Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[Darth Crater]

@crator

1- Well it wouldn't have happened from one day to the other, as far as i recall he worked 40 years, idk but people don't get married so long nowadays, what i mean is 8 men 40 years.
also about taming animals, there is a refrence for another thing:
Isaiah 11:6-8
And the wolf will actually reside for a while with the male lamb, and with the kid the leopard itself will lie down, and the calf and the maned young lion and the well-fed animal all together; and a mere little boy will be leader over them. And the cow and the bear themselves will feed; together their young ones will lie down. And even the lion will eat straw just like the bull. And the sucking child will certainly play upon the hole of the cobra; and upon the light aperture of a poisonous snake will a weaned child actually put his own hand.

1.I suggest you look up the meaning of the word "metaphor"; the passage you cite above is one, as is a surprising percentage of what's mentioned in the bible. In any case, unless you're suggesting that Jesus descended to help Noah with the animal-wrangling (despite not being born yet), that passage is irrelevant. The amount of time you mention just worsens your case; good luck keeping a captive animal alive and healthy for 40 years while you're out hunting the other 34,998.

[WD-40]

Salinity of the Red Sea on average is 40 parts per thousand, (4%). Oceans' salinity are 35 parts per thousand (3.5%). The Dead Sea has a Salinity of 33.7%. Vast differences MT. Swimming was not a daily activity at the time and many soldiers drowned in naval battles.

Even non-swimmers have a wonderful time in the waters of the Dead Sea. Due to high salt content the water is denser than fresh water and ordinary sea water. It is this density of water that makes everyone and everything float in the waters of the Dead Sea. So you don't need to have a Fat Ass to be bouyant there.

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

1-you outa check those numbers again, the first ones i posted are rounded down, the second number isn't, meaning the second number is based on the non-rounded down dimencions
2-Indeed, check the passage youself, as i'm quite tired of doing all the replying myself
3-Indeed you have posted links, of theories with a foundacion based on assumptions, as far as everyone here tells me science bases on facs, so how can a theory of a scientist having a partly base on assumptions?
4-No nothing has changed ever tought why it hasn't?
5-Science does explain life progress and how things can change, yet the same science up to this day cannot state how it happened, untill they can show this there is no proof.
6-I already replied to those links, i'm not doing it again, as far as random, up till now(i'm only going to state the 1953 expiriment) science has only prooved that a protein cell when ussing the base elements that you had at hand at that time you can recreate said protein following said pattern.

All i'm saying yanoda please if scientists can state the odds diffrently then it was said by other scientists then please get me the actuall odds, since iv'e searched every page i could find but their all just attorney's and creationalist radicals.

@mandy

if that were true(wich is likely) then why would the egyptians go in with their chariots? chariots weren't cheap at that time and the egyptians weren't stupid, they were a wold power and the top in technology and astology at their time, also it would have been just odd after centuries of living there the egyptians, especially with their advancement wouldn't know the tides.

And to this thread: if science only bases their theories on facts, how can the evolution theory stand if they haven't found the solution to simple cells getting into complex cells? wouldn't this contradict the base on wich science is based? and without a base how can a theory stand?
If there is no chance yet discovered even if it were 1 to 10^100000000 then the evolution theory cannot have a base foundation till prooven diffrently.
If there are no "real" odds to the theory of random RNA, proteins, and the chance they work together then i don't have a reason to post again, since the reason i don't believe in the evolution theory is based on the odds of a random cell.

MT

MT

[Heatmaster78]

In 4 days this thread got 143 posts...

Just something I felt like saying, now continue on.

[Mandalore]

The Egyptians most likely did know the tides as a society. But whether the man on the scene was knowledgeable about them is up for a lot of debate. Just because a nation has extensive knowledge on something doesn't mean that their military commanders exhibit the same level of knowledge. Especially if the commander was pursuing the Israelites he was probably in a bit of a rush. And whether the Egyptians were a power house at that time is also up for debate as there is no definite time table for what year this was in so we don't know if the Egyptian nation was recovering from or enduring some sort of other problem.

[Yanoda]

Salinity of the Red Sea on average is 40 parts per thousand, (4%). Oceans' salinity are 35 parts per thousand (3.5%). The Dead Sea has a Salinity of 33.7%. Vast differences MT. Swimming was not a daily activity at the time and many soldiers drowned in naval battles.

Even non-swimmers have a wonderful time in the waters of the Dead Sea. Due to high salt content the water is denser than fresh water and ordinary sea water. It is this density of water that makes everyone and everything float in the waters of the Dead Sea. So you don't need to have a Fat Ass to be bouyant there.

You are correct WD, what I was referring to was that MT said that the Red Sea (which Moses crossed according to the Bible) was the Dead Sea, saying that the salinity in the Red Sea would have prevented the Soldiers from drowning. To which I replied above.

Cheers

Yanoda

[THEWULFMAN]

I don't know whether to cry, laugh or even consider a proper answer anymore...

I felt your pain like a dozen pages ago.




I gave up trying to reason with a full blown creationist. I take most of my faith from 2 things, The ten commandments, and The New Testament. You know there are parts of the old testament that talks about when it is ok to beat your wife and slaves? Fun stuff. I can't remember exactly where, it was years ago that I read the whole bible.

As for the Ark, I take it as all of Noah's animals, not all of them in the world. For one thing, there's not enough water on Earth to cover the entire world with water. There's no way the entire Earth was covered with water at that time. 800 million years ago, yeah, there were no continents.

Also, if the entire Earth was covered with water, what happened to all the plants? Yes, plants can "drown". There would not have been enough food to feed all the animals on the Earth. Also, there would not have been

There, you're entire argument about the Ark is invalid, now let's move the heck on. If you continue your arguments further, I will have no respect for you whatsoever. Let's move on to something that actually means something shall we?

[Col. Hstar]

Ouch, but the great flood did not happen 800 million years ago. Actually just a little over 4000 yrs ago I think

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

now let's move the heck on. If you continue your arguments further, I will have no respect for you whatsoever. Let's move on to something that actually means something shall we?

Sure, still trying to find out the odds of spontaneous life.
And still trying to figuere out why science countradicts itself.

[Yanoda]

MT... You make many false assumptions about the formation of Life.
1. Life did not happen Spontaneous as you or Creationists claim.
2. The chemical processes are not random as you or Creationists claim with their probability.
3. This vid explains it a bit with your above assumptions

4. Since we have Life now and we live today, we can say that the chances that life formed is 1/1. See how I flipped your odds?
5. Science does not contradict itself (your other points were baseless), where do you get that? Give viable concise examples and explain in detail please so we and I know exactly what you're talking about.
6. Concerning the Ark's dimensions/volume, redo some basic Math courses please. 136m x 23m x 14m is still 43,792 m^3. I rounded the numbers up and still vastly smaller volume than your claim of:
Page 14 of Topic:

The dimencions of the ark: Its length; 135M it's width 22.5M it's hight 13.5M, The total cubic volume would have been 462,686.4 cubic metersthat would be equal to the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars.
MT

A tip of my hat (or hand) to you:


Cheers

Yanoda