The bible could in many ways be trusted just like old roman manuscripts. Archeological sites have been found to support that. As for the 900 year olds, I know this number is ridiculously large, but I said after that they became not even up to 200. Now don't look at the numbers, forget them, but look at the more than four times earlier they died.
In some ways it could be trusted-but all we have are translations of translations of translations of the Bible. We have no way of knowing that the books were not altered for theological purposes-but nobody would alter some Roman manuscript on road building, for example; as there is no reason to. Also, isn't it a bit suspect that few other cultures report people living that long?
You don't know that.
Actually, I do. I can't remember the specific name of the book, (it was a library book, and if you really want I can find out what it was called) but for matter to be compacted into a singularity with practically infinite mass in so small a space, atomic structure could not exist-because atoms are in fact mostly empty space. In order to create such density, the atoms can't exist, all that a singularity is is pure matter. Also, atoms can't exist above a certain temperature.
I meant that at that time they did not have a name here for some animals that lived there, and just gave these animals a name of something they knew. And you are right about these copiers. The catholic church even used to say the earth was flat in the bible.
Tell me then, what species do modern scholars think was meant by four-legged locusts and cud chewing rabbits? It seems to me that a rabbit is a rabbit no matter where it is, I don't see how they could not have a name for it. Yes, the Christians did think the earth was flat-they could have used some lessons in basic math and astronomy from the pagan Egyptians, Greeks, and Mayans.
The difference between relativity and evolution is that the last is about how the world was created. Relativity can be proven, the way the world was created will never be proven. It's a different kind of theory.
Evolution is not about how the world was created, that would be theories of origins. Evolution only deals with genetic progression and change from one generation to the next. Life arising from non life is abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution is the simple fact that species change from one generation to the next. If Relativity can be proven, why do they call it a theory, and not a law?
Then it's not only the fittest one that survives, but also the less fitter ones.
Under certain circumstances, the less fit ones can survive to an extent, that's true. As long as they survive to reproduce, they are fit enough. If something is unfit enough that it can't reproduce, then it dies out.
I mean, apes would not have had a reason to become humans if they were able to survive in their habitat. If they were not because their habitat was destroyed or dramatically changed, they would not have survived, and they would never have had enough time to become humans.
Imagine one species of proto ape. It inhabits a whole continent. In certain areas, the climate stayed the same, and so the ape stayed fairly similar, slowly perfecting itself to live in this one habit through natural selection. In another area, imagine a highly volatile climate where intelligence aided in survival. Eventually, the whole population in that area would become more intelligent as more intelligent genes survived than did non-intelligent genes. Similar adaptions occured, so that the species could survive in a highly volatile climate, and this species eventually reached what humans are today. This is just one example of how a species can evolve into a different species, but still have the ancestor species in existance.
That's micro-evolution. (Macro-)evolution and micro-evolution are not the same thing. Micro-evolution is a fact, evolution itself is not. People knew about micro-evolution before Darwin wrote his theory. When Darwin made up his theory, he called this phenomenom micro-evolution, thus, small evolution, evolution that changes the genes of one single kind. Just because this exists, does not mean the entire theory about evolution is true, and you know it.
Micro and macro evolution are the same thing! One just takes place over much greater time spans. Actually, the fact that we can observe small changes in genes does imply that the same thing could continue indefinitely. Imagine a volcano that adds about 1 foot of rock to its top every year. It has consistently been observed to do this for hundreds of years. Is there any reason to suppose that it might stop? The fact is that the gene pools of a species change with each generation, and it is silly to assume that it only goes so far.
I was wrong then. Thank you for clearing that up. But you were as well. 150 days is not even half a year. Ice caps of that are kilometers thick couldn't melt in such a short amount of time either. And watch out with that last statement; I could leave this week and when I come back next week I could be 17.
Here is a link, the flood took place in one year:
https://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/books/genesis/flood.htmI'm reluctant to post links to faulty science, but it states in the paragraph that the flood took one year. One time I read a summary of the exact day count, and the total flood event took 1 year; unfortunately, I can't remember which site had the exact day layout.
You simply don't think it's possible, but that does not mean it wasn't. I think it's possible, but that does not mean it was. And Noah didn't take all kinds of animals on the ark with him, the bible says that somewhere as well.
The flood story was not possible, period. There are too many scientific, logical, and practical fallacies in it to warrant serious consideration. It really hurts how Christianity appears to non-Christians when Christians try to assert that Noah's flood was a real, literal event, because it is simply not the case. Just for example, what happened to whales? They couldn't fit in the ark without seriously depleting room for other animals. (especially considering that they would need a massive tank for exercise) Whales would die out in the extremely badly damaged oceans, so they needed to have been on the ark.
That depends on what logic is to one. And there's relatively more evidence for the flood than there is for evolution. All over the world clues have been found there was such a flood. Cuneiform writing, hieroglyphs, etc (so probably Noah and his crew were not the only survivors). And again, why would they lie about a big flood? They really have no reason to. Things might have gotten exaggerated in time, but there's really no reason to call the flood story a rediculous one.
Relatively more evidence for the flood than evolution! Honestly, how much have you really read into the subject? The flood story has multitudes of problems, and basically zero real evidence. Would you believe the flood story if it was not in the Bible? Evolution, in comparison, is supported by an ever growing mountain of evidence.
Noah and his crew not the only survivors? Don't violate the book you're trying to defend, it says in Genesis that all flesh was destroyed off the earth that wasn't in the ark. Perhaps it's the flood story with the holes.
I can buy into a local flood story, that might have flooded the Euphrates valley, for example. Some guy might have built a boat and taken some farm animals along with him, and landed up on the hills. That's entirely possible. But a worldwide flood, with Noah landing on Ararat, is simply impossible. Don't forget that when Noah sent the dove away from the boat while resting on Ararat, the dove found no place to land. This shows that the ancients considered Ararat the highest mountain in the world, which it clearly is not. Everest is over 10000 feet higher than Ararat, surely the dove couldn't have missed it. Anyway, if this story is exaggerated, how do we know how trustworthy the rest of the bible is?
I'm afraid yours is science.
Science is not my god. I am an agnostic of sorts, in that I don't know whether god exists or not. I use science as an answer for practical questions or problems, and evolution is a scientific answer for the practical question of how life on earth is so diverse.
Topic: evolution vs. biblical theory