literal interpretation of bible + no evolution + noah's ark = ? - Page 14

[jennica]

Originally Posted by StacyL

Jennica - are you not reading my posts? You asked for some questions answered, and if you read my post #221, that came straight from the Whitcomb book, which I referenced.

I don't know what your hangup with the word 'kind' is - call it whatever you want: group, family, genus, kind, whatever. It is pretty self-explanatory (and common sense) that a 'kind' of dog has different 'breeds' or 'species' within it that are not part of the cat kind, or the horse kind, or the lizard kind, etc. etc. and these 'kinds' NEVER transform from one into another.

Now, if you just simply choose - obstinately - not even to entertain the idea that the Flood was indeed a global event, I cannot change your stubborn refusal. This would indicate to me that you have never read any of the many books that discuss the overwhelming geological and physical evidence of the global flood. At least I know what it's like to be on the other side and be an unbeliever and had spent my entire undergrad career being indoctrinated with the 'facts' of evolution.

I read your post. In every other post up to that one, you seemed to be in support of the argument that only a few hundred animals (a manigable amount) were brought on the ark, and the species we see today came from those few hundred animals. You seemed to be saying that those animals did not evolve from one protoanimal of each kind, because by your definition, that is not evolution. You seemed to be saying that the large number of species we see today are not kinds, but "breeds" of the same kind. I know some of those points may have been mamabadgers, but you and her seemed to be supporting each others arguments.

So then I asked you a few questions based on the theory you seemed to be arguing for, and then you came back with post #221 which suddenly changed your argument to say that ALL of the different species were represented on the ark. If this is what you thought all along, why did you put so much energy into debating what evolution means, and evolution within kinds, or accross kinds, and breeds and species, etc.? Why not just say from the outset, "I think all of the animals did fit into the ark, and here is why..."

So yes, I am reading your posts and

[jennica]

Originally Posted by StacyL

If you had read any books on the topic, you would know that most agree that the earth's continents were connected pre-Flood and became separated as a result of the Flood.

laughup :

You believe this? Really? Are you joking? This was LESS THAN 5000 years ago? I'm gonna need more proof on that one then one persons OPINION who wrote a book! If this is true than there should be geological evidence, historical evidence, scientific evidence, etc. Bring it on, show me the evidence!

And MOST agree? Who are MOST? I want quotes here. Quotes from respected scientists, geoloigists, and historians!

Wow. So do you think the continents rapidly moved apart during or just after the flood, or do think they slowly moved apart since the flood? Even if we give them the 5000 years, they would have to move so fast, it would be like we were all riding on boats :

[the_lissa]

[eilonwy]

Originally Posted by StacyL

I don't see why you are so coy about your beliefs. It's not supposed to be a 'secret.' I am quite open with mine, and you have judged and mocked me and personally it has no impact.

I don't think she's being coy about her beliefs at all; this simply isn't the thread to discuss them, and perhaps she doesn't feel like expending energy defending herself against your attacks, which are no doubt repetitions of attacks she's already faced (and may in fact still face on a regular basis, for all any of us know).

As to this:

Originally Posted by StacyL

Eilonwy - how is it that you have determined that God's Creation and Revelation are not fact?

It's simple-- I define a "fact" to be something that I know, or have observed, to be true. The existance of God as you define it does not fall into what I know or have observed to be true. The existance of "God's Creation" as you know and define it are not among those things which I have observed to be true. "God's Revalation," as you define it, is actually among the things which I have observed to be blatantly false. As far as I'm concerned, it's all mythology at best.

Originally Posted by StacyL

Seriously, I think He could put the Burning Bush in your front yard, and you'd say, "Nope - I don't believe!"

Coming from someone who thinks of themselves as more holy than the Pope, I find this trite and amusing. What makes you think that you know *anything* about what I believe, aside from my assertions that I am not (and never will be, as long as my mind remains intact) a Christian? I'm really happy that you feel like you have divine purpose or whatever, but inspiration comes to all of us differently.

And hey-- if the rapture happens, I'll be among the first to convert. You have my word... not that you'll be around to notice. :

[StacyL]

o

Originally Posted by jennica

I read your post. In every other post up to that one, you seemed to be in support of the argument that only a few hundred animals (a manigable amount) were brought on the ark, and the species we see today came from those few hundred animals.

What?? I never said anything at all about how many animals were on the Ark! Nor did I ever say anything about the number of animals on the Ark equalling the number os animals in the world today. That would violate all common sense. Animals die out, and man also has the capacity to breed all sorts of different varieties within the kinds of domesticated animals, and some wild ones in zoos. So, why would you ever expect to find the present day number of animals to equal that which rode upon the Ark?


Why not just say from the outset, "I think all of the animals did fit into the ark, and here is why..."

I think you misunderstand my point.

The point I am making is all of the animals present today are a result of the animals that rode onthe Ark, and that has NOTHING to do with evolution. The process of breed proliferation is NOT the defined process of the theory of evolution.

[eilonwy]

Originally Posted by StacyL

Yes, that is straight out of Jesus' mouth in the Gospels. I mean, it really is an either/or selection - it's not mulitple choice. I'm sorry - I had nothing to do with it being set up that way.

It is an either/or selection-- provided that you accept, on fatih, the whole "Jesus" deal in the first place. False premises by definition will lead, inevitably, to false conclusions. I'm sorry- I had nothing to do with it being set up that way.

Unfortunately, the evolution/creation argument goes straight to the heart of this separation of those who are "with God" and those who are "against Him."

Why unfortunately? Seriously, most hyperChristians I know are always glad for another chance to show everyone else how pious and RIGHT they are, and eager for a chance to save sad heathen souls like myself. What's unfortunate about it? Here's your chance-- go for it! Show us the evidence, the error of our ways! If we don't accept your evidence, though, if we subject it to the same rigourous treatment that we do our other beliefs, will you be able to wrap your head around the notion that it's not satan but rather logic that's defeated your arguments?

No? *That* is truly unfortunate.

[StacyL]

Originally Posted by jennica

laughup :

You believe this? Really? Are you joking? This was LESS THAN 5000 years ago? I'm gonna need more proof on that one then one persons OPINION who wrote a book! If this is true than there should be geological evidence, historical evidence, scientific evidence, etc. Bring it on, show me the evidence!

And MOST agree? Who are MOST? I want quotes here. Quotes from respected scientists, geoloigists, and historians!

Wow. So do you think the continents rapidly moved apart during or just after the flood, or do think they slowly moved apart since the flood? Even if we give them the 5000 years, they would have to move so fast, it would be like we were all riding on boats :

Why don't you do your own research?

Why have you not read even a single book on this topic?

Please answer these questions.
.
.
.
.
.
.


I have posted quotes and links to at least a half-dozen books now that have all of this information within their pages and you refuse to even look at one of them.

I'll be happy to keep posting more info for you on the topic of how the Flood worked (a VIOLENT event, BTW) after dinner, which I am sure you will continue NOT to read.

[StacyL]

o

Originally Posted by eilonwy

I don't think she's being coy about her beliefs at all; this simply isn't the thread to discuss them,

Total cop-out.


And hey-- if the rapture happens, I'll be among the first to convert. You have my word... not that you'll be around to notice. :

Well, there's always hope for one's conversion.

Just an FYI - Catholics don't believe in the Rapture.

[StacyL]

Originally Posted by eilonwy

Show us the evidence, the error of our ways! If we don't accept your evidence, though, if we subject it to the same rigourous treatment that we do our other beliefs, will you be able to wrap your head around the notion that it's not satan but rather logic that's defeated your arguments?

Hmmm.. if it is truly logic you are interested in, then you should have already read the Summa Theologica. No? You haven't? Then you can't claim to know much at all about LOGIC.

[~PurityLake~]

Originally Posted by StacyL

If you had read any books on the topic, you would know that most agree that the earth's continents were connected pre-Flood and became separated as a result of the Flood.

Originally Posted by jennica

laughup :

You believe this? Really? Are you joking? This was LESS THAN 5000 years ago? I'm gonna need more proof on that one then one persons OPINION who wrote a book! If this is true than there should be geological evidence, historical evidence, scientific evidence, etc. Bring it on, show me the evidence!

And MOST agree? Who are MOST? I want quotes here. Quotes from respected scientists, geoloigists, and historians!

Wow. So do you think the continents rapidly moved apart during or just after the flood, or do think they slowly moved apart since the flood? Even if we give them the 5000 years, they would have to move so fast, it would be like we were all riding on boats :

I didn't realize the flood was the cause of Pangea separating.
I thought that was due to the movement of the tectonic plates.

[eilonwy]

Originally Posted by StacyL

Hmmm.. if it is truly logic you are interested in, then you should have already read the Summa Theologica. No? You haven't? Then you can't claim to know much at all about LOGIC.

And that is it that makes you think I haven't read Summa Theologica? Oh yes, you don't know me at all. Hi, my name is Rynna, and I'm a geek. I'm also what they call a bibliophile, or "a voracious reader."

[witchygrrl]

I was almost a philosophy major in college...turned out I didn't want to continuously read the works of old, dead white men.

But I've read quite a bit of Catholic doctrine, both in and out of school (I attended Catholic school for several years). My school was run by those in Opus Dei, so VERY conservative Catholic viewpoints were the norm. And Creationism was NOT taught there. Evolution was.

I was raised Episcopalian. No Creationism there either. Inspired Word of God, perhaps, but inspired does not mean literal truth.

In a previous post, I mentioned that Jews do not literally believe in the Creation story, either. I married someone who was raised Jewish, and have many Jewish friends. They (my friends) think the creationists are nuts to have subverted their holy texts to mean such things.

When I was a believing Christian, many moons ago now, I believed that God touched off the Big Bang and watched over the process.

[jennica]

Originally Posted by StacyL

Now, if you just simply choose - obstinately - not even to entertain the idea that the Flood was indeed a global event, I cannot change your stubborn refusal. This would indicate to me that you have never read any of the many books that discuss the overwhelming geological and physical evidence of the global flood. At least I know what it's like to be on the other side and be an unbeliever and had spent my entire undergrad career being indoctrinated with the 'facts' of evolution.

I was "on the other side" for 31 years. I have only been on this side for 1 year. DH and I tried for years, by reading books like the ones you mentions here, to reconcile a belief in a global flood with science. Didn't work, we couldn't deny facts. We had to be intellectually honest with ourselves and admit that the only way that a global flood makes sense is if you presume that there was a global flood and then try to fit the "evidence" to that presumtion. If you just look at the natural world, you would never ever come to that conclusion.

[~PurityLake~]

Originally Posted by witchygrrl

I was almost a philosophy major in college...turned out I didn't want to continuously read the works of old, dead white men.

[jennica]

Originally Posted by StacyL

What?? I never said anything at all about how many animals were on the Ark! Nor did I ever say anything about the number of animals on the Ark equalling the number os animals in the world today. That would violate all common sense. Animals die out, and man also has the capacity to breed all sorts of different varieties within the kinds of domesticated animals, and some wild ones in zoos. So, why would you ever expect to find the present day number of animals to equal that which rode upon the Ark?

I think you misunderstand my point.

The point I am making is all of the animals present today are a result of the animals that rode onthe Ark, and that has NOTHING to do with evolution. The process of breed proliferation is NOT the defined process of the theory of evolution.

Okay, well then we return to square one again.

Which animals were on the ark? There are too many species today to fit into the ark and be taken care of by only 8 people. There are more species of animals and fish than can even fit onto the ark.

Breeds are not species. Dogs are made up of breeds, horses are made up of breeds, but horses are not the same breed as donkey's or zebras. I'm talking SPECIES. NOT BREEDS. Lets be very clear on that. Species are animals that can not mate succesfully with each other. Kinds are not scientifically defined, but if we call them families, then kinds are animals that have some similarities with each other, but can't always interbreed! They are seperate species. By the bibles accounts I have come to the conclusion that a "kind" should be likened to a species. To liken them to "families" is wrong. Families can not interbreed, they are not the same kinds, and if a housecat turned into a bobcat and then into a lion and tiger in only 5000 years, that is evolution in an extreme form.

Please show me in the bible where "kind" is likened to "family" and not "species". I am curious to see where you came up with that definition in a biblical sense. Don't you consider the bible to be the utmost authority on the matter? So show me biblically what a kind is and how you came to that determination. Show me where other theoligians agree with you on this.

[jennica]

Originally Posted by StacyL

Why don't you do your own research?

Why have you not read even a single book on this topic?

Please answer these questions.
.
.
.
.
.
.


I have posted quotes and links to at least a half-dozen books now that have all of this information within their pages and you refuse to even look at one of them.

I'll be happy to keep posting more info for you on the topic of how the Flood worked (a VIOLENT event, BTW) after dinner, which I am sure you will continue NOT to read.

I have done my own research, otherwise how would I have come up with the information to leave my religion and start this thread?

Who wrote these books? Scientists? Biologists? What are their credentials? Why should I put more stock in them then in other materials that I have read on the subject?

[StacyL]

Originally Posted by eilonwy

Hi, my name is Rynna, and I'm a geek. I'm also what they call a bibliophile, or "a voracious reader."

Pleased to meet you - I am a bibliophile too!

[StacyL]

Originally Posted by jennica

I have done my own research, otherwise how would I have come up with the information to leave my religion and start this thread?

Who wrote these books? Scientists? Biologists? What are their credentials? Why should I put more stock in them then in other materials that I have read on the subject?

Have you read a single of the half-dozen or so books on the topic I've listed in this thread?

[eilonwy]

Originally Posted by StacyL

Have you read a single of the half-dozen or so books on the topic I've listed in this thread?

I've read some, and more recent books on the whole creationism argument as well. Guess what? Evolution still happened. Perhaps I'm just being obstinant or maybe my FIL is correct and I am too "cemented in sin" (his words) to ever see the light. : I've read the books, I've listened to the arguments... and they're sad, and clearly false as far as I can tell. You have to start from the wrong end, and as I said... false premises, by definition, lead to false conclusions.

[Pynki]

Originally Posted by StacyL

Yes, that is straight out of Jesus' mouth in the Gospels. I mean, it really is an either/or selection - it's not mulitple choice. I'm sorry - I had nothing to do with it being set up that way.

Ok, and this one should really floor you... I'm NOT against God, or Jesus... a good many of their "followers" perhaps, but not the Big Three of Christianity themselves.

Originally Posted by StacyL

Unfortunately, the evolution/creation argument goes straight to the heart of this separation of those who are "with God" and those who are "against Him."

And this once again is just untrue. It's a very narrow view of God and religion. It's like looking through the keyhole and saying you can see the whole room. You may THINK you can see the whole room because you've never actually been inside of it before, but what you are missing is more than 5x's what you can see.