Do Baptists appear to be intellectually challenged baboons...?

[Hupomone10]

I am certain, however, that teaching that the Bible teaches a theological position that is contrary to the theory of evolution is responsible for million of young people deciding that the Bible is not a reliable source of truth.

I want to share with you that it works the other way also.

I cannot speak for anyone else. But as for me, as an 8th grade young person my faith in God and in the Bible was silenced by a person such as yourself.

I got into a discussion with an engineering student from Ga Institute of Technology whose father was a pastor at a Presbyterian church, both of whom believed the theory of evolution, and tried to defend what I felt the Bible teaches about how things got here, but with no knowledge of creation evidence because this predated the recent evidence and study about Creation from CRI & ICR.

He completely demolished my position, and with it my faith went as well. Not because people taught me the Bible is contrary to the theory of evolution,
but because all I had was a shallow presentation of the Bible and had been taught nothing of the scientific evidence for creation.

I was always scientific-minded and predisposed to believe science anyway. Therefore with no evidence for the Biblical account being accurate, and all the evidence for evolution being accurate, I discarded the backwards narrow-minded view of the Bible. If the Biblical account wasn't accurate and was fables, I couldn't trust the rest.

Maybe you are the type of individual who can believe in a God who created things by matter and energy shaped by pure chance; but I couldn't. At least, it didn't much matter to me then, because if He was indifferent enough about creation that He sovereignly left it to chance and evolution, this indifferent God probably wasn't very concerned about my life either; and I no longer felt accountable to Him.

My faith returned later, but not any confidence in God's creation account. I just figured God did it by evolution. When I was exposed to a talk by a scientist on creation evidence, I realized that there was indeed evidence to support the literal interpretation of the passages on creation, and it strengthened my faith in the Word of God. Because my faith was strengthened in the Word of God taken literally, later in life when I confronted the powerful stronghold of alcoholism I was able to find freedom by applying the Word of God literally to my life. God and His Word did what 6 years of AA was unable to do. At least in part because God strengthened my faith in His Word that what He says, He literally means.

I shared the creation evidence with my two older sons and it strengthened their faith greatly; neither one rejected the Bible account as a story or figurative, because I was able accurately and from an informed position able to defend and refute, something my father was unable to do when I asked him similar questions at age 13.

I am quite certain that Christians' ignorance of the facts supporting creation, and Christians believing theistic evolution, are responsible for million of young people deciding that the Bible is not a reliable source of truth. Your position is the reason I almost missed the kingdom entirely; creationists are not the reason I came to Christ, but are partly responsible for my freedom from strongholds that can destroy.

Blessings,
H.

 

[phoenixdem]

I want to share with you that it works the other way also.

I cannot speak for anyone else. But as for me, as an 8th grade young person my faith in God and in the Bible was silenced by a person such as yourself.

I got into a discussion with an engineering student from Ga Institute of Technology whose father was a pastor at a Presbyterian church, both of whom believed the theory of evolution, and tried to defend what I felt the Bible teaches about how things got here, but with no knowledge of creation evidence because this predated the recent evidence and study about Creation from CRI & ICR.

He completely demolished my position, and with it my faith went as well. Not because people taught me the Bible is contrary to the theory of evolution,
but because all I had was a shallow presentation of the Bible and had been taught nothing of the scientific evidence for creation.

I was always scientific-minded and predisposed to believe science anyway. Therefore with no evidence for the Biblical account being accurate, and all the evidence for evolution being accurate, I discarded the backwards narrow-minded view of the Bible. If the Biblical account wasn't accurate and was fables, I couldn't trust the rest.

Maybe you are the type of individual who can believe in a God who created things by matter and energy shaped by pure chance; but I couldn't. At least, it didn't much matter to me then, because if He was indifferent enough about creation that He sovereignly left it to chance and evolution, this indifferent God probably wasn't very concerned about my life either; and I no longer felt accountable to Him.

My faith returned later, but not any confidence in God's creation account. I just figured God did it by evolution. When I was exposed to a talk by a scientist on creation evidence, I realized that there was indeed evidence to support the literal interpretation of the passages on creation, and it strengthened my faith in the Word of God. Because my faith was strengthened in the Word of God taken literally, later in life when I confronted the powerful stronghold of alcoholism I was able to find freedom by applying the Word of God literally to my life. God and His Word did what 6 years of AA was unable to do. At least in part because God strengthened my faith in His Word that what He says, He literally means.

I shared the creation evidence with my two older sons and it strengthened their faith greatly; neither one rejected the Bible account as a story or figurative, because I was able accurately and from an informed position able to defend and refute, something my father was unable to do when I asked him similar questions at age 13.

I am quite certain that Christians' ignorance of the facts supporting creation, and Christians believing theistic evolution, are responsible for million of young people deciding that the Bible is not a reliable source of truth. Your position is the reason I almost missed the kingdom entirely; creationists are not the reason I came to Christ, but are partly responsible for my freedom from strongholds that can destroy.

Blessings,
H.

There are many attempts by Satan to destroy Christianity and the faith of Christians. But, Christ has an answer to those who attack His gospel.

1 Col

1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will
bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this
world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not
God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them
that believe.

1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock,
and unto the Greeks foolishness;

1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the
power of God, and the wisdom of God.

1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the
weakness of God is stronger than men.

1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after​

the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

 

[miamited]

Hi PG,

Just passing through updating on these threads:

You wrote:
However, the miracle narratives in the New Testament must be taken as literally true narratives, for if taken otherwise, the truth of the deity of Christ is figuratively flushed down the toilet.

Odd, how you can admit to that, which has no scientific foundations, and yet because science has given you some sort of 'reasonable' response to refute the creation, you can not accept the 'miracle' of that event. I suppose if there were a 'reasonable scientific' explanation for how a blind man might be able to gain his vision from some inherent property of mud, we would lose you on that account also.

God bless you and remember that when you say such claims are as made here are impossible, well, that's what God is best at. I know that for myself, I can't speak for anyone else here but I imagine others who are born again will agree, the very hope of my salvation is impossible if based on the 'scientific' reason of men.

Your faithful baboon,
In Christ, Ted

 

[MichaelKelley]

Eve, and then Adam, sinned because they were tempted and allowed themselves to be seduced by the powers of darkness. The consequence is that they were cast out of the garden and lost their immortality. Paul tells us that we sinned in Adam and ultimately die as a consequence. He does not tell us that we inherited a disposition to sin.

In my passage, I am using Adam and Eve in a figurative manner to expound upon Paul's teaching on Rom. 5:12-14. In Paul’s day, the story of Adam and Eve was believed by most of the Jews to be an accurate, literal account of historic events, and Paul used that belief to teach the doctrine of original sin.

So since God is the one who inspired Paul to write what he did (2 Timothy 3:16), are you saying that God used a lie to teach a truth? Last time I checked, Titus 1:2 and Hebrews 6:18 both said that God cannot lie, period. Not even if it's serving to tell a truth, it's still a lie and He cannot do that.

So, Jesus, being God, said in Mark 10:6 that Adam and Eve were made at the beginning of creation, not billions of years after the beginning. So, He either lied (which would make him a man and not God), he didn't know (again would make him only a man), or He was right (God in the Flesh).

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I want to share with you that it works the other way also.

I cannot speak for anyone else. But as for me, as an 8th grade young person my faith in God and in the Bible was silenced by a person such as yourself.

I got into a discussion with an engineering student from Ga Institute of Technology whose father was a pastor at a Presbyterian church, both of whom believed the theory of evolution, and tried to defend what I felt the Bible teaches about how things got here, but with no knowledge of creation evidence because this predated the recent evidence and study about Creation from CRI & ICR.

He completely demolished my position, and with it my faith went as well. Not because people taught me the Bible is contrary to the theory of evolution,
but because all I had was a shallow presentation of the Bible and had been taught nothing of the scientific evidence for creation.

I was always scientific-minded and predisposed to believe science anyway. Therefore with no evidence for the Biblical account being accurate, and all the evidence for evolution being accurate, I discarded the backwards narrow-minded view of the Bible. If the Biblical account wasn't accurate and was fables, I couldn't trust the rest.

Maybe you are the type of individual who can believe in a God who created things by matter and energy shaped by pure chance; but I couldn't. At least, it didn't much matter to me then, because if He was indifferent enough about creation that He sovereignly left it to chance and evolution, this indifferent God probably wasn't very concerned about my life either; and I no longer felt accountable to Him.

My faith returned later, but not any confidence in God's creation account. I just figured God did it by evolution. When I was exposed to a talk by a scientist on creation evidence, I realized that there was indeed evidence to support the literal interpretation of the passages on creation, and it strengthened my faith in the Word of God. Because my faith was strengthened in the Word of God taken literally, later in life when I confronted the powerful stronghold of alcoholism I was able to find freedom by applying the Word of God literally to my life. God and His Word did what 6 years of AA was unable to do. At least in part because God strengthened my faith in His Word that what He says, He literally means.

I shared the creation evidence with my two older sons and it strengthened their faith greatly; neither one rejected the Bible account as a story or figurative, because I was able accurately and from an informed position able to defend and refute, something my father was unable to do when I asked him similar questions at age 13.

I am quite certain that Christians' ignorance of the facts supporting creation, and Christians believing theistic evolution, are responsible for million of young people deciding that the Bible is not a reliable source of truth. Your position is the reason I almost missed the kingdom entirely; creationists are not the reason I came to Christ, but are partly responsible for my freedom from strongholds that can destroy.

Blessings,
H.

I greatly fear for the fate of your two older sons, for it is likely that they will eventually come to realize that the “evidence” that you shared with them was nothing but bogus nonsense that any knowledgeable scientist could very easily refute in a matter of minutes. Why do you suppose it is that over 99.99% of scientists today who have earned at least one Ph.D. believe in the theory of evolution? Do you believe that they are less competent than the very tiny fraction of scientists who disbelieve the theory—who disbelieve the theory because their first loyalty is to their religious conviction that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are an accurate account of historic events? How about the scientists today who are Christians but interpret the first eleven chapters of Genesis from an informed point of view? Not a single one of them interprets the so-called evidence for creation in a manner that supports the theory of young-earth creationism. We have here two groups of scientist who are Christians looking at the very same evidence, and they interpret it differently! Why is this? The creationists interpret the evidence differently because of their religious conviction that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are an accurate account of historic events. That is not science—it is religion! Separate the religion from the science, and you have the unanimous view among scientists, Christian and non-Christian alike, that the earth is at least hundreds of millions of years old, that the theory of evolution is solidly based upon a massive amount of evidence, and that young-earth creationism is a religious point of view that is disproved by science.

Did you simply listen to the so-called evidence for creationism; or did you study the academic papers by thousands of scientists who interpret the “evidence” very differently because they interpret it from science rather than from religion?

I greatly fear for your fate also, for it is likely that your two older sons, when they come to realize that the “evidence” that you shared with them was nothing but bogus nonsense that any knowledgeable scientist could very easily refute in a matter of minutes, they will not only lose their faith in God, but in you!

I beseech you, examine very carefully with much prayer the so-called scientific evidence for creation.


Who can deny that the most common cause, by far, of a crisis in faith among Christian young people today, and even adults, is their being presented with the evidence for an old earth and the theory of evolution? When people are taught in their early years a responsible and academically defensible interpretation of Genesis 1 -11 and the relevant New Testament passages, a crisis of faith upon being taught the theory of evolution becomes an impossibility!

Maybe you are the type of individual who can believe in a God who created things by matter and energy shaped by pure chance; but I couldn't. At least, it didn't much matter to me then, because if He was indifferent enough about creation that He sovereignly left it to chance and evolution, this indifferent God probably wasn't very concerned about my life either; and I no longer felt accountable to Him.

I believe in God the Father who loves you and gave His only begotten Son, that upon your belief in Him, your sins were forgiven and you were given a new life in His Son. I believe in God the Son who loved you and suffered and died, shedding His blood on the cross for your sins, and who has risen from the dead and who loves you today. I believe in God the Holy Spirit who brought to you the good news of the redemptive act of God, and who loves you, and who is always present with you, ministering to your needs.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Did anyone notice that evolution is impossible because it requires death to work and the bible clearly says that the wages of sin is death so the bible rules out evolution?

Perhaps I sound like a baboon. But....square peg.....round hole....

 

[MichaelKelley]

Did anyone notice that evolution is impossible because it requires death to work and the bible clearly says that the wages of sin is death so the bible rules out evolution?

Perhaps I sound like a baboon. But....square peg.....round hole....

Exactly! I posted a video in one of my previous posts and he mentions that. Evolution places death and suffering before humans, and thus, before sin, and the Bible clearly says in Genesis (and Paul writes on it), that MAN BROUGHT DEATH AND SUFFERING INTO THE WORLD THROUGH SIN.

The two are exactly the opposite.

Evolution - Death and suffering brought man into the world.
Christianity - Man brought death and suffering into the world.

It's not a heresy to put millions of years in the Bible, but when those millions of years places death and suffering before man, and thus, before sin, it is then a big heresy.

 

[sealacamp]

PG your responses are inappropriate, condescending, and insulting to those that you speak to. I would appear that you have an agenda to fulfill.

Despite strong pressure to accept evolutionism, many intelligent and experienced scientists either openly or secretly dismiss Evolution as highly unlikely or impossible. In the 1980s, researcher and lecturer David Watson noted an increasing trend that continues today, disturbing those who want evolutionism to be perceived as the accepted scientific consensus:

[FONT=Times, Times New Roman]"…A tidal wave of new books… threaten to shatter that confidence - titles like Darwin Retried (1971), Macbeth; The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), Hitching; The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), Taylor; The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (1984), Fix; Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities (1984), Cohen; Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (1987), Lovtrup; and Adam and Evolution (1984), Pitman. Not one of these books was written from a Christian-apologetic point of view: they are concerned only with scientific truth - as was Sir Ernst Chain when he called evolution 'a fairy tale'."[/FONT] 2
​

As Science Digest reported:
"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science."

Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net

Being so enlightened it should be obvious to you that your percentages came right out of your backside and you are completely ignoring anything that disagrees with your agenda. Frankly I find your statements and stance disturbing, especially since you say you are a follower of Christ yet reject His word, which is actually a rejection of Him since He is the word.

Good luck in finding the truth for yourself. As for me I have already found it and you certainly have no illumination for me at all.

Sealacamp

 

[PrincetonGuy]

So since God is the one who inspired Paul to write what he did (2 Timothy 3:16), are you saying that God used a lie to teach a truth? Last time I checked, Titus 1:2 and Hebrews 6:18 both said that God cannot lie, period. Not even if it's serving to tell a truth, it's still a lie and He cannot do that.

So, Jesus, being God, said in Mark 10:6 that Adam and Eve were made at the beginning of creation, not billions of years after the beginning. So, He either lied (which would make him a man and not God), he didn't know (again would make him only a man), or He was right (God in the Flesh).

Using figures of speech is not lying. We find them being used throughout the Bible to help the readers of the Bible to understand the message.

One further point:

1. There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven--
2. A time to give birth and a time to die; A time to plant and a time to uproot what is planted.
3. A time to kill and a time to heal; A time to tear down and a time to build up.
4. A time to weep and a time to laugh; A time to mourn and a time to dance.
5. A time to throw stones and a time to gather stones; A time to embrace and a time to shun embracing.
6. A time to search and a time to give up as lost; A time to keep and a time to throw away.
7. A time to tear apart and a time to sew together; A time to be silent and a time to speak.
8. A time to love and a time to hate; A time for war and a time for peace. NASB, 1995)

I believe that the author of these words would agree that there is a time to learn, and a time to teach, and that the time to learn precedes the time to teach.

 

[DeaconDean]

Wow!

Some eyes here are being opened.

Good for you sealacamp!

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Exactly! I posted a video in one of my previous posts and he mentions that. Evolution places death and suffering before humans, and thus, before sin, and the Bible clearly says in Genesis (and Paul writes on it), that MAN BROUGHT DEATH AND SUFFERING INTO THE WORLD THROUGH SIN.

The two are exactly the opposite.

Evolution - Death and suffering brought man into the world.
Christianity - Man brought death and suffering into the world.

It's not a heresy to put millions of years in the Bible, but when those millions of years places death and suffering before man, and thus, before sin, it is then a big heresy.

Evolution – The process of natural selection resulted in the evolution of all species known to man, including man.
Contemporary, Biblical Christianity – Genesis 1-11 are not an accurate account of historic events. They are a collection of very early epic tales woven together by God to teach men spiritual truths.

Every single argument from both the Bible and “science” to prove the theory of young-earth creationism is based upon an interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that has been proven to be incorrect. Therefore, the theory of young-earth creationism has NO support from either the Bible or science. The fact that death preceded man is abundantly clear from fossils that pre-date man.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Evolution – The process of natural selection resulted in the evolution of all species known to man, including man.
Contemporary, Biblical Christianity – Genesis 1-11 are not an accurate account of historic events. They are a collection of very early epic tales woven together by God to teach men spiritual truths.

Every single argument from both the Bible and “science” to prove the theory of young-earth creationism is based upon an interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that has been proven to be incorrect. Therefore, the theory of young-earth creationism has NO support from either the Bible or science. The fact that death preceded man is abundantly clear from fossils that pre-date man.

I don't believe that the "fossile records" have been interpreted correctly. I don't believe they know the dating correctly and I don't think they understand who God actually is and that the bible is his word and that he dictated the pentatuach to Moses as a man would speak to a friend.

My authority is the bible. All scientific theories must line up with the explainations God gave us in the bible or they must be discarded as obviosuly incorrect. Anything that contradicts the bible is obviosuly wrong. It cannot be the bible that is wrong because God himself in the person of Jesus Christ said that the scriptures cannot be broken.

John 3:35
35"If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),

 

[MichaelKelley]

Using figures of speech is not lying. We find them being used throughout the Bible to help the readers of the Bible to understand the message.

"All the utterances of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing crooked or perverted in them. They are all STRAIGHTFORWARD TO HIM WHO UNDERSTANDS, and right to those who find knowledge" (Proverbs 8:8-9).

The Word of God is very straightforward. You are clearly leaning on your own understandings, so let me remind you:

"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart and LEAN NOT on your own understandings. In all thy ways acknowledge Him and He shall direct thy paths" (Proverbs 3:5-6).

Don't quote any "science" books. Strip away all of the "science" you're trying to use and show where you get "millions of years" from in the Bible. Don't use your own understanding, but place your trust ONLY in Him. Christians should not place their trust in anything else other than the Word of God. I don't trust anything else, and if I have to place a background on Genesis, I place it on the background of MODERN, REAL SCIENCE.

Here's the testimony of Mark Eastman, who graduated college as a committed evolutionist/atheist and a nurse gave him a 50 cent cassette tape that wiped out an education that cost him $150,000. Below that is REAL SCIENCE by A.E. Wilder-Smith.
Former Atheist/Evolutionist Mark EastmanMODERN, REAL SCIENCE - A.E. Wilder-Smith

 

[PrincetonGuy]

PG your responses are inappropriate, condescending, and insulting to those that you speak to. I would appear that you have an agenda to fulfill.

Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net

Being so enlightened it should be obvious to you that your percentages came right out of your backside and you are completely ignoring anything that disagrees with your agenda. Frankly I find your statements and stance disturbing, especially since you say you are a follower of Christ yet reject His word, which is actually a rejection of Him since He is the word.

Good luck in finding the truth for yourself. As for me I have already found it and you certainly have no illumination for me at all.

Sealacamp

Michael Kelley wrote in his post above that the belief that death preceded man is “a big heresy.” You wrote in the post that I am quoting that I am rejecting both Christ and His word. I do not believe that my honest, fair, and objective refutation of such beliefs is “an inappropriate, condescending, and insulting” response.

Despite strong pressure to accept evolutionism, many intelligent and experienced scientists either openly or secretly dismiss Evolution as highly unlikely or impossible. In the 1980s, researcher and lecturer David Watson noted an increasing trend that continues today, disturbing those who want evolutionism to be perceived as the accepted scientific consensus:
"…A tidal wave of new books… threaten to shatter that confidence - titles like Darwin Retried (1971), Macbeth; The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), Hitching; The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), Taylor; The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (1984), Fix; Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities (1984), Cohen; Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (1987), Lovtrup; and Adam and Evolution (1984), Pitman. Not one of these books was written from a Christian-apologetic point of view: they are concerned only with scientific truth - as was Sir Ernst Chain when he called evolution 'a fairy tale'." 2
As Science Digest reported:
"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science."

I grew up in the scientific community, and I still commune with it, and I know as a scientist that the over 99.99% of scientists today who have earned at least one Ph.D. believe in the theory of evolution. Organizations such as the ICR invest a huge amount of time and effort searching for scientists who believe in young-earth creationism and hence do not believe in the theory of evolution. Nonetheless, they have found only a few score of them—and every single one of them disbelieves in the theory of evolution for religious reasons, and they manipulate their data to make it appear that it is in harmony with their religious beliefs. That is NOT science, and men and women who commit this abomination in order to defend their religious beliefs are not practicing science—they are practicing their religion!

Do some scientists “secretly” disbelieve in evolution? How can anyone claim with any authority that anyone is keeping secret what he or she really believes? Do most Baptist pastors secretly believe in the theory of evolution? Do the few Baptist professors in our Baptist seminaries who are still teaching young-creationism secretly believe in evolution but are afraid to say so because they would lose their job where they teach in ultra-conservative seminaries? We do not know, and to claim that we know is, at best, irresponsible.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I don't believe that the "fossile records" have been interpreted correctly. I don't believe they know the dating correctly and I don't think they understand who God actually is and that the bible is his word and that he dictated the pentatuach to Moses as a man would speak to a friend.

My authority is the bible. All scientific theories must line up with the explainations God gave us in the bible or they must be discarded as obviosuly incorrect. Anything that contradicts the bible is obviosuly wrong. It cannot be the bible that is wrong because God himself in the person of Jesus Christ said that the scriptures cannot be broken.

John 3:35
35"If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),

My authority is the Bible, and I learned many years ago that one uses a very wrong interpretation of the Bible as his authority, his authority is not the Bible—his authority is his misunderstanding of the Bible. The interpretation of Genesis that it is an accurate account of historic events was proven to be incorrect in a previous post. Here is an excerpt from that post:

A few facts regarding Noah’s Ark that must be considered in evaluating the literalness of the account in Gen. 6–8 are:

• There are today about 2,000,000 genetically distinct populations of animals living on the earth. If we assume a date of about 2,349 B.C. (Bishop Ussher’s date), microevolution reduces the number of “kinds” of animals that must have been aboard the ark (to account for the about 2,000,000 genetically distinct populations of animals living on the earth today) to a few hundred thousand “kinds.”

• The several thousands of “kinds” of animals, including the dinosaurs, mammoths, giant ground sloths, etc., which have become extinct must also be considered. Did they all become extinct before the flood? If not, they were, according to the account in Genesis, aboard the arc.

• The ark, as literally described in Genesis, was much too small because the amount of water that it would be capable of displacing would weigh less than the animals on board, thus making it impossible for the ark to float.

• The floor space on the ark was too small to hold any more than a tiny fraction of the cages that would be necessary to keep the animals in place (and from eating each other).

• The amount of food required for the animals would weigh at least nearly as much as the animals, and would require a vast amount of storage space.

• Many of the animals aboard the ark would have required specific FRESH fruits, vegetables, leaves, grass, bark, roots, etc., including fresh fruits that are produced only on MATURE plants. Therefore, these mature plants would necessarily have been kept and maintained aboard the ark, and subsequently planted in the ground after the flood.

• Most of the genetically discrete populations of fish (including many VERY LARGE fish) would have to be taken aboard the ark and kept in tanks of water that met their very specific water chemistry needs in order to survive.

• The weight of the water on the earth would have crushed to death any of the land plants that did not drown in the water.

• After 150 days when the water abated, there would be no vegetation on the earth for the herbivores to eat, and no meat for the carnivores to eat, therefore a vast amount of food would necessarily have been kept aboard the ark to sustain the animals AFTER the flood.

• The Animals could not all be released all at once or in the same place because many of them would eat each other.

• The coming of the animals to Noah from all over the earth would have been a physical impossibility no less impossible than Santa Clause delivering presents to every boy and girl on the night before Christmas. The polar bears and penguins, not to mention all of the unique kinds of animals in Australia, would have posed more than a few special difficulties.

• After the flood, the animals could not be returned to their original habitat because all habitats would have been destroyed by the flood.

• Many of the necessary habitats would take 50 years or more to be reestablished and their reestablishment would have required the effort of many thousands of persons.

• Until all the necessary habitats could be reestablished, the animals requiring these habitats would have to be kept and cared for by Noah and his family.

• There was not enough water to cover the entire earth, and even if there was, where did it go after the flood?

• If the reported sightings of the Ark are factual, the Ark came to rest on a VERY high mountain on VERY rugged terrain from which the large majority of the animals would not have been able to descend.

Therefore, the narrative of Noah’s Ark cannot be a literal account of an historic event. Indescribably huge and very numerous miracles would have been necessary, and a literal interpretation of Genesis does not allow for these miracles because the whole point of the narrative is that through the natural, physical means of an ark built by Noah and his family, mankind and all the kinds of animals were saved from the floodwaters.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Therefore, the narrative of Noah’s Ark cannot be a literal account of an historic event. Indescribably huge and very numerous miracles would have been necessary, and a literal interpretation of Genesis does not allow for these miracles because the whole point of the narrative is that through the natural, physical means of an ark built by Noah and his family, mankind and all the kinds of animals were saved from the floodwaters.

Jesus fed 5000 people with a handful of food. It doesn't make sense to us who don't know everything but it happened.

The same way, God had Noah build an ark. God then made sure everything fit.

The narrative is about God and his power and justice not about Noah and what he did. The reason measurments are given of the ark is to show you how awesome God is that he can make all of this life fit in that little space. Don't you understand it is a miracle like many many other miracles in the bible?

The problem with Prineton theological seminary (I asssume you are affiliated) is that they have long ago abondoned the idea of miracles and have tried to explain the bible away based on empiricism. They teach the historical critical hermeneutic as well. They were one of the first seminaries to stop teaching that the bible was true. That is how Westminster seminary was founded. Godly people had to flee Princeton. If you fell into this crisis of faith through the teachings of Princeton theological seminary, I can assure you that they are wrong and you should stop and reevaluate. They forgot who God is and are in deep error.

 

[joshua41]

Exactly! I posted a video in one of my previous posts and he mentions that. Evolution places death and suffering before humans, and thus, before sin, and the Bible clearly says in Genesis (and Paul writes on it), that MAN BROUGHT DEATH AND SUFFERING INTO THE WORLD THROUGH SIN.

To be quite honest, I do not have a problem with either the figurative or literal translations of Genesis. The whole point of a figurative translation, however, is that the Bible figuratively discusses this topic. Even though Paul thought the events to be literal, we can now know that Paul is referencing a figurative event. Thus, there is no contradiction. This doesn't even weaken or alter the point he is trying to make.

As I said before, I do not have a problem with either interpretation. I do have a problem with people willfully and blatantly presenting science as something that it is not.

It absolutely does not take any faith to discredit the entire scientific movement because it doesn't agree with your theology. All that shows is insecurity. Ocourse, it does take faith to believe in the Bible. But to completely discredit a well respected, accredited movement is nothing but xenophobic.

This isn't just a matter of evolution. It's a matter of all sorts of sciences coming together to reach a single conclusion, even on the most basic level. Ofcourse, science is often wrong, so people do have a right to be skeptical.

Years of theology have been built around a literal interpretation of Genesis. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this or the theology. To try and present that modern science agrees whole heartedly with this historic background is nothing but a lie.

Osage, I personally do not discredit the fact that miracles made earth, life, and the universe. To try and act like there is scientific evidene for the literal Genesis account is a lie. Just because there is no evidence, in my opinion, doesn't necessarily make it untrue.

 

[phoenixdem]

PrincetonGuy, it is a shame that you lost your faith and became ashamed of the gospel to the point where you have to say that Baptists are "intellectually challenged baboons" because they believe that the Holy Bible is the true word of God. You need to interpret the miracles and ways of God through the bottom of a vacuum tube.

Those who haven't lost their faith and are not ashamed of God don't have to wait for the latest copy of Scientific American to hit the racks so that they have to adjust their thinking about God. We don't read the latest "scientific findings" to tell us that God is still in control and He knew what He was doing when He created the Universe and gave mankind the Holy Bible.

You have a lot of questions and you think those questions will destroy the faith of many. Guess again. God knows how to preserve His people. Your questions have been answered. Read Ken Ham's books for one thing. He bases his books on the knowledge of other scientists by the way, scientists who haven't sold out in the name of human wisdom. Faith is a tricky thing at times. It waxes and wanes, ebbs and flows, but in God's people, it will always be there.

 

[joshua41]

PrincetonGuy, it is a shame that you lost your faith and became ashamed of the gospel to the point where you have to say that Baptists are "intellectually challenged baboons" because they believe that the Holy Bible is the true word of God. You need to interpret the miracles and ways of God through the bottom of a vacuum tube.

I do feel as if there is an elephant in the room in many churches. The elephant is in fact this subject matter. I don't agree with all of his points, but I do see where he is coming from.

This type of response is the real shame. I don't see how you can attack his faith when he is expressing genuine, founded concerns. Absolutely uncalled for.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Osage, I personally do not discredit the fact that miracles made earth, life, and the universe. To try and act like there is scientific evidene for the literal Genesis account is a lie. Just because there is no evidence, in my opinion, doesn't necessarily make it untrue.

How did you glean from my post that I care about scientific "evidence?" I said the bible is my authority and anything that doesn't agree with it is wrong. I don't know how to say that any plainer.