the arc would float

[andy b]

Well there you have it the arc would hold 70,000 animals and float.Quite remarkable when its been suggested that there was 35,000 animals types around at the time.Coincidence or what

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well there you have it the arc would hold 70,000 animals and float.Quite remarkable when its been suggested that there was 35,000 animals types around at the time.Coincidence or what

You forgot 7 of each of the "clean" animals and 7 of each bird. And the food and water they would need.

 

[Senator Cheese]

Who said that only 35.000 animals types existed "at that time"?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Who said that only 35.000 animals types existed "at that time"?

No kidding.

 

[andy b]

35,000 IS the number banded about in various articles relating to the story

 

[Senator Cheese]

Could you link me to one of those articles?
The reason I'm particularly having problems with this claim is that well over 35.000 species exist today and Bible literalists usually claim that species can't evolve but that extinctions (dinosaurs) are possible, thus suggesting the overall number of species has declined.

So, yeah, do you have a link or something?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Could you link me to one of those articles?
The reason I'm particularly having problems with this claim is that well over 35.000 species exist today and Bible literalists usually claim that species can't evolve but that extinctions (dinosaurs) are possible, thus suggesting the overall number of species has declined.

So, yeah, do you have a link or something?

Many have become to back pedal a bit and say that species can change, but that there is a limit on said change -_-

 

[andy b]

Could you link me to one of those articles?
The reason I'm particularly having problems with this claim is that well over 35.000 species exist today and Bible literalists usually claim that species can't evolve but that extinctions (dinosaurs) are possible, thus suggesting the overall number of species has declined.

So, yeah, do you have a link or something?

all the links are on newsnow.co.uk site the one i read was on the telegraph.co.uk ..i can link because i dont know how ( read thick )

 

[AV1611VET]

Bible literalists usually claim that species can't evolve

Not this Bible literalist.

I claim genera can't evolve.

And for the record, there's a neat way to explain how the Ark could have held 10 quindrilliontillion supermega giant animals and all their nieces and nephews put together, and all placed in a small corner of the Ark, taking up no more space than the dot at the end of this sentence.

(And all without having to say: GOD DID IT. I can speculate how He did it.)

 

[Senator Cheese]

And for the record, there's a neat way to explain how the Ark could have held 10 quindrilliontillion supermega giant animals and all their nieces and nephews put together, and all placed in a small corner of the Ark, taking up no more space than the dot at the end of this sentence.

(And all without having to say: GOD DID IT. I can speculate how He did it.)

Go ahead, amuse me.

(Sorry if I came over as disrespectful. I'm just sincerely interested in what you have to say)

 

[AV1611VET]

Go ahead, amuse me.

The Ark was a TARDIS booth.

 

[lesliedellow]

You forgot 7 of each of the "clean" animals and 7 of each bird. And the food and water they would need.

Mere technicalities, my dear, mere technicalities.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The Ark was a TARDIS booth.

Need we go through this a third time, AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

Need we go through this a third time, AV?

Third for you maybe.

It would be about my fifth.

I personally don't believe the Ark was a TARDIS booth; but then I don't think nearly as many animals got on board as some say had to.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Third for you maybe.

It would be about my fifth.

I personally don't believe the Ark was a TARDIS booth; but then I don't think nearly as many animals got on board as some say had to.

Then why on earth do you keep bringing it up?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why on earth do you keep bringing it up?

Because it is a way of explaining how something can supernaturally hold more than its capacity.

If I say I believe Jesus walked on water, and someone tells me there's no way on the earth anyone can walk on water, then I'm liable to explain that walking on ice can constitute walking on water.

Even though I don't believe Jesus walked on ice myself, it would present a viable explanation.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Because it is a way of explaining how something can supernaturally hold more than its capacity.

If I say I believe Jesus walked on water, and someone tells me there's no way on the earth anyone can walk on water, then I'm liable to explain that walking on ice can constitute walking on water.

Even though I don't believe Jesus walked on ice myself, it would present a viable explanation.

If you don't believe it to be true, wouldn't attempting to convince people it was be a form of lying?

 

[AV1611VET]

If you don't believe it to be true, wouldn't attempting to convince people it was be a form of lying?

Yes, but I'm not doing that.

I'm trying to convince people to stop thinking something is impossible -- especially if God is orchestrating the events.

If someone wants to stick to the story that 35,000+ animals could not have fit aboard the Ark, that's fine ... but I'll show them I can trump their conclusion with a supernatural explanation.

 

[selfinflikted]

Yes, but I'm not doing that.

I'm trying to convince people to stop thinking something is impossible -- especially if God is orchestrating the events.

If someone wants to stick to the story that 35,000+ animals could not have fit aboard the Ark, that's fine ... but I'll show them I can trump their conclusion with a supernatural explanation.

Why would you have explain it, if it's supernatural? A miracle is a miracle is a miracle.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would you have explain it, if it's supernatural? A miracle is a miracle is a miracle.

Now I have to explain why I explained it?

Okay ... I did it to amuse our senator:

Go ahead, amuse me.