Spirituality
03 Dec 09
07 Dec 09
Originally posted by Proper KnobIt only matters that i see you are wrong?
[b]We're looking at the square footage space available according to the dimensions given in the Bible to determine whether or not there was enough room for all the animals.
I know that.
Now that has been proven
The only thing that has been proven is that your maths is terrible. Other than that, you haven't proven anything.
And ...[text shortened]... ently.
[b]It only matters that you see it
It only matters that i see you are wrong?[/b]
That's not what I meant.
I got the square footage right. And it only matters to me that you see that the dimensions given in the Bible for the Ark do in fact allow for enough space for all the animals necessary to repopulate the earth.
07 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's just a load of second hand postulation copied from www.christiananswers.net!!
yes a brilliant post, i hope Noobster doesn't choke on his porridge reading it!
And even of you accept John Woodmorappe's view that only 2,000 animals needed to be on the Ark, how on earth do we get to see so such diversity today from such a small number of animals? Are you suggesting they evolved into their different species?!
07 Dec 09
Originally posted by PBE6Sure there are exmples around the world that fit those situations. But there are many examples around the world where they don't. You can't have a tree sticking up thru different layers that supposedly are thousands if not tens of thousands of years old, "they say", and have trees that stood upright and survive all those centuries.
Here one place to start looking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil
Anyone with eyes can see the layers all had to happen extremly fast to cover the trees. And these can be found worldwide because of the flood...
07 Dec 09
Originally posted by galveston75I don't understand how mud could 'have all melted off' as you put it, when the ice is in the coldest place on Earth?!
Because if the ice pack was there which I still doubt, the upper layers that would possibly have had mud on it from the flood, could have all melted off by now if there was mud on it at all.
If you don't know why there isn't any mud in ice core samples, why not just say so?! You keep coming up with these fanciful hypothesis that not even you believe!!
07 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobIsn't ice melting off today? So it is possible..But that still would have to mean it was there during the flood. Chances are it wasn't.
I don't understand how mud could 'have all melted off' as you put it, when the ice is in the coldest place on Earth?!
If you don't know why there isn't any mud in ice core samples, why not just say so?! You keep coming up with these fanciful hypothesis that not even you believe!!
07 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75Parts of Antartica are melting, but not all of it!!! It's nearly 14 million km2 of ice.
Isn't ice melting off today? So it is possible..But that still would have to mean it was there during the flood. Chances are it wasn't.
Parts of it haven't melted for a very long time, hence the build up of layers of snow.
Chances are it wasn't
Show me the evidence it is only 5,000yrs old.
07 Dec 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat's right. I have no issue with that as being a valid reason for sea fossils being up high on mountains tops. Thanks. Plate tectonics. Partial reason why it appears that the continents fit together like a puzzle. I know I learned about this in school.
Well you could always start with Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
Essentially, mountains are formed when plates move towards each other, thus lifting up the land. It clearly makes sense that land that was formerly a sea bed could end up on top of a mountain.
Manny
07 Dec 09
Originally posted by Proper KnobThe evidence is the ice caps themselves. The process that no doubt caused the layers in the ice is this. As the flood waters were recedding from the height it was above the surface of the earth and with the cold temps now affecting the polar regions, ice would eventually stick to any land masses it would settle on. But before this as the ice was forming the flood waters would lay down different layers of water with wave actions as no doubt the water was still very disturbed from the earth's crust and settling and moving of the land masses below the water just as earthquakes still do today.
Parts of Antartica are melting, but not all of it!!! It's nearly 14 million km2 of ice.
Parts of it haven't melted for a very long time, hence the build up of layers of snow.
[b]Chances are it wasn't
Show me the evidence it is only 5,000yrs old.[/b]
07 Dec 09
Originally posted by Proper Knobno, you know i do not accept the transmutation of species, they simply multiplied into the different 'variations', within a species that we see today, even among humans. This fact is verified in scripture and by science, for Noah himself had three sons, and what we get when we study sociology, is three distinct branches of the human family, Caucasian, Negroid and Mongoloid, as one would expect.
It's just a load of second hand postulation copied from www.christiananswers.net!!
And even of you accept John Woodmorappe's view that only 2,000 animals needed to be on the Ark, how on earth do we get to see so such diversity today from such a small number of animals? Are you suggesting they evolved into their different species?!
07 Dec 09
4 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasoh your back, after Zapansy exercised his humongous ego i thought that you had thrown in the towel, never the less I empathise with you, however, please dont tell me what i know and what i dont know, this is my own theory and i have run it past a lecturer in sociology at Glasgow university, Emma Stewart, who thinks that it is viable, oh she just happens to be a member of our congregation in case your usual scepticism gets the better of you, again! perhaps you know of more branches of the human family, other than the three that i have mentioned? perhaps you are also a lecturer in sociology at a university? perhaps you even know the difference between you bum and your elbow?
Don't use science as an argument, robbie, because you don't much of that.
07 Dec 09
Originally posted by josephwbelief in jesus and god is enough. if you are a thinking christian you realize that the message of love and compassion doesn't change, not even barely, if you do or don't believe in the flood. or genesis. or whatever insane thing there is in the bible.
[b]so in your opinion i am not a real christian.
My opinion means nothing.
So tell me sir, what makes you a "real" Christian?[/b]
take jonah's story for example. the one with the whale. are we to believe that an actual whale actually swallowed him? or can the whale stand as a metaphor for something, i dunno, the absence of god that swallows you hole and slowly devours you? if you let go and accept that the bible might actually contain a metaphor or two you realize that you can learn something from jonah;s story without believing there is a whale that eats humans(btw, as far as my knowledge go, no whale can swallow a human. the blue whale eats plancton and krill)
07 Dec 09
Originally posted by josephwyou just said it doesn't make any difference if youre right or wrong?
[b]It only matters that i see you are wrong?
That's not what I meant.
I got the square footage right. And it only matters to me that you see that the dimensions given in the Bible for the Ark do in fact allow for enough space for all the animals necessary to repopulate the earth.[/b]
how can you debate like that? why are you supporting a point that is clearly wrong? why do you need to defend an idea that may not even be so important to jesus? or god?