What do you think about the Ark Encounter? (445)
Boban1: donate for building the Ark????...
I`ve heard recently that some Woman, I think in Mexico claimed possession of the sun .. and now want`s money from every one who uses the sun`s energy....
I`ve heard recently that some Woman, I think in Mexico claimed possession of the sun .. and now want`s money from every one who uses the sun`s energy....
We can build a rocket and send her there......that would be that....
Hmm I think I should be more selective than that jampet.
I am a good eater, but I don't eat just anything.
I am a good eater, but I don't eat just anything.
We've already disproved the story of Noah & the ark right here on CS over a year ago. There's no way Noah and his family could have cut and shaped the amount of wood necessary for such a ship using stone tools. Just felling and hauling the trees required would have been impossible with the available human power. Ever try to chop down a tree with a two bit axe? It'll take at least an hour for the first one. 1.5 hours for the second one after which you'll be rubbing Ben Gay on your aching muscles. Now try it with a stone axe.
This whole project is just a way to extract money from the believers.
This whole project is just a way to extract money from the believers.
NCC1968: We can build a rocket and send her there......that would be that....
hi bikerfriend how are you doing mate
EriK_tg: 1. They didn't have to go "back," because they probably weren't there in the first place.
2. Migration, and in the marsupials's case, competition with other animals combined with the fact that the post-Flood Ice Age would have created land bridges that would have enabled the animals to get to now-cutoff areas.
3. Besides, animals can swim more than we give them credit for.
4. Also, there would have been much debris that they could have floated on and gotten very far (trees).False.
7 of each clean beast, that is, 3 pairs, and one extra to be sacrificed. Not too hard.Clearly. If you'd thought much about it at all, you wouldn't need me to be answering such simple questions for you. But I took the liberty of answering you, to show you that there ARE answers, if you only want to find them.
2. Migration, and in the marsupials's case, competition with other animals combined with the fact that the post-Flood Ice Age would have created land bridges that would have enabled the animals to get to now-cutoff areas.
3. Besides, animals can swim more than we give them credit for.
4. Also, there would have been much debris that they could have floated on and gotten very far (trees).False.
7 of each clean beast, that is, 3 pairs, and one extra to be sacrificed. Not too hard.Clearly. If you'd thought much about it at all, you wouldn't need me to be answering such simple questions for you. But I took the liberty of answering you, to show you that there ARE answers, if you only want to find them.
This topic has been done so many times on here.
It gets more ludicrous every time though.
EriK_tg: 1. They didn't have to go "back," because they probably weren't there in the first place.
2. Migration, and in the marsupials's case, competition with other animals combined with the fact that the post-Flood Ice Age would have created land bridges that would have enabled the animals to get to now-cutoff areas.
3. Besides, animals can swim more than we give them credit for.
4. Also, there would have been much debris that they could have floated on and gotten very far (trees).False.
7 of each clean beast, that is, 3 pairs, and one extra to be sacrificed. Not too hard.Clearly. If you'd thought much about it at all, you wouldn't need me to be answering such simple questions for you. But I took the liberty of answering you, to show you that there ARE answers, if you only want to find them.
2. Migration, and in the marsupials's case, competition with other animals combined with the fact that the post-Flood Ice Age would have created land bridges that would have enabled the animals to get to now-cutoff areas.
3. Besides, animals can swim more than we give them credit for.
4. Also, there would have been much debris that they could have floated on and gotten very far (trees).False.
7 of each clean beast, that is, 3 pairs, and one extra to be sacrificed. Not too hard.Clearly. If you'd thought much about it at all, you wouldn't need me to be answering such simple questions for you. But I took the liberty of answering you, to show you that there ARE answers, if you only want to find them.
sounds like an awful lot of work .. and suffering , ie.to be drowned, for the good people on earth- (surely there were one or two, after all 'God' did create them?
). wouldn't it have been easier just to smite them all , and start again from scratch with a better prototype?
EriK_tg: No, you are to believe that c. 1500 years after Iron and bronze-working was developed, that Noah had, under his 500 years of life managed to learn something about shipbuilding.
He didn't. God sent them to him: makes you think the geography of the earth before the Flood looked ANYTHING like it does today? Think of the erosion that a global flood would cause. Noah LANDED in the Middle East, but we have no idea whether or not he lived "there," before the Flood.There's plenty of space. In fact, only the top 1/3 would have been necessary to hold all the animals. Moreover, he didn't take representatives of each SPECIES, only each KIND. Taken as seeds or as food (see Genesis 6 for details). And nearly every animal that lives as a parasite today can function, or could have in the past, without being parasitic. They've had 4,500-ish years to fit into ecological niches--and face it, some animals are lazy.They're not ignored. Noah was told to bring every kind of food into the Ark. Also, humans were vegetarian until after the Flood (see Genesis 9, compared with Genesis 2), so obviously this food must have been non-animalian.
Besides, many plants would have survived floating in the water, eventually growing up after the water had planted them in the tops of the sediments and subsequently drained off.There were not. There would only have needed to be about 50,000 animals total, by the most liberal calculations. If you really want to know, I can give you a link (or you can look for yourself on AiG's site)Nope. Everest is most likely the result of an uplift in the latter parts of the Flood. Moreover, it was only at day 40 that the tops of the mountains were covered. It's possible that anytime between then and day 371 that mountains were uplifted. Mount Everest need not have existed before the Flood--if it did, it wouldn't be there anymore due to the erosion.The entire geological record is the evidence. It was ALL deposited (nearly all, with very few pre-and-post exceptions) during the Flood.a. Food Noah had brought with them.
b. Dead carcasses on the surface of the earth from those that had died in the flood
c. Plants that sprouted between the time that the earth was dry and the time that the animals disembarked
d. Possibly even each other. After all, 99.9% of all animals that ever lived are extinct.Carnivores are fully capable of eating more than just red meat.
Yeah,right!He didn't. God sent them to him: makes you think the geography of the earth before the Flood looked ANYTHING like it does today? Think of the erosion that a global flood would cause. Noah LANDED in the Middle East, but we have no idea whether or not he lived "there," before the Flood.There's plenty of space. In fact, only the top 1/3 would have been necessary to hold all the animals. Moreover, he didn't take representatives of each SPECIES, only each KIND. Taken as seeds or as food (see Genesis 6 for details). And nearly every animal that lives as a parasite today can function, or could have in the past, without being parasitic. They've had 4,500-ish years to fit into ecological niches--and face it, some animals are lazy.They're not ignored. Noah was told to bring every kind of food into the Ark. Also, humans were vegetarian until after the Flood (see Genesis 9, compared with Genesis 2), so obviously this food must have been non-animalian.
Besides, many plants would have survived floating in the water, eventually growing up after the water had planted them in the tops of the sediments and subsequently drained off.There were not. There would only have needed to be about 50,000 animals total, by the most liberal calculations. If you really want to know, I can give you a link (or you can look for yourself on AiG's site)Nope. Everest is most likely the result of an uplift in the latter parts of the Flood. Moreover, it was only at day 40 that the tops of the mountains were covered. It's possible that anytime between then and day 371 that mountains were uplifted. Mount Everest need not have existed before the Flood--if it did, it wouldn't be there anymore due to the erosion.The entire geological record is the evidence. It was ALL deposited (nearly all, with very few pre-and-post exceptions) during the Flood.a. Food Noah had brought with them.
b. Dead carcasses on the surface of the earth from those that had died in the flood
c. Plants that sprouted between the time that the earth was dry and the time that the animals disembarked
d. Possibly even each other. After all, 99.9% of all animals that ever lived are extinct.Carnivores are fully capable of eating more than just red meat.
Their Intestines are extremely suited for Vegetable matter only!
Son,you really need to stop while you're still somewhat ahead!
EriK_tg: Do you know how much water is in the Oceans? Like, really?
It can be fairly well calculated.....and it doesn't matter because it would not cover mountains unless the whole mass of it levitated
This topic has been done so many times on here.
Honey, can we just go to the pub now
Soph
Honey, can we just go to the pub now
Soph
I could just imagine the antelope saying to it's mate,
"Don't look now, but I think that's a couple of lions next door."
"Don't look now, but I think that's a couple of lions next door."
Hmm ahem sure thing 
jampet: sounds like an awful lot of work .. and suffering , ie.to be drowned, for the good people on earth- (surely there were one or two, after all 'God' did create them? ). wouldn't it have been easier just to smite them all , and start again from scratch with a better prototype?
But how would the people learn from their mistakes? If He wiped the slate clean, there'd be no evidence. A Flood accomplishes the goal of leaving it forever in the minds and memories of the descendants of Noah, along with providing a way to renew the planet (not to mention providing lots of fossil fuels to help us improve civilization once we figured out how to use them). Besides, there's a lot of really beautiful scenery that resulted from the Flood-->case in point being Grand Canyon and a bunch of other rock formations in the southwestern US.
By using a Flood, God gave us vast amounts of evidence to remind us that what took place really happened, so that we would not forget.
"Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it," you know? Kinda like that.
sophiasummer: This topic has been done so many times on here.
Honey, can we just go to the pub now
Soph
Honey, can we just go to the pub now
Soph
good idea, its 10.30pm here in sapin going to have abath soon then out for the night in Marbella.
NCC1968: It can be fairly well calculated.....and it doesn't matter because it would not cover mountains unless the whole mass of it levitated
If you averaged the depths and heights of the planet (i.e. made the earth a perfect sphere), there would be enough water to cover it to a depth of 2 miles.
There's enough water.
sorry spelt word wrong meant to say spain.
But how would the people learn from their mistakes? If He wiped the slate clean, there'd be no evidence. A Flood accomplishes the goal of leaving it forever in the minds and memories of the descendants of Noah, along with providing a way to renew the planet (not to mention providing lots of fossil fuels to help us improve civilization once we figured out how to use them). quote]
hmmm- so if I don't like what my children, whom I created do, I should just drown them and start again?? social services might have a teeny problem with that-
hmmm- so if I don't like what my children, whom I created do, I should just drown them and start again??
social services might have a teeny problem with that-I forgot to mention that carnivores could eat sea creatures. There would still have been plenty of fish, and perhaps beached whales and stuff. That would have given the carnivores plenty to eat while the herbivores multiplied (or GTFO of there) in the meantime.
Conrad73: been measured with a One Liter Measuring Cylinder!
Now your getting rude, I'll have to report you, if you don't tone it down
craig63: hi bikerfriend how are you doing mate
Doing good.
I've gone over this Ark BS many times and love to see them flounder when faced with the reality of the situation......it just couldn't happen, but they persist - physics be damned.
Now some of the (few) smart and learned ones know of Larkin's Dispensational Truth which presents some good arguments on some of these myths, but nowhere near enough for realistic folks to buy it.
EriK_tg: If you averaged the depths and heights of the planet (i.e. made the earth a perfect sphere), there would be enough water to cover it to a depth of 2 miles.
There's enough water.
If my Auntie......................There's enough water.
Good one Jampet.jampet: But how would the people learn from their mistakes? If He wiped the slate clean, there'd be no evidence. A Flood accomplishes the goal of leaving it forever in the minds and memories of the descendants of Noah, along with providing a way to renew the planet (not to mention providing lots of fossil fuels to help us improve civilization once we figured out how to use them). quote]
hmmm- so if I don't like what my children, whom I created do, I should just drown them and start again?? social services might have a teeny problem with that-
hmmm- so if I don't like what my children, whom I created do, I should just drown them and start again?? social services might have a teeny problem with that-
No, according to you, you would drown them and start over with a new batch. According to God via Noah, you would discipline them and make sure that they remember what they did wrong.
craig63: good idea, its 10.30pm here in sapin going to have abath soon then out for the night in Marbella.
Sounds fun!
Enjoy! I have a great friend there too, will be coming over to Spain next year...
Hes awesome!!!! we may catch up...
Soph
Ok I have had way too much entertainment already. thank you all for the great reads. Sun about to go down, so I must start the fire.
Take care all
Take care all
EriK_tg: No, according to you, you would drown them and start over with a new batch. According to God via Noah, you would discipline them and make sure that they remember what they did wrong.
But "God" drowned all those that did wrong! EriK_tg: If you averaged the depths and heights of the planet (i.e. made the earth a perfect sphere), there would be enough water to cover it to a depth of 2 miles.
There's enough water.
There's enough water.
Except it is impossible for a solid body(non-gaseous planet)to be smooth.
If you reject physics and geology then you are being ridiculous. At least try to learn enough to fit faith and fact together.....some of the greatest scientific minds accepted both and sought to fit it all together instead of presenting outlandish stories that make no sense and compromise either faith of fact.
If you'd just accept that there could be a god and these fairy tales are not needed to have faith you'd be up on the game.
NCC1968: Except it is impossible for a solid body(non-gaseous planet)to be smooth.
If you reject physics and geology then you are being ridiculous. At least try to learn enough to fit faith and fact together.....some of the greatest scientific minds accepted both and sought to fit it all together instead of presenting outlandish stories that make no sense and compromise either faith of fact.If you'd just accept that there could be a god and these fairy tales are not needed to have faith you'd be up on the game.
If you reject physics and geology then you are being ridiculous. At least try to learn enough to fit faith and fact together.....some of the greatest scientific minds accepted both and sought to fit it all together instead of presenting outlandish stories that make no sense and compromise either faith of fact.If you'd just accept that there could be a god and these fairy tales are not needed to have faith you'd be up on the game.
You're not really being convincing.
sophiasummer: Sounds fun!
Enjoy! I have a great friend there too, will be coming over to Spain next year...
Hes awesome!!!! we may catch up...
Soph
Enjoy! I have a great friend there too, will be coming over to Spain next year...
Hes awesome!!!! we may catch up...
Soph
what part of spain does your friend live.
More Threads
How far is too far?
rarotonga
everything is changing
Nature
1830's Music
Don Shits-In-Pants!!!
What I Lack In Vocabulary
Salami, Salami, Baloney
Reality Check
Heavy Bass In The PM
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
One can wring them out a bit when they are cool enough .....