Fresh Problem with the Ark

You mean like how He contradicts himself regarding the number of animals to be taken on the ark? Two of every living thing... two of every clean beast... two of all flesh... ah hell, I changed my mind, make it seven of every clean beast...

And why are two each of the asexual organisms needed?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

My take would be more of giving Him the benefit of the doubt! OK, so now we are gonna sed in our reproductive whizes who are bred to go, soon as the flood ends. Noah, get these babies in first, they are important! Then, after they are all safe in the lower levels, time to load up some bred to eat types, these fat babies go up higher where you can milk them, or even eat them, throw one to a dino on board, whatever, chow time specials! ? I can think of some other scenarios as well. Noah did what he was told, it seemed to make sense to him! Just that looking at the account from an unbelieving sceptical. doubting, negative, mocking vantage point, it can be enough to confuse the mind. Actually, as I said, one can not really even understand the bible without His help.

Which ones? Did He march some ameobas in there or something? Who knows maybe He used a spacecraft for the low lifes? Noah did the animals and people.

The verses in my message weren't in chronological order - I just placed 7:2 last for emphasis. So it was after God said 'take seven' that he said 'take two.'Seems like a contradiction to me.

quote:

---

What, you mean there are errors of omission? That's a heck of a "complete" guide to truths.

---

In my mind, leaving out things like the apostles bathroom habits, is not a sin of ommision! For what you seem to want, you'd need a world full of books.

quote:

---

In other words you do not use the term the way it is defined ..

---

Yes I use the word 'evolution' only in a God related, recent sense, mainly to blaspheme it, not because I like the word.

quote:

---

How about Paluxy dino\human tracks? Known hoax

---

Maybe you are right. I have heard it was more that it was not solid enough to use, in that evidence was lost or missing, for such an important claim to be held up a a proof. I can see how it could be true, just not useable. I can also see how some might just well believe it without the hard evidence, on people's word they trust. Why do you use the word 'hoax'? I must've missed that one, if it is a real claim.

quote:

---

This does not explain how animals like koalas would get to Australia and only Australia

---

What if the continents did split within a young earth time frame? What is so hard about the poor Aussie critter not having the wherewithal to spread far and wide? Or several other flood type scenarios?

quote:

---

This does not explain how animals like koalas would get to Australia and only Australia

---

They are cute. What if some son of Noah's or nephew, etc. took the only few that survived, and kept them as pets!? He would then have settled in Australia area. (before or after the split if there was one)--So many ideas-so little time.

quote:

---

What part about "An intact fossil record with no missing links" don't you understand?

---

Like why are they said to be transitional? What links them to 'millions of years'?

quote:

---

This gets to the question of alternative explanations for the same evidence, a concept that is totally lacking from the creationist side.

---

Maybe they don't want shifting sandy changing alternatives to the truth!

quote:

---

In my opinion anyone who does think they know a god on any kind personal level is engaging in some egotistical arrogant self-delusion ... that there is just to much for any one person to know even a part thereof: heck no one person can even wrap their mind around the full complete complexity of the universe from subatomic particle probability flux to black hole gravity waves with all the input of all the other sciences along the way.

---

Fortunately, Jesus said we must become as little children to get to heaven. So simple a child could understand. I figure there is all eternity to get to learn about how things really work.

Fine, the sexy ones got the nice top area!

Now we get an interpretation of what "all flesh" means ... one that excludes anything that does not reproduce sexually? Or does Noah have to change them (Cosby voice "You know I don't work that way ... ")"low lifes" ... being judgmental? Of course the spacecraft concept is totally out of the window, literally speaking of course.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

Actually, as I said, one can not really even understand the bible without His help

---

Well, that's kind of a problem.When I tell believers that I don't believe, they say "read the Bible, you'll believe when you read the bible."Then I read the Bible, and I have all of these questions and a bunch of stuff doesn't make sense, and then believers say "Well, you really need God's help to understand it all."Can you see how this is a problem?

quote:

---

Maybe they don't want shifting sandy changing alternatives to the truth!

---

It is a weak mind that fears uncertainty and ambiguity.Wouldn't it be better to change our ideas of natural phenomena when we learn more facts about them rather than ignore that new information just because we don't want to know?What is wrong about change in the light of increased information?

Try a whole universe ... that is an encyclopedia Can you "blaspheme" something that is not a religious dogma? Perhaps what you blaspheme is the work of god.Intentionally misusing words is not communication. It is malicious, it is lying. It is wrong. The supposed "human" footprints are too big to fit any known human ancestor and there are other tracks that transition from those very same shapes into ones with the three toed footprints typical of dinosaurs. These other tracks are from the same area, the same geological strata, the same time frame, the same kind of dinosaur as those claimed to be human. The transition shows a change in {posture \ stance} of the "perp" (not a change in shape of the foot) that completely accounts for the supposedly 'human' tracks touted by creationists.Additionally there is no evidence of any human existence below the iridium layer that covers the world at the strata level that is associated with 65 million years ago, and which the paluxy are below (older than). There is no evidence of any human existence in the area of these tracks until the fairly recent (geologically) influx of the native Indian ancestors, an event measured in thousands of years rather than millions.I use the word hoax because the concept that they are human footprints has been disproved and yet that there are creationist sites that refer to it as fact, or at best claim it is not conclusive, rather just admit that it is not true. Intentionally continuing to misrepresent facts to dupe gullible people is textbook fraud, deception, lies and ... yes, a hoax. Again, we are talking after the flood, when there was no further rending of the earth, and a slow moving, diet restricted creature is supposedly able to migrate vast distances while leaving no evidence of any existence anywhere else but Australia -- on the far side of the earth from the holy land where the ark was supposed to land.Several other flood scenarios? Remember, literal is literal and not fantasy. If you need to create fantasies in your mind to make your literal interpretation work, it is no longer a literal interpretation but a fantasy. This rules out continents flying around the globe and magic carpets (or spaceships, or undocumented nieces and nephews with curious tastes) to transport animals to the far reaches of the earth. So many fantasies, so little reality. They are transitional because they show gradual change in shape over millions of years. And not in just one species but many. What links them to millions of years is the layers they are found in, sediment at the bottom of the oceans and other known methods of dating such fossils. The truth is what it is regardless of whether you believe it or not. The truth does not change. ... and btw, what alternative is there to the truth? Ah yes, the full fledge retreat into willful ignorance, and not just as an escape from the debate but presented as a holy goal to justify it. Interpreted too, so add a touch of fantasy here as well (no surprise eh?). Become as a child ... is that an empty slate akin to what Buddhists call nirvana? Becoming one with the being that is non-being? Or is that become as a child ... before learning anything about religion, life, the universe and everything? Or is a child to god like a year is as a thousand years so one can interpret it to mean anything one wants to? Or does it just mean to ignore stuff you don't like to hear (the way children like to do).enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

Now we get an interpretation of what "all flesh" means ... one that excludes anything that does not reproduce sexually?

---

I guess we don't really know. Do you really think he sent in the one celled creatures to the ark? To say the least, anything that did not have a lot of sex would be out of place on the ark! Do you think He's want the little critters to feel left out! UFO's out the window? Well, Ezekiel talks about the throne of God, (wheels within wheels) you would pretty well have to call a UFO. (except it is identified)
By the way, weren't the little critters in question sea critters? If so, can we say they would not have been adapting like crazy to the changing water conditions then (high, low, hot, cold, warm, cool, chemical full, salty, fresh, etc, etc!?) Why would then we be surprised, except pehaps at how wonderful He made critters who could make such a valliant attempt to adapt?

quote:

---

"low lifes" ... being judgmental? Of course the spacecraft concept is totally out of the window, literally speaking of course.

---

Well, since we are said to be almost equal to angels, even to judge them at one point, we would be pretty well as high as you can get!!! (even refered to 'as gods' in one place. Now these nice little (former?) thingies you speak of, would be very low on a scale where we are at the top! Unlike the evo concept where we seem nothing more than beasts! Yes, doesn't evolution paint us as low lifes? Or at least as more or less equal to beasts? What a low life theory!!!!

quote:

---

Again, we are talking after the flood, when there was no further rending of the earth,..

---

Ahh, are you conceeding there could have been some continental rending!?

quote:

---

Perhaps what you blaspheme is the work of god.

---

Evolution is not the work of God!

quote:

---

The supposed "human" footprints are too big to fit any known human ancestor

---

Were they bigger than Goliath's feet?

quote:

---

that completely accounts for the supposedly 'human' tracks touted by creationists.

---

'could account for, if the theory of evolution were true' to be precise.

quote:

---

the concept that they are human footprints has been disproved

---

Only if the theory of evolution is true, of course. Funny how you folks toss the word 'falsified' 'disproved' etc around, as if in repeating it enough it would somehow make it true!

quote:

---

and a slow moving, diet restricted creature is supposedly able to migrate vast distances while leaving no evidence of any existence anywhere else but Australia

---

If it is so slow moving, and diet restricted, why is it hard to picture someone's cute pet not getting off the continent, if that;s where the owner's did happen to paddle to? This wasn't meant to be a real serious proposal, but I flog it longer, because you didn't even give good cause this wasn't the reason!

quote:

---

They are transitional because they show gradual change in shape over millions of years.

---

Ha! Right, and we know it was over 'millions of years because why? They found some other fossil nearby?

quote:

---

What links them to millions of years is the layers they are found in, sediment at the bottom of the oceans

---

Cute! They are old because they are in the ocean! Ha.

quote:

---

The truth is what it is regardless of whether you believe it or not. The truth does not change. ... and btw, what alternative is there to the truth?

---

I don't advocate them, but granny bacteria, and the cosmic speck sized cup o soup creator are some alternatives that pop into mind!

quote:

---

Become as a child ... is that an empty slate akin to what Buddhists call nirvana?

---

It means more, I think, sort of like accept that His thoughts are higher than ours, He is bigger, smarter, like a parent. Then, He has a chance to get through our little fleshy noggans that He is in control, and will send us to heaven when we die if we simply believe in the door, or way, that He gave us-Jesus. After that, it's all a piece of cake. Like a baby being born, it starts to see things, and understand. That is why getting saved is called being born again. Once He lives inside, He can show us things. The light is on.

quote:

---

What is wrong about change in the light of increased information?

---

Change is good. Unless some poor soul used only so called information that was devoid of the creator. Unless the information was so limited as to exclude the known spiritual! Yes, stab in the dark all you like, but don't say there ain't no true light!

Actually, yes I can. My suggestion is to ask Jesus in your heart, and to forgive your sins, and take you to heaven when you die. I wouldn't worry about Genesis at all, I would reccomend the book of John.
We can't chase the darkness out of our room, but all we have to do is let the light in.
We still have a lot of fun learning to do in eternity, and we won't be limited, or fooled any more there either.