If you believe that some animals -- for example, dinosaurs -- were not saved on the Ark,...?

Question

... explain why you believe the Bible is incorrect

Answer 1

the Flood discussed in the bible is probably a reference to a flood of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in what is now Iraq. It was also related in the Epic of Gilgamesh, a book far older than the bible.
There are far too many species for 2 of each kind to be fit inside an ark of the dimentions described in the bible.
The Earth is Billions of years old.
No dinosaur ever saw a human, as they died millions of years before the earliest primates EVOLVED.
At the time of the dinosaurs, the highest mammal was the size of a vole.
Humans are simply Apes that walk erect, and I'm not sure leaving the trees was all that smart a move. Are we any happier than a mountain Gorilla? We certainly have less creative interactions than Bonobos. I'm jealous.
Heck, I'm not sure we should have left the oceans. Dolphins have loads more fun than we do.

Answer 2

Who said the Dinosaurs were not saved on the Ark? We have very little information on the animals of that time period, and leave this carbon dating stuff out of it..its very possible that the dinosaurs were on the Ark.

Answer 3

Think about, How could tortises be on the Galapagos Islands if the whole world flooded? Would they not have drowned?
The answer is yes they would drown, but the whole world never flooded. Sorry to tell you but to Noah and his relatives the whole world consisted of the Middle East neither they nor any other locals had ventured past that area to Rome for example. Sure Rome existed but they didnt know that cause they had never livd or traveled outside of Middle East. Have you ever heard of any evidence that Rome was suddenly flooded? Would that not destroy the city? Would that Empire not have ceased to exist? See the is over welming evidence against the thought of the enite world as we know i flooding. Dont forget Austrailian and North American and South American and Asian civilaizatons. there is evidence saying they all existed in Noah' time. Go to this question here and look and read. and dinosaurs died hundreds of millons of years before mankind's earliest anscestors(I mean no homonids).
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=20060623045638AAbm88V&r=w&pa=FZptHWf.BGRX3OFMhDVVVrtIhK_0ph3SWyREDD.mYGp2KNlwmA--#NbUvWzS7UDTAwrPgQLJ_

Answer 4

Since there are so many species of beetle (~300,000 and counting), the Ark must have been much larger than stated in the bible to fit them all in, or else the beetles have evolved after the flood. Or maybe that whole Ark thing is just a story, d'ya think?


tkdeity--bonobos "creative interactions"--he he!

Answer 5

My goodness... I am shocked - absolutely shocked - by some of the replies here! There are the scientific materialists claiming that all religion is nonesense, "a refuge of the weak" (unless the answerer was refering to a weekly refuge...). Their claim seems to be that only science is the way to truth. The problem with such a statement is that it is metaphysical in nature; no scientific test could ever falsify it or prove it. It is a paradox statement which is false the moment it is true. And then we have the biblical literalists, who favor a creationism that is equally neither here nor there. Both sides are very similar in their approaches and their assumptions. Biblical literalists would - under slightly different circumstances - make great, GREAT scientific materilaists, and vice versa.

The Bible is a book, indeed, and one written by human beings. But that does not mean it was not inspired by God. Only, that does not mean that God wrote a history book in which he laid things out exactly the way they happened. Every text needs interpretation, just like any other phenomenon we encounter needs to be interpreted. To say it with Heidegger, Dasein (the being-in-the-world) is interpretation. But understanding is not simply something that comes from normative rules that tell us how to know. There is more to understanding than simply grasping how something works. To be sure, how it works remains important! But it is not the sole naswer to all questions. And scientists are very aware of that.

Biblical exegesis requires interpretation, and that always means that we have to read in between the lines. Literal interpretations, as much as they are attempted, have to do the same thing. And reading is a difficult thing. All language is symbolic, abstracting emotions and experiences into thoughts (i.e., words), and then fixing them in writing. Once a text is completed, it assumes a life of its own. Ever had to explain what you wrote because someone misunderstood? And you had to say, "Look, what I meant was...". Was the person wrong who misread your text? Or was her interpretation very possible given your ambiguous text? Interpretation has to take an abstraction of a human's experience and relate to it, grasp what its meaning may be. That is not simply done by using scientific methods, even though those are important.

French philosopher Paul Ricoeur proposed in his interpretation theory that understanding emerges from the dialectic relationship of preunderstanding and explanation. While the former is the result of one's tradition, experiences, times that one lives in, the latter is what scientific methods have to offer. A reader will first guess at the meaning of a text with nothing but her preunderstanding to her disposal. Subsequently, she will bring in her mcritical methods to curb her interpretation. If you read Shakespear's sonetts, you may think that he was writing about your lost love that made you suffer. But your critical methods help you to grasp that this would be an over-interpretation: Shakespear didn't know you, couldn't know you, and hence didn't write about you. And yet, there is some truth in the text that applies to you in your current situation that Shakespear couldn't have been aware of. Out of this dialectic of preunderstanding and explanation, your understanding of the text can emerge. The same holds true for the Bible.

Please, PLEASE let go of too simplistic uses of theology and science. The world is complex, and that is good. Appreciate its complexity, and don't seek the easy way out because life otherwise is too difficult. It won't get easier that way. As for ones relationship with God, I cannot believe that God would enjoy our taking the easy way out by not using the capacities that we evolved. If there is a relationship, then God also is affected by our deeds. And that to me means for us that we have a responsibility. And it is not to follow blindly or to judge too simplistically, be it in the name of religion or of science.

Answer 6

Do you know how long ago dinosaurs lived? You know they died out long before humans were around. This is like one of the worst excuses for why the bible is incorrect.

Answer 7

i live in australia
we have many animals, such as koala's and wombats that can not swim. There is a huge ocean between us and the biblical lands. Did the wombats swim over so noah could save them, or wasn't the great flood that great after all

Of course he didn't save the dinosaurs you idiot, they were dead millions of years before the goat herder king you worship ever stood foot on this tiny rock.

Answer 8

the animals were created before man was and they were taken two by two on the ark. maybe, when the rains fell the dinosaurs ran like he**.

Answer 9

dinosaurs and people never coexisted, they couldn't have been anywhere near the ark.

Answer 10

the bible has been around a long time and I think it was rewritten to suite certain individuals