Is Saving £21000 Per Year Good
Family & Relationships0 min ago
Lets say it's all true.
12 Answers
Noah, he gathered up 2 of each animal on this planet, put them all on one boat, floated around for a couple of months and then found the shore. How long did it take him to put all the animals back where they belong?
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mankymonky. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Actually, for every 'clean' animal, there needs to be seven pairs.
Now, when you consider that Evolution is an evil lie and that God created the earth and everything on it, and therefore all the animals on the Earth that exist now must have been around then (unless God slips in under the cover of darkness and makes new ones, I suppose), that means that there must have been millions of animals all contained in an Ark that we know was about 1.5 million cubic feet (40,000 m�). Genesis tells us quite clearly that Noah had seven days to accomplish this, which is clearly possible considering he would have had to travel across the entire globe to collect the necessary animals from their habitats and not stupid at all.
Then you have to remember that you also need to have foodstuffs for all of these animals, many of which will be carnivorous, and presumably don't each the 2 (or 7) animals God commanded Noah to capture, or fodder, which again requires massive amounts of space.
Then you have to try and work out how the crew of 8 could possibly have coped with the feeding and mucking out, let alone anything else.
Yes, it's definitely a true story and not full of errors at all and therefore he could put them back in the seven days it took to collect them in the first place.
Now, when you consider that Evolution is an evil lie and that God created the earth and everything on it, and therefore all the animals on the Earth that exist now must have been around then (unless God slips in under the cover of darkness and makes new ones, I suppose), that means that there must have been millions of animals all contained in an Ark that we know was about 1.5 million cubic feet (40,000 m�). Genesis tells us quite clearly that Noah had seven days to accomplish this, which is clearly possible considering he would have had to travel across the entire globe to collect the necessary animals from their habitats and not stupid at all.
Then you have to remember that you also need to have foodstuffs for all of these animals, many of which will be carnivorous, and presumably don't each the 2 (or 7) animals God commanded Noah to capture, or fodder, which again requires massive amounts of space.
Then you have to try and work out how the crew of 8 could possibly have coped with the feeding and mucking out, let alone anything else.
Yes, it's definitely a true story and not full of errors at all and therefore he could put them back in the seven days it took to collect them in the first place.
I expect in reality(?) he just grabbed a couple of goats, a few donkeys and lizards and a camel or two - oh, and of course some birds. Everything else lived in other countries which had no flood - only he wasn't to know that, was he, there being no BBC or Sky News in those days. This is Naomi, for Answerbank News, Mount Ararat.
Theland, thank you, I've just read that, if this is what you mean.
www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp
Odd that once again the biblical story doesn't really mean what it says. This explanation even calls upon the dreaded science to attempt to prove its point. I hate to say it, especially when talking about Noah's Ark, but any port in a storm, eh?
www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp
Odd that once again the biblical story doesn't really mean what it says. This explanation even calls upon the dreaded science to attempt to prove its point. I hate to say it, especially when talking about Noah's Ark, but any port in a storm, eh?
Can I just recommend the people do indeed Google "Answers in Genesis", because it's (unintentionally) hysterical.
It's the most weasily, meally-mouthed, intellectually-duplicitous load of nonsese I've had the pleasure to read for an age. It's hard to believe that anyone could seriously credit the arguments presented in favour of a literal flood and ark, but evidentally they do.
Can I suggest starting
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i 2/animals.asp
The paragraph that starts What is a �kind�? is particularly fatous.
Honestly, Theland, I really don't know how you manage to square these arguments. The constant change between 'oh, it's not literal/ it is literal' (apparently using signposts the rest of us can't see to determine which verses should be read at face value and which can be 'interpreted' to mean something entirely different. The co-opting of science when it supports their views, but conveniently forgetting it when it does not...
Anyway, I do heartily recommend it for a laugh and understanding how Theland can defend his book.
It's the most weasily, meally-mouthed, intellectually-duplicitous load of nonsese I've had the pleasure to read for an age. It's hard to believe that anyone could seriously credit the arguments presented in favour of a literal flood and ark, but evidentally they do.
Can I suggest starting
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i 2/animals.asp
The paragraph that starts What is a �kind�? is particularly fatous.
Honestly, Theland, I really don't know how you manage to square these arguments. The constant change between 'oh, it's not literal/ it is literal' (apparently using signposts the rest of us can't see to determine which verses should be read at face value and which can be 'interpreted' to mean something entirely different. The co-opting of science when it supports their views, but conveniently forgetting it when it does not...
Anyway, I do heartily recommend it for a laugh and understanding how Theland can defend his book.
1 to 12 of 12
