Dinosaurs and the Ark

Don't forget the text when doing that computer model:
"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.".
That would seem to make 14 of each one of the clean animals (7 male and 7 female) and 2 (one each) of the unclean ones. In the past I've won a free drink or three with the bar bet "How many cows were on Noah's ark?". Get ready to scrounge up a Bible when you say 14 after they say 2 (let them go first).

I remember reading a story from when I was a kid about a forest fire sometime in the 1800's. A train pulled up next to a pond or small like and everyone got in. Then came deer, bear, mountain lions and various other critters. Every one behaved and when the fire was over they all went their different ways. Kind of like that line I heard somewhere about a time when the lamb lays down with the lion. Guess when survival is at stake any one can get along.

Tom

but it has been noted many times by Forest Rangers and others that fires make strange bedfellows.

"Lion" and "lamb" are alliterative, but often misquoted. The original is at Isa 11:6. In fact, verses 1 through 9 are in the same vein, and supply the cause as well. And for further research, get a bible with good cross-references and find out how the Christian writers understood the "sprout" of v. 1; it was misunderstood by even the super-educated Jews of Jesus' day.

Here's another: Adam; Eve; snake; tree. What kind fruit?

("Thou shalt have no fun." )
However, you wouldn't win against any serious bible student with "cows". The clean/unclean are specifed at length in the Mosaic Law, but not in Gen 6 ~ 9. (Look it up.) Could have been seven camels on the ark. (Cf. Lev 11:4)

Recent Watchtower article goes into this; drop by and pick one up.

My bet is that some husband would claim that if his wife was in the "contest" it would take far fewer than 40 days for her to emerge alone from the bone pile.

if you have so few critters. Two parents having kids who mate -- it would be like sisters and brothers.

then Jehovah would take care of the rest.

Like the account about Jacob and his sheep raising in Gen 31. The story sounds like Lamarckist teaching (discredited even by evolutionists), until you come to Jacob's own account, at 31:9-12.

Remember, myth or not, the bible presupposes a creator who can arrange such things.

Incest not necessarily a problem for man nor beast.
Let's say the bible is myth. The stories presuppose the existence (in the book) of a being who can do miracles - like creating all these things from scratch. That puts him in charge of their genetics. Additionally, it's one of many such books describing a past Golden Age, in this case one of human perfection. That didn't include walking on water or teleporting, but did include a conditional deathlessness. (Gen 2:15-17)
In order for normal reproduction to carry out the First Mandate (Gen 1:28), that perfection would carry with it either (a) immunity from inbreeding problems or (b) the guarantee of divine intervention a/r. Since, back in the real world, incest does not guarantee genetic defects (although I agree it's not a good thing), choice (a) has logic to it.
All of the above is consistent also with the 'unbelieveable' life spans recorded in the same book. (And, according to R. Dawkins and his kind, how long should we live if science is allowed to assist evolution?)

(Sidebar: The account of Jacob's dealings with his father-in-law includes an example of (b). The account at Gen 30 implies that Jacob thought Lamarckist genetics would help him. That certainly would be the case with a fictional character, or his mythmaker, who didn't know what we know. But the end of the story shows the origin of both Jacob's actions and their success in a way that's internally consistent. (Gen 31:5-13) And it's consistent with the professions of belief of many scientists - too sensible to believe in myths - who are sure they will soon be engineering a brave new world of lifeforms.)

Anyway, at least it's a pleasant myth. (Rev 21:3,4)

available through your local KH. Book/chapter/verse cited throughout.
No salesman will call - more than usual.

for the opportunity presented here. This is about as close as it gets legally.

A fellow Christian will swat at a mosquito or other pest and I'll cry out, "But that's one of Jehovah's creatures!"

Then I'll laugh like a looney ... and run.


Doesn't take much to entertain some people.

Speaking of literal six day scenarios, how about the 6000 year thing? When the universe is over 13 billion years old, it took a long time for us to make it on the scene. She must've nodded off...

Are dinosaurs forbidden too, along with politics, religion and whales?

hobnobbed with kings and such. (Gen 12, Gen 14, Gen 20)

Therefore he's clearly a political figure.

If whales were white meat or red meat.

go down nicely with a fine Cabernet.

they've been talking about, that teaches creationism or something.

a "creationist" group in San Diego, made up of scholars with mainstream credentials, some associated with UCSD. Look 'em up if you're interested. (Knowing about them once got me a date with a hot "Christian" babe in my college days - I'm a good boy, now.)

You might be interested in the 6/15 Watchtower, available from your local pest ... er, evangelizer. The article on p. 21 is a good look at some of our views on the subject; you'll see some differences from the theme park people's ideas, and some great differences from yours. Anyway, it's a painless way to get some background on a topic which will IMO intrude on your world more and more.

I stand corrected, it was a museum, but it's touted more as a theme park. A family rest spot for many from the freeway and supposedly build where it will be within 650mi. travel distance for 2/3 of lower 48/USA. As well as to serve the creationist side as a museum, it does offer rides and such. -----Willy