I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done. I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please
I see your Epicurus and raise you a Suzumiya Haruhi. I've never liked this argument. It presumes too much on the assertion that any god would be all of what's mentioned, but possibly not any of what isn't. For example, the god/(ess) could just be unaware of his/her own powers, not realizing what he/she could possibly be doing, just like everyone's favorite genki reality-warping schoolgirl.
Trying to get back on topic as is desired here (let's say this was my plan from the beginning, OK?), this is a problem practically omnipresent in theism. It always tries to find new ways to assert its own proof, ignoring the most important negative corollary to that: the simple question "How can I be wrong?"
to all the people saying "the bible says god created the sun, moon, and planets, but science says that gravitational forces and bla bla bla." well I think that God made the sun happen with its own gravitational forces. So in a way, he did what both the atheists and the Christians say.
(this is only like my 2nd time in the WEPR, so cut me some slack, please.)
well I think that God made the sun happen with its own gravitational forces. So in a way, he did what both the atheists and the Christians say.
Then why does the book have it in the wrong order for that to happen? The sun doesn't come until Gen 1:14-15, while the earth, covered in water and containing plants, was there much earlier.
I see your Epicurus and raise you a Suzumiya Haruhi. I've never liked this argument. It presumes too much on the assertion that any god would be all of what's mentioned, but possibly not any of what isn't.
I guess, though I don't know, that Epicurus specifically meant the christian god with this argument. In which case his point stands.
The sun doesn't come until Gen 1:14-15, while the earth, covered in water and containing plants, was there much earlier.
... weren't you the one correcting me although I was saying exactly that? Or maybe I said light instead of sun or sumfing..
but if it's to hot for water to be steam. then what is it?
Mercury has almost no atmosphere so any water vapor would just burn off into space.
and what makes this "further then steam" thingy stay on the planet that it will freeze again on the dark side?
It just stays frozen on the dark side. What could result in liquid water on Mercury is heat seeping over from the bright side to the dark side and "in between" point between the two sides.
It always tries to find new ways to assert its own proof, ignoring the most important negative corollary to that: the simple question "How can I be wrong?"
Many religions it's considered wrong to even consider you might be wrong.
to all the people saying "the bible says god created the sun, moon, and planets, but science says that gravitational forces and bla bla bla." well I think that God made the sun happen with its own gravitational forces. So in a way, he did what both the atheists and the Christians say.
What made God necessary for that process? If these forces existed they would be capable of interesting in such a way regardless.
Satan. Christians believe that Satan is a perfectly evil being, and God is perfectly good, and that they are constantly battling one another. in something similar to "unstoppable force meets immovable object."
Except there's quite a few fails in logic with this.
God created Satan. God is supposedly stronger than Satan. Satan was supposed to follow God, which means God screwed up. God isn't supposed to make mistakes. God is all powerful and could defeat Satan whenever he wanted, thus he's allowing Satan to corrupt people, meaning he wants those people to be corrupt. God wanted Satan to be evil and that's why he made him how he did.
i have to agree with kasic it makes no sense it is just one big circle god creates saten saten betrays him saten banished 2 hell saten corrupts people they go to hell then when the seven seals are broken the war begins in which god prevails but if god is allready going to win why does there need to be a war which means there is no point to saten and if god has no enemy than there isnt a point to the bible because everyone will be good so there is no point to creation if god could just make it perfect whenever he wanted so he wants us to suffer or b challenged as you may say it
I'm not here to stay, I'm just here to clear up all of that confusion about the flood and the ark (confusion that could have easily been resolved with a google search).
Was the ark big enough? How we're the animals supposed to have been fed?
No one is disputing that such a boat would be big, nor that it would have likely been the largest boat of the time.
There simply is not enough space in the ark for two of every animal, Noah's family, food and disposal of waste for them all which would last 40 days. They would have died of disease, starvation, killed each other, or been so smashed in there they would break the boat (not including water, since if it's raining constantly for 40 days you wouldn't need to store any...).
And that's just -one- aspect of what's wrong with Noah's Ark. That story is probably the most ridiculous story in the Bible. It makes so many exact claims and there's direct contradictory evidence to each and every one at every turn.
The word species and the Biblical word "kind" are often used interchangeably. This is incorrect since they are not synonymous. The Biblical word kind denotes an organism that reproduces others like itself. The species concept is much narrower than this; therefore many species can be included in a single Biblical "kind." The word kind is probably closer to the modern taxonomic unit of genus, and in some cases the larger taxonomic unit, family.
First off this is incredibly vague and seems to indicate the writer having no friggin idea what these classifications mean. But let's just say for the sake of argument that "kind" is equivalent to genus, that still means packing roughly 37,000 different "kinds" on the ark. Of course since these "kinds" would then have to speciate to get what we have today would mean some sort of super evolution taking place. Something that would be further made unlikely by the extremely low genetic diversity that only two of each "kind" (in most cases) would provide.
The following animals could have survived outside the ark (Whitcomb 1998, p.68):
25,000 species of fish
1,700 tunicates (mane chordates like sea squirts) found throughout the seas
600 echinoderms including star fish and sea urchins
107,000 mollusks such as mussels, clams and oysters
10,000 coelenterates like corals and sea anemones, jelly fish and hydroids
4,000 species of sponges
31,000 protozoan, the microscopic single-celled creatures.
Now we seem to be back to using species as "kind", consistency much?!
At any rate, no, almost all of these would surely die in a global flood due to changes to the water's salinity and pH levels. The only exception might possibly be some of the single celled organisms listed.
Another thing to keep in mind is that Noah and his family would have had to contract every human virus and would have needed to be infested with every human parasite in order for them to exist now.
Let's be conservative and use the figure of 40,000 animals. This allows for extra animals to represent those that have gone extinct and those animals that have not been properly cataloged. This figure of 40,000 animals is 5,000 more than largest previously mentioned numbers. Based on our present understanding of the number of animals this figure should satisfy even the most skeptical.
Closer to 74,000+ This estimate only accounts for the "kinds". we also have to factor in the food. Now a zoo site that lists having 6,000 animals on their blog gives these numbers for a single days feeding.
"The Commissary building boasts a state of the art kitchen that includes commercial-grade appliances and equipment, 540 square feet of freezer space, three walk-in coolers, 2,000 square feet of dry storage, and a 4,000-square-foot hay barn. Despite all the activity, at the end of every day the kitchen is left clean and sparkling."
Using the sites estimate of 40,000 (just to be fair) and given amounts from a zoo to feed 6,000 animals (above) we times this all by 40 days. We come up with a square footage requirement of 1,744,000 just for the food alone. now we can probably figure most of this storage is crated so the 1,744,000 number probably pretty evenly converts over to cubic feet rather nicely. To figure out the cubic footage of this food we would multiply the square footage with it's height. Even if this food was say only 1 foot height we are already over the arks capacity of 1,518,000 cubic feet with the food alone. Add in the animals and we get an ark that would have to be almost twice as big.
It is obvious that when all the facts of the Genesis account of the flood are examined that there is no reason to doubt that the ark could easily have carried its intended cargo.
My response is in the part of the article that you didn't read (sounding like it's the whole article).
Keep saying that it's stupid as they keep finding evidence for the flood. Just watching TV you find so many things that they say are just so weird and unexpected where a Christian says "you're just now figuring that out? We've known that for ages" or that could be answered with a worldwide flood like when scientists unexpectedly find evidences for floods everywhere they go.
Keep saying that it's stupid as they keep finding evidence for the flood.
It would be nice to know what evidence you are referring too, last I knew it all pointed to there not having been a global flood.
[quote]Just watching TV you find so many things that they say are just so weird and unexpected where a Christian says "you're just now figuring that out? We've known that for ages"
Again, and example would be nice. I don't watch as much tv as I used too, but I never encountered this.
[/quote]hat could be answered with a worldwide flood like when scientists unexpectedly find evidences for floods everywhere they go.[quote]
Individual floods, not one massive flood. And so far as I know its not unexpected, since its always near a flood plain or body of water.
Well then, thats not right. The last two parts of my last post should look like this:
Just watching TV you find so many things that they say are just so weird and unexpected where a Christian says "you're just now figuring that out? We've known that for ages"
Again, an example would be nice. I don't watch as much tv as I used too, but I never encountered this.
that could be answered with a worldwide flood like when scientists unexpectedly find evidences for floods everywhere they go.
Individual floods, not one massive flood. And so far as I know its not unexpected, since its always near a flood plain or body of water.
