Contradictions in the Bible

phobiaphobe · 09-28-2005, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDA116

... Also, that is current species. We don't know how many were around back then.
....

So you are saying that macro-evolution (ie the development of new species) is possible?

The article I sourced estimated that there are 600000 species of beetles alone. Let's stuff 1.2 million beetles in a few suitcases for 40 days and see what's left when we open it back up.

I accounted for aquatic species. Also, I don't know of any birds that can sustain flight indefinitely for 40 days. They would have to land. ANd they would have to eat.

BDA116 · 09-28-2005, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

The article I sourced estimated that there are 600000 species of beetles alone. Let's stuff 1.2 million beetles in a few suitcases for 40 days and see what's left when we open it back up.

That sounds like fun, doesn't it?
Like I said, I was just adding to your logic. The area all the species would need isn't anywhere near as large as you suggested, that's all.

luvtolean · 09-28-2005, 12:55 PM

Yeah, never bought the Noah story. Still don't.

Animals don't transport well with modern technology. A 50% die off with many is the norm after only a few days, much less 40.

Either there's macroevolution, or there's no ark.

figment · 09-28-2005, 1:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Yeah, never bought the Noah story. Still don't.

Animals don't transport well with modern technology. A 50% die off with many is the norm after only a few days, much less 40.

Either there's macroevolution, or there's no ark.

With the time alloted Noah could have had animals living on the ark for a long time in perparation and to acclimate them. Just another thing you may not have considered

phobiaphobe · 09-28-2005, 1:00 PM

I think it's a wonderful fable, and I'm surprised that people still believe it's true.

phobiaphobe · 09-28-2005, 1:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDA116

... The area all the species would need isn't anywhere near as large as you suggested, that's all.

No, not the area for the physical volume of the animals themselves, but the size of all the equipment, supplies, and staff neccesary to support them all.

phobiaphobe · 09-28-2005, 1:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by figment

With the time alloted Noah could have had animals living on the ark for a long time in perparation and to acclimate them. Just another thing you may not have considered

I give up.

luvtolean · 09-28-2005, 1:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by figment

With the time alloted Noah could have had animals living on the ark for a long time in perparation and to acclimate them. Just another thing you may not have considered

"Acclimate"

That's total bullshit. These animals die for lack of correct food, proper temperature, humidity, and just plain old stress. It takes almost no time for this to happen. 40 days without heating, cooling, or humidity control would kill the vast majority of animals in short order.

Almost no birds would live. Almost no reptiles. Amphibians. The insects would all eat each other.

How in the hell do you get giraffes, elephants, hippos, bison, all these huge animals, their feed, and somehow keep them alive?

I take care of a 75 gallon reef tank. It is a chore at times, with modern technology. Noah would've needed an army of humans as caretakers. There are still lots of animals humans cannot keep alive in captivity.

BDA116 · 09-28-2005, 1:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

No, not the area for the physical volume of the animals themselves, but the size of all the equipment, supplies, and staff neccesary to support them all.

True, there would be a ton of room needed just for food alone.
Then again, there was plenty of room for more suitcases of beetles.

The story is like most others in the Bible honestly. It takes faith to believe in the Bible in the first place, then faith to believe a God with almighty powers could provide sustinance for all the humans and animals aboard the protected vessel for the time specified.
No, applying today's logic to it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

luvtolean · 09-28-2005, 1:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDA116

The story is like most others in the Bible honestly. It takes faith to believe in the Bible in the first place, then faith to believe a God with almighty powers could provide sustinance for all the humans and animals aboard the protected vessel for the time specified.

Yes, this is the only way it could've happened. Noah and his 8 sons or whatever it was, simply could not have cared for these animals.

phobiaphobe · 09-28-2005, 1:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDA116

True, there would be a ton of room needed just for food alone.
Then again, there was plenty of room for more suitcases of beetles.

The story is like most others in the Bible honestly. It takes faith to believe in the Bible in the first place, then faith to believe a God with almighty powers could provide sustinance for all the humans and animals aboard the protected vessel for the time specified.
No, applying today's logic to it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

If God could sustain the animals himself why would he need a guy with a boat to take care of it. He could have made them hover in a bubble in space in suspended animation then popped them back after the flooding.

Actually, he made all those animals so why didn't he just let them die and make new ones?

BDA116 · 09-28-2005, 1:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

If God could sustain the animals himself why would he need a guy with a boat to take care of it. He could have made them hover in a bubble in space in suspended animation then popped them back after the flooding.

Actually, he made all those animals so why didn't he just let them die and make new ones?

Because I said so.
Now tie your shoes, grab your backpack and get on the friggin' bus. You're late for school.

phobiaphobe · 09-28-2005, 1:20 PM

I don't WANNA.

Kuss929 · 09-28-2005, 1:42 PM

I saw a show on Discovery some time ago that showed proof that a flood did occur in that region. Look to the recent disaster in New Orleans. You could have build a boat and packed in a good part of the zoo and wait it out until the flood went down. You would have thought the whole world was flooded however 500 miles away nothing could have happend. "The whole world" back then was pretty small considering the fastest way to get information was horse or camel.

Other things that turn up in the bible are lengths of time. 40 days is a term that is used for long periods of time sometimes up to years.

phobiaphobe · 09-28-2005, 1:45 PM

The world was also flat back then.

figment · 09-28-2005, 2:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

"Acclimate"

That's total bullshit. These animals die for lack of correct food, proper temperature, humidity, and just plain old stress. It takes almost no time for this to happen. 40 days without heating, cooling, or humidity control would kill the vast majority of animals in short order.

Almost no birds would live. Almost no reptiles. Amphibians. The insects would all eat each other.

How in the hell do you get giraffes, elephants, hippos, bison, all these huge animals, their feed, and somehow keep them alive?

I take care of a 75 gallon reef tank. It is a chore at times, with modern technology. Noah would've needed an army of humans as caretakers. There are still lots of animals humans cannot keep alive in captivity.

LOL call BS all you like but youre not even responding to whats already been put forth. (your aquarium illustration is a shining example of your lack of preparation or consideration in the previous posts in this thread). This thread started as a discusion on contradictions. It has degenerated into a discussion on a particular plausibility. Where's the BS? Typical twist and spin when caught.

luvtolean · 09-28-2005, 2:55 PM

What the hell figment?

I was responding to you, who was arguing the plausibility of the ark directly with me with this "acclimation" nonsense. Phobia went there first, and it was being discussed by several people. I added to the argument.

Was it patently on topic? No. But what interesting thread stays on topic?

I understand, my retort is impossible to refute scientifically. It is not possible to acclimate (as you argued) or feed every species on the planet with a very small group of people, on a boat, for 40 days. Without magic, or divine intervention. To say nothing of viruses, etc etc.

Quote:

Typical twist and spin when caught.

That's what I saw...but not by myself.

figment · 09-28-2005, 3:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

What the hell figment?
...
That's what I saw...but not by myself.

point made, point taken.

nedro · 09-28-2005, 3:02 PM

Figment, I'm not just throwing barbs out here, so don't take it that way but...How do you account for 800+ year old men and rampent incest to create population in the first place.

figment · 09-28-2005, 3:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

To say nothing of viruses, etc etc.

LTL you're applying present-day conditions. That sounds like an assumption to me.

It's a hard story to believe in todays world, granted. But that does not make it impossible, after all it's astory involving a super-power. I'd like to continue this in another thread If there is an interest.

I started this thread so you'd have a nice comfy place to tell us about your contradiction you referenced yesterday in another thread.

RSheffi649 · 09-28-2005, 3:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

"Acclimate"

That's total bullshit. These animals die for lack of correct food, proper temperature, humidity, and just plain old stress. It takes almost no time for this to happen. 40 days without heating, cooling, or humidity control would kill the vast majority of animals in short order.

Almost no birds would live. Almost no reptiles. Amphibians. The insects would all eat each other.

How in the hell do you get giraffes, elephants, hippos, bison, all these huge animals, their feed, and somehow keep them alive?

I take care of a 75 gallon reef tank. It is a chore at times, with modern technology. Noah would've needed an army of humans as caretakers. There are still lots of animals humans cannot keep alive in captivity.

What you are overlooking is Noah was obedient to what GOD had commanded he do. When you are obedient, GOD will take care of the rest. I mean how easy do you think it would be to gather up all those animals...? You think a lion is just gonna say ok i'll go with you...NO when you open yourself to GOD and follow his word he works the situation out for you.

luvtolean · 09-28-2005, 3:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by figment

LTL you're applying present-day conditions. That sounds like an assumption to me.

No. You argue against macroevolution. We know, for a fact, there is no way the ark carried every living thing on the world today. This of course, is without the influence of God. That's what you simply should of said.

It is a much more tenable position than acclimation, or some voodoo technology for the husbandry of animals in hostile environments they might have had, but the world lost.

Quote:

I started this thread so you'd have a nice comfy place to tell us about your contradiction you referenced yesterday in another thread.

I spent the day on the road yesterday, and today I have to do the work I drove up to do. So, I shan't go there.