Noah's ark-yesQuote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
millions of species-not millions
dinosaurs- yes
Printable View
Noah's ark-yesQuote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
millions of species-not millions
dinosaurs- yes
Give me half hour to assemble the picturesQuote:
Originally Posted by Missy
:P
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missy
Missy,
Your logic is flawed. In a murder trial in order to find someone NOT guilty, you don't have to know who the actual murderer is. You present evidence and decide whether the evidence proves the person on trial is guilty or not guilty. After the trial the police have to go look for another suspect if the other person is found not guilty. Very simple. Evolution stands alone in this trial. It is not guilty of being responsible for life as we know it. You have to have a separate trial for creation, and compare the evidence for and against. They dont get tried at the same time.
For Missy
Here are some clay monster figurines from Mexico dating back to Pre-classical Chupicuaro Culture (800 BC to 200 AD)
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-ac...ino-group2.jpg
Note the the giant two legged newt with the little foremans and the long tail in the top right that looks like a T rex ;)
Ok next up, these are the famous Ica stones from Peru, dating back over 1000 years.
There are some strange pictures with man interacting with giant newts both two legged and four legged that some ignorant people such as myself may think are dinosaurs
http://www.bibleandscience.com/other...mages/ica1.jpg
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...0_icaStone.jpg
http://paranormal.about.com/library/...a_stone_lg.jpg
[img width=700 height=528]http://www.bible.ca/tracks/buy-photo-ica-stones.jpg[/img]
Below is another strange dinosaur looking newt painted several hundred years ago
http://www.d.umn.edu/~meye0787/misshepezhieu.jpg
Incidently here is how the cavemen drew newts and lizards ;)
http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/images/lizard.jpg
Look man you don't get to pick the definition to suit your argument....You've told people to read your posts earlier in the thread well Id tell you to do the same of me. I openly stated that I wasn't refering to genetic changes over time nor defending a monkey to man evolutionary chain. I was only stating that to say man hasn't evolved as a species over time is ignoring history. I don't really see you arguing the details with me just verbage. Whats wrong Bilbo will you lose you creationist union card if you so much as concede that man has evolved as a species just not genetically?Quote:
Originally Posted by bilbo
alright Bilbo CC back.Quote:
Originally Posted by bilbo
I'm not an expert in evolution, so can't, and wouldn't dream of debating FOR it.
It doesn't need a separate threadQuote:
Originally Posted by luvfightgame
If you want to explain how this could of happened
i'm all ears ;)
I think we are disagreeing over our definition of evolution here rather than over whether man has improved or not over time.Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
Let me quote from a dictionary the full definitions of evoltuion...
ev·o·lu·tion (ĕv'ə-lū'shən, ē'və-) pronunciation
n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See synonyms at development.
2.
1. The process of developing.
2. Gradual development.
3. Biology.
1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.
[Latin ēvolūtiō, ēvolūtiōn-, from ēvolūtus, past participle of ēvolvere,
Looking a the definitions you are referring to definiton 2,
The process of developing, gradual development,
wheras I am talking about defintion 3
Biology.
1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
So in answer to your question yes I completely agree with you regarding man's evolution according to definiton 2 but I am talking about evidence for and against definition 3 which is something entirely different.
Hope that makes sense. The arguments for man's evolution according to definition 2 cannot be used as evidence for evolution according to definiton 3 and vice versa, they are concerned with two seperate things.
To illustrate consider the evolution of the motor car. It is obviously clear that as mankind's knowledge and experience has improved in relation to the motor car so we have been able to produce better and more advanced cars.
This is evolution according to definiton 2.
However it is not evolution according to definiton 3. The cars did not actually evolve from each other, rather they were each independent seperate acts of creation that can be arranged to form an evolutionary chart beginning with earliest cars and progressing to more advanced types.
The evolutionary chart is merely a chart however and does not suggest that these cars evolved from each other, they were actually independent acts of creation as I said above.
So it's not evidence for evolution according to definiton 3.
Hope that makes sense, have a :coolclick:
There is no need for us to get aggressive with each other we are just having an interesting dialouge and exchange of ideas. :)
Ok,Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
It took approximately 120 years to build the ark.
It didn't require fish, insects, nor every variety of species. It only required 1 "kind" therefore a single dog breed would suffice. Same for each other "kind".
He took baby dinosaurs.
Hey Fenster as I said earlier to demonstrate the specifics of the Noah Flood story is impossible as obviously events such as all the animals coming to Noah, Noah receiving a warning from God and being told to build an ark, Noah's wooden ark with all the animals on board surviving a worldwide cataclysmic flood so devastaing it destroyed every other human and land animal not on board the ark the whole world over are quite blatently things that could only happen if you believe in miracles and a miracoulus God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
If you don't no amount of discussion will convince you otherwise.
Personally my own investigations into the issue were all about trying to disprove the bible's account.
I started firstly by examining the geanealogies in the bible regarding people before the flood, their births and deaths. The bible tells us all of Noah's ancestors and how long they lived.
I figured if I added them all up I could see if anybody lived after the flood thus proving a contradiction. What I found amazed me. Everyone of Noahs descendents although living for hundreds of years died before the flood year.
One person Methuselah the oldest living human in history according to the bible lived to be 900 and something. He died in the year of the flood.
I looked up the meaning of his name. In Hebrew it literally mean's 'When he is dead, judgement will come'.
This isn't mentioned in the bible at all, that was just my own investigation and I discovery of the first of many hidden signs in the bible.
Next I examined the biblical account of the flood. It lasted for 150 days, it wasnt caused merely by rainfall as people seem to believe but according to the bible by the undersea foundations of the earth breaking apart.
Geologically this is actually what we observe. Massive tectonic shifts, the seperation of the continents, seabeds wrenching forth to become the highest mountains. The bible gets it right.
Thirdly I examined what the bible says about the ark itself. The dimensions of the ark are in the bible and amazingly they are exactly correct an amazing feat of guesswork for early goatherders and shepeards to guess at.
The size of the ark was as follows, 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. If it really existed this would make it the largest ancient vessal in existence.
What is remarkable however is that the dimensions of the ark were as I said above exactly the correct design for an boat designed to stay afloat. Interestingly, the British civil and mechanical engineer Isambard Kingdom Brunel built a steamship (the Great Britain) in 1843 that had almost the same proportions as the Ark, although it was smaller. This was regarded as a remarkable feat of Victorian and maritime engineering.
There are other ancient accounts of a golbal flood, in fact every single ancient culture has a flood story, but interestingly those that give the dimensions of the ark get it hopelessy wrong.
The sumerians described the ark as being cube shaped which obviously would not work, it was get tossed over repeatedly and sunk.
The biblical ark would have been virtually impossible to tip over, a fact attested to by the hundreds of replica's that have been built and then put into a virtual wave generating machine.
Nobody has been able to get the boat to upturn, again google this for yourself.
As for evidence for a global flood the fossil record is proof positive. The only way fossils can be formed is if a creature or plant is engulfed by water, sediments lain over it quickly and compacted. If a global flood actually happened you would ecpect to find billions of fossils, buried in rock layers, laid down by water all over the earth, that is precisely what you find.
Incidently if you google fossils, try and find a fossil that evolutionists don't think was created by a flooding of water, thats how fossils are made ;)
Furthermore the ice age has long been a problem for evololutionists who thus far have no accepted explanation, but rather a dozen different thoeries, each one contradicting the others.
A global flood actually would explain how the ice age came to be. Again google if you are interested.
Also population statistics support the fact that man has only lived on earth for a few thousand years, exactly the same time frame for 8 people stepping off an ark.
Evolutionists believe anatomically modern humans exactly like us lived upto 250,000 years ago but left no trace of their existence or preserved no records until they decided to build civilisations in the exact same spot the bible says they did around 6000 years ago.
There is numerous evidence from geography, archaeology, oral tradition, the fossil record etc to demonstrate the world once suffered a catastrophic global flood.
Although Noah's ark will remain a matter of personal faith, evidence for a global flood which some might say would be proof enough is is demonstrated abundantly.
So what you sayin?Quote:
Originally Posted by bilbo
That absurd as it may sound to our modern minds, that there is overwhelming support from the fossil record, catastrophic geology, archaeology etc that an actual worldwide global flood did happen.
As for Noah building an ark, well that is a matter for personal faith, however where the biblica account could have fallen apart, for example getting the dimensions of the ark wrong, getting the cause of a worldwide flood wrong and getting the timscale of such an event wrong amazingly the bible is correct on all those matters.
Now I'm not saying it must be true, but intrinsically the story holds together.
If the size of the ark, the shape of the ark etc were wrong it could easily be proved that it couldnt have happened, but as I have said modern tests have shown by rebuilding replica's of the ark on a much smaller size scale that it's practically impossible to upturn or sink the damn thing.
That alone would be an impressive fact for some primitve goatherder of 600 years before Christ to get right.
When you factor in that the bible says the flood was caused by the foundations of the earth breaking apart, rather than rainfall as other accounts say it is another remarkable accuracy. Rainfall alone couldnt flood the earth it would be impossible, only massive tectonic activity as the bible describes could.
Did it happen? That's for indiviuals to decide. It certainly cannot be proven.
Has science been able to prove that it couldn't have happened?
Suprisingly, no they can't.
I thought this conversation would have ended with my pictorial proof of evaluation. the eye don't lie ! ;)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
yawn. Transitional fossils.
I've been sad clicked!
SHOCK HORROR!
Thats out of order.
I've balanced it out with a CC. 8)
:-*Quote:
Originally Posted by Missy
Backatcha babe
Oh of course, "kinds" and little baby dinosaurs, it makes sense now...Kent Hovind fan?Quote:
Originally Posted by luvfightgame
To believe that the ark story actually happened, you must really NEED to believe, for some reason ;)
By the way Bilbo
Ica stones - http://skepdic.com/icastones.html
Yup i'm a Hovind fan. I enjoyed watching him thoroughly embarass the "experts" he debated. As far as "need", to believe.... You will come to the same conclusion, you obviously want to believe that everything can happen by accident.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Books have authors, buildings have builders, expecting something more complex than a book to have happened by random chance is crazy. A lot crazier than believing a story about a boat and a bunch of animals. Besides you can't prove it DIDN'T happen, I can prove evolution DIDN'T happen.
I read a story where it mentioned unicorns, pixies, goblins, I even read one that had a flying horse in it. Now I can't prove they didn't exist so therefore they must have been real. Glad that's sorted out.
I find it hard to reconcile the childish religious image we have of a kind and just God with the reality of the world around us. I find it simplistic to think that there is a Good one (God) and a Bad one (Satan). Religious mumbo jumbo is responsible for so much pain and suffering now and in the past.
The Churches are pretty evil - 'only I can communicate with your god, and only through me will you get everlasting life (!). Therefore I will set myself up and this will be my job, for which you will pay me money and I will tell you how to live your life. Also, only our way is right and everyone else is wrong and must be either converted to our way of thinking or they are an enemy' Stone Age stuff.
Why do humans always think they are the 'chosen ones'? If the universe is infinite, then there are an infinite number of different species out there. Yet God made us 'in His image'. I don't think so. All cultures have a creation and religious myth, so therefore it is likely that 'aliens' would have as well - until they simply grow out of it of course.
The Bible was written by people with a vested interest in it, they were primitive societies (yes, even Rome). many of the stories are allegorical and people who believe that this could possibly be the literal truth sound misguided to me.
Creationism being told as part of the national curriculum now in some States in the US? (except they have rebranded it 'intelligent design' ........ shocking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvfightgame
I never stated anything I believe in
I guess you should know I'm a pastafarian http://www.venganza.org/
In the name of the Great Noodlyness, Ramen.
Do you really want to address those questions or are you just giving your opinion? Your statement that many of the stories are allegorical, which ones? And how do you know? By the way EVERYTHING is written by someone who has a vested interest. Do you think text books are written by people with vested interests, how about newspaper articles? It's very humorous to hear people say that these were primitive societies when the languages they used were much more advanced than ours.Quote:
Originally Posted by X
Great cop out. I never stated anything I believe in............Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
I just want to argue and make ridiculous comments, but I will make childish non committed responses like................. I never stated anything........... That's junior high stuff.
Great critical thinking skills. You have no problem accepting a story that has things appearing out of nothing, explosions making complex things, and life coming from non living things. Goblins and pixies fits right in.............Quote:
Originally Posted by Missy
ahhh come on dont get upsetQuote:
Originally Posted by luvfightgame
I didn't want to argue, just ask a few questions and you've answered them. As i said before I couldn't give a shit what people believe in...there's nothing i can say that'll make you believe anything other than what you already believe, is there?
Although you may feel different if you were touched by His noodly appendage.
I'm giving an opinion - I am not sure whether anyone who posts on this forum, or anyone full stop, is able to definitively address the questions to everyone's satisfaction. I am certainly not!Quote:
Originally Posted by luvfightgame
About the allegorical bit, it's common ground that many Bible stories (particularly the parables) are allegorical. ....... and you're right, I don't know for certain as I was not there as a witness! How can anyone know - was your question allegorical? ;D I think with hindsight my underying point was that the words are not there to be taken literally. The usage of numbers in the Bible, for example, are there to make a point rather than to record that 151,322 Assyrians were slaughtered by the Angel of the Lord
I agree with you that everything is written be people with a vested interest. You sound like you're making a point - I am agreeing with you here.
I am clearly too thick to understand your point about sophisticated languages. Parts of the Old Testament were written by a nomadic society with very limited technological advancement, traditional ruling mechanisms and variable rules of law. These were primitive societies by any definition (I am not saying their languages were crap, nor that they were not our intellectual equals). Any written outputs reflect the state of society prevalent at that time, the Bible messages were useful to them AT THAT TIME (ie don't eat pork, it contains parasites, don't eat shellfish, you may get poisoned, don't wank as we need all the babies we can get etc)
What I posted was purely an opinion, just as what everyone else has posted is essentially, when it comes down to it a question of opinion.... or faith ("The assured expectation of things to come from the evidence of things not yet beheld" That's in Hebrews!!)
Hang on wasn't that what god did?Quote:
Originally Posted by luvfightgame
Did I ever tell you about my burning bush?
Missy,Quote:
Originally Posted by Missy
You have been presented with loads of data and facts. You somehow think that because you don't accept the Biblical account of creation it makes evolution true. This thread was about creation or evolution. The Biblical account wasn't presented as being the answer, the facts relating to evolution were disputed. Another poster mentioned the creation account of Genesis, I offered to open another thread on theology, and they declined but requested a simple answer. If you stick purely to scientific facts and evidence there is no support for evolution, if you want to debate on philosophical principles that would be a different thread, again one I would enjoy debating. Your philosophical beliefs have nothing to do with the creation or evolution debate. So please stay on topic. If you want to debate the accuracy of the Bible I would gladly give my opinions, but start another thread.
P.S. You should get that burning thing checked out by a doctor, they have medicine for things like that ;D
I'm not upset, of course you give a shit what people believe. It is actually the most important thing in the world. It completely determines how a person thinks, behaves, etc.... The entire economy operates on faith, ever hear of consumer confidence, how does that change the value of things? And how do they know when it goes up or down? A fighter fights better when they believe they will win, belief is everything and discussing beliefs should never be avoided.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
As far as you swaying my beliefs, I hope you weren't trying cause you've offered nothing by cynical comments, those will never sway me. If you make a point and can back it up, that would sway me.
You're definitely not thick, just sarcastic in your comments. I could address the questions you posed, doubtful they will be to everyones satisfaction, but I can address them reasonably and with viable solutions to the problems. Again, I am certain not everyone would agree. As far as the allegorical, I beleive that it is very clear which are allegorical and which are to be taken literal. Of course it is a different topic, but again one I wouldn't mind debating. I think it requires it's own thread, and I won't open it, that way I won't be accused of "forcing my opinion on other people".Quote:
Originally Posted by X
The statement about primitive societies is still an opinion. They accomplished some amazing feats for being technilogically limited, the pyramids, stonehenge, etc... The wonders of the world that are still visited today, and amazingly are still standing. Are you saying that the current legal system is more effective? Are you aware that over 2000 laws are passed per year? Do you really believe the current political system of rule is effective? Has it grown better, or gotten more corrupt? I think if you weight things on the same scale you will be very suprised....
Missy I am no expert but if you have a burning bush I would see a doctor about that. They have medicines for stuff like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Missy
;D
I'm not trying to be sarcastic, this is an interesting conversation. So sorry if it comes over like that. The trouble with email and posting on forums is that you can't put inflexions and things into your words so it's easy to be taken the wrong way (and also to take things the wrong way). We will all have our beliefs about literal truths in the Bible, or not. You will have what you think are good answers to the questions I raised, and you will have your own view of what is literal or allegorical. I doubt anything i say will change your views, and I doubt whether anything you say will change mine. (That's why 'belief with the exclusion of all other possibilities' has caused so many wars!!!! To paraphrase George W. "You're either with me or against me" with religion, unfortunately.Quote:
Originally Posted by luvfightgame
I don't think I made my point about primitive society well: I don't think people were more stupid then, the things they did and the feats of engineering and invention are on a par with anything we do (in terms of incremental advance), I agree that laws today are not necessarily better (but would argue that there are less miscarriages of justice than in Solomon's time, say), I would agree that we are probably just as violent and bloodthirsty etc etc ........... but, more people are better educated today then they were in ancient times, we understand physics and sciences better (most people do not believe that a solar eclipse needs to be assuaged by blood sacrifice to make the sun come back), we have a more open and tolerant outlook. Most laws are enacted with at least a semblance of underlying justice (as opposed to burning someone because the 'test' said they were a witch). As a society, where we fundamentally differ from them is in access to information. Most westerners at least are less in thrall to 'holy men' because they can check out at least some facts and then try and make their mind up on limited evidence. That's what I mean by them being in a more prmitive society.
It would be interesting to come back in another 3000 years and see which of our fundamentally held modern 'truths' have been disproved or superceded in the intervening period. Perhaps the more educated humans of the future would not have fallen victim to the Audley Harrison myth????
luvfightgame...obviously we are discussing old testament here, but I recently read a book called "Misquoting Jesus". The author is a devout christian and has studied at some of the most esteemed religious institutions in the world. The book basically shows how many inaccuracies and changes the new testament has endured over the centuries. Anyway its a bit dry, but a good read. My point is that if the NEW testament is so flawed what does that say about the possibilities of the Old?
For as many translations as the bible has undergone there is no way that it doesnt have any inaccuracies or flaws. Translations from one language to another there will always be differences on how things are said or read.Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
well the author does touch on that point, but there is much more to it than that...check it out if your interested in the topic
Hmmm i'm not really arrogant enough to try and sway you....Don't see how you came to that conclusion through me asking whether Dinosaurs were on the ark and posting a Flying Spaghetti Monster link :-\Quote:
Originally Posted by luvfightgame
As for the ark, I believe it takes nothing more than a modicum of common sense to realise this story is complete and utter crap...anyone that can seriously believe it did happen, well, i just don't know where you're at :-\
yes but they've proved evolution to be wrong so it must be true Fenster. I believe :angel:
Hey Fenster,Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenster
Yes the authenticity of many of the Ica Stones has been hotly contested for several reasons.
The most eriosu accusation is fraud and indeed it is fair to suggest that many may be hoaxes. Unfortunately in both archaeology and paleontology there is a massive market for fossil and acrchaeological finds. Many finds are not discovered by experts themselves but by locals who then sell their finds.
It is fair to say that many of the more elaborate Ica Stones were faked in this way.
However this sort of deception problem is in now way limited to archaeological finds. Paleontologists have a similar problem with many fossils later proving to be hoaxes.
Within the last 10 years there was a major 'dino-bird' discovery named archaeoraptor that made headlines around the world. The National Geographic put it on the front page of their magazine announcing the missing link between dinosaurs and birds had been found!
It was a matter of mere months later that archeoraptor was discovered to actually be two fossils glued together, a great source of embarresment to the evolutionist community.
Unfortunately it is one of the pitfalls of working in such an area.
However the Mexican dinosaurs that I also included several pictures of have not had their authenticty challenged. Remarkably they seem to be genuine.
Hey Missy,Quote:
Originally Posted by Missy
the trouble with your narrow minded view is that you focus on what you think are the unbelievable claims in the bible, that to your mind sound absurd so you mock them.
It is clear however that you have never attempted to submit belief in evolution to the same scrutiny.
Lets consider,
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth
or
In the beginning there was nothing, absolutely nothing. Then nothing exploded, and expanded into nothing creating an infinite universe of mind blowing complexity. There was no reason for this, literally nothing caused this, the nothing that created out of nothing exploded into nothing and created something.
And God made life,
or
Nothing which by now had evolved into huge planets, stars, comets and other space debris now did something very clever.
A single cell appeared spontanously, out of nowhere, for no reason and amazingly found that it had all of the requirements to survive in this hostile enviroment. But it was alone, completely alone. This was no problem for the single cell however as it found it had also spontaneously developed the ability to replicate itself. This it did and now there were two. These two also replicated themselves creating four and before long there were loads of single cells floating around in a soupy like sea.
They then randomly started to get more complex and thus evlolved into all of life on earth. ::**