Jim
New Member
This is to avoid derailing the previous thread any more.
What, including whales? Insects, amphibians, reptiles, birds?
I take it the brachiosaurus and tyrannosaurs were crammed in there too?
You still haven’t defined kind nor come up with a solution to aquatic animals besides Noah building wooden aquariums that would have held habitats perfectly suited to every aquatic lifeform. Nor have you come up with a solution to how animals with travelling difficulties would have got to the Ark.
I thought the bible was to be taken literally? When taken literally, ‘male and his mate’ doesn’t really have much else you can spin from it. ‘Male and a female’ would have fit what you describe. Juvenile animals don’t take mates, no matter how you spin it.
As much as I like Lewis’ books, what bearing does an author’s opinion have on this discussion?
And some creationists call evolutionists ‘intellectual snobs’ too. Apparently neither represent their faith very well.
With the same skepticism I know the Celts didn’t resist the Romans with hand grenades and automatic weaponry. Or am I being a ‘chronological snob’ again?
But we are all those things and more. We haven’t any reason to believe past civilizations had methods and technology like you suggest. If the shoe fits and all that.
(1) According to my previous calculations each animal would have 6 sq.' each on the ark.
What, including whales? Insects, amphibians, reptiles, birds?
I take it the brachiosaurus and tyrannosaurs were crammed in there too?
You still haven’t defined kind nor come up with a solution to aquatic animals besides Noah building wooden aquariums that would have held habitats perfectly suited to every aquatic lifeform. Nor have you come up with a solution to how animals with travelling difficulties would have got to the Ark.
(2) Jim, just because the bible says "its mate" does not mean they were mature, it simply means Noah didn't take two males.
I thought the bible was to be taken literally? When taken literally, ‘male and his mate’ doesn’t really have much else you can spin from it. ‘Male and a female’ would have fit what you describe. Juvenile animals don’t take mates, no matter how you spin it.
(3) Also, those who are trying to refute the ark have what C.S. Lewis
As much as I like Lewis’ books, what bearing does an author’s opinion have on this discussion?
called "chronological snobbery."
And some creationists call evolutionists ‘intellectual snobs’ too. Apparently neither represent their faith very well.
How do you know that Noah did not have "superior" building techniques... for all we know, he could have made more sturdy ships out of wood than we ever have out of metal.
With the same skepticism I know the Celts didn’t resist the Romans with hand grenades and automatic weaponry. Or am I being a ‘chronological snob’ again?
Just because we are further along in the future does not mean we are smarter, more informed, more logical, ir [sic] more scientifically capable.
But we are all those things and more. We haven’t any reason to believe past civilizations had methods and technology like you suggest. If the shoe fits and all that.