Noah's Ark Animal Parade 2

[B0BNISH]

looking at the comments it seems people dont realise that this is a clip from a comedy movie...

[gregrutz]

That's a lot of animals to feed. What did they eat when they got off the ark. MUD?

What happened to all the plants? The poor fish in the muddy flood waters, they would all die.

[nicelogin2]

If two of every kind of animals were saved, then how would we get different species of animals in less than 4000 years? There is no way that it can happen in such a short time. And how hard does Noah need to "work" his wife to get the populations we have today? I guess Noah WAS DA MAN!

Why does God kill innocent people? What's wrong with him?

[BuzzLOLOL]

. This is one of the MOST EVIL stories ever told!!! Psychologically speaking, it is used to BRAINWASH CHILDREN INTO THINKING GENOCIDE IS OK..!!! . That GENOCIDE is SANCTIONED by a 'God' and, thus, MUST BE OK..!!! . This story teaches children that anyone who doesn't believe exactly what they believe should ALL BE KILLED..!!! . Even if that requires killing over 99+% of the people on the planet!!! . On a tighter view, anyone not a Hasidic Jew should be KILLED..!!! . Including the Prime Minister!

[gundamx100]

@BuzzLOLOL Ok, you sir need to calm down. God MADE Adam and Eve right? Then they had 2 kids. 1 got killed, and Eve got another son. From those 2 sons, were the people from Noah's time. Now God saw how evil the people got and didn't worship him, because he was the creator. They worship things carved out of wood and the sun, stars, and the moon as well. God saw how righteous Noah was for he was faithful to him. Read Genesis chapters 6-9

[bhlewis91]

@BuzzLOLOL bro why must you bring out the negativity in this?

[gregrutz]

Read a History book. By 6000 BC Egyptians in the SW corner of Egypt were herding cattle and constructing large buildings. Subsistence in organized and permanent settlements in predynastic Egypt by the middle of the 6th millennium BC centered predominantly on cereal and animal agriculture. Metal objects replaced prior ones of stone. Tanning of animal skins, pottery and weaving are common. There are indications of seasonal occupation of the Al Fayyum in the 6th millennium BC.

[gregrutz]

1. So Mt. Everest grew to 29,029 feet in 4400 Years, right?

2.' before the flood the earth was mostly dry land' How do you know?

3. Why did all the marsupials all go to one island and how did they get there?

4. Which fish died, the saltwater fish in the rain or the freshwater fish washed into the ocean? And wouldn't the muddy water kill all the corals and plankton?

5.Why did the flood only make one Grand Canyon?

[gregrutz]

Here is the evidence, the facts, go look. The fossils are layered like this: In the bottom layer of rock are shell fossils, above that is a layer with shells and fish fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish and amphibians fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian and reptile fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian, reptile fossils and dinosaur fossils. No human or bunny fossils are found in any of these layers. No dating method used

[davidls11]

Theory #1- He used a shrink ray.

Theory #2- Timelord technology. (bigger on the inside)

Theory #3- Fundies are nuts.

[gregrutz]

Do people really believe this happened?

[davidls11]

@gregrutz Sadly, yes. 

[MrRobertGulabo]

Never mind the validity of the science. I will grant you that it is possible to house and feed a pair of every species (millions of them, BTW) and that they got there. But the bigger question that always nagged me was why was God punishing animals for what people did? Even the Nazis didn't bother to execute Jewish pets.

[gnarkillkicksass]

I love this story. Studying it in high school is the reason I am an atheist today. Once I realised how fictional this story was I looked objectively to the other stories and fables in the bible and wasn't able to believe them either. Anyone that believes this actually happened is someone I just feel sorry for.

[dougmoerhoffman]

@gnarkillkicksass I had the opposite experience. I'd never taken a close look at it. When I did, I realized that it had to be true. All of science and history confirms it. To believe that it's made up stretches the imagination because of all the millions of facts you'd have to ignore.

[gnarkillkicksass]

@dougmoerhoffman Any reputable Historian or Scientist will refute it.

To say "All of science and history confirms it" is a blatant lie.

But I guess it wouldn't be the first time a Christian has lied or made up facts to back a dubious bronze age fairy tale.

[dougmoerhoffman]

@gnarkillkicksass This wouldn't be the first time an atheist accused a Christian of lying, without anything to back up his accusation.

"What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun." ~Ecclesiastes 1

[gregrutz]

That's a lot of animals to feed. And don't forget the fish so they don't all die in the muddy water.

[lovergal1984]

It's impossible for certain animals to be around each other, trying to avoid from becoming a meal. I can't grasp the thought of people actually believing Noah's ark took place. Definetly fiction in the 1st degree.

[Todeskaefer]

According to science and actual observable reality, the Noah's Ark story is a load of cockamamie bullhonky. So is the story about Adam and Eve. At least 400 living specimens are required for any species to come back from the brink of near-extinction. And even with only 400 it's a bit of a long shot. Any less than that and the gene pool wouldn't be deverse enough, their descendants would eventually become too deformed or stupid to live

[dougmoerhoffman]

@Todeskaefer "At least 400 living specimens are required for any species to come back from the brink of near-extinction."

Yet you believe all species on earth came from ONE organism. The first two sexual organisms, as well, would only have had each other to mate with. That's a starting genetic stock of 1, or 2, depending on how you look at it.

Something doesn't line up in your beliefs.

[Todeskaefer]

@dougmoerhoffman And a belief in a magical sky daddy who created things just by talking about them lines up perfectly well, does it? Yeah, there's oodles of scientific evidence to support that. And if you've ever read any book besides the Bible, you'd know that the first life forms on earth were single-celled organisms, which reproduce by cytokinesis, i.e. no mating involved. And you know what? There are thousands of different types of single-celled organisms, not just one or two

[dougmoerhoffman]

@Todeskaefer So much wrong in your post:

1. I know you believe the first life was single celled and asexual. The problem is that sexual reproduction would still have to evolve in order to exist, since it didn't exist from the start. My point still stands.

2. To suppose that thousands of single celled organisms evolved independently via abiogenesis violates occam's razor. Your evolutionist scientists say that there was only one common ancestor to begin with.

You don't even know your own book

[Todeskaefer]

@dougmoerhoffman All that means is that basic DNA is similar between all life forms, but that doesn't mean you can fuck your dog and produce a man-dog. Also, when the first sexually reproductive species evolved (which were plants BTW, animals didn't come til much later) there were almost certainly more than two specimens of each species. Thirdly, in Matthew 19:16-17, Jesus outright denies that he is God. So you, sir, don't know YOUR own book

[dougmoerhoffman]

@Todeskaefer "the first sexually reproductive species evolved (which were plants BTW, animals didn't come til much later)"

This is completely false, whether you're an evolutionist or a creationist. Perhaps study the current evolutionary theory? Sorry if they keep changing it up on you. It's hard to keep track when it never stays the same, eh?

"there were almost certainly more than two specimens of each species. "

And where did those specimen come from? Secondly, (cont)

[dougmoerhoffman]

@Todeskaefer 2. If there were more than two specimen of each sexually reproducing species to arise, how did they pass on their genetic material sexually, if not with each other? You're suggesting that more than two organisms simultaneously developed sexual reproduction independently, violating occam's razor. It is statistically less likely that more than two arose at once.

Third, in John 8:58, Jesus outright declares that He is God. You don't know either book. Nice try, no cigar.

[thesilentmartyrband]

Cool video! Imagine Noah had to listen to the same great great great great great etc grandfathers of all the mad atheist. While he was building the boat . Then gurgle gurgle take a swim. it's real Now because they have one in hong kong. So history is creating itself over again. Nice

[CynicalSkeptic1]

The fact that many people actually still believe this story in 2010 is truly pathetic. Why continue to defend a story which is obviously fiction. I think the story seems completely ridiculous when just viewed superficially...but if you require more proof then you only have to read "The impossible voyage of Noah's Ark" by Robert A. Moore. This shows clearly that the Noah's Ark fable is better suited to be added to the works of Aesop.

[cycleryder]

Look people it is a parable taken from a more ancient story it has already admitted to be so by Jewish clerics. Get over it,

[NearDeathExperienc]

Red herrings everywhere by the looks of it.

Kind of like every new breathrough for each generation for Evolution gets debunked by that one, but a whole generation believed it based on the evidence they were given. So now Evolution gets let of the hook because its 2010

[pctopgs]

@NearDeathExperienc That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying that in 2010, you are using arguments that where debunked 20-30 years ago. Try coming up with some new arguments because the ones you are using now have been debunked.

[pctopgs]

This guy is using arguments that were debunked decades ago....And it's getting annoying now because it's 2010 and I'm getting bored with creationist now. They act as if no one has heard the arguments they present. It's either NearDeathExperienc has just been introduced to the controversy, or he refuses to look at both sides.

[Depravedmaniac666]

This is probably God's worst thought out plan ever.

[day7creation]

I'm pretty sure Noah would have taken baby animals on the ark because they are smaller and eat less also they would have a longer life to produce more offspring, after all that's the whole point. -------( THUMBS UP!!! )

[Imaginefree69]

@day7creation

Those baby wallabies must have been pretty tuckered out

after walking from Australia to the Middle East.

I wonder why the Bible never mentions the wonderful miracle

of over 450 species walking across the Pacific Ocean?

Fairy tales for children.

[day7creation]

There was no Pacific Ocean before the flood, the water came from with in the earth when "the waters of the deep broke open" we have fault lines all over the earth were we can see the water came out of.

[KalimaShaktide]

@day7creation any scientific sources for this claim? Successful troll is successful I think.

[Imaginefree69]

@day7creation

Hahahaha!!

Are you suggesting that this is taken seriously by some of your religionists?

How absurd.

The pacific ocean covers 64 MILLION square miles, and has an average depth of nearly three miles. And all this water was hidden inside the earth until one spring day some 4,000 years ago when it escaped, covered the earth, then realized it wasn't big enough for that, and retired into it's present little hollow?

Even if the earth were hollow it just would not fit.

How pathetic.

[dougmoerhoffman]

@Imaginefree69 I wonder why you never realized that the earth would have been completely reshaped during the Flood?

1. The animals didn't have to live far away

2. The animals could have all lived near Noah. The "Middle East" and "Australia" are moot terms; they didn't exist in the pre-Flood world.

3. Pangaea

4. God gave Noah between 70 to 120 years, depending on how you read it. That gives all the animals plenty of time to get there, no matter how you slice it.

[MrRobertGulabo]

@dougmoerhoffman still doesn't explain how the kiwi from New Zealand got to the middle east even given 100 years. it's a flightless bird. did it swim? Was it magically transported y captain Kirk? But most of all, why punish animals for what man does? Isn't that like executing the pet dog of a human criminal sentenced to death? No government anywhere would do that. Why would God?

[dougmoerhoffman]

@MrRobertGulabo Why would it have to get there under 100 years? As far as it concerns travel, animals have been documented traveling thousands of miles across water boundaries via debris, which there would have been plenty of after the Flood.

You also have a problem. Assuming atheism, animals have no value, so why would it be wrong for animals to die under any circumstance? You have to assume Christianity is true before you can even complain about this, or your complaint won't make sense.

[MrRobertGulabo]

@dougmoerhoffman Why do I need to assume Christianity is true before I can complain? I am merely asking do you accept a God that would kill animals just because he's mad at people's wickedness? Because the God I believe in does not do such illogical and cruel things. I follow Jesus, not Moses.

[dougmoerhoffman]

@MrRobertGulabo "Why do I need to assume Christianity is true before I can complain?"

I'm saying that your complaint doesn't make any sense unless Christianity is true. If atheism is true, then there would be no reason why animals die because they don't have any value anyway, so you can't logically use that argument as a refutation of Christianity, because the same question refutes atheism. I was just pointing that out.

[MrRobertGulabo]

@dougmoerhoffman The question is... "ARE ANIMALS WORTH ANYTHING OR NOT?". I believe they are worth something. That they don't deserve a cruel, needless death. Dying because another animal hunted it for food is one thing; getting killed for someone's ego or even on a whim is not ok with me. So where are your personal beliefs in this? Do animals deserve to suffer even if it's not their fault?

[PeacefulAtheist1]

@dougmoerhoffman Hateful as usual I see. I am an Atheist.My life has value.My significant other's life has value.My pet cat's life has value.They have value because I have decided they have value.They have value simply because they exist.Existing itself is precious because as an Atheist I believe life is literally everything, which in turn makes life quite important.All of us animals, be they grasshoppers, hyenas, humans, falcons, crayfish, etc are equally as important and have a right to exist.

[MrRobertGulabo]

@dougmoerhoffman I was talking about BEFORE the flood. The kiwi pair will have to swim the Indian ocean to get to the middle east. Unless they rode on the back of whales that God magically tamed for that purpose? I mean, up to what point will you, as a rational adult believe in the logistical probability of this story?

[dougmoerhoffman]

@MrRobertGulabo "I was talking about BEFORE the flood. The kiwi pair will have to swim the Indian ocean to get to the middle east."

1. Kiwis may have diverged after the Flood.

2. The pre-Flood world was one giant land mass. No need to swim anyway, not to mention that they would've had 70+ years to walk from anywhere on that landmass to wherever Noah was.

How hard is it for you to understand that a giant Flood would reshape the earth's surface completely?

[MrRobertGulabo]

@dougmoerhoffman I am asking you: why punish land animals for the crimes of man? And how come the fish get an absolute pass? It's a bonanza day for sharks too, isn't it? How come God isn't mad with dolphins? If he can be indiscriminate and kill penguins in the arctic for crimes people did, how come the jellyfish get a free pass?

[gregrutz]

@MrRobertGulabo ''And how come the fish get an absolute pass?'' The saltwater fish all died in the fresh rain water and the freshwater fish died when washed into the salt water. Right? Fish were sinners too. LOL

And don't forget the babies that Our Almighty God killed.

[gregrutz]

@day7creation ''Noah would have taken baby animals'' It was hard enough to believe that polar bears walked to / from the north pole, but now you want us to believe a BABY bear walked that far?!?

Fuddies get stupider every day.

[day7creation]

@gregrutz The earth was much different before the world flood It was perfect and prob warm all over also like a hyperbaric chamber witch made animals huge and they were none hostile and more diverse spreed with more species then today but with only one kind in each group, (no polar bears) meaning prob only one kind of bear that lived everywhere and after the flood the bears had to adapt to their environment witch should be called "Adaptation with in a Species" instead of "micro evolution".

[gregrutz]

@day7creation Gee Whiz, I only have a few questions. Where did you get all this wonderful information? Where are the facts to back up your stories? What is your evicence?

What is the name of the flood mud layer with all the dead bodies in it?

[day7creation]

@gregrutz I get my info from years of research and the bible, check out the DR. Hovind videos in my favorites they have some good facts.-- The Flood layer is hundreds of feet thick and is made of thousands of layers and is full of dead bodys. When water and dirt get mixed together the dirt tends to do something called liquefaction and it settles in layers according to its density because of gravity. Also their would be no fossils buryed if not for the flood, all we find are from the flood.

[gregrutz]

@day7creation ahhhh.... NO. The Coconino sandstone, the third layer down in the Grand Canyon is form wind blown sands. We know this from the sand, the fossils and the crossbedding pattern. So here is why you are wrong, NOT ALL SEDIMENTARY ROCK IS FROM WATER. Fossils come from tar pits, slow growing coral reefs and ash layers. A flood would make one layer with the big rocks on the bottom and silt on top. We find distinct layers of different kinds of rock in random order. And 1 Grand Can

[day7creation]

@gregrutz larger rocks did fall deeper you have to dig really deep to find them the layers we see closer to the surface are more defined because the materials were of smaller size almost power like and are only now starting to turn to rock if they had not already , also the perfect mineralizing conditions needed to make a fossil are rare, that means trillions of animals must have been buried to make the millions of fossils we find buried today.

[gregrutz]

@day7creation Most fossils were made at the bottom of lakes or shallow seas.  The big rocks are not at the bottom. We find distinct layers of different kinds of rock in random order. And you don't seem to be able to understand something >>>= , NOT ALL SEDIMENTARY ROCK IS FROM WATER.

Watch watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY and learn some geology.

[day7creation]

@gregrutz- I have watched that video and would not call that a scientific experiment and not even close to the right conditions for one the flood lasted 40 days and was sifting not being stirred and mixed up with a stick and what do u think that it rained thousands of tons of dirt everywhere to make it all even layers everywhere? and all the animals magically didn't rot before they got buried? also more then 99% of sedimentary rock is from water I didn't mean 100% sorry

[gregrutz]

@day7creation It is raining at my house right now and I don't see any ''sifting''. You do know that 40 days of rain would not flood the world, right? Better go with the 'fountains of the deep'' and make up a story about all the water being under the rocks. Or make up a Canopy of water like Hovind did. Buthey still can't expain where the water ''receeded'' to.

Creationists claim ''for fossils to form they must be buried rapidly'' therefore there was a flood. Where is the flood mud layer?

[day7creation]

@gregrutz The water didn't go anywhere, If you leveled all the ground everywhere the entire earth would be over a mile under water and before the flood the earth was mostly dry land and yes the water came from inside the earth, the earth is full of pressurized water didn't u ever hear of an artisan well? Also that chart was proven wrong, we find fossils in random layers and in-between layers and sometimes the same fossil gos straight through many layers, its called polystrate fossils look it up.

[gregrutz]

@day7creation ''we find fossils in random layers '' NO YOU DON'T ! You will never find a bunny fossil in Cambrian Age rocks. You will never find a human fossil with the dinosaur fossils. [creationists think they have foot prints, LOL You will not find a bird fossil in the Permian Age rock.

These are the facts that we are trying to explain.

Rocks are in distinct layers of different kinds of rock in random order all over the world, the fossils are sorted simple to complex all over the wrold

[day7creation]

@gregrutz Yes Everest has been growing for the last 4000 years at unknown rates and the first people to climb it found Giant closed mouth fossilized clams at the top. Before the flood their was no ocean only giant lakes prob only fresh water and after the flood the ocean started as fresh water and gets saltier every year and most of the fish adapted to the slight increase in salt. one day the whole ocean may be like the dead sea but right now it has about 4000 years worth of salt.

[gregrutz]

@day7creation Wrong, they know the exact rate Mt. Everest is rising and how fast the plates are moving.

The top of the mountain was once a sea floor, the shells are thousands of feet thich, not just some clams washed up there. And those kinds of clams went extinct millions of years ago.

4000 years of salt? That means when Jesus went fishing the oceans were half as salty! And where did the huge deposits of sea salt come from that are underground?

[day7creation]

@gregrutz They know how fast Everest is growing now but not in the past and the clams aren't extinct they just don't get as big now. The huge deposits of sea salt underground are from the past 4000 years of salt coming out of the ocean, the problem is more salt is going in then what is coming out. off subject but what do u think about our goverment?

[gregrutz]

@day7creation How did the salt get several thousand feet underground? If the ocean was getting saltier it might be tough to make salt deposits too.

The government sucks, they all do, but it's the best in the world. Always spending more than they take in and wasting more every day.

off topic. Ever been to the Grand Canyon? Carlsbad Caverns? Canyonlands? Zion Nat. Park?

[suziestar777]

this clip warms my heart, it must of been so awesome at the actual time,great job!!!

[gregrutz]

@suziestar777 ''must of been so awesome'' I think 'unbelievable' would better fit the story.

[Cootabux]

I like the beginning scene with all the animals paired...the lions & tigers, calmly waiting to get on board. Yeah, like that would work! I can see the fur flying now! Chunks of flesh being ripped off carcasses by those monster sized tigers! Then, we can only imagine, if they actually got most on board, eventually. How long would it take for them to get hungry and start devouring the non-predators??

But, my favorite question is... where'd he put the whales??

[dougmoerhoffman]

@Cootabux The whales were not taken on board. They can swim, in case you didn't realize. Since they live in water, they got to stay in the water. Taking them on a dry boat would have been stupid. I fail to see why you can't use your brain in this.

[Imaginefree69]

The ark was 350 feet long, 75 feet wide, built by an 600 year old desert-dweller who had never seen a boat and who used trees 20-30 feet tall. By contrast, the Wyoming, one of the largest wooden ships ever, was built by the world's best shipwrights at the height of wooden ship technology as a US warship, with iron bracing throughout and the best 150 - 200 foot spruce. She was 350 feet long and promptly unusable due to warping and leakage. Noah's ark is a MYTH, kids.

[Imaginefree69]

@jstout724

"Yeah because they used Spruce and not Cypress, a SUPER HARD wood."

You realized how dumb your comment was and deleted it?

Very wise.

You are wrong about the species of tree

AND about the characteristics of that wood.

Spruce is a northern wood,

and is exceptionally soft,

as opposed to your claim of SUPER HARDNESS.

Education dissolves religion.

[jstout724]

@Imaginefree69 I seriously laughed out loud at your comment. I deleted because it posted twice. You claim to be educated yet you could not even understand my comment. Funny business. Your modern boat people used SPRUCE, which is extremety soft, "and not cypress, a SUPER HARD wood" -hence Cypress being the SUPER HARD wood. Do you not understand proper english with your almighty education? GENESIS 6:14 "BUILD A LARGE BOAT FROM CYPRESS WOOD AND WATERPROOF IT" You haven't even opened a bible, Liar.

[Imaginefree69]

@jstout724 " I deleted because it posted twice." Then where is the second posting? I see one deletion, but there is no duplicate post. Gee, maybe you are not telling the truth...? Your assumptions are uninformed, which no doubt is why they are erroneous. What makes you think that hardness is the criterion for boat construction? Please explain how the wallabies walked from Australia to the Middle East. Why wasn't this miraculous walk across the Pacific by 1,000 species recorded? Liar.

[jstout724]

@Imaginefree69 They used Spruce and not Cypressm a SUPER HARD wood. Spruce- which is a soft wood, lots of water, Takes YEARS to cure properly. They probably built that boat in what do you think a year?? Well Noah took 120 years to build his boat, and back then before the flood, the atmosphere was MUCH different, Trees were 5x what they are today. The evolutionists will even tell you that. Noah made his boat out of Huge tree's, Much harder then Spruce, and took 10x as long to make it. Thats why.

[Imaginefree69]

@jstout724

"Please explain how the wallabies walked from Australia to the Middle East. Why wasn't this miraculous walk across the Pacific by 1,000 species recorded? "

Well, it's been a couple of months now, so it looks like you have realized you cannot support the absurd assumptions necessary to embrace this fairy tale as representing reality.

This is progress!

I begin to have hope for you, jstout.

[NearDeathExperienc]

@Imaginefree69 By the same logic you need to play the Biblical record out.

1. It says that the waters were gathered in one place on creation. Inferring that the land was all in one place

2. Flood -

3. Post Flood It says that during the time of "name?" the earth moved, We could assume from this that the continents seperated during this time, thus giving the splits between speicies groups that we find today.

Some suggest that after the ice age caused by a flood, there was lesswatersotheywalked

[Imaginefree69]

@NearDeathExperienc

"Inferring that the land was all in one place"

Hahahaha!!!

So now you think that all of the land on this planet was located in the Middle East a mere 4,000 years ago?

Man, that is sad.

Pathetic and sad.

Also, it's excellent evidence to show the lack of reason in religion.

"We could assume from this that the continents seperated during this time,"

We could, if we were ignorant and irrational.

[NearDeathExperienc]

@Imaginefree69 How do you know that the earth didn't move all at one time pre/post flood. Is anyone that would present an argument to the sudden large movement of the earths continents, pathetic?

What caused the ice age to begin with! A worldwide catastrophe fits this.

You would say the bible is wrong or whatever but it clearly indicates that Gondwanaland was the continent at the time of creation. If it implied that there were seperate contintents at creationwouldn't you say the bible was wrong!

[Imaginefree69]

@NearDeathExperienc

If the continents of N and S America, Australia, Africa and India had been formed in the past 6,000 years we would know all about it. Such dramatic tectonic changes do not happen without leaving enormous amounts of evidence.

And that is what you lack; evidence.

"If it implied..."

Only children play these "what if" games.

If you were right, you would have evidence to prover it.

If your god was real, the world would be a much different place.

I'll pass on the games, thanks.

[NearDeathExperienc]

@Imaginefree69 Dude think to yourself. If there were no volumes of sedimentary layers that is what you would expect for a flood, you would say that creationists were insane. Look around and what do you see, evidence of gigantic techtonic PLASTIC upheavel of sedimentary layers (including polystrates) and the splitting of continents. Evolution would require the dirt to form sedimentary layers all over the world to come from where? Is that all billions of years of space dirt forming layers??

[Imaginefree69]

@NearDeathExperienc

I'm sorry, I fail to see the compelling logic of your argument.

But then ANY argument that the world has been re-shaped dramatically in the past 4,000 years is absurd.

May I suggest that you take a few courses in geology and biology at your local community college?

No scientist doubts that each part of the planet has been inundated with water in the past, but not all at once by any means, and no radical changes have taken place in the time frame we are considering.

[pctopgs]

@NearDeathExperienc It seems as if you are throwing red herrings, but I'll go along with it anyways. Before we begin, I need to know what information is defined in this context as.

[dougmoerhoffman]

@Imaginefree69 I'm pretty sure he just gave up on your inanity. Don't you realize that if a worldwide flood happened, it would completely reshape the earth's surface?

What makes you think wallabies had to live far away from Noah, separated by water, anyway? You have no rational support for this belief. It doesn't even make any sense, therefore it isn't a valid counterargument. You're just making yourself look silly.

[dougmoerhoffman]

@Imaginefree69 Then after the Flood, they simply spread out due to normal dispersion methods. Because of the Ice Age many animals could've walked over land bridges, and there would be lots of debris floating in the ocean for them to raft to different places on, not to mention that many animals could swim.

It's really not that hard to conceptualize. We have examples of this happening today.

[MrRobertGulabo]

@dougmoerhoffman Sounds good except... how did they congregate in the first place? What about the dodo and the kiwi which are two of the many flightless birds you see on faraway lands... The kiwi especially. Did it walk all the way from Australia? Did it swim? Was it magically transported like Star Trek? And why punish animals in the first place? It's not their fault man is sinful... This whole story really doesn't make sense anymore in this modern age when we've catalogued millions of species.

[zume]

I enjoyed this video. Thank you sooo much for posting it. I wish the video were more crisp, but that's computers for ya. ;)

[gregrutz]

Did the dinosaurs make it on the boat? When did thy 'rule the earth'?

[Domodeath]

@gregrutz probily not

[Eye2EyeIIIV]

watch?v=IXZCEJwiC3A

think outside the box :)

[pctopgs]

I wonder what the Lions ate....deer? what did the lions eat?

[NearDeathExperienc]

@pctopgs Some Lions have been known to feed off cabbages, and other vegetables, when there has been no meat. The case I remember was during ww2 at an English Zoo, but there has been another zoo that reported the same thing. If we were to play out the Biblical story, all animals were vegetarian to start with, and only over time have become carnivores.

[pctopgs]

@NearDeathExperienc lions, like all cats, are pure carnivores; Their bodies cannot process plant food. I have a cat and it eats grass from time to time, but a little later on the cat would vomit it back up because it's stomach can't process the food. I asked my vet why the cat would deliberately eat grass what it's just going to puke it back up, and he says it's the same reason why humans deliberately eat fiber.

[NearDeathExperienc]

@pctopgs Today cats carnivores and can only survive on meat, yes. We call it Natural Selection/Micro Evolution we should call it devolve-ment, as you don't get an increase of new inteligent information but a narrowing of information, or copying of existing information. They have adapted to their environment, narrowed thegene pool lost information to eat just meat. Did Koala's always survive just on Eucalypt leaves, or have they lost the information over time due to being around only Eucalypts?

[Imaginefree69]

@NearDeathExperienc

"you don't get an increase of new inteligent information but a narrowing of information.."

Please.

Take a few Biology courses before spewing ignorance.

[NearDeathExperienc]

@Imaginefree69 What if Games? What if Nothing always existed that created everything!!!! Spewing ignorance, how bout a what if game, what if God does exist after all!

Your theory flies in the face of logic. Think dude what is a mutation, it's an accident. Name some positive accidents where you add new information not repeated information and not a loss of information of the gene pool that natural selection causes. You have to evolve up not adapt. Otherwise it is just fanciful ideology.

[Imaginefree69]

@NearDeathExperienc

"What if Nothing always existed that created everything!!!!"

You are making no sense whatsoever.

Just little word games.

"Name some positive accidents .."

There are millions of them, as you would know if you had any education in the subject.

How about spontaneous genetic immunity to diseases?

That's one that is seen regularly.

Stop getting your information from Chick tracts and televangelists.

They have no knowledge of the truth.

[NearDeathExperienc]

@Imaginefree69 " "What if Nothing always existed that created everything!!!!"

You are making no sense whatsoever." Dude, that is the whole point, it makes no sense, so why put your Faith in it Mate.

Evolution requires upwards steps not adaptations you have to tell us where the seed came from not the tree! That isn't evolution.

You can't argue against a creator, and use natural selection(micro-evolution) as a case against God, when to have any inteligence as a creatorthat is what God would do?

[Imaginefree69]

@NearDeathExperienc

"t makes no sense, so why put your Faith in it "

Exactly.

Your string of words makes no sense,

so of course I put no faith in it.

You seem to think you are quoting someone, but I have often heard very similar statements from psychotic patients.

I reject your silly attempt to control what I use for evidence.

ALL evidence is valid, and if it indicates a natural process rather than a magical invisible fairy, that's the conclusion I will embrace.

And that is what we find.

[soultribe85]

what is the name of this film pls

[Y2Kstephen]

Evan Almighty cross over Discovery lol