Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

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

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.

Bullshit, if you take the Genesis account literally they where. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/hot /dinosaurs/default.asp

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.

Yes they will. It may not be over night, but there bodys can't sustain them at temperature above freezing; Read, the links I posted. Also I said ~5*C indicating approximately.

---

At 4/6/07 06:32 PM, WolvenBear wrote:

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.

Well, the Bible did not have the word Dinosuar. And in places like Job, it mentions creatures like the Leviathan, and in another, the Behemoth. Could have just been special names, I have no idea.

---

At 4/6/07 07:26 PM, EndGameOmega wrote: Bullshit, if you take the Genesis account literally they where. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/hot /dinosaurs/default.asp

Wow, that site is ironclad. Thanks.
There's nothing in Genesis to suggest that he had Veloci Raptors and T-Rexs on the boat. Try again. There's no reason to believe that Noah had dinosaurs on his boat. Neither biblical or historical. And some retarded site isn't going to change that.

Yes they will. It may not be over night, but there bodys can't sustain them at temperature above freezing; Read, the links I posted. Also I said ~5*C indicating approximately.

Polar bears in captivity outlive polar bears in the wild. In the wild they live between 15-20 years, but in captivity in the Zoo they have lasted as long as 41 years (that's double), and they are not kept in freezing temperatures. The reality is that Polar Bears all across the US do just fine in temps WELL ABOVE -5C.
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/faq/

---

At 4/6/07 07:30 PM, Memorize wrote: Well, the Bible did not have the word Dinosuar. And in places like Job, it mentions creatures like the Leviathan, and in another, the Behemoth. Could have just been special names, I have no idea.

Much speculation has been given to what those were. However, it doesn't specify whether those are current things or animals from the past.

My mockery was more because he argues that we HAVE to believe that Noah had dinosaurs on the ark...but there's nothing to back that up, either scientifically or biblically.

---

At 4/6/07 08:03 PM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 4/6/07 07:26 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:

Wow, that site is ironclad. Thanks.
There's nothing in Genesis to suggest that he had Veloci Raptors and T-Rexs on the boat. Try again. There's no reason to believe that Noah had dinosaurs on his boat. Neither biblical or historical. And some retarded site isn't going to change that.

If dinosaurs lived when Noah was alive, then yes they had to be on board, according to Genesis. As for historical evidence, your right there is none, about ether about Noah or the arc (at lest not on the global scale as is suggested). As for the retarded site, I just point out what most creationist point to so, take what ever way you wish.

Polar bears in captivity outlive polar bears in the wild. In the wild they live between 15-20 years, but in captivity in the Zoo they have lasted as long as 41 years (that's double), and they are not kept in freezing temperatures. The reality is that Polar Bears all across the US do just fine in temps WELL ABOVE -5C.
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/faq/

The enclosures in zoos are all thermo regulated at around freezing. The average life expectancy in zoos is about 35 years vs 25-30 in the wild (Ref: http://www.sfzoo.org/cgi-bin/animals.py?ID=18 ) . Not quite as big a difference as you make it out to be. Additional most if not all animals will live longer in captivity then in the wild; where they can get veterinary care, constant food, and a nice environmentally controlled habitats.

At 4/6/07 08:07 PM, WolvenBear wrote:

Much speculation has been given to what those were. However, it doesn't specify whether those are current things or animals from the past.

My mockery was more because he argues that we HAVE to believe that Noah had dinosaurs on the ark...but there's nothing to back that up, either scientifically or biblically.

Well your certainly right about the sciences part, and I'll even give you the biblical part, but most creationist believe that there where dinosaurs on board so that's how I usually argue. And like I said, even if there weren't there's still not enough room on board.

You people are still missing my reasonings for bring them up in the first place, some animals need specialized environments in order to live, with out them they would die. Noah, would have had to plan for this by some how building both the habitats and the equipment for controlling it. This would have further taken up arc space, but seeing as how he couldn't even fit them all on the boat to begin with I suppose it is a mute point.

As a side note, I don't really care if you take Noah's story as a metaphor for redemption, or life, or what ever, I simply trying to point out the scientific impossibility of the whole damn thing being a real event.

---

At 4/6/07 07:30 PM, Memorize wrote: Well, the Bible did not have the word Dinosuar. And in places like Job, it mentions creatures like the Leviathan, and in another, the Behemoth. Could have just been special names, I have no idea.

or they could have found the bones of large ancient beasts and imagined what they looked like.

---

At 4/6/07 10:05 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 4/6/07 07:30 PM, Memorize wrote: Well, the Bible did not have the word Dinosuar. And in places like Job, it mentions creatures like the Leviathan, and in another, the Behemoth. Could have just been special names, I have no idea.

or they could have found the bones of large ancient beasts and imagined what they looked like.

Are you so sure that sea creatures such as a Leviathan didn't exist? Their bones could be buried underneath miles and miles of hard ocean sediment. Who knows.

---

At 4/6/07 10:00 PM, EndGameOmega wrote: If dinosaurs lived when Noah was alive, then yes they had to be on board, according to Genesis. As for historical evidence, your right there is none, about ether about Noah or the arc (at lest not on the global scale as is suggested). As for the retarded site, I just point out what most creationist point to so, take what ever way you wish.

However, there's nothing biblically to suggest they did. And just because you can find some biblical scholor that I've never heard of far from "shows what most creationists believe". He rightly points out ON THE SITE, that that is not what most creationists believe. Cmon now.

The enclosures in zoos are all thermo regulated at around freezing. The average life expectancy in zoos is about 35 years vs 25-30 in the wild (Ref: http://www.sfzoo.org/cgi-bin/animals.py?ID=18 ) . Not quite as big a difference as you make it out to be. Additional most if not all animals will live longer in captivity then in the wild; where they can get veterinary care, constant food, and a nice environmentally controlled habitats.

However -5C is below freezing. Most Polar Bear environments at zoos are open air, which are impossible to keep at "just about freezing" during the summer. The water is never frozen at the one here in St. Louis.

And according to the sites I've looked at, the average age for wild polar bears is 15-18 years.
According to Sea World as a back up to my earlier info:
http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/PolarBears/
pblongevity.html
The average age in the wild is 15-18, while in captivity the average is in the early to mid 30s.

Well your certainly right about the sciences part, and I'll even give you the biblical part, but most creationist believe that there where dinosaurs on board so that's how I usually argue. And like I said, even if there weren't there's still not enough room on board.

No they don't. The very site you used says that Creationists have no idea how to work Dinosaurs into the bible. You're taking one person that no one's ever heard of and using his opinion to paint a bunch of people as idiots.

You people are still missing my reasonings for bring them up in the first place, some animals need specialized environments in order to live, with out them they would die. Noah, would have had to plan for this by some how building both the habitats and the equipment for controlling it. This would have further taken up arc space, but seeing as how he couldn't even fit them all on the boat to begin with I suppose it is a mute point.

But here's where this is silly. Noah didn't travel to the arctic, nor did he go to the Congo. He simply would've gathered the animals from the region. No habitat problems there. And if we wanna just get into it, it's borderline silly to believe that God could flood the entire Earth, but not make a couple of animal provisions.

Gathering the animals of the region in pairs and fitting them inside a boat the size of a football stadium is completely plausible.

As a side note, I don't really care if you take Noah's story as a metaphor for redemption, or life, or what ever, I simply trying to point out the scientific impossibility of the whole damn thing being a real event.

And in doing so, you're purposely misstating the views of Creationists, including Dinosaurs, which aren't mentioned, and padding your case with a lot of nonsense. I'm calling you on all of the above.

---

At 4/7/07 01:23 AM, WolvenBear wrote:
However, there's nothing biblically to suggest they did. And just because you can find some biblical scholor that I've never heard of far from "shows what most creationists believe". He rightly points out ON THE SITE, that that is not what most creationists believe. Cmon now.

There's also nothing biblically specific to Duckbill Platypi, Cheetahs, Kiwi Birds, Emus, or Unicorns (I was going to link to the far side cartoon where the lions eat the unicorns, for a fun little joke, but I can't fucking find it to link to...) either. But when one takes a stance that EVERY mammal on the planet can fit, and survive on the Ark for months (as Memorize has tried to do), then one must assume that they do mean "every". And also, when taking a literalist stance (as Memorize must in order to make the claim he is) on the flood story, one must also assume that dinosaurs were part of it. Even if they weren't... Elephants, Hippos, Rhinos, etc, as well as those animals with specific habitat/climate requirements would require so many acts of god to survive that one person building an ark seems a bit redundant.

However -5C is below freezing. Most Polar Bear environments at zoos are open air, which are impossible to keep at "just about freezing" during the summer. The water is never frozen at the one here in St. Louis.

The rocks they usually sit on are refrigerated, and usually the water is kept as close to freezing as they can get it (it should be noted, that it's salt water, which freezes at far below 5 C). polar bears could not survive in zoos without these precautions. That they do live and longer than in the wild (not surprising, veterinary care, regular meals, no natural hazards, etc) is testament to the amount of trouble we go through more than to their hardiness for warmer climes.

No they don't. The very site you used says that Creationists have no idea how to work Dinosaurs into the bible. You're taking one person that no one's ever heard of and using his opinion to paint a bunch of people as idiots.

Creationists ARE idiots. So are those who believe in ID, a Young Earth, and a Literal Bible. Believing that God sparked the process that started life on this planet millions of years ago doesn't mean you're a creationist... to be so you need to believe the literal (or damn close to it) word of Genesis, 7 days, yadda yadda.

But here's where this is silly. Noah didn't travel to the arctic, nor did he go to the Congo. He simply would've gathered the animals from the region. No habitat problems there. And if we wanna just get into it, it's borderline silly to believe that God could flood the entire Earth, but not make a couple of animal provisions.

True... however, that's not the argument he's making. Memorize tried to argue that the ark could carry a pair of every mammal (his words, though the bible mentions unclean animals as well as birds) on earth, not just from the region. And while they might fit, there would be no room for things like food and water for them to survive.

Gathering the animals of the region in pairs and fitting them inside a boat the size of a football stadium is completely plausible.

Obviously not, but if it was a global flood, then all of them would have to come, and that's a horse of a completely different color, now isn't it?

And in doing so, you're purposely misstating the views of Creationists, including Dinosaurs, which aren't mentioned, and padding your case with a lot of nonsense. I'm calling you on all of the above.

Most true creationists do believe dinosaurs and men lived together at the same time... I can link you to several other sites, as well as AiG, that will confirm this. We even have a couple of Young-Earthers here on this forum.

---

At 4/7/07 03:14 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 4/7/07 01:23 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

There's also nothing biblically specific to Duckbill Platypi, Cheetahs, Kiwi Birds, Emus, or Unicorns (I was going to link to the far side cartoon where the lions eat the unicorns, for a fun little joke, but I can't fucking find it to link to...) either. But when one takes a stance that EVERY mammal on the planet can fit, and survive on the Ark for months (as Memorize has tried to do), then one must assume that they do mean "every". And also, when taking a literalist stance (as Memorize must in order to make the claim he is) on the flood story, one must also assume that dinosaurs were part of it. Even if they weren't... Elephants, Hippos, Rhinos, etc, as well as those animals with specific habitat/climate requirements would require so many acts of god to survive that one person building an ark seems a bit redundant.

So because dinosaurs once existed, we must believe that they were on the arc if we want to take the story literally? Sorry, doesn't fly.

But ok, I'll bite. To believe that Noah had all the animals of which you are speaking, one must believe that God brought them to him. If God is going to go to the trouble to bring Noah all the animals, (much less flood the Earth), then it's kinda silly not to assume that he took precautions to keep them alive. Drowning the entire planet is a bit of a feat...the rest is childs play compared to it.

The rocks they usually sit on are refrigerated, and usually the water is kept as close to freezing as they can get it (it should be noted, that it's salt water, which freezes at far below 5 C). polar bears could not survive in zoos without these precautions. That they do live and longer than in the wild (not surprising, veterinary care, regular meals, no natural hazards, etc) is testament to the amount of trouble we go through more than to their hardiness for warmer climes.

I understand about the rocks, but they're still exposed to the elements. And they survive. I dont know the net temperature...but on days when its 100 out, that cancells out a lot of the effects of the Rocks.

Creationists ARE idiots. So are those who believe in ID, a Young Earth, and a Literal Bible. Believing that God sparked the process that started life on this planet millions of years ago doesn't mean you're a creationist... to be so you need to believe the literal (or damn close to it) word of Genesis, 7 days, yadda yadda.

Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a supernatural deity (typically God), the existence of which is presupposed.
See: Christians, Jews, Muslims, and more...

The majority of people are Creationists to one degree or another. Some take the strict Genesis view. Others don't. Labeling them all stupid is assinine.

And there are some exceptionally intelligent people who believe in ID, including athiests. So, again, whatever...

Moreover, the Old Earthers (again creationists) had no problem ratifying the idea of Dinosaurs with their beliefs. They predated the relatively recent New Earthers by quie a bit. Considering in the Bible, there's evidence that Adam and Eve weren't the first people alive (the booming Land of Nod, populated by people that Cain was afraid would kill him), and that there were throwbacks from another Era (Leviathan and Behemoth), it's not a stretch to say that the creation story was the 2nd Creation. Hell for all we know, wiping out the Dinosaurs was part of God's making of the Earth.

True... however, that's not the argument he's making. Memorize tried to argue that the ark could carry a pair of every mammal (his words, though the bible mentions unclean animals as well as birds) on earth, not just from the region. And while they might fit, there would be no room for things like food and water for them to survive.

I forget how deep the ark was. But the width and length were huge. Water was all around them, so that's not a problem. all in all the boat would've been as big as your average football stadium, so it'd be a stretch, but I can guarantee none of us want to do the Math on it.

Obviously not, but if it was a global flood, then all of them would have to come, and that's a horse of a completely different color, now isn't it?

A different color, but still a horse. Because you could fit all the animals from the mid-East on a football field no problem and have plenty of room. Add the height and the claim is not as ridiculous as you all are making it out to be.

Devils advocate is fun.

Most true creationists do believe dinosaurs and men lived together at the same time... I can link you to several other sites, as well as AiG, that will confirm this. We even have a couple of Young-Earthers here on this forum.

Young earthers aren't the majority of all Creationists though. There's teh Old Earthers, Thiestic Evolutionists, Judiac and Islamic Creationists, etc, etc, etc...

---

At 4/7/07 01:23 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

However, there's nothing biblically to suggest they did. And just because you can find some biblical scholor that I've never heard of far from "shows what most creationists believe". He rightly points out ON THE SITE, that that is not what most creationists believe. Cmon now.

Perhaps not, but every creationist I have ever debated with believes that dinosaurs walked the earth 5000 years ago and where on the arc. Every time I confront them about the flood they always seam to call up AiG. So this is the stance I usually attack first.

However -5C is below freezing. Most Polar Bear environments at zoos are open air, which are impossible to keep at "just about freezing" during the summer. The water is never frozen at the one here in St. Louis.

Again I didn't wright -5 I wrote ~5, the ~ indicates approximately 5*C or 41*F.

And according to the sites I've looked at, the average age for wild polar bears is 15-18 years.
According to Sea World as a back up to my earlier info:
http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/PolarBears/
pblongevity.html
The average age in the wild is 15-18, while in captivity the average is in the early to mid 30s.

It really doesn't matter, but maybe your right about there life cycle. I'll have to talk to some of bio friends on Monday about it.

No they don't. The very site you used says that Creationists have no idea how to work Dinosaurs into the bible. You're taking one person that no one's ever heard of and using his opinion to paint a bunch of people as idiots.

Again, every creationist I've debated with has taken this stance. Every one I've ever meet who has called them self a creationist takes this stance. That most have no clue what there talking about doesn't surprise me, most would simply retort that “it's god's will”, or “man is not ment to know”, these are actual quotes from the campus preachers who invade my school in mass.

But here's where this is silly. Noah didn't travel to the arctic, nor did he go to the Congo. He simply would've gathered the animals from the region. No habitat problems there. And if we wanna just get into it, it's borderline silly to believe that God could flood the entire Earth, but not make a couple of animal provisions.

Perhaps it is silly, but so is taking the bible literally. If you do take it literally you have to believe secertin things, like all the animals in the would gathering around Noah while he built his arc.

Gathering the animals of the region in pairs and fitting them inside a boat the size of a football stadium is completely plausible.

From the region, perhaps. That's certainly more believable then all the animals in the world.

And in doing so, you're purposely misstating the views of Creationists, including Dinosaurs, which aren't mentioned, and padding your case with a lot of nonsense. I'm calling you on all of the above.

Again I'm not misstating anyones view of all the people I've meat who call them self creationist this is what they believe and argue. Your saying that not all believe in creationist flood the same way so fine then, tell me what they specifically believe, why they believe it and how the bible (or what ever there holy book is) fits around it and I will shift my argument to include them.

---

At 4/7/07 04:23 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

So because dinosaurs once existed, we must believe that they were on the arc if we want to take the story literally? Sorry, doesn't fly.

No it's because they where suppose to have lived during Noah's time and according to Gen. He was ordered by god to take ever land animal that moves on board.

But ok, I'll bite. To believe that Noah had all the animals of which you are speaking, one must believe that God brought them to him. If God is going to go to the trouble to bring Noah all the animals, (much less flood the Earth), then it's kinda silly not to assume that he took precautions to keep them alive. Drowning the entire planet is a bit of a feat...the rest is childs play compared to it.

Yeah, thats possible if god can intervene, but when a creationist is assaulted along the lines of not being scientific they can't take that path; And they'll go all over the place trying to sound sciency and correct.

I understand about the rocks, but they're still exposed to the elements. And they survive. I dont know the net temperature...but on days when its 100 out, that cancells out a lot of the effects of the Rocks.

Yeah, It kind of sucks to be a polar bear in the summer.

Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a supernatural deity (typically God), the existence of which is presupposed.
See: Christians, Jews, Muslims, and more...

The majority of people are Creationists to one degree or another. Some take the strict Genesis view. Others don't. Labeling them all stupid is assinine.

Most of those who say there creationist take the biblical non errant point of view, and so when you talk or argue with some one about creationism they usually take the stance that your a literalist.

And there are some exceptionally intelligent people who believe in ID, including athiests. So, again, whatever...

I would really like to know what atheist believe in ID. Also according to IDers they aren't creationist and don't want to be grouped with them.

Moreover, the Old Earthers (again creationists) had no problem ratifying the idea of Dinosaurs with their beliefs. They predated the relatively recent New Earthers by quie a bit. Considering in the Bible, there's evidence that Adam and Eve weren't the first people alive (the booming Land of Nod, populated by people that Cain was afraid would kill him), and that there were throwbacks from another Era (Leviathan and Behemoth), it's not a stretch to say that the creation story was the 2nd Creation. Hell for all we know, wiping out the Dinosaurs was part of God's making of the Earth.

If god wiped out the dinosaurs it couldn't have been in the flood (again according to a literal interpretation) as he was told to take every animal on board.

I forget how deep the ark was. But the width and length were huge. Water was all around them, so that's not a problem. all in all the boat would've been as big as your average football stadium, so it'd be a stretch, but I can guarantee none of us want to do the Math on it.

Actually it's really not that big, from Gen 6:15 "And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.". So about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high, for comparison a foot ball field is 360 feet by 160 feet, making the surface area of the most spacious floor was 58.6% the size of a foot ball field. Now since the arc only had three floors (Gen 6:16 “A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.”). In reality each floor would be diffrint sizes with the larges on top measuring the 450x75, but I'm feeling generous. So let's say each floor is the same in surface area; We will end up havening a combined surface area of 101250 feet^2, about 0.37% of a square mile, or 2.35 acres. Remember kiddies the San Diego zoo is 100 acres, and doesn't even have 2% of the world land animals, but then again there actually given room to walk around so.

Some friends of mine actually worked out how much space you would need for all the animals in the world, they ended up with about 1050 acres, and they didn't take into account any movement space, food and water storage, or structural supports. If I can find the actual calculation I'll post it, or I might just work it out my self later.

Obviously not, but if it was a global flood, then all of them would have to come, and that's a horse of a completely different color, now isn't it?

A different color, but still a horse. Because you could fit all the animals from the mid-East on a football field no problem and have plenty of room. Add the height and the claim is not as ridiculous as you all are making it out to be.

From the middle east? Maybe, it be craped but maybe. You see every one forgets the smallest creatures end up taking the most space, I'm not sure how many species of insect and arthropods are out there but it's got to be around 10k, probably more. Figure a cage size of 1 x 2 feet, and you suddenly you just loss 20k squire feet.

Devils advocate is fun.

It can be >:)>.

Young earthers aren't the majority of all Creationists though. There's teh Old Earthers, Thiestic Evolutionists, Judiac and Islamic Creationists, etc, etc, etc...

Maybe not but they're the most vocal and the ones who believe in Noah's flood.

---

The internet is an amusing thing. I searched about Noah's flood on Google. Here is what I found as the top hits:
Why there is a flood
The reasoning of this one makes me laugh. ^^
Why there wasn't a flood.
I haven't looked though it yet, but most things seems to be against a global flood in general, not just the ark.

---

At 4/7/07 06:18 AM, EndGameOmega wrote: Perhaps not, but every creationist I have ever debated with believes that dinosaurs walked the earth 5000 years ago and where on the arc. Every time I confront them about the flood they always seam to call up AiG. So this is the stance I usually attack first.

And the creationists you're speaking of believe the Eath to be 5000 years old. They also believe the Bible begins at about 4000 years ago.

I've been pissing off Christians of all stripes since I was 5 and have gotten into debates with thousands of them. I have yet to meet a single person who believes dinosaurs were alive during the time of Noah, Dinosaur deniers are more common.

Again I didn't wright -5 I wrote ~5, the ~ indicates approximately 5*C or 41*F.

Oops, my bad. Sorry.

Again I'm not misstating anyones view of all the people I've meat who call them self creationist this is what they believe and argue. Your saying that not all believe in creationist flood the same way so fine then, tell me what they specifically believe, why they believe it and how the bible (or what ever there holy book is) fits around it and I will shift my argument to include them.

The strict creationists (I assume that's who youre targeting here, believe that Noah gathered all the animals into his ark. There's no popular belief that Noah had the dinosaurs on his ark. The site you list says that creationists don't know how to fit dinosaurs into the Bible, admitting that this is a very obscure belief. Either you have had the ridiculously improbable odds of meeting all 30 people that subscribe to this dude's odd biblical interpretation...or you'redeliberately using this weird view to paint all creationists as dummies.

I won't discount either possibility.

At 4/7/07 06:19 AM, EndGameOmega wrote: No it's because they where suppose to have lived during Noah's time and according to Gen. He was ordered by god to take ever land animal that moves on board.

Again, according to what? Certainly not the Bible.

Yeah, thats possible if god can intervene, but when a creationist is assaulted along the lines of not being scientific they can't take that path; And they'll go all over the place trying to sound sciency and correct.

Pardon me, but are we not arguing that the Earth flooded, and then arguing the logistics of the Ark? We're taking a ridiculously improbable event and then arguing about the logistics of the boat, right? It seems quite silly to me that we're accepting that a world wide flood is possible then arguing about a couple of inches from there.

Most of those who say there creationist take the biblical non errant point of view, and so when you talk or argue with some one about creationism they usually take the stance that your a literalist.

I'm a creationist. As is almost everyone of the Christian faith. Believing that God created the Earth is creationism. I'm not sure what circles you talk in, but there are some pretty interesting creation theories. Considering I've debated thousands of Christians and have heard thousands of different positions on creation, it's simply not possible in my mind set that every single Creationist you've talked to has the same exact beliefs. Now you're crossing into the line on BS with me.
There's less dispute in the Darwin camp than the Creationist camp.

I would really like to know what atheist believe in ID. Also according to IDers they aren't creationist and don't want to be grouped with them.

Antony Flew for one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew
IDers aren't creationist, as creationists believe in an all powerful being, and IDers believe in an intelligent designer for Earth.

If god wiped out the dinosaurs it couldn't have been in the flood (again according to a literal interpretation) as he was told to take every animal on board.

Right. And since there's no reason to believe that dinosaurs were alive during this period, it stands to reason that there were no dinosaurs on the ark.
HOORAY LOGIC!

stuff about size

It's amazing how much stuff you can fit into a small space when you try. For example, a three story house can fit into a small moving van (including space for cloths to protect the valuables). 30 mexicans (or bosnians) can fit in a one story house. So let's say he had to take two of every kind. Let's decide how picky we're going to be here. Did he have to take two of every different type of Elephant...or just two elephants? Did he have to take two of every different type of Dog? Or just two dogs?

Some friends of mine actually worked out how much space you would need for all the animals in the world, they ended up with about 1050 acres, and they didn't take into account any movement space, food and water storage, or structural supports. If I can find the actual calculation I'll post it, or I might just work it out my self later.

Please do. I'd love to see it.

From the middle east? Maybe, it be craped but maybe. You see every one forgets the smallest creatures end up taking the most space, I'm not sure how many species of insect and arthropods are out there but it's got to be around 10k, probably more. Figure a cage size of 1 x 2 feet, and you suddenly you just loss 20k squire feet.

However, the only animal he was require to take from the air was birds. So, even assuming your calculations are right...who cares?

Maybe not but they're the most vocal and the ones who believe in Noah's flood.

I don't particularly like young Earthers, but they're not the most ridiculous, nor are they the most vocal. For example, the previous Pope (the most vocal creationist in the world) was not a young Earther. He was a curious theistic evolutionist. And the Pope is more vocal than every Young Earther in the history of the world combined and multiplied by 47 billion.

---

At 4/7/07 03:14 AM, Ravariel wrote:

But when one takes a stance that EVERY mammal on the planet can fit, and survive on the Ark for months (as Memorize has tried to do), then one must assume that they do mean "every".

"every land". And I think i've proven my point there.

There is, however, one problem with your arguement. Having a Global Flood with all of those animals on board, it is required that God be there. You don't believe in a Global Flood, yet you're trying to play it as if God isn't involved in the Flood. That's not going to work.

---

At 4/7/07 04:23 AM, WolvenBear wrote: But ok, I'll bite. To believe that Noah had all the animals of which you are speaking, one must believe that God brought them to him. If God is going to go to the trouble to bring Noah all the animals, (much less flood the Earth), then it's kinda silly not to assume that he took precautions to keep them alive. Drowning the entire planet is a bit of a feat...the rest is childs play compared to it.

And that's part of my point. If god creates the flood, and then guides all the animals to Noah, keeps them alive during the Ark trip... why exactly did he need the Ark in the first place?

Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a supernatural deity (typically God), the existence of which is presupposed.

Exactly... the belief that everything was created, as they are today, without any evolution (greater than on a sub-species level, for the less-idiotic of them). If that is true, then dinosaurs (which we know lived in the past) which went extinct, could not have existed except side by side with man, unless multiple creations were done. But this is not how the bible describes it, as it describes only a single creation event. Or maybe it was the flood that killed them... either way they would have lived side by side with mankind.

And there are some exceptionally intelligent people who believe in ID, including athiests. So, again, whatever...

That's an oxymoron if I've ever heard it. I'm sorry, but you cannot be an atheist and believe in an intelligent "something" guiding evolution. You're lying about one of them if you claim as such. Anyway, ID is nearly as BS as Young-Earthers... EVERY example of irreducible complexity has been reduced, completely blowing itout of the water.

Moreover, the Old Earthers (again creationists) had no problem ratifying the idea of Dinosaurs with their beliefs. They predated the relatively recent New Earthers by quie a bit. Considering in the Bible, there's evidence that Adam and Eve weren't the first people alive (the booming Land of Nod, populated by people that Cain was afraid would kill him), and that there were throwbacks from another Era (Leviathan and Behemoth), it's not a stretch to say that the creation story was the 2nd Creation. Hell for all we know, wiping out the Dinosaurs was part of God's making of the Earth.

But that's not founded in any biblical verses, which is the very argument you gave against dinosaurs to begin with. Listen, if one assumes the biblical story of the flood to be true (contrary to all physical evidence), then it is no stretch to believe that Genesis was the beginning of everything, and that dinosaurs must have lived at some point, and that because there's only so many years to work with, that they lived at the same time as man.

I forget how deep the ark was. But the width and length were huge. Water was all around them, so that's not a problem. all in all the boat would've been as big as your average football stadium, so it'd be a stretch, but I can guarantee none of us want to do the Math on it.

The water would be brackish and salinated from nearby seas and oceans, and undrinkable. EGO did the math on the area available. It's just not possible without several acts of god, and why use an ark, do all that work to keep the animals alive in said ark, when you can just keep them all alive? It's terribly inefficient.

At 4/7/07 07:00 AM, WolvenBear wrote: I've been pissing off Christians of all stripes since I was 5 and have gotten into debates with thousands of them. I have yet to meet a single person who believes dinosaurs were alive during the time of Noah, Dinosaur deniers are more common.

Talk to afliXion...

I'm a creationist. As is almost everyone of the Christian faith. Believing that God created the Earth is creationism.

No... believing that God created all life as it is, birds with feathers, reptiles with scales, is creationism. Just as atheism is the positive assertion (knowledge) that there is no god, not the belief that there is none, which is agnosticism.

Antony Flew for one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew
IDers aren't creationist, as creationists believe in an all powerful being, and IDers believe in an intelligent designer for Earth.

Potayto, potahto. He STARTED out as an atheist, but obviously that has changed, and he's deist now (i.e. believes in a deity, just not the Abrahamic one), and as such cannot be both an atheist and a believer in ID. Also, ID IS CREATIONISM.

Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact–fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Biology and Creation 1986, FTE 3015, p. 2-10)

Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent Creator with their distinctive features already intact–fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Biology and Origins 1987, FTE 3235, p. 2-13)

Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent Creator with their distinctive features already intact–fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1987, creationist version, FTE 4996-4997, pp. 2-14, 2-15)

Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact–fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1987, intelligent design version, FTE 4667, p. 2-15)

Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1989, 1st edition, published, pp. 99-100)

Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1993, 2nd edition, published, pp. 99-100)

A rose by any other name would smell the same... to paraphrase.

---

At 4/7/07 02:51 PM, Ravariel wrote: And that's part of my point. If god creates the flood, and then guides all the animals to Noah, keeps them alive during the Ark trip... why exactly did he need the Ark in the first place?

Why did God need Moses to go to the Pharoah? I mean, he obviously was quite good at making his own point. Why did God need Jonah to travel to Nineva when he could've done it himself?
Maybe God's a bit of a dramaticist?

Exactly... the belief that everything was created, as they are today, without any evolution (greater than on a sub-species level, for the less-idiotic of them). If that is true, then dinosaurs (which we know lived in the past) which went extinct, could not have existed except side by side with man, unless multiple creations were done. But this is not how the bible describes it, as it describes only a single creation event. Or maybe it was the flood that killed them... either way they would have lived side by side with mankind.

Incorrect. Any belief that the Earth was created by a higher power is creationism. Just because those who want to minimalize religion try to paint with a wide stroke doesn't make it so. There are dozens of different views on creationism, some which believe in evolution, some that don't. I listed a ton of them, and they're all creationist views, your refusal to accept them as such being irrelevant to the debate.

So again, no, your rather worthless assessment that the dinosaurs HAD to be involved is still bunk.

That's an oxymoron if I've ever heard it. I'm sorry, but you cannot be an atheist and believe in an intelligent "something" guiding evolution. You're lying about one of them if you claim as such. Anyway, ID is nearly as BS as Young-Earthers... EVERY example of irreducible complexity has been reduced, completely blowing itout of the water.

IT CANNOT BE. BECAUSE I REFUSE TO BE WRONG.
But you are. It's cool.

ID is not creationism. Irreducably complex is not a hallmark of ID. Some people use it, but it's not a central theme to the scientific theory.

Stop being such a jackass. Just because someone believes in ID doesn't make them an idiot Christian. But again, not getting into Darwinism vs ID here.

But that's not founded in any biblical verses, which is the very argument you gave against dinosaurs to begin with. Listen, if one assumes the biblical story of the flood to be true (contrary to all physical evidence), then it is no stretch to believe that Genesis was the beginning of everything, and that dinosaurs must have lived at some point, and that because there's only so many years to work with, that they lived at the same time as man.

There's biblical verses to support that there was civilization (Nod) before Adam and Eve.

No... believing that God created all life as it is, birds with feathers, reptiles with scales, is creationism. Just as atheism is the positive assertion (knowledge) that there is no god, not the belief that there is none, which is agnosticism.

No, believing the Earth was created by God is Creationism. You can keep tap dancing in circles all you want, but you're stil lwrong. LITERAL CREATIONISM (or genesis Creationism) is not the only kind.
For example, the Catholic Church teaches that the creation story in the Bible is oral history, and as such innaccurate, but they still say that God created the Earth.

Potayto, potahto. He STARTED out as an atheist, but obviously that has changed, and he's deist now (i.e. believes in a deity, just not the Abrahamic one), and as such cannot be both an atheist and a believer in ID. Also, ID IS CREATIONISM.

He's regarded as a diest because he believes in ID. He looked at the evidence and was convinced.

Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact–fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Biology and Creation 1986, FTE 3015, p. 2-10)

TO HELL WITH EVERYONE WHO SAYS IM WRONG. THERE IS ONLY ONE TYPE OF CREATIONISM. FULL STEAM AHEAD.

A rose by any other name would smell the same... to paraphrase.

The debate of ID vs Darwin is not a scientific one. I concede this not because there is no evidence of ID, but because everytime someone makes their case a Darwinist comes along and starts screaming their fool heads off. "CHURCH AND STATE. CHRISTIAN BUFFOON. THIS ISN'T SCIENTIFIC BECAUSE IT CAN'T BE TESTED, AND BESIDES IT'S ALREADY BEEN TESTED AND PROVED FALSE."

Honestly, I see little difference in you refusing to acknowledge that there's more than one kind of Creationism. You're wrong and you know it, yet you just keep harping on about how all of them are exactly the same and idiots to boot.
Not all Evolutionists are Darwinists, they don't all believe in the tree model or a common ancestor, and not all Creationists are literal Genesis Creationists.
If you're not willing to acknowledge even this small point, then you're not willing to have an intelligent discussion.

---

At 4/7/07 12:40 AM, Dre-Man wrote: Are you so sure that sea creatures such as a Leviathan didn't exist? Their bones could be buried underneath miles and miles of hard ocean sediment. Who knows.

ah, but this is different and seperate from the idea that "dragons" may have been the name used by the ancients to describe dinosaurs when they supposedly roamed the earth along side man.

---

I think God made stuff and let evoloution take its course.

---

Think about how low of a percent there is that most of these religions are true. Seriously, think about how many religions there are in the world, how can you say that your sure that yours is correct. The most logical "religion" is agnosticism. I spend allot of time thinking about these types of things. But who knows, I could be wrong too. I don't know of anyway that someone can prove their religion to be true.

---

At 4/7/07 05:51 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Maybe God's a bit of a dramaticist?

Would certainly seem so... raining frogs, anyone?

Incorrect. Any belief that the Earth was created by a higher power is creationism.

In a sense, just as much as strong agnosticism is a form of atheism.

So again, no, your rather worthless assessment that the dinosaurs HAD to be involved is still bunk.

Most folk (happy now) who believe that the flood story is literally true, also adhere to the dinosaurs and man living together at the same time.

ID is not creationism. Irreducably complex is not a hallmark of ID. Some people use it, but it's not a central theme to the scientific theory.

Yes it is. Did you not read the definitions of those books that put forth ID as a "scientific" theory? Irreducible Complexity is the linchpin of ID.

Stop being such a jackass. Just because someone believes in ID doesn't make them an idiot Christian. But again, not getting into Darwinism vs ID here.

No, you can believe the FSM is the IDer, too. And this being the SvR thread, why not get into it? This is a discussion I've actually not had in a while... it'd be nice to see if the IDers have some up with anything new recently.

He's regarded as a diest because he believes in ID. He looked at the evidence and was convinced.

What evidence? The argument from incredulity "evidence"? Or the improper use of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics "evidnece"? Or the completely irrelevant use of Occam's Razor "evidence"? Or the appreance of structure "evidence" which is countered by chaos theory and fractal math? Or just the Bible?

Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact–fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Biology and Creation 1986, FTE 3015, p. 2-10)

TO HELL WITH EVERYONE WHO SAYS IM WRONG. THERE IS ONLY ONE TYPE OF CREATIONISM. FULL STEAM AHEAD.

Hey, when prominent publications on creationism say it... claiming it's not the norm for creationist thought is a bit absurd.

The debate of ID vs Darwin is not a scientific one.

You're right, because there is very little science in ID. There are more peer-reviewed articles about Evolutionary biology in a week than the entirety of them about ID.

I concede this not because there is no evidence of ID, but because everytime someone makes their case a Darwinist comes along and starts screaming their fool heads off. "CHURCH AND STATE. CHRISTIAN BUFFOON. THIS ISN'T SCIENTIFIC BECAUSE IT CAN'T BE TESTED, AND BESIDES IT'S ALREADY BEEN TESTED AND PROVED FALSE."

A) It can't be tested, thus it can't be scientific.

B) All instances of irreducible complexity (the hallmark of ID, regardless of your claims) have been explained and reduced.

C) Bullshit.

I DARE you to give me evidence for ID that I can't tear apart.

I double-dog dare you.

Honestly, I see little difference in you refusing to acknowledge that there's more than one kind of Creationism. You're wrong and you know it, yet you just keep harping on about how all of them are exactly the same and idiots to boot.

Fine, point conceded. There ARE those who believe that the earth was created, and yet don't believe the literal truth of the bible. HOWEVER! When we argue about the logistics of the Ark story, aren't we assuming the Bible (or at least Genesis) to be literal? As such, must we not pose our arguments to and from that stance?

---

At 4/8/07 12:36 AM, Ravariel wrote: Most folk (happy now) who believe that the flood story is literally true, also adhere to the dinosaurs and man living together at the same time.

Yea. No they don't.
Sorry, but EVERY SINGLE SITE I'VE BEEN TO WITHOUT EXCEPTION, admits that the majority of creationists do now believe this (as evidenced by the very site he linked).
That hill is getticng steeper

Yes it is. Did you not read the definitions of those books that put forth ID as a "scientific" theory? Irreducible Complexity is the linchpin of ID.

No, it's not. I've read hundreds of books on both ID and evolution.
Irreduciblecomplexity is not the lynchpin of either the case against ID or the case for it.

For example, the case that Darwinists most often use against IDers is that "life is not perfect, even though they never claim it is. ID doesn't guarantee p;erfectness.
No one has ever legitimately debated the origin of the eye (hint, ot appeared suddenly..damn those stupid creationists).

No, you can believe the FSM is the IDer, too. And this being the SvR thread, why not get into it? This is a discussion I've actually not had in a while... it'd be nice to see if the IDers have some up with anything new recently.

What evidence? The argument from incredulity "evidence"? Or the improper use of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics "evidnece"? Or the completely irrelevant use of Occam's Razor "evidence"? Or the appreance of structure "evidence" which is countered by chaos theory and fractal math? Or just the Bible?

Yea, the theory that no one has debated for centuries is the lynchpin...pardon me while I check my cat box,

Cambrian explosion, try again.
Hmmm, evolutionists- zero evidence that alllife came from one celled organisms. Science: all major life forms appeared in the same period with zero precursors.

FUCKING EVOLUTIONISTS!
Stacking the deck in our favor

Hey, when prominent publications on creationism say it... claiming it's not the norm for creationist thought is a bit absurd.

Hey, when the Pope, the single most prominent Creationiat in the world says something...

You're right, because there is very little science in ID. There are more peer-reviewed articles about Evolutionary biology in a week than the entirety of them about ID.

And at one time the Earth was thought to revolve around the sun, and blood was evil to the body...

A) It can't be tested, thus it can't be scientific.

Of course not. This is why every single article has said that ID is easily proven wrong.
Eye rollie.

B) All instances of irreducible complexity (the hallmark of ID, regardless of your claims) have been explained and reduced.

Really?
There'd not been a single solitary scientific eye explaination.
And those mousetrap experiments (in which it was proven that a mousetrap could be simplified as long as the object wan't to make the item still usable), are bunk.

I DARE you to give me evidence for ID that I can't tear apart.

Explain the eye.
Then I'll care.

I double-dog dare you.

Tell me how the flaggella formed.
Please,

Fine, point conceded. There ARE those who believe that the earth was created, and yet don't believe the literal truth of the bible. HOWEVER! When we argue about the logistics of the Ark story, aren't we assuming the Bible (or at least Genesis) to be literal? As such, must we not pose our arguments to and from that stance?

OK, fine. Then argue a logical BIBLICAL stance that says that Dinosaurs were still alive.
Since you can'y do it, I'm going to give you a mulligan...
Ok, then. Grant me why I should buy the fact that God flooded the world, yet, couldn't minutely alter conditions so tbat said animals could survive.

If we wwant to argue Biblical history, based on the Bible alone, it is hndreds (if not thousands) of years between each story. There are other societies that may have made boats once it started raining.
Of we want to believe that Genesis is true, theres not a single reason we can't beloeve that Noah (and his ark) is the only survivor of the flood.
If Adam and Eve wereb't the first people (if they were, there would've been no land of Nod), there's no reason to believe that Noah was the only one to survive the flood.

---

At 4/8/07 04:50 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Sorry, but EVERY SINGLE SITE I'VE BEEN TO WITHOUT EXCEPTION, admits that the majority of creationists do now believe this (as evidenced by the very site he linked).

The majority of creationists also don't believe the Global flood story is literal... your point?

No, it's not. I've read hundreds of books on both ID and evolution.
Irreduciblecomplexity is not the lynchpin of either the case against ID or the case for it.

Yes.

"Irreducible complexity (also denoted IC) has gained prominence as the evidence for the intelligent design (ID) movement, which argues that life is so complicated that it must be the work of an intelligent designer (aka God) rather than the result of evolution." (emphasis mine)

it.

is.

For example, the case that Darwinists most often use against IDers is that "life is not perfect, even though they never claim it is. ID doesn't guarantee p;erfectness.

If the designer was intelligent enough, it would be, but that's beside the point. I never use that argument, because it's just another appeal to probability.

No one has ever legitimately debated the origin of the eye (hint, ot appeared suddenly..damn those stupid creationists).

cough.

Cambrian explosion, try again.
Hmmm, evolutionists- zero evidence that alllife came from one celled organisms. Science: all major life forms appeared in the same period with zero precursors.

A) The cambrian explosion happened quickly only on a geologic scale. It is spread over nearly 100 million years, though most of it took place in the range of 30 million years. Can you even fathom how long 30 million years is? How about 100 million? It's hard to wrap my brain around, and I deal with numbers that large on a regular basis.

B) Hi.

C) Hello again.

"The debate persists today about whether the evolutionary "explosion" of the Cambrian was as sudden and spontaneous as it appears in the fossil record. The discovery of new pre-Cambrian and Cambrian fossils help, as these transitional forms support the hypothesis that diversification was well underway before the Cambrian began."

You're right, because there is very little science in ID. There are more peer-reviewed articles about Evolutionary biology in a week than the entirety of them about ID.

And at one time the Earth was thought to revolve around the sun, and blood was evil to the body...

And yet evidence easily showed those to be false. ALL evidence right now points to evolution. None points to ID. Funny, that.

Of course not. This is why every single article has said that ID is easily proven wrong.
Eye rollie.

Can't "prove" religion wrong. And that's what ID is... religion without naming the god. No evidence for, and yet all the evidence against is moot cuz you just have to say it was "god magic" that made it all happen, and there's no argument to that.

B) All instances of irreducible complexity (the hallmark of ID, regardless of your claims) have been explained and reduced.

Really?
There'd not been a single solitary scientific eye explaination.

Coughcough.

I DARE you to give me evidence for ID that I can't tear apart.

Explain the eye.
Then I'll care.

Enough with the coughing.

I double-dog dare you.

Tell me how the flaggella formed.
Please,

Ok.

OK, fine. Then argue a logical BIBLICAL stance that says that Dinosaurs were still alive.
Since you can'y do it, I'm going to give you a mulligan...

orly?

Kiddy version, so it'll be easy to understand.

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read /dinosaurs_and_the_bible

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/bible/bibl e.htm

http://www.gotquestions.org/dinosaurs-Bible.h tml

All with the bible verses to back them up.

Ok, then. Grant me why I should buy the fact that God flooded the world, yet, couldn't minutely alter conditions so tbat said animals could survive.

If you want to say they all survived by God Magic, that's fine. i can't argue that point. I can, however, argue the idea that all God di was tell Noah to build the Ark and get the animals there, and they still survived.

If we wwant to argue Biblical history, based on the Bible alone, it is hndreds (if not thousands) of years between each story. There are other societies that may have made boats once it started raining.

k... and?

Of we want to believe that Genesis is true, theres not a single reason we can't beloeve that Noah (and his ark) is the only survivor of the flood.

Except the bible said it was so...

If Adam and Eve wereb't the first people (if they were, there would've been no land of Nod), there's no reason to believe that Noah was the only one to survive the flood.

Except the fact that the bible said it was so :/

Do I need to quote chapter and verse? It burns my fingers to make that kind of copypasta...

It's easier, and more logical that the story is a parable on how you need to follow God, even in the face of ridicule, even if you may doubt him. It may even be based on a small local flood and grew like a fish story through the oral history of the time. However, there are too many scientific problems with a global flood, much less the Ark itself to believe the story is literal without the direct interference on all levels by god. When you say it was all god magic, I can't say anything... but when you try to justify the story as possible or even plausible scientifically, then we're going to have some issues.

---

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

;
What about feeding these animals for 2 months.
Where was the room for the fodder?

How did they feed the meat eaters , you have 2 of every animal , you have nothing for the meat eaters to chow down on.

Insects???? where would they put all the insects?

Specialized food, some animals eat very specialized diets.
C'mon only an absolute moron would believe there is any validity & or possibilty of an ark.
Within the context of what we've been led to believe is the truth.

---

At 4/8/07 01:11 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

What about feeding these animals for 2 months.

2 months is about 62 days. It was 40 days, a little over a month.

C'mon only an absolute moron would believe there is any validity & or possibilty of an ark.
Within the context of what we've been led to believe is the truth.

Wow, you people are stupid. Have you been listening this entire time? You're trying to get rid of God from the picture while there being a flood. It's not going to happen. Either the flood happend with God or the flood didn't happen at all. You can't pick and choose. If you think for a moment (something I know is very hard to do on your part), you might actually figure that out.

---

At 4/8/07 03:35 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/8/07 01:11 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

What about feeding these animals for 2 months.

2 months is about 62 days. It was 40 days, a little over a month.

Sorry , you really think they loaded 5000 animals over night ?

After the flood, the ark settled into a lovely meadow, full of flurishing plants & lots of other animals to feed the meat eaters!

Go shake your head... hear that rattle?
That is the walnut you can call your brain.

---

At 4/8/07 03:53 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

Sorry , you really think they loaded 5000 animals over night ?

Did it say that?

You know, the bible also claims that it took about a hundred years before he and his family completed the Ark. Are you going to bitch about their age too?

That is the walnut you can call your brain.

And once again, may I repeat myself: I'm not going to argue speculation you dumbfuck.

---

Why does everyone target Christianity? Seriously, I have yet to hear people bash Islam, Judaism, etc. on this thread.

---

At 4/8/07 04:59 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Why does everyone target Christianity? Seriously, I have yet to hear people bash Islam, Judaism, etc. on this thread.

Don't worry, I think Islam and Judaism is just as silly as Christianity ^^

The thing is, I live in the west, and the west is mostly Christian. That means, I will face Christians every day, and talk to them every day. So, a lot of issues comes from debating with Christians. Had I lived in a very Jewish or Islamic community, I would have debated them likewise. I'm no hypocrite that says that you can burn the Bible but not the Koran. I hate people who thinks you can make fun of Jesus, but not Muhammad.

And just like that is how it is here at Science VS Religion. Most people that post here are Christians or Non-belivers. I'd be happy to debate a non-Christian subject if it came up.

---

At 4/8/07 05:53 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 4/8/07 04:59 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Why does everyone target Christianity? Seriously, I have yet to hear people bash Islam, Judaism, etc. on this thread.

Don't worry, I think Islam and Judaism is just as silly as Christianity ^^

And atheism is just completely based on logic and intelligence.

Idiot