Is the Noah's Ark story true?

Originally posted by KellyJay
If I cared what you thought maybe it would matter to me, it is a matter
of faith. There are cave drawings of dinosaurs and I believe I recall
foot prints of man and dinosaurs as well being found together some
where but both of those do not prove anything, but it is evidence.
There are stories of dinosaurs being alive today, I think a dead one
was pulle ...[text shortened]... de for that creature.
I might try to look that one up for you and get you a link latter.
Kelly

1 - there are no cave pictures of dino and men - i saw what some pretend to be a dino... but honestly... it takes a lot of imagination to see anything there.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/images/dinos/bernifal_Figure24.jpg
(it's supposed to be a mammoth on the left and a dinosaur on the right)
Either way, that picture is said to be 25k yrs, long before creation of the earth.

2 - there are no footprints of men and dino (at least made at the same time)
3 - That "dino" jap fishermen caught was a deep sea species. There are thousands of unknown species to men today. But it sounds good in the press saying they caught a dino.

Originally posted by serigado
1 - there are no cave pictures of dino and men - i saw what some pretend to be a dino... but honestly... it takes a lot of imagination to see anything there.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/images/dinos/bernifal_Figure24.jpg
(it's supposed to be a mammoth on the left and a dinosaur on the right)
Either way, that picture is said to be 25k yrs, lo s of unknown species to men today. But it sounds good in the press saying they caught a dino.

I didn't say dino and men I said dino how old it is you can worry about
it. With respect to the foot prints being made at the same time, that
would be difficult to prove wouldn't it? What deep sea creature did the
they get, I saw that story in passing, you could clear that up, that
would be nice.
Kelly

Originally posted by abnoxio
That was before sin entered the world. After Adam and Eve sinned death entered the world. That predates Noah's flood.

Yes it was before sin entered the world, and unless you can point to
a time where God allowed one living creature to eat another nothing
changes until then. It was after the flood where man was given
permission, the animal kingdom was under man's rule, it stands to
reason they would follow man's lead, at least in my opinion.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I didn't say dino and men I said dino how old it is you can worry about
it. With respect to the foot prints being made at the same time, that
would be difficult to prove wouldn't it? What deep sea creature did the
they get, I saw that story in passing, you could clear that up, that
would be nice.
Kelly

OK... I correct: there no cave drawing of dinos. Can you see a dino in that picture?
Foot prints are completely inconclusive.
Deep sea has no special story: it was a strange fish the guys caught in the nets, one that was never seen. If I remember correctly, they ate it.

But i searched some more, I think there's another story where some fisherman caught a dead carcass in the nets, but it was unrecognizable. They threw it way, and DNA tests showed it resembled a shark. Since sharks don't have bones, their rotten corpses are quite strange. It's usual for people to mistake whale and shark corpses with Loch Ness monsters.
For me, it could be something else. There's a lot we don't know yet.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The dimensions were written out look them up if you want; Noah would
not have had to keep any animal away from any other during the trip,
again you should read the full book before jumping to such
conclusions. There were not meat eaters before the flood, even man
wasn't suppose to eat meat before the flood though he may have in
the state of sin they we ...[text shortened]... the Ark that more than likely younger ones went
one reducing the size required as well.
Kelly

Only baby animals were on the ark? The ark would still have had to account for the growth of those creatures, unless god stunted their growth while on the ark.

Dinosaurs are known to have had many meat eaters among them unless god also changed their nature. Dogs, cats are also known carnivores - again god would have had to have changed their nature in order for that to be the case.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes it was before sin entered the world, and unless you can point to
a time where God allowed one living creature to eat another nothing
changes until then. It was after the flood where man was given
permission, the animal kingdom was under man's rule, it stands to
reason they would follow man's lead, at least in my opinion.
Kelly

Animals don't "follow man's lead" now - without whips or cages. Why would they then?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Only baby animals were on the ark? The ark would still have had to account for the growth of those creatures, unless god stunted their growth while on the ark.

Dinosaurs are known to have had many meat eaters among them unless god also changed their nature. Dogs, cats are also known carnivores - again god would have had to have changed their nature in order for that to be the case.

You stupid ignorant. Didn't you know all animals were vegetarians before the flood? Only after it they started to eat meat, after men's sins came to earth.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Animals don't "follow man's lead" now - without whips or cages. Why would they then?

You should just read Genesis that way you'll know what your saying
is not true before you start saying it isn't true.
Kelly

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Only baby animals were on the ark? The ark would still have had to account for the growth of those creatures, unless god stunted their growth while on the ark.

Dinosaurs are known to have had many meat eaters among them unless god also changed their nature. Dogs, cats are also known carnivores - again god would have had to have changed their nature in order for that to be the case.

Did I say babies? If you want to twist what I say so it makes your
arguments sound better by all means, when you just deal in the
answers you get, or the text you claim isn't true we can continue.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You should just read Genesis that way you'll know what your saying
is not true before you start saying it isn't true.
Kelly

What? The fact is animals do not follow man's lead and there is no physical evidence or logical reason to believe they were otherwise.

No, just because it was written in the book of genesis does not make it true.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Did I say babies? If you want to twist what I say so it makes your
arguments sound better by all means, when you just deal in the
answers you get, or the text you claim isn't true we can continue.
Kelly

You said "younger ones" and you specifically said that this would reduce the size required.

You're right, you didn't say "babies" but even so - the suggestion there were only "younger ones" (YOUR exact words) is that they would need to grow until they got to be older ones - otherwise if they were the same size as older ones then there wouldn't be a reduced size required, hence making your suggestion equally as invalid.

I didn't twist what you said to all that much of a degree, now you're just playing with semantics. The fact is, you specifically said that younger ones would have been chosen so less room would be necessary.

Your exact words were:
" I would also put forward when the
animals went on to the Ark that more than likely younger ones went
one reducing the size required as well. "

Originally posted by serigado
You stupid ignorant. Didn't you know all animals were vegetarians before the flood? Only after it they started to eat meat, after men's sins came to earth.

Of course, those sharp pointed teeth that were so perfect for tearing into flesh probably just evolved afterwards due to man's sin 🙂

Oooopss... did I just use the E word?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
What? The fact is animals do not follow man's lead and there is no physical evidence or logical reason to believe they were otherwise.

No, just because it was written in the book of genesis does not make it true.

We are discussing Genesis and Noah's ark, if you want to know how
it all began, and how we got to where we are scripturally you need to
at least read it. Man was given authority over all the other life, we
gave up that authority, and the results have twisted all that was done
during the creation event. Seeing the mess we are in now does not
mean it started out that way, it only means we see the mess we are
in now.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Seeing the mess we are in now does not
mean it started out that way, it only means we see the mess we are
in now.
Kelly

First of all, what mess?

Second of all, you are right that just because it is one way now doesn't mean it wasn't a different way before.

The problem is, that we have no actual evidence that it was a different way before. You are simply putting forward a book as "evidence" - which does not serve as any more evidence than Moby Dick is evidence that a white whale existed.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
You said "younger ones" and you specifically said that this would reduce the size required.

You're right, you didn't say "babies" but even so - the suggestion there were only "younger ones" (YOUR exact words) is that they would need to grow until they got to be older ones - otherwise if they were the same size as older ones then there wouldn't be a red ...[text shortened]... that more than likely younger ones went
one reducing the size required as well. "

Yes, younger ones, that does not automatically mean babies. The
need to reproduce would require the age to be able to have off spring
when getting off the ark or during the time on it.
Kelly