Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/4/07 09:00 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Another thing, me and Togukawa already debated this "pi" bullshit like 10 pages ago, and I proved his stupid ass wrong. So drop it.

Why am I finding this difficult to believe? Dre, you're reverting to your old sinister ways again.....tsk tsk.....

At 4/5/07 12:14 AM, Imperator wrote:

At 4/4/07 09:00 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Another thing, me and Togukawa already debated this "pi" bullshit like 10 pages ago, and I proved his stupid ass wrong. So drop it.

Why am I finding this difficult to believe? Dre, you're reverting to your old sinister ways again.....tsk tsk.....

Dude, you and I both agree on that subject, just in case you're still allowing your blind hatred for me to cloud your judgement again.

We both know that the verse in the Bible which seems to say that pi is 3 is really just using the logical estimate.

At 4/5/07 12:19 AM, Dre-Man wrote:
Dude, you and I both agree on that subject, just in case you're still allowing your blind hatred for me to cloud your judgement again.

We both know that the verse in the Bible which seems to say that pi is 3 is really just using the logical estimate.

I think you give the greeks far too little credit.....logical wouldn't be the word I would have used. Not from the people that keep surprising scholars with their knowledge on a daily basis from new discoveries.....

At 1/18/07 04:44 PM, AtomicTerrorist wrote:

And secondly, how long will it be before Science completely disproves the theory of how god made earth and validates the big bang theory?

nit gonna happen

couldnt God have created Earth with the Big bang? couldnt that have been how he created it?

My chemistry is a tad rusty, but take two of the more abundant elements in the periodic table: Hydrogen, and Oxygen...

Mix 'em... one Oxygen element for every two Hydrogen elements. You have one molecule of water. To produce that molecule, a fairly hefty amount of energy (relative to the molecule itself) was just released. Now put that on a broader scale (let's say one billion molecules), thats a shitload MORE energy, quite likely a bang. And that's just the formation of water, consider Nitrogen, Carbon, Helium, et cetera... I'm sure you can see where this is going.

At 4/5/07 12:36 AM, Imperator wrote: I think you give the greeks far too little credit.....logical wouldn't be the word I would have used. Not from the people that keep surprising scholars with their knowledge on a daily basis from new discoveries.....

Okay, wait, are we both talking about the same verse?

Memorize:

This thing was built longer than a football field. Not to mention had more than 1 floor. I'd bet this thing could probably even fit up close to 100,000 animals.

It isn't just about space, but about that animals are supposed to be there for a very long time. Noah would have to have a shitload of food from the entire world too. Or did God make the food walk up to Noah too? Futhermore, what did the animals such as lions eat once the flood was over? One of the sheep? wasn't there just two? It would take atleast some weeks to get more of those kinds, and all the meateaters would die in that time. The grass eaters would lack green stuff to eat too, as everything died. Even if it grew back, some things would be really hard to get for some time ahead, such as bambu.

Seriously, I've never heard about somebody who takes the flood seriously, but only as a symbolic story.

I won't bother to copy paste everything here, since it is a waste, but check out this.

You have no idea how plants work do you?

It seems that I don't. Please, tell me, how did ALL the millions of different plants we have today, surived the flood? And how come a lot of them are still local to one area? (as in, you can find it ONLY on one island here and there, but not across the world). If seeds survived such a flood, or Noah took seeds with him, they wouldn't be local like that. What about mushrooms?

How did plants come to be after the earth was formed and evolution took place? Why is it that in barran wastelands, after a number of years can actually turn into a "paradise" (if you want to use that word)?

The diffrence here, is that evolution could have produced a range of diffrence plants to inhabit an barran wasteland of earth. If some few seeds survived on a plank out in the sea, it wouldn't bring back every diffrent kind of plant there is (if you belive God created all species and there is no such thing as evolution).

Skin color has to do with skin pigment. In my family, i'm a white, red headed, freackled Indian. My brother is very dark skinned, very deep, dark brown hair. Different eye color.

Though my dad is just a standard white colored guy, his sister Leah has such a dark skin that when they were in Southern Africa, the people thought they adopted her there.'

Seriously, you think skin color is totally random for every kid? That it has nothing to do with what the parents have? Your family is probably mixed from many different skin colors up in the generations. the DNA for different amounts of skin pigment can lay inactive many generations before springing up. But, that would explain why skin colors are divided so. Why are there more people who are black in Africa? Were they all just randomly born black?

chazeverest:

Of course you can. If someone punches you in the face and that person says he didn't, but you have 100 people who saw it, you can prove it. Think about it, not that it really takes much thought.

HONK! wrong! Infact, 100 people seeing it wouldn't prove it a 100%. It could have been group hypnosis at work, or some kind of mind virus. Sure, the chance for that is so small we don't care, but it still doesn't make it 100%, but more like, 99,999999ect%
How do you know what your eyes tell you is true? How do you know you aren't drugged and dreaming it all? We can be pretty sure about somethings, but never 100%, because, we can't trust our mind to a 100% (you could be mad without even knowing it).

Dre-Man:
An impossible story about the whole world being under water by an unproven God, and the story goes on about how a wooden boat, carried all the kinds of animals in the world together without any trouble, and after 40 days, the water somehow dissapeared and said unproven God made a rainbow. Oh, and we only know this story from an book that contains a lot of other such uprove claims, and the majority of the world doesn't believe in there stories.

Are we blind because we don't believe in the story? If the bible said the moon was made of cheese, would I be blind in not believing in it too?

Do you believe Muhammad flew on a magical horse to heaven? not? You are clearly a most worthless, most close minded idiot.

Show me a verse in the bible that mentions the word "global". There are many who belive that the "world" might have simply been the fertile crescent.

I can't remember the exact wording, but the Bible says something about that the water is X distance over the highest mountain of the world.

At 4/4/07 12:39 AM, AndrewGlisson11 wrote:

yes, they follow everything thats disproven already don't they?

No they dont, that is why there is a debate.

another question is why they belive things even stupider than i can imagine:

You have no intelligence beyond that of a robot.

Christianity:

"Harry potter is evil!" No its not, they celebrate christmas in the freakin book!

"homosexual people burn in hell!" No they dont, back then there was seen no difference between gays and pedophiles, they diddnt want to be like the greeks, its just some people dont see that.

"I'm gonna move this mountain with my faith!" This is quoted... who said that?

" the earth was created in less than a week!" there was no people back then, who was there to keep time?

"give to one who begs from you!" I think that you would rather them starve.

I don't know much about other religions, so this is all i can say about them.

Then dont talk like you know what you are saying.

Buddahism: "if we give up all our dreams, we'll be happy!"

What! you need a fancy cars and Hoe's to be happy?

"The budda meditated under a tree for 50 days without dieing of starvation or thirst!"

It must have bean exagerated a tad bit, besides have you seen how fat he was!

Hinduism: " if you die, you'll be reborn as smthing else!"

That would be cool, I wonder what it is like to be a girl or a lion.

" thare are thousands of different dietys!"

Wrong, the deitys are manifestations of Brahham.

muslum: "women should not go in public without covering thair faces!"

Have you ever heared of Turky?

At 4/5/07 12:20 PM, Drakim wrote:

Or did God make the food walk up to Noah too? Futhermore, what did the animals such as lions eat once the flood was over? One of the sheep? wasn't there just two?

Here's your problem. You're trying to mix the Flood and Ark together, but without God. It's not going to work.

It seems that I don't. Please, tell me, how did ALL the millions of different plants we have today, surived the flood?

And here I pose this question again. Why do plants and trees suddenly spring up in a once desolate landscape?

Seriously, you think skin color is totally random for every kid? That it has nothing to do with what the parents have?

You read WAY too much into that one.

Your family is probably mixed from many different skin colors up in the generations. the DNA for different amounts of skin pigment can lay inactive many generations before springing up. But, that would explain why skin colors are divided so. Why are there more people who are black in Africa? Were they all just randomly born black?

And so I pose this question to you. Weather or not God exists, how did there become different skin color?

Show me how evolution produces different skin color and why.

Memorize:

And here I pose this question again. Why do plants and trees suddenly spring up in a once desolate landscape?

I DID answer this question. You can't edit away a part of my post and act like it wasn't there.
I'll try to make it a bit clearer. Evolution is a way for one plant to after some millions of years, be the great-great-great grandfather of a lot of different plants, many of them now even different kinds of plants. That means, after the first plant appeared, it is just a matter of time before the earth in inhabited by lots and lots of different plants.

The Bible explanation, however, that God made all kinds of plants. (and if you don't belive in evolution) poses a problem though. If one plan survived, then ONLY that plant would inhabit the earth. Not may different plants like we have today.

Show me how evolution produces different skin color and why.

Seriously, this is dead easy. ^^

You know the sun right? It burns if you stay out too long. So, you see, after thousands and thousands of generations of people those with just a little more pigment will aways have a slight advantage against those who had little pigment. Thus, after a very long time, all the people would have pigment in that area. (you know the evolutionary principle works? You can find it on wikipedia.)

So, wondering why not all people are black if it helps you so against the sun? If I remember correctly, you get D vitamin from the sun. However, the more pigment you have, the less D vitamin you get from the sun. Thus, in places where the sun is very weak, the people with less pigment would have a slight advantage. After a lot of generations, all people would have little pigment in that area.
----
It makes a lot more sense than the Biblical explanation for different colors of skins in diffrent parts of the world. All the black people just decided to live in Africa? And all the Indians with red skin just happened to move to America? And all japanice just decided to live in Japan? If Noah and his family was the only one to survive, and they breed and became more, wouldn't you see an large mix all over the world?

At 4/5/07 06:35 PM, Drakim wrote: If Noah and his family was the only one to survive, and they breed and became more, wouldn't you see an large mix all over the world?

And it is THAT that we call speculation.

I rest my case.

At 4/5/07 06:40 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/5/07 06:35 PM, Drakim wrote: If Noah and his family was the only one to survive, and they breed and became more, wouldn't you see an large mix all over the world?

And it is THAT that we call speculation.

I rest my case.

Ah, but you didn't bother to reply to all the other things you asked about and I replied to you about I see.

But anyway, can you tell me why, exactly, it is just speculation?

If there was 8 or so people left on the planet, and they became the forfathers of everybody later on, why exactly would all black people be on one place, all white people be on one place, all red people be on one place, all yellow people be on one place?

As we all have seen, the modernisation of the world has mixed us all a lot. No longer today is is strange at all seeing somebody white in Africa, or somebody black in Japan. So, there is obviously nothing holding or drawing us there.

It is a perfectly valid question.

At 4/5/07 12:03 AM, Dre-Man wrote: Generally people who argue about the flood think that Noah had a white, black, and asian son.

what the hell?

At 4/5/07 10:30 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 4/5/07 12:03 AM, Dre-Man wrote: Generally people who argue about the flood think that Noah had a white, black, and asian son.

what the hell?

...actually that would sort of make sense if it were a global flood, but it's still stupid.

At 4/5/07 06:51 PM, Drakim wrote:

Ah, but you didn't bother to reply to all the other things you asked about and I replied to you about I see.

It is a perfectly valid question.

That's because I didn't come onto this thread to debate religion or speculation. I replied because I wanted to show the facts. And the fact is that the Ark is long and big enough to take 2 of every land animal.

At 4/5/07 10:30 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 4/5/07 12:03 AM, Dre-Man wrote: Generally people who argue about the flood think that Noah had a white, black, and asian son.

what the hell?

Precisely. If you read the whole post you would realise that I was commenting on how absolutely fucking stupid most people (not just Christians , but yes, there are some Christian dumbfucks out there.) are. And how that belief proves it.

At 4/5/07 10:55 PM, Memorize wrote: That's because I didn't come onto this thread to debate religion or speculation. I replied because I wanted to show the facts. And the fact is that the Ark is long and big enough to take 2 of every land animal.

Yeah, but it is just about the only part of the story that is remotely plausible. And it still requires many acts of God. (making the animals not panic in storm, making meat eaters not eat other animals, ect). There are still several other thousand problems with the story of the flood as the Bible describes it. And there is NO other sources for such as global flood. I mean, we found out about ice ages and dry periods and comet crashes with our methods, yet, we can't find anything about a global flood.

The only reason I can see for somebody to be arguing that there was a possibility for the global flood is to avoid that the Bible might having directly false claims.

If you start arguing about how it is all symbolic and stuff like that, then I ask you. Cannot the story of Jesus be symbolic too? If the story of Noah was some kind of hardship on the people magnified up, or a guiding story for enduring hardships when they come to you, why can't the story of Jesus be only symbolic and be about how God is with us all the time? How when man act good, God is in them?

We can just further into that question. What if the entire Bible is symbolic? What if it doesn't mean that there is a personal God, but something more close to panetism? OR that God is just an personification of the "goodness" in our world, such as kindness and love?

At 4/5/07 10:55 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/5/07 06:51 PM, Drakim wrote:

That's because I didn't come onto this thread to debate religion or speculation. I replied because I wanted to show the facts. And the fact is that the Ark is long and big enough to take 2 of every land animal.

No it isn't. I mean, damn, I don't even know where to start on this, it's just so impossible. You can't fit all the animals in the world on to the arc, and I'm ignoring the fact that Noah would have to take every animal on the plant including the currently extinct ones(Yes this even includes dinosaurs as they would have been alive at the time of Noah). Even when you realize the shear number of insects in the world (and also ignoring the fact that 2 of each doesn't always make sense in the case of insects, some are asexual, and hermaphroditic), and how they would many would require completely different housing systems. You can't possibly fit all of them. And after the flood you run into some very serious genetic diversity problems by bring just 2 of each animal on board.

Damn near ever animal would require some specialized housing and environmental controls. For instance you can't take a polar bare and put it in any temperature condition above ~5*C, or it will die. Like wise you can't take some animal use to extreme heats, like a cheetah or elephant or something of that ilk and have it survive near freezing temperatures. So you would need some kind of environmental regulation system, which didn't even exist, hell it wasn't until the late 19th century that we came up with A/C.

There are other huge fucking problem that are always ignored by flood nuts, like what the hell happened to the damn sea life, all that rain would seriously fuck up the salt content, PH levels, mineral concentrations, etc... and very few marine life can survive the significant, and rapid change in these eco conditions. You have the whole where did the water come from problem, and if any one trys to point to the damn “vapor” or “ice canopy”, they need to be fuck slapped with both a freshman chem and physics book.

Here's what I believe is the rea story of Noah's Ark:

Many centuries ago, a man named Noah lived in a semi-arid desert region which was dominated by diverse polytheistic religions, although he was monotheistic. Noah was a crafter of boats, and was highly experienced in the art. Soon after he completed his best boat yet, a hurricane struck. He panicked and took his family and all of his domestic animals onto the boat with him and holed up inside, refusing to let any polytheists on the boat lest it become overcrowded or capsize. The massive storm swept through the region, with a storm surge so high it flooded the flat desert-land. When it was over, Noah imagined that it had been an act of God-- for what else could have happened? --and because his family survived it must have been an attack on the polytheists by his God. The flood was huge, covering all the land as far as he could see, so it must have been a worldwide flood-- as far as he knew.

And that's what I believe the entirety of the story actually is-- a random believer witnessing highly abnormal natural phenomena and assuming an Act of God was involved.

Heh, that would make an awesome bedtime story ^^

At 4/6/07 06:55 AM, EndGameOmega wrote:

No it isn't. I mean, damn, I don't even know where to start on this, it's just so impossible. You can't fit all the animals in the world on to the arc, and I'm ignoring the fact that Noah would have to take every animal on the plant including the currently extinct ones(Yes this even includes dinosaurs as they would have been alive at the time of Noah).

I already explained the size of the Ark. It was longer than a football field and several stories. Secondly, it says 2 of every land, mammal creature.

NOT every animal on the planet. READ DAMNIT!

Damn near ever animal would require some specialized housing and environmental controls. For instance you can't take a polar bare and put it in any temperature condition above ~5*C, or it will die.

And yet even tho we have a Global Warming Craze, Polar Bears are still... thriving! Yay! You honestly have to be shitting yourself if you believe a Polar Bear will just suddenly collapse and die as soon the temperature reaches 5 C.

There are other huge fucking problem that are always ignored by flood nuts,

I'm not here to debate speculation. Get that through your dimwitted, pea-sized skull of your's.

I never even once stated I believed in a Global flood. The only thing I came here to present was that the Ark was big enough and that is it. The rest is up to you.

Now stop being such a pathetic dipshit, and quit trying to debate me on things I'm not going to touch on!

Memorize, random insults isn't making this thread better. If somebody truly is stupid and ignorant, calling him that won't make it better in any way. Go insult a chat bot if you absolutely have to.

Back to real topic:
Question: Can faith ever overrule evidence? and if so, why?

At 4/6/07 01:45 PM, Drakim wrote: Memorize, random insults isn't making this thread better. If somebody truly is stupid and ignorant, calling him that won't make it better in any way.

I'll stop insulting people when they learn to read what I say.

At 4/6/07 01:50 PM, Memorize wrote: I'll stop insulting people when they learn to read what I say.

Perhaps it is that your texts are full of insults that keeps people from reading them with an open mind?

At 4/6/07 01:45 PM, Drakim wrote: Back to real topic:
Question: Can faith ever overrule evidence? and if so, why?

Because there's no such thing as universal negative, plus, there is no evidence strictly in favor of one belief.

At 4/6/07 02:22 PM, Drakim wrote:

Perhaps it is that your texts are full of insults that keeps people from reading them with an open mind?

And it works!

At 4/6/07 01:04 PM, Memorize wrote: I already explained the size of the Ark. It was longer than a football field and several stories. Secondly, it says 2 of every land, mammal creature.

It's still not big enough! First off the number of things your ignoring when you talk about the pure volume of the ship is just dishonest. See my last argument for more detailed.

NOT every animal on the planet. READ DAMNIT!

Bullshit:
Genesis 7:8 - “Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground “
It say quite clearly ALL, ever animal should have been taken aboard the arc, but you know what fuck that argument because even with out all the other extraneous animals, you don't even have enough room for all the damn insects and arthropods on the planet.

And yet even tho we have a Global Warming Craze, Polar Bears are still... thriving! Yay! You honestly have to be shitting yourself if you believe a Polar Bear will just suddenly collapse and die as soon the temperature reaches 5 C.

What the fuck are you talking about? I never mentioned or even insinuated global warming. Polar bares can't live in high temperature environments, hell they've been know to over heat in winter months went the temperature drops to -45*C (-50*F). Perhaps you should start reading up on things before you post. Don't believe me then you read:
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/faq/#q 6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#Fur_a nd_skin

I'm not here to debate speculation. Get that through your dimwitted, pea-sized skull of your's.

Nothing I posted about was speculation, admittedly sparse on details but if there's anything you want or need clarifying on just ask and I'll give you a shit ton of information on it.

I never even once stated I believed in a Global flood. The only thing I came here to present was that the Ark was big enough and that is it. The rest is up to you.

Like I said it isn't. Your doing the same thing 9/11 nuts do when they argue about the missing building rube. They try to appeal to the shear volume of an object and say it's impossible, your doing the same thing only saying it's possible instead of impossible. Your ignoring the internal structure of the ship which would have taken up a minimum of 25% of it's volume. Your ignoring food storage to which there would have to be enough to survive at lest a year after the flood (nothing on the ground would be alive after the flood remember, so about 150% it's volume. Even if by some fucking miracle god manage to allow all the plants on the earth survive under the flood waters, and yes you would need a miracle to do it, there still aboard for a 150 days, and that still going to take up about 40% of it's space. Then you have the actual animals and there habitats, You can't just shove them into some dog cage and be done with it you need at lest a little space for them to prowl in. Hell look at a fucking city zoo, they can cover a good squire or two mile, which is bigger then a foot ball field and they still have at best 2% of the earth species in there. Like a zoo the ship would have to deal whit all the other problems that arise from have animals, things like shit, and ammonia concentrations caused by urine .

Now stop being such a pathetic dipshit, and quit trying to debate me on things I'm not going to touch on!

Then don't bring up an argument if you refuse to debate it.

At 4/6/07 05:59 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:

It's still not big enough! First off the number of things your ignoring when you talk about the pure volume of the ship is just dishonest. See my last argument for more detailed.

Haha, you're just too stupid. There are only around 5000 different species of Mammal (the only land animals that actually make up some space). The ark of that size can carry up to around 80,000 animals.

Also, micro-evolution is true and CAN be seen in just a few decades. We've already seen this with birds. You're trying to group up every animal when a possibley good number of them could've changed to their enviornment in a few thousand years and underwent minor changes causing them to be catagorized differently.

What the fuck are you talking about? I never mentioned or even insinuated global warming. Polar bares can't live in high temperature environments, hell they've been know to over heat in winter months went the temperature drops to -45*C (-50*F). Perhaps you should start reading up on things before you post. Don't believe me then you read:

Think for a moment Genius. You're speculating. We all know micro-evolution is true and some animals such as birds, bears, and insects can go through minor changes in a short time.

This is what i'm trying to get through that head of your's. I'm not debating on speculation. Only fact.

Then don't bring up an argument if you refuse to debate it.

You brought it you ignorant moron. Now go play with your toys, look up on facts about the size of the Ark, and come back when you've learned something.

If you want to argue with me, don't do it speculating.

At 4/5/07 06:35 PM, Drakim wrote: The Bible explanation, however, that God made all kinds of plants. (and if you don't belive in evolution) poses a problem though. If one plan survived, then ONLY that plant would inhabit the earth. Not may different plants like we have today.

What are you talking about?

It makes a lot more sense than the Biblical explanation for different colors of skins in diffrent parts of the world. All the black people just decided to live in Africa? And all the Indians with red skin just happened to move to America? And all japanice just decided to live in Japan? If Noah and his family was the only one to survive, and they breed and became more, wouldn't you see an large mix all over the world?

Wait, I know that part! Genesis 0:-89? And God said "All of you black people can have Africa, and all of you Asians can have Asia, etc."

Yeah, but it is just about the only part of the story that is remotely plausible. And it still requires many acts of God. (making the animals not panic in storm, making meat eaters not eat other animals, ect). There are still several other thousand problems with the story of the flood as the Bible describes it. And there is NO other sources for such as global flood. I mean, we found out about ice ages and dry periods and comet crashes with our methods, yet, we can't find anything about a global flood.

So, let me get this straight, the diety who can flood the world can't make animals not panic in a storm? You're kidding right?
And most religions have a flood methos.

The only reason I can see for somebody to be arguing that there was a possibility for the global flood is to avoid that the Bible might having directly false claims.

Actually many of us believe that Genesis is not literal, but is oral history. It is what the Jews told their children. Each story had morals. This is why the Catholic bible has TWO creation stories.

If you start arguing about how it is all symbolic and stuff like that, then I ask you. Cannot the story of Jesus be symbolic too? If the story of Noah was some kind of hardship on the people magnified up, or a guiding story for enduring hardships when they come to you, why can't the story of Jesus be only symbolic and be about how God is with us all the time? How when man act good, God is in them?

No, we know that Jesus existed. There are historical records backing that up. It doesn't prove him as divine of course, but he's not a figment of our imagination.

At 4/6/07 06:55 AM, EndGameOmega wrote: No it isn't. I mean, damn, I don't even know where to start on this, it's just so impossible. You can't fit all the animals in the world on to the arc, and I'm ignoring the fact that Noah would have to take every animal on the plant including the currently extinct ones(Yes this even includes dinosaurs as they would have been alive at the time of Noah).

DUDE, I remember that part of the Bible too! Genesis P:000 AndGod told Noah to take the Dinosaurs...
Dinosaurs would not have been alive at the time of Noah.

Damn near ever animal would require some specialized housing and environmental controls. For instance you can't take a polar bare and put it in any temperature condition above ~5*C, or it will die. Like wise you can't take some animal use to extreme heats, like a cheetah or elephant or something of that ilk and have it survive near freezing temperatures. So you would need some kind of environmental regulation system, which didn't even exist, hell it wasn't until the late 19th century that we came up with A/C.

Polar bears sit outside in zoos during the summer and don't die. And it sure as hell isn't -5C God, you suck at this.

At 4/6/07 06:16 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/6/07 05:59 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:

Haha, you're just too stupid. There are only around 5000 different species of Mammal (the only land animals that actually make up some space). The ark of that size can carry up to around 80,000 animals.

Insults aren't needed. The arc had to hold a hell of a lot more then just mammals, your forgetting things like lizards, birds, insects, the space they take up isn't negligible. Hell most of the arc would have been devoted to fitting insects, over mammies, lizards and birds combined! And you still haven't dealt with any of the other housing problems, like food, or fresh water. It's just not big enough!

Also, micro-evolution is true and CAN be seen in just a few decades. We've already seen this with birds. You're trying to group up every animal when a possibley good number of them could've changed to their enviornment in a few thousand years and underwent minor changes causing them to be catagorized differently.

Yes, very small changes can occur in a short time, and once in awhile huge changes can occur in a short time, but there is no way for all the species that live in extreme environment to have adapted in 5000 years, It's not fucking possible! One, two, maybe, but thousands? Oh, and lets not forget your talking about just 2 of each, this would be the greatest stopping block for the rapid mutations your talking about. Your not just talking about categorization, you'd need out right genetic mutation, and good couple thousand of generations worth! It's obvious you don't know what your talking about, every thing related to animal mutation and genetic diversity is contradicted by the arc. You really need to pick up a few books on biology, genetics, and physics.

Think for a moment Genius. You're speculating. We all know micro-evolution is true and some animals such as birds, bears, and insects can go through minor changes in a short time.

Again what the fuck are you talking about? The genetic differences between the animals that where on board the damn arc is to large. You can't have the kind of rapid mutation your talking about in only 5000 years, it is fucking impossible! Hell take the fucken Gila monster as an example, it's had 25k years and still isn't properly adapted to it's environment.

This is what i'm trying to get through that head of your's. I'm not debating on speculation. Only fact.

Nothing I've said is speculation. And hell if you want to play that game then your speculating that measurements of the arc are correct, or the bible was written with out error (Ha!) , etc...

I take the stories in the bible as I would any other legend - as story intended not to be taken as lateral fact but told to convey a meaning or a message, even if they are based on real life events way back when.

So, thinking about it from a legendary stand point, I would interpret the story of Noah’s ark as a representation of mercy and of telling people to savour the life around us and to preserve it. Also it I would take it to represent the endurance of life and the dangers of nature - and the mastery of the divine over this earth.

The world our ancestors (I say this in general, not to indicate anyone specific) lived in was, from their point of view, a world of mystery, majesty, danger and story - when people didn’t write, fable handed down by word of mouth was a way of teaching by example without having to blow for blow accurate, and as a means to pass on their culture. We have become more literal with the passing of time and so the stories have been interpreted as such - but personally I think this is a mistake because that is not how they began.

Just my humble opinion on the matter.