How did the ark Kinds give rise to extant taxa?

[SLP]

As far as I ever knew or heard, there are honest ones who know and reveal the "traces of this grand migration"..

Citations please.

So, this being the case, those who know and show and agree with the traces of this "grand migration" are summarily (without notice, without any honest trial, etc) ignored, dismissed, dissed, and called all sorts of various names, unkindly.... oh, and of course, "black-listed"...

The sad old "conspiracy" dodge.

Bye.

 

[SLP]

It is actually a guess by someone who thinks they are educated.

No commentary on the OP? Just spewing for Jesus?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

"All society is pernicious". No dodge. Reality. As Written.

 

[Shemjaza]

"All society is pernicious". No dodge. Reality. As Written.

Why does a specific belief from a specific set of cultures get an exception to the general untrustworthiness of humanity?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Why does a specific belief from a specific set of cultures get an exception to the general untrustworthiness of humanity?

Would it help in finding out the truth (is the truth what matters, or culture more than truth?) if the answer to this question was/is/ known ?

 

[Shemjaza]

Would it help in finding out the truth (is the truth what matters, or culture more than truth?) if the answer to this question was/is/ known ?

I don't know what you mean.

I was trying to point out that you are declaring every bit of scientific research and every biblical interpretation unreliable... but the specific sub set of YEC Christians aren't for no stated reason.

 

[Lobster Johnson]

If I were making scripture for a fake religion (whoops, tautology!) I would include a bit about how everything except for the scripture couldn't be trusted.

Just putting that out there.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I don't know what you mean.

I was trying to point out that you are declaring every bit of scientific research and every biblical interpretation unreliable... but the specific sub set of YEC Christians aren't for no stated reason.

What matters is not what others belief nor what they teach or preach,
but actually seeking and loving the truth, and keeping on seeking the truth.

 

[loveofourlord]

Each animal was handpicked by God, not Noah.
So if God desired quick speciation, he could plan it without blinking.

and you guys laugh at macro evolution, when you guys have hyper evolution that would kill every species :>

 

[loveofourlord]

The need to layer unmentioned miracle upon unmentioned miracle to keep the narrative consistent with evidence just keeps making the literal tale seem less consistent with any honest reading of the bible.

reminds me of the all the arguments for how god made the flood work.

he put all the animals into hibernation so they didn't need food, or produce feces and such.
god prevented all of the genetics from being corrupted
god provided food for the predators untill there was enough prey.

If your going to come up with all these miracles needed to make the flood work why wouldn't god have just snapped his finger to get rid of the bad humans rather then kill all animals and such. The amount of miracles needed to get around a rather silly way of ending all the evil is to the level of silly.

 

[loveofourlord]

Nothing was half formed. They changed with no intermediate forms in one generation.

what did they breed with? Many of the animals that would have to be within a kind can't reproduce. Not all foxes can interbreed, and that would create massive bottlenecks worse then what we see with the cheetah. So what did the first red fox mate with if they had to change in one generation.

 

[loveofourlord]

The latest view of Jewish genealogy is that it was based on generational groups under the name of the patriarch of that generation. This means that we are not only viewing it according to the lifetime of the patriarch himself, but the lifetimes of all his descendants within that generational group. Because lifetimes were so much longer, up to 1000 years in one case, it is quite believable that the time frame could be many thousands of years more than Ussher and others calculated.

For example, many have wondered how Cain could have gone to the land of Nod and married a wife, when he had just killed Abel. The fact is, that there is no time frame mentioned between the killing of Abel and Cain going to the land of Nod. It could have been a couple of hundred years later, when there was a sizable population in the land of Nod.

Also, after the Flood, people had very lengthy lifetimes, and we don't know how long it was before the Tower of Babel event, nor how long before Abraham departed from Ur of the Chaldees to Canaan. We could be talking about thousands of years here.

Therefore, the Bible has many time-frame gaps, which could very well account for humans to be inhabiting the Americas 20,000 years ago. It is an established fact that they were, as well as the discovery of sea shells and fossilised sea creatures high up in the Andes mountains which shows that the sea covered them at one stage, and that could only have happened in a world-wide flood.

So, if we decide to believe the Bible to be true, we can say what took place as being true, but how these things happened cannot be reliably determined because we just don't have enough information to make that determination.

I agree that the fossil's on the top of mountains are evidence for the origins of the flood...where the myth came from. People who knew nothing of geology saw seashell's and other things ontop of mountains and figured they were from a flood.

Also we don't see seashell's justt lying around on mountains, we see them embeded within the stone under layers of stone, and in some cases they arn't even seashells they are stones in the shape of them.

tell me how do you get this?

in under a year?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

......

tell me how do you get this?

in under a year?

Either go find it,
or pay for it.

 

[loveofourlord]

Either go find it,
or pay for it.

ummm what? no comprende.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

ummm what? no comprende.

Correct. or rather simple: if someone wants something, how do they get it?

They either find it, or buy it...... right ? Maybe there's other ways also (almost certainly there are other ways also) .....

 

[loveofourlord]

Correct. or rather simple: if someone wants something, how do they get it?

They either find it, or buy it...... right ? Maybe there's other ways also (almost certainly there are other ways also) .....

I get that, I'm asking what any of that has to do with pointing out that there are not seashell's found on mountains as if to imply the flood left them lying there.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I get that, I'm asking what any of that has to do with pointing out that there are not seashell's found on mountains as if to imply the flood left them lying there.

I don't get this (who said "there are not"? )
- there are fossils, seashells and other things, found on mountains directly because the worldwide flood Yahuweh sent to destroy mankind all over the earth left them there. Simple. We don't have to "imply" anything.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I don't get this (who said "there are not"? )
- there are fossils, seashells and other things, found on mountains directly because the worldwide flood Yahuweh sent to destroy mankind all over the earth left them there. Simple. We don't have to "imply" anything.

The problem is that many don't want to accept that there was a total world-wide flood that covered the mountains. If they accepted it to be true, then they would have to accept that if the Bible is true about the Flood, then it must be true about many other things, for example, you and me - that we are sinners, deserving of hell, and needing to be saved by the grace of God.

If they accept the Flood as a real historical event, which it is, then they have to accept that there is a God to Whom they are accountable. But what stops them is that they want to be their own gods, to choose for themselves how they want to live their lives. And they will defend that with all the counter-arguments they can make up.

So, believing in the Flood or not, is not a matter of the intellect, but of the will.

 

[pitabread]

The problem is that many don't want to accept that there was a total world-wide flood that covered the mountains. If they accepted it to be true, then they would have to accept that if the Bible is true about the Flood, then it must be true about many other things, for example, you and me - that we are sinners, deserving of hell, and needing to be saved by the grace of God.

The acceptance or rejection of a world-wide flood has nothing to do with the rest of the Bible being true. The rejection of a world-wide Flood is because the evidence does not support that such an event occurred (at least not within the span of human civilization).

It's also completely incorrect to assume that this has anything to do with anything else in the Bible. The Bible talks about lots of real places and real people, but that doesn't necessarily imply there is any theological truth to what it claims.

To understand this consider a film like Saving Private Ryan. That film takes place during World War 2 which was a real event. However, the specific characters and story in the film are a work of fiction. Just because World War 2 was real doesn't make the specific events in Saving Private Ryan also real.

Most people are smart enough to make these distinctions.

And they will defend that with all the counter-arguments they can make up.

The primary counter-argument is that a world-wide flood would release so much energy it would have boiled the oceans off the planet and killed everything.

Basic physics counters the idea of a world-wide flood and is something creationists have never reconciled.

So, believing in the Flood or not, is not a matter of the intellect, but of the will.

It's a matter of evidence. Evidence does not support a world-wide flood.

 

[Speedwell]

The problem is that many don't want to accept that there was a total world-wide flood that covered the mountains.

Because there is absolutely no evidence for such an event.

If they accepted it to be true, then they would have to accept that if the Bible is true about the Flood, then it must be true about many other things, for example, you and me - that we are sinners, deserving of hell, and needing to be saved by the grace of God.

If they accept the Flood as a real historical event, which it is, then they have to accept that there is a God to Whom they are accountable. But what stops them is that they want to be their own gods, to choose for themselves how they want to live their lives. And they will defend that with all the counter-arguments they can make up.

So, believing in the Flood or not, is not a matter of the intellect, but of the will.

Most Christians don't bother with it and believe that there is a God to whom they are accountable and in salvation offered through faith in Christ without lumbering themselves with YECism.