You're talking about millions of species plus at least a years worth of food. Do you believe that dinasaurs were on the ark as well? Creationists often claim that all fossil-bearing strata were deposited by the Flood. If that's true all the animals which became fossils were alive then. Therefore all extinct land animals had representatives aboard the ark.

<<<<<OhioChessFan>>>>There is a great deal of water in the earth's mantle. A recent discovery found that a reservoir at least as large as the Arctic Ocean is under Asia.>

Such water would be super heated. It would kill every living thing in the oceans through heat and changing the salinity of the water.

<<<<<OhioChessFan>>>> Per the flood, yes, there were mountains before the flood but they rose even higher after the flood.>

How do you know this? Science tells us that they rise something like an inch a year. That's only about a few hundred feet.

<<<<<OhioChessFan>>>> Per the atmosphere, I guess <Science knows that this is true> doesn't persuade me. What I suspect it means is "I read this on an anti-Christian website and copy/pasted it over here." A lot of water would make the earth uninhabitable?>

I got it from the history channel. They were discussing the flooding of the Euphrates river as a possible cause of the great flood story. They mentioned that a global flood would have made the atmosphere unbreathable. People would have drowned by breathing the air.

<<<<<OhioChessFan>>>> Per the OT commands you read about on another website, if you were a Jew living under the law of Moses, those would have direct application to you.>

Ok, so according to you:

1. The laws of the old testament are irrelevant even though Jesus said that he did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it.

2. Anything that conflicts with the church's version is poetry and parables and should not be taken seriously because the Bible is infallible.

3. Any conflicts in the various versions of the Bible, or within the same version such as

Genesis 6:20 Take two of every kind of animal.

Genesis 7:2-3,5 Take seven of every kind of animal.

are irrelevant scribal errors.

Here are some more problems with a global flood that I got from different websites.

1. Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time.

2. How did short-lived species survive? Adult mayflies on the ark would have died in a few days, and the larvae of many mayflies require shallow fresh running water. Many other insects would face similar problems.

3. How did animals get to their present ranges? How did koalas get from Ararat to Australia, polar bears to the Arctic, etc., when the kinds of environment they require to live doesn't exist between the two points. How did so many unique species get to remote islands?

Who says there were millions of species?

<Do you believe that dinasaurs were on the ark as well? >

Yes

<Creationists often claim that all fossil-bearing strata were deposited by the Flood. If that's true all the animals which became fossils were alive then. Therefore all extinct land animals had representatives aboard the ark. >

<TCE: Such water would be super heated. It would kill every living thing in the oceans through heat and changing the salinity of the water.>

It hasn't yet.

<OCF: Per the flood, yes, there were mountains before the flood but they rose even higher after the flood.>

<TCE: How do you know this? Science tells us that they rise something like an inch a year. That's only about a few hundred feet. >

How do you reckon the waters of the flood receded?

<TCE:I got it from the history channel. They were discussing the flooding of the Euphrates river as a possible cause of the great flood story. They mentioned that a global flood would have made the atmosphere unbreathable. People would have drowned by breathing the air.>

1. The laws of the old testament are irrelevant even though Jesus said that he did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it.>

If you fulfill a contract, you are no longer obligated to keep its conditions. If you don't agree with that, please let me hold your car note and mortgage.

<2. Anything that conflicts with the church's version is poetry and parables and should not be taken seriously because the Bible is infallible.>

This must be addressed on a case by case basis. In a book full of poetry, of course you can find certain statements that appear to be contradictory.

<3. Any conflicts in the various versions of the Bible, or within the same version such as

Genesis 6:20 Take two of every kind of animal.

Genesis 7:2-3,5 Take seven of every kind of animal.

are irrelevant scribal errors. >

They must be addressed on a case by case basis. A contradiction involves the fact something can not both be and not be, in the same way, at the same time. Your example is not 2 statements discussing the same time. Most scribal errors, I am almost sure all, involve either multiples or powers of 10. If you want to look at how the Hebrews transcribed numbers, you might get an idea why that would happen. If you think you're right in this discussion, I'll gladly review the last page of posts and show a number of spelling and grammatical errors. Would that mean you're wrong in your arguments? Of course not. Bibles printed today have typos. Does that prove the Bible is wrong? Of course not. Manuscripts written by hand thousands of years ago have copying errors. Does that prove the original manuscript was wrong? Of course not.

<Here are some more problems with a global flood that I got from different websites.>

There are millions of species now. So - if new species are created by God and not evolution - there must also have been millions of species then.

<<<<<OhioChessFan>>>> Yes, and?>

Well, it all goes back to the ark not being big enough. A tiger needs about 10-15 lbs of meat a day. An elephant needs about 300–350 lbs of food a day. How much would a T-Rex or a Brontosaurus eat? A Brontosaurus is about 80 feet long. There would not be enough room on the ark for the animals plus a year's worth of food.

<<<<<TCE>>>> Such water would be super heated. It would kill every living thing in the oceans through heat and changing the salinity of the water.>

<<<<<OhioChessFan>>>> It hasn't yet.>

Yes, that was the point I was trying to make :)

<<<<<OhioChessFan>>>> How do you reckon the waters of the flood receded?>

I don't. I reckon that you reckon it was another miracle of course.

<<<<<OhioChessFan>>>> I am guessing they drowned by not breathing air.>

That's really what it comes down to. Forgetting what we now about the earth and believing that God made the impossible possible.

<<<<<OhioChessFan>>>> I'll gladly review the last page of posts and show a number of spelling and grammatical errors. Would that mean you're wrong in your arguments? Of course not. Bibles printed today have typos. Does that prove the Bible is wrong? Of course not. Manuscripts written by hand thousands of years ago have copying errors. Does that prove the original manuscript was wrong? Of course not.>

Of course it does. I'll give you an example from this discussion.

<<<<<YouRang>>>> It's practically certain that our observations are incomplete, and that our best theories are approximations, and that future observations will force us to trash some of our theories.

But one <should> take this as a reason to discredit science or scientists.>

What <YouRang> intended to say was "should not." If only one percent of one percent of all the words in the Bible are wrong it could change everything. A few negatives get changed to positives, some poetry here, some assumptions there, voila! You have a completely different Bible.

<<<<<OhioChessFan>>>> In a book full of poetry, of course you can find certain statements that appear to be contradictory.>

And if I have to choose between belief in a "science" that produced the horrors of the 20th century, and belief in the Bible's account of Noah and the Ark, that's an easy choice to make.

That being said, I well understand that there are all kinds of scientific questions that demand answers: for instance, why are there no more dinosaurs? I don't know the answer. Creation Science is very new and has a long way to go.

As for the supposed "contradictions" in the Bible, these exist mostly in the eye of the beholder.

The Noah and the Ark story far exceeds any horror that science has produced thus far. When it comes to religion and science I don't think that one is wrong and the other is right. I believe that both strive for the truth, and both are corrupted by the ego. Truth can only be had when the ego is gone.

<<<<<playground player>>>> As for the supposed "contradictions" in the Bible, these exist mostly in the eye of the beholder.>

The passages that I gave were pretty clear. They require a great deal of imagination to interpret in a way that does not conflict with the rest of scripture. It's easier to just dismiss them as has been done here.

<<<<<playground player>>>> And, sorry, but Almighty God has the sovereign right to save whom He will save and condemn whom He will condemn. If that's too politically incorrect for you, too bad.>

Political correctness has nothing to do with it. As far as I'm concerned political correctness oftentimes amounts to an attack on free speech. The problems with such a "god" are self evident. It would mean that "god" is the biggest failure of all time. This "perfect god" created people so horribly imperfect that it had to send a great flood to wipe out all of it's mistakes ... and again it failed! This "perfect god" continues to burn people in hell forever because of a few years here on earth. Not only does that prove incompetence and injustice it also proves stupidity. Why would "god" make us in the first place if it knew that this would happen? I wouldn't let such a "god" fix my lawnmower.

<<<<<playground player>>>> But honestly, I don't want to see Hitler and Stalin in heaven. Do you?>

Hitler and Stalin were just the worldly identities that those bodies held during those lifetimes. If Hitler was reborn as your son would you recognize him? If you did would you want to see your son burn in hell forever? If God loves us more than any parent could how could God do such a thing? My answer to your question is that I would one day like to see the spirit of Hitler and Stalin whole and in Heaven.

I don’t know whether you have read my recent messages at Kibitzer’s Café or not and so I am posting it here too. On Monday of last week I have become proud father of (the second) daughter named Aneta. You can see her picture on the site of regional newspaper “Kladensky denik” (Kladno’s Daily) at http://kladensky.denik.cz/miminka/m... where is just now till this Friday (12:00 A.M. CET) running a polling contest for the most sympathetic baby born last week in regional maternity hospitals organized by the newspaper. Personally I am not much interested in such a kind of competitions but my wife likes it very much and she would be much happy to see our little girl on the top. Right now we are on the second place in very tense and close race with two other contenders and so every additional vote is very important for the final outcome. If you would like to help me to make my wife even happier than she already is now, just click on the link above, flag “Aneta Cervenkova, Stredokluky” (the first name in gray box on the right side on the screen) and hit the “hlasovat” button below. It is possible to vote repeatedly always after 60 minutes from one IP address... :-D

Honestly, I haven't got the theological muscle to explain, to your satisfaction, the doctrine of election/predestination. I don't fully understand it myself. But heaven forbid that my capacity for understanding should be a test for any doctrine in the Bible!

Science is all about understanding nature. As such, science will *always* seek a natural explanation for observed facts. This means that science will *never* accept a supernatural, or miraculous explanation -- even if that supernatural explanation should happen to be true.

This is not a bias against religion. It's simply working within the realm of science, which requires its theories to be *testable* within nature. Of course miracles performed by God at his whim are not.

This is why it is absurd that creationists want science to accept miraculous explanations, such as those recorded in the Bible. When scientists don't -- because they can't -- the creationists accuse scientists of being liars and create the appearance the religion and science are in opposition. In fact, the only thing that these creationists are really doing is demonstrating that they (and their followers) don't even understand what science is.

Worse, it means that the accusations they make are false. This has happened many times in history, and it's a primary reason for why so many people regard Christians as backward, stubborn, and hostile.

In fact, because creationists present their ideas as foundational to the integrity of the Bible, they are in essence gambling the reputation of the Bible itself on a bet that their ideas are scientifically correct. And it's a gamble they will lose.