Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I have to ask. Did you watch that episode because you regularly watch the show or because you heard about the content and just had to?
God calls death our 'enemy'.Well, G_d does sanction death, does he not?
Well, G_d does sanction death, does he not? Do we not see death every day, every hour? Isn't the Torah steeped in death? What was the supposed flood of Noah if not a world of death?
God didn't sanction death. It was the result of man's sin. To say He sanctioned it would be like blaming your parents for punishing you for your disobedience.
In Christ, GB
Had God blinked them out of existence instantly, they would not have had time to repent; but by doing it the way He did, they had plenty of time to make what is called a deathbed conversion and go to Paradise.God could have simply blinked all the people he didn't like out of existence instantly and painlessly, but instead he chose to drown them -
Of course, one would also expect the punishment given by parents to fit the crime that the child committed. I can't imagine a situation in which God would find that killing people is the only choice available. But, even if such a situation did occur, why not make it painless? God could have simply blinked all the people he didn't like out of existence instantly and painlessly, but instead he chose to drown them - a particularly terrifying way to go (and I speak from experience, as I almost drowned once). If he'd blinked them out, there would have been no need for the flood, for Noah to build the ark, to arrange migrations for all the animals from the other side of the world (which would surely have required many miracles to accomplish - how else is a koala going to make it from Australia to the Middle East?)
Had God blinked them out of existence instantly, they would not have had time to repent; but by doing it the way He did, they had plenty of time to make what is called a deathbed conversion and go to Paradise.
Matthew 14:29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.
Matthew 14:30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
Perhaps Herman Fisher and Irving Price are scientists?I see that the Fisher-Price Little People Noah's Ark Playset is still available, but still, it does not include the "Drowning Family Figures" as I thought they might. Perhaps the little babies are too hard to render in plastic , and might be a choking hazard.
No matter. They wouldn't have had very pleasant expressions on their faces, and it might've ruined the toy.
Would that make a difference? They didn't come up with the story.Perhaps Herman Fisher and Irving Price are scientists?
So what did the ark look like? They got the number of windows wrong, didn't they?In any event, that looks more like a Veg-o-matic, than the Ark.
Why did God offset the moon's center of mass?
Did you take time during your break to study the science behind the theory of evolution to determine this "fact"?
Yes, better to go with something that is all gaps.
And goddidit has so much more explanatory power. Why did God offset the moon's center of mass?
If theists claim to know, but are repeatedly unable to demonstrate that they actually do, they should not expect me to join their ranks.
That makes as much sense as 'goddidit'.I dunno, why did the chicken cross the road?
Would that make a difference?
They didn't come up with the story.
So what did the ark look like?
They got the number of windows wrong, didn't they?
Hey, bro!I dunno, why did the chicken cross the road?
Exactly my point. :rollseyes:
It's what gives life value!
Yes.
If they were scientists, then this mindset would apply:
They didn't have to; all they had to do is interpret it like a scientist, and ... well ... to be honest, I'm surprised they got Noah's name right.
Gopher wood.
Who is 'they'? Fisher-Price?
Yes, Fisher-Price got the number of windows wrong; as I said, they were probably scientists.
Yes, let's put the word "research" aside and go with "support" (seeing how that it is an extremely subjective term.)
As to "Any.... support that a creationist may present could not possibly be worse......", yes, it really COULD be worse than anything one could imagine.
I was born into a Young Earth Creationist family and church. What used to pass for "support" and "evidence" was just as bad then as it is now. Believe it or not, YECs still use the "salinization rate of the ocean" as proof that the earth is young! Yet, the same speakers at church conferences would tell us that uniformitarianism was all wrong because it assumed that the physical rates we observe today operated at the SAME rate in the past. I used to get in trouble for asking, "If we can't assume constant rates for anything, then how can you say that the rate at which the ocean becomes saltier can be used to extrapolate the age of the earth?"
I've never encountered a contradiction in the theory of evolution. But creationists accept contradictions in their arguments as the NORM!
[And yes, I am well aware that while rivers pour salts into the world's ocean, other processes REMOVE the salts from the ocean. But, then and now, most Young Earth Creationists have no idea that such processes exist. And so they continue to use silly rate-of-salt-additions-to-the-oceans argument.]
I wasn't there, Davian -- I can't tell you what it looked like.And I asked what it looked like, and in response you tell me what it was supposedly made of... you are not an MBA yourself, are you?
Don't need a link.
The Ark was made of what the Bible calls 'gopher wood' -- which, of course, is nothing more than copper, mixed with trace elements, called "pitch" -- (probably carbon for hardness).
Keep in mind that Noah's predecessors were top-notch metallurgists.
Thus the Ark was a giant state-of-the Ark submarine, complete with periscope.
Noah may have used the last of the pterosaurs to fly them to where we find them today.Of course, one would also expect the punishment given by parents to fit the crime that the child committed. I can't imagine a situation in which God would find that killing people is the only choice available. But, even if such a situation did occur, why not make it painless? God could have simply blinked all the people he didn't like out of existence instantly and painlessly, but instead he chose to drown them - a particularly terrifying way to go (and I speak from experience, as I almost drowned once). If he'd blinked them out, there would have been no need for the flood, for Noah to build the ark, to arrange migrations for all the animals from the other side of the world (which would surely have required many miracles to accomplish - how else is a koala going to make it from Australia to the Middle East?)
Noah may have used the last of the pterosaurs to fly them to where we find them today.
I see that the Fisher-Price Little People Noah's Ark Playset is still available, but still, it does not include the "Drowning Family Figures" as I thought they might. Perhaps the little babies are too hard to render in plastic , and might be a choking hazard.
No matter. They wouldn't have had very pleasant expressions on their faces, and it might've ruined the toy.
Humans cannot synthesise vitamin C, ascorbic acid.
Other animals can, and we are one of the few mammals that can't.
Evolution predicts that there should be a genetic remnant of the enzyme in humans, and guess what - there is:
Nishikimi et al, 1994
I think you mis-understand the buren of proof, as you are the one challenging the accepted scientific fact of evolution by natural selection then you have to provide evidence.
Just to note, there is nothing about evolution that isn't backed up by evidence.
Birds before dinosaurs is an interesting concept, but I fail to see how that is what a creationist would expect.
If your evidence is correct, then dinosaurs evolved from birds.
It is still evolution!
Sorry, the ploy of confusing adaptation of a sea lion to another variation of sea lion is proof of evolution. Well my friend, this is where evos use that magic wand and extrapolate in a huge leap of faith that a mouse deer can poof into a whale. It is a great imagination but imagination is all it is.If A. natans is a sea lion ancestor, it would still have to evolve to become a sea lion.
You hit the nail on the head, indohyus resembles a mouse deer and the bone density is irrelevant unless you are looking to create your own special intermediates. So what I say is correct. Your researchers are not interested in looking to what any fossil resembles here today. They will ignore a plethora of similarities and zone in on some difference, desperate to find an intermediate. With DNA evos do the opposite.Indohyus might resemble a mouse deer, but it had a bone density pattern that is only seen in cetaceans.
That looks more like a rant to me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?