Evidence for God from Science

How is it that 6 days of creation (1 of rest) seems silly...

Looks like an attack to me, never mind. If it was not, sorry for overreacting.

Empirical evidence by definition means observable and verifiable, not something that requires faith. I choose to believe, but that does not make the Bible empirical evidence of the creation deed.

So if the ark contained only mammals and birds, but only by kind, can you please elaborate on which kinds were all present there? I assume you mean species, or is that wrong, do you mean genus?

Species is an arbitrary term that even Darwin, though using it in a title of one of his books, never bothered to touch with a 10 foot stick. Species don't exist. I'm not gonna list the animals on the ark, though, unless I'm given a large sum of money. What I was trying to say is not as many animals were needed on the ark as you believe. For example, you didn't need all those different finches Darwin talked about. They were the same animal, except there were genes which allowed them to vary (just like human's noses are different sizes....yet we're all the same human, just with different gene pools). You didn't need the Asian elephant and the african elephant. You didn't need every kind of bear (koalas aren't bears, so they're not in that group), etc, etc....I'd say more but I don't know it all, and I hope I don't ever sound like that-because that is the best show of ignorance.

Species is an arbitrary term that even Darwin, though using it in a title of one of his books, never bothered to touch with a 10 foot stick. Species don't exist.

"Species: a category in the system of classification of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchaning genes or interbreeding, a kind or sort" Oxford Dictionary

"A morphological species is a group of organisms that have a distinctive form: for example, we can distinguish between a chicken and a duck because they have different shaped bills and the duck has webbed feet. Species have been defined in this way since well before the beginning of recorded history. Although much criticised, the concept of morphological species remains the single most widely used species concept in everyday life, and still retains an important place within the biological sciences, particularly in the case of plants."

"The biological species or isolation species concept identifies a species as a set of actually or potentially interbreeding organisms. This is generally the most useful formulation for scientists working with living examples of the higher taxa like mammals, fish, and birds, but meaningless for organisms that do not reproduce sexually. It distinguishes between the theoretical possibility of interbreeding and the actual likelihood of gene flow between populations."

"A phylogenetic or evolutionary or Darwinian species is a group of organisms that shares an ancestor; a lineage that maintains its integrity with respect to other lineages through both time and space. At some point in the progress of such a group, members may diverge from one another: when such a divergence becomes sufficiently clear, the two populations are regarded as separate species."
Wikipedia

To say that species don't exist is simply not true. It is a naming scheme that uses very specific characteristics to identify kinds. Using the biological definition above, there are around 4,200 species of mammals, 6,700 species of reptile and 9,700 bird species. So you are saying that 8,400 mammals, 13,400 reptiles, and nearl 20,000 birds all in a boat the size of a football field, along with all the specific food sorts necessary to sustain them for 150 days? A conservative estimate puts the weight of all of that at around 40,000 tonnes. To build a ship that would carry that weight compacted into containers would require around 4,000 tonnes of steel plate. It would leave no room to move around etc, which presumably would be needed to go drink? Even with a direct conversion, that is an awful lot of cypress wood for Noah and his sons to work with, cut down, shape, build and make water tight. To carry that amount of weight you would need a lot of ballast in the bottom too, otherwise it will fall over.

If there were no insects, how did they survive the flood? How did Noah manage to go to Australia, Americas, Africa to collect all of these, or alternatively, how did those animals get there if summoned by God, within 7 days?

What I was trying to say is not as many animals were needed on the ark as you believe. For example, you didn't need all those different finches Darwin talked about. They were the same animal, except there were genes which allowed them to vary (just like human's noses are different sizes....yet we're all the same human, just with different gene pools). You didn't need the Asian elephant and the african elephant. You didn't need every kind of bear (koalas aren't bears, so they're not in that group)

So you are saying that our bio-diversity today comes from common ancestors? Read the Darwinian definition of species above again. You are expecting us to believe in evolution, only it happened in a few thousand years, not over the course of millions?

My point is that a literal interpretation of the Bible needs to be seen in context. All of the above could be true if it was a flood that covered the world as it was known at the time, basically a portion of the Middle East.

Assuming the flood was on Earth to begin with.

Or that the ark was not a spaceship?

Where would the flood have been, just to follow your reasoning?

Space Ship? No. Give me a second, I want to reread those verses before I make myself look stupid.

Genesis:

6:14: Make yourself an ark of gopher wood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch.
6:15: This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits.
6:16: Make a roof for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above; and set the door of the ark in its side; make it with lower, second, and third decks.
6:17: For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall die.

Now, like Kmart mentioned, an ark was more like a box than an actual ship. The dimensions God gives are too simple for it to be anything else.
According to 6:17, God destroyed all life under heaven. Now I haven't checked the original translation, but that sounds like a global flood to me.

16: And they that entered, male and female of all flesh, went in as God had commanded him; and the LORD shut him in.

We now have God Himself shut Noah inside the ark. This implies that an outsider was needed to operate the closing mechanism. The ark itself looked like a cigarette. This is a rough estimate of the proportions, as seen from above:

[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]

I could bring up the cigarette mother ships seen in pictures taken by NASA, but I'm not going to get into that now, as that part is just my overactive imagination

The ark served one purpose and one purpose only: containment. Unfortunately, the rest is hazy. We know Noah was locked up inside the ark, and that he only opened it when he landed on mouth Ararat. I assume that due to the nature of the vessel, he could not open the window in mid flood without drowning everybody in it. Now, I do not have the ability to measure the ark's ability to withstand pressure. I would assume that if it can sink, then it can stand the pressure in a vacuum(not that it matters if God took him to another planet). The reasons for me to believe humanity was taken from one planet to another are two fold:

1: The flood was global. There isn't enough water on this planet to cover the entire earth, and the "kill all flesh UNDER THE HEAVENS" comment further implies a global flood. My guess was that God knew the planet would be flooded and took the only righteous man off it.
2: Reduced lifespan. We know humanity's life span was reduced. I suspect that a change of location would have some sort of effect on our biochemistry. If our previous planet provided us with the radiation cover as well as God knows what protection, the move to a more hostile environment might have had a detrimental effect on our health. I have more to say, because I want to reread a few versions of genesis 1-8 and see if there are any more hints, as all I have read was Noah's account.[/b]

The exposed land on earth is only 1/10 of the amount of water we have. One theory points to a subterranean chamber full of water, and once a crack formed, eventually the rock forced the water out at supersonic speeds. Some could have gotten into space (as the theory goes, since meteors (ites) are found with water and salt comparable to our oceans, AND dormant bacteria) (This is a recent discovery as the first meteorites were cut open with water cooled/lubricated saws)(they didn't care much about contamination it seems). The landmasses were much closer together, kind of like the pangeia idea. When the crack formed, it split and went around the earth in a few hours (the mid atlantic trench goes into the Pacific and Indian Ocean, and it's partially under the land as it goes through Europe). As the water came out of these cracks, the hydroplates began to slide downhill on the remaining water in the chambers and the seafloor sank. Can't be proven, because we can't exactly push the land back together, load up these chambers, and do it all again. Better explanation at the site I gave for the ark's measurements. More evidence is found there (such as buried fossilized plants at the bottom of the trenches...where no plants should have made it).

The other planet idea is kinda weird....never heard of it before.

So you are saying that our bio-diversity today comes from common ancestors? Read the Darwinian definition of species above again. You are expecting us to believe in evolution, only it happened in a few thousand years, not over the course of millions?

It's not evolution, it's genetic variance. The genes were there in the original animals to vary into every smaller type of animal which you'd call the species. According the the taxonomic level, kinds could be the family level. It's like the human race. We have different facial features, colors, sizes, heights, etc....BUT WE ARE THE SAME-HUMANS. What I'm talking about is called microevolution (which isn't even evolution, but anyways). Species is still an arbitrary word. Dogs, coyotes, wolves, and maybe the foxes, are different species, BUT they can breed, which should make them the same species. The taxonomic system was actually started by a Christian, who I guess wanted to organize the kinds of animals. Species exist on paper only-not a real thing...just like infinity-you can write it down, but you can't see it in nature. Noah didn't use steel, as Mastermind says-gopher wood (whatever the heck that is). And, I remember reading that huge massive rocks near the Ark could have been used for ballasts-and think how far into the water the ship would have rode? That would have stabilized it. And, as I said above, the continents were together, and you have to realize the world has not always been the same, think man. Why else are one kind of animal found all over the world fossilized? Today animals live in smaller ranges (except humans, we live everywhere but underwater).

t's not evolution, it's genetic variance. The genes were there in the original animals to vary into every smaller type of animal which you'd call the species. According the the taxonomic level, kinds could be the family level. It's like the human race. We have different facial features, colors, sizes, heights, etc....BUT WE ARE THE SAME-HUMANS. What I'm talking about is called microevolution (which isn't even evolution, but anyways)

This is a science board too, so if you are blindly going to alter the rules of science, there is not much point to this discussion. A dog becoming a fox is not micro-evolution, but macro-evolution, since the result is a new species, and happens to be what Darwin predicted in his theory. Do you even know what the mechanisms for evolution is? What do you mean by genetic variance? Any change in the genetic make-up, by whichever description, is half of the ToE, with natural selection being the other part. What you are describing is a biological impossibility, never observed to have worked in nature, and is one of the gaping holes in the ToE. Humans remain humans, and the same goes for dogs and other mammals. Again, unless you are going to tell us which species were supposed to have been present on the ark as the common ancestors to life today, with the way and pathway that they evolved into the diversity observable today, your argument remains a non-argument.

Species is still an arbitrary word. Dogs, coyotes, wolves, and maybe the foxes, are different species, BUT they can breed, which should make them the same species.

I gave you 4 different definitions of species. All of these, with maybe the exception of the evolutionary one, have been observed and documented, according to the relevant definition. Your insistence to not accept it shows your intellectual dishonesty. You have the right to believe what you want, but don't call it scientific.

Species exist on paper only-not a real thing...just like infinity-you can write it down, but you can't see it in nature.

Yes you can. Observed and documented, from many perspectives, as demonstrated. Your saying it is not so doesn't do anything to change it.

Noah didn't use steel, as Mastermind says-gopher wood (whatever the heck that is). And, I remember reading that huge massive rocks near the Ark could have been used for ballasts-and think how far into the water the ship would have rode?

I know he did not use steel, but if it took 4000 tonnes of steel, it would have taken a similar amount of cypress wood, as I stated in my post. There is no description in the Bible of using ballast, and the description of the ark in the Bible makes mention of only 3 floors, each about 33,000 sq feet. If one of these were filled with rocks for ballast, it would have left even less space for the almost 20,000 different creatures that was supposed to have been in there.

And, as I said above, the continents were together, and you have to realize the world has not always been the same, think man.

Mmmm, now I'm accused of not thinking. Good observation coming from someone who seems intent to parrot something from an arbitrary website, and not follow things on his own in a logical and scientific manner. Even though there is no proof of the continents having been together in the last 6000 years, I'll humor you and ask the same question I did before, how did the different species from South America walk the 12,000 miles in 7 days to get on board the ark?

Why else are one kind of animal found all over the world fossilized? Today animals live in smaller ranges (except humans, we live everywhere but underwater).

Which animal would that be? And why do we not have tigers in Africa, or elephants in North America, or Tazmanian Devils in Europe? If all of the animals were once in the same place, as you suggest, why do we not see this any more today, and if we see only one animal fossilized everywhere (link to proof please), why don't we see it for many?

Believe what you will, but don't claim it to be scientific by any stretch of the imagination. Some of the best OT scholars have studied the creation deed, and the flood in great detail, and have found no reason to agree with you. They rather agree with how the OT predicted creation and the flood and how scientific observation and empirical evidence supports it today.

What I'm talking about is called microevolution (which isn't even evolution, but anyways). Species is still an arbitrary word. Dogs, coyotes, wolves, and maybe the foxes, are different species

That is not quite right, microevolution is Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.

Therefore it should say are a different sub species of the species Canis
the chief and type genus of the family Canidae that includes the domestic dog, the wolves and jackals, and sometimes in older classifications the foxes.

It is a naming scheme that uses very specific characteristics to identify kinds.

Gadzooks. I don't seem capable of explaining myself. I agree with that^^ but I was trying to say no species in the sense that all animals are related, like the species-genus-(I used to remember them)-family-order-phyla-kingdom (something like that) which is what I thought you were saying. So much for my communcation skills.

And as I said I wasn't sure about the fox.

I'm not referring to macroevolution, only micro. Macro is vertical (an animal/plant improves and gets better)(and illogical). Micro is variance within a kind (think of maybe 10 people sitting in a row....they all look different, but they're all human. The only difference between them (physically) is their DNA. They got different genes for different traits).

And when I was talking about ballasts, rocks tied to the outside was the idea I heard (not stuck on the inside).

And I wasn't accusing you of not thinking.

17 years of misunderstandings and counting why is that an emoticon An arrow

KMart, I think one thing we can agree on is that none of this matters when it comes to our eternal salvation?

Agreed

May I go home now?

It's all theory mainly...can't be reproduced.

It's all theory mainly...can't be reproduced.

Although we can look at the evidence and make deductions. It just so happens we look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions.

Glad we agree on something!

Everyone agrees on at least one thing-even if they agree on disagreeing. Just don't tell me anything crazy like we came from stem cells or the ark was launched into space.