Scientific errors in the Bible

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
We have a YEC here who has been arguing that insects could have survived the year-long putative Flood by hanging on to hypothetical vegetation mats .

---

Which has better odds of actually occuring in nature?1.)A few bugs survived a storm by floating around in/on debris.
Or
2.)That life spontaniously arose from a chemical soup?For now Ill put my money on the bugs. I havent seen any new never before seen animals springing out of my pond but I have seen clumps of ants the size of my fist floating on the water after a flood.Please dont discount some of the low probabilities in the creationist theories when there are far far greater streaches in the biogenesis/evolutionary theory.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[b] [QUOTE][b]1.)A few bugs survived a storm by floating around in/on debris.[/QUOTE][/b]

quote:

---

How hot was the water? You may be aware that some calculations of the water temperature of the flood are well above boiling.

---

Some, not all.

quote:

---

Also, explain how an olive tree (in the Bible) and a number of bristlecone pines (in the American southwest) survived a year underwater.

---

Devine intervention? If God can create the earth and flood it Im sure he can preserve a few trees while they're under water. If God is real he certantly doesnt follow our laws of physics. [QUOTE]If bugs could float all over the world on rafts, then they should all be cosmopolitan. Especially after the Flood. [/B][/QUOTE]Then why do we have birds, snakes, insects all of very similar structure on every contenant? Did they all evolve independantly of each other?

​

[This message has been edited by Jonathan, 07-05-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by Jonathan, 07-05-2002]

The thing is is that the whole basis for creationism is based on "devine intervention" not science. If we were created by God then none of what he did agrees with modern-day scientific logic. A God could not create an earth and populate it by adhering to our scientific principals, its an absolute impossibility.That is the whole basis for the evolution vs creationism arguement. Evolution relies on sciencentific evidence and creationism relies on more than that evidence. I believe that there is more going on than we can explain with men in lab coats.Oh by the way. You're right, I am so thankful that science took the upper hand, we may never have had indoor plumbing.Thank you science!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90: [QUOTE][b]I believe that there is more going on than we can explain with men in lab coats.[/QUOTE][/b]That is quite possible. Some of us even believe on faith that there is. But if there is it is outside the realm of science. [/B][/QUOTE]For example: http://www.oberf.org

​

[This message has been edited by Jonathan, 07-08-2002]