Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9214 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Cifa.ac
Post Volume: Total: 920,165 Year: 487/6,935 Month: 487/275 Week: 4/200 Day: 4/18 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy ⇒

Noah's Ark

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Noah's Ark
ringo
Member (Idle past 709 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 134 of 302 (210555)
05-23-2005 11:11 AM 		Reply to: Message 133 by Specter
05-23-2005 9:57 AM

a day is AS a thousand years
The word "as" indicates a simile - i.e. a figure of speech. It is not meant to be taken as literally "a day = a thousand years". If the Bible translators had agreed with your interpretation, they would not have rendered it as a simile.
​
(Aside: I find it amusing that Bible "literalists" will claim that "a day = a thousand years" and also claim that a "day" of creation must be 24 hours.)
​
Specter writes:
​
"God is not a man, that he should lie, nore the son of a man, that he should repent."
But God does repent:
​
Genesis 6:6-7 writes:
​
And it repented the LORD that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart.
And the LORD said: 'I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and creeping thing, and fowl of the air; for it repenteth Me that I have made them.'
​
This message has been edited by Ringo316, 05-23-2005 09:11 AM
​
People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Specter, posted 05-23-2005 9:57 AM Specter has not replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by arachnophilia, posted 05-23-2005 1:32 PM ringo has not replied
ringo
Member (Idle past 709 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 140 of 302 (210848)
05-24-2005 11:06 AM 		Reply to: Message 139 by Specter
05-24-2005 9:42 AM

Re: The world's most pessimistic saying...
Off topic (but that's where you can usually find me):
​
My signature is intended to be a dig at self-styled "fundamentalists" who think they can pull answers out of their (ahem) just because they've had an "experience" with God.
​
I don't know why you call that pessimistic.
​
People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Specter, posted 05-24-2005 9:42 AM Specter has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Specter, posted 05-25-2005 10:05 AM ringo has replied
ringo
Member (Idle past 709 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 142 of 302 (211122)
05-25-2005 11:31 AM 		Reply to: Message 141 by Specter
05-25-2005 10:05 AM

Re: The world's most pessimistic saying...
Specter writes:
​
ANd just how long does it usually take for them to pull these self-gratifying answers out of their (ahem!) for us to dwell on?

Well, Faith (the person) can do it in the twinkling of an eye. Ray Martinez has to go through several pages of insults first.
​
"We're all gonna die in the morning!"
Morning has come, and I'm still here.
​
(But soft! The Topic Police approach!)
​
People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Specter, posted 05-25-2005 10:05 AM Specter has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Specter, posted 05-26-2005 9:44 AM ringo has not replied
ringo
Member (Idle past 709 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 146 of 302 (211468)
05-26-2005 11:36 AM 		Reply to: Message 144 by Specter
05-26-2005 9:41 AM

God repents (film at eleven)
Specter writes:
​
...do you really believe that remorse, regret, and repentance are the same thing?
In my humble opinion (without consulting a dictionary):
​
-remorse means feeling bad about something you did
-regret means wishing you hadn't done it
-repentence means you stop doing it.
​
Repentence is like super-extra-double regret. God not only regretted what He had done, He went so far as to undo it.
​
My original point was intended to be: in one place the Bible says God doesn't repent and in another place it says He did - so it isn't wise to base your ideas on one verse.
​
People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Specter, posted 05-26-2005 9:41 AM Specter has not replied
ringo
Member (Idle past 709 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 153 of 302 (211517)
05-26-2005 2:23 PM 		Reply to: Message 152 by arachnophilia
05-26-2005 2:10 PM

Arachnophilia writes:
​
even if i were to believe in micro-spiritdeath, i don't see how that would affect succesive generation.
I agree.
​
What mechanism is proposed for passing spiritual death from one generation to the next? And where is the evidence of macro-spiritdeath?
​
People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by arachnophilia, posted 05-26-2005 2:10 PM arachnophilia has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by arachnophilia, posted 05-26-2005 2:45 PM ringo has not replied
ringo
Member (Idle past 709 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 165 of 302 (211790)
05-27-2005 11:59 AM 		Reply to: Message 164 by arachnophilia
05-27-2005 11:48 AM

Macro-spiritdeath
Don't you just hate it when you have to explain the jokes?
​
arachnophilia writes:
​
i really don't believe in macro-spiritdeath (meaning original sin).
I never even heard of Original SinTM in church. I first came across the idea in Robert L. Short's The Gospel According to Peanuts (or was it The Parables of Peanuts?)
​
I found the idea distinctly odd.
​
People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by arachnophilia, posted 05-27-2005 11:48 AM arachnophilia has not replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by riVeRraT, posted 05-27-2005 4:09 PM ringo has replied
ringo
Member (Idle past 709 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 168 of 302 (211912)
05-27-2005 4:30 PM 		Reply to: Message 167 by riVeRraT
05-27-2005 4:09 PM

Jokes
riVeRraT writes:
​
...what’s the big deal if you throw a joke in or 2?
​
It's better than blowing your cool and getting suspended. And a little camaraderie doesn't hurt, either.
----------------------
Not that you asked me, or that it's on topic, but:
​
Do you believe that we are a human race, that we all are represented by one common factor, being human?
​
Yes.
​
That everything we do against God's will upsets what he had planned for us?
​
No.
​
It also upsets humans that follow in our footsteps, and other humans as far as the other side of the planet?
​
Yes.
​
People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by riVeRraT, posted 05-27-2005 4:09 PM riVeRraT has not replied
ringo
Member (Idle past 709 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 219 of 302 (260956)
11-18-2005 1:16 PM 		Reply to: Message 218 by 8upwidit2
11-18-2005 11:39 AM

Re: Perfect?
8upwidit2 writes:
​
"Japheth, watch your little sister...."
​
Not to mention the fact that Japheth and his little sister were well-nigh the entire gene pool, if you get my drift....
​
Some perfection.
​
People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by 8upwidit2, posted 11-18-2005 11:39 AM 8upwidit2 has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by 8upwidit2, posted 11-18-2005 4:35 PM ringo has not replied
ringo
Member (Idle past 709 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 238 of 302 (269727)
12-15-2005 5:32 PM 		Reply to: Message 230 by NotSoBlindFaith
12-15-2005 1:36 AM

Re: Perfect?
NotSoBlindFaith writes:
​
... if you go by what the bible said, and put 2-7 of each KIND (That means 2 felines, two equines, and yes, two dinosaurs, while they had 7 of livestock) you would only need to fit from 16,000 (The largest estimate) to 2,000 animals on the ark.
​
I'm curious about these numbers.
​
No YEC seems to be able to define what a "kind" is. Yet they same to have a pretty precise idea of how many "kinds" there were (if 2000 to 16000 can be called "precise" ).
​
If there were only 2000 to 16000 "kinds" that needed to be on the ark, it shouldn't be too hard to produce a list of them, should it?
​
Or is it, as I suspect, a case of "reverse engineering" - where they decided how many animals would fit on the ark and then "concluded" that that must be the number?
​
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by NotSoBlindFaith, posted 12-15-2005 1:36 AM NotSoBlindFaith has not replied
ringo
Member (Idle past 709 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 241 of 302 (269783)
12-15-2005 8:21 PM 		Reply to: Message 240 by NotSoBlindFaith
12-15-2005 7:35 PM

Kinds
You really didn't answer the question at all. If there were 2000 to 16000 "kinds" on the ark, what were those "kinds"? Where is the list? Why can't YECs even define what a "kind" is?
​
Carolus Linnaeus... tried to determine the created kinds. He defined a ”species’ as a group of organisms that could interbreed among themselves, but not with another group, akin to the Genesis concept.
​
But a "kind" is decidedly not a species. There are far more than 16000 species.
​
So, on the ark, there would be 2 canines, 2 felines, 2 equines, 2 ursines, 7 sheep, 7 goats....
​
But "canines", "felines", "equines", etc. are not species as Linnaeus classified them.
​
If there is a feline "kind", define it. What characteristics does a "feline" have that distinguishes it from every other "kind"? And where is the evidence? Where are the fossils of that first "feline", from which descended lions, tigers, housecats, etc.?
​
And why are sheep and goats separate "kinds"? Wouldn't it be easier to "microevolve" sheep and goats from the same ancestor than to "microevolve" rats and mice from the came ancestor?
​
... 2 baby diplodocid dinosaurs, 2 baby large carnivorous dinosaurs similar to T-rexes, ect.
​
Babies? Where does the Bible say anything about babies? That's just something that YECs made up to explain away the size problem. It has no basis either in science or the Bible.
​
And what were dinosaurs doing on the ark anyway? Why save then from the flood only to have them go extinct five minutes later anyway?
​
As you can see, the YEC scenario raises far more questions than it answers.
​
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by NotSoBlindFaith, posted 12-15-2005 7:35 PM NotSoBlindFaith has not replied
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025