I don't understand...

[Snake75]

Ah I apologize I thought you brought it up. But I still see you believe in it. So..

skepdic.(remove)com/noahsark.html


Lots of maybes and might have. No scientific evidence to back it up.

Wait. So are yo saying now you believe in evolution? And either way still makes no sense.

 

[chrisstavrous]

Before I even begin to try to answer your question here I would like to know just how open you are to being persuaded to a different point of view. It seems to me from what you've posted here so far that I could produce extensive responses to your question only to have you dismiss it all out of hand in allegiance to your present bias against the faith. I have had this experience before and am loathe to have it again.

For starters, you might want to consider the following article:

How Could All the Animals Get On Board Noah's Ark?

Selah.

I may dismiss it only if it cannot be logically substantiated. However I will accept that you know most objections that non believers raise.

 

[chrisstavrous]

Ah I apologize I thought you brought it up. But I still see you believe in it. So..

skepdic.(remove)com/noahsark.html


Lots of maybes and might have. No scientific evidence to back it up.

Wait. So are yo saying now you believe in evolution? And either way still makes no sense.

You have hit the nail on the head. If all the kangaroos lived locally why are there no kangaroo fossils locally? If the kangaroos were not local but native in australia and noah went there and back there after the flood did he stay in australia to insure there survival. If he did why is theres no mention of australia in the bible.

 

[chrisstavrous]

Wow. Really? Do you even read and consider the responses other people give you or do you just scan the words for something that you might be able to attack?

Every time you throw out an attack somebody not only refutes your statements but completely obliterates them and you just continue to ignore the mounting evidence of your own ignorance.

You really have a lot of maturation (not to mention research) to do before you are as capable a debater as you seem to think you are. Let me give you a hint: A sign of maturity is being able to admit you were wrong, and you've been proven wrong a lot here in this thread but have conceded nothing.

If you're smart you'll try to remember everything people are telling you here so that next time you come to debate a believer you won't be so ignorant about the facts and you won't come across as such an immature little warmonger.

Even though snake75 is 16 I have lerned a few useful things from him, he has the ability for looking at things critically and that shows such strength in a world like ours.

 

[aiki]

You have hit the nail on the head. If all the kangaroos lived locally why are there no kangaroo fossils locally? If the kangaroos were not local but native in australia and noah went there and back there after the flood did he stay in australia to insure there survival. If he did why is theres no mention of australia in the bible.

*Sigh* So eager to ask questions, so not eager to search for answers.

As I said to Snake75, why couldn't kangaroos have adapted to their present form after the Flood? And, no, this is not an acknowledgement of molecules-to-man evolution. I have never denied the mechanisms of natural selection, or mutation, or adaptation which are clearly evident in nature. I have denied that all these mechanisms can evolve a man from the mud.

You might also recall that there is good reason to think that the present configuration of continents was not always as it is now. Look up Pangaea. I don't think the break-up of the supercontinent happened 300 million years ago but during the Flood when the Bible says God "broke up the deep." Thus, Australia was not a distant continent at the time of the Flood as it is now. Keep in mind, too, that the country or nation of "Australia" has not existed for thousands of years but for only a few centuries. Why, then, would it appear in the Old Testament record which is millenia old?

Selah.

 

[dhh712]

I only want proof because truth does not = something which is unverified or disputable subjective experience. Truth = something which has been verified or cannot be disputed.

Verified by what though. When believers talk about God, they do not use the world to verify Him. Only the Bible can be used for that. Believers see the world and God as two different things; it seems unbelievers understand no difference between the two (or they feel the world should perfectly reflect God, if there is such a being). As an unbeliever, I also felt that I would not be able to believe in anything unless I had verification of it from reasonable proofs (things I could understand); once God intervened in my life, I do not understand Him in that way anymore.

My life seemed to have gotten much better after getting rid of the myths I believed in. Yes, I'm young. I know. But, it changed really quickly after I told everyone I was Atheist. Things got better for me.QUOTE]

Of course they did. If the world is what I want, I would get rid of God too.

What I really dont like about this post is that you make yourself seem like your weak. That without God you would crumble and die. That is not how you should look at life. Without God you are free.

I am weak. Without God I would crumble and die. I was dead without God. Only with Him am I now free from the world and alive, a prisoner of Christ instead of a prisoner of this world.

 

[Snake75]

My life seemed to have gotten much better after getting rid of the myths I believed in. Yes, I'm young. I know. But, it changed really quickly after I told everyone I was Atheist. Things got better for me.QUOTE]

Of course they did. If the world is what I want, I would get rid of God too.




I am weak. Without God I would crumble and die. I was dead without God. Only with Him am I now free from the world and alive, a prisoner of Christ instead of a prisoner of this world.

I feel really sorry for you.

*Sigh* So eager to ask questions, so not eager to search for answers.

As I said to Snake75, why couldn't kangaroos have adapted to their present form after the Flood? And, no, this is not an acknowledgement of molecules-to-man evolution. I have never denied the mechanisms of natural selection, or mutation, or adaptation which are clearly evident in nature. I have denied that all these mechanisms can evolve a man from the mud.

You might also recall that there is good reason to think that the present configuration of continents was not always as it is now. Look up Pangaea. I don't think the break-up of the supercontinent happened 300 million years ago but during the Flood when the Bible says God "broke up the deep." Thus, Australia was not a distant continent at the time of the Flood as it is now. Keep in mind, too, that the country or nation of "Australia" has not existed for thousands of years but for only a few centuries. Why, then, would it appear in the Old Testament record which is millenia old?

Selah.

You really like to take science and morph it into something that works for you and your belief.

 

[dhh712]

I feel really sorry for you.

Well at least you have a conscience. The worldly usually view the cross as nothing but foolishness; a person with a heart usually takes pity on a fool. If Christ is not risen, believers are to be the most pitied people on earth. (I have sorrow for you as well, as I do for all the lost who do not know the excellence of Christ).

 

[LastSeven]

Can you show us the scripture you have based this on?

Sorry, I didn't notice this question of yours before. This thread has been moving so fast I missed a few pages.

Death came into the world in the garden of Eden through sin, and since that time all of us are spiritually dead because of our separation from God, until we receive the life of Christ (the word of God, the same word that Adam and Eve rejected) and are born again.

Genesis 2:17
you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[a] Christ Jesus our Lord

Ephesians 2:2-6
As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live ... God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions.

Colossians 2:13
When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you[a] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins

Matthew 8:22
Jesus told him, “Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.”

Revelation 3:1
I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead.

When you follow Jesus you are no longer counted among the dead, for you have been resurrected with him and are no longer separated from God.

 

[LastSeven]

You have hit the nail on the head. If all the kangaroos lived locally why are there no kangaroo fossils locally? If the kangaroos were not local but native in australia and noah went there and back there after the flood did he stay in australia to insure there survival. If he did why is theres no mention of australia in the bible.

You are going on the assumption that the continents were arranged then as they are now. The fact is we don't know how quickly the continents moved apart at that time. We only know how quickly they are moving today.

It's likely that there was a single land mass on which Noah landed, from where the animals dispersed before being separated by the continental drift.

Don't forget also that God brought the animals to the ark before the flood, which means he certainly could have brought them to any place on earth after the flood by his divine choosing. He was after all obviously very much involved in the events of that day.

 

[LastSeven]

Lots of maybes and might have. No scientific evidence to back it up.

You were the one who claimed to have scientific evidence to prove the story false, yet your "evidence" has been refuted. The entire story is plausible, yet you fail to acknowledge that.

 

[LastSeven]

If God existed, then why does he not show us this 'light' Or show us that he exists?

God will reveal himself only when it glorifies him. We have been separated from God because of sin. God is perfect and therefore can not be in the presence of sin, which is why only after we are cleansed by faith in his word can we commune with him. As an atheist you will never "see" God, but as a believer I walk with him daily.

If you want to see God, you must first believe. This is also a requirement for the perfect love story that God seeks. For the same reason that people have children, God created us. To love and be loved.

The only true love however comes voluntarily, which means you have to choose to love him. This is why he gave us free will. If we had no free will we would only be puppets and what would be the point?

He has shown us that he exists through Jesus and the recorded history of those who met him face to face. You have chosen not to believe, and that's your prerogative, but since you have already turned your back on him, don't expect him to chase after you as that would only glorify you. He doesn't need you, you need him.

 

[Snake75]

You are going on the assumption that the continents were arranged then as they are now. The fact is we don't know how quickly the continents moved apart at that time. We only know how quickly they are moving today.

It's likely that there was a single land mass on which Noah landed, from where the animals dispersed before being separated by the continental drift.

Don't forget also that God brought the animals to the ark before the flood, which means he certainly could have brought them to any place on earth after the flood by his divine choosing. He was after all obviously very much involved in the events of that day.

Excuse after excuse after excuse. It could have not possiblely happened in about 4000 years (The time Noah supposedly was around). Stop trying to defend a children's story.

God will reveal himself only when it glorifies him. We have been separated from God because of sin. God is perfect and therefore can not be in the presence of sin, which is why only after we are cleansed by faith in his word can we commune with him. As an atheist you will never "see" God, but as a believer I walk with him daily.

If you want to see God, you must first believe. This is also a requirement for the perfect love story that God seeks. For the same reason that people have children, God created us. To love and be loved.

The only true love however comes voluntarily, which means you have to choose to love him. This is why he gave us free will. If we had no free will we would only be puppets and what would be the point?

He has shown us that he exists through Jesus and the recorded history of those who met him face to face. You have chosen not to believe, and that's your prerogative, but since you have already turned your back on him, don't expect him to chase after you as that would only glorify you. He doesn't need you, you need him.

How about you answer the rest of that post?


I don't need God because he doesn't exist. I haven't turned my back on him because he doesn't exist

 

[LastSeven]

Excuse after excuse after excuse. It could have not possiblely happened in about 4000 years

Why could it not possibly have happened?

 

[LastSeven]

How about you answer the rest of that post?

I didn't answer the rest of that post because it was kind of silly, but if you insist.

"Can he not do it? If so, god is not omnipotent. If he can, but doesn't, he is not omnibenevolent. If he doesn't know how to, he is not omniscient. If god showed himself to everyone in the world, then what would be the point of doing something bad? You would go to hell and suffer forever, thus he cannot be omnibenevolent."

Of course God can do it. He is omnipotent.

Omnibenevolent is not a word, but I assume you mean he is always good to people and never hurts people. The fact is we are created in his image, and just as you and I have emotions so does God. He feels love and joy as well as anger and sadness, even hate. The Bible never claims otherwise. Of course being as well versed in scripture as you are, you knew that already.

I don't need God because he doesn't exist. I haven't turned my back on him because he doesn't exist

Well, if as you say, he doesn't exist, then indeed you can not have turned your back on him and you have nothing to worry about. You can not however claim as evidence the fact that you've never seen him to support your position, because as I explained, he will reveal himself to you only after you believe.

 

[Snake75]

Why could it not possibly have happened?

The continents move at about 0.6 inches a year. Unless you have any proof that the continents moved any faster that is how it will stay. So in 4000 years if you do the math it would me no where near how far the continents are now.

 

[LastSeven]

The continents move at about 0.6 inches a year. Unless you have any proof that the continents moved any faster that is how it will stay. So in 4000 years if you do the math it would me no where near how far the continents are now.

So you're using observable science to prove historical science? You know that's the typical scientific fallback position when no actual proof exists to support a theory. The fact is, what we see happening today is no proof at all of what happened yesterday. It is only an assumption that things have always been the way they are.

Since a previously proven reliable and accurate historical text tells us that all the animals originated from the ark, my explanation of a single continent at that time makes a lot of sense. In fact, it makes so much sense that the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is impossible.

You started this thread by asking why we believe, yet you continue to show that you don't actually care why we believe. You only want to tell us how wrong we are.

 

[Snake75]

So you're using observable science to prove historical science? You know that's the typical scientific fallback position when no actual proof exists to support a theory. The fact is, what we see happening today is no proof at all of what happened yesterday. It is only an assumption that things have always been the way they are.

Since a previously proven reliable and accurate historical text tells us that all the animals originated from the ark, my explanation of a single continent at that time makes a lot of sense. In fact, it makes so much sense that the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is impossible.

You started this thread by asking why we believe, yet you continue to show that you don't actually care why we believe. You only want to tell us how wrong we are.

what proven reliable and accurate historical text are you talking about? Please tell me its not the bible.... No, it makes no sense and no evidence at all the burden of proof is still on you good sir.

Of course God can do it. He is omnipotent.

Omnibenevolent is not a word, but I assume you mean he is always good to people and never hurts people. The fact is we are created in his image, and just as you and I have emotions so does God. He feels love and joy as well as anger and sadness, even hate. The Bible never claims otherwise. Of course being as well versed in scripture as you are, you knew that already.



Well, if as you say, he doesn't exist, then indeed you can not have turned your back on him and you have nothing to worry about. You can not however claim as evidence the fact that you've never seen him to support your position, because as I explained, he will reveal himself to you only after you believe.

It is a word en.wikipedia(remove).org/wiki/Omnibenevolence

So, if God loves us all. Why does he allow diseases and hunger and all these bad things happen to us?

 

[chrisstavrous]

I only brought up the topic of noahs ark to show up in constrast the lack of sciencitific understanding and blind spots christians also have in regards to explaining their own theories. Such as saying that the land was all connected before the flood (Then the flood broke up the land) This was easy to debunk by finding out how old the ecosystem the great barrier reef is.

 

[oi_antz]

Sorry, I didn't notice this question of yours before. This thread has been moving so fast I missed a few pages.

Death came into the world in the garden of Eden through sin, and since that time all of us are spiritually dead because of our separation from God, until we receive the life of Christ (the word of God, the same word that Adam and Eve rejected) and are born again.

Genesis 2:17
you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[a] Christ Jesus our Lord

Ephesians 2:2-6
As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live ... God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions.

Colossians 2:13
When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you[a] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins

Matthew 8:22
Jesus told him, “Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.”

Revelation 3:1
I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead.

When you follow Jesus you are no longer counted among the dead, for you have been resurrected with him and are no longer separated from God.

Thanks. What does this mean practically? How can we know if someone is spiritually dead or alive?