Not sure where that reaction comes from, but, yeah, any creature that seeks refuge we feel compelled to try to protect. I think that that compulsion alone validates us as a species. There's a video out there from Alaska. A polar bear approaches a sled dog chained up. Predator zeroing onto prey. But then the dog takes a playful pose and the polar bear responds in kind with playful behavior.
Behavior is complex. Interspecies behavior is complex. The interplay of the two can be marvelous.
Welcome back, you old rat. I was just thinking about you the other day. I remember you as a man with a mind of his own. Of course there never was an Ark. It's just a story and Christians almost always miss the point of the story.
Your thoughts brought me back, lol!
It might be a story, it might not. If the Creator of the universe decided to hide evidence of the flood, I am sure He could. After all Jesus said we are to believe by faith. What good then would it be to provide objective evidence of God if He wants us to believe by faith?
I just saw this story, and the look in the hawks eye, and it made me think that animals are programmed to seek shelter with humans in these catastrophic events, or an event like the flood. As a child contemplating the story of the flood I wondered how the animals knew to go to the ark. I would love to hear how the animals could have "evolved" to do this, because to me it seems more like they were created to do it. Either way it is evidence of something awesome.
Aren't you asserting that there *has* been a worldwide flood since humans have existed?
I suggested it.
And Jar is asserting the opposite, that there *hasn't* been a worldwide flood since humans have existed?
Yea I got that.
Now there's a weird one. How can a statement of position, particularly one supported by all the evidence, be a denial of the scientific method?
Because that is not how science works. Aren't there enough threads on it? you can't prove a negative, and nothing is ever really proven anyway. All of it takes a percentage of faith. The better answer should have been "the evidence does not point to a flood, until better evidence is available". Scientists asserted the world was flat until it was round. Science has been wrong before, and it will be wrong again. Somehow being humble escapes many people who call themselves scientists.
This is a total non-sequitur as Jar's statement about there never being a world wide flood since people have existed is a scientific fact. So how would him stating this fact equate to denying the scientific method?
Fact, humans thought that the world was flat was fact. I am always amazed at how closed minded everyone here really is. jar is just an atheist kiss ass, who never really says things of substance, well at least not yet until better evidence is available.
jar does not appear righteous to me. I totally see what he tries to do here, but he never really serves us any meat. It's like chasing rainbows talking to him. But all the atheists adore him. They say things like if I was a Christian I would be like you. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing, do to lack of substance.
Joel Olsteen was misrepresented. His church was most certainly available. More hype. Media taking control of your thoughts. They constantly attack "Christians" and chop our faith down. They use people who do wrong to say "see there is no God". People are so misinformed that they look to humans to find God, instead of looking towards Jesus.
**edit ,the media (at least NBC) realized their mistake and let Joel on the air to clear up the mess that was created by that false tweet.
the taxi driver kept trying to get him to fly off and ended up taking him home with him to wait out the hurricane; eventually got him to an animal shelter.
The hawk is waiting for the dove to come back with an olive leaf.
Science doesn't work quite the way you think. There are degrees of certainty. The conclusion that there was never a world-wide flood while humans have existed is very high on that scale. It's not absolute but it isn't far off.
Yes, that is exactly what I said in other words. The way you expressed it is correct. The way jar expressed is not.
Oh, you mean the principle of tentativity, not the scientific method. Tentativity underpins all science, so woven into the fabric that it rarely needs mention, except maybe for the sake of those who get it mixed up with the scientific method.
No, I mean say what is technically correct.
Actually, scientists knew the world was spherical long before Christian clergy began insisting it was flat.
No one ever thought it was flat before that, said no one ever.
Hmmm, denigrates scientists. Suggests there was a world wide flood.
I did not suggest there was a flood.
But you sure are quacking the walk.
Hell no, and I am proud to say that I learned that in here. Not being a creationist has made my faith stronger. So thank you to all the atheists and intelligent people in here for increasing my faith.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
