Is the Bible the Word of God?

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
If Noah had taken babies on board the ark with him,the word "mate" would be quite innacurate...babie animals have no mate,thats a basic principle of zoology.

---

I don't think God intended for them to mate on the boat did he? Just in the future, right? [b] [QUOTE] Furthermore,animals dont come programmed with all the knowledge they require to survive. They have to be taught certain things by their parents and require protection from other animals...that too is a basic principle of Biology...
[/b][/QUOTE]Actually the Bible says God sent the animals to Noah. I'm sure God picked a good example of each animal for the ark. Reptiles do in fact come preprogrammed. A snake, frog, turtle, all know how to do there thing when they are born. God may have sent other kinds of smaller animals fully grown. Are you sure you went to biology, wasn't I the ignorant one here? [b] [QUOTE] also,dinosaurs,being reptiles,attain maturity within a year...
[/b][/QUOTE]Raised many dinosaurs have you? Are you sure about that reptile bit?iguanas attain sexual maturity in about 3 years
http://www.ahc.umn.edu/rar/MNAALAS/Iguana.html[b] [QUOTE] Actually,what he showed was a DRAWING of what one such skeleton SHOULD lokk like and accused the smithsonian museum of hiding skeletons of these giants in their basement,which is completely ridiculous,since even the discovery of such individuals would in no way destroy the ToE...it could simply have been a genetic mutation of a group of humans and many scientists on earth would sell their soul to be the ones to present such skeletons to the world so his and your assertion makes no sense whatsoever.
[/b][/QUOTE]Download a newer copy of the video. [b] [QUOTE] The Christian God...thats the religion that was in force in germany in the '40
[/b][/QUOTE]Here's some reading for you on hitler and his religious beliefs.
http://home.infostations.net/quietsun/artath3.htm[b] [QUOTE] My question,which he did not answer is why did Hovind not tell his listeners that Hitler considered himself a good christian and let them jusge this information by themselves as to weather or not he really was...after all,the KKK are convinced that they do God's work and are all church attending christians. Does that mean that Christ is to blame for their misdead?...if not,then why blame evolution for Hitlers crimes and yet not mention that he was also christian?[/b][/QUOTE]Many people misinterpret the Bible. Catholics even preach evolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Doesn`t really matter though does it they believe in God and thus get to play the I go to heaven regardless of my actions card, just as Hitler and the KKK do, Me I`m off to hell by your rules and to be frank I think I will find a better class of person there.....

---

So do you think Hitler accepted Jesus?

[b] [QUOTE] Originally posted by gene90:
Note that ice is denser than water..
[/b][/QUOTE]

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Actually ice is one of the few solids that is less dense than its liquid state...

---

Ooopsy, I guess gene90 better go study some more science too, huh?

[b] [QUOTE] Not very thick apparently because water blocks so much light. Note that ice is denser than water and that 30 ft of water effectively removes the red portions of the solar spectrum that plants require for photosynthesis. 30 ft of ice would probably leave far less light than water. How long would a layer of 30 ft of ice last around the orbit? Not terribly long would be my answer. Probably six months would be my guess. Maybe as astronomers continue to study comets we can get a better answer.
[/b][/QUOTE]You mean we shouldn't just guess just yet? [b] [QUOTE] Saturn is nine times further from the Sun than Earth. Ice orbiting Saturn would recieve 1/81 or 1.2% of the amount of solar energy the same particle would receive orbiting Earth.
[/b][/QUOTE]Did you know there's ice on mercury?
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_mercury.htmlI know it's not orbiting mercury, but my point is normally we would think ice could not possibly exist on mercury with it being so close to the sun. It just goes to show things happen all the time that surprise scientist.Who's to say the universe acted exactly the same before the flood as it does now? [QUOTE][b]
redstang281 posted:
And what did the evolutionist community think of the claim before it was announced a fraud?Sun Pictures' claim? They probably laughed and went about their business. [/QUOTE][/b]Oh you mean they didn't get on the internet and post it in creation forums?

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
In that case,the words FUTUR mate would have been the accurate appelation...

---

I looked up the word futur in my dictionairy and couldn't find it? I think God is smarter than to use non-existant words. Sorry, just messing.I think you know this is a poor arguement. I think we can all read the flood story in the Bible and understand the animals aren't supposed to mate until after they get out of the ark, that implys future. In which case any age animal would be acceptible. [b] [QUOTE] Some animals like turtles do have instinctive knowledge but most require adult supervision...especially animals who do not have more than a few cubs per birth.
[/b][/QUOTE]So which kinds of dinosaurs have you observed that require adult supervision? [b] [QUOTE] and frogs are not reptiles BTW...they're amphibians.
[/b][/QUOTE]Oh, you're right about that. Thanks. [b] [QUOTE] As for Hitler,my point was not that he was a typical christian but that Hovind completely eclipsed the fact that he was christian born and raised and that he mentionned GOD as his inspiration in Mein Kaft,not evolution.[/b][/QUOTE]Here I found this on Hovind's website.
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=14

[b] [QUOTE] And yet you have no problem with the DEMONSTRATED dishonesty of certain YECists.
Why do you not hold YECies to the same standard you pretend to hold for mainstream science ?
I suppose, as long as one is lying for Christ — then being a liar is OK with you.
[/b][/QUOTE]Hah. For one, I was not shown a link or backing evidence to support this claim. For two, I don't think the creationist intentionally lied. Maybe they thought it was a peice of noah's ark. In which case it was a mistake, not a lie. [b] [QUOTE] Actually you have it backwards. Again. (Surprise!)
Any Scientist who could provide evidence to convincingly OVERTURN the ToE would be the most famous and highly sought scientist in the world.So what is this ‘demand for scientist to find transitionally [sic] fossils’ ?
Field paleontologists who find fossil evidence that is consistent with the ToE may make headlines in scientific journals but not much attention will be paid from the general public. However, if one finds the fossil that falsifies the ToE, she will make the front page on every new paper and be guesting every cable program on TV.
[/b][/QUOTE]Post some transitional fossil on here in new threads. That way the local creationists can research and rebuttle.

​

[This message has been edited by redstang281, 02-08-2002]

[b] [QUOTE] Of course, I'm just being a gadfly for technical correctness.
[/b][/QUOTE]You must have just started doing that. A few post back you said all reptiles are fully grown in 1 year and that ice is denser than water

[b] [QUOTE] 'Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.' ????
[/b][/QUOTE]Oh, well that explains why 99% of our public school teachers are dumb enough to teach evolution.

[b] [QUOTE] You might have noticed that the supposed ice on Mercury would only exist in polar craters where it is never exposed to light.
[/b][/QUOTE]Yes sir, sure did. You might have also noticed what I wrote below.
Here I pasted it for you againbut my point is normally we would think ice could not possibly exist on mercury with it being so close to the sun. It just goes to show things happen all the time that surprise scientist.Please reread over and over until you understand

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Actually it was Ludvan who said reptiles are full grown after a year....

​

Your reply was to Gene....

​

Gene and Ludvan are different posters.....

​

---

Oops. Well he was the one who said ice is denser than water.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
Redstang,i dont know what Bible you read but mine makes absolutely no mention of Noah taking BABIES with him on the ark.

---

You have a Bible? [b] [QUOTE] It does mention that animals came with their MATES,which means they had reached sexual maturity WHEN THEY BOARDED THE ARK.
[/b][/QUOTE]You assume it does.Genesis 7:2
"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female"It says just a male and a female. Sorry Charlie. [b] [QUOTE] And BTW,is it just dinos that came as babies or was it all animals,in your opinion...
[/b][/QUOTE]I don't know I wasn't there. I'm sure God sent the best examples of each animal. [b] [QUOTE] because i hope you do know that many animals,such as lions,bears and so forth are observed today as caring for their children for years...
[/b][/QUOTE]Good point, God probably sent full grown animals of those kinds. Oh btw, lions, bears, and so forth don't give birth to children they give birth to cubs. [b] [QUOTE] most dinosaures had no more than a few(1-6) cubs per birthings.
[/b][/QUOTE]Dinosaures didn't have children? [b] [QUOTE] The best exemples of large lizards we have today are alligators and komodo dragons and by observing their behaviour,and the fact that their youngs remain in their care until they reached adulthood,we can infer how large dinosaures behaved with their progeny.
[/b][/QUOTE]Oh, you assume.. Hmm sounds risky. A few post ago a fella brought up the point that scientist don't even classify dinosaurs with reptiles. He says that classify them in another class of their own. Makes it kinda hard to even assume they behave in the same manor. [b] [QUOTE] The word christian in relation with hitler is not mentionned anywhere during his seminar. This was clearly meant to induce the listeners into believing that Hitler was trying to use evolution to destroy religious belief,which is the message Hovind tries to pass along in his seminars...that evolutionists are devil worshippers.[/b][/QUOTE]Hovind's point was just that evolution justifies one race as above another.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
No WE dont normaly think that ice cant exist on mercury because WE know that only one side is exposed to the sun and WE know that the other side is frozen solid. But what WE dont know is how come YOU dont yet understand that ice cant exist for long while directly exposed to the unobstructed rays of the sun unless its farther than jupiter. Here's an experience for you....put an ice cube on the ground under sunlight and watch it melt away...now,multiply this by a couple of thousands and you'll understand what happens to ice in space so close to the sun.

---

I thought Hovind said ice in his seminar, but I'll watch it again when I get a chance. I checked his website and this is what he says on it. http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=23It would seem a water vapor is the best theory.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Then he is wrong species maybe but races are NOT seperate species....

---

Do you know what the title of darwin's book is? (including the sub title)