Is the Bible the Word of God?

The short answer to this topic is....No the Bible is NOT the word of God. What it is is an interpretation of what men of those days long ago perceived as the divine,based on their observations of the world,their understanding of it and also,on ancient Sumerian and Babylonian legends which have been reworked by the Hebrew and than by the Muslims. It contains some wisdom which COULD be divinely inspired but it also contains vague interpretations,myths and downright fallacies. It is also heavily influenced by the cultural bias presiding in the days it was originaly writen. One good exemple is the story of original sin,in which man eats the forbiden fruit from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. And the way it is represented is once Adam and Eve have eaten the fruit,they realise that they are naked and cover themselves with fig leaves. This implies from the get go that nudity in public settings is somehow evil,a cultural bias present in Babylonian and ancient hebrew times. But in the case of Adam and Eve,who did not even know what cloths were at the time and had never seen any living creature trying to cover their private parts,the concept of sudden shame at their own nakedness is absurd. It would be akin to them suddently realizing that slurping a bowl of soup instead eating it with a spoon is an evil thing even though they had never even heard of either soup or spoons.

you have refuted nothing i've ever said TC...you merely expressed your disagreement across the board. The arguments you present are always based on your assumption that the Bible is correct...at times,you even use your assumptions that your Bible is correct as PROOF that your bible is correct. You dont refute any argument,TC,you merely try to cast doubt on them and then proceed as though they have been refuted.

TC,the story of Adam and Eve is merely that...a story...its not HISTORY. The characters in that STORY do whatever the AUTORS who invented them want them to do. And since the autors were chauvinistic sumerians,then woman was the bitch in most of their stories,a practice which was taken up by the babylonians,then by the jews who inherited the stories of the early sumerians. The book of genesis is not an account of historical events...its a book of old recycled sumerian folklore...and the sumerian version is way more interesting and actually a lot more scientific than the book of Genesis. Neither Eve nor Adam "picked" the apple. Knowledge of good and evil was never contained in a fruit or a pill or any such nonsense and the human race does not originate from two middle easterner from 6000 years ago. At no point in history was there ever a human being who could live for 900 years and while the world has suffered SEVERAL worldwide catastrophies that caused 5 great extinctions,none of them occured in the last 12000 years and not a single one of them was send by God to punish the world for crimes real or imagined. There is no reason to believe that Bible is anything more than a collection of stories,myths,legends,philosophies mixed with SOME (very few) historical accounts here and there. The way it is writen is no doubt very clever because it can be interpreted to mean just about anything the reader wants it to mean,as you demonstrated repeatadly
with your Biblical spins and twists but it is no more inspire by God than books of Santa Claus stories.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"TC,the story of Adam and Eve is merely that...a story...its not HISTORY. The characters in that STORY do whatever the AUTORS who invented them want them to do. And since the autors were chauvinistic sumerians,then woman was the bitch in most of their stories,a practice which was taken up by the babylonians,then by the jews who inherited the stories of the early sumerians."
--We have already gone over this, you know of no evidence that the summarians nor the babylonians pre-date the Flood or Adam and Eve or any other biblical happening. So if you would like to go back to this argument to make it at all attractive to a concept of logic then you must back up your claims that they are such and so old, because otherwize, you have it backwords.

​

"The book of genesis is not an account of historical events...its a book of old recycled sumerian folklore...and the sumerian version is way more interesting and actually a lot more scientific than the book of Genesis."
--Think its more scientific? By what basis? I would be very interested in this depiction.

​

"Neither Eve nor Adam "picked" the apple. Knowledge of good and evil was never contained in a fruit or a pill or any such nonsense and the human race does not originate from two middle easterner from 6000 years ago."
--And all of these assertion(s) are based on what? And are contredicted by what?

​

"At no point in history was there ever a human being who could live for 900 years and while the world has suffered SEVERAL worldwide catastrophies that caused 5 great extinctions,none of them occured in the last 12000 years and not a single one of them was send by God to punish the world for crimes real or imagined."
--Sure, humans did live for 900 years (As I proved to you previously, if you don't accept that because of the odds, you might want to throw abiogenesis by chance(If this is what you or anyone else believes) in the can), and the world suffered one world wide catastrophy in the midsts of many catastrophic events, that cause the extinction of many verieties of animals, all of them occured in the last 6000 years and almost all of them were acts of God, and the Noacian Flood sent by God. Hm.. Its basically the same thing you just stated, but the other way around, it doesn't mean anything without a basis, any refutations or evidence towards your claims, I hae yet to see it, or if you can again state it if you have somehow allready explained it to me.

​

"There is no reason to believe that Bible is anything more than a collection of stories,myths,legends,philosophies mixed with SOME (very few) historical accounts here and there."
--Sure there is, it hasent been falsified even with falsifiability, and there is evidence towards the claims of its pages.

​

"The way it is writen is no doubt very clever because it can be interpreted to mean just about anything the reader wants it to mean,as you demonstrated repeatadly."
--Ofcourse it can't mean anything, as I have demonstrated repeatedly... You can't say that the heart is a bodily organ, you cant re interperet the noacian flood to be local, you cant interperet the creation to be millions of years, etc, and all of your claims show that this is true, if you would like to point any out and explain my fallacy in it, be my guest with your Biblical spins and twists but it is no more inspire by God than books of Santa Claus stories.

​

---

Every historian worth his/her grades knows that the Sumerians are the very first civilisation to appear on earth in the Middle East.The knowledge of the ancient Sumerians in cosmology was astonishing...they allready knew 6000 years ago that the solar system was a heliocentric system and had on one of their tablets a depiction of the solar system with all planets at their correct place orbiting the sun. They also refered to the reath as KI,which means in ancient Sumerian 7th world. The sumerian counted the planets from the outside in and they have writen evidence that there is a 10th planet to the solar system,whose large eliptical orbit brings it back near the earth every 3600 years(i believe that its next visit should occur in ~2400 ish). Astronomers around the world are actively looking for it even as we speak. The Sumerians often refered to their gods(plural) as beings who came down from the heaven and brought their wisdom to the Sumerian people. Thats may well mean that they were visited by an alien civilisation,which would explain their advanced knowledge in cosmology and astronomy. Incidently,they are not the only people on earth who make such claims. The aztech,the mayans and the people of the ancient kingdom of MU(known today as the easter Island) also made similar claims that they were visited by gods who came from heaven on flying chariots. Another point of interest is that the Sumerians also mention waters above the heavens but from their writings,it is clear that they mean water in space.i.e. ice,which is found on many planets of the solar system and not some mystical water canopy enveloping the earth.I dont have to assert anything concerning the book of Genesis. There is not a single shread of scientific evidence that anyone ever lived 900 years,that knowledge is contained in fruits and that we all originate from the middle east. Anthropological studies of the many people on earth has yet to establish points of commonality between Middle easterners,africans,australian aborigenal,native americans,Slaves,Celts and Asians. The only thing the Bible believers have to go on is the obscure references of the tower of Babel...which incidently was never discovered,either intact or in ruins and dont tell me that it was the alledged Flood since it occured after the flood in biblical mythology and the yet unproven assertion,both in fact and in theory that the oceans all dried up after the alledged flood.It is impossible to refute something that has never been observed. I believe this is your favorite argument as a creationist against evolution. Well have you ever observed a natural catastrophy caused by God? Do you know of anyone who has lived for centuries? Beside anecdotal evidence of cancerous cells which replicate ad infinitum,which really proves nothing other than the fact that cancerous cells can reproduce ad infinitum,is there documented medical evidence of people having lived for 900 years....even 300 or 200 years would suffice to convince me...anything? Also,i've explained to you that the earth had been bombarded with many asteroids which had the same devastating power as the one who caused the last great extinction,some 65 million years ago. there is at least 10 craters of 20 km of diameters and more litering the earth,all caused by potential Global killer asteroids...All of them in the last 6000 years? i think not and neither does the scientific who knows more about these phenomenon then you or i do. All send by God? my my your God is really a capricious monster,isent he? Thankfully,that God only exists in your head.The Bible has been falsified repeatadly by me and other people on this board...you simply do a little re-interpretation here and there whenever you're cornered and voila. TC,your entire identity seemed to be build around the unyelding belief in the Bible's inerant nature and i suspect that God Itself couldn't change your mind on this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
this is where the human factor comes into play, no one ever knows what they'll do or even can do. Im sure some facts and stories are tainted to benefit the author; the movie dogma has some funny theories about that. I am however sure that god's message of salvation of men/mankind does get through. I'll repeat something i said before, whats the point of existence if nothing is gained other than offspring and maybe just maybe a beneficial gene. There is no point for an individual to even bother living if everything they do has no meaning or purpose. If i'm here simply to be a slave to my boss or whatever scientist created us i wouldnt be able to motivate myself to do anything, let alone bring children in the world to face the same inevitable fate and loneliness. i know part of believing is that mankind in general needs to feel that it has a purpose for living and that someone cares for them, and god kindly provides all of this for us. However humans are way to bent on their religion, faith in the father, the son and the holy spirit is what saves your soul from damnation not whatever particular religion your in.

​

One more thing... a question for those that are not faithful. Whats your motivation for living if you'll cease to exist in every way?

​

---

While i dont believe in TC's version of fanatical christianity,i certainly do believe in God and that all life comes from God...But to me,life is not the biological construct that houses our concious minds at the moment...these are merely tools we use to gain knowledge from interacting with the world. To me,life is the soul...the very essence of our beings. I believe thats this is the sole point of the universe...to educate us,the children of the living God. I believe that this education is a very slow process and that we've been doing that for eons,starting with the use of simpler lifeforms such as bacterias as vessels and then as each host died(ceased to function) we kept moving from one life form to another with those biological tools evolving to fit our growing need to express more comples emotions and ideas,all the way to what we know today. I believe that we will be doing this for yet some time to come,until such time as this universe has nothing less to teach us,at which point we will move to whatever lays beyond...

​

[This message has been edited by LudvanB, 02-06-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by redstang281:
[b] Genesis 1:14
"And God said Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so."

​

The lights referred to here are the stars, sun, and moon. The "firmament of the heaven" is referring to outter space.

​

So no, line 14 does not contradict the canopy theory.[/QUOTE]Actually,good old fashion law of physics contradict the water/ice canopy "theory". If the earth had been surrounded by this ice bubble at one time,most of the sun's ray would have been reflected away from the earth and it would have been considerably colder than it is today...like winter cold. Furthermore,the gravemetric sheer of the earth would have shatered any such bubble in a matter of moments,with all the pieces falling on the earth or getting lost in deep space...it certainly would not have lasted 1600 years,unless God held it there through magical means,which is then no longuer science.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Actually,good old fashion law of physics contradict the water/ice canopy "theory". If the earth had been surrounded by this ice bubble at one time,most of the sun's ray would have been reflected away from the earth and it would have been considerably colder than it is today...like winter cold."
--sure wouldn't, it would most likely magnify it, a problem with the vapor canopy theory, is if you want to use it as an even somewhat realtively major portion of the flood waters, you have earth surface temperature too hot. But since we don't need it, all I would use is mabye 20 inches of water, either that or have the equivelant as crystalized water vapor.

​

"Furthermore,the gravemetric sheer of the earth would have shatered any such bubble in a matter of moments,with all the pieces falling on the earth or getting lost in deep space...it certainly would not have lasted 1600 years,unless God held it there through magical means,which is then no longuer science."
--I think you mean gravimetric, and no it would not shatter the vapor canopy, just as it doesn't shatter Jupiters emense gasseous atmosphere, unless you can substantiate evidence otherwize.

​

---

If you follow Hovind's water canopy theory,he says that it was a solid bubble of ice formed around the earth. I dont know if you even saw ice but as soon as its more than a few inches think,it becomes only semi transparent and reflects part of the light and diffuse the rest. Also,such a solid sphere of ice could never wistand earth's gravitetional field intact. even if it had formed at some point,and considering that there is no direct evience that it ever did thats a pretty big if,it would have collapsed within moments of its formation. The earth has the atmosphere that is relative to is size and gravitional field...less and we cant breathe...more and we are crushed. if you cant demonstrate to me through imperical or even mathematical evidence that either the size of the earth of the strenght of its gravitational field was CONSIDERABLY different 4500-6000 years ago,i believe it is safe to assume that the water canopy theory is merely a mis-interpretation of ancient Sumerian lore about chunks of ice floating in the cosmos.

​

[This message has been edited by LudvanB, 02-06-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Every historian worth his/her grades knows that the Sumerians are the very first civilisation to appear on earth in the Middle East."
--Ok great, now lets see what evidence you present to back up this assertion and hope we can take that giant leap from conjector to truth by logic, lets continue reading.

​

"The knowledge of the ancient Sumerians in cosmology was astonishing...they allready knew 6000 years ago that the solar system was a heliocentric system and had on one of their tablets a depiction of the solar system with all planets at their correct place orbiting the sun."
--Great, we can do the same thing today, calculate the trejectory of planet orbits, seeing they rotate finely on their orbital plane through all the years, you could figure it out by watching the skys over a couple years, given you have enough interest.

​

LUD: Indeed we can do those things today but we cant see planets like neptune,uranus and pluto with the naked eye...we require powerfull telescopes which were not invented before the 18th century. That means that there was no way back then to tell from earth that there were planets beyond saturn,and much less describe them in detail like the Sumerians do in their tablets. And the Sumerians make no claim of having received this knowledge through "divine inspiration"...they are quite clear that this knowledge was communicated to them verbally by their GODS....one of them,more precisely,the goddess Ishtar.

​

"They also refered to the reath as KI,which means in ancient Sumerian 7th world. The sumerian counted the planets from the outside in and they have writen evidence that there is a 10th planet to the solar system,whose large eliptical orbit brings it back near the earth every 3600 years(i believe that its next visit should occur in ~2400 ish). Astronomers around the world are actively looking for it even as we speak."
--Pretty intelligent people huh. I'd like to find a reference that explains exactly what it is they documented for this, sounds like almost like a large comment to me, but it could be an orbiting celestial body of the sun's. Very interesting.

​

LUD:Most of their knowledge is catalogued in hundreds of clay tablets. Contrary to what you implied the other day,Sumerians were prolific writers...their writings are the oldest on earth as far as we know,dating back 4500-7000 years. The Epic of Gilgamesh is one of their most famous story.lots of interesting info on the subject here...
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze33gpz/myth.html

​

"The Sumerians often refered to their gods(plural) as beings who came down from the heaven and brought their wisdom to the Sumerian people. Thats may well mean that they were visited by an alien civilisation,which would explain their advanced knowledge in cosmology and astronomy."
--Wow there, both of us know there is another explination, whether you think its logical because it is based on the bible or not, you see, people no doubt would have been very smart in those days in different fields, Adam and Eve came pre-programed with probably emense knowledge. After the Flood and assuming that the tower of babel was where they scattered, when they scattered they would have taken with them various people with their own knowledge in different areas, this is why you would see such an almost uniform consistancy in the way many ancient civilizations worked, Especially when it comes to astronomy and architecture it shows significantly. We don't have to jump to the conclusion that it could have been an alien civilization supplying them the knowledge.

​

LUD:I'm curious TC....aside from the Bible and the cultures in the ME,is there any mention of Adam and Eve in any other civilisations? Do either the mayans,the Aztech,the norse,the celts,the aborigenals,the chinese,the africans,the native americans and so on mention them or people even remotely like them in any of their legends? Do you know of any mention in any of these cultures about this ME origin for all of humanity? even a word?

​

"Incidently,they are not the only people on earth who make such claims. The aztech,the mayans and the people of the ancient kingdom of MU(known today as the easter Island) also made similar claims that they were visited by gods who came from heaven on flying chariots."
--Hm.. flying chariots sounds pretty apparent in my mind, I wonder where that came from? As I breifly explained previously this is expected.

​

LUD: not all ancient cultures claim to have been visited by flying chariots...the aborigenals,africans,celts and native americans have no such claims in their legends.

​

"Another point of interest is that the Sumerians also mention waters above the heavens but from their writings,it is clear that they mean water in space.i.e. ice,which is found on many planets of the solar system and not some mystical water canopy enveloping the earth."
--This also is very much expected, also, who said it had to be a water canopy enveloping the earth? Though I do believe there was a canopy of some sort earlier, but this is out of my personal humble opinion, as it is not at all needed for any biblical implication. It is also expected that documentations would be slightly bent over the years.

​

LUD:the vast majority of young earth creationist subscribe to this notion of a water canopy around the earth...many of them,like Kent Hovind are convinced that it was actually a bubble of ICE.

​

"I dont have to assert anything concerning the book of Genesis. There is not a single shread of scientific evidence that anyone ever lived 900 years"
--I already did give you the scientific evidence, pure science. Now would you like to actually refute it or continually assert that there isn't any evidence?

​

LUD: I would like you to explain to me TC how you go from cancer cells replicating themselve infinitely to people living 900 years.

​

"that knowledge is contained in fruits"
--No one said knowledge is contained in fruits.

​

LUD:The Bible does....it states that eating the apple gave man knowledge of good and evil.

​

"and that we all originate from the middle east."
--How do we know exactly where we did originate, how are you going to figure that one out.

​

LUD: i do not know where we originate from. I merely said that i see no credible reason why i should be convinced that we all originate from the ME...thats where Adam and eve supposadly came from,IF the book of genesis is true. But i have yet to be presented with imperical evidence that should lead me to conclude that there even was an Adam and a Eve at any point of history.

​

"Anthropological studies of the many people on earth has yet to establish points of commonality between Middle easterners,africans,australian aborigenal,native americans,Slaves,Celts and Asians."
--Hmm.. are we contredicting ourselves here? You just layed out some of the simpler similarities to the readers of the board previously.

​

LUD: there are some similar claims in some of their stories to some limited degree but nothing universal...they dont all claim that they came from two people who were thrown out of paradise for eating a fruit. They dont all claim that some guy at some point build a boat in 7 days to gather his family,the animals and save them all from a flood. They dont all claim that their ancestors tried to build a mythical tower that reached in the clouds and were scatered by God as a result. Aside from civilisation of ME descent,none of those claims exists in any other civilisations....even the many flood stories are very different and for the most part contradictory with one another.

​

"The only thing the Bible believers have to go on is the obscure references of the tower of Babel...which incidently was never discovered,either intact or in ruins and dont tell me that it was the alledged Flood since it occured after the flood in biblical mythology and the yet unproven assertion,both in fact and in theory that the oceans all dried up after the alledged flood."
--Why would you assert something so untrue? The tower of bable has been found.

​

http://artiom.home.mindspring.com/gumilev/ch4.htm
--And this is a link with the discussion of the Tower of Babel and Ziggurats.
-- http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html

​

LUD: according to the description of the tower of Babel in the book of genesis,it reached into heaven...meaning it should have been as high as mount everest and pierce the clouds....the zigurats discovered were nowhere near as high.

​

"It is impossible to refute something that has never been observed."
--Wow, its about time someone will admit this.

​

LUD: So then how can your Bible be used in a scientific discussion since there is no way to falsify "divine inspiration"?

​

"I believe this is your favorite argument as a creationist against evolution."
--Im not arguing against evolution in this thread, I am arguing against your perpetual erroneous claim that the bible is in accurate.

​

LUD:the Bible has some innacuracies...you just re-interpret them so they wont be inacurate anymore. Case in point,lust coming from the heart,which you point means from the soul. When i explain that lust is actually a chemical reaction in the brain,well you then say that by heart they meant brain. Also,the fact that lust is considered a sin is ridiculous...its a natural chemical reaction that cannot be controlled...we can control how we act on it but thats not at all what the Bible condemns...it condemns EXPERIENCING lust.

​

"Well have you ever observed a natural catastrophy caused by God?"
--Nope, have you ever observed it?

​

LUD: So why should i assume that there ever was a disaster caused by God?

​

"Do you know of anyone who has lived for centuries? Beside anecdotal evidence of cancerous cells which replicate ad infinitum,which really proves nothing other than the fact that cancerous cells can reproduce ad infinitum,is there documented medical evidence of people having lived for 900 years....even 300 or 200 years would suffice to convince me...anything?"
--You think they are going to go right in there and start preforming scientific experiments on humans messing around with genetics? They just arent allowed to do that. What we have done is done this to animals such as mice and have observed them to live many times longer than normal, as we discussed earlier, there is emense evidence that living to such an age is possible.

​

LUD: I'm afraid your gonna have to provide me with a site where i can study the result of these researchs...

​

"Also,i've explained to you that the earth had been bombarded with many asteroids which had the same devastating power as the one who caused the last great extinction,some 65 million years ago."
--I also explained to you, and was hoping for continuing discussion, but it seems you don't like responding directly to any of my claims, evidences, and assertions, you don't know the characteristics of the impact velocity, or the size or weight of the object that hit earth.

​

LUD: Yes it is possible to evaluate all of those things simply by analysing the dent (crater) caused by the meteorit. Its a complex mathematic calculation but thats how they do it.

​

". there is at least 10 craters of 20 km of diameters and more litering the earth,all caused by potential Global killer asteroids...All of them in the last 6000 years?"
--Sure yup, I think it just made a big splash of mud, thats all. 'killer' astroids is rather an exaduration, unless ofcourse it hit you square on the top of the head. I also found this article interesting to read from space.com.
--Asteroids

​

LUD: Interesting Article indeed. Thats not the first time someone challenged the well accepted conviction that a large enough asteroid strike would plunge the earth into an ice age and it probably wont be the last but Pope is not refuting earlier claims...he's merely casting some doubts,having done no actual research on his own. It is also pointed out that the spectacular anture of his announcement is somewhat suspect...Usually,researchers consult their collegues before making such anouncements,to make sure that their data is not in error...Pope seems more concerned with flamboyant public display than scientific truth...interesting indeed...

​

"i think not and neither does the scientific who knows more about these phenomenon then you or i do."
--Scientific explination would beg to differ, and just because we don't know as much as the PhD's in celestial astroid impact phenomena, doesn't mean we can't use our brain and conceive and contemplate the evidence and conclusions.

​

LUD:as i said,not being an expert on the subject i go with what the experts say and most of them still say that big rock hitting the earth means disaster. they are reviewing the pope study...lets see if it hold or if it goes the same way as other challenge did in the past...

​

"All send by God? my my your God is really a capricious monster,isent he? Thankfully,that God only exists in your head."
--Like I have sustained the argument, you have it the other way around, it is only that way in your own opinion, no where else. That God you reject wrote his book for you to receive it, if you wan't to choose to ignore the even scientific validity of the bible, then you can do that, just don't continue to substantiate your claim that it isn't.

​

LUD: I do not reject God....i do not even reject the Bible...i've never accepted the Bible as being THE truth so i cant reject what i never accepted to begin with. Thats doesn't necessarely mean its in error or that i buy the whole ToE head on...i go with the one i find the most credible...at the moment,thats not the Bible.

​

"The Bible has been falsified repeatadly by me and other people on this board...you simply do a little re-interpretation here and there whenever you're cornered and voila."
--If you can give me a single Ioda of truth out of this statement, I will withdraw my argument on the validity and accuracy of the bible, otherwize, don't continue to use it. Like I said in my last post, I could go through your responses to me and my responses to you, and give you at the bare minimum 30-50+ quotes that you have either ignored, or are simply silly fallacies included in your writting. Again, unfortunatelly, I must continue to sustain my valid argument untill you can prove it otherwize.

​

LUD: i'm tired of this particular debate...i say poteto,you say potato and it never ends...I believe its been falsified,you dont,lets just agree to disagree on this for the time being.

​

"TC,your entire identity seemed to be build around the unyelding belief in the Bible's inerant nature and i suspect that God Itself couldn't change your mind on this."
--God doesn't need to change my mind, nor does he want to, he's already showed me the truth in this subject.

​

LUD: God also showed me the truth and that truth was in the universe around us,not writen in any book.

​

--I still find it unfortunate that you were unable to directly argue against any of my claims, assertions, and evidences, I hope to receive this from you at some point in the near/distant future.

​

LUD: There now i did. happy now?

​

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
Actually a water canopy would create a green house affect as well as protect from harmful radiation that causes everything from skin cancer, mutations, and more.. I have read a few sources suggesting some sort of magnetic force holding the canopy above, I'm not sure the exact implementations of it. Maybe not for you, but for me it's perfectly acceptible that God held it up there. Evolutionists are the ones that limits all possibilities to their understanding of science. My point in adding to this conversation was to defend scripture from contradiction accusations.

---

I understand that you dont have a problem with the "goddidit" approach to explain just about everything,like most creationists...but thats not science i'm sorry to say. As for the canopy theory,yes it would deflect many of the harmfull rays of the sun but also most of the beneficial rays as well...the earth wouldn't be a greenhouse,it would be a highly pressurized meatlocker. On the talkorigin site,someone has estimated that a water canopy that would account for the alledged flood would have multiplied the weight of the atmosphere by 9,effectively crushing anything living on the planet.

redstang281i once tried over the course of a week to have Kent Hovind on the line after i was done watching his entire online seminar and i was told repeatadly that it would be easier to just send him an e-mail with my question...which i then did. and one months later,i received a reply stating that the answer to my questions was in the seminar...the very seminar that was at the source of my questions...Hovind IS the little guy to the same extent that we all are...he's not an autority on matters of evolution or creationism...he's a former science teacher and a baptist preacher and his scientific illeteracy is everybits as bad as yours but when he's cornered,he simply does like TC and re-interpret the Bible to mean something else...I would so love to get than man in a debate,believe me.

No they weren't....his repply adressed NONE of my three questions on his seminars.Yes,hovind taught science for 15 years and it would seem forgot to actually KNOW what he was teaching...a parrot can repeat what you say but does he understand what he's repeating?

i had quite a lot more than three questions but i chose to limit myself the three that were the most obvious to me...here they are.1-Dr Hovind affirm that Noah did take the dinosaurs onto the ark with him in couples gigantic dinosaures like brachiosaurus,diplodocus,stegosaurus,and brontosaurus,who each weight several hundred tons and require their weight in food every couple of days,and in the case of brachiosaurus,pools of water large enough for them to dwell in since they spent the vast majority of their lives in water,due to their large weight. My question was,given the fact that the Bible is quite clear on this and that it was ADULTS animals that Noah took on the ark with him(a mate implies that the animal has reached sexual maturity,otherwise it would have no mate),how could there have been room for any other animals on the ark if those 8 had been present?2- Dr Hovind,you often implied that before the alledged flood,humans grew to be 10-11 feet tall. How come we cant find a single skeleton or skull that belonged to one of these giants anywhere on earth and yet we can find near complete skeletons of every other animals?3- Dr Hovind,you often implied that Adolf Hittler was an avowed evolutionist and that this was his sole driving force,how come you never mention in your seminar,when quoting his book Mein Kaft,that Hitler believed that he was doing God's work as it is writen several times in his book? You have no problem with saying that he was(in his own twisted way) an evolutionist,yet you make complete abstraction that he was a bible believing christian...i wonder why that is...there you go

​

[This message has been edited by LudvanB, 02-07-2002]

If Noah had taken babies on board the ark with him,the word "mate" would be quite innacurate...babie animals have no mate,thats a basic principle of zoology. Furthermore,animals dont come programmed with all the knowledge they require to survive. They have to be taught certain things by their parents and require protection from other animals...that too is a basic principle of Biology...Who would have taught the animals what kind of food was good for them,how to recognize dangerous animals,and so on to the babies that supposadly came on the ark? And also,dinosaurs,being reptiles,attain maturity within a year...that means that even if Noah had taken babies diplodocus on the ark with him,he would have had fully grown diplodocus by the time he got off the ark. And since these animals would have been fed by men most of their lives,there is no way that they couldn't have learned to survive on their own in what would have been,lets face it,a completely different world that what they left behind when they alledgedly went on the ark.Actually,what he showed was a DRAWING of what one such skeleton SHOULD lokk like and accused the smithsonian museum of hiding skeletons of these giants in their basement,which is completely ridiculous,since even the discovery of such individuals would in no way destroy the ToE...it could simply have been a genetic mutation of a group of humans and many scientists on earth would sell their soul to be the ones to present such skeletons to the world so his and your assertion makes no sense whatsoever.The Christian God...thats the religion that was in force in germany in the '40...actually,christianity has been present in germany for 1000 years and in the dark ages,their inquisitions commited many attrocities in the name of the christian God against jews,moors and so called witches...guess old habits die hard. My question,which he did not answer is why did Hovind not tell his listeners that Hitler considered himself a good christian and let them jusge this information by themselves as to weather or not he really was...after all,the KKK are convinced that they do God's work and are all church attending christians. Does that mean that Christ is to blame for their misdead?...if not,then why blame evolution for Hitlers crimes and yet not mention that he was also christian?

In that case,the words FUTUR mate would have been the accurate appelation...besides,at no place in the Bible is there any mention of Noah taking BABIES on board with him...the fact that the animals came to him and that they were refered to as MATES clearly implies that they were all adults. Some animals like turtles do have instinctive knowledge but most require adult supervision...especially animals who do not have more than a few cubs per birth. and frogs are not reptiles BTW...they're amphibians.As for Hitler,my point was not that he was a typical christian but that Hovind completely eclipsed the fact that he was christian born and raised and that he mentionned GOD as his inspiration in Mein Kaft,not evolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I understand that you dont have a problem with the "goddidit" approach to explain just about everything,like most creationists...but thats not science i'm sorry to say. As for the canopy theory,yes it would deflect many of the harmfull rays of the sun but also most of the beneficial rays as well...the earth wouldn't be a greenhouse,it would be a highly pressurized meatlocker. On the talkorigin site,someone has estimated that a water canopy that would account for the alledged flood would have multiplied the weight of the atmosphere by 9,effectively crushing anything living on the planet."
--Actually it would be multiplied by a factor of 2, the effects of the water canopy would have been estimated by the amount and thickness, as I stated before, and I can almost truely assume without reading the article, that they assume that we account this water as a portoin of flood water. You would have to display exactly why it would have been a meet locker, and not act almost as if it were a magnifying glass.

​

---

Well for one thing,ice thats more than a few centimeters think is never fully transparent like glass...its filled with cracks,twists and swirls as well as many air pockets that completely bend the light traversing it. Unless you can readily demonstrate that ice back then obeyed to different laws of physics,i think its safe to assume that a bubble of ice would have been the same. Furthermore,some folks,dont remember which ones today were explaining that ice so close to the sun cant last long in space without being vaporized. About the weight of the atmosphere,yes i believe that they do assume that the alledged canopy accounted for part of the alledged worldwide flood...So does Gish,Hovind and a myriad of other creationists. Perhaps you need to have a few arguments with them as well because many of your views are not shared by them anymore than by me. Hovind,for instance,tolerates no interpretation to the Bible...to him,heart does mean heart and he was quite clear on this throughout his seminars.