racer and catatonic discussion

[catatonic]

Racer,

Do you want to continue this discussion? I'm ready to respond to everything left and listen to all your concerns about Mormonism. I just want to know if you think it's worth it.

Also a correction. I know what you mean about the "Lo. Here is Christ" verse. Around Joseph Smith's time many preachers in many religions were saying, "Here is Christ" effectively with their doctrines. They disagreed so much that Joseph Smith decided it was impossible to settle anything by appealing to the Bible. That's why he read James 1:5 and prayed to know what Church he should join. He was told he should join none of them by God the Father and Jesus Christ in a vision. God introduced Jesus. So that settles the matter for how he could know that Christ was with his Church. For us, I know what the verse says, but we just have to pray about it. If you feel a burning up inside or a swelling inside like I do, you'll know this is true.

[racer5.0stang]

Racer,

Do you want to continue this discussion? I'm ready to respond to everything left and listen to all your concerns about Mormonism. I just want to know if you think it's worth it.

Also a correction. I know what you mean about the "Lo. Here is Christ" verse. Around Joseph Smith's time many preachers in many religions were saying, "Here is Christ" effectively with their doctrines. They disagreed so much that Joseph Smith decided it was impossible to settle anything by appealing to the Bible. That's why he read James 1:5 and prayed to know what Church he should join. He was told he should join none of them by God the Father and Jesus Christ in a vision. God introduced Jesus. So that settles the matter for how he could know that Christ was with his Church. For us, I know what the verse says, but we just have to pray about it. If you feel a burning up inside or a swelling inside like I do, you'll know this is true.

I think the burning or swelling that you are refering to is acid reflux.

So I read somewhere that he (Joseph Smith) tried to "revise" the King James, is that true?

[catatonic]

yes

[catatonic]

It could be indigestion right now, but I always feel it in the Temple and at Firesides and often when I log on to a message board to talk about my Church. Plus there have been times when I've felt it for days, so I don't think it's always acid reflux. I did have a big fried rice bowl an hour ago, so it probably is indigestion at the moment, or maybe both.

[catatonic]

I don't have any of the other symptoms.

[catatonic]

OK I just coughed up a minute amount of something, so it's definitely acid reflux or both right now.

[catatonic]

I'm definitely not feeling anything right now.

[racer5.0stang]

It could be indigestion right now, but I always feel it in the Temple and at Firesides and often when I log on to a message board to talk about my Church. Plus there have been times when I've felt it for days, so I don't think it's always acid reflux. I did have a big fried rice bowl an hour ago, so it probably is indigestion at the moment, or maybe both.


Or maybe you aren't supposed to be at the Temple or at Firesides (whatever they are). Acid reflux can occur for days and in severe cases ordinary foods can trigger the reflux, not just greasy foods.

So tell me why Joseph felt that he should revise the King James. What supposed "errors" did he find and try to correct?

[catatonic]

OK so here are ones chosen at random.

Revelation 13:1 added "saw another sign, in the likeness of the kingdom of the earth; a beast rise up out of the sea, and he stood upon the sand of the sea,...

Ch. 4:26 Be ye angry and sin not is a question not a statement

1 Cor 12:31 changed to "I say unto you, Nay; for I have shown unto you a more excellent way, therefore covet earnestly the best gifts.

Matt 27:5 added hanged himself on a tree. And straightway he feel down, and his bowels gushed out, and he died.

Matt 5:2 And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying, Blessed are they who shall believe on me; and again, more blessed are they who shall believe on your words, when ye shall testify that ye have seen me and that I am. Yea, blessed are they who shall believe on your words, and come down into the depth of humility, and be baptized in my name; for they shall be visited with fire and the Holy Ghost, and shall receive a remission of their sins.

Jude 1:1 Jude the servant of God, called of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them who are sanctified of the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ

1 Timothy 3:16 added The pillar and ground of the truth is

Acts 9:7 (this is an important one because otherwiise there is a contradiction in your Bible)

they who were journeying with him saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him who spake to him.

Mark 14:32 And they came to a place which was named Gethsemane: which was a garden; and the disciples began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy, and to complain in their hearts, wondering if this be the Messiah. And Jesus knowing their hearts, said to his disciples, sit ye here while I shall pray.

Mark 13:2 Behold ye these stones of the temple, and all this great work, and buildings of the temple? Verily I say unto you, they shall be thrown down and left unto the Jews desolate. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things, and do ye not understand them? Verily I say unto you, there shall not be left here...

Mark 11:13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came to it with his disciples; and as they supposed, he came to it to see if he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, there was nothing but leaves, for as yet the figs were not ripe.

John 11:47 do we -> shall we do

John 7:24 Judge not according to your traditions, but judge righteous judgement.

Matt 6:32-33 Why is it that ye murmer among yourselves, saying, We cannot obey the word because ye have not all these things, and seek to excuse yourselves, saying that, after all these things do the Gentiles seek. Behold, I say unto you, that your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. Wherefore, seek not the things of this world But seek ye first to build up the kingdom of God, and to establish his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

John 5:6 in that case -> afflicted

Luke 2:21 remove "in the womb"

Luke 1:1 As I am a messenger of Jesus christ, and knowing that many have ...

Revelations Ch. 20:6 is he that hath -> are they who have

There's also one that says that after Jesus fasted he did something which showed his thoughts were turned to John the Baptist.

[racer5.0stang]

Sounds to me like ol Joseph wanted to change the bible to make it say what he wanted it to say.

Take this verse for example:

Luke 2:21 remove "in the womb"

The correct verse is as follows.

Luke 2:21

And when eight days wer accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

Why remove "in the womb"?

[catatonic]

Because the Bible might not have said, "in the womb", which is a redundant phrase, that's why.

[catatonic]

What was his burning desire to lead people astray that made him take out in the womb? Why would anyone want to take that phrase out if they were making up corrections?

[catatonic]

Did you check out Revelation 20:6? That one's pretty obvious for instance. You can't switch from the singular pronoun to the plural like that. A lot of them are obvious like that, and a lot of them are intuitive.

[Ali]

Get a chat room.

[racer5.0stang]

Get a chat room.

What do you think this message board is?

[racer5.0stang]

Did you check out Revelation 20:6? That one's pretty obvious for instance. You can't switch from the singular pronoun to the plural like that. A lot of them are obvious like that, and a lot of them are intuitive.

Here is Revelation 20:6

Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

This verse is describing the people who did not receive the mark of the beast and were killed for the cause of Christ during the Great Tribulation. These people will be resurrected and will reign with Jesus during his millenial reign.

The order of events yet to occur are: The rapture of the church (everyone that has accepted Jesus as their saviour), the Great Tribulation (7 years), the second coming of Christ, the battle of Armageddon, Christ's millenial reign(1,000 years), the Judgement, then the new heaven and the new earth.

I don't know what bible you are reading from but I see no error in grammar in this verse or any other that you listed.

[racer5.0stang]

What was his burning desire to lead people astray that made him take out in the womb? Why would anyone want to take that phrase out if they were making up corrections?


2 Timothy 4:3,4

3 For the time wil come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth and shall be turned unto fables.

Because the Bible might not have said, "in the womb", which is a redundant phrase, that's why.

It is clear that "in the womb" was placed in the verse to show that Jesus was born of a woman. So people much like your church cannot go and try and change it say something else.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

[racer5.0stang]

If you feel a burning up inside or a swelling inside like I do, you'll know this is true.

Instructions on how to discern truth:

2 Timothy 2:15

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Basically, study the word of God (the bible) which will enable you to discern right from wrong.

Feelings or emotions will come and go, decisions cannot be based on emotions.

[catatonic]

James 4:11 says, and I'm not saying you're not a doer of the law,

Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.

Our Luke 6:30 says, and I'm not saying your wicked, and it really fits in nicely to me,

For it is better that thou suffer thine enemy to take these things, than to contend with him. Verily I say unto you, Your heavenly Father who seeth in secret, shall bring that wicked one to judgement.

So I'm not going to contend with you. Joseph Smith had only an 1820-1830 KJV Bible and the Holy Ghost to go on.

With Revelations 20:6 you can say that the pronouns didn't need to match up, but you can't say it's wrong to say that the original pronouns did match up. With Luke 2:21, Luke already wrote that Mary was great with child. You haven't shown me why this phrase is necessary. I thought for a moment that maybe Jesus wasn't conceived in the womb, and quickly realized that that was stupid.

You've used 2 Tim 4:3-4 twice on me, and frankly it's annoying since you haven't shown me what scripture or doctrine I have rejected, or what lusts I am following. I know what itching ears means and I don't have them.

2 Tim 3:16 this doesn't say the Bible hasn't been tampered with.

2 Tim 2:15 this doesn't say that there can't be more of the word of God. Cannot your conscious or the Holy Ghost can't also help to discern truth? You study to show that you can discern truth is what this scripture says. You also study to learn what's good and true and what God wants you to do.

[racer5.0stang]

So I'm not going to contend with you. Joseph Smith had only an 1820-1830 KJV Bible and the Holy Ghost to go on.

Seeing as how the King James was written in 1611, why did he only have a 1820-1830. Or was the the time frame that he was trying to "correct" the bible.

You've used 2 Tim 4:3-4 twice on me, and frankly it's annoying since you haven't shown me what scripture or doctrine I have rejected, or what lusts I am following. I know what itching ears means and I don't have them.

You have rejected the doctrine of the bible saying that it is corrupt. You have not come to this conclusion on your own, but have been told by your supposed high councilmen. If one part of the bible is corrupt, then all of it is corrupt. That is problem with truth. Either it is entirely true or it is false. Don't you think God preserved His Word throught the ages so the we (people in our day and age) can have the truth?

Let me ask you this, why doesn't Jesus fortell his coming back when Joseph Smith claims that he did?

With Luke 2:21, Luke already wrote that Mary was great with child. You haven't shown me why this phrase is necessary. I thought for a moment that maybe Jesus wasn't conceived in the womb, and quickly realized that that was stupid.

Well that was one of you supposed corruptions.

Do you see where this is going?

[Schmeltz]

If one part of the bible is corrupt, then all of it is corrupt.


... which is why you fundies constantly run afoul of science and history. Tell me, since the account of the Noachian deluge is an obvious mythic fabrication, a fact that in the face of science simply cannot be denied, does science corrupt the Bible? Tell me, since there is no archaeological or (extra-Biblical) literary evidence for the Israelite conquests of the Bible, does history corrupt the word of God?

Or is it possible to draw meaning and spirituality from a religious text without miring your thinking in the Dark Ages? I don't expect you to answer or even to understand, but you and your ilk would sure do us all a favour if you'd pry yourself out of your ignorance.

[racer5.0stang]

... which is why you fundies constantly run afoul of science and history. Tell me, since the account of the Noachian deluge is an obvious mythic fabrication, a fact that in the face of science simply cannot be denied, does science corrupt the Bible? Tell me, since there is no archaeological or (extra-Biblical) literary evidence for the Israelite conquests of the Bible, does history corrupt the word of God?

Or is it possible to draw meaning and spirituality from a religious text without miring your thinking in the Dark Ages? I don't expect you to answer or even to understand, but you and your ilk would sure do us all a favour if you'd pry yourself out of your ignorance.


The things that science teaches, such as evolution, flies in the face of the bible. One of them must true and one must be false. The question is where does your faith lie?

Have you ever read a text book that left parts of history out? So by leaving these parts out, no matter the significance, does that make the text book fallible?

If you mean living by the bible is living in the Dark Ages, so be it. Thats the problem with the world today. People bring God to their level instead of bringing themselves to His level. People try to live their lives anyway they see fit which is usually against what the bible teaches.

[Schmeltz]

If one must be true and one must be false, it's probably a pretty good policy to flow with the one based on principles of repeatable testability and objective inquiry, instead of the one founded on assumption and mythology. Wouldn't you say? If the Bible flies in the face of reality - which is what science teaches - then maybe it ought to be reinterpreted and reconsidered.

I've read lots of textbooks that left stuff out (that's pretty much unavoidable), but never a textbook that contained blatant fabrications and mythology presented as undeniable fact. That would definitely be a fallible textbook.

The problem with the world today is that people like you insist on an oboslete, irrelevant interpretation of religion that really would take us back to the Dark Ages if we applied it. Thank God we're past that now, and that you and your kind will never be able to turn back the clock, much as you would like to. The fact that you'd rather live in the Dark Ages than acknowledge factual reality speaks volumes about the primitivism behind your thinking.

[racer5.0stang]

I've read lots of textbooks that left stuff out (that's pretty much unavoidable), but never a textbook that contained blatant fabrications and mythology presented as undeniable fact. That would definitely be a fallible textbook.

Anytime you have read the scientists view on how life began (such as evolution), it has contained fabrications and mythology presented as undeniable fact.

The problem with the world today is that people like you insist on an oboslete, irrelevant interpretation of religion that really would take us back to the Dark Ages if we applied it.

What are referring to as the Dark Ages?

[Ace42]

Anytime you have read the scientists view on how life began (such as evolution), it has contained fabrications and mythology presented as undeniable fact.

No, it hasn't. Why not read it instead of making shit up? You might learn something. Actually, no you won't. Being able to understand complicated scientific reasoning involves having a mental age greater than 11.

You think that monkeys having opposable thumbs is "fabrications and mythology." That is because you are stupid.

Just as you are wrong about that, you are wrong about this. Fact of the matter is that you'd not know an undeniable fact if it came with a sign and was endorsed by Jesus himself.

What are referring to as the Dark Ages?

And you think that you are not stupid? You can't even follow a simple post, and you think you understand the bible... You are a joke.

[EN[i]GMA]

Anytime you have read the scientists view on how life began (such as evolution), it has contained fabrications and mythology presented as undeniable fact.



What are referring to as the Dark Ages?

Evolution says nothing about how life began.

That would be abiogenesis.

And just because we cannot currently explain it, doesn't mean it's God that did it, just that we haven't found the correct answer yet.

There are literally hundreds of abiogenesis theories, each far more valid than the deus ex machina of God.

[Funkaloyd]

And just because we cannot currently explain it, doesn't mean it's God that did it, just that we haven't found the correct answer yet.
I would say the same thing regarding the beginning of the Universe and your Deist beliefs.

[catatonic]

Well, this is going nowhere. I thought I was feeling the spirit and on Tuesday I'm getting my chest x-rayed for ulcers. I don't really care to have the discussion unless I feel something. I've been trying to tell people the Bible isn't meant to be believed unless someone reads the Book of Mormon. For the record, I support racer's statement that says, "People bring God to their level instead of bringing themselves to His level. People try to live their lives anyway they see fit which is usually against what the bible teaches."

Either it is entirely true or it is false. Don't you think God preserved His Word throught the ages so the we (people in our day and age) can have the truth?

Let's say you do an experiment. Take a computer file of the Bible, change a word, and then see if you can give it to someone and pass it off on the Bible. If you can, or if you believe you can, you've changed the Bible. Also, there are different versions of the Bible that differ in meaning, which proves that at most one Bible version can be entirely true.

Let me ask you this, why doesn't Jesus fortell his coming back when Joseph Smith claims that he did?


I believe there are many scriptures in Isaiah. That wasn't the Second Coming however. Jesus didn't touch the ground according to the account. I really don't think it's appropriate to talk from the perspective that the Bible is true until the scientific concerns of Schmeltz and Ace get dealt with.

I can't help but find it interesting however that those against the Bible usually never raise objections to the morals in it, and those for the Bible usually never raise objections to it's appearing unscientific.

[catatonic]

... which is why you fundies constantly run afoul of science and history. Tell me, since the account of the Noachian deluge is an obvious mythic fabrication, a fact that in the face of science simply cannot be denied, does science corrupt the Bible? Tell me, since there is no archaeological or (extra-Biblical) literary evidence for the Israelite conquests of the Bible, does history corrupt the word of God?

Or is it possible to draw meaning and spirituality from a religious text without miring your thinking in the Dark Ages? I don't expect you to answer or even to understand, but you and your ilk would sure do us all a favour if you'd pry yourself out of your ignorance.

Why do you assume I'm stupid? Give me a chance to answer. I will answer the second question in time for the holiday. Here is your answer for the Israelite conquests in the Bible.
http://www.bibarch.com/Perspectives/7.2D.htm and
http://www.bibarch.com/Perspectives/7.2D.htm

This website really seemed to do a thorough job of raising all the significant objections to the Israelite conquest on its own. Perhaps you'll agree. Also, with patient reading, it shows that the problem is not that the Israelite conquests were impossible, but that scholars seek to rule out the possibility without considering the weaknesses in their own methods. All the evidence seems to be there to support the possibility of the Bible in lieu of scholarly objections. Perhaps you'll agree. :)

Also, I'm not a fundamentalist. I already said I don't think the Bible is perfect, so why'd you call me a fundamentalist?

[EN[i]GMA]

I would say the same thing regarding the beginning of the Universe and your Deist beliefs.

The beginning of the Universe is a slightly different topic but rather irrelevent as I now consider myself an atheist.

[catatonic]

The second link is supposed to be
http://www.bibarch.com/Perspectives/7.3D.htm

[catatonic]

So for the Israelite invasion, I would say
http://www.bibarch.com/Perspectives/7.2D.htm and
http://www.bibarch.com/Perspectives/7.3D.htm answers your question.

For the flood, http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/flood.asp will probably upset you, but if you look under geology and fossils I think it will answer your question.

In the Bible it says that God made a firmament on the second day above the atmosphere full of water. That and from beneath the earth is where all the water for a global flood would come from. The refraction from the water would have created conditions for vastly different life to exist and changed a lot of stuff. So I believe this http://www.answeringenesis.org puts science on a more neutral setting, especially since half or so Americans believe in this stuff.

[catatonic]

I've checked around and haven't found this website answersingenesis to be totally reliable, but I have seen answers to the flood problems in my searching.

[catatonic]

I wrote that because a reference couldn't be found, but then I found that they mistyped a digit and the reference works, so it's a pretty nice website.

[Funkaloyd]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html


GMA']The beginning of the Universe is a slightly different topic but rather irrelevent as I now consider myself an atheist.
Hallelujah!

[EN[i]GMA]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html



Hallelujah!

Eh, it's ok.

[catatonic]

I've already looked at this website and found it to be highly untrustworthy.

For instance, a professor offered a $250,000 to anyone who could provide empirical evidence for evolution, and the website claims he made an impossible challenge by saying that.

[catatonic]

I'm not going to look through this website. Bring up an individual question or objection, and we'll try to address it. Better yet take the questions one at a time and see if you can address them yourself.

[Schmeltz]

I didn't call you a fundamentalist, catatonic, I called racer a fundamentalist. And your links are more riddled with assumptive holes than any truly objective historical or archaeological analysis of the available evidence could ever be - trust me, I know. You cannot begin any analysis of any textual material with even the slightest notion of it being "divinely inspired." I'm sorry, but there's a rational assessment of history and there's emotive, irrational assessments of history - and your links conform only to the second case. They simply don't make any realistic sense.

If the atmosphere had been full of moisture to the extent claimed by literalist interpretations of Genesis, all life forms would have been killed by nitrogen poisoning. There is no geological evidence for the sudden submergence of the earth in water, either atmospheric or subterranean in origin - there are telltale clues that would indicate such an event, and they simply do not exist. You are working on the basis of primitive mythology, which may be reflective of local contemporary reality to a certain extent, but which provides absolutely no rational informative basis for any interpretation of our contemporary reality.

Hate to break it to ya, but we done moved on.

[Funkaloyd]

First off, to consider him a "professor" is an insult to the many people who deserve the title. His PhD is from the "Patriot Bible University (http://www.patriotuniversity.com/)."

Anyway, did you read through the page in question (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html)? Do you know of a way to prove a negative? I'm sure that the rest of the world would be very grateful if you would share it.

[catatonic]

First off, to consider him a "professor" is an insult to the many people who deserve the title. His PhD is from the "Patriot Bible University (http://www.patriotuniversity.com/)."

Anyway, did you read through the page in question (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html)? Do you know of a way to prove a negative? I'm sure that the rest of the world would be very grateful if you would share it.

Oh, sorry. Checking the page further I see that you are right. He is a phony. I don't know why he still has his offer when there's so much bad publicity about it. But hey, James Randi the magician is a phony too. James Randi offerered a million dollars to anyone who could prove the supernatural. I made 6 predictions about the future correctly and he started to say that I was bothering him with my comments in my e-mails which were very minimal and he wouldn't give me the million dollars even though I had pretty much proved it and cut off correspondence with me.

I didn't call you a fundamentalist, catatonic. Point noted.
And your links are more riddled with assumptive holes than any truly objective historical or archaeological analysis of the available evidence could ever be - trust me, I know. You cannot begin any analysis of any textual material with even the slightest notion of it being "divinely inspired." I'm sorry, but there's a rational assessment of history and there's emotive, irrational assessments of history - and your links conform only to the second case. They simply don't make any realistic sense.

What's wrong with the assumption that due to a lack of urbanization, many cities had pottery which were behind the times, and that therefore dating the cities based on the pottery involved is a bad assumption?

f the atmosphere had been full of moisture to the extent claimed by literalist interpretations of Genesis, all life forms would have been killed by nitrogen poisoning. There is no geological evidence for the sudden submergence of the earth in water, either atmospheric or subterranean in origin - there are telltale clues that would indicate such an event, and they simply do not exist. You are working on the basis of primitive mythology, which may be reflective of local contemporary reality to a certain extent, but which provides absolutely no rational informative basis for any interpretation of our contemporary reality

The atmosphere wasn't full of water. There was water above the atmosphere, kept in a private compartment. Do you mean when that water was released that there would be nitrogen poisioning?

I read about this: Lightning flashes lead to a reaction between atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen in the presence of water vapour which forms nitric acid. There wouldn't be any lightning flashes if it came down as rain directly from new openings would it? The water would be electrically neutral, unlike a cloud right? That's because, to me anyway, the water would be above the atmosphere, so there'd be no wind moving it about within the firmament. Solar wind might move the water one way, but since the water could get uniform or be uniform I don't imagine there would be any shifting up and down in the firmament to generate electrical charge.

As for geological evidence, did you check out some of the pages at
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/geology.asp (it's a different page). And what did you think? I thought the Uluru and Kata Tjuta page constituted evidence for instance. I'm looking at these evidences pages right now to see what I think of them.

The telltale clues don't exist because people are looking at what in carbon dating is 4500 years ago, which is actually much sooner than that. They don't know what carbon dating age relates to 4500 years ago. Maybe it's 40 million years ago in carbon dating that they should be looking at. I haven't gotten to carbon dating yet. Wait until we get to carbon dating.

I believe primitive mythology isn't as weak as it's cracked up to be. For instance Hindus say that the earth is on the back of a turtle. Sounds stupid sure, but a turtle shell is reminiscent of a dodecahedron, and recent articles everywhere from bbc to elsewhere have written about a discovery that the Universe may be dodecahedral in its topology. The Bible gives sparse information that is hard to interpret as reality because it is so compact. God's not going to have his messengers writing extra information when that would appear weak, is how I interpret it.

[catatonic]

Let me begin to address the flood page brought up by Funkaloyd.

[catatonic]

1. Building the Ark

Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?

Again, as I keep saying, this is an example where reading the Book of Mormon proves useful in whether you'll be able to believe the Bible. In 1 Nephi 17:8, Nephi is commanded to build a ship to travel from the Middle East to America via the Pacific Ocean. This is believeable because there is lots of evidence for the Book of Mormon (yes I know about lds-mormon.com which just raises questions much like this page) that I can show you if you're willing to accept the Book of Mormon if its true. He didn't construct it after the manner of man, but after the manner of God. Because of this, it didn't look like an ordinary ship. He would pray frequently about how to perform basic steps in building the ship. Now, if man can make a wooden ship maybe 250 cubits long, I think Noah with God can make a ship 450 cubits long without it breaking. He was 600 years old, and I'm sure there are many things we haven't thought of in how to build bigger ships of wood. What if the ark had two separate parts connected only by wood? What if the ark had three separate parts connected by wood, and the people were in separate parts?

Gathering the animals. Could animals have traveled from elsewhere?
There were no islands at the time, says the Bible. It was all one land mass. I've heard stories of animals who have known what to do in instances. In the case of the recent Tsunami, two elephants broke their chains and ran for the hills, and then returned after the Tsunami. I think the key here is that the larger animals recognized the situation for what it was. They could sense the flood. I think God could have entered the minds of the animals and told them to come see Noah.

Could animals have all lived near Noah?
Animals were all meant to be vegetarian, so I see no reason why not. Some of them could have travelled from far away. I don't know how to explain carniverous teeth... maybe those with carniverous teeth can still eat plants and those animals would occasionally eat meat against God's will. Maybe the carniverous teeth were only for dinosaurs, which I mention later on.

How was the ark loaded? The animals could have been in cages beforehand, or not, and the animals could have gotten on the ark itself. God could have influenced them and they could have sensed the flood was coming. The more hostile animals, if there were any, could have been loaded last when they could definitely sense a flood.

Fitting the Animals Aboard. What is a kind? People distinguish animals by name at the species level now, but not in Hebrew and probably not in Noah's language. The Old Testament never mentions a species name that I'm aware of. There's nothing in the Bible I could find that says reproductive separateness was the criteria either. As for the animals not mutating fast enough, I read a science article that says that species evolve rapidly to accomodate for their sexual partner selection, and I don't know why there can't be something in cells that motivates quick mutation when appropriate.

What kinds were aboard the ark?This section is right. They should include arthopods, insects, and amphibians. It says below that this has minimal impact on the carrying capacity of the ark, so why'd they even bring this objection up?

Were dinosaurs and other extinct animals on the ark? History says that ancient people classified these as dragons and monsters, so some of them might have been and others might not have been classified as animals.

Were the animals aboard the ark mature? That Bible verse was from the NIV. I use the KJV which says the male and his female. They could have survived because they were cared for on the ark and afterwards they were not in competition for survival since there were so few animals.

How many clean animals were on the ark? I don't see what the problem is with Woodmorappe's assumption here. There could have been only 13 clean genera since that's what the Bible says, and why couldn't the number have been 7 and not 14? The Bible says "by sevens". Saying the number could have been 14 and then saying its ambigous and then saying 14 doesn't work isn't an objection to the Bible. Anyway 14 only increases the load 1.5-3%.

Conclusions If you still need more room, there could have been no meat as food from animals eating vegetarian.

4. Caring for the animals. Special diets. It says in Ch. 6, vs. 21 that Noah took all the food that was eaten.

Fresh foods / Food Preservation / Pest ControlIt says there, "and it shall be for food for thee, and for them." God made a special allowance that the food would work, and I don't see why not.

Ventilation Sailors can live underneath a ship with a small opening, so I think this will work, as long as the animals came up to the top occasionally.

SanitationI guess they carried at least 1/3 of the poop up then.

Exercise/Animal HandlingAs I mentioned, I expect the animals were very well behaved since I think God could have been influencing them as I've talked about. They would take turns going up to the top for exercise and air.

Manpower for feeding, watering, etc... The food probably wasn't in jars, since God promised it would be for food. Also, the animals were very cooperative, the people took longer shifts of maybe 20 hours, and there wasn't as much transportation time between feeding. Why would animals need to be hand-fed? The troughs could have been big troughs, since we still have some extra room. How long does it take to trim hooves? With manure, the animals were probably on a meager diet and how long does it take to transport the manure? If they took out the manure of 1000 animals per day I think they could manage. There would be no corpses of dead animals. In this case, the animals could get out of their cages and return without too much supervision.

Please raise any objections to my objections and we'll get through this.

The sections on the flood itself are probably already raised in answersingenesis, and I'll go through the questions after the flood eventually too.

[catatonic]

I don't know if I should put my answers to 8 right now since I haven't worked them out fully.

[Schmeltz]

They should include arthopods, insects, and amphibians. It says below that this has minimal impact on the carrying capacity of the ark, so why'd they even bring this objection up?


Because, to take a single example, in order to account for all known varieties, the line of beetles marching into the Ark would have had to be 238 kilometres long!

It is painfully obvious that discussing these issues with you is a waste of time; your grasp of reality is borderline delusional. Good day.

[catatonic]

Can I defend myself first?

Collecting all land animals instead of just mammals, birds, and reptiles would have insignificant impact on the space required, since those animals, though plentiful, are so small. (The problems come when you try to care for them all.)

I don't think they brought in all the species of beetles, just maybe a few beetles, and then the beetles adapted later on. It says in the website that it would be insignificant.

Good day to you too.

[catatonic]

your grasp of reality is borderline delusional. Good day.

Yes. Sorry for that.

[catatonic]

I confess I can't explain the flood. Maybe it was more like a parable.

[Funkaloyd]

Ok, a question for you and other liberal Christians (either those who hold that the Bible is a fallible work of divinely inspired men or those who believe that parts of the Bible presented as truth shouldn't be taken literally): How do you decide which Bible passages are to be taken as literal non-fiction, and which should be considered folk tales or parables? It often seems like liberal Christians pick and choose what they want to believe based on their own morals, especially when confronted with an apparent Biblical contradiction (i.e. a loving God vs. 2 Kings 2:23 to 25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=12&chapter=2&verse=23&end_verse=25&version=31&context=context)).

It is painfully obvious that discussing these issues with you is a waste of time; your grasp of reality is borderline delusional.

I think that that's unfair. He's demonstrated open mindedness and consciousness previously on this board; certainly much more than others who have argued for a faith.

[Ace42]

Ok, a question for you and other liberal Christians (either those who hold that the Bible is a fallible work of divinely inspired men or those who believe that parts of the Bible presented as truth shouldn't be taken literally): How do you decide which Bible passages are to be taken as literal non-fiction, and which should be considered folk tales or parables? It often seems like liberal Christians pick and choose what they want to believe based on their own morals

Personally, I think there is very little in it that isn't meant to be taken as parabolic. If you believe the book is meant to tell you about how to lead your life, or the nature of God, then any historical accuracy / innaccuracy is beside the point.

Of course, this means that pretty much all of the material in it is subjective and open to interpretation - which is of course unavoidable when you are dealing with abstracts such as "Good" and "Evil."

What little "historical" truth there is in it is usually merely narrative, and certainly not something you'd use as a factor in deciding how you'd conduct your religion *today*.

Trying to extract universal ethics from circumstantial situations is not rational.

Generally, the rule of thumb I follow is:

If Jesus said it, then it is 'Gospel Truth' <pardon the pun> (although obviously open to interpretation as to what he was driving at, etc) - if not, it is the product of men and thus clearly fallible.

While some sections which are attributed to God (IE God's words as related directly, as opposed to people like Paul saying "Hey everybody, God just told me he htes Queers! Oh, and he said me killing Christians for months previous was absolutely fine!") could qualify, these are largely irrelevant, as they have been superceded by the teachings of Jesus.


I think that that's unfair. He's demonstrated open mindedness and consciousness previously on this board; certainly much more than others who have argued for a faith.

If you mean RacerStang, then no, he hasn't.

[racer5.0stang]

Ok, a question for you and other liberal Christians (either those who hold that the Bible is a fallible work of divinely inspired men or those who believe that parts of the Bible presented as truth shouldn't be taken literally): How do you decide which Bible passages are to be taken as literal non-fiction, and which should be considered folk tales or parables? It often seems like liberal Christians pick and choose what they want to believe based on their own morals, especially when confronted with an apparent Biblical contradiction

That is the hole that many "Christians" fall into. Lets believe all of the good stuff but none of the bad. Good meaning the love of God, bad meaning the wrath of God. These are the churches that say life is good and your life can be great if you write me a check. Hypocrites.

I think that that's unfair. He's demonstrated open mindedness and consciousness previously on this board; certainly much more than others who have argued for a faith.

He has demonstrated ignorance on the subjects discussed.

While some sections which are attributed to God (IE God's words as related directly, as opposed to people like Paul saying "Hey everybody, God just told me he htes Queers! Oh, and he said me killing Christians for months previous was absolutely fine!") could qualify, these are largely irrelevant, as they have been superceded by the teachings of Jesus.

Saul killed Christians before he saw Jesus and was converted. Later he became known as Paul. Paul is the perfect example of Christ's love for sinners. Paul's sins were forgiven just like everyone else's if they repent and ask for forgiveness.

If you mean RacerStang, then no, he hasn't.

I am a narrow minded conservative who thinks the bible is the inerrant word of God. I was not "brought up" believing this, it is a decision I made on my own. If science or man teaches something and the bible says other wise, then my beliefs are with the bible.

[catatonic]

I think the key to telling the truth from scriptures is to try it out. If the spirit whispers to you that it's true, and I don't mean acid reflux, then you'll know.

I can't explain the flood, but I haven't found it to be false yet. There's no point in trying to prove something that's just too hard though unless I was smarter and thought it was true. There are several Ph.Ds who believe it though, and probably somewhere around half of Americans believe it.

[racer5.0stang]

Why have scientists found whale bones and sea shells on mountain tops?

[catatonic]

According to the scientists, America used to be covered by water, that's why.

[TABird of Pray]

I am a narrow minded conservative who thinks the bible is the inerrant word of God. I was not "brought up" believing this, it is a decision I made on my own. If science or man teaches something and the bible says other wise, then my beliefs are with the bible. As quoted by Racerstang.

I have aquestion for you racer, you say you are a devoted narrow minded christian. If you belive the Bible is the inerrant word of God you must know it says somthing in ther about service for your Master;what kind of service do you do for Him ? just curious?? (y) :)

[racer5.0stang]

I have aquestion for you racer, you say you are a devoted narrow minded christian. If you belive the Bible is the inerrant word of God you must know it says somthing in ther about service for your Master;what kind of service do you do for Him ? just curious?? (y) :)

Nothing really.

[Funkaloyd]

That is the hole that many "Christians" fall into. Lets believe all of the good stuff but none of the bad.
A thought experiment for those who believe that the Bible is infallible non-fiction throughout: Let's say that through either divine revelation or death, you've found out what God's all about. You know the truth, you know God's opinions. The problem is, his idea of righteousness is in stark contrast to yours. Perhaps God supports racism, abortion, killing mortals for fun; anything which you personally are totally disgusted by. Now, God is inherently good and incapable of evil, so you know that his way is the right way, but that doesn't change the fact that it seems very wrong to you.

Do you support God anyway?

[catatonic]

I find that when this happens if I give it some time and try it out God isn't so bad after all.

Racer, faith without works is dead. John Kerry knew that. I'm not saying I work haard myself, which is probably why I didn't have enough faith to answer all the flood questions.

[Ace42]

Saul killed Christians before he saw Jesus and was converted. Later he became known as Paul. Paul is the perfect example of Christ's love for sinners. Paul's sins were forgiven just like everyone else's if they repent and ask for forgiveness.

Of course, we only have his word for this. But hell, I know I'd believe a mass-murderer's word any day of the week. Charlie Manson, James Jones, David Koresh. You name 'em, I've believed 'em.

I am a narrow minded conservative who thinks the bible is the inerrant word of God. I was not "brought up" believing this, it is a decision I made on my own. If science or man teaches something and the bible says other wise, then my beliefs are with the bible.

All of this is precisely why you are a boob whose opinions are worthless.

You may as well say "If I see something, and the bible says otherwise, I believe the bible."

You may as well say "If something is true, and the bible says otherwise, I believe the bible."

But then, that's because you are a fool.

[racer5.0stang]

Of course, we only have his word for this. But hell, I know I'd believe a mass-murderer's word any day of the week. Charlie Manson, James Jones, David Koresh. You name 'em, I've believed 'em.

With some of the things that you have posted in the past, I would believe you.

All of this is precisely why you are a boob whose opinions are worthless.

You may as well say "If I see something, and the bible says otherwise, I believe the bible."

You may as well say "If something is true, and the bible says otherwise, I believe the bible."

But then, that's because you are a fool.

That is not what I said at all.

If man says, "Hey we all came from monkeys", and the bible says, "God created man", then I am going for the bible.

What man thinks is true, is not always true. Science has proven that time and time again.

If you would come down from your high horse, you might get a dose of reality.

[racer5.0stang]

I find that when this happens if I give it some time and try it out God isn't so bad after all.

Racer, faith without works is dead. John Kerry knew that. I'm not saying I work haard myself, which is probably why I didn't have enough faith to answer all the flood questions.

Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

John Kerry is a puppet who couldn't figure out which team to be on.

[Ace42]

If man says, "Hey we all came from monkeys", and the bible says, "God created man", then I am going for the bible.

Homonid ancestor species, but you get points for spelling and effort.

What man thinks is true, is not always true. Science has proven that time and time again.

Which is precisely why what you believe is true, and what has been disproved by science, is not true.

If you would come down from your high horse, you might get a dose of reality.

What, like suddenly see that all monkeys have had their opposable thumbs removed in an amazing God-proving miracle?

Moved any mountains recently? Last I checked, Ben Nevis was sitting firmly in its place.

Clearly, you are the one who is divorced from reality. If you accepted that, you might learn something, instead of remaining a stupid and worthless ignoramus.

[racer5.0stang]

Homonid ancestor species, but you get points for spelling and effort.

Wrong.

What, like suddenly see that all monkeys have had their opposable thumbs removed in an amazing God-proving miracle?

Why do you keep insisting that monkeys do not have opposable thumbs?

Moved any mountains recently? Last I checked, Ben Nevis was sitting firmly in its place.

There was that one, over there in that place, that time.

Clearly, you are the one who is divorced from reality. If you accepted that, you might learn something, instead of remaining a stupid and worthless ignoramus.

I am glad that you have mastered your thesaurus. Huked on Fonix wurked fer u.

[Ace42]

Why do you keep insisting that monkeys do not have opposable thumbs?

Because you asserted that it was fact. Just one more example of you being very very wrong.

And every time you say "This is true" or claim to have an authoritative knowledge of something that is not backed up by sound scientific reasoning or objective fact, I will continue to bring up your profound ignorance.

There was that one, over there in that place, that time.

So in other words, you drew a blank and once again science triumphs over your superstitions.

I am glad that you have mastered your thesaurus. Huked on Fonix wurked fer u.

In England, having a vocabulary of words that do not appear in the bible is not considered particularly special.

[racer5.0stang]

Because you asserted that it was fact. Just one more example of you being very very wrong.

No one asserted anything, you merely assumed.

For like the 100th time, it was a joke.

Get your head out of sand.

So in other words, you drew a blank and once again science triumphs over your superstitions.

No, if science were involved, the mountain would move. Explosives, etc.

In England, having a vocabulary of words that do not appear in the bible is not considered particularly special.

Like draught house?

[Ace42]

No one asserted anything, you merely assumed.

For like the 100th time, it was a joke.

Get your head out of sand.

No, it wasn't. You were using sarcasm to show just how ridiculous it was that mankind evolved from monkeys.

Humans are monkeys with the opposable thumb, increased intelligence, and the ability to reason and walk up right.

Monkeys have opposable thumbs, the ability to reason (more so than you, I'd wager) and many can walk upright. Clearly, you know very little if anything about primates, and thus you are incapable of accurately considering the merits of evolutionary theory.

http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=586318&postcount=13

So stop trying to rewrite history, and make it look like you knew what you were talking about. You didn't, you don't, you are an ignorant prat whose perception of reality is VERY VERY different to how reality actually is.

No, if science were involved, the mountain would move.

Precisely what I said. Science is less fallable than your belief structure.

Take your head out of your ass, and learn things. Really. It will make you a better person.

[racer5.0stang]

Hey remember this?

Originally Posted By Qdrop:Can you just imagine what Ace's family life was like growing up?

i imagine he was constantly brow-beaten and made to feel inferior on a daily basis....

hence the inferiority complex he so brilliantly displays.


"YOU'RE ALL IDIOTS! STUPID! YOU'RE BENEATH ME! YOU CAN'T COMPREHEND WHAT I'M SAYING! YOU RETARDED PEASANT.....
YOU'RE NO SON OF MINE!...YOU'RE no son....of mine.......you're stupid...*sniff*....you're....*sob*.......why daddy?....why?.....

Nothing like those memories.

[Ace42]

Hey remember this?

Nothing like those memories.

Actually no, as I think he was on ignore at that point, however, I fail to see how that makes you any less of an ignorant and worthless prick.

[catatonic]

Let's try going back to the situation again, more rationally this time. If you want to keep arguing away from the issue, go ahead, but I'm going back to square one, whether the flood occured.

When I was trying to justify the ark, I was making some wild assumptions because I couldn't find a way to make them work, but I believe if I go slower through these claims I may be able to answer all the objections at talkorigins.

Let's start just with building the ark.
Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?

First of all, there's an 18-page, 2.5 year thread on the subject by some smart people here http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=90&m=1
There was actually a show I think where they talked about it and I think the show came back inconclusive or was irrelevant according to the posts. They get off topic at about page 12, and back on towards the end. At the end, there's a Korean advanced study where the Koreans seem to have concluded the ark would do pretty good.

People are still arguing about whether the ark could have been built on this thread, and the arkies are still holding strong, so I think you have to give it a chance until you've at least studied it enough to understand what they're saying.

I don't think the seas were heavy, but if they were, all that would probably be necessary would be for the wavelength of the waves to be different than the ark. Could someone tell me why the seas would be any heavier than normal (it wasn't a hurricane or anything like that)?

They mention ancient Chinese ships that apparently got to be 400 feet. They mention that the ark was a floating barge, not a sailboat, which is the most stable and can be built the largest, and the 250-ft modern ships they're comparing it to are all sailboats.

Also, this (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/ships.asp) page from the answersingenesis people documents several ancient ships that were comparable in size to the ark.

Also, Noah was told to cover the ark with pitch inside and out. That was probably significant.

Also, here's a page about your insect problems: http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BNoahsArkAndInsects49.htm

So I don't think I'm being irrational in saying the ark could have at least been built. But if you don't want to slowly go through talkorigins like I do that's fine with me.

[catatonic]

The Korean study deserves a post of its own. It's the link for kids (it's not just for kids) on the left of the page, and there's info lying around the page. http://www.worldwideflood.com/

[catatonic]

Since this thread was mainly focused on racer and I, let me say this to racer.

I'm sad that you get so much criticism from this board. You're just trying to be yourself and may not be used to people like those who are berating you every day. The scriptures say after you've rebuked somebody you're supposed to show forth love and I don't think they intend to do that.

I just attended a lecture from a Professor on building faith (understanding that leads to correct action, not mere belief without evidence) and the speaker said there are five ways to build faith and gain truth.

1. Study diligently (like scriptures if you believe in them). This was the primary one.
2. Pray earnestly
3. Give service. He said in Heaven people will all be giving service so we need to learn on earth that we're happiest when we're giving service to others.
4. Obey the commandments.
5. Obey the promptings of the Holy Spirit.

I'm glad you know so many scriptures, glad you're happy as a conservative, and hope you will get more respect as you grow more experienced and older.

[catatonic]

And thank you for telling me I had acid reflux. I got treatment.

[racer5.0stang]

I'm sad that you get so much criticism from this board. You're just trying to be yourself and may not be used to people like those who are berating you every day.

I assume you are referring to Ace. Don't worry about him, he has good intentions. Besides, I enjoy a good debate even though it quickly turns into a slander match.

I have no problem with people berating me. It keeps me on my toes.

It is the truth that people do not like, not the person telling them the truth.

[Funkaloyd]

Christians have such a fucking persecution complex.

[Schmeltz]

You don't enjoy a good debate, you enjoy pretending Scripture is a substitute for it.

catatonic, your shipbuilding points have been dealt with (as, you will find, have most any other attempts at rationalizing the legend of the Deluge into something closer to reality) at talkorigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/mar04.html) (scroll about a third of the way down).


The question is not necessarily if ships built solely of wood that large could be constructed and even floated, but rather, could an itinerant stoneage goatherd build a ship that size without any modern tools or materials. Zhen He's flagship (circa 1430 C.E.) was reported to be 440 feet long by 186 at the beam; the ark comes in at 300 cubits long (450 feet), 50 cubits at the beam, (75 feet) and 30 cubits (45 feet) high. In the book, "When China Ruled the Seas: The Treasure Fleet of the Dragon Throne 1405 - 1433" author Louise Levathes observes: "The keel consisted of long pieces of wood bound together with iron hoops."* The use of iron for strengthening wood members would certainly allow for bigger ships. Also it should be noted that sailing ships have an ability to manoeuver with a rudder and sails. Without this, the Ark would have been pushed into the trough and capsized.
You don't have to be a naval engineer to figure out that a vessel as long and narrow as the ark would need an incredible amount of ballast and would still be very unstable. With no mode of propulsion or steering to counter a storm produced by the effects of a worldwide flood this is a disaster waiting to happen. I would challenge anybody to try to build a boat the size of the ark, by themselves, using stoneage tools--and float it.

Zheng He was reported to be over 8 feet tall. You can make your own assessment if the size of his ships were exaggerated as well.

J.E. Hill (Licensed Mariner and former shipboard Navigator for Nation Ocean Survey, NOAA.)

*Thanks to Paul in Baton Rouge for bringing this book to my attention.


The "arkies" don't hold strong on any position except one outside the bounds of reality.

The feedback section of talkorigins is a fantastic forum for weighing religious myth against actual fact. Check the second feedback letter on this page (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/may03.html) for a really interesting instance where archaeology, in complete contrast to the claims of most fundies, totally upends the Biblical narrative. I hadn't thought about that before tonight.

[Ace42]

It is the truth that people do not like, not the person telling them the truth.

Like the "truth" that monkeys don't have opposable thumbs? You'd not know the truth if it shat on your hair-piece.

[racer5.0stang]

Like the "truth" that monkeys don't have opposable thumbs? You'd not know the truth if it shat on your hair-piece.

Ace how many time do I have to tell you? Monkeys do have opposable thumbs, just admit it.

[Ace42]

Ace how many time do I have to tell you? Monkeys do have opposable thumbs, just admit it.

Yes, I see what you did there. However that show of jejune wit will not deflect the issue, nor detract from the quote and link I gave showing clearly that it was you who denied monkeys have opposable thumbs.

You implied quite clearly and with full consciousness that "humans can't've evolved from primates because said primates: don't have opposable thumbs, walk upright, or have the ability to reason."

You were wrong on all accounts, just like you are invariably wrong about pretty much everything. Which is precisely why you are totally unqualified to tell people "about the truth" - because you wouldn't know the truth if it escaped from the zoo, walked upright forwards and backwards infront of you, and then stuffed its opposable thumb up your ass.

Surely the fact that you were so sure about something that you can *WITH YOUR OWN EYES* see is wrong would make any sane person in your position doubt their position on something which there can be no objective evidence for?

Surely, then, your opinions are worthless.

[catatonic]

The feedback section of talkorigins is a fantastic forum for weighing religious myth against actual fact. Check the second feedback letter on this page (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/may03.html) for a really interesting instance where archaeology, in complete contrast to the claims of most fundies, totally upends the Biblical narrative. I hadn't thought about that before tonight.

Which link are you referring to, the one about the Garden of Eden? Because, Mormons believe the Garden of Edon was in America and the city of Enoch was maybe where the Gulf of Mexico is now. They believe the whole face of the land was changed when Jesus died.

You don't enjoy a good debate, you enjoy pretending Scripture is a substitute for it.

catatonic, your shipbuilding points have been dealt with (as, you will find, have most any other attempts at rationalizing the legend of the Deluge into something closer to reality) at talkorigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/mar04.html) (scroll about a third of the way down).



The "arkies" don't hold strong on any position except one outside the bounds of reality.

"The question is not necessarily if ships built solely of wood that large could be constructed and even floated, but rather, could an itinerant stoneage goatherd build a ship that size without any modern tools or materials. Zhen He's flagship (circa 1430 C.E.) was reported to be 440 feet long by 186 at the beam; the ark comes in at 300 cubits long (450 feet), 50 cubits at the beam, (75 feet) and 30 cubits (45 feet) high. In the book, "When China Ruled the Seas: The Treasure Fleet of the Dragon Throne 1405 - 1433" author Louise Levathes observes: "The keel consisted of long pieces of wood bound together with iron hoops."* The use of iron for strengthening wood members would certainly allow for bigger ships. Also it should be noted that sailing ships have an ability to manoeuver with a rudder and sails. Without this, the Ark would have been pushed into the trough and capsized.
You don't have to be a naval engineer to figure out that a vessel as long and narrow as the ark would need an incredible amount of ballast and would still be very unstable. With no mode of propulsion or steering to counter a storm produced by the effects of a worldwide flood this is a disaster waiting to happen. I would challenge anybody to try to build a boat the size of the ark, by themselves, using stoneage tools--and float it.

Zheng He was reported to be over 8 feet tall. You can make your own assessment if the size of his ships were exaggerated as well.

J.E. Hill (Licensed Mariner and former shipboard Navigator for Nation Ocean Survey, NOAA.)

*Thanks to Paul in Baton Rouge for bringing this book to my attention."

Zheng He was reported as over 8 feet tall, yes, so this may be an exaggeration, but you probably missed The Large Ships of Antiquity (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/ships.asp) , which chronicles many ships of the size.

The challenge to build an ark yourself out of stoneage tools is not a fair one since Noah supposedly had 120 years to build it and gather the animals.

Then the page questions stability. It's the page's word and your word against the Korean study at worldwideflood.com and the Korean study seems to be more professionally done to me. I can't really debate this as I can't understand either one very well. No one has answered my question of why the flood would have to be heavy, but the Korean study thinks the boat would work.

I have to go home now but hopefully my Internet will be working at home and I can see if I left out anything or if this doesn't work. Want to call this unresolved between me and you and move on to the next topic or keep with this topic?

[likeOMG!]

isn't that what pm's are for?

[Funkaloyd]

The challenge to build an ark yourself out of stoneage tools is not a fair one since Noah supposedly had 120 years to build it and gather the animals.

One of the reasons I find it rather pointless to argue over whether the Ark could have stayed afloat. The Bible has dozens of passages before the flood which contradict with logic and modern knowledge. If Earth was created in a week, and Eve created from a rib, then why can't the Ark float and pigs fly?

[catatonic]

Most think that Earth wasn't created in a week. The word day there can easily be translated as something else. I'm not sure what that rib phrase means either. Do you have any other examples? bb tommorrow.

[Funkaloyd]

A week or not, it doesn't really matter. If we are to assume based on no reasoning that God created the Earth, then we might as well assume that God's magical powers kept the Ark up.

Problem solved. Who needs evidence or logic?

[catatonic]

That's a clever way to change the subject from the flood to the creation, something I am not qualified to talk about and for which what I do know I keep sacred.

The creation is too hard to discuss for me whether I'm evolutionist or creationist; if nobody wants to talk about the flood does racer want to get back to me responding to his perceived problems?

[Funkaloyd]

It's not necessarily about creation. If you believe without proof that a god a.) has the power to interfere with the Universe, and b.) has used that power, then you can use that god to explain anything, from why the rain falls to how the Ark kept on floating.

[catatonic]

I think I have the power to interfere with the rest of the cosmos, not much but some. Why can't God? I don't think God disobeys the laws of matter if that's what you mean.

[59 Chrystie St.]

[catatonic]

[Schmeltz]

If there is scientific evidence for rapid, massive geological change of the American continent at the time of Jesus' death, I'd like to see it.

The large ships of antiquity were constructed in the shipyards of the most sophisticated, technologically advanced polities of the day, like Ptolemaic Egypt, the Roman Empire, and Ming China. The efforts of a landlocked stone age nomad hundreds of years before the technology was available to construct ships of this size can hardly be said to equal these undertakings. It's mythology, plain and simple.

I'll grant that my knowledge of seafaring is really very limited, probably even more so than yours, but if you want to compare our sources I think I'll trust the one that presents mainstream science over the one that features reasoning like "If Noah's flood was just a local event then God has broken his promise many times!" I mean, if you consider that a professional, objective attitude I really don't know what to say.

We can keep with this topic or let the subject die or switch to another one, whatever you like. I'll just keep responding as I see fit.

[catatonic]

The only guys who have studied America for this sort of change are LDS (Mormon) scholars, as far as I can find. FARMS is very fair-minded and will not jump to conclusions or insult atheists.

After studying what they wrote, I learned that just because the Book of Mormon said "the face of the whole earth", in fact this was a common hyperbole found in the Bible and Book of Mormon and does not need to be the whole earth or all of America. (see An Hypothesis)

Their hypothesis is that, first of all the following occured:

"a great and terrible tempest (3 Nephi 8:6)
terrible thunder that shook the whole earth (3 Nephi 8:6)
exceedingly sharp lightnings, such as never had been known in all the land (3 Nephi 8:7)
earth being carried up upon the city of Moronihah (3 Nephi 8:10)3
whirlwinds (3 Nephi 8:12)
earthquakes which roughened many smooth places and caused some cities to sink, some to burn, and the buildings of some to collapse (3 Nephi 8:13-14)
destruction for about three hours (3 Nephi 8:19)4
cities sunk in the sea (3 Nephi 9:4, 6-7)
the burning of cities (3 Nephi 9:9-10)
darkness to such an extent that not a glimmer of light was seen for three days (3 Nephi 6:20-22); indeed, according to the prophecy of Helaman, "darkness should cover the face of the whole earth for the space of three days" (Helaman 14:27)
Methods of destruction of the wicked are summarized in 3 Nephi 10:13-14:

sunk and buried in the earth
drowned in the depths of the sea
burned by fire
fallen upon and crushed to death
carried away in the whirlwind
overpowered by the vapor of smoke and of darkness (thus the atmosphere was suffocating in some places, but not generally)
swallowed up by the opening of the earth to receive them
In addition, the cities of Jerusalem, Mocum, and Onihah were destroyed when waters "[came] up in the stead thereof" (3 Nephi 9:7)."

This occurred to the population which was probably only a few hundred miles long and wide, judging by the fact that they got to visit Christ and other considerations.

So the hypothesis of how this occurred was:

"The basic cause of the destruction was a tremendous seismic upheaval.
Numerous destructive mechanisms were involved, but rain was not one of them.
The accompanying period of darkness was caused by an immense local cloud of volcanic ash.
The unprecedented lightning was due to electrical discharges within the ash cloud.
The intense thunder was due both to the lightning and to the rumbling of the earth due to seismic movements.
The vapor of darkness (1 Nephi 12:5; 19:11) and the mist of darkness (3 Nephi 8:20) were volcanic ash and dust stirred up by the quaking of the ground".

Other parts of the website document similiar upheavals in history.

As for evidence, they looked at ice cores in Greenland from 43 A.D. to 100,000 B.C. and found a blip at 37-38 A.D. +/- 30-40 years. It wasn't as big as some of the others, but the destruction was only 3 hours long. There's also this verse: "And behold, the rocks were rent in twain; they were broken up upon the face of the whole earth, insomuch that they were afound• in broken fragments, and in seams and in cracks, upon all the face of the land." I was unable to find any evidence of that, but one geologist claimed to have visited the region and believes the account. They found many volcanic eruptions, but since they are common in America it was hard to pin down one as "it". What other evidence can you really look for except a city in the Ocean? That geologist in this paragraph found a location where an earthquake could have sent a city into the ocean. The New Light article has a detailed study that they appear to be working with still.

The reference is here (http://farms.byu.edu/publications/bookofmormonview.php?subcat=122&cat=4)

[catatonic]

The large ships of antiquity were constructed in the shipyards of the most sophisticated, technologically advanced polities of the day, like Ptolemaic Egypt, the Roman Empire, and Ming China. The efforts of a landlocked stone age nomad hundreds of years before the technology was available to construct ships of this size can hardly be said to equal these undertakings. It's mythology, plain and simple.

I'll grant that my knowledge of seafaring is really very limited, probably even more so than yours, but if you want to compare our sources I think I'll trust the one that presents mainstream science over the one that features reasoning like "If Noah's flood was just a local event then God has broken his promise many times!" I mean, if you consider that a professional, objective attitude I really don't know what to say.

I know it's not professional to say we believe it's true because the Bible says it is. One of the problems is that if it weren't for the Bible they wouldn't be making hypotheses of a flood as much, so you can say that they're biased towards the Bible. However I find their science for the most part to be hard to dismiss. Just because a scientist is biased doesn't mean his research is necessarily bad. They are not trying to prove the flood, but just show that it could happen. In a sense, the Bible is their hypothesis and they are testing it, occasionally making unprofessional comments.

I do have to make 5 nonprofessional assumptions of my own now that I've studied this more. Without these 5 assumptions, my views wouldn't work. I will present them as "nonprofessional assumptions" as we go along.

Nonprofessional assumption #1 - Noah could pray to God for help building the ark to high technological specifications. This is not a stretch from the Bible's perspective. Noah was already talking with God and he was a prophet and he likely prayed. But without the Bible as a perspective, I can say personally that God does communicate with people. As a teenager, some friends at Church and I were on a water weenie (torpedo shaped raft) and the boat was doing more and more tricks. I felt a distinct impression that I should get off the raft. I tried to warn two men on the boat that there was danger and someone took my place on the raft. The boat made a particularly hard cut through a wave and everyone went flying. The person in my place went particularly high and got a nose bleed. I was a lot lighter than him and might have suffered brain damage. So I know firsthand that God can communicate with people and if it's a prophet I don't see why God couldn't show him how to build an ark to high technological specifications if it was hard. Also, it says in my Book of Mormon that God showed a man how to build a ship after God's manner and not after man's manner.

We have to move on if we're ever going to get through these questions:

Could animals have traveled from elsewhere? If the animals traveled from other parts of the world, many of them would have faced extreme difficulties.

* Some, like sloths and penguins, can't travel overland very well at all.
* Some, like koalas and many insects, require a special diet. How did they bring it along?
* Some cave-dwelling arthropods can't survive in less than 100% relative humidity.
* Some, like dodos, must have lived on islands. If they didn't, they would have been easy prey for other animals. When mainland species like rats or pigs are introduced to islands, they drive many indigenous species to extinction. Those species would not have been able to survive such competition if they lived where mainland species could get at them before the Flood.

Could animals have all lived near Noah?


Marsupials are not found only in Australia.

"When Krakatoa erupted in 1883, the island remnant remained lifeless for some years, but was eventually recolonized by a surprising variety of creatures, including not only insects and earthworms, but birds, lizards, snakes and even a few mammals. One would not have expected some of this surprising array of creatures to have crossed the ocean, but they obviously did. Even though these were mostly smaller than some of the creatures we will discuss here, it illustrates the limits of our imaginings on such things."

"to account for today's animal distribution, evolutionists themselves have had to propose that certain primates have traveled across hundreds of miles of open ocean on huge rafts of matted vegetation torn off in storms.6"

So I believe animals could cross the sea on vegetation mats or somehow if needed, but I also believe the land mass was all together as one so this wasn't necessary (that's what the Bible seems to say).

Animals may have specialized themselves into beings that couldn't walk fast or had specialized diets after the flood. They could have originally been much faster. The specialized food must have been gathered, which would have taken, I estimate, 10 years by horse. But Noah had 120 years to build the ark.

The arthropods weren't counted as animals. They could have survived on vegetation mats.

Nonprofessional assumptions 2 and 3:
"Animals" could have been directed to the ark. When the Tsunami hit, I heard that two elephants broke their chains and ran for the hills and then returned later, and I believe God communicates with animals. One time a spider was trapped in my house and I wanted to let him out, so I put a jar down and it just walked in.

"Animals" were herbivores before the flood. Since there's really not much of a fossil record in this regard, this is a pretty untestable assumption. It's based on the Bible. But since we know that mankind lives longer on a vegetarian diet and the Bible records that happening, we have reason to suppose that they may have not known this and inadvertently described this when they recorded men living longer.

With these assumptions, I have attempted to answer these questions as best I can. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/migration.asp)

[catatonic]

I found this link on scientific evidence for prayer working to help cure people of diseases. http://home.comcast.net/~neardeath/religion/001_pages/01.html (It's from BBC)

[Schmeltz]

Empty assumptions, misguided conjecture, personal anecdotes. Come back with something a little more substantial, like actual evidence for any of the things you said up there.

I mean really. "I know firsthand that God can communicate with people." Well, I happen to know firsthand that he can't, so your entire post is shot to hell.

[catatonic]

The link above is evidence that people can communicate with God. It's not an empty assumption, misguided conjecture, or personal anecdote. It's done by BBC.

I have plenty of evidence that God can communicate with people. But only so much that's not personal. Try this page. (http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html) It says a Doctor got a paper published that people having near-death experiences can see out of body.

[Funkaloyd]

More than half of these studies - 57% - found a positive impact on patients. [...] In one study of nearly 1,000 heart patients, those who were being prayed for without their knowledge suffered 10% fewer complications.Why does God love so few people?

I'd love to know what the placebo was in these studies. "Prayer to a false God." Hah.

[Schmeltz]

There's nothing at all in that link that proves people can communicate with God, it only demonstrates a perceived correlation on the basis of a single study - and correlation does not equal causation. Even if these spiritual practices had a beneficial effect on people's sickness, it probably had much more to do with psychology than with divine intervention.

Out of body experiences are hallucinations produced within oxygen-deprived brains. You're really reaching, man. There simply is no conclusive scientific evidence for anything you've put forward in this thread.

[catatonic]

But I have plenty of personal experiences with communicating with God.

Also, my understanding was these people could see things that they couldn't see about what was going on when they were having hallucinations, and that if they saw things wrong it would have been reported.

With the prayers, you're right it might be psychological. I have to go. :(

[racer5.0stang]

Why does God love so few people?

John 3:16

For God so loved the world (all of mankind), that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

[Schmeltz]

I don't have any personal experiences of communicating with God. Your word against mine. Hardly concrete, objective evidence.

I'm real sure that every single out of body experience is catalogued as a bewildering, inexplicable perception of reality by a soul outside the body. I'm sure they're all reported exactly in those terms. Mmm hmm.

[catatonic]

Yes but they reported things they couldn't have known about, and every time those ended up being real. It was reported in the near death studies journal.

If you want to communicate with God through prayer, you can't waver or you won't get an answer. You have to pray with a sincere heart, real intent, nothing wavering, and I think you should have faith in Christ and pray in the name of Jesus Christ. That's more formula anyway, but I've had communication outside of prayer. You just have to not waver in your faith in God I think.

[racer5.0stang]

If you want to communicate with God through prayer, you can't waver or you won't get an answer. You have to pray with a sincere heart, real intent, nothing wavering, and I think you should have faith in Christ and pray in the name of Jesus Christ. That's more formula anyway, but I've had communication outside of prayer. You just have to not waver in your faith in God I think.

You sound real sure about that.

[Funkaloyd]

And so the Pot called the Kettle black.

[catatonic]

Well look,

I don't want to be arrogant and assume that a Christian or a Latter-day Saint is the only one who can communicate with God. In fact, I think that is not true, which is pretty obvious to me. Also, I think a person should expect nothing when they waver in a prayer, but that doesn't mean they won't receive an answer. I've tried to offer a method that in my experience of myself and others, works.

Llike trying to have a theological discussion with the flood questions pending, I don't think it's really appropriate to have a theological discussion about when God can communicate with people when Schmeltz knows it's impossible. I'd rather see if I can find a way to communicate with Schmeltz about whether God speaks to people.

But right now I need to try to sleep and beat this Daylight Savings Time that's been messing me up.

[Schmeltz]

I'd rather see if I can find a way to communicate with Schmeltz about whether God speaks to people.


If you want to communicate your ideas, just keep posting. If you want to prove them to be objectively true... well, that's another thing.

[catatonic]

Well, I don't need the first assumption that God could have communicated how to build the ark after all. I said, "I don't see why God couldn't show him how to build an ark to high technological specifications if it was hard", but I don't think it was "hard". All I really need to assume is that the animals could have come to the ark, that there actually was a flood, and there won't be another flood. Nonetheless it is more important to convince you that God can communicate with people than the flood story, so I've put it as my next post.

So how did Noah know how to build the ship in his age? The Korean study reports he could have used wooden nails, and the concept of staggering 4 layers of wood thick (see page) with lots of nails in between them would not be beyond him. Many types of wood would be satisfactory. He could have had a door and a window as listed and I can discuss the skylight later on. For the bottom, I found this particular explanation of why hogging and sagging weren't a problem to be useful.

As Noah's Ark undergoes hogging and sagging loads applied by the waves, the bottom and roof will be in alternating tension and compression. They must act as a single piece. This is achieved using multiple layers of planks joined by trunnels. The pitch will act as an adhesive which effectively turns the entire slab into a glue laminated beam. However, an initial conservative estimate will rely solely on the dowels. (they get this to work)

Also, Design information is available under the Ark Structure menu.

So all that's left is the problem of not having bolts and screws... really this isn't so bad after all.

Some joints could be mortise and tenon, pinned together by timber dowels. I saw pictures so I know what this looks like. This holds some of the capacity, but not enough, but could be combined with glue or stand alone to handle some of the joints. Here the page says that the ancient Egyptians drilled granite very well.

Interlocking timber joints are very ancient and would work great if many are used. The problem is space. I tend to think animals could have adapted more than most people, that less animals were necessary, and that interlocking timber joints would work great, but I'm not here to convince myself so let's move on to metal straps and spikes.

Not that many metal straps and spikes would be necessary (some would be necessary), but how would Noah know about them? Early Egyptions had early metalworking and casting skills. If they had them, why couldn't a civilization before Noah have had them and then they were lost at the flood and picked up shortly after with the Egyptians, maybe even through Noah? The Bible writes that forged iron and bronze technology were established before Noah, not that that matters to you(?), but I believe I've shown that this was not a stretch.

That's the answer. If you want to know about the skylight (http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/design_draft/integrated_roof.htm), or other stuff- The Koreans really went into a professional job of drafting a design sequence and a design method, putting in structural options, and doing the math to make sure things worked. There had to be a lot of detail in the ramps, the doors, the food and water dispensers, the door, and the window, all within reach of the early Egyptians and, seemingly, Noah.

Held together with Wooden Nails (http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/design_calculations/tree_nails.htm) assuming Gopher Wood (http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/wood/gopher_wood.htm) is just like Douglas Fir. No bolts or screws</URL> permitted. Let's make it a bit harder - how about using a [URL="http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/noahs_cubit/cubit.htm"]longer cubit? (http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/basic_hull_design/joining_big_logs.htm) Then we just throw the book at it - ABS rules (http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/hull_calcs/wave_bm1.htm), and see if survives the open sea. Should get a bit more technical if the waves get really big - or maybe not. Depends on the wave slope (http://www.worldwideflood.com/flood/waves/waves.htm). Plus many more pages.

I really doubt I made any personal anecdotes, misguided conjectures (except maybe one that didn't matter), or empty assumptions, and I left out communication with God about the technological details of the ark. The fact that the ark's payload fits so well with the Bible's story, and that this is so far all possible is strong evidence that the Genesis people weren't making this up, since making this up would be difficult.

Although the Bible says animals were herbivorous, even if they omnivorous right when they got off the ark, I believe I figured out why they wouldn't eat each other. They could sense they were their only species on the planet or that there was a lot of available room and were all too busy breeding explosively.

Thank you for reading through what you read.

[catatonic]

Now what about prayer? How do you know there can be no prayer? If you can't answer that to me, read this. All languages have the number one starting with a vowel and the number two starting with a consonant, and milk is a common word in many languages. Isn't there more plausibility that angels showed men how to count than that they all came up with number systems with this similarity independently hundreds of thousands of years after they had separated. How could the Apostle Paul have predicted what men would be like in the <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/2_tim/3/2-5">last days</a> if not through prayer? How could Joseph Smith have made up the entire <a href="http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1090-1,00.html">Book of Mormon</a> even with like a fourth grade education? How could Martin Luther King, Jr. have predicted his own death, shortly before, from an assassin?

[catatonic]

And what about evolution? Adaptation is fine, but when you go from a crocodile to a bird what motivates all the intermediate steps, such as making the organs and bones lighter and growing feathers, altogether - how can you do it without leading to a lack of survivability before the bird eventually is born to get off the ground? All ground animals survive better with heavier organs and bones, I think. What's the driving influence for a crocodile to a bird? Not that if you can't answer evolution is false, but I don't have an answer.

[Ace42]

All ground animals survive better with heavier organs and bones, I think.

Like Ostriches?

Besides, who said ground animals? Chances are birds evolved from tree-dwelling species. There are plenty of tree-dwellers that cannot fly, but can "fall slowly" in a direction. Flying foxes are an obvious example.

[ASsman]

And rocky.

[ASsman]

I found this link on scientific evidence for prayer working to help cure people of diseases. http://home.comcast.net/~neardeath/religion/001_pages/01.html (It's from BBC)


---edit

forget it, I don't want to be dragged into this hole.

[catatonic]

Yeah that probably wasn't the best page to present my views either.

[catatonic]

What we need here is placebo prayers. (Even that wouldn't work).

[Schmeltz]

Oh brother.


All I really need to assume is that the animals could have come to the ark, that there actually was a flood


Colossal, unworkable assumptions totally detached from reality. And that's "all" you need to assume? You might as well talk to me about the literal truth of the Iliad.

Your account of Noah's shipbuilding technology is absolutely flabbergasting. It borders on notions so ridiculous that I cannot see how any rational, objective, educated person could possibly buy into them. I mean, take this for example:


Early Egyptions had early metalworking and casting skills. If they had them, why couldn't a civilization before Noah have had them


Where is the evidence for the existence of this civilization? Where is the evidence that Noah, a nomadic stone age shepherd, did apply these technologies and skills, as opposed to the (conjectural) evidence that he could have, maybe, because other people totally unrelated to him did so at the same time? This is ridiculous, you might as well assume that the ancient Romans were capable of casting iron because the contemporary Han Chinese had the technology in their possession. Conjecture and heavily biased guesswork - this is the substance of your response? Please.


I left out communication with God about the technological details of the ark.


Good, because it's totally irrelevant. You need to prove the existence of your version of God before you can assert this sort of notion. "I don't believe in God" is all I have to say to shoot that argument down.


making this up would be difficult.


Are you serious? You read some of the crazy pagan animist Hindu or Viking myths and tell me that people aren't capable of dreaming up virtually anything they please. Fundies often harp on how so many cultures (though nowhere near every culture) has some kind of "flood myth" - look, people make stories up all the time, wilder and crazier than any mundane reality. This is yet another poor line of reasoning.


They could sense they were their only species on the planet


Insanity. Where's the evidence? What, they just lost this ability? What, they were too busy breeding to eat? You're aware of trophic levels and the pyramidic distribution of energy across an ecosystem, are you not? You know that you have to eat in order to find the energy to breed? You're putting up conjectural animist fantasy in place of actual evidence - this is getting weird.


Isn't there more plausibility that angels showed men how to count than that they all came up with number systems with this similarity independently hundreds of thousands of years after they had separated.


No. There is not. It boggles my mind that people think this way.


How could the Apostle Paul have predicted what men would be like


Men nowadays are exactly like men in Paul's day, no better and no worse. Paul's description of the last days is a description of every human society in civilized history. To assert otherwise betrays a fundamental ignorance of the nature of the past.


How could Joseph Smith have made up the entire Book of Mormon even with like a fourth grade education?


Abraham Lincoln taught himself to write by marking characters with coal on the back of a shovel. The Prophet Muhammad was illiterate. Einstein failed out of grade school. The assumptions in your question are many and irrelevant.


How could Martin Luther King, Jr. have predicted his own death, shortly before, from an assassin?


I dunno, how did 2Pac do it? I guess he must have been communicating with God.


but when you go from a crocodile to a bird


What in the hell. That is not evolution. Do you even know what evolution is? My answer to your "question" is, You got a hell of a lot of reading to do. No wonder you're so prone to asking such foolish questions.

[Funkaloyd]

Where is the evidence for the existence of this civilization?

Destroyed by the flood. Duh.

[catatonic]

The important thing is that if you've ever recieved any form of light, and fallen away from it, and I'm not saying you have, to repent and be worthy of it again, so that you can gain a greater understanding of truth, pursuing truth no matter where it lies.

I'm not going to contend, but if you phrase anything in the form of a question without sarcasm or insults I will answer it.

[catatonic]

Like Ostriches?

Besides, who said ground animals? Chances are birds evolved from tree-dwelling species. There are plenty of tree-dwellers that cannot fly, but can "fall slowly" in a direction. Flying foxes are an obvious example.

Ostriches seem to me to be an example of a bird that lost it's ability to fly, not an animal that gained it's ability to fly.

Yeah there are flying foxes, but my websearching tells me that scientists don't believe birds came from mammals but from reptiles, and the scales and feathers look nothing alike. All the animal's jumping turned into flying people have evidence the tree gliding is dumb and the tree gliding people have evidence the jumping up and down theory is dumb, that's what I've read.

[Ace42]

Ostriches seem to me to be an example of a bird that lost it's ability to fly, not an animal that gained it's ability to fly.

You missed my point. They have lighter organs, etc and still have evolved into a sucessful niche.

Yeah there are flying foxes

Ditto.

There are plenty of species that illustrate the benefits of various stages of development between heavy ground based mammals and lighter flying creatures.

Infact, your assertion that "bigger is better" for ground animals is patently false, as there were plenty of super-large mammalian species in the distant past who have *ALL DIED OUT*.

[catatonic]

OK, I see your point, but why would you adapt to having lighter organs before you had any ability to fly, even if it didn't produce a disadvantage?
You have to spend many generations making adaptations that there's no motivation for before flying at all.

Scientists say birds didn't evolve from mammals, and reptile scales look nothing like bird feathers.

[Ace42]

Scientists say birds didn't evolve from mammals, and reptile scales look nothing like bird feathers.

Never heard of the archaeopteryx?

[catatonic]

Actually I have, and I thought this was too absurd to bring up (don't mean to sound arrogant), but I will go back and dig up what I read about it.

[Ace42]

Rather than hunting for backwards sites, why not just check google?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.html

"This FAQ details the claims made by both sides and shows that the suggestion of forgery is unsupported by the evidence."

While the authenticity and merit of the arguments is up for debate, please try to avoid passing off implausible arguments as definitive.

If you look at the arguments and evidence, the validity of archae is the most plausible (and thus 'least absurd') explanation.

[catatonic]

It's best just to quote the page.

ARCHAEOPTERYX... A bird that lived 150 million years ago and had many reptilian characteristics, was discovered in 1861 and helped support the hypothesis of evolution proposed by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species, two years earlier.

However, Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself, disagrees with assertions like those of "Doug:"

Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of "paleobabble" is going to change that. (1)

Archaeopteryx had fully formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the classical elliptical wings of modem woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings.(3) Its brain was essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex. The fact that it had teeth is irrelevant to its alleged transitional status - a number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not. Furthermore, like other birds, both its maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. In most vertebrates, including reptiles, only the mandible moves.(4)

FEATHERED DINOSAURS?

In the last few years, the media have run headlines about alleged "feathered dinosaurs" proving that dinosaurs evolved into birds. These alleged ancestors are types of theropods, the group of carnivorous dinosaurs that includes Tyrannosaurus rex.

We should remember that the media often sensationalize "proofs" of evolution, but the later disproofs, even by other evolutionists, hardly rate a mention. For example, in 1996 there were headlines like "Feathered Fossil proves Some Dinosaurs Evolved into Birds."'(5) This was about a fossil called Sinosauropteryx prima. (6) Creationist publications advised readers to be skeptical and keep an open mind. (7) They were vindicated when four leading paleontologists, including Yale University’s John Ostrom, later found that the "feathers" were just a parallel array of fibers, (8) probably collagen.

Another famous alleged dino-bird link was Mononykus. claimed to be a "flightless bird." (9) The cover of Time magazine even illustrated it with feathers, although not the slightest trace of feathers had been found. (10) Later evidence indicated that "Mononykus was clearly not a bird ... it clearly was a fleet-footed fossorial [digging] theropod." (11)

Many news agencies have reported (June 1998) on two fossils found in Northern China that are claimed to be feathered theropods (meat-eating dinosaurs). The fossils, Protarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryxzoui, are claimed to be "the immediate ancestors of the first birds." (12)

The two latest discoveries are "dated" at 120 to 136 million years while Archaeopteryx, a true bird, is "dated" at 140 to 150 million years, making these "bird ancestors" far younger than their descendants!

Feduccia is not convinced, and neither is his colleague, University of Kansas paleontologist Larry Martin. Martin says: "You have to put this into perspective. To the People who wrote the paper, the chicken world be a fathered dinosaur." (13) Feduccia and Martin believe that Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx are more likely to be flightless birds similar to ostriches. They have, birdlike teeth and lack the long tail seen in theropods. Caudipteryx even used gizzard stones like modern plant-eating birds, but unlike theropods. (14)

There are many problems with the dinosaur-to-bird dogma. Feduccia points out:

"It's biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balancing tails," exactly the wrong anatomy for flight. (15)

There is also very strong evidence from the forelimb structures that dinosaurs could not have been the ancestors of birds. A team led by Feduccia studied bird embryos under a microscope, and published their study in the journal Science." (16) Their findings were reported as follows:

New research shows that birds lack the embryonic thumb that dinosaurs had, suggesting that it is "almost impossible" for the species to be closely related." (17)

Then it talks about gliders into fliers and reptile scales differing from feathers.

[catatonic]

I will avoid passing off arguments as definitive and look at your site. I never thought archaeopteryx was a fake.

[Ace42]

It's best just to quote the page.

It would be best to include a link, so that we can laugh at the assertion that "the [liberal] media sensationalise proofs of evolution!" indicating a bias in the article.

Conclusions

Archaeopteryx is a bird because it had feathers. However, it retained many dinosaurian characters which are not found in modern birds, whilst having certain characters found in birds but not in dinosaurs. By virtue of this fact Archaeopteryx represents an example of a group in transition - a representative which, although on the sidelines in the dinosaur to bird transition, an echo of the actual event, still allows a brief glimpse into the possible mechanism which brought about the evolution of the birds and by its very existence shows that such a transition is possible.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#conclusions

It is actually intermediate between the birds that we see flying around in our backyards and the predatory dinosaurs like Deinonychus. In fact, one skeleton of Archaeopteryx that had poorly preserved feathers was originally described as a skeleton of a small bipedal dinosaur, Compsognathus. A total of seven specimens of the bird are known at this time.

It has long been accepted that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between birds and reptiles, and that it is the earliest known bird. Lately, scientists have realized that it bears even more resemblance to its ancestors, the Maniraptora, than to modern birds; providing a strong phylogenetic link between the two groups. It is one of the most important fossils ever discovered.

Unlike all living birds, Archaeopteryx had a full set of teeth, a rather flat sternum ("breastbone"), a long, bony tail, gastralia ("belly ribs"), and three claws on the wing which could have still been used to grasp prey (or maybe trees). However, its feathers, wings, furcula ("wishbone") and reduced fingers are all characteristics of modern birds.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html

Etc, etc etc.

[catatonic]

Yeah. I never thought the feathers were fake. While I should avoid passing off my arguments or my website's arguments as definitive, the page above is arguing rather that archaeopteryx is a perching bird and not a land animal at all. By the way, the link is here (http://www.creationists.org/chapter4.html).

[Ace42]

Creationists.org, need I say more?

[catatonic]

Yes, you need to say more.

[Ace42]

http://www.creationists.org/

Are you seriously trying to tell me that you can't see what is wrong with the credibility of that page?

[catatonic]

No, but I am trying to tell you that I do not see right off anything wrong with the section that I quoted. That part of the page is quoted from another source.

[catatonic]

Look, I don't know. Mormonism has almost no official stand on evolution, and doesn't really say one way or the other.

[Ace42]

No, but I am trying to tell you that I do not see right off anything wrong with the section that I quoted.

Quite simply, it misrepresents the facts. The conclusions it draws do not match up to the evidence, and it is framed in the most ridiculous sham of a website conceivable.

For example:

A legitimate artist's reconstruction
of Archaeopteryx, consistent with its
known bird features

"Legitimate" is subjective. Infact it is in direct contradiction to the known reptillean features.

Archaeopteryx had fully formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the classical elliptical wings of modem woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the downstroke of the wings

Implies that this distinguishes it from dinosaurs. Infact the same phenomenon are present in several other dinosaur fossils. You could equally say that "modern woodland birds have the classical elliptical wings and large wishbone attatchments found in ancient flying reptiles."

We should remember that the media often sensationalize "proofs" of evolution, but the later disproofs, even by other evolutionists, hardly rate a mention.

Irrelevant bullshit. The media reports "news" not "olds". Compare the rate of crimes that result in "suspects detained" with the headline "Suspects released without charge!"

For example, in 1996 there were headlines like "Feathered Fossil proves Some Dinosaurs Evolved into Birds."'(5) This was about a fossil called Sinosauropteryx prima. (6) Creationist publications advised readers to be skeptical and keep an open mind. (7) They were vindicated when four leading paleontologists, including Yale University’s John Ostrom, later found that the "feathers" were just a parallel array of fibers, (8) probably collagen.

Strawman argument. The article cited in #5 is a tasmanian local newspaper, not a scientific journal. How far did they have to search to find that example? And creationist publications have advised readers to be 'skeptical' (read as: obstinate) about numerous things that have since been proven conclusively to be correct. Purely by the laws of probability, sooner or later someone is going to suggest evidence is supportive of evolutionary theory and it will be proven wrong. This does not allow any inference about the argument.

Another famous alleged dino-bird link was Mononykus. claimed to be a "flightless bird." (9) The cover of Time magazine even illustrated it with feathers, although not the slightest trace of feathers had been found. (10) Later evidence indicated that "Mononykus was clearly not a bird ... it clearly was a fleet-footed fossorial [digging] theropod."

More spurious bullshit. "Time illustrated it with feathers, although not the slightest trace of feathers had been found"

Here's a news flash, no-one knows what colour dinos were, there is no evidence or trace of colour. All imagery used is purely speculative. Proves nothing.

Many news agencies have reported (June 1998) on two fossils found in Northern China that are claimed to be feathered theropods (meat-eating dinosaurs). The fossils, Protarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryxzoui, are claimed to be "the immediate ancestors of the first birds." (12)

The two latest discoveries are "dated" at 120 to 136 million years while Archaeopteryx, a true bird, is "dated" at 140 to 150 million years, making these "bird ancestors" far younger than their descendants!

More bullshit. Firstly, Archaeopteryx is NOT a "true bird" in the sense they mean, and certainly not in the way they are trying to use to refure the point. They are using assumption as proof of argument. Secondly, the date at which fossils are found is not the same as "the entire time the species were alive".

"It's biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balancing tails," exactly the wrong anatomy for flight.

Seems to argue in favour of creationism, and yet is taken from an (allegedly sensationalised) pro-evolution article entitled:
A. Gibbons, "New Feathered Fossil Brings Dinosaurs and Birds Closer,",
Science, 274:720-721, 1996

Clearly they are taking the quote out of context or misrepresenting it.

New research shows that birds lack the embryonic thumb that dinosaurs had, suggesting that it is "almost impossible" for the species to be closely related."

A direct lie here, as the articles I cited clearly stated.

This is precisely why I warned you before you even posted about using bullshit websites as a basis of argument.

If you pull this sort of thing again, I will be very very annoyed, as I hate having to do research to prove conclusively something which I know to be fact.

This sort of "intellectually dishonest" bullshit is precisely why I said "Need I say more?" when I saw the URL. That was before I saw the frontpage, which should've sent alarm bells ringing to the validity of anything they would carry.

[catatonic]

After reading a few quote replies, I am easily convinced this is an unreliable site. I don't need to read any more, but I will. I have been fasting, and so my mind isn't working fully today.

You're right. I was wrong about evolution.

[catatonic]

Please forgive me Ace. I will be more careful about what websites I use in the future. I barely looked at the site, and will not waste your time with a site I haven't spent considerable time on.

[Ace42]

You're right. I was wrong about evolution.

I dunno about that. There are questions that need to be answered, and debate on the topic is healthy. As long as it is open-minded informed debate. However, most creationists are not open-minded, and for obvious reasons are not educated in evolutionary science, and thus are not in a position to provide a healthy criticism.

Creationist websites invariably are of the "see, this little bit of text I took out of an obsolete article which only presents one part of the middle of an informed academic debate, seems to vaguely support my argument, and so I'll present it as clear proof!"

When creationist websites cite proper university / scientific articles *IN FULL* and then *DRAW VALID CONCLUSIONS* from them, then they will be permissable to be included in debate. Not until.

Because they think "science is a false religion" (taken from creationists.org) they are under the mistaken apprehension that they can piss around with it, and "because it is false" it must make equal sense.

This is erroneous, actually they are generally too stupid to see that their misrepresentations are not internally consistant, and as such are tangibly *unscientific* - undermining the point of them adopting the approach in the first place.

Please forgive me Ace. I will be more careful about what websites I use in the future.

There is nothing to forgive. It is not your fault the website was slanted, nor that you are weak from hunger. I am sorry that I was so harsh. I just really hate having to go to lengths to call bullshit on things which should be self-evidently wrong.

[catatonic]

But in the future I will spend more time on websites before wasting other people's time. I barely looked at it. Thank you. I have to go in a few minutes.

[Funkaloyd]

Something that just now caught my eye:

I also believe the land mass was all together as one so this wasn't necessary (that's what the Bible seems to say).If there was a Pangea-like supercontinent as recently as a few thousand years ago, then the continents would have had to move hundreds of kilometers a year to get to where they are today. Today we observe movement of only a few centimeters per year.
If the movement was exponential (as claimed on this (http://www.biblediscoveries.com/flood1.html) page), then there's no way the arc could have stayed afloat; thousands of kilometers of separation over a period of several months would have made the ocean incredibly unstable. The Boxing Day Tsunami was caused by about 30 meters of movement over a period of a few minutes.

[catatonic]

In the Bible, the earth separation is later, during Peleg's lifetime. I remember reading a peer-reviewed article that said that due to some tectonic plate movement part of the earth moved incredibly fast, fast enough that if it happened every once in a while over a lifetime the earth could be divided in that time. Unfortunately I never was able to find the article again. I guess this would cause massive Tsunamis though. I don't want to quote anything, especially your page, because I'm wary of not having checked first. So you can take my word on any of this or not.

[catatonic]

Good news nobody, funkaloyd, and enigma.

I was reading Jesus' words in my Book of Mormon and he put it a lot more easily than I could.

Whoso believes in Jesus and is baptized, the same will be saved. Whoso believes not in Jesus and is not baptized, the same will be damned.

(those who die without the chance to be baptized or learn about Jesus or who learned incorrectly will get a chance)

And racer, I'm still thinkingaloud about that verse you said was different, will get back to you.

[Funkaloyd]

Heh, that's still not very good news for me and my eternally damned (http://www.scathach.de/dore/dante/gustave_dore_dante_the_styx_phlegyas.jpg) soul.

[EN[i]GMA]

Good news nobody, funkaloyd, and enigma.

I was reading Jesus' words in my Book of Mormon and he put it a lot more easily than I could.

Whoso believes in Jesus and is baptized, the same will be saved. Whoso believes not in Jesus and is not baptized, the same will be damned.

(those who die without the chance to be baptized or learn about Jesus or who learned incorrectly will get a chance)

And racer, I'm still thinkingaloud about that verse you said was different, will get back to you.

I thank you for the concern, but I'm fully content with my current belief system, which is nothing.

It requires no explanations, no justifications and no misrepresentation in order to remain perfectly valid.

As a matter of fact, it requires nothing. I love it.

I don't really worry about my sould. I think there's something in the Bible about 'putting it in God's hands'.

We'll just say that's what I do.

If I'm worth saving, he'll save me, if I'm not, I'm not. I mean, he's God right? He can't be wrong.

How fatalistic.

God I love atheism!

[Funkaloyd]

I don't really worry about my sould.
Freudian slip! You sold your soul to Satan, didn't you!?

[catatonic]

I'm all about saying it's intuitive.

Enigma, the fact that you believe nothing at all is perhaps an extreme version of not judging. Not judging at all is actually an integral part of Christianity. ("Judge not...") You could be fully 100% Christian and not judge at all too. You would seek to make all your decisions based on perfect knowledge from God, and the fact that you don't judge at all would make it quite easy for you to come to a knowledge that any instruction from God would be perfect. It's not quite believing nothing, but it's pretty darn close. It's looking at the Universe and saying, "I'm here devoid of judgement, but I'm still thinking, so whoever I'm thinking to, I hope He(it if you want) will listen to me and through that I can make decisions with Him around (it around).

Funkaloyd, you're situation is not as tough as you think, and the picture was really epic. Even if you are damned, and I think that I am all the time, you can experiment to see if the following is true. No good deed goes unrewarded. When you do good, you will in no way lose some sort of reward, in this life or in the after life or probably in both. We get temporal and spiritual blessings for every good deed. Take protecting the earth for instance. You might not think companies get any reward for protecting the earth, but actually the sustainability index beats the market all the time. If someone worships Satan, but in their life they prevent widespread destruction for the people on earth, don't you think they'll get something really good for it in the afterlife (and also something bad for that whole Satan thing). If you tried doing more good things, and observed what's happening from the good things you are doing, you would see that it's worth it to do good, and you'll be rewarded in the next life, and you might find yourself not eternally damned after all. But be careful of saying the good came from you, for all good comes from God.

[Funkaloyd]

Yeah, I'm rather confident that no just and loving god is going to be so self-obsessed as to punish me for not having faith in it. But if all goodness comes from God, then why would God bother rewarding its own good deeds?

[racer5.0stang]

Good news nobody, funkaloyd, and enigma.

I was reading Jesus' words in my Book of Mormon and he put it a lot more easily than I could.

Whoso believes in Jesus and is baptized, the same will be saved. Whoso believes not in Jesus and is not baptized, the same will be damned.

(those who die without the chance to be baptized or learn about Jesus or who learned incorrectly will get a chance)

Once again you have to be corrected.

Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

The practice of baptizing with water is introduced into the N.T. during the ministry of John the Baptist, whose baptism is referred to as "unto the remission of sins," or, "baptism of repentance" (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; etc.). Christ Himself was baptized by John (Mat 3:13 - 17; etc.). In His case it was certainly not for the reasons mentioned but as a symbol of His identification with mankind.

Before His ascension, the Lord Jesus commanded His disciples to preach the Gospel to all the world, baptizing all who believed this saving message in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Mat 28:19; Mark 16:15 - 16). This command was faithfully obeyed by the early Church beginning with the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38,41; 8:12 - 13,36 - 38; 9:18; 10:48; 16:14 - 15,32 - 33; 18:8; 19:5; 22:13 - 16).

Baptism has, since the apostolic age, been practiced by every major group in the Christian church and, in Protestant communions, is recognized as one of two sacraments - the other being the Lord's Supper. Since early in the Church's history three different modes of baptism have been used: aspersion (sprinkling); affusion (pouring); and immersion (dipping).

John the Baptist, and our Lord also, prophesied a baptism with the Holy Spirit (Mat 3:11; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16). See 1 Cor 12:12 - 13; Acts 2:4.

Baptism is not necessary for salvation, but it is an outward expression of faith.

[racer5.0stang]

Yeah, I'm rather confident that no just and loving god is going to be so self-obsessed as to punish me for not having faith in it. But if all goodness comes from God, then why would God bother rewarding its own good deeds?


You are confusing just and right with being fair.

A fair God would throw all of us in Hell because of our sin.

A just God would create a way for man to be forgiven of his/her sins.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world [mankind], that he gave his only begotten Son [Jesus Christ], that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

We are sinners saved by grace.

[Funkaloyd]

Fair is subjecting individuals to eternal torture because of a mistake that their very distant ancestors made? Face it, if your god were the leader of a nation, you'd be calling for the US to bomb his ass in the name of freedom.

Christ Himself was baptized by John (Mat 3:13 - 17; etc.). In His case it was certainly not for the reasons mentioned
Why are you so sure? Mark 10:17 & 18:
As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good–except God alone."

[racer5.0stang]

Fair is subjecting individuals to eternal torture because of a mistake that their very distant ancestors made? Face it, if your god were the leader of a nation, you'd be calling for the US to bomb his ass in the name of freedom.

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

Romans 3:23,24,25
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Why are you so sure? Mark 10:17 & 18:
As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good–except God alone."

Mark 10:17,18

17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

In paraphrase this question might read: "Believing me to be only a human teacher, why do you call me good?"

John 10:30
I and my Father are one.

Jesus claimed to be God, which is the point that he was trying to make to the rich man in Mark 10:17-. The rich man had kept the commandments from his youth, but he put his earthly riches before God. He was guilty of idolatry.

[ASsman]

Martha! Wheres my gun?!

[catatonic]

bloop.

[EN[i]GMA]

I'm all about saying it's intuitive.

Enigma, the fact that you believe nothing at all is perhaps an extreme version of not judging. Not judging at all is actually an integral part of Christianity. ("Judge not...") You could be fully 100% Christian and not judge at all too. You would seek to make all your decisions based on perfect knowledge from God, and the fact that you don't judge at all would make it quite easy for you to come to a knowledge that any instruction from God would be perfect. It's not quite believing nothing, but it's pretty darn close. It's looking at the Universe and saying, "I'm here devoid of judgement, but I'm still thinking, so whoever I'm thinking to, I hope He(it if you want) will listen to me and through that I can make decisions with Him around (it around).

But of course that's if he exists.

And of course, why is he the Christian God, not Allah, or Vishnu? Or some other God?

The problem is lack of proof.

And something that is so out of my control, like God, is not something worth devoting time to, espescially since none will ever have the true answer.

It's tantamount to incessantly debating whether unicorns exist, and the implications of their existance, all while having no tengential evidence they do exist.

It's pointless.

[ASsman]

Heh, but without religion what other barriers would stop us from uniting as a people?

Also, new Pope, scary looking mothafucka. I don't see what God sees in him.

[catatonic]

GMA']But of course that's if he exists.

And of course, why is he the Christian God, not Allah, or Vishnu? Or some other God?

The problem is lack of proof.

And something that is so out of my control, like God, is not something worth devoting time to, espescially since none will ever have the true answer.

It's tantamount to incessantly debating whether unicorns exist, and the implications of their existance, all while having no tengential evidence they do exist.

It's pointless.

If you exercise faith in one God, after the trial of your faith, expect to receive a witness, but don't expect anything before you test your faith. You can, for instance, try reading the Book of Mormon, or studying the question for a long time, and then when you're done, simply pray to God sincerely that if He exists he lets you know that He does. All you have to lose is maybe feeling a bit silly and the effort to really try your faith. Then you can worry about which God by exercising faith in different religions and then seeing if you get a witness that they're true, or formulating your own religion and seeing which it compares to. It's reasonable to initially believe in a God as a creator and put it to a test because there is little or no explanation for causality otherwise. I'm just saying what people have probably said for milleniums there. If it works, you could have everything to gain, as you might be able to go to a better world, something that is worth sacrificing everything in this world to try for.

*Everybody probably does this :rolleyes: *

[Funkaloyd]

Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.
You know what this is called in the real world? Collective punishment. Examples of collective punishment include numerous (http://www.lidice-memorial.cz/h_uk.htm) acts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane) commited by the Nazis during their occupation of Europe, Stalin's mass deportations (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3509933.stm), the My Lai massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre), and Hussein's gassings (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/16/newsid_4304000/4304853.stm).

In paraphrase this question might read: "Believing me to be only a human teacher, why do you call me good?"
You've strengthened my belief that there are no literalists, only different wishful interpretations.

[racer5.0stang]

You know what this is called in the real world? Collective punishment. Examples of collective punishment include numerous (http://www.lidice-memorial.cz/h_uk.htm) acts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane) commited by the Nazis during their occupation of Europe, Stalin's mass deportations (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3509933.stm), the My Lai massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre), and Hussein's gassings (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/16/newsid_4304000/4304853.stm).

More like mass murders, not punishment.

You've strengthened my belief that there are no literalists, only different wishful interpretations.

lit·er·al·ism
1. adherence to the exact letter or the literal sense, as in translation or interpretation: to interpret the law with uncompromising literalism.
2. a peculiarity of expression resulting from this: The work is studded with these obtuse literalisms.
3. exact representation or portrayal, without idealization, as in art or literature: a literalism more appropriate to journalism than to the novel.

What I posted does not take away from a literalist view of the scripture.

[Funkaloyd]

I agree, God is better described as a mass murderer (http://www.scathach.de/dore/bible/gustave_dore_bibel_the_deluge.jpg).

[racer5.0stang]

I agree, God is better described as a mass murderer (http://www.scathach.de/dore/bible/gustave_dore_bibel_the_deluge.jpg).


Last I checked, the men that you described (Hitler, Stalin, etc.) are men.

Nothing more.

[catatonic]

Mass murderer is innappropriate since He brought us to earth to bring us back when the time was right. And since we'll be reunited with our bodies, thanks to Jesus, and our bodies will be in better shape than now, He's doing us a favor.

[Funkaloyd]

Some of us (http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~funkaloyd/files/dore.jpg), at least.

[racer5.0stang]

Mass murderer is innappropriate since He brought us to earth to bring us back when the time was right. And since we'll be reunited with our bodies, thanks to Jesus, and our bodies will be in better shape than now, He's doing us a favor.


I am having a problem following your post. What do you mean "He brought us to earth to bring us back when the time was right"?