Dinosaur Timeline

[Guest sugarbay]

I have never been able to figure this out. Where do dinosaurs fit in in the historyof this planet? Before/after the Flood? Outside of Eden when Adam and Eve were still inhabiting it? Were their bones put here to confound us? What's the deal? B)

[Behunin]

Maybe during the 7 creative periods. Around the 5th day, maybe.

[Setheus]

Thats my thought also. I think that dinosaurs lived during the time of creation. When the earth was still being perfected for human life to thrive. I think they served a purpose in that. Lots of detail that I have no desire to go into now.

[john doe]

That's one idea I won't argue with. Another is that they may have been part of the base planet when the earth was "organized". Another is that they lived with Adam and Eve, but the timeline doesn't fit if you believe the Adam and Eve story to be a literal timeline. The variable is that we don't know how long the Fall of Adam took. These theories need to also account for pre-historic man, something I don't necessarily have a problem with, but some people do have a hard time reconciling the Bible and PoGP with science.

[Snow]

The universe began 15 to 20 billion years ago.

The earth is 4.6 billion years old.

Dinosaurs lived from 230 million years ago up until 65 million years ago.

Modern man came on the scene 100,000 years ago.

Interestingly, Neanderthals lived from 230,000 to 29,000 years ago, and lived for tens of thousands of years during the same time as modern humans, perhaps even in the same geographic areas.

Adam and Eve date to about 6000 years ago.

Noah and his flood supposedly happened about 4800 years ago.

Why do you ask if dinosaurs bones were put here to confound us? Do you think God is a trickster or dishonest?

There is indisputable proof of the dinosaur while there is no evidence whatsoever that there was a world wide flood as described in the bible. If there had been such a flood, it surely would have left evidence, but it did not.

[Setheus]

Originally posted by john doe@Jan 1 2006, 08:48 AM

Another is that they may have been part of the base planet when the earth was "organized".

←

expound on this a little for me.

[Behunin]

Snow

What part of your post do you believe to be accurate?

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by sugarbay@Jan 1 2006, 01:04 AM

I have never been able to figure this out.  Where do dinosaurs fit in in the historyof this planet?  Before/after the Flood? Outside of Eden when Adam and Eve were still inhabiting it?  Were their bones put here to confound us?  What's the deal? B)

←

Few here have much sympathy for creation-science, but here's the theory proponents espouse concerning dinosaours:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=news&action=view&ID=51

Basically, the organization argues that dinosaurs existed pre-flood, and that science does not contradict such a notion.

[john doe]

Originally posted by Setheus+Jan 1 2006, 10:00 AM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-john doe@Jan 1 2006, 08:48 AM

Another is that they may have been part of the base planet when the earth was "organized".

←

expound on this a little for me.

←

Let me preface this by saying I don't have this idea worked out fully, but I'm throwing it out merely as an idea that I haven't yet dismissed as impossible. I'm not even sure if I believe it as true, only that it is a possibility. If you don't believe it, I won't be in the least offended. Feel free to comment or even add to it as you see fit.

Abraham indicates that the earth was 'organized', not created. This may mean that instead of forming a new planet from nothingness, which most people would agree is not possible, God (or the Gods, as Abraham states it) may have taken parts of other previously created worlds (perhaps preparatory worlds created for this purpose), and combined them together to create the earth as we know it today. Or, possibly, before this earth was organized for our use, it was created and populated with the necessary components the God foresaw we would need to produce the energy we would need to sustain life here. I don't believe that oil and coal, and other natural resources of the earth are accidental. They were placed here for our use and benefit. God knew we would need them, so he placed the necessary plants and animals here hundreds of millions ago, knowing we would find a use for them today, and also knowing that we will develop the technology to use other things now unmastered or unthought of today. God knows we are inventive, after all we are His offspring.

Anyway, that is just one of my many wacky thoughts on the subject. I know it's out there, but it also isn't one I have seen disproved, so I hold it as a possible explanation for things as yet unrevealed to us.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Behunin@Jan 1 2006, 02:30 PM

Snow

What part of your post do you believe to be accurate?

←

It is not a matter of what's accurate since there is zero evidence to support the account given in the bible. Rather it is a matter of faith and what's plausible.

What's implausible or impossible is that water covered the whole earth up to the tops of the mountains; that Noah could build a boat of the type and size described, that two of every animal (or 7 depending on which version of the story in the bible you believe) could fit into the boat, etc, etc.

What I can believe as a matter of faith is that there was a large local or regional flood and possibly, in addition, there was such rain pouring down all over the world so that the entire surface of the earth was wet all at once and so ritually or symbolically baptised.

You can check tons of resources, many on the internet, about why the story of Noah and the flood is simply impossible - as described. The only way that it could be true is if physics and the laws of nature worked differently 5000 years ago and that after the flood, God destroyed or hid all evidence of it in order to trick us - both ideas are absurd.

[Snow]

Originally posted by john doe+Jan 1 2006, 07:33 PM-->

Originally posted by Setheus@Jan 1 2006, 10:00 AM

<!--QuoteBegin-john doe@Jan 1 2006, 08:48 AM

Another is that they may have been part of the base planet when the earth was "organized".

←

expound on this a little for me.

←

Let me preface this by saying I don't have this idea worked out fully, but I'm throwing it out merely as an idea that I haven't yet dismissed as impossible. I'm not even sure if I believe it as true, only that it is a possibility. If you don't believe it, I won't be in the least offended. Feel free to comment or even add to it as you see fit.

Abraham indicates that the earth was 'organized', not created. This may mean that instead of forming a new planet from nothingness, which most people would agree is not possible, God (or the Gods, as Abraham states it) may have taken parts of other previously created worlds (perhaps preparatory worlds created for this purpose), and combined them together to create the earth as we know it today. Or, possibly, before this earth was organized for our use, it was created and populated with the necessary components the God foresaw we would need to produce the energy we would need to sustain life here. I don't believe that oil and coal, and other natural resources of the earth are accidental. They were placed here for our use and benefit. God knew we would need them, so he placed the necessary plants and animals here hundreds of millions ago, knowing we would find a use for them today, and also knowing that we will develop the technology to use other things now unmastered or unthought of today. God knows we are inventive, after all we are His offspring.

Anyway, that is just one of my many wacky thoughts on the subject. I know it's out there, but it also isn't one I have seen disproved, so I hold it as a possible explanation for things as yet unrevealed to us.

←

That's a common thought to explain the age of dinosaurs bones compared to the age of the earth as described in the bible. It's a bad thought for lots of reasons:

1. Planets are not formed by taking intact pieces of other planets and squeezing them together into a sphere. The are the result of compressed gases and space dust.

2. Even if the space dust included big chunks of previously used planets, and the chunks contained bones of dead animals, the intense formative properties of gravity would destroy the bones, mix them up, bury them or some of them deep in the earth's interior. Instead, bones and skeletons are found intact, right where the dinosaurs laid down and died.

3. Dinosaurs came along 4 billion plus years AFTER the earth was formed.

4. Etc, etc.

[Guest sugarbay]

Isn't the earths temporal age is only 7000 yrs.? B)

[Snow]

Originally posted by sugarbay@Jan 2 2006, 08:58 AM

Isn't the earths temporal age is only 7000 yrs.? B)

←

5500 years ago the first towns in Egypt appeared

6500 years ago farming villages popped up between the Tigris and Euphates rivers

8000 years ago farming started along the Nile and in Mesopotamia

8500 years ago farming was underway in southwestern Europe

8300 years ago farming appeared in Sicily and southern Italy

10,500 years ago hunter-gathereres were making pottery in Japan

30,000 years ago man painted in caves in France. At the same time, the Neanderthals died out.

45,000 years ago the oldest known musical instrument, a flute, was made in Africa

100,000 years ago, modern man (us) came on the scene.

800,000 homo antecessor lived in Spain

1.9 million to 250,000 years ago homo erectus used fire.

2.3 to 1.9 million years ago []i]homo hablis[i/] made tools.

5 million years ago the first hominid appeared in Africa.

235 to 65 million years ago reptiles and dinosaurs ruled the earth.

500 million years ago the earliest vertebrates (a jawless fish) came into existence.

3.4 billion years ago single cell organisms (like protozoa) developed.

4.6 billion years ago the earth was formed.

15 to 20 billion years ago the universe was formed.

Here's a link to an Ensign article:

Do we know how the earth's history as indicated from fossils fits the earth's history as the scriptures present it?

and

Science and Religion

[Red]

Originally posted by sugarbay@Jan 1 2006, 03:04 AM

I have never been able to figure this out.  Where do dinosaurs fit in in the historyof this planet?  Before/after the Flood? Outside of Eden when Adam and Eve were still inhabiting it?  Were their bones put here to confound us?  What's the deal? B)

←

No, not to confound us, just to put us in awe of His creation. I was obsessed with dinosaurs when I was a kid and could probably still rattle off plenty of facts. The series on discovery channel "Walking with Dinosaurs" brought back plenty of good memories.

I would say that dinosaurs were both pre-flood AND post-flood. I say pre-flood definately because we have the fossils from the Flood all over the world, Dinosaurs were living breathing creatures for sure and if that is true I'm sure that they were on the Ark too (as juveniles of course).

I'm one of those nuts who thinks that the Behemoth and Leviathan of Job are actually dinosaurs. I'm always dissappionted when a study bible leaves a footnote saying they are a "hippopotomus" and a "really big crocdile." But a "tail like a cedar" is not part of a hippo, and crocodiles don't breathe fire.

The Behemoth might have been a long necked dinosaur because they have extremely impressive tails. Apatosaurus or Brachiosaurus perhaps? I think it could've also been a two legged "meat-eater" though I have doubts as to wether or not many dinosaurs like T-Rex actually ate meat (no animal ate meat before the Fall, probably not even before the Flood).

Leviathan was no caananite mythological creature, but God refers to it as a real creature. It's very possible that it was just a big whale (the hebrew word refers to whales usually, but is also rendered as "sea-lizard"). If it really was a dinosaur it might have been a Tylosaur--those were huge (like 50 feet long or so), imagine a massive ocean going crocodile with fins not feet. And since it is dead, who's to say whether or not it breathed fire?

On a side note, I reject "modern" dating methods and belive the world to be around 10,000 years old at most. Yes, if you line up the evidence from the Bible back-to-back you would get an age of the earth around 6,000 years, but there is good reason to believe in a few gaps in that timeline.

I don't trust radio-isotope dating because it relies on too many assumptions. There are much more dependable dating methods which take into account the world as a whole, rather than just a few rocks. The dates Snow gave are based largely on isotope dating. Four months ago I'd have agreed with those dates but not anymore.

[Red]

Originally posted by sugarbay@Jan 2 2006, 11:58 AM

Isn't the earths temporal age is only 7000 yrs.? B)

←

If I remember correctly, Joseph Smith taught that the earth would be around for 7000 years and that Jesus would return in year 6000. Is that in the D/C? can't remember where I read that.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Snow@Jan 1 2006, 09:06 AM

There is indisputable proof of the dinosaur while there is no evidence whatsoever that there was a world wide flood as described in the bible. If there had been such a flood, it surely would have left evidence, but it did not.

←

I'm no rabid fundamentalist arguing for a 6000 year old world. However, to so quickly dismiss the possiblity of a universal flood, when the Bible seems so clear that there was one...well...makes you theologically Liberal (oops I used the L word).

Here's an article arguing that the biblical flood account must needs be read as being global in nature.

http://www.gotquestions.org/global-flood.html

* Some will attempt to make the science fit the Bible.

* Others will make the Bible fit current scientific understanding.

* While I'm convinced that science perfected would harmonize perfectly with biblical study perfected, in the mean time I can tolerate some uncertainty between the two.

[Snow]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain+Jan 2 2006, 03:13 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@Jan 1 2006, 09:06 AM

There is indisputable proof of the dinosaur while there is no evidence whatsoever that there was a world wide flood as described in the bible. If there had been such a flood, it surely would have left evidence, but it did not.

←

I'm no rabid fundamentalist arguing for a 6000 year old world. However, to so quickly dismiss the possiblity of a universal flood, when the Bible seems so clear that there was one...well...makes you theologically Liberal (oops I used the L word).

Here's an article arguing that the biblical flood account must needs be read as being global in nature.

http://www.gotquestions.org/global-flood.html

* Some will attempt to make the science fit the Bible.

* Others will make the Bible fit current scientific understanding.

* While I'm convinced that science perfected would harmonize perfectly with biblical study perfected, in the mean time I can tolerate some uncertainty between the two.

←

PC,

I certainly don't use the Bible to understand science - otherwise I would have to believe in talking donkeys.

Theoretically I accept that it could have happened as described in the Bible but I always say that as a Mormon, one of my first obligations it to the truth, regardless of the source. And the truth of the matter, scientifically speaking, is that such a flood is highly, highly unlikely. There are much better ways of understanding the Old Testament than as a literal and inerrant record of history.

By the way, I think that your link is playing a little fast and loose with the truth regarding evidences of a world-wide flood... Do you suppose there is a single, reputable, non-religious scientists that believes there was a world wide flood up to the tops of the mountains?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Red@Jan 2 2006, 02:40 PM

No, not to confound us, just to put us in awe of His creation.

Sounds like a pretty insecure God that needs to think up ways to impress his inferiors.

I would say that dinosaurs were both pre-flood AND post-flood.  I say pre-flood definately because we have the fossils from the Flood all over the world, Dinosaurs were living breathing creatures for sure and if that is true I'm sure that they were on the Ark too (as juveniles of course).

Why should we ignore every single reputable scientist in the world who says that you have missed the date by 65,000,000 years?

I'm one of those nuts who thinks that the Behemoth and Leviathan of Job are actually dinosaurs.

Agreed.

On a side note, I reject "modern" dating methods and belive the world to be around 10,000 years old at most.  Yes, if you line up the evidence from the Bible back-to-back you would get an age of the earth around 6,000 years, but there is good reason to believe in a few gaps in that timeline. 

I don't trust radio-isotope dating because it relies on too many assumptions.  There are much more dependable dating methods which take into account the world as a whole, rather than just a few rocks.  The dates Snow gave are based largely on isotope dating.  Four months ago I'd have agreed with those dates but not anymore.

←

People ought to find this educative. It's short and easy to read:

Old Earth

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain+Jan 2 2006, 04:13 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Snow@Jan 1 2006, 09:06 AM

There is indisputable proof of the dinosaur while there is no evidence whatsoever that there was a world wide flood as described in the bible. If there had been such a flood, it surely would have left evidence, but it did not.

←

I'm no rabid fundamentalist arguing for a 6000 year old world. However, to so quickly dismiss the possiblity of a universal flood, when the Bible seems so clear that there was one...well...makes you theologically Liberal (oops I used the L word).

Here's an article arguing that the biblical flood account must needs be read as being global in nature.

http://www.gotquestions.org/global-flood.html

* Some will attempt to make the science fit the Bible.

* Others will make the Bible fit current scientific understanding.

* While I'm convinced that science perfected would harmonize perfectly with biblical study perfected, in the mean time I can tolerate some uncertainty between the two.

←

BIZ: PLEASE, read this web page and do some serious THINKING people! http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Snow@Jan 2 2006, 05:13 PM

I certainly don't use the Bible to understand science - otherwise I would have to believe in talking donkeys.

You do not believe God spoke to the prophet through the donkey? There is a segment of Christianity that finds the miracles of the Bible embarassing, rather than awesome. They tend to look at the stories in a very antisupernatural way. The miracle of feeding the 5000? Jesus used the generosity of the boy to convince the others to share their food. Ultimately there was plenty to spare. A miracle of sharing, such folk claim. The flood? Probably little more than a normal heavy monsoon season, that Moses grossly overspiritualized. The parting of the Red Sea? A regular, though admittedly spectacular phenomena, that Moses had timed correctly.

Well, by way of disclosure, I'm more literal in my reading than all that. God is certainly great enough to do miracles, to speak through donkeys, to flood the entire planet if need be. He could have created the world in six literal 24-hour days 6000 years ago, or he could have developed it through a miraculous process called evolution. I suppose the difference is, you'll not allow biblical accounts to influence your understandings of science, whereas I will not allow current scientific understandings to trump simple and clear readings of Scripture.

Again, my bottom-line is that perfect science and perfect Bible studies will perfectly harmonize. Until then, I can live with the occasional tension and uncertainty between them.

Theoretically I accept that it could have happened as described in the Bible but I always say that as a Mormon, one of my first obligations it to the truth, regardless of the source. And the truth of the matter, scientifically speaking, is that such a flood is highly, highly unlikely. There are much better ways of understanding the Old Testament than as a literal and inerrant record of history.

I have no qualms with believing scientists who come to the conclusion that Noah's flood was probably local. However, if that scientist takes another step, and says, therefore there could not have been a global flood, or that the Bible is therefore wrong, or unreliable, then I suggest s/he goes too far. The Bible is not a science textbook, and some descriptions are meant to paint a picture, not annotate precise details. On the other hand, it is not fiction, not mere inspirational writing, and not folk tales.

By the way, I think that your link is playing a little fast and loose with the truth regarding evidences of a world-wide flood... Do you suppose there is a single, reputable, non-religious scientists that believes there was a world wide flood up to the tops of the mountains?

←

First, the link I provided dealt primarily with the meaning of the biblical flood account. Beyond that it provided some scientific generalizations that many would disagree with. The site supports a Young Earth Creationist perspective. Are there any reputable scientists who agree? I'd have to dig around. My understanding is that yes, there are a few...perhaps as many as 5%. However, 5% of what, I'm not certain (biologists, all scientists, all self-identified Christian scientists--I do not recall the context in which I heard this figure put out).

[Snow]

You do not believe God spoke to the prophet through the donkey?

Of course not. Donkeys don't talk. They can check that.

The flood?  Probably little more than a normal heavy monsoon season, that Moses grossly overspiritualized.

Moses? If Moses had written the account that might be something but the evidence that Moses wrote it (at least one of the two seperate Bible accounts) is exactly nil. No one has any idea who wrote it. Besides, how would the anonymous person who wrote it have any idea how much land was covered with water?

The parting of the Red Sea?  A regular, though admittedly spectacular phenomena, that Moses had timed correctly.

That's a mistranslation. The correct translation is the Sea of Reeds. The Israelites probably escaped through a marsh.

God is certainly great enough to do miracles, to speak through donkeys, to flood the entire planet if need be.

Great enough certainly. That doesn't mean he did.

I will not allow current scientific understandings to trump simple and clear readings of Scripture.

That's dogmatic. I am a seeker of truth not dogma.

I have no qualms with believing scientists who come to the conclusion that Noah's flood was probably local.  However, if that scientist takes another step, and says, therefore there could not have been a global flood, or that the Bible is therefore wrong, or unreliable...

But no scientist makes that argument... that since there was a local flood there could not have been a world wide flood. The argument goes: There may be evidence for local or regional floods, ergo a Bible story understood as local or regional may be plausible. However, a world wide flood to the tops of the mountains (besides being impossible by all known laws of nature) would have left evidence that we would find. There is none, ergo such a flood is incredible - read not credible.

Certainly you are familiar with the many ways that the Bible can be shown to be unreliable???

First, the link I provided dealt primarily with the meaning of the biblical flood account.  Beyond that it provided some scientific generalizations that many would disagree with.  The site supports a Young Earth Creationist perspective.  Are there any reputable scientists who agree?  I'd have to dig around.  My understanding is that yes, there are a few...perhaps as many as 5%.  However, 5% of what, I'm not certain (biologists, all scientists, all self-identified Christian scientists--I do not recall the context in which I heard this figure put out).

I don't think you could find even one single credible scientist who is NOT religiously motivated that believes in a 6000 - 10,000 year earth.

[GRR8]

Originally posted by Snow@Jan 2 2006, 11:59 PM

You do not believe God spoke to the prophet through the donkey?

Of course not. Donkeys don't talk. They can check that.

The flood?  Probably little more than a normal heavy monsoon season, that Moses grossly overspiritualized.

Moses? If Moses had written the account that might be something but the evidence that Moses wrote it (at least one of the two seperate Bible accounts) is exactly nil. No one has any idea who wrote it. Besides, how would the anonymous person who wrote it have any idea how much land was covered with water?

The parting of the Red Sea?  A regular, though admittedly spectacular phenomena, that Moses had timed correctly.

That's a mistranslation. The correct translation is the Sea of Reeds. The Israelites probably escaped through a marsh.

God is certainly great enough to do miracles, to speak through donkeys, to flood the entire planet if need be.

Great enough certainly. That doesn't mean he did.

I will not allow current scientific understandings to trump simple and clear readings of Scripture.

That's dogmatic. I am a seeker of truth not dogma.

I have no qualms with believing scientists who come to the conclusion that Noah's flood was probably local.  However, if that scientist takes another step, and says, therefore there could not have been a global flood, or that the Bible is therefore wrong, or unreliable...

But no scientist makes that argument... that since there was a local flood there could not have been a world wide flood. The argument goes: There may be evidence for local or regional floods, ergo a Bible story understood as local or regional may be plausible. However, a world wide flood to the tops of the mountains (besides being impossible by all known laws of nature) would have left evidence that we would find. There is none, ergo such a flood is incredible - read not credible.

Certainly you are familiar with the many ways that the Bible can be shown to be unreliable???

First, the link I provided dealt primarily with the meaning of the biblical flood account.  Beyond that it provided some scientific generalizations that many would disagree with.  The site supports a Young Earth Creationist perspective.  Are there any reputable scientists who agree?  I'd have to dig around.  My understanding is that yes, there are a few...perhaps as many as 5%.  However, 5% of what, I'm not certain (biologists, all scientists, all self-identified Christian scientists--I do not recall the context in which I heard this figure put out).

I don't think you could find even one single credible scientist who is NOT religiously motivated that believes in a 6000 - 10,000 year earth.

←

Earths cyclical floods occur every 10000 to 12000 years. There is scientific evidence to support global flooding. Even Ancient Sumeria, thought by many to be the first cradle of civilization, have accounts of a world wide catastrophic flood. These accounts are found on its Cuineform tablets. There is no certain way to have precise ages of the Earth itself, and only generalized estimates at best. Global Deluges have been accounted for in the worlds differing religions and civilizations. It is scientifically supported. Mars also has undergone a great deluge and perhaps quite a few as well. The Global flooding of the Earth is a natural cyclical catastrophic to humans and life event. Just as the Giant Impactor into the Gulf of Mexico which created huge poisonous clouds that blocked the Suns light and snuffed out large life on Earth.

[LionHeart]

Actually, the traveler pointed out in another thread that the dinosaurs were structurally unsound for the current earth gravity. (interesting fellow, he is) This being the case, something must have been drastically different with the earth from our time, and the time the dinosaurs were here. It is my understanding that a planet's gravity is directly proportional to its size. Therfore, the earth must have been much smaller in order to support the dinosaurs. Hence, man and dinosaur must not have inhabited the earth at the same time.

[Snow]

Originally posted by LionHeart@Jan 2 2006, 10:28 PM

Actually, the traveler pointed out in another thread that the dinosaurs were structurally unsound for the current earth gravity. (interesting fellow, he is)

←

That would be an extremely extreme minority position, one not shared by the overwhelmingly vast majority of scientists.

[Red]

Originally posted by bizabra@Jan 2 2006, 09:01 PM

BIZ:  PLEASE, read this web page and do some serious THINKING people! http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

←

I looked at the link and put on my thinking cap, so at a glance...

1. Building the ark

The writer seemed to assume that Noah didn't have access to iron, but he did (Genesis 4:22). Also, one of the potential sites where the ark remains (there are two) is rock formation of petrified wood in the shape of a 450 foot long boat. radar scans showed evidence of an iron frame.

So we have an iron frame, lots of wood and pitch inside and out. Not pretty, and neither of us are boat experts, but that sounds sea worthy to me.

2. Gathering the animals

The writer forgets about the pre-flood environment (Genesis 2:6, 1:7, 7:11) (he is assuming of cousre off-hand that the bible is wrong anyway, so if he is aware of it he is dismissing it). Basically, it would have been near tropical everywhere, and if that were the case then all the animals would be adapted to the climate wherever they traveled. And yes, of course many died out after the flood because of harsh changes.

He assumes that the continents were spread out like today when a world-wide upheaval (which is what the flood really was) would separate the continents very quickly and/or raise up and throw down land masses. So it is possible that there was just one big continent at the time, allowing easy travel.

If the animals were all nearby anyway (which would be possible with a globaly consistent climate) competition would not have been a problem because all the animals were vegetarians (Genesis 1:30).

He also takes issue with loading the animals in 7 days. He disregards the idea that God was involved. If God can made a donkey talk then he can guide all the animals to their proper places within the ark in a timely fashion well within 7 days.

3. Fitting the animals aboard

This critique always seems to assume todays count of species, but forgets about natural selection. The full criteria for two animals to be of the same species is that they CAN an DO produce FERTILE offspring. But this is somewhat arbitrary and gives a high count of species present in the world--can we assume that God defined "kind" along these terms as well? If MICROevolution does occur how can we be sure that the present diversity isn't just more like having a variety of breeds within the same kind? Bottom line: there may have been less "kinds" to manage than today (and yes, even with adding the dinosaurs that lived then).

...Its about bedtime for me, if its worth it to you we can continue down the list, but this last objection caught my eye:

Does the Flood story indicate an omnipotent God?

1. If God is omnipotent, why not kill what He wanted killed directly? Why resort to a roundabout method that requires innumerable additional miracles?

2. The whole idea was to rid the wicked people from the world. Did it work?

1. He gave us a visual, He is not just the God of death, taking out whoever displeases Him; but He is the God of nature who can send it at you and your whole nation if you rebel. But the flood also shows a sign of his faithfulness, because without the flood we would never have seen a rainbow. If God had just wacked everyone, what sign would there have been that he wouldn't do so again? Also, the threat of a flood provides an opportunity for one to take faith in God--choosing to believe that He was the God who could bring something called "rain" and drown everyone would certainly lead to a trust in that God for salvation. A threat of instant death would only have been conversion by fear.

2. It did work, it certainly destroyed THOSE evil people. But God willingly saved Noah, a fallen human being who no different than us. The objection mistates (or assumes to much) the intent.

So that's that at a glance. In my veiw the objections are based on too many assumptions, false or not about the Ark itself and Noah's world at the time. But above all, they are based on the idea that the Bible is NOT authoritative; an idea which any humanist is free to believe at his/her own risk.

My only assumptions are that God is all-powerful and that the Bible is His word. I can't think of a safer bet.