The only thing that i hate in this world is "evolution"(which is a fantasy that would never happen) and science
Excuse me, Verbally Challenged One. Isn't that 2 (two) things?
How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?
by hooberus 207 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
wasasister
-
Faraon
Hooverus,
Hooberus,
Where does it say god brought them to him?
Genesis Chapter 6
18: But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
19: And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
20: Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
21: And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.
22: Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.Check the Torah site:
According to the Kaplan Jewish bible, which you can see at:
http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=1&CHAPTER=6#P5
this is their translation of your same verses.
6:18
But I will keep My pledge that you will come into the ark. You will be together with your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives.
6:19
'From all life, all flesh, bring two of each kind into the ark to live with you. They shall be male and female.
6:20
From each separate species of bird, from each separate species of livestock, and from each separate species of land animals, bring to yourself two of each kind to live.
6:21
Take with you all the food that will be eaten, and keep it in storage. It shall be food for you and [the animals].'
6:22
Noah did all that God had commanded him. He did it [exactly].
I guess that there is quite a difference between shall come unto thee and bring to yourself.
Someone did quite a lot of editing. I guess it was the Jews. They don't know anything about Genesis.
Faraon
-
Faraon
Hooberus,
I guess the second link (http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=1&CHAPTER=6#P5 ) does not work directly, but if you follow the main site, http://bible.ort.org/ , and go to English, you can follow from there to Genesis 6.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Faraon
(Spanish for Pharaoh)
-
Faraon
Are you serious? Exactly which animals are in the class of "many animals" that don't need daily feeding?
snakes, lions, tigers, etc.
Remember that all animals ate plants only before the flood. I think that in this silly account, even insect-eating Venus flytrap plants, only ate other plants. Since there were no flesh-eating animals, I guess they didn't have their teeth, beaks, and nails before the flood. Jehovah changed them after the flood. Before that, poisonous snakes, having no chewing teeth, only poisoned their fruit so that it wouldn't move or to start digesting it before they ate it, and anacondas wrapped around their watermelons in order to suffocate them. Of course after the fall of man, there was no problem because snakes only ate dirt! Faraon
-
donkey
This thread proves once and for all that size does matter. Everything else is irrelevant if you have lenght and girth - just ask a creationist.
-
hooberus
Hillary said: Hello, The problem with pseudo-scientists is that they seem to have less of an understanding of how science works, even than the laymen they seek to ensnare.
Ah, but who are the pseudo-scientists?
Science is not a perfect enterprise and never will be. The scientific world is populated by imperfect humans trying through process of theory to prove a perfect fact. The one characteristic that the scientific world has that is generally lacking in creationists and other pseudo-scientists is a commitment to finding out the facts in any give discipline and then arriving at a conclusion, and this is a highly important point that needs to be kept in mind when dealing with these issues
So then are the evolutionists who apriori exclude creation as an option before looking at the facts, and who only limit themselves to evolutionary/ naturalistic options pseudoscientists?
Theological pseudo-scientists approach such issues with a conclusion in their top pocket and then try to bend or distort the facts to suit their preconceived conclusions.
What about evolutionists who approach origins science with the conclusion that only naturalsitic options be allowed?
The WTS, who buy into parts of the YEC theology are a prime example of this process. They thrive and depend on their audience being ignorant of real science and the way that it works to solidify its discoveries.
I am not defending the WTS, however shouldn't real science be a search for the truth obout origins and not necessarily a search for only evolutionary/ naturalistic options?
Alan Feurbacher's examination of their last 'Creation' book is a prime example of pseudo-science caught in the headlights of true science. Against that backdrop it ironically it showed itself to be as dishonest a defense of the Genesis tale as you are likely to read.
I am not here to defend the WTS
Science does not deal in absolute truths. Rather, it moves generally in that direction and starts with theories. If a theory falls, it must fall to a sounder theory, based not on wishful thinking, but on facts and reason. A sounder theory is not a failure of science; rather, it is actually proof of it's success in that it progressively moves things forward to the next level of sound, or better theory. A theory is an attempted explanation of facts but is not a final and absolute statement until it has evolved to the position where it is no longer able to fall.
The word Science comes from a latin word which means "knowledge" Science should be a search for the truth.
-
hooberus
Genesis 6:20 KJV
20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
Genesis 6:20 NKJV
20 Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.
Genesis 6:20 KJV 21
20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee to keep them alive.
Genesis 6:20 NASB
20 " (22) Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.
Genesis 6:20 NIV
. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.
Genesis 6:20 NLT
20 Pairs of each kind of bird and each kind of animal, large and small alike, will come to you to be kept alive.
Genesis 6:20 ESV
20 Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive.
-
hillary_step
Hello Hooberus,
Ah, but who are the pseudo-scientists?
Those that ignore the solid foundations already established by their peers. For example those that ignore or side-step with imaginative but unsound conjecture the four various modes of dating ancient items, including dendochronology, would fall squarely into the category I outlined.
So then are the evolutionists who apriori exclude creation as an option before looking at the facts, and who only limit themselves to evolutionary/ naturalistic options pseudoscientists?
Well, you are assuming these exist. Please name one who has without examining creationist 'evidence', taken this stand. Science as I have noted, does not work this way. Pseudo-science, especially of the theological sort starts with conclusions, but not true science. Science builds one step at a time on a solid foundation, often having to reshape and restructure the stairs at it builds, but once it's foundations are established, there is no need for total demolition.
What about evolutionists who approach origins science with the conclusion that only naturalsitic options be allowed?
As I noted above, name one. I could of course name numerous pseudo-scientists whom I am quite sure start the process of examining this issue with a pre-conceived conclusion, often not their own. Hooberus, you need to understand that science is not God's enemy. If God is truth then science is God, because science is all about truth. Evolution is the enemy of the Bible, but not necessarily an enemy of your God. You can hardly blame scientists, or ascribe sinister motives to them as is common with creationists, for discovering scientific truths that conflict with Biblical ones.
I am not defending the WTS, however shouldn't real science be a search for the truth obout origins and not necessarily a search for only evolutionary/ naturalistic options?
Again you assume that those who propound evolution have not looked at the alternatives. Origins are discovered not by pre-conceived conclusions, but by the slow process of gathering and testing evidence, which is what science is all about. For example, scientists of various disciplines may have had ideas over the decades that water exists / existed on Mars, but this has not, even until today been touted as fact. Why? Because no evidence exists of this, as of yet. They are approaching this conundrum from the middle and will work outwards as more evidence is gathered. It may be a thousand years before they discover the 'origins' of Mars, but at present what they have discovered can allow them to make some determining factors. This is a similar process that is building the steps to an evolutionary understanding on mans life on earth as we speak.
I am not here to defend the WTS
I used the WTS as an example of pseudo-science in action. If you defend their flawed viewpoints, you do defend them.
The word Science comes from a latin word which means "knowledge" Science should be a search for the truth.
Yes, I know, that is what my posts have been all about. Scientists as a group, are not scared of truth, any truth, though as individuals they may have a bias. This bias can never outlive the scientist however. Can that be said of Creationists?
Best regards - HS
-
hooberus
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Tools/Quotes/lewontin.asp
Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the world?s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation?regardless of whether or not the facts support it.
?We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.?
-
hooberus
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/Quotes/todd.asp
Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University:
?Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic?
Reference
Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.