Question about the Ark?

[pointer]

I'm just in the First Level of Naivete.....

I think you possibly are! Neither scientists nor YECs believe that there has been significant speciation in historic times, and certainly not among the artiodactyls (deer, antelope, etc.). So this makes the notion of sudden and very brief evolution just after a flood, with nothing afterwards, very, very difficult to believe.

It seems like an ever more tangled web of absurdities, YECism. No doubt Ken Ham will think of something, though, when he reads this.

[pointer]

Atheists don't believe in telekinesis, theists do. It's theists that believe in an unproven God who can do anything without any evidence whatsoever. It's theists that believe a rod can turn into snakes or that water can become water. It's theists that believe that the supernatural can impregnate a human . Theists keep claiming proof about God because the universe appears orderly.

Some might, but they may not be telling the truth. Other theists believe that a rod can turn into snake, but only because of testimony about Jesus. These theists experience a change in their lives that gives them an entirely new perspective on life, and how it should be lived. Drunkards become sober, thieves become honest, rebels become peaceable, enemies become friends, laggards become hard workers, and so on, because of the message about Jesus. These 'new creatures' are a sign to others that Jesus really exists, though not visibly at the present, and they become theists too. They believe that Jesus will return, and they likewise believe that Jesus has intervened in history to make sticks into snakes. They believe that Jesus made both sticks and snakes in the first place, and that if he wants to change one into the other, and back again, he can. It is nothing to him.

Atheism means without evidence. Is it too much to ask for some? Believing does not make something true.

Atheism means 'no deity'. It is an idea that cannot be proved by formal logic; but neither can theism. It is practical results in real, live people that 'prove' that there is a deity, if anything does.

[TomPJr]

Steve, you are talking about a miraculous event in the bible, but want to remove the one who made the miracle.

The Lord is involved in this event, in all events in the bible. You cant remove Him from the discussion.

How does God just make things happen. It doesn't work that way, there is a phsyical reason for everything.

Steve....Good question.

The question at hand aknowledges that God exists and created everything. The story is not only in the bible, but in 1000's of legends from different countries all over the world.

The bible says that God brought the animals to Noah. (Noah didn't have to gather them.) The same creative power of God that spoke the world into existence, and gave the animals their instincts, compelled the animals to go to the Ark.

Another thing is that not every creature was on the ark!...all the bugs weren't there, most can survive in water; the sea creatures weren't on the ark; ....

The bible says "of evry kind", not every variety. there are hundreds of variety of dogs, but they are the same kind of animal. They only needed two dogs. from these came all the variations we see today. This is the same principle applied to all the other creatures.

another interesting thought is that everyone always pictures full grown animals. I believe that most of them were babies, which would give much more room.

feel free to ask me for more info...

with love,

Tom

[Leonard]

4. Saying something is true enough times does not make it true. This is a logical fallacy - argumentum ad nauseum, and the Christian community is guilty of commiting it with regards to evolution.

Please, just look straight at the facts...

There are ZERO reputable scientists who believe in Christian creationism. None.

There are ZERO pro-creo research papers that have been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. This can hardly be bias against the creo-scientists, as several have had papers published when they have done research on good science.

For a scientist to REFUTE a major theory would immensely further their careers from the acclaim they would get. Evolution by natural selection is the central tenet in all of biology. The acclaim and research funds the scientist(s) would get is MASSIVE. So you can be sure there are scientists of repute in the scientific community constantly trying to find holes in the theory. It has stood up to intense scrutiny for 150 years.

Just as an aside, evolution is both a theory and a fact - a fact because it HAS been observed and there is massive evidence for it happening (don't even try to refute that), and a theory because it is a coherent set of scientific principles that explains natural phenomena (this is the definition of "theory" as used by scientists - it does not mean a hunch!)

Conclusion - evolution is an extremely well-supported scientific theory, rejected only by a tiny minority with faiths (i.e. beliefs without evidence) that do not agree with the observed fact.

99.9999% of the scientific community, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, and the 650-member Christians in Science group say yes to evolution. Please, be intellectually honest with yourself. The theory does not destroy belief in a deity (a literally interpreted Judeo-Christian patriarch maybe), so unless you're a fundie, you have no good reason to reject it.

Wrong on all counts. This is possibly the single most ignorant post I've ever seen.

Go and learn for several years, little one, and then it will be worthwhile to discuss this matter with you..............

[Floatingaxe]

99.9999% of the scientific community, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, and the 650-member Christians in Science group say yes to evolution. Please, be intellectually honest with yourself. The theory does not destroy belief in a deity (a literally interpreted Judeo-Christian patriarch maybe), so unless you're a fundie, you have no good reason to reject it.

That's just plain hooey. Where in the world did you get that figure? Out of thin air, I do believe! Talk about bravado!

[Floatingaxe]

Paul: Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.

Not the first or last time I'll see a Christian somehow concluding a pithy verse makes requiring evidence for the questions asked unnecessary.

And what questions do you have? Seems you think you have all the answers for us, sir.

[stevehut]

Could it be that Brother Noah didn't need to pack up the fish?

Steve

[Floatingaxe]

Paul: Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.

Not the first or last time I'll see a Christian somehow concluding a pithy verse makes requiring evidence for the questions asked unnecessary.

And what questions do you have? Seems you think you have all the answers for us, sir.

The anti-knowledge/anti-intelligence conviction is a fascinating part of the Christianity meme complex. When you combine the "faith is virtuous, you need no evidence to justify yourself" with "knowledge is the love of men who wish to please themselves more than God - stay away from it", you get an immensely powerful inhibitor to facts and evidence, as was demonstrated by one poster in an earlier thread - possibly the Exodus Anachronisms thread before its deletion?

I knew you didn't have any questions.

[Arthur Durnan]

Our self-concocted "atheist" friends actually construct a god of their own imagination, the blind, mindless & inert god Chance who cannot see, does not function and, in point of fact, has ZIP going for him/her/it. Self-confessed "atheist," Richard Dawkins, in conversation with ex-"atheist," Dr. Francis Collins, Director of U.S. National Human Genome Research Institute since 1993, when asked by Collins, "Could the answer be God?", replied, "There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding." Collins went on to say, Faith is not the opposite of reason. Faith rests squarely upon reason, but with the added component of revelation." All of which makes eminent sense here, for a God Who COULD reveal Himself, but wouldn't, would be immoral; and a God Who might like to reveal Himself, but COULDN'T, would be impotent; but a God Who could reveal Himself, and DID - as evidenced by the unanswerable apologetic of radically changed lives and the rebirth of a person as a new creation according to John 3:1-7 - is surely evidence that no one can gainsay. For our "atheist" friends, if all is not lost, where is it? Whatever, I'm off to quaff my usual dose of Java at Starbucks. It's to surrender for.

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

[Floatingaxe]

I knew you didn't have any questions.

On the contrary! How about, why doesn't God heal amputees?

Who says He doesn't?