Which religions are represented here?

[Darcie]

LOL, this is a funny thred. Has anyone taken the time to think about the fact that these stories were passed down by oral tradition, written and rewritten by humans? We are not perfict you know, and if modern hystory teaches us anything, it's that we tend to embelish a storey a little more with each telling. We also change little details or orders of things by mistake. AKA, what we have now are legends that may or may not be (I'll leave that up to the individual to deside forthemselves what to believe) based in reality, but blown way out of proportion. Was their a great flood? Yah, quite a few actually (According to geological evidence), but none coverd the entire planet, and most were prehuman. However, it's totally possible that in very vast regions such floods did occur and to the people in that spot at the time, it seemed like the whole world was coverd.

 

[Darcie]

Quote[/b] (Spectabilis73 @ Mar. 12 2004,23:02)]

Quote[/b] ]"extra layer of water"?
huh?
what is an extra layer of water in the atmosphere?
and why would it cause reptiles to live longer?
there was never anything in the air that made animals live longer..
you just made all that up..cant do that.

I did'nt make that up. it is a theory. the theory is, In biblical times there was a large layer of water in the atmosphere. this blocked harmful rays form the sun, and that is why it is thought people lived for over 500 years back then. all the flood water came from this "moisture layer" in the atmosphere. when it was all 'deposited' into the ocean, everything was exposed to the harmful rays of the sun, and that is why the average lifespan of all life was cut so short for . (noah lived to be 950 years of age) I don't really ahve any quotes or links about this, but I'm sure others ahve heard this theory

 i dont think anyone has really proved that this "water layer" existed though, but it makes sence to me....

-spec

It's a Hypothesis(sp?), not a theory.  To be a theory it has to have significant scientific backing to the point of nothing yet know can disprove it as fact, but because we can't go back in time and check can not techinically be called fact.  A hypothesis must also be excepted by the scientific community in general before you can call it a theory.

What is a Hypothesis?  The most logical guess one can make given their education.  An Educated Guess.  

 Please be carefull with what you call an idea, the meanings have a very large significance on the strength of argument.

Oh yah and while I'm explaining scientific concept/idea type terminology, I might as well inclued Laws FYI.

A law is a statement of what is. That is to say, an observation. Ussually the get fleshed out with math, and tests and such, but an actuall law just a statement of what is consistently observed.

Example:

What goes up, must come down. Law of gravity. It doesn't say what it is or more importently doesn't get into HOW or WHY it is. It is simply a statement of what happens.

While this isn't directly being debated, it kinda sort of is so I figure I better define it because it's getting used a lot in sort of odd ways.

In all honesty, evolution: Things change over time. Is a law, but we use it all to often as it's theory derivative...
A change in species over time threw the proccess of natural selection.

Natural selection is also a law (statement of observation): (to simplify this I am going to assume we all except genetic enharitence to be real) ... The process by which stronger creatures live longer and produce more surviving oftspring then others of the same species.

So the theory of evolution is basically: Because individuals within a given species varry, some will be more successfull (produce more surviving oftspring) then others. This means their traits are passed on more frequently and the less effective trait will probubly die out, making the species more successfull as a whole. (This also is sort of a law because we can see it happen around us, but not everyone is okay with this so I'll leave it under the theory section)

The theory of speciation threw evolution goes one step further: When populations of a species become reproductively isolated from one another the flow of genes between the groups is halted. Mutation (again I'm assumeing no one disagrease with the existence of this) in one group that may allow it to be more successfull will not reach the other. Over time, enough different mutations will take over as the dominent traits in the two groups so that they no longer resemble one another as they once did. At this point, what was once one species has become two new.

You can also have one species change enough over time so that if you look at ansestors they don't match and we usually call this a new species too, but that's mostly because it's hard to know for sure what the origenal species they came off of was.


Okay, so the point of this is to remined everyone that what is being debated is Specieation threw evolution, not evolution it'self. Because to be real technical about it, evolution is a law. We just refrain from saying that because it isn't popular with everyone... not real sure why that is though

 

[SnowyFalcon]

OK, I'm back. There has been a LOT of ground covered since I left!

Quote[/b] ]
ok, that might work for trilobytes..
how about Coral? coral cant move at all..
should have been quickly buried and killed outright.
how did coral even survive at all? they cant float..they are firmly stuck to the ground (ocean floor)

Aren't there aquariums that have coral growing in them? Why couldn't Noah have taken some on his ark?

Quote[/b] ]
so did ALL fish die then?
obviously not, sice we still have fish today..
so why did only *some* fish die in the swirling silt, and not others?


[/Quote ]

Duh! Cause Noah took them on the ark!

[/Quote ]

Why did all the dinosaurs die before mammals?
they were both land animals..
why dont dinosaur and mammal fossils appear in the exact same layers? they dont..

The layers are NOT as cut and dry as you say they are. You can find mammal bones two inches under the ground in Nevada the same way you can find Dino bones two inches under the ground in Utah or where ever. The 'layers' are really more 'make believe' than science.

Quote[/b] ]
I didn't say that they did. Like I said before, I think there are still dinosaurs today (BTW, if we found one, what would that do to your theory that they're all extinct?).


that didnt answer the question..
even if dinosaurs do still exist today, why are ALL dinosaur fossils found below ALL mammal fossils?
I also dont believe dinosaurs are extinct, they are now called birds. but dinosaurs are NOT the same as birds..its easy to tell the tell the difference between a fossil dinosaur, mammal, and bird..and all dinosaur fossils exist far below all mammal and bird fossils..your assumption that dinosaurs still exist today does nothing to explain that fact..
if they still exist today, explain why mammal fossils and dinosaur fossils do NOT appear in the same layers? ever.

Garbage. You just contradicted yourself twice.

You said:

1) Birds are modern Dinos
2) Dinos are not the same as birds

1)Dinos are not extinct
2)Yet ALL Dino bones are already below mammals? EXPLAIN THIS ONE!!!

Quote[/b] ]
I believe that only Noah and his family survived the flood, not the whole human race, not "modern" humans. ALL the human race was destroyed (except for Noah and company). Humans are humans, there is no difference. If austropilicus afarensis lived in a valley, or had some crippling disease, he died first. Its that simple.


again, you didnt answer the question..
austropilicus afarensis was not a human..its a different creature..you cant assume it died first just because it lived in a valley or was sickly! it was neither..it lived all over and was perfectly healthy..and there were thousands of them..not just a huddling group of them in a valley..
so you didnt explain why austropilicus afarensis died first and appears in layers below modern humans..please try again.

How many of these skeletons are there? I thought there was just one, Lucy. Now you say there are thousands? Why don't we have any bones from Lucy's sister, Mary?

Quote[/b] ]
So, you say flying dinosaurs died before birds because they cant take the wind..
Flying insects died before birds because they cant take the rain..
but birds CAN handle the wind and the rain better, and so died AFTER the flying dinosaurs and the flying insects?
please explain how birds are better able to withstand wind and raindrops better than flying dinosaurs and flying insects..which made birds die later, and so appear only in the higher layers..

Easy. Take a pigeon and a bat. Which one is going to be affected by wind more? Obviously the one with SAILS as wings is going to be hurting! The pigeon though will have a much easier time because of its smaller wings and body.

Quote[/b] ]
and I know I probably added some of these as you were typing you reply, but I have several more issues for you!


here are some more issues I would like explained by the flood theory..



How did fresh water fish survive at all?
Salt water will kill them..
there were no heated aquariums on the ark..

First off, I believe that Moses took enough animals to repopulate the earth, BUT, did not take one of each variety within species (i.e. German Shepherd, Chihuaha). And how do you know there were no aquariums on the ark? Were you there? I don't believe they were as dimwitted back then as is popular belief.

Quote[/b] ]
How did animals that exist only in the Americas make it to the Ark? how did new-world monkeys and all the Amazonian birds, that exist no where else in the world, make it to the Ark?
what about Kangaroos?

Before the flood, everything was one landmass. They just had to walk.

Quote[/b] ]
why did some animals only end up in isolated areas AFTER the flood and no where else?
how did kangaroos end up ONLY in Australia after the flood?
they cant swim..

why did new-world monkeys only end up in South America after the flood..and why are old-world monkeys ONLY in Africa? the climates are similar enough..they could live together if they needed to..so why arent they all mixed together?
Did the South American monkeys all swim across the Atlantic ocean? (and ONLY them?! why?)

Noah only took one pair of animals if it was 'unclean' and 7 if it was 'clean'. If there are only a few when the continents started to split, why can't they be trapped on Australia?

Quote[/b] ]
How did the flood deposit crinoid fossils on top of mount everest? crinoids were "slow dumb" animals attached to the sea floor, just like the trilobytes..so they should appear only in the bottom layers..(and they do!)
but..how did they get all the way up on top of mountains?
and become PART of the mountains..they arent just sitting there loose in the open..the fossils are embedded in the actual rock that makes up the mountain tops..
but..in the flood, they were buried in the first, deepest layers only..and only on the bottom of the oceans..they never lived on land.
how did they get to the tops of tall mountains?
waves and currents couldnt move them..if you suggest turbulant waters of the flood moved layers around, that kills your entire layering theory of animals dying in a specific sequence..because everything should be all mixed up then..
and it isnt.
need another way for those crinoids, buried first and deepest by the flood, to get up on top of mount everest..

I believe YOU were the one pushing the layering theory. I'M saying that its not as accurate as you believe! And if crinoids were washed up to the top of Mount Everest in the flood, what's wrong with that? There are fossil graveyards with thousands of fossils all jumbled together. How does your evolution explain that?

If a piece of land was pushed up from the rivers/oceans to form Mt. Everest, that's fine. I don't see the problem. To have mixed up fossils, (Like crinoids ontop of Mt. everest) point TO a world wide catastrophic event! HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN CRINOIDS? Did they walk up there?

SF

 

[scottychaos]

SF,
its obvious you dont understand anything I have said..
I cant discuss this with you when you have no understanding of the processes being discussed..

The crinoids got on top of mount everest due to plate tectonics.
there are mammal fossils "a few inches" below the surface due to erosion..
there are dinosaur fossils "a few inches" below the surface also due to erosion..
the 2 layers are many millions apart in age..
their location next to the current suface is utterly irrelevant.

To suggest today's different animals came about from "kinds" on the Ark is to support evolution!
How did all the differnt dogs come about then if only one "kind" was on the Ark?
sounds like you are supporting evolution..

Quote[/b] ]Quote  

I didn't say that they did.  Like I said before, I think there are still dinosaurs today (BTW, if we found one, what would that do to your theory that they're all extinct?).


that didnt answer the question..
even if dinosaurs do still exist today, why are ALL dinosaur fossils found below ALL mammal fossils?
I also dont believe dinosaurs are extinct, they are now called birds. but dinosaurs are NOT the same as birds..its easy to tell the tell the difference between a fossil dinosaur, mammal, and bird..and all dinosaur fossils exist far below all mammal and bird fossils..your assumption that dinosaurs still exist today does nothing to explain that fact..
if they still exist today, explain why mammal fossils and dinosaur fossils do NOT appear in the same layers? ever.



Garbage.  You just contradicted yourself twice.

You said:

1) Birds are modern Dinos
2) Dinos are not the same as birds

1)Dinos are not extinct
2)Yet ALL Dino bones are already below mammals?  EXPLAIN THIS ONE!!!

its garbage to you, because you have clue what I am saying..
there is no contradiction in my words..
Birds evolved FROM dinosaurs..they are not the same creatures as the dinosaur fossils in the fossil record..
its an easy concept..

To suggest there were aquariums on the Ark is to create your own Biblical history..who are you to add words to the bible?
You are adding your own words to Gods words..
pretty arrogant if you ask me..
I suppose you think Noah had electricity as well to keep those aquariums heated? and filters for the biofiltration?
you need those as well to keep those fish alive..
but why not right? noah could have had electricity on the Ark! might as well just make up anything you like..
you cant be taken seriously if you just make up stuff out of thin air.
and its interesting you utterly ignored the question of how the Angelfish and tetras got to the ark in the first place..


please read this (entire) article to see why the Flood theory goes against all science and all reality as shown by the entire surface and interior of the earth.
written by a Christian:
Its EXCELLENT!
I highly suggest all Creationists read this..unless you prefer to just keep ignoring reality because that fits your beliefs better..
(thank you to who first suggested that article! I went back through this thread but I cant find the post where it was suggested to me! I searched through all the pages several times..I love the article!!)

http://www.geocities.com/vr_junkie/thebibleandscience.htm

you didnt answer any one of my questions!
none of my "issues" are yet to be explaind by the flood..
basically all your answers to those problems is "they arent really real"..
well sorry, they are very real..you just arent aware that they are real.

I cant argue against willfull ignorance..
if you would like to learn more about the truth of what the fossil record IS and what it looks like, and basic geology, then maybe we can discuss what possible processes made the earth look the way it does today.
but before you can discuss WHY the earth looks the way it does..you first have to understand what it looks like..
you dont know that yet...
I shall say no more..
I have made my points.

Scot

 

[SnowyFalcon]

I'm sorry if I offended you, Scot.  I don't pretend to know everything, nor do I claim to know every little detail.  If I gave the pretense of having all knowledge, I apologize.  I was just giving you the facts about what I believe.  If you label me as 'ignorant' for interpreting the facts differently than you do, then so be it.  I wasn't there and CANNOT be expected to know how Noah transported various creatures.  I DO know that you have no clue either, as you weren't around either.  

I believe our last discussion ended in the same way, tempers flaring and names starting to be thrown around.  I think it would be best if we let this thread sink into oblivion.

SF

 

[buckeye]

Hello.

Quote[/b] ]To suggest there were aquariums on the Ark is to create your own Biblical history..who are you to add words to the bible?
You are adding your own words to Gods words..
pretty arrogant if you ask me..

SF is not creating Biblical history, he is merely saying how it could have happened. It says in the Bible that God told Noah: "Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be taken alive." (Genesis 6:20) Fish are animals so it is assumed that they would have been taken alive on the ark as well.

-buckeye

 

[scottychaos]

SF,
i agree..its time to let this thread die!
however..im not talking about "knowing what happened back then"..
I agree, none of us were there..
But thats not what im talking about at all...

im talking about explaning what the earth actually, physically, without-any-doubt LOOKS like right now!
that is here and now, we call all see it with our own eyes..
the question here is, what can explain the facts that we are are all seeing with our own eyes?
All the layers I talked about really exist..that cant be doubted atb all..its absolutely real.
if you say those fossil layers arent real, you are saying you think the oceans arent real, the sky isnt real, trees dont really exist..

you are ignoring the questions I have asked about those layers..
thats why I get frustrated..
your answer was:  "they arent real"..
thats not an acceptable answer, because there is zero doubt they are real..
I have an explanation for them..which explains how they got the way they REALLY are right now..
you dont have an explanation that will work to explain it ALL..
if the currents of the flood moved the crinoid layers up to the tops of the mountains, putting the DEEPEST layers up to the TOP of the world, it should have also mixed up all the other layers..but you dont believe that!
you believe the fossil layers are in very specfic layers because different animals died at different times during the flood..
your 2 explanations utterly contradict each other.
you can have one or the other, but there is no way you can have both..
either all the anilmals died at specific times during the flood, and ended up in nice neat layers that we see today..or the flood waters churned up everythign up SO much that the deepest layers, the animals YOU say died FIRST, (crinoids) were moved by massive waves and churning currents up to the top of the highest mountains in thew world!
how you can possibly have it both ways?!
thats the whole problem with the flood theory..there is nothing that can explain ALL the things we see in the earth today..with our own eyes right now..

please read that article..
then let us know why your fellow Christian is wrong!
argue with his conclusions! I dare you!  

Scot

 

[jimscott]

Proverbs 1:7a:The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge...

Proverbs 3:5,6 - Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge
Him, and He will make your paths straight.

Ecclesiastes 12:13,14 - Now all has been heard; here is the
conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgement, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.

 

[Mike King]

Just when it was getting really interesting!

I am a Christian and you could say 'an ancient creationist' .

That means the for me the earth is really old, geological features we see today are the result of billions of years of change

The problem with 'flood geology' is that all geological features must have been formed by a single event, but that cannot be so. Every rock would be sedimentary and would not have features like unconformities, polymorphism and certainly there would be no space for conglomerate rocks...

A good book to read if you can get it written by a Christian is 'Creation and evolution, the facts and the falacies'.

 

[lavenderdawn]

Don't go far, Mike, we've got a poll coming up sometime soon. Should be interesting.  

 And that's an interesting view you have there.  That book sounds like a good read.

 

[nepenthes_ak]

Theirs a preaty cool qoute Not form the bible but it is preaty neat.

"
Christianity is not a religion, yet many determine to make it a religion.
Christianity is the relationship between God and man."

I havent read all the Pages... but some kind of evangalisim was going on. Has any one Posted a Testimony?

Oh im a christian...

cheers

 

[JBL]

Quote[/b] (nepenthes_ak @ April 11 2006,8:24)]Oh im a christian...

cheers

No kidding? You resurrected this thread!

There are many Christians in this forum as well as many other faiths. What we have in common is a love of CP. What we don't have in common is what makes us human (except for PAK and Ozzy--see signature line).

 

[aprilh]

Deist.

 

[Understudy]

Active Pastafarian
by product of the Church of the Sub Genius

Reformed Catholic, still likes God , just doesn't have much tolerance for his followers.

My Karma ran over your Dogma.

Salvation can be yours for a prayer and $19.95. I hear Benny Hinn is down to his last 10 million.

Some of the best Christians I have ever met were Buddists.

 

[jimscott]

Quote[/b] (nepenthes_ak @ April 11 2006,8:24)]I havent read all the Pages... but some kind of evangalisim was going on. Has any one Posted a Testimony?

I think I did so, in parts, in either this topic or the other one I showed you, or maybe in both combined?

 

[nepenthes_ak]

Understudy, I hear that alot, people not being a christain because of christains. That was also a qoute from that famous India guy who fougth so hard for Indias Freedom back when. (The really skinny guy Ghandi?). Any ways, I know its frustrating, But even the bible says that no one is perfect in Christ This is still part of our flesh. our flesh is still part of the sin nature, the thing that is saved is our Soul. But It never says that christains were ment to be perfect.

Jimscot, Eitherway had any one gotten saved? or just kinda still border line?

Cheers all

 

[jimscott]

Quote[/b] (nepenthes_ak @ April 12 2006,9:28)]Jimscot, Eitherway had any one gotten saved? or just kinda still border line?

Nope, not to my knowledge, but many a seed has been sown and many new friendships and PM side debates were spawned.

 

[Outsiders71]

I don't belong to any religion. I belong to Jesus Christ.

 

[nepenthes_ak]

 

[aprilh]

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Mohandas Gandhi

This is the quote.