I don't know how to make it any clearer No, I'm saying that you're too busy trying to come up with witty responses, while in the meantime, missing my points. I was actually talking about idiocy, not stupidity. There, how do you like it? I'm saying it's irrelevant. Some of those problems have been around for millions of years and I don't even bother to respond because I know you're just trying to compete against my posts. I find it funny that you'd even TRY to come up with counter attacks against the reasons as to why space never ends. It's not known, so the chances are, you probably have no idea yourself. It's given information... chances are, NOBODY knows... that's the whole reason why I didn't even bother to respond to ScarecrowXavier's original points because I know they're pretty good reasons against Christiantiy, so there's no better way to counter attack than to say that both Christianity and science has their differences, so there's no point saying religion has flaws without noting that science has flaws as well. Yes, then you thought I meant science and religion are two different things, when that's not what I said in the first place. Oh yes, me and solely me, I counterattacked and nobody, absolutely NOBODY counterattacked my responses, so I was technically just talking to myself the entire time. That's what happened. Let's try to get on topic again, or are we going to keep accusing each other of being idiots? Yes, very. It's about time we get on topic, wouldn't you think? OH REALLY? No, you're saying I'm ignorant without giving any steps as to how you come to this final result. On topic? Who said it was true? Oh wait, only you did... without clear steps leading up to this final outcome. On topic? Yes? No? OKAY, I saw a bird fly yesterday and it was white and then I thought I saw a cloud shaped like God and I think they might mean something and I think that means that God is white and he has been following me this whole time and you shouldn't because you don't fly. Just because things have been said before doesn't mean they aren't any more/less significant. Sweet, now I don't offer any points, I'm stupid, I'm an idiot, AND I'm ignorant. What next? On topic....????? Good. I think you're really really clever. "You're wrong, I'm right, you're ignorant, I'm not, life goes on because I naturally know more about everything than you do, I don't lie, you do, you're an idiot, you're stupid, and you don't offer any good points." ...Is pretty much what you're saying. I've shown you.. but how? This is what I'm talking about. ON TOPIC??!! *cough*HYPOCRITE*cough* Off topic? On topic? You decide. Use your imagination. Fine, I'll add 2+2 for you... Example: I just said you don't back up your statements, then later you said I don't back up my statements. That's a sign of hypocrisy on both of our parts. No, you're just doing something wrong... but I just can't put my finger on it. Cool. On to the topic at hand... ..I don't understand what's going on, I have no idea what I'm talking about, I'm an idiot, I'm stupid, I'm ignorant, and I don't provide any good points.. I'm really stubborn too, I mean you could tell that just from my posts... who couldn't? -.- Now, will we EVAR go on topic? Spoiler For once, I actually had FUN replying to someone in the debate section. How about that. lol
umm yea I would say that's what probably happened seeing as how you've just done it again in this thread. You just filled up a page talking to yourself, what a fool. Don't you see why no one takes you seriously, it's because you just babble on like you only have half a brain when no one is even responding to you. You even went so far as to make fake quotes so you didn't look like you were the only one. How pathetic.
And to get back at me you decide to put a false quote into your signature. Great Job! Will we ever get on topic? Or will you meander on about me. I know I'm popular and cool and stuff, but you really don't need to make that much of a deal out of it.
So I did some research on Carbon Dating and lord and behold... Spoiler Carbon dating accuracy: what are the flaws of carbon dating? My point is, this very little paragraph supports and proves that what some of us believe to be 14 million years old could very well be just a couple of thousand. Another point... Spoiler Are Dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible? This could possibly be talking about Dinosaurs in the bible, if this turns out to be true then without a doubt my belief in God will be permanently established thoughout my life. All I ask in return is that you provide an actual link to recoil my attack, if you do not then I will consider it false. Why? Let's face it most of the people here don't know what they are talking about or just go about with something a friend told them or something they heard on T.V. I will admit that some of my own personal attacks have been gathered from an "unreliable source" but I started to actually care about God recently after my parents told me that in order to be a true Christian you must believe in the Bible itself.
God...just reading that 'source' made me cringe. Really? Magnetic fields in carbon dating? Magnets have nothing to do with C-12/14 incorporation in plants. "Carbon dating is based on the atmospheric C-14/C-12 ratio, but that ratio varies. Thus the carbon dating method is not valid." The variability of the C-14/C-12 ratio, and the need for calibration, has been recognized since 1969 (Dickin 1995, 364-366). Calibration is possible by analyzing the C-14 content of items dated by independent methods. Dendrochronology (age dating by counting tree rings) has been used to calibrate C-14/C-12 ratios back more than 11,000 years before the present (Becker and Kromer 1993; Becker et al. 1991). C-14 dating has been calibrated back more than 30,000 years by using uranium-thorium dating of corals (Bard et al. 1990; Edwards et al. 1993), to 45,000 yeas ago by using U-Th dates of glacial lake varve sediments (Kitagawa and van der Plicht 1998), and to 50,000 years ago using ocean cores from the Cariaco Basin which have been calibrated to the annual layers of the Greenland Ice Sheet (Hughen et al. 2004)[1]. "Carbon-14 dating gives unreliable results." Any tool will give bad results when misused. Radiocarbon dating has some known limitations. Any measurement that exceeds these limitations will probably be invalid. In particular, radiocarbon dating works to find ages as old as 50,000 years but not much older. Using it to date older items will give bad results. Samples can be contaminated with younger or older carbon, again invalidating the results. Because of excess 12C released into the atmosphere from the Industrial Revolution and excess 14C produced by atmospheric nuclear testing during the 1950s, materials less than 150 years old cannot be dated with radiocarbon (Faure 1998, 294). In their claims of errors, creationists do not consider misuse of the technique. It is not uncommon for them to misuse radiocarbon dating by attempting to date samples that are millions of years old (for example, Triassic "wood") or that have been treated with organic substances. In such cases, the errors belong to the creationists, not the carbon-14 dating method. Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar for more than 11,000 years back. It has also been tested on items for which the age is known through historical records, such as parts of the Dead Sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb (MNSU n.d.; Watson 2001). Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, yielding consistent results. Radiocarbon dating is also concordant with other dating techniques (e.g., Bard et al. 1990).[2] "Behemoth, from Job 40:15-24, was a dinosaur. Job 40:17 says, "His tail sways like a cedar." Such tails only existed on dinosaurs." There is no evidence to support such a claim. Fantastic creatures appear in folklore from all times and places. There is no reason to believe that the ancient Hebrews would be different. The "tail like a cedar," which creationists think indicates a large dinosaur, is not even a real tail. "Tail" was used as a euphemism in the King James version. A more likely translation for the phrase is, "His ***** stiffens like a cedar" (Mitchell 1987). The behemoth was probably a bull, and the cedar comparison referred to its virility.[3] "Leviathan, described in Job 41 and mentioned in Psalms 104:26, describes a dinosaur like Parasaurolophus or Corythosaurus, or a plesiosaur such as Koronosaurus." Leviathan appears also in Ugaritic texts, where it is described as a twisting serpent (echoing language from Isa. 27:1) with seven heads. It personifies the waters of the primeval chaos. The rousing of Leviathan in Job 3:8 implies an undoing of the process of creation (Day 1992). It has also been suggested that Leviathan was a crocodile or whale, but its multiple heads (referred to also in Ps. 74:14) make it clear that it is a fantastic creature, such as appear in folklore from all times and places. Leviathan is clearly described as a sea creature in the Bible. Parasaurolophus and Corythosaurus were terrestrial. The message of Job 41 is that part of nature is indomitable, that "no purpose of [God's] can be thwarted" (Job 42:2). That message would lose its meaning if Leviathan was an ordinary animal that humans would be able to kill. The larger message of Job is that God's ways cannot always be understood. That message is best served by leaving Leviathan mythical.[4] 1. CD011.1: Carbon-14 Variability 2. CD011: Carbon dating. 3. CH711: Behemoth a Dinosaur 4. CH711.1: Leviathan as a dinosaur
Radiant do you know that carbon is not the only element scientists use to date objects right?In fact many different elements are used carbon just happens to be more widley known/popular.Also not all are affected by magnetic field exsposure and even if it can be affected by magnetic fields it would take quite a bit of it to change the results of ages from objects. Dating Techniques - Relative dating, Absolute dating also Isochron Dating any element can be used to date objects and determine precise age. once again the required magnetic contamination needed to change an objects age would have to be substantial and in most cases found thus far it has not been naturally occurring but deliberately caused. The exception being if the given object was found by a large deposit of magnetic material which is highly unlikely.Yes contamination happens but its mostly our faults when it happens. More times than not half life dating will be dead on and if it happened to be off it might be a couple thousand years off which really is not a issue in most tests.
Apparently to my source it does, I'm sorry if it goes against you but you prove this to me with a source. Once again Uranium-Thorium dating has it's flaws, the specimen must have be pure, and it is highly unlikely that any thing on earth is clean. Spoiler SCIENCE VS EVOLUTION 6 But trees grow at different rates, do you think a tree will grow faster in a humid tropical area, and be classified as old because it has better living conditions. Spoiler Apologetics Press - Dating in Archaeology: Radiocarbon & Tree-Ring Dating Therefore everything is tainted, considering that the 12C and 14C also seeped into the ground tainting everything underground. How exactly is it the Creationists fault you don't think scientists would have made the same mistake? I already explained the flaws and problems with tree-ring data and radiocarbon. Or maybe, just maybe it could have been referencing a dinosaur? There you go Nitrous, proof that you are looking at things too much from one side ;How can I take anything you say if you are going to be biased.? Look at the entire box, before calling it a box. 1:29-30 Genesis "29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; eto you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to fevery beast of the earth, to every gbird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is 9life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so." Thanks for quoting and siting your resources, I mean it. =) A couple thousands is a large period of time and it could easily end up being millions. SCIENCE VS EVOLUTION 6
A couple of thousand is not a large period at all considering how Earth has been through many periods all of which have covered hundreds of thousands to millions of years. All ending with mass extinctions or great changes on the Earth. Even a thousand year mess upo will not be a significant mess up when you are just trying to find when an item was on the Earth. Dating an item is almost always exact when trying to find an items age . Heres a period chart of Earths history http://earthsci.org/fossils/youngp/periods/periods.html Contamination needed to alter ages of items is rare and uncommon. They needed to create a situation in a lab to change an items date because its not a natural/likely occurring thing to happen enough to cause flaws in modern dating methods. This is true because this could only be possible if the Earth was covered in elements which could affect more younger items in time. Most substances that could effect ages of item are deep with in the Earths body and not located near items in question. You do not see naturally flowing Multan iron, radioactive materials ,and or highly magnetic fields in the areas items such as fossils or artifacts are found. This is because most ancient items that are exposed to these conditions are destroyed and sure if they survive than yes they are contaminated. If you are trying to prove the flaws in carbon dating just because you wish to disprove the facts against the Terran shroud and the supporting facts of prehistoric life like dinosaurs than its not going to work because both are not exposed to conditions needed to change the results. http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/interior.html The stuff that can change the age of an item is way in the middle of the Earth .
Prove that it does first. It just suggested it did. It didn't show anything. Radioactivity has nothing to do with being clean. For some trees, including bristlecone pine, ponderosa pine, and douglass fir, double rings are rare and easy to spot with a little practice. A bigger problem is missing rings; a bristlecone pine can have up to 5 percent of its rings missing. Thus, dates derived from dendrochronology, if they are suspect at all, should indicate ages too young. For most of the dendrochronological record, dates are determined from more than one source, so errors can be spotted and corrected. Dendrochronology is in rough agreement with carbon-14 dating, so even if it is off, it is not off by much -- certainly not by orders of magnitude, as young-earth claims would require. Leeching? In the case of carbon-14 dating, the daughter product is ordinary nitrogen and plays no role in the dating process. We are only interested in tallying the original C-14 still present in the sample, the surviving "parent" isotope. The C-14 that is incorporated in the carbon structure of cellulose and the other structural materials of living plants and animals is not going to do much migrating after burial. If structural carbon migrated easily there soon wouldn't be any cellulose, lignin, chitin (or other structural carbon compounds) left in the soil! A piece of wood, for example, would soon turn into a formless cloud of graphite or soot in the soil, with perhaps a little ash marking the original shape! Clearly, that is not something which normally happens. Residues or solutions which do migrate can usually be washed out of the structural matrix of the sample with various chemicals. To put it another way, we might imagine a piece of buried wood as being something like a sponge. Any carbon-containing liquid originally possessed by that sponge might well leak over time and be replaced by something else. However, unless the sponge itself disintegrates, the carbon which holds its fibers together must stay put. Thus, by choosing a sample that is structurally intact, one may rule out any significant loss of C-14. If the liquid impurities in our sponge can be washed and squeezed out, or estimated in some way, then we may be able to date the sponge (structural component of our sample) itself and get a good date even if non-structural carbon-14 had been lost in a manner that would upset the isotope ratio. A sample, of course, can be contaminated if organic material rich in fresh atmospheric C-14 soaks or diffuses into it. Such contamination may occur in the ground or during the processing of the sample in the laboratory. However, such contamination will make the sample appear younger than its true age. Consequently, with regards to carbon-14 dating, creationists are barking up the wrong tree on the contamination issue! Laboratories, of course, do have techniques for identifying and correcting contamination. There are various methods of cleaning the material, and the activity of each rinse can be measured. Lab contamination and technique can be checked by running blanks. A careful choice of samples will often minimize contamination. Dating various portions of a sample is another kind of check that may be performed. I didn't say that scientists didn't make the same mistake. Scientists HAVE made those mistakes but have since learned from it. Creationists make the mistake or rediscovering these errors and claiming that they show carbon dating is inaccurate. Yes. And I showed you to be incorrect. What?...Really? What description do you have that leads you to believe its a dinosaur? It has a big ass "tail." Great. That one character makes you a dinosaur. The fact is I'm not biased, you are. Because I said that it was most likely a euphemism and you said, "You're so biased, blah blah blah". At least I took the time and effort to respond instead of just claiming you were ignorant and biased... Look, the cedar comment most likely refers to the virility on an animal (most likely the bull). I'm sorry if that doesn't comply with your world view but the history of the bible and the writing of it is clear that that is probably what it meant. I really have no idea what you're talking about. 1. CB501: Multiple tree rings per year 2. How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Radiocarbon Dating
I read this book last night that's full of questions about the bible. and it has an entire section about Evolution vs Creation and Evidences of Creation Ants and Acacia trees The fierce soldier ants actually guard the acacia tree from being eaten by plant or flower eating animals and protect it from other threats. In return, the ants get food and shelter from the tree. However, a problem arises when the acacia trees need insects to pollinate them. Remember: the ants guard against all intruders. Well it just so happens that at just the right time, when the acacia flower needs pollinated, the tree sends out a chemical signal to keep the ants away! This allows pollinating insects to arrive at the flowers without being attacked. So, the flowers are pollinated and the seeds are produced. Soon after, the ants return to resume their "guard patrol" of the tree. There is no way such relationships could have developed by chance, random processes over millions of years Platypus The platypus was first discovered in 1797. It was sent to England where British scientists thought it was a fraud stitched together by Chinese Taxidermists. You see, the platypus is an animal with a bill like a duck and a beaver-like tail. It has hair like a bear, webbed feet like an otter, claws like a reptile, lays eggs like a turtle, has spurs like a rooster, and poison like a snake. The platypus is a real problem for the evolutionists. They believed animals have evolved into other animals over millions of years, so the questions is: Which animal did the platypus evolve from? it would have to be just about everything! I think that every time an evolutionist looks at the platypus, God must smile. Maybe He created it just for them. And now... Evidence of a Young Earth Bat found in stalagmite In october of 1953, National Geographic magazine published a photo of a bat that had fallen into a stalagmite in the famous Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico. The stalagmite had grown so fast, it was able to preserve the bat before it decomposed. Obviously, This didn't take millions of years! Venus Evolutionists believed that the universe is 4.5 billion years old. Now the magellan spacecraft sent back some wonderful data about the surface of Venus. One of the scientists involved described that Venus looked relatively new! Oh and news flash for ya! Some explorer found dinosaur and fish fossils on top of Mt. Everest! Explain all that stuff, Go ahead, Try and do it while i point and laugh at your efforts to prove me wrong FUN FACT: if the Bible is true (Which it is) then we are all descendants of Adam and Eve, the first man and woman. In that case, Every one in the world as 65,000,000,000 cousins. Basically, We're all related here as each other's cousins, So keep that in mind when you insult me for my beliefs
You seem to be falling back on the "it's very complicated, so God must have done it" logic. Most of the issues you raise have been addressed already in the "God" and Creation vs. Evolution" threads. Relationship between ants and trees: You're starting with a false premise. Evolution is simply not a random and chance occurrence. It is guided by favoring species that are most adapted to an environment. The relationship you speak of is very complex and developed over very long time scales. Simply bringing up the relationship as proof of God is a very weak argument. You are basically saying that because you don't understand how a relationship like that could have been formed, that God must have created it, "as is". You might as well use that watery argument anywhere. An apple looks pretty complex. How could something like an apple form through natural processes? I don't get it, so God must have done it. Platypus: Once again, it's a weird animal so you take that as proof of god. The Platypus was one of the first offshoots in the mammalian family. We've studied the Genome of a Platypus and found that it is our most distant relative in the mammal kingdom. Please do a little research before posting - Platypus Genome - National Geographic Stalagmite Bat: Stalagmite growth rates vary wildly depending on the conditions they are forming in. This is a fact. In some places it may take tens of thousands of years to grow a centimeter while in others it can grow that much or more daily. Thankfully scientists don't site the length of stalagmites as the sole evidence of the age of our planet. How old do you think the Earth is? - Please answer this. Dinosaur & Fish Fossils on top of Everest: What?! How does that prove creation in any way? You probably think that all the mountains on the earth were created exactly the way they are now, but the truth is that the planet changes. The Earth's plates collide into each other and the pressure pushes the two land masses upward. The short answer is that Mount Everest was not always there, it formed very slowly. The place where Everest stands contained many different habitats in the past, obviously including environments that were suitable for fish and dinosaurs. Incest Fun Fact: What you are talking about is incest, a genetically damaging and illegal practice in most of the world. Let's say Adam and Eve had two children, one girl and one boy. How does the next generation continue to grow? That's right, the brother and sister need to sleep together. After that they have children. To those children their Mom and Aunt are the same person. In your eyes they just kept going in this fashion. Uncles screwing nieces.....cousins screwing cousins.....parents screwing their children. If you only start out with two people, magically created, just as we are now, how do you avoid this debauchery in your mind?
First off your an idiot that needs to read the last couple hundred pages because most of these were already explained. The reason fossils are found on mountains are because plate tectonics Im not explaining it again so look it up yourself its called uplift. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC364.html Venus looks new but its not because its constantly being bombarded by radiation and it constantly changing its not new just alive.The universe is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old but solar systems are still being created to day and stars as well. So yes our milky way galaxy is new compared to older ones which makes Venus relatively new thats because the universe is expanding lol. Just because the universe was created 4.5 billion years old doesn't mean every object is because its constantly growing. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/venus-young.html The ants and tree is an evolutionary success they have a symbiotic relation ship called mutualism look it up its also been explained before.Ants get a free home and water and tree gets protection if god had a part to play in this the tree would be self protected and perfect and the aunts would be self reliant and able to build there own homes like termites. Chance happened that both of them needed something from the other and they are now found together. Other relationships like this are found all over rhinos and crocodiles have a mutual relation ship with two different types of birds. The birds found on rhinos are there to help them see predators because rhinos have poor eye sight. Birds on crocodiles clean there teeth and the crocs dont eat them because its mutual ism. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_relationship_between_an_ant_and_accacia_tree http://amplifiedwisdom.wordpress.com/2008/02/04/scientists-call-them-mutualism/ Almost all sea life is in some form of symbiotic relationship heres another famous one look at the movie "finding nemo " Nemos home in the sea anemones and clown fish and some others live in them for protection and evolution has made it so they can stand the stinging of the anemones and actualy thrive in harsh conditions. The platypus is a animal that has survived because it has successful trait that have kept it alive it might have ancestors and probably has evolved from other creatures but it takes time to find links and fossils we are finding new fossils even today maybe tomorrow we will find a animal linked to the platypus.It has successful traits and did not need to evolve similar to crocodiles which haven't changed much since prehistoric times. The stalagmite bat well first of all to make a fossil it takes time and perfect conditions caves such as the one the bat lived in probably has unusual conditions which could be perfect for fossils. Was the bat turned into stone because if it wasn't then its not a fossil just a bat which fell into cement like material lol. Fossil =animal which has turned to stone over time this =bat stuck in stuff and bat is still bat not fossil Have yo actually thought for a minute and dug up some information and actually analyzed it instead of just looking at it and saying "this proves that god exists"? All of those "findings are easily explained and have been. You misinterpreted all of those articles because you didn't even understand the basics. Oh NEWS FLASH this is actually our oldest found descendant of humans meaning that theres even older ones that have probably just not been found http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1295624 This ones name is not Adam and not eve and hey its even African. The bible is written by man not a god and before you say "the bible is right" look at the facts against it proving it wrong. do you seriously think god made us out out clay and made a woman with a mans rib just like that? If you do thats retarded we have found so many decedents of every animal on the Earth including humans proving that any animal not suited to its environment needs to evolve and adapt or it will go extint. Humans have hundreds of decendents that are KNOWN did god really mess up that many times? IF he did hes no god because hes not perfect. http://humphrysfamilytree.com/ca.html Your whole post was filled with phial combined with biased crap that you dug up on google search lol. Try again or better yet don't because you suck at research and or forming an argument . You argument back fired and now im just laughing at how un-informed you are . Have you taken biology ,zoology ,anatomy/philology,geology,history and or any form of formal education? If you have how the hell did you pass any of them lol. This had to be the dumbest thing I read all week and I just finished reading "Catcher in the Rye" lol.
And also, Some years ago a very large group of scientists went around the world collecting DNA that is handed down and is only inherited from women. (Even though small amounts of it can be found in males) Studies on one particular strand of Female-Only DNA did not match any DNA taken through thumbprint as a child. That one piece of DNA they studied that everyone had but couldn't find? Yeah, they found out it was about 6,000 Years old
What are you trying to say ? besides "im an idiot who doesn't know anything" thats all I got and nice job responding with little "thats not true" statements back your **** up with proof kid or shut up. proof = sources Read my past post everything has links to proof yes proof countering all your arguments which have already been made. There have been large flood s[none global] but they would not move bones/fossils onto mountains platonic movement called uplift caused that. Oh the bible is not a reliable source kid and we already established this. 6,000 years is tiny compared to even Earths history. Earth has had multiple periods in its life separated by hundred of millions of years 6,000 years in like a second in the Earths clock. http://www.paleontology.esmartstudent.com/table.html You think Mt Everest has always been there? lolol!!!!!!!!!!!! Go ahead share with us more of your unfounded knowledge im sure all of us would love to here your amazing answers ;] http://www.mnteverest.net/history.html try 60 million kid lol Please show me all of your idiotic ideas from your book and i'll just find some evidence or common knowledge you just happened to miss somehow to contradict all of it lol. Do you honestly think Noah fit 2 of every animal on Earth onto a boat no larger than a modern day fishing boat lol? What are you like 7 years old ? there are other mammals with venom DO SOME RESEARCH http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venomous_mammals http://www.animalcorner.co.uk/venanimals/ven_mammals.html http://www.bukisa.com/articles/33076_worlds-most-venomous-mammals
Maybe you should do some research of your own about the Bible. Example: He only needed two reptiles because of genes passed down through the reptilian family, Same with dogs, cats, and birds and other animals with multiple species There is a book called "Did Adam have a belly button? and other Bibical questions." Written by Ken Ham. Read the book, And let me be until you have
Wait, so if he needed only two of a type of animal... well first of all, how vague does, "a type" go? Does that go to like, "One type of reptile" or did he have 2 snakes, as well as having two iguanas... or? Because that's one of the vaguest things you can say. And if he only took one type of an animal, for example, Just one type of snake, then how on earth are there so many different types of snakes? They can't just all have come about randomly and mysteriously afterwards. And you can't just say, "genes passed through the reptillian family". That doesn't work at all. But hypothetically to say it does... what happens after? When those two snakes reproduced, suddenly a bunch of boa constrictors and cobras and anacondas came from that first species? Just like that? Really?
You are the stupidest person I have ever met period......... once again the Bible yes i am saying the Bible is not a reliable source because its a collections of rehashed stories and if you honestly think that all reptiles,mammals,bacteria,plants,and other organisms can survive on a small ship and then re inhabit the Earth by incest then you are absolutely retarded. The story of Noahs ark has to be one of the most un realistic stories in the bible and you believe in it thats telling me alot about how un-educated you are. Theres absolutely no way a small population of animals even if you had 100 of each animal to re-populate the Earth incest would genetically cripple and kill off the species. Also we have found creatures older than 6,000 years some 500 million years old. We have found humanoids older than 6,000 years. Also The flood was gods way of getting rid of wickedness and sin and I guess he failed since there are still bad things in the world. God fails once agin? I guess that means hes NOT a god. lol Adam and Eve is the biggest joke and lie in the bible and you fell for it. sad ,really......... Many of the stories in Genesis were derived from earlier stories from peoples of the Middle East and surrounding areas, such as the Babylonians and Canaanites. The authors of Genesis would not have been concerned with details such as where other people came from. The stories of Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel were probably entirely separate before the Genesis authors contrived to join them up. Adam and Eve didn't exist. The story is a myth that seems to be a way of explaining why hardships came into the world, and - like the Greek Pandora myth - women are blamed. The cultures that devised these myths considered men as godlike and women as inherently sinful, and were punished by being cursed to bear children. Part of the punishment was to toil with the land. So there's an element of explaining the change from nomads to farming, which then led to villages and towns illustrated in the myth of Cain and Abel. The serpent bit seems to explain why snakes crawl on their bellies. This is from The Illustrated Guide To The Bible by J R Porter, Professor Emeritus of Theology, University of Exeter: Eve The creation of humanity is central to the second creation story in Genesis. In this older narrative the first woman is created after the first man (Adam), from his body (Genesis 2:21-22), a situation which no doubt reflects the dominant position of males in a patriarchal society. But the implied inferior status of women becomes explicit only after the fall from grace in Eden, when God tells the woman: "your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" (Genesis 3:16). Adam then gives his partner a name, Eve, an act that echoes his naming of the beasts, which expressed his dominion over animalkind. However, this account stresses, even more strongly than the first Genesis creation story, the unity of the sexes and their mutual need. God says: "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner" (Genesis 2:18). Only woman proves suitable for this role. The Trees The first man and the first woman live in a state of primaeval leisure and innocence in the garden of Eden until, tempted by the serpent, they eat the fruit of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" in defiance of God's wishes. It was one of two trees in the garden, the other being the "tree of life". These trees are thought to represent two originally separate traditions which the biblical author has brought together to express his view of the origin of the human condition. The first tree belongs to a distinctly Israelite tradition. The "knowledge of good and evil" probably means the capacity for rational and ethical judgement. This attribute belongs supremely to God, who forbids humans to acquire it. After the first human pair has defied his command, God condemns them and their descendants to a life of toil and pain. He drives them from the garden in order to deny them the fruit of the tree of life, which would bestow the other divine attribute, eternal life (Genesis 3:22-24). Thus humans are like God in one respect but, unlike him, they die. In this distinction lies the vast potential but also the limitation of human existence. A sacred tree that confers eternal life occurs in many mythologies and is common in Near Eastern iconography. Numerous myths of the region explain that humanity is mortal because one person failed to eat a magical food that would have made them live forever (one example is found in the Mesopotamian epic of Gilgamesh). But the story in Genesis is alone in stressing that humans continue to suffer death as a direct consequence of their disobedience to God's command All of this is a bunch of crap and is physically impossible plus incest is just wrong.