Almost full-size replica of Noah's ark

[BamaInBham]

Actually, it's not evidence of a major world-wide, life ending flood occurring. Virtually every civilization that has ever survived in this word lived near a major water supply, whether it be a river, lake, or ocean. All civilizations have myths and stories to explain the concept of an angry yet forgiving deity, and since the water supply played a major role in their lives - it is natural for that to be the center of the punishment. If the river or lake flooded or say a tsunami or hurricane hit, it was the norm of the time to consider it a supernatural event.

That being said, however, some scientists/geologists believe only something along the lines of an asteroid impacting could have caused the effects listed in all of the flood stories throughout the civilizations in the world.

Yes, and as was said, those "myths and stories" are perversions of the true account with which their culture was once familiar. The truth degenerated over the years as did their understanding of the true God.

 

[MasterShake]

You are confused. True science confirms the Bible at every turn. Science has often tried its best to refute the Bible but has frequently been shown to be ignorant or incomplete or a fraud. Lying to hide from the truth. But as has often been stated, "...men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them, for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though the knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise they became fools." Psuedo-science that tries to deny His existence or distort His nature do it because they want to continue in their sin unhindered by the thought of a God to Whom they will give an account.

It does not matter that man discovers more each passing day the incredible, spectacular and complex nature of the universe, both macro and micro, that begs for a Creator, most refuse to accept the obvious, and thereby reject the truth.

What does any of this to do with the topic at hand.

Here let me refresh you.

Topic of the thread: Noah's Arc

Topic of your post: Existence of God?

 

[DiamondDust]

Yes, and as was said, those "myths and stories" are perversions of the true account with which their culture was once familiar. The truth degenerated over the years as did their understanding of the true God.

That line of reasoning can be used by ANY civilization or religion to justify why their flood story/myth or creation story/myth is the TRUE version.

 

[Ark-Tider]

Anyone can have faith in whatever they want, but don't try and use pseudoscience to try and prove it.

My point was "Why do people try to disprove or discredit one's faith" BamaJeff posted this thread noting that someone had built a replica of Noah's Arc and almost immediatley someone tried to discredit the possabillity of Noah's Ark or God. He didn't say that God must be real because someone built an arc. BTW, I like science when it doesn't contradict my faith and I'm not about to gamble on an evolution theory. If you prefer to go with the evolution theory and are right then you can brag in your grave. But what if you are wrong? The risk is not worth the reward for me. JMO

 

[crimson_blood]

Thank you for posting that...that is truly impressive!!

 

[MasterShake]

My point was "Why do people try to disprove or discredit one's faith" BamaJeff posted this thread noting that someone had built a replica of Noah's Arc and almost immediatley someone tried to discredit the possabillity of Noah's Ark or God. He didn't say that God must be real because someone built an arc. BTW, I like science when it doesn't contradict my faith and I'm not about to gamble on an evolution theory. If you prefer to go with the evolution theory and are right then you can brag in your grave. But what if you are wrong? The risk is not worth the reward for me. JMO

You just solidified my theory on why people gravitate to one religion or the other. They all use scare tactics in persuading people rather than irrefutable facts. Sounds like you took out an insurance policy with your current religion, if that doesn't work out for you I think my religion can offer you lower or similar rates and better customer service.

 

[crimson_blood]

My point was "Why do people try to disprove or discredit one's faith" BamaJeff posted this thread noting that someone had built a replica of Noah's Arc and almost immediatley someone tried to discredit the possabillity of Noah's Ark or God. He didn't say that God must be real because someone built an arc. BTW, I like science when it doesn't contradict my faith and I'm not about to gamble on an evolution theory. If you prefer to go with the evolution theory and are right then you can brag in your grave. But what if you are wrong? The risk is not worth the reward for me. JMO

Well-put. I would not want to be an evolutionist or an atheist when I took my last breath. Sometimes you just gotta have a little faith.

 

[CrimsonCT]

You just solidified my theory on why people gravitate to one religion or the other. They all use scare tactics in persuading people rather than irrefutable facts. Sounds like you took out an insurance policy with your current religion, if that doesn't work out for you I think my religion can offer you lower or similar rates and better customer service.

Sure sounds that way, doesn't it?

 

[BJ4TIDE]

Why would a blue whale or fish need to be put in an ark during a flood?

THANK YOU!!!!! That was my thought exactly.

 

[DiamondDust]

Well-put. I would not want to be an evolutionist or an atheist when I took my last breath. Sometimes you just gotta have a little faith.

On the same hand, a person can say, "I would not want to be (FILL IN THE BLANK OF ANY RELIGION) on the chance they aren't the "true" religion".

 

[MasterShake]

On the same hand, a person can say, "I would not want to be (FILL IN THE BLANK OF ANY RELIGION) on the chance they aren't the "true" religion".

That's why we have Scientology. It's too much of a headache deciding which religion is right so they're just going to bail out on us all by hopping on that intergalactic DC-9 spaceship. Darn cheaters....

 

[Ark-Tider]

They all use scare tactics in persuading people rather than irrefutable facts. .

Are you saying that evolution is an irrefutable fact?

 

[Ark-Tider]

I think my religion can offer you lower or similar rates and better customer service.

No. You can keep your 30 pieces of silver.

 

[Bodhisattva]

What's wrong with admitting what should be the obvious? Much of the Bible is not historical or scientific fact. An allegory is a powerful too - sometimes much more useful that history. You look foolish when you try to argue that the ark and the flood actually occured. C'mon people. Think just a little bit.

 

[gmart74]

Yup the burning bush was another story I didnt quite buy into..... however in Baltimore it is a daily occurrence and usually means you need some penicillin.

 

[BamaInBham]

That line of reasoning can be used by ANY civilization or religion to justify why their flood story/myth or creation story/myth is the TRUE version.

You are right it could be. I'm saying that the Bible contains the precise account of the event, the others are contortions of it. For one thing the Bible's account makes sense, containing many details, with nothing refutable, while the others that I've read (65 or so) do not.

 

[BamaInBham]

Please go into more detail here, specifically how you believe that a single pair of dogs can differentiate into wolves (78 chromosomes), foxes (34 chromosomes), hyena (40 chromosomes), etc without referencing the concept of evolution. Note that none of those species are even in the same genus, and thus have diverged to such as extent as to prohibit interbreeding.

First of all I'm getting over my head as far as taxonomy and genetics; and I should not have equated Biblical 'kinds' with species. Having said that, wolves and dogs are in the same family, phylum, class, order, family and genus - canis.

18,000 species? Where did you get that number? Not to mention that your estimate conveniently robs the world of insects (10 million species), fungi (100,000 species), crustaceans (50,000 species), mollusks (100,000 species), and microorganisms (too many to comprehend).

Ernst Mayr, German evolutionary biologist, taxonomist. He said there were 17,600 mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. The kinds were probably a larger category than species, meaning that there did not have to be even that many.

Where are you getting the idea that all animals were vegetarians before the flood?

I said they "may" have been vegetarians. It is more likely that they became meat eaters after the fall, but it may have been after the flood which I inferred because of the change in the relationship that I noted.

 

[BamaInBham]

You just solidified my theory on why people gravitate to one religion or the other. They all use scare tactics in persuading people rather than irrefutable facts. Sounds like you took out an insurance policy with your current religion, if that doesn't work out for you I think my religion can offer you lower or similar rates and better customer service.

That should be "some people". Some people do use irrefutable facts. But the consequences of rejecting the truth are dire. "If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son. The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life." NT, 1 John 5

Surely, you would not object to someone wanting to let others know, including irrefutable facts, until they indicate that they don't want to hear, do you ?

 

[Jack Bourbon]

I like pie.

 

[CrimsonCT]

First of all I'm getting over my head as far as taxonomy and genetics; and I should not have equated Biblical 'kinds' with species. Having said that, wolves and dogs are in the same family, phylum, class, order, family and genus - canis.

That's because a dog is just a domesticated wolf. My question is how you can have two ancestral parents (wolves on the ark) that "diverge" into different species (you mentioned fox) and not reference the concept of evolution.

Ernst Mayr, German evolutionary biologist, taxonomist. He said there were 17,600 mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. The kinds were probably a larger category than species, meaning that there did not have to be even that many.

I love Mayr, but he was born over a century ago, and those estimates are outdated.

I said they "may" have been vegetarians. It is more likely that they became meat eaters after the fall, but it may have been after the flood which I inferred because of the change in the relationship that I noted.

I guess my confusion comes from wondering how a cat would easily transition from herbivore to carnivore without a complete reinvention of the species (through evolutionary forms, of course). Everything from its physiology to digestive metabolism is predicated upon a hunter lifestyle. We're not talking about a simple dietary switch here.