Jump to content


Photo

Noah Had Two Of Every Kind On The Ark


  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

#21 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 December 2008 - 03:48 PM

Hi Judy,we hope you had a merry christmas.

The bible said Noah spent 120 years building the ark.I'm sure that was plenty of time for him to stock the stalls with food.If you locked a herd of cattle in a barn full of hay would they starve to death?
Thanks.

View Post


Jason,

How do you feel when you're expected to feel embarrassed for the hand of God working through extraordinary situations? The last time I checked Christians aren't bound by naturalistic philosophy. If we were we would have to reject the virgin birth, miracles of Christ and His resurrection as absurd but wait we aren't the ones Heralding a pure naturalistic world so why should we defend our beliefs from the atheist's flawed perspective?

We have a historical, miracle working, prophesy giving, and Word preserving Savior. All of which goes against the normal patterns of this world on purpose to be note worthy and extra-ordinary just like life itself.

I have no doubt that Noah and his family were 100% preserved by the activity and promise of God that Noah placed his faith in as we all should.

Adam

#22 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 26 December 2008 - 04:41 PM

Well, if you're going to invoke the supernatural to account for how Noah accomplished the task given to him by God, why even attempt to show that it's scientifically feasible?

If you say God intervened to help Noah out, this debate is over. You automatically win.

#23 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 December 2008 - 04:59 PM

Well, if you're going to invoke the supernatural to account for how Noah accomplished the task given to him by God, why even attempt to show that it's scientifically feasible?

If you say God intervened to help Noah out, this debate is over.  You automatically win.

View Post


The question is what corresponds with reality? There are normal and miraculous aspects of life. The question is where does the evidence lead? God is a historical God so when He says something happened a certain way we have the opportunity to see what evidence is left and has His Word been faithful.

When He gives the dimensions of a boat and says it was filed with all the kinds of animals. Why not check out what the seating arrangements would have been? Especially, when you have evolutionists screaming that's it's impossible. Well, I think it's awesome that there are Christians rolling up their sleeves saying; Okay how could this have worked?

Why should I feel embarrassed about miracles that can't be tested and demonstrated? Jesus resurrection is circumstantially note worthy (to say the least) because of the circumstances around the early church but since I haven't watched someone personally get raised from the dead should I instantly reject the possibility that it happened?

God has put so much evidence before you that He has done things out of the ordinary to make people take note that you have to willfully ignore His works to say there is no evidence. We just haven't figured it out yet, right? ;)

Even Richard Dawkins says he feels compelled to worship when he examines creation. Why? Could this be by design?

What about the multi-verse theory? It's devised to cover up the problem that even one planet in a universe our size has no probabilistic chance of producing life on it's own. Wow! I would call life on earth a miracle are you going to reject it as an illusion?

#24 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 December 2008 - 05:03 PM

You automatically win.

View Post


If I win it's because I have life through Christ. Yep, God has made Himself so clearly known that He wins every time, it's wonderful being rooted to the Rock of Truth, come home, Sister.

#25 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 26 December 2008 - 05:37 PM

The question is what corresponds with reality? There are normal and miraculous aspects of life. The question is where does the evidence lead? God is a historical God so when He says something happened a certain way we have the opportunity to see what evidence is left and has His Word been faithful.

When He gives the dimensions of a boat and says it was filed with all the kinds of animals. Why not check out what the seating arrangements would have been? Especially, when you have evolutionists screaming that's it's impossible. Well, I think it's awesome that there are Christians rolling up their sleeves saying; Okay how could this have worked?

Why should I feel embarrassed about miracles that can't be tested and demonstrated? Jesus resurrection is circumstantially note worthy (to say the least) because of the circumstances around the early church but since I haven't watched someone personally get raised from the dead should I instantly reject the possibility that it happened?

God has put so much evidence before you that He has done things out of the ordinary to make people take note that you have to willfully ignore His works to say there is no evidence. We just haven't figured it out yet, right? ;)

Even Richard Dawkins says he feels compelled to worship when he examines creation. Why? Could this be by design?

What about the multi-verse theory? It's devised to cover up the problem that even one planet in a universe our size has no probabilistic chance of producing life on it's own. Wow! I would call life on earth a miracle are you going to reject it as an illusion?

View Post


Actually the lack of miracles and supernatural happenings is very comforting to me. I like the fact that I can depend on certain things, and no unusual magical happenings are going to happen today or tomorrow. I like that there are naturalistic explanations for things, and the only big splashy miracles are tall tales that were told in the distant past, and are still believed by some today. Every culture has their miraculous stories. Do you think they are all true? Or do you reserve your gullibility for only the Christian myths?

:P

#26 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 December 2008 - 05:46 PM

Actually the lack of miracles and supernatural happenings is very comforting to me.  I like the fact that I can depend on certain things, and no unusual magical happenings are going to happen today or tomorrow.  I like that there are naturalistic explanations for things, and the only big splashy miracles are tall tales that were told in the distant past, and are still believed by some today.  Every culture has their miraculous stories.  Do you think they are all true?  Or do you reserve your gullibility for only the Christian myths?

;)

View Post


If I'm pushing your buttons put me on your ignore list.

#27 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 26 December 2008 - 05:57 PM

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that you've pushed any of my buttons. Did I sound harsh or contentious? If so, I apologize. I won't put you on ignore, because I'm an evil atheist (pawn of satan) and I'm enjoying our conversation very much indeed.

#28 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 28 December 2008 - 08:41 PM

Uh huh you already understand and know the definition of the word kind.  Don't beat a dead horse anymore than you possibly need to.

Doggy kind, Horsey Kind, yeah that pretty much explains it with no further questions asked.  We could seperate kinds into hundreds of different groups, doesn't matter because since we don't know the exact animals that were divided into two's then no one can give an exact answer or definition.

Also, if we could give an exact answer we would be giving an absolute truth.  Just like it's an absolute truth that I typed on this computer, therefore any notion that absolute truths do not exist has just been utterly and easily disproven.

View Post


This thread was a type of stump the creationist if you can thread. Judy already knew what the answer would be. And that pretty much sums up the whole thread.


JudyV,

And by the way. Mixing up DNA through breeding is not evolution. Evolution is supposed to be a life form adapting to it's environment. And being able to survive with better traits. If the gene pool for all this already exists, no evolution is required. That is what evolutionists do not like about the meaning of the word kind, and why they poke fun at it. It projects that a gene pool already existed, and it was the breeding and mixing of that pool that was already there, that made all the life forms we currently have.

Example: If a life form already has a gene pool to make up 98% of another type of life form within that kind. And another life form has the other 2% needed. And are compatible to mate. The result would be the another life form within the kind that already exists.

There was no adaptation here. No mutation required. Then if that new life form is compatible with another within it's kind. That process can continue until everything possible has been breeded within that kind.

And because dogs have been breeded that way, and many dogs within the dog kind have emerged. It proves that as long as the gene pool exists. that contains what is needed, it can be done. And no millions of years is needed. But every dog breeded is still a dog, right? Was there any horses or cats, etc... That were the result of human controlled breeding of dogs? Nope. Which means there is a limitation of how far this can go. And that is exactly what we see in every species of life.

And by the way, if you don't believe this is true Judy. Please produce evidence of a kind of animal becoming a totally different kind. If you cannot produce this evidence, then the laws of God's creation are still intact.

Example:
1) Has a human kind ever produced a non-human?
2) Has a dog ever produced a non-dog?
3) Has a bird ever produced a non-bird?
4) Has a reptile ever produced a non-reptile?
5) Has a fish ever produced a non-fish?
6) Has a bug ever produced a non-bug?
7) Has a plant ever produced a non-plant?

etc...

This is what evolution claims happened (anything can produce anything given enought time). But yet no one can produce observable evidence of the actual process. But yet breeding can produce all that we see, and it's provable through dog breeding.

Added: Which also means that what creationist believe about how animals breeded to what they are today is actually testable. What you believe about millions of years of evolution is not. Who's evidence is more provable?

#29 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 28 December 2008 - 09:00 PM

Actually the lack of miracles and supernatural happenings is very comforting to me.  I like the fact that I can depend on certain things, and no unusual magical happenings are going to happen today or tomorrow.  I like that there are naturalistic explanations for things, and the only big splashy miracles are tall tales that were told in the distant past, and are still believed by some today.  Every culture has their miraculous stories.  Do you think they are all true?  Or do you reserve your gullibility for only the Christian myths?

:mellow:

View Post


If there is so much naturalistic evidence and explanations for evolution. Then why is about 90% of every evolution video or movie animation? Animation is not testable evidence that proves anything. And since evolution has to have so much animation, what does that tell you about the natural evidence you claim exists?

Ponder this: If a evolution movie was made on just existing evidence, and no animation. How convincing would it be as each evidence takes about 30 minutes of talk time to tell the story about it that can never be confirmed?

I have taken courses in selling and advertising. And one of the things you learn is that people believe more of what they can "see and hear" than what they can only hear. So if you remove the convincing animation, how weak would evolution become? Very weak. This is because they would realize what the selling point was. Animated fantasy. In fact science promoting evolution has become such a fantasy game, that whole movies promoting the theory are now animated. Now why do you think a theory that has "mountains of evidence" to prove it also needs "mountains of animation"? It's because the actual evidence is not very convincing.

So how many animated movies are now made every year to keep evolution top dog in competing with every other idea? Now take that away, and stop that promotion. How long do you think evolution theory would survive on it's own merits?

So my challenge, which I know would never happen, is to come up with a new scientific method law that makes it to where all theories have to survive on their own merit with no promotion. Which means:

1) No animated movies talking about things that cannot be observed, and no animating them as "if" they did.
2) Movies made can only use illustrations and pics of actual evidence.

Could evolution survive this way on it's own evidence and merit?

Evolution + animation, does not = a proven theory.

#30 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 28 December 2008 - 09:59 PM

This thread was a type of stump the creationist if you can thread. Judy already knew what the answer would be. And that pretty much sums up the whole thread.
JudyV,

View Post

And what's really funny here? I'll tell ya.

The evolutionists are in a bind. They'd dearly love to issue "official" misdefinitions of 'kind', as they've done with 'evolution', 'mutation', 'species', and every other term that catches their eye. But in order to do this, they'd have to adopt the term. :mellow:

#31 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 29 December 2008 - 06:00 AM

Ikester,

You do realize, that during most of Darwin's life and for years afterward, there were no movies at all, let alone animated movies. The ToE was disseminated without the benefit of any CG characters or moving pictures of any kind! Amazing isn't it? So if we removed all the movies out there (and there are many, I'll grant you that) about evolution, all the youtube videos, even got rid of the internet and television and radio and all electronic media of any kind, we'd still have a very powerful medium that you and other creationist might want to check out sometime. They're called "books."

Now, these powerful and subversive objects, known as "books," have been around for centuries. You yourself probably are aware of one of these, it's called the Bible. Well, many people are even so afraid of books that they want to burn some of them, or prohibit their children from reading them.

That's because books are full of ideas, ideas that can pose powerful challenges to the mythology contained in the one book you're probably familiar with (the Bible). People are afraid that if their children get exposed to these alternate ideas, they will no longer believe that their parents' favorite book is true.

Now, to get back on track, does anyone have a definition for the word "kind?" Or will you just continue to tell me that scientists can't define the word "species?"

Here's a pretty good definition, from the dictionary:

spe⋅cies   /ˈspiʃiz, -siz/ Show Spelled Pronunciation  [spee-sheez, -seez] Show IPA Pronunciation 
noun, plural -cies, adjective
–noun 1. a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind.
2. Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.


Sometimes, just like we would expect through evolution, two animals we think are different species are really the same species. For instance, I think it's fascinating that for all intents and purposes, dogs, wolves, and coyotes are the same species. Coyotes and wolves can and do produce fertile offspring, as do wolves and domesticated dogs. This shows me that these three "species" went their separate ways fairly recently.

Some other interesting facts are that lions and tigers can produce fertile offspring, while donkeys and horses can produce offspring that, while healthy, are infertile.

So really, Noah could have taken a pair of wolves on the ark, and from them could have developed coyotes and domestic dogs. Maybe he could have taken one pair of wild horses, and from them donkeys and zebras could have micro-evolved.

But even with these concessions, there would have had to be thousands of pairs of animals being husbanded by a mere handful of people. Sorry, but I remain quite skeptical and incredulous.

Oh, unless you want to invoke miracles, in which case, I got nothing.

:mellow:

#32 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 29 December 2008 - 06:06 AM

Example:
1) Has a human kind ever produced a non-human?
2) Has a dog ever produced a non-dog?
3) Has a bird ever produced a non-bird?
4) Has a reptile ever produced a non-reptile?
5) Has a fish ever produced a non-fish?
6) Has a bug ever produced a non-bug?
7) Has a plant ever produced a non-plant?

etc...

This is what evolution claims happened (anything can produce anything given enought time). But yet no one can produce observable evidence of the actual process. But yet breeding can produce all that we see, and it's provable through dog breeding.

View Post


You have said this type of thing is what evolutionists claim happened. From what I've seen, it's merely a nice lie that is bandied about frequently by creationists. I'd be interested to see just one example of an evolutionist claiming that a dog produced a non-dog, or any animal produced any other kind of animal. If you could produce this type of reference, I'd be very interested.

#33 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 29 December 2008 - 07:43 AM

You have said this type of thing is what evolutionists claim happened.  From what I've seen, it's merely a nice lie that is bandied about frequently by creationists.  I'd be interested to see just one example of an evolutionist claiming that a dog produced a non-dog, or any animal produced any other kind of animal.  If you could produce this type of reference, I'd be very interested.

View Post


Please understand Judy that evolution requires that a non-dog evolve into a dog, because it seems to me that you are implying that dogs always existed. Now, are you an evolutionist or a creationist?

Also, if a dog did produce a non-dog then evolution would be verified, but it hasn't. And no it's not a lie, it is an observation.

#34 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 29 December 2008 - 07:51 AM

You have said this type of thing is what evolutionists claim happened.  From what I've seen, it's merely a nice lie that is bandied about frequently by creationists.  I'd be interested to see just one example of an evolutionist claiming that a dog produced a non-dog, or any animal produced any other kind of animal.  If you could produce this type of reference, I'd be very interested.

View Post


Punctuated Equilibrium

Posted Image

How come all of the Phylogenetic Trees have just one trunk; gradual or punctuated equilibrium?

Is this fact or fiction? If believed to be true, over billions of years the original organism diversified into everything else. Why are you trying to refute what evolutionists claim to believe?

Evolution teaches that organism 'A' had some magical naturalistic mechanism (time/chance) that allowed it to ultimately become organism 'B' and 'C' and 'D' and etc...

How is God's creation account and the eye-witness account of the flood more miraculous then the evolution construction of origins?

#35 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 29 December 2008 - 08:09 AM

Ikester,

You do realize, that during most of Darwin's life and for years afterward, there were no movies at all, let alone animated movies.  The ToE was disseminated without the benefit of any CG characters or moving pictures of any kind!  Amazing isn't it?  So if we removed all the movies out there (and there are many, I'll grant you that) about evolution, all the youtube videos, even got rid of the internet and television and radio and all electronic media of any kind, we'd still have a very powerful medium that you and other creationist might want to check out sometime.  They're called "books."

Now, these powerful and subversive objects, known as "books," have been around for centuries.  You yourself probably are aware of one of these, it's called the Bible.  Well, many people are even so afraid of books that they want to burn some of them, or prohibit their children from reading them.

That's because books are full of ideas, ideas that can pose powerful challenges to the mythology contained in the one book you're probably familiar with (the Bible).  People are afraid that if their children get exposed to these alternate ideas, they will no longer believe that their parents' favorite book is true.

Now, to get back on track, does anyone have a definition for the word "kind?"  Or will you just continue to tell me that scientists can't define the word "species?"

Here's a pretty good definition, from the dictionary:
Sometimes, just like we would expect through evolution, two animals we think are different species are really the same species.  For instance, I think it's fascinating that for all intents and purposes, dogs, wolves, and coyotes are the same species.  Coyotes and wolves can and do produce fertile offspring, as do wolves and domesticated dogs.  This shows me that these three "species" went their separate ways fairly recently.

Some other interesting facts are that lions and tigers can produce fertile offspring, while donkeys and horses can produce offspring that, while healthy, are infertile.

So really, Noah could have taken a pair of wolves on the ark, and from them could have developed coyotes and domestic dogs. Maybe he could have taken one pair of wild horses, and from them donkeys and zebras could have micro-evolved.

But even with these concessions, there would have had to be thousands of pairs of animals being husbanded by a mere handful of people.  Sorry, but I remain quite skeptical and incredulous.

Oh, unless you want to invoke miracles, in which case, I got nothing.

:mellow:

View Post


If you notice, it's the Bible that people have been trying to burn and completely irradicate for hundreds of years. The Romans tried, failed, they all converted. Hitler tried, failed.

Also if you notice the word species is usually substituted for the word kind. The word kind can be used in place of the word species. Most evolutionist give me the impression that they want the word kind irradicated from the English language. Most Scientist have a hard time defining which animal is a different species or not. Creationist just use the word kind in place of the word species. It's just common knowledge.

You can label a Ford a different Kind of car, than a GM. A sportscar is a different kind of vehicle than a truck. I get the feeling that you already understand, but are unwilling to admit it.

And no their would not have to be thousands of pairs of animals on the ark. Quite frankly you can set up an extremely easy experiment with a set of small plastic toy animals of every kind on your kitchen table. You probably wouldn't even fill the entire table with modern animals, so you will have to add all the dinosaur kinds with it too.

#36 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 29 December 2008 - 10:12 AM

Basically are you saying that Noah took two of the kitty cat kind, two of the doggie kind, two of the horsey kind, two of the froggie kind, etc. on the ark, and over a mere 4000 years, all of the different species of kitty cats, doggies, horsies, froggies etc. have evolved?

View Post


So, basically you’re saying that you don’t believe it, not that you have any refuting evidence (and you weren’t there to refute it yourself), but that you simply do not want to believe it…. Is that correct?

#37 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 29 December 2008 - 10:31 AM

You have said this type of thing is what evolutionists claim happened.  From what I've seen, it's merely a nice lie that is bandied about frequently by creationists.  I'd be interested to see just one example of an evolutionist claiming that a dog produced a non-dog, or any animal produced any other kind of animal.  If you could produce this type of reference, I'd be very interested.

View Post


Exceedingly simple request Judy… Evolutionists believe everything evolved from some primordial ooze correct? And that’s not any kind of dog is it? Evolutionists believe all land animals subsequently evolved from some aquatic animal or something isn’t that correct? And that’s not any kind of dog is it? So, basically, given just the two examples (one more than you asked for) you're denying that primordial ooze produced a dog? If that’s what you’re saying, you just stood the model of evolution on its collective ear!

Though, I must agree with you… I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist either….

#38 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 29 December 2008 - 11:26 AM

Now, to get back on track, does anyone have a definition for the word "kind?"  Or will you just continue to tell me that scientists can't define the word "species?"

View Post

Any two lifeforms with a common ancestor are the same kind.

View Post

Hmmm. You responded to this post, so it's hard to conclude you overlooked it. Perhaps in your haste to declare victory, you forgot?

#39 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 29 December 2008 - 12:35 PM

Some other interesting facts are that lions and tigers can produce fertile offspring, while donkeys and horses can produce offspring that, while healthy, are infertile.

Usually, but not always.


But even with these concessions, there would have had to be thousands of pairs of animals being husbanded by a mere handful of people.  Sorry, but I remain quite skeptical and incredulous.

Oh, unless you want to invoke miracles, in which case, I got nothing.

:mellow:

View Post

Pride, arrogance, and many decades of evolutionist conditioning allow people to presume Noah did not possess technologies even more advanced than those we know.

From the beginning, Cain's family focused their attention on researching all sorts of things. Cain built a city, which indicates a good number of them lived together, where ideas would be shared. With the lifespans of mankind before the flood, it would be a mighty deep and profound mystery that couldn't be unraveled. A man could take a 300 year break, and still have plenty of time left to tackle a nagging problem. Just look at where technology was 300 years ago, and see how long it takes to implement ideas.

"Ancient man = primitive man" is an Evolutionist supposition. There is a good deal of evidence which indicates it is false. Until there is information about the technology available to Noah's family, it is meaningless to discuss their capacity. Solomon's stables were claimed to be "a logistical impossibility" until they were found, and it turned out the "primitive" Isrealites were a little more clever than scoffers had assumed. The track record of scoffer assumptions is one of total failure in all cases where relevant discoveries have come to light. It requires blind faith in the face of overwhelming evidence to believe they'll ever get one right.

Now I observe that many creationists assume only relatively low levels of technology were available to Noah. This is not the result of evaluation; it is the result of conditioning. I do not claim Noah had amazing gadgetry. I maintain that no presupposition can be made either way with a high degree of confidence, and without sufficient information one cannot argue either way. It's like arguing about the interior of a newly-observed planet orbiting a distant star, or Mrs. Lot's favourite colour - if you don't have anything to go on, either admit that your ideas are conjecture or shut up.

#40 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 December 2008 - 04:34 PM

You have said this type of thing is what evolutionists claim happened.  From what I've seen, it's merely a nice lie that is bandied about frequently by creationists.  I'd be interested to see just one example of an evolutionist claiming that a dog produced a non-dog, or any animal produced any other kind of animal.  If you could produce this type of reference, I'd be very interested.

View Post


We came from chimps, correct?
Reptiles came from fish, correct?
Cows came from whales. correct?

Whales do have these little bones on the bottom back side that supposetly made it walk upon land, right? Then some how it decided that water was better so it took a swim and never came back.

Now I'm not saying that with sarcasm. I saying it this way because to me it just sounds just as silly as you would claim creation does.

Fact about evolution claims:
1) All life came from the primordial soup.
2) All life went through several changes.
3) All life was some thing else before it became it's final product that we now observe.
4) All DNA was written during the full process of time that evolution took.
5) All life took millions of years to get to what we currently see.

Now what part did I lie about?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users