Good reason to be an atheist?(moved from Christian Appologetics)

[Rasta]

What wouldve happened to all the fresh water fish? That said, what about all the plant life? How about the meat requirements for all the carnivores, where did that come from?

Not to mention certain animals like the Koala require a special diet, in this case; eucalyptus leaves.

 

[PT Calvinist]

I find it highly unlikely that it happened at all. There are so many problems with the whole story, it doesn't make sense.

Modern shipbuilders would have a hard time making a boat that big out of wood, using modern technology like iron or steel as reinforcement. There was such a ship that was built in 1909 called the Wyoming. It didn't do well in heavy seas, sank, and killed all on board. This boat needed pumps to constantly pump out the water due to the stress the shifting seas have on wooden boats. Using steam engines, they were able to use a small crew of 11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_(schooner)

Now Noah, if he existed, was supposed to have lived in the Bronze age. No steam engines, no steel, no iron. Only copper, bronze, wood, pitch and four sons.

Modern shipbuilding takes years. It would have taken much longer for only five people, who don't have access to modern techniques or modern tools. Just gathering the materials would have taken years, not to mention building it. Not to mention gathering all of the animals from the North American prairie dog, to the antarctic penguin, from the Australian Koala, to Komodo Dragon.

It's so implausible.

We haven't even talked about the geological record.

This was already debunked by "The Quest for Noah's Ark" Documentary
The Quest for Noah's Ark > Overview - AllMovie

 

[PT Calvinist]

Also Rasta...You must take into consideration the possibility of how ages beforehand...in the times of Noah...There were ancestries of the animals we have now. So instead of taking in all species of Dog. They only took 2 common ancestries of Dog. So on and so forth

 

[Rasta]

This was already debunked by "The Quest for Noah's Ark" Documentary
The Quest for Noah's Ark > Overview - AllMovie

Man. I could have been lazy and just copied a link that debunks the Flood myth.

Why don't you use your own brain and tell me which arguments you find compelling and why?

 

[Isambard]

This was already debunked by "The Quest for Noah's Ark" Documentary
The Quest for Noah's Ark > Overview - AllMovie

"In April businessman and Christian activist Daniel McGivern announced with great fanfare a planned summer expedition to Mount Ararat in Turkey. The project, he said, would prove that the fabled Noah's ark was buried there. "
"Arslan was involved in a 1993 documentary, aired on CBS television, which claimed to have found the ark. Some of the evidence presented in that documentary turned out to be a hoax, raising concerns about Arslan's testimony. "
Noah's Ark Quest Dead in Water -- Was It a Stunt?

 

[Rasta]

Also Rasta...You must take into consideration the possibility of how ages beforehand...in the times of Noah...There were ancestries of the animals we have now. So instead of taking in all species of Dog. They only took 2 common ancestries of Dog. So on and so forth

Domesticated animals are the only ones that apply to that line of thought. How did Noah get the polar bear, penguines, walruses from the arctic?

How do you explain the diversity of species we see in rainforests? How about the diversity of plant life?

How about species that were just discovered this year?

 

[PT Calvinist]

"In April businessman and Christian activist Daniel McGivern announced with great fanfare a planned summer expedition to Mount Ararat in Turkey. The project, he said, would prove that the fabled Noah's ark was buried there. "
"Arslan was involved in a 1993 documentary, aired on CBS television, which claimed to have found the ark. Some of the evidence presented in that documentary turned out to be a hoax, raising concerns about Arslan's testimony. "
Noah's Ark Quest Dead in Water -- Was It a Stunt?

Interesting..I'll take that into conisderation..

I noticed your cite said "Some of the evidence presented in that documentary turned out to be a hoax"
It may have lost it's reliability. though the scientists showing how the flood is logical hasn't been labeled as a hoax...

 

[Isambard]

Domesticated animals are the only ones that apply to that line of thought. How did Noah get the polar bear, penguines, walruses from the arctic?

How do you explain the diversity of species we see in rainforests? How about the diversity of plant life?

How about species that were just discovered this year?

^Or ones created by man.

 

[Rasta]

Interesting..I'll take that into conisderation..

I noticed your cite said "Some of the evidence presented in that documentary turned out to be a hoax"
It may have lost it's reliability. though the scientists showing how the flood is logical hasn't been labeled as a hoax...

Name one scientist who publishes anything supporting the flood myth which has been peer reviewed.

 

[Isambard]

Interesting..I'll take that into conisderation..

I noticed your cite said "Some of the evidence presented in that documentary turned out to be a hoax"
It may have lost it's reliability. though the scientists showing how the flood is logical hasn't been labeled as a hoax...

Well....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

I find this highly ironic given your absolutely horrid butchering of the english language.


Prove it. I expect this another reply you'll conveniantly ignore in favour of espousing more nonesense.


Awsome. So no evidence is good enough to convince you I see.


You've never been to a beach have you? Your reply demonstrates the fail that is your vision.


I understand Creationism perfectly. Every reply is a variation of "Goddunit!"

Here is a visual representation

Why do I need to prove anything? You clearly stated through your logical reasoning that you do know anything about the inconsistency of Evolution. You clearly also stated to me that your illogical reasoning that you do not see the point I am getting across, I do not have to prove anything because once you get the point I posted you will see I have already proved it without your consent. I answer not a fool according to his folly. You know what verses in the bible i think of when I talk to evolutionists? Proverbs 14:12, 2 Peter 3:3-7, Psalm 14:1, and Romans 1:18-20.

I am not the one who needs to be convinced because we all have the same evidence, the same universe, the same plants, same animals, same fossils, same everything. The only thing different is the way we interpret these things, in which that are according to our pertaining worldviews. It is Evolution vs. Creation, so one of them has to be wrong, and It is evolution. How do I know this? It is through the Bible, and through the things that evolutionists are ignorant of. The take for granted of the preconditions of intelligibility from the biblical creation worldview to make their point across to show evolution to be true, well for evolution to be true, it has to be false therefore it is false. Evolution is inconsistent within their own belief system and do not even know that they are inconsistent. Evolution cannot give a rational internally consistent explanation for their beliefs in such claims they make, because there is no basis of there foundations.

To say that there are people with hair all over their bodies does not mean we are products of evolution. I mean give a rational explanation while being consistent to show us why you believe such claims.

You do not know anything about Creationism, and here is why. If a person has accepted the gift of Salvation JESUS, then He/She gains knwoledge of things that He/She would not normally, they grow in the word of GOD, and gain wisdom and instruction that only GOD' children can know, therefore Evolutionists are excluded from this category and know nothing about creation like creationists do. But the Creationist(s) can put on evolutionary glasses and see how evolutionists interpret evidence and see problems with it because we do not have to accept it literally but we can hypothetically, because Evolution has no rational explanations for their beliefs on which they claim to be the truth that has no basis on the foundations of evolution.

 

[PT Calvinist]

Domesticated animals are the only ones that apply to that line of thought. How did Noah get the polar bear, penguines, walruses from the arctic?

How do you explain the diversity of species we see in rainforests? How about the diversity of plant life?

How about species that were just discovered this year?

!.) I take it you haven't gotten into taxonomy much...it dosen't just apply to domesticated animals, each animal has a common ancestry. Science shows this. Like "ursus" with bears. Only 2 pair of the common ancestry at the time were taken in. Though it is not really known exactly what is meant by a biblical kind, it is generally considered to be animals that are fertile within their own groups. Any dog can breed with any dog, therefore, dogs are one kind. It would only be necessary to bring representatives of each kind since the parents could produce offspring that would carry the genetic information for all variations within their kind.
I'm not familiar with the ocmmon ancestry of penguins..so I don't know.

3.) as for how the animals got to the Ark...Specialists in animal behavior have noted that animals can sense danger and have often migrated to escape it. Perhaps God used their migratory instincts to get them to the Ark.

2.) Evolution, speciation, natural selection.

3.) This is hard...So far all we can do is say that these organisms (plants) were preserved in various ways outside the Ark through the flood.

 

[PT Calvinist]

Name one scientist who publishes anything supporting the flood myth which has been peer reviewed.

I was reffering to the scientists in the documentary...

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Domesticated animals are the only ones that apply to that line of thought. How did Noah get the polar bear, penguines, walruses from the arctic?

How do you explain the diversity of species we see in rainforests? How about the diversity of plant life?

How about species that were just discovered this year?

haha, and you think that a Random chance first single celled organism did, haha.

 

[Isambard]

haha, and you think that a Random chance first single celled organism did, haha.

Given that your reply had nothing to do with what he was talking about, you deserve this acknowledgement.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Given that your reply had nothing to do with what he was talking about, you deserve this acknowledgement.

Oooookkkkaaaayyyyyyy. Whatever. ?!? That was senseless. Yes it did make sesne he wondered how polar bears and stuff got from the polar regions, and things, Well How did they get to the polar regions in the first place? According to you all, A random chance chemical reaction that created a first single celled organism and everything we see today evolved from it, lol, Yeah very logical haha.

 

[Isambard]

Why do I need to prove anything?

Because you are the one who said you could substantiate your points.

You clearly stated through your logical reasoning that you do know anything about the inconsistency of Evolution.

Right, because there isn't any.

You clearly also stated to me that your illogical reasoning that you do not see the point I am getting across, I do not have to prove anything because once you get the point I posted you will see I have already proved it without your consent. I answer not a fool according to his folly. You know what verses in the bible i think of when I talk to evolutionists? Proverbs 14:12, 2 Peter 3:3-7, Psalm 14:1, and Romans 1:18-20.

I got your "point". My reply is that its stupid, especially considering I've throughly debunked it numerous times now, its just you consistently choose to ignore those replies out of your own phobia of facts.

I am not the one who needs to be convinced because we all have the same evidence, the same universe, the same plants, same animals, same fossils, same everything. The only thing different is the way we interpret these things, in which that are according to our pertaining worldviews.

Very true. My worldview doesn't include unicorns, dragons, and magic as the explaination for everything.

It is Evolution vs. Creation, so one of them has to be wrong, and It is evolution. How do I know this? It is through the Bible, and through the things that evolutionists are ignorant of. The take for granted of the preconditions of intelligibility from the biblical creation worldview to make their point across to show evolution to be true, well for evolution to be true, it has to be false therefore it is false. Evolution is inconsistent within their own belief system and do not even know that they are inconsistent. Evolution cannot give a rational internally consistent explanation for their beliefs in such claims they make, because there is no basis of there foundations.

Shame neither the scientific community, nor the courts agree with you as both have publically declared Creationism as pseudo-scientific nonesense.

To say that there are people with hair all over their bodies does not mean we are products of evolution. I mean give a rational explanation while being consistent to show us why you believe such claims.

No, it shows you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Mission accomplished.

You do not know anything about Creationism, and here is why. If a person has accepted the gift of Salvation JESUS, then He/She gains knwoledge of things that He/She would not normally, they grow in the word of GOD, and gain wisdom and instruction that only GOD' children can know, therefore Evolutionists are excluded from this category and know nothing about creation like creationists do. But the Creationist(s) can put on evolutionary glasses and see how evolutionists interpret evidence and see problems with it because we do not have to accept it literally but we can hypothetically, because Evolution has no rational explanations for their beliefs on which they claim to be the truth that has no basis on the foundations of evolution.

*Already addressed in previous posts you ignored*

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Because you are the one who said you could substantiate your points.


Right, because there isn't any.


I got your "point". My reply is that its stupid, especially considering I've throughly debunked it numerous times now, its just you consistently choose to ignore those replies out of your own phobia of facts.


Very true. My worldview doesn't include unicorns, dragons, and magic as the explanation for everything.


Shame neither the scientific community, nor the courts agree with you as both have publically declared Creationism as pseudo-scientific nonesense.


No, it shows you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Mission accomplished.



*Already addressed in previous posts you ignored*

"Right, because there isn't any."

This is the biggest fallacy that evolutionists do not see and will not see, according to your next statement as followed.

You said you have debunked my point, well no you have not. You talked about that judge/criminal thing, that did not in any way, shape or form debunk my point nor did you get it. You said you get it but you do not get it because of 2 Peter 3:3-7 - which says you all are willingly ignorant. As I have stated in my previous post. But you again did not get my points in there because of such illogical reasoning.

Wrong. The Bible does not have unicorns, magic, or dragons. This again is a fallacy of presumptions.

Again with statements I have made you have not answered my question. Again it seems as though you do not have a reasonable answer, which you can conclude that by this you are being Arbitrary. In which evolution is arbitrary within its own claims.

Again as your statements go on, you have not answered my questions because you are being arbitrary.

And whatever that picture was for, that was just childish.

 

[Rasta]

I take it you haven't gotten into taxonomy much...it dosen't just apply to domesticated animals, each animal has a common ancestry. Science shows this. Like "ursus" with bears. Only 2 pair of the common ancestry at the time were taken in. Though it is not really known exactly what is meant by a biblical kind, it is generally considered to be animals that are fertile within their own groups. Any dog can breed with any dog, therefore, dogs are one kind. It would only be necessary to bring representatives of each kind since the parents could produce offspring that would carry the genetic information for all variations within their kind.
I'm not familiar with the ocmmon ancestry of penguins..so I don't know.

I'm not familiar with taxonomy? Teach me then, when did the bear split between the currently known species. How about the walrus?

3.) as for how the animals got to the Ark...Specialists in animal behavior have noted that animals can sense danger and have often migrated to escape it. Perhaps God used their migratory instincts to get them to the Ark.

What? Name a scientist who believes that.

2.) Evolution, speciation, natural selection.

So you do believe in evolution?

3.) This is hard...So far all we can do is say that these organisms (plants) were preserved in various ways outside the Ark through the flood.

Yeah, exactly. When you don't have access to knowledge, you have to make up an answer in order for the facts of reality to fit into your preconcieved notions.

 

[Rasta]

haha, and you think that a Random chance first single celled organism did, haha.

Is this an argument? Or just an emotional response lashing out due to a lack of knowledge? It's readily apparent, you have no clue what you speak of.