such, the NT is not "the word of God" but a hugely edited and redrafted work of a comittee, 350 years after Jesus died. Given that printing was almost unheard of, and frankly, they didn't even have Amstrad Word Processors it was so long ago, and so much was "passed down" orally from generation do you think the "word of God" is credibly the final draft of King James 1300 years after the committee, and nearly 1700 years after Jesus was crucified?

Or is the Bible a work of man,written and edited by man, to reflect stories of wise men who wrote often many years after the event?

(and God help me for getting dragged into this brainwashed nutters delusions).

Oh, and one passing thought. If you had been born to Asian parents, in say, a poor part of Pakistan, or of poor parents in Thsiland, do you think you would still be a Christian, or might it credibly be your European upbringing that "introduced" you to Christinity? Is your faith nothing but a quirk of Geography? Do you really believe your choice is through free will, and did you "investigate"other faiths before deciding on GodMk II (Jews, are God MkI and Muslims God MkIII)?

And tell us your thoughts on Leviticus. Particularly the Shellfish thing. I'd love to hear you explain that. I mean, in fairness, at the Galilee docks circa BC500, sure they didn't have much in terms of refrigeration, so Shellfish out of season might have been a bit dodgy, but you'd eat a prawn cracker, if we went out for a Chinese, wouldn't you? I mean, I can see that women who menstruate are unclean, so we have something in common, but theres some pretty funky advice about buying slaves in there I find is always useful. Do you have many slaves yourself? (You *DO* Believe in slaves, as its in theBible?) I have one, who's an unchase daughter of a Priest, so I expect I shall have to kill her soon. Thats a shame, she's got a cracking pair on her.... Must go, I have animals to burn to anoint the Lord with their sweet smell. I suppose thats why he gave us Foot and Mouth in his wisdom.

[bickster]

@ Juju

[tonyh29]

Nothing as been dis-proven as of yet in the bible..

In a candid, admission of the position of the Catholic Church on the Bible’s authority a document published by the Catholic Church "the Gift of Scripture" . various bishops and cardinals stated that one studying the Bible should not expect “total accuracy” from its contents, declaring that “We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” .. they go on to describe the Bible a combination of the “Word of God” mixed with “human dimensions.”

The "script" went on to list a variety of biblical passages that church leaders felt should be considered “untrue.” Cited were the first eleven chapters of Genesis, which were described as not “historical,” but rather at best only containing “historical traces.” Various other scriptures, such as Matthew 27:25 and Revelation 19:20, describing the beast and false prophet, and the mark of the beast, are described as unbiblical.

i.e they basically totally undermine the Bible’s authority.