Believing that two dogs managed to reproduce the entire population of dogs on the planet, all the different breeds all over the world, is gullible at best.
Nigel, I really hate to say this, and I mean you no offence at all, but you have a serious lack of comprehension of how things work in the world. But I can guarantee you, many people out there would be much less polite in telling you that, and they'll not hesitate to make it clear to you. Many people would also think less of you as a person, and seriously doubt your credibility in anything you do. I am not that judgemental, but many people are and it's a fact you have to be prepared for.
Anyway, for the sake of argument, ever notice why some breeds of dog are really stupid and prone to illnesses wheras mongrels tend to be more clever and overall healthier? I have first hand experience of this, I currently own two mixed breeds and have owned purebreds in the past. It's called inbreeding, you've probably heard of it. It is not possible for the entire world's population of dogs to have descended from a single pair of individuals, given the simple fact of inbreeding. The dogs would have ended up as infertile after 4-5 generations, and therefore unable to further reproduce. And this doesnt even go into why there are over (I'm guessing) 200 different recognised breeds of dog.
Was the ark big enough for all the animals to be seperated? The measurements are in the bible. You claim that the bible is accurate, correct? I don't possess a scanner, so I cannot scan the page of my bible that I have on my shelf at this moment, so I guess
www.bible.com will have to suffice.
Genesis 6:15 'This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high.'
Hereis the exact url for this page, so you can see I'm not making it up.
Ok, 450 feet long and 75 feet wide, to fit two elephants, two camels, two lions, two cheetas, two wildebeast, two giraffes, two crocodiles, two antelopes, two dogs, two cats, two King Cobras, two of all the different sorts of insects, two hyenas, two zeebras, two horses, a cow and a bull, two ant eaters, two armadillos, two sloths, two of all the different sorts of birds (including ostriches peacocks ducks geese turkeys chickens etc.) two Komodo Dragons, two chameleons, two pigs, two deer, two kangaroos (how did they get there from Australia?) two Cyprus Moufflon, two goats, two sheep etc.
Plus, bear in mind the stores that would've had to have been made of food (different kind for all these animals) and clean water for 190 days (40 days of raining, 150 of the actual flood). All that would've had to fit in the Ark as well.
Do you not find that maybe a bit hard to grasp?
And yes, I have read 'Frozen in Time'. Before I decided to persue music as a career, I was considering going into geology. I have to say that, as a geologist, I found it wholly unconvincing. I found the evidence produced to be weak at best, and downright wrong in some cases. And I was not even in university. I was a high school graduate with an A level in Geography and I could plainly see the weaknesses of the theories presented.
Plus, the case of the flood destroying everything that you presented
still does not account to the plant life of the world. Plants on land (as opposed to seaweed and other marine plants) as I am sure you can ascertain, cannot survive submerged in water for 40 days. Plants need air and sunlight to survive. So if the worldwide flood occured, why are there plants today? Why are there specimens dated to 4000 years old? Because seeds were planted? The article claims the flood was powerful enough to replace several layers of paleontological strata of rock.
Rock. So how come the seeds of (conveniently) every single kind of plant at the surface, ready to bloom? Any biologist will tell you that is simply not possible for the Earth's entire plant population to grow simultaneously. The soil of the earth, rich as it would be after such a cataclysmic event (never mind those pesky fossils buried in the layers of
rock a few miles down) could never sustain every single plant we have today growing at the same time.
The bible is not a scientific document. Nor do I believe it was ever intended to be. Your arguments are flimsy and (again no offence) childish. The website you keep referring to lacks credibility in scientific terms. Please, for your own benefit, look up some properly accredited scientific websites and journals. You will learn a lot.
Science and religion should stay seperate. I have never mixed the two. I think the bible is meant to be taken in a metaphorical fashion as a guide for how one may best live their life. Again, look up cosmotheandrocism.
Another theoty call this not God - Nature (this theoty is more true than the other, because God, according to Christendom, can think and talk, and...).