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
Proof? I'm almost sort of a little disappointed to let you down and give you some proof.
I'm excited, I like learning new things.
Mind you the link leads (and is just here) so that you know that I'm not making it up. and really, if they can get up there that would use had to have been allot of water that couldn't just be secluded to a local flood.
And now I'm disappointed. Did you even read that, or look it up at all?
The definition of species is still very much debated on about, besides taxonimical units like genus and family are hardly even used anymore; we just speak of taxa for each group, because one genus might not necessarily be taxonomically homogenous with others. So debating using such arguments is a bit nonsensical...
Besides, even if one would reduce the amounts of "kinds" of animals to the apparently biblical idea (which sounds more like a defensive "But!" to me), the amount of individuals one would have to take on board just to make sure the species could survive at all, would be too **** high even for the biggest boat (taking into account genetics, incest, bottlenecks, plus all the food needed etc. etc.).
Lastly, the marine ecosystems can be very sensible; disregarding the fact that the mix of fresh water and salty water would kill most freshwater species, the raise in water height would have killed ALL of the corals due to lack of sunlight, and all the animals dependent on corals too. Lastly all oceanic streams would have been completely thrown off balance which would certainly not have been without effect, e.g. nutricients might not have been able to reach the surface anymore (no coastline, duh!).
I'm sorry, you can argue as much as you want, the story of Noahs ark cannot be true. Extended floods certainly happened, but they certainly were accompagnied with the necessary consequences.
But what am I telling, you're not even arguing. You're copy-pasting and then copy-paste more completely ignoring any counterpoint, so that I've written my post completely in vain, YEY!
Adding on to the extensive list of how Noah's Ark is simply false, the amount of water that would be needed to cover the entire world would be many times the amount of water on the planet. Also, it would all have to be in the atmosphere for it to rain that much, and it would have to come down at a rate many, many, many times greater than even the most severe hurricane rainstorms, all over the planet at once.
Mind you the link leads (and is just here) so that you know that I'm not making it up. and really, if they can get up there that would use had to have been allot of water that couldn't just be secluded to a local flood.
Seriously? A yahoo or w/e question, in which the user likes the Noah's Flood answer best, is your "roof?" It's explained in the very first post below that.
Google is your friend. Just do a simple google search and find that nobody is asking is it actually true because it's established as a fact.
Humor us and give us an actual article that proves Noah's flood. Stop just groundlessly claiming that there's evidence and that we can find it and just give it to us.
Want an example of what you're doing?
Person 1: Aliens exist. Person 2: I don't think they do. Person 1: The evidence is everywhere man. Person 2: What evidence is that? Person 1: It's everywhere, just look for it. Person 2: But what is it? Person 1: Look, I don't need to tell you, just look for it. Aliens are fact. Person 2: If there's evidence, why can't you just tell me what it is? Person 1: I'm done with this conversation.
^Is what happens EVERY time I ask proof for religious claims, except not with aliens.
Basically pseudo-logicing that because the first article I linked said it was a local flood it can't be Noah's Ark, gets some scientific things wrong and then dismisses the whole thing because it didn't exactly follow scripture.
National Geographic article about how the biblical flood was most likely not global.
Not proof for a global flood.
Tell me, how far are we supposed to look to find proof, since it's supposed to be everywhere like you say? All I can find is a bunch of articles either trying to rationalize it, or articles that don't understand what science is, how it works, and what it claims.
And most of it is about judism. The real bible is about the story of the hebrews, there story and origins. It has a full book full with rules, who apwarently got dissmised by jesus, exept some others. Being Gay is still wrong, but eating pig is ok. Counting the days from the "creation of earth" is not relevant, but from the birth of jesus is ok.
I just hate when christians use the bible (the jewish bible) as proof for jesus being real. They just pick what they like and drop what will make it harder to make new belivers.
No I mean super evolution. Simple selective breeding doesn't get you speciation., that's a product of evolution. Given you have shortened the time frame from several billion years to several thousand we would have to seen evolution taking place at an unprecedented rate.
Mind you the link leads (and is just here) so that you know that I'm not making it up. and really, if they can get up there that would use had to have been allot of water that couldn't just be secluded to a local flood.
From your own source.
"Mountains form due to plate tectonics. They are literally the result of the earth being pushed upwards and together, like creases in the earth's surface. Take a piece of cloth, grab either side of it lengthwise and start pushing them together -- now imagine that same process happening in the earth's plates. Fossils that were buried on the ocean floor were shifted along with the rock, and locked in place when the mud from the floor of the ocean condensed into rock.
Once again, this is not proof of a global flood. Fossils couldn't find their way into solid rock unless they've been there for millions of years, not several thousand. The fossils were already present before Everest came to its full size and position. There is absolutely no way that they could have have been embedded in the rock after it formed, even if there had been a global flood."
Given you have shortened the time frame from several billion years to several thousand we would have to seen evolution taking place at an unprecedented rate.
At this point we can jump into the saltatorism vs. gradualism debate, never to come out of it again ^^ Though this might be one of those cases where both are right in some way.. at least it seems 8my were enough for a complete marine ecosystem to evolve after the end-permian extinction events (link). Of course, there's still a huge difference between 8my and a few thousand years...
At this point we can jump into the saltatorism vs. gradualism debate, never to come out of it again ^^ Though this might be one of those cases where both are right in some way.. at least it seems 8my were enough for a complete marine ecosystem to evolve after the end-permian extinction events (link). Of course, there's still a huge difference between 8my and a few thousand years...
I doubt it's one or the other. I would also expect abrupt transformation to occur if the Earth underwent a global flood. We would see new ecosystem form in a relatively short period of time. However this still couldn't account for the amount of diverse species we have without having more time. Given what we have seen from things like nylonase and the Italian wall lizards this process of rapid evolution takes about 35-50 years. in 4,000 years that could allow for only having a little over 100 species per. That would also require the process to be continuous and not hit a point of stasis.
But as you stated even one of our better examples of an entire ecosystem developing still required millions of years.
Well, since things have slowed down a bit, I'd like to hear an explanation from Christians and others who follow the Abrahamic God for why He kills a baby (context). Unlike most deaths in the bible that God either directly causes or commands against those who are evil/disobedient/blasphemers/sinners, this child was entirely innocent.
This response was prompted by thebluerabbit's post in a different thread...
I always love how theists simply...assume, that whatever god there may be is one that is benevolent, kind, fair, or whatever. Else. HAVE YOU EVER READ ANY SORT OF THEOLOGICAL TEXT? Almost ALL of them, in nearly EVERY story, are about humans being punished by gods. Most of the time, for petty reasons, or for things gods did to one another.
How do you know that your god is loving/fair/kind? Because some book tells you so? I think I would read that book again and see exactly what it is your god does, because the word "loving" certainly doesn't spring to mind when I look at the bible. Bloodthirsty, Fickle, Murderer, Instigator, Dictator, Narcissistic, and more certainly leap out, but not Kind, Loving, Thoughtful, Benevolent, Savior, or anything of the sort.
