literal interpretation of bible + no evolution + noah's ark = ? - Page 9 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#241 of 294 Old 08-22-2007, 07:50 AM
 
Thao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington state
Posts: 2,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't have a problem with you considering Christianity or your God a fact, Kidzaplenty. That's what faith is all about.

It is a double standard, though, to say that evolution is a theory because it hasn't been conclusively proved by science, whereas God, which also has not been conclusively proved by science, is a fact.

If God is a fact because you believe it and feel Him in your heart to be true, then by that same standard I can say evolution is a fact because I believe it and feel in my heart to be true, and you'd have to agree with me because I am using your own standard.
Thao is offline  
#242 of 294 Old 08-22-2007, 08:02 AM
 
Kidzaplenty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Writing my Happily Ever After
Posts: 16,983
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thao View Post
I don't have a problem with you considering Christianity or your God a fact, Kidzaplenty. That's what faith is all about.

It is a double standard, though, to say that evolution is a theory because it hasn't been conclusively proved by science, whereas God, which also has not been conclusively proved by science, is a fact.

If God is a fact because you believe it and feel Him in your heart to be true, then by that same standard I can say evolution is a fact because I believe it and feel in my heart to be true, and you'd have to agree with me because I am using your own standard.
First off, I was not the one to say evolution was a theory, everyone else was including the scientists and historians (I just repeated their words).

And second, God is not a fact because I believe Him to be so in my heart. He is a fact just because He is.

fact: a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true - Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

And He is a fact because I KNOW Him to be by actual experience and observation. Not only in the lives of those around me and throughout history, but in my life personally. I hear Him, I see Him, I speak to Him, and yes, He speaks to me. So He IS a fact.

Evolution can not be measured by the same measure, if for no other reason that the time factor. Therefore, it is a theory. But again, that is what the scientists call it. Not my word, theirs.

Any misspellings or grammatical errors in the above statement are intentional;
they are placed there for the amusement of those who like to point them out.
Kidzaplenty is offline  
#243 of 294 Old 08-22-2007, 08:48 AM
 
Thao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington state
Posts: 2,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
*Deleted because I thought better of it and really don't want to veer OT into whether or not God can be "proved".

Back to your originally scheduled program...
Thao is offline  
#244 of 294 Old 08-22-2007, 10:19 AM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by eilonwy View Post
Is it wrong of me to find this absolutely *hilarious* coming from someone who teaches their children Christianity as a fact when in fact it isn't?
Eilonwy - how is it that you have determined that God's Creation and Revelation are not fact?

Seriously, I think He could put the Burning Bush in your front yard, and you'd say, "Nope - I don't believe!"
StacyL is offline  
#245 of 294 Old 08-22-2007, 10:23 AM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidspiration View Post
as for the ark, a seagoing vessel of those proportions made out of wood would barely float when empty. that's not even accounting for the the weight of all of the myriad animal species on it (and the food and water to sustain them etc.) it is an impossibility based on the laws of physics.

And so, according to you and "your" laws of physics, the Titanic would have never sailed!

Thanks for the best laugh in this thread! :
StacyL is offline  
#246 of 294 Old 08-22-2007, 10:33 AM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jennica View Post
Okay, this comes out of nowhere! All along, since your very first post to this thread, you have asserted your position as someone who believes that there were only a smaller number of kinds of animals on the ark, and those kinds produced all the variation of animals that we see today. My questions were directly addressing that belief. If I had known that you believed in the opposing view, that each species of animal was represented on the ark and somehow cared for for 40 days and 40 nights by only 8 people, then I would have asked you completely different questions. Now you are completely changing your argument.
No.

The number of kinds of animals present today would not equal the number of kinds present pre-Flood. How could they? Isn't that common sense? But, the fact that some animals proliferate into different genetic variations of themselves still is not evolution. None of those kinds, of any kind, turned into another kind - period.

What is that you think happened? Do you think God made His creation, He destroyed it, and then He brought in evolution suddenly out of nowhere to repopulate the earth? That would be even more unscientific than the regular evolution theory.

So, basically your whole problem is you just don't see how eight people took care of a lot of animals, or how they proliferated?
StacyL is offline  
#247 of 294 Old 08-22-2007, 11:16 AM
 
Pynki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Inside the café au lait
Posts: 7,891
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Perhaps the problem comes in when you don't believe the flood covered the whole earth to the extent that the bible says it does. Many middle eastern religions/cultures speak of a great flood. I think we can ascertain there was a great flood in the middle east. That many people saying the same thing probably had the same experience. That doesn't mean that EVERY animal in the WHOLE of the world was killed or brought onto Noah's boat, because it isn't possible with all the continents being seperate and all.

So, all the millions of animals in the world wouldn't have needed to evolve from the ones Noah had, just the ones in the middle east.

It's lonely being the only XX in a house of XYs.
Pynki is offline  
#248 of 294 Old 08-22-2007, 12:21 PM
 
l_olive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Why is it possible for the believers in evolution to state (as has happened several times on this thread):

The creation and flood are fact to those who believe in the literal account given in Genesis.

While the believers in the literal creation story cannot state:

The basic tenets on which the theory of evolution are based are fact to those who accept scientific discovery as true.

What accounts for the difference in the tolerance of others? Is accepting that others may be just as adament and passionate about their beliefs threatening in some way?

I'm truly trying to understand why intolerance of other beliefs is so often part of the conservative Christian approach.

If one Christian believes in his heart that the creation story is literal, and another believes it's an allegory for a divinely-inspired creation followed by evolution, why and how does one belief damage the other?
l_olive is offline  
#249 of 294 Old 08-22-2007, 01:07 PM - Thread Starter
 
jennica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,792
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
No.

The number of kinds of animals present today would not equal the number of kinds present pre-Flood. How could they? Isn't that common sense? But, the fact that some animals proliferate into different genetic variations of themselves still is not evolution. None of those kinds, of any kind, turned into another kind - period.
Your either not reading my posts or not understanding my questions. You wont give me a straight answer on what you believe happened. You wont even give us a straight answer on what you think the word "kind" means; family, genus, species? You seem to think a "breed" and a "species" are the same thing, and you use the words interchangably, and yet you use this word "kind" to define some kind of imaginary group of animals that you say can't evolve out of this "kind", yet you give no evidence or explanation of what a kind is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
What is that you think happened? Do you think God made His creation, He destroyed it, and then He brought in evolution suddenly out of nowhere to repopulate the earth? That would be even more unscientific than the regular evolution theory.
Umm, no, not at all. I simply think there was NOT a global flood. There is no evidence to prove that. Whether life got here by evolution, creation, or a mixture of both, the facts point to the reality that there was no global flood. I don't really see any evidence of God in my life, but I am not saying he doesn't exist, who knows, maybe he does and he just doesn't like me? All I'm saying is that some form of evolution did happen, and if there was a global flood then a very freaky fast paced type of evolution happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
So, basically your whole problem is you just don't see how eight people took care of a lot of animals, or how they proliferated?
Umm, no, that is not my whole problem. I never even talked about them proliferating, but yes, that is a huge flaw with the flood theory. If you search my posts you will find all of my questions in this thread. None of which have been answered. I refuse to keep repeating myself, and your arguments and train of thought seem to change with each commment you make, so it's a bit annoying to keep flip flopping back and forth between different debates here. If your not gonna answer the questions I pose based on your comments, and instead change your argument to avoid those questions, then there is nowhere we can really go with this, is there? All you have to do is answer questions, but obviously you can't. If the questions can't be answered in a provable, logical, satisfactory way, then there was no global flood. Simple as that.
jennica is offline  
#250 of 294 Old 08-22-2007, 02:20 PM
 
Thao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington state
Posts: 2,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
What accounts for the difference in the tolerance of others? Is accepting that others may be just as adament and passionate about their beliefs threatening in some way?

I'm truly trying to understand why intolerance of other beliefs is so often part of the conservative Christian approach.
I_olive, I was a fundamentalist Christian for over half my life so I understand the mindset.

It's not that they feel threatened (or at least I didn't) but rather a conviction that there is only One Truth which naturally enough happens to be their particular belief. If there is only one truth, and they have it, then obviously anything different is wrong. Add to that a belief in Satan who is trying to deceive people so they'll go to Hell. So evolution is a plot by Satan to lead people away from God. All other religions and religous experiences are nothing more than counterfeits created by Satan.

I don't quite know how to explain this, but to maintain this pretty simplistic worldview in such a complicated world, one has to impose it on EVERYTHING. If something comes up that doesn't fit with the worldview, one has to disbelieve it. So for example when a fundamentalist meets someone like me who is no longer a Christian and very happy with my situation (when I should be miserable and convicted), they'll think to themselves (or sometimes tell me outright) that really truly deep inside I know the truth, and I am just resisting it because I don't want to abide by God's laws/am selfish/being deceived by Satan etc. I could tell them until I am blue in the face that this is not the case and they won't hear it.

Oh, I suppose for those that believe the Bible is inerrant and literally true there could be an element of feeling threatened. Because if any jot or tittle turns out to not be true, it will shake their entire faith. I remember as a high-schooler frantically trying to make the various geneologies in the Bible match up with each other, because if those were wrong then I would lose my faith.

I have to say, after participating in this thread I am so glad I am no longer a part of that. It's great for some people, but not for me.
Thao is offline  
#251 of 294 Old 08-22-2007, 03:21 PM - Thread Starter
 
jennica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,792
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thao View Post
I_olive, I was a fundamentalist Christian for over half my life so I understand the mindset.

It's not that they feel threatened (or at least I didn't) but rather a conviction that there is only One Truth which naturally enough happens to be their particular belief. If there is only one truth, and they have it, then obviously anything different is wrong. Add to that a belief in Satan who is trying to deceive people so they'll go to Hell. So evolution is a plot by Satan to lead people away from God. All other religions and religous experiences are nothing more than counterfeits created by Satan.

I don't quite know how to explain this, but to maintain this pretty simplistic worldview in such a complicated world, one has to impose it on EVERYTHING. So for example when a fundamentalist meets someone like me who is no longer a Christian and very happy with my situation, they'll think to themselves (or sometimes tell me outright) that really truly deep inside I know the truth, and I am just resisting it because I don't want to abide by God's laws/am selfish/being deceived by Satan etc. I could tell them until I am blue in the face that this is not the case and they won't hear it.

Oh, I suppose for those that believe the Bible is inerrant and literally true there could be an element of feeling threatened. Because if any jot or tittle turns out to not be true, it will shake their entire faith. I remember as a high-schooler frantically trying to make the various geneologies in the Bible match up with each other, because if those were wrong then I would lose my faith.

I have to say, after participating in this thread I am so glad I am no longer a part of that. It's great for some people, but not for me.
You are totally right on this! This whole Noah's flood thing was one of the things that totally shattered mine and Dh's faith, as well as a friend of ours who we talked to about it. If you believe that everything in the bible is literal, than you can also believe that satan is out there planting evidence and misleading people.

The thing I finally decided is that it is okay with me to have faith in something if there is no evidence to support it, but, if there is evidence AGAINST the belief, then I can't extend my faith to include that satan is planting that evidence against it and God didn't see fit to include a body of evidence for it. If there is a God, then he must be stronger than satan, so his evidence for something should far surpase the evidence that satan has planted against it.
jennica is offline  
#252 of 294 Old 08-22-2007, 03:51 PM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jennica View Post
Your either not reading my posts or not understanding my questions. You wont give me a straight answer on what you believe happened. You wont even give us a straight answer on what you think the word "kind" means; family, genus, species? You seem to think a "breed" and a "species" are the same thing, and you use the words interchangably, and yet you use this word "kind" to define some kind of imaginary group of animals that you say can't evolve out of this "kind", yet you give no evidence or explanation of what a kind is.

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.
StacyL is offline  
#253 of 294 Old 08-22-2007, 03:54 PM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pynki View Post
Perhaps the problem comes in when you don't believe the flood covered the whole earth to the extent that the bible says it does. Many middle eastern religions/cultures speak of a great flood. I think we can ascertain there was a great flood in the middle east. That many people saying the same thing probably had the same experience. That doesn't mean that EVERY animal in the WHOLE of the world was killed or brought onto Noah's boat, because it isn't possible with all the continents being seperate and all.

So, all the millions of animals in the world wouldn't have needed to evolve from the ones Noah had, just the ones in the middle east.
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.
StacyL is offline  
#254 of 294 Old 08-22-2007, 04:00 PM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thao View Post
So for example when a fundamentalist meets someone like me who is no longer a Christian and very happy with my situation, they'll think to themselves (or sometimes tell me outright) that really truly deep inside I know the truth, and I am just resisting it because I don't want to abide by God's laws/am selfish/being deceived by Satan etc. I could tell them until I am blue in the face that this is not the case and they won't hear it.

What an interesting statement of self-contradiction.

By saying it's not that you don't want to abide by God's laws/are not selfish/feel you're not deceived, etc. - then what is it you are really trying to say? Because to me it appears you just have simply decided for yourself you have a different idea of how the world works. And if this is the case, then you have effectively told God that you know better than He does, and furthermore you have set yourself up as a god. Because you just know that there was no Flood, you just know that He does not exist, and you just know that evolution is true.
StacyL is offline  
#255 of 294 Old 08-22-2007, 04:08 PM
 
Thao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington state
Posts: 2,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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.
See, this is exhibit A for what I was talking about in my post. Because no one could possibly study the evidence and simply decide it wasn't convincing. No, either you haven't read the books, or you are just being obstinate. :
Thao is offline  
#256 of 294 Old 08-22-2007, 04:14 PM
 
Thao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Washington state
Posts: 2,250
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
What an interesting statement of self-contradiction.

By saying it's not that you don't want to abide by God's laws/are not selfish/feel you're not deceived, etc. - then what is it you are really trying to say? Because to me it appears you just have simply decided for yourself you have a different idea of how the world works. And if this is the case, then you have effectively told God that you know better than He does, and furthermore you have set yourself up as a god. Because you just know that there was no Flood, you just know that He does not exist, and you just know that evolution is true.
Stacy, honestly, all you are doing is proving my point.

I said I am no longer a Christian, it's as simple as that. I understand that in your worldview, one is either for God or against God, either submits to God or sets themself up against God. The facts surrounding my departure from the Church were not like that, but there is no place in your worldview for me so you have to slot me in where you think I fit.

I understand you, I really do. You don't seem to understand anyone else on this thread.

I actually am open-minded about the Flood and God and evolution. As I've said several times, there is some good stuff on the answers in genesis website. I've been reading both sides and truly will go with whichever side has the most convincing evidence. Naturally you won't believe me on that either.
Thao is offline  
#257 of 294 Old 08-22-2007, 04:22 PM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thao View Post
See, this is exhibit A for what I was talking about in my post. Because no one could possibly study the evidence and simply decide it wasn't convincing. No, either you haven't read the books, or you are just being obstinate. :
No one? I did.

Haven't read the books?! I spent four years of college reading those books! Are you kidding me? :

I am not the only former evolutionist who abandoned this false theory. Are you purposely ignoring the George Gaylord Simpson quotes I posted?
StacyL is offline  
#258 of 294 Old 08-22-2007, 04:26 PM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thao View Post
I am saying I no longer believe in the Christian God, it's just as simple as that. And please don't presume to think that you know anything about my spiritual journey, or what I have told God, or what I consider myself.
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.
StacyL is offline  
#259 of 294 Old 08-22-2007, 04:29 PM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thao View Post
I said I am no longer a Christian, it's as simple as that. I understand that in your worldview, one is either for God or against God, either submits to God or sets themself up against God.
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.

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."
StacyL is offline  
#260 of 294 Old 08-22-2007, 04:34 PM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jennica View Post
You are totally right on this! This whole Noah's flood thing was one of the things that totally shattered mine and Dh's faith, as well as a friend of ours who we talked to about it. If you believe that everything in the bible is literal, than you can also believe that satan is out there planting evidence and misleading people.
Well I guess He didn't call him the "Father Of Lies" in the Bible for nothing.
StacyL is offline  
#261 of 294 Old 08-22-2007, 04:38 PM - Thread Starter
 
jennica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,792
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
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 is offline  
#262 of 294 Old 08-22-2007, 04:46 PM - Thread Starter
 
jennica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,792
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
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 :
jennica is offline  
#263 of 294 Old 08-22-2007, 04:52 PM
 
the_lissa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Posts: 13,248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Jam 7, Peanut Butter 5, and Bread 2.

the_lissa is offline  
#264 of 294 Old 08-22-2007, 04:52 PM
 
eilonwy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Lost
Posts: 15,406
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
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:

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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. :

Rynna, Mama to Bean (8), Boobah (6), Bella (4) and Bear (2)
eilonwy is offline  
#265 of 294 Old 08-22-2007, 04:57 PM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
o


Quote:
Originally Posted by jennica View Post
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.

StacyL is offline  
#266 of 294 Old 08-22-2007, 04:59 PM
 
eilonwy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Lost
Posts: 15,406
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Rynna, Mama to Bean (8), Boobah (6), Bella (4) and Bear (2)
eilonwy is offline  
#267 of 294 Old 08-22-2007, 05:00 PM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jennica View Post
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 is offline  
#268 of 294 Old 08-22-2007, 05:03 PM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
o


Quote:
Originally Posted by eilonwy View Post
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 is offline  
#269 of 294 Old 08-22-2007, 05:06 PM
 
StacyL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Banned - period.
Posts: 3,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by eilonwy View Post
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.
StacyL is offline  
#270 of 294 Old 08-22-2007, 05:18 PM
 
~PurityLake~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, US
Posts: 6,148
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by StacyL View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jennica View Post
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.

Katreena, peace.gif 39 year old Alaskan treehugger.gif Mama to 1 hearts.gif and 1 lady.gif gd.gif
 
 
 
 

~PurityLake~ is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off