Is the Bible the Word of God?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by redstang281:
[b]
You must have just started doing that. A few post back you said all reptiles are fully grown in 1 year and that ice is denser than water

​

[/QUOTE]Actually it was Ludvan who said reptiles are full grown after a year....Your reply was to Gene....Gene and Ludvan are different posters.....

Redstang,i dont know what Bible you read but mine makes absolutely no mention of Noah taking BABIES with him on the ark. It does mention that animals came with their MATES,which means they had reached sexual maturity WHEN THEY BOARDED THE ARK. Now YOU may choose to re-interpret these words to mean something different but i dont see why you would want to. You clearly believe in a supernatural God with all sort of magical powers so why not simply believe that God made a magical trick to fit adult animals on the boat and magicaly protected them and fed them AFTER they got off the boat so they wouldn't eat each other like they were supposed to? That would be concistant with what the Bible teaches and with its exact wording. Why are you so desperate to interpret these passages in the Bible in a scientific way when its clear they were meant to describe a miracle? And BTW,is it just dinos that came as babies or was it all animals,in your opinion...because i hope you do know that many animals,such as lions,bears and so forth are observed today as caring for their children for years...Animals who have tons of babies like frogs and turtles do abandon their children because the sheer number insures that at least some will survive to reach maturity but most dinosaures had no more than a few(1-6) cubs per birthings. The best exemples of large lizards we have today are alligators and komodo dragons and by observing their behaviour,and the fact that their youngs remain in their care until they reached adulthood,we can infer how large dinosaures behaved with their progeny.The word christian in relation with hitler is not mentionned anywhere during his seminar. This was clearly meant to induce the listeners into believing that Hitler was trying to use evolution to destroy religious belief,which is the message Hovind tries to pass along in his seminars...that evolutionists are devil worshippers.

[b] [QUOTE] You might have noticed that the supposed ice on Mercury would only exist in polar craters where it is never exposed to light.
[/b][/QUOTE]Yes sir, sure did. You might have also noticed what I wrote below.
Here I pasted it for you againbut my point is normally we would think ice could not possibly exist on mercury with it being so close to the sun. It just goes to show things happen all the time that surprise scientist.Please reread over and over until you understand

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
Please reread over and over until you understand

---

Not that there is anything surprising about ice in polar craters, it would be surprising if a glacier was sitting there on mercurys day side and there was no ice at the poles, but that isn`t what was observed was it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Actually it was Ludvan who said reptiles are full grown after a year....

​

Your reply was to Gene....

​

Gene and Ludvan are different posters.....

​

---

Oops. Well he was the one who said ice is denser than water.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by redstang281:
[b] Yes sir, sure did. You might have also noticed what I wrote below.
Here I pasted it for you again

​

but my point is normally we would think ice could not possibly exist on mercury with it being so close to the sun. It just goes to show things happen all the time that surprise scientist.

​

Please reread over and over until you understand

​

[/QUOTE]No WE dont normaly think that ice cant exist on mercury because WE know that only one side is exposed to the sun and WE know that the other side is frozen solid. But what WE dont know is how come YOU dont yet understand that ice cant exist for long while directly exposed to the unobstructed rays of the sun unless its farther than jupiter. Here's an experience for you....put an ice cube on the ground under sunlight and watch it melt away...now,multiply this by a couple of thousands and you'll understand what happens to ice in space so close to the sun.

quote:

---

No WE dont normaly think that ice cant exist on mercury because WE know that only one side is exposed to the sun and WE know that the other side is frozen solid.

---

Actually from the NASA link"The local day on the surface of Mercury is 176 earth-days, so the surface is slowly rotating under a relentless assault from the Sun."So you are wrong there Ludvan mecury rotates just like the earth it just happens a whole lot slower....

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
Redstang,i dont know what Bible you read but mine makes absolutely no mention of Noah taking BABIES with him on the ark.

---

You have a Bible? [b] [QUOTE] It does mention that animals came with their MATES,which means they had reached sexual maturity WHEN THEY BOARDED THE ARK.
[/b][/QUOTE]You assume it does.Genesis 7:2
"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female"It says just a male and a female. Sorry Charlie. [b] [QUOTE] And BTW,is it just dinos that came as babies or was it all animals,in your opinion...
[/b][/QUOTE]I don't know I wasn't there. I'm sure God sent the best examples of each animal. [b] [QUOTE] because i hope you do know that many animals,such as lions,bears and so forth are observed today as caring for their children for years...
[/b][/QUOTE]Good point, God probably sent full grown animals of those kinds. Oh btw, lions, bears, and so forth don't give birth to children they give birth to cubs. [b] [QUOTE] most dinosaures had no more than a few(1-6) cubs per birthings.
[/b][/QUOTE]Dinosaures didn't have children? [b] [QUOTE] The best exemples of large lizards we have today are alligators and komodo dragons and by observing their behaviour,and the fact that their youngs remain in their care until they reached adulthood,we can infer how large dinosaures behaved with their progeny.
[/b][/QUOTE]Oh, you assume.. Hmm sounds risky. A few post ago a fella brought up the point that scientist don't even classify dinosaurs with reptiles. He says that classify them in another class of their own. Makes it kinda hard to even assume they behave in the same manor. [b] [QUOTE] The word christian in relation with hitler is not mentionned anywhere during his seminar. This was clearly meant to induce the listeners into believing that Hitler was trying to use evolution to destroy religious belief,which is the message Hovind tries to pass along in his seminars...that evolutionists are devil worshippers.[/b][/QUOTE]Hovind's point was just that evolution justifies one race as above another.

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
Hovind's point was just that evolution justifies one race as above another.

​

---

Then he is wrong species maybe but races are NOT seperate species....

It does in one of its many version mention animals as MATES...either the revised standard or the KJV....no i dont own a Bible but my parents sent us to a nun school for 6 years and i learned the Bible,weather i wanted to or not...And one thing i do know is that it doesn't mention BABIES anywhere...and since the animals came on their own and didn't have to be collected by Noah(unless that too is writen in a secret bible you YECs have yet to share with us along baby animals on the ark and Hovind's snowball from heaven),we can infer that they were all adults in the story...But you have not answered my question. Why do you try to make is obviously a miracle sound like something that can fully be explained by science? God is all powerfull....if the Bible says that they all fit in the ark,then that simply means that God magicaly compressed them in or some such thing. Why dont you YECs just stick with your normal message of preaching miracles like the Bible tells you to? Is it because you are trying to fool people of reason into buying this whole YE thing by mascarading it as science?Cubs indeed...i stand corrected...picky picky picky...Most animals on earth,with a few exceptions,care for their youngs themselves. The simple law of probability states that most dinos would have done the same...common sense is on my side here....you have to demonstrate that dinos abandonned their young despire the law of probability.Actually,evolution favors nothing,except scientific truth....it OBSERVES that some species survive while other perish. It doesn't take sides on the issue if you will. ToE is scientific observation,not a moral judgement. You can look at someone who just killed his wife and call him a murderer....are you making an observation or agreeing with his action?

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
No WE dont normaly think that ice cant exist on mercury because WE know that only one side is exposed to the sun and WE know that the other side is frozen solid. But what WE dont know is how come YOU dont yet understand that ice cant exist for long while directly exposed to the unobstructed rays of the sun unless its farther than jupiter. Here's an experience for you....put an ice cube on the ground under sunlight and watch it melt away...now,multiply this by a couple of thousands and you'll understand what happens to ice in space so close to the sun.

---

I thought Hovind said ice in his seminar, but I'll watch it again when I get a chance. I checked his website and this is what he says on it. http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=23It would seem a water vapor is the best theory.

You would still have to explain why this bubble of water vapor remained around the earth instead of being blows off by solar winds.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Then he is wrong species maybe but races are NOT seperate species....

---

Do you know what the title of darwin's book is? (including the sub title)

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
Do you know what the title of darwin's book is? (including the sub title)

---

This is an intresting straw man you are setting up it assumes the theory put forward by Darwin is the same as the current ToE...Oh and by todays standards Darwin was a racist so I wouldn`t be surprised if it was something about those of us who aren`t white Europeans are primitives.....Thing is that sort of casual racism was not at all uncommon in Darwins day there were many creationists at the time, Louise Agassiz for example, who not only considered non-Europeans inferior, but who denied that whites and blacks were even the same species...Also which book origins of the species or descent of man?

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 02-08-2002]

"Picky I know, but dinosaurs WERE NOT lizards. They're not even
reptiles .... they are dinosaura ... an extinct order of animals,
and possible antecedants of the modern day birds and/or mammals."
--They (dinosaurs) are currently identified as reptiles, to say that they aren't on the basis that they are decendents of modern birds or mammals isn't the best way to conclude non-reptilian phylum."There is even discussion that dinsosaurs may have been warm
blooded ... not cold-blooded like reptiles. It's to do
with size and bodies constructed for high speed."
--I am aware a bit of this debate, tell me how would you capitulate warm and cold bloodedness on extinct dinosaurs? What is it exactly is it that is making them question whether they were cold/warm blooded?------------------