Noah's Ark

#303
#303
Daloth said:
I'm still waiting on the answer to how freshwater and saltwater animals lived at the same time in a flooded world.
Click to expand...

I guess you'd first need to show that all the water on the earth was intermixed and salty.

And I guess you didn't get the fact that the theory indicates that there has been steady evolution of the "kinds" since the flood. So, it may have been that, of the "kinds" of sea creatures that survived, they would have contained the genetic information to evolve into the many species of water creatures we see today-- some salt water creatures, some fresh water creatures.

Edit:

Since you said your asking for "how freshwater and saltwater creatures lived..." and not "how they may have...", I'll hold you to the same standard. Please provide all of the evolutionary history to date that we are supposed to find in the fossil record. Not "how they may have evolved".

:hi:
 
#304
#304
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
:thumbsup: Yeah, and in a couple of more years they'll be walking upright on two feet & playing UT football.
Click to expand...

It's fun, but not very constructive, to attribute the standards and expectations of one theory on another. The flood theory does not predict that fish had to have time to evolve into people-- just that fish would need time to evolve into...


Fish.
 
#305
#305
Why anybody that believes any of the fantastic stories in the bible would even worry about empirical explanations or theories about what may have physically happened is beyond me. What's the point?

It's faith, is all it is. Then when some piece of "evidence" does come up, be it the supposed remains of the ark itself, Jesus tomb, bleeding statues, or divine faces on grilled cheese...it is pounced on like a man floating aimlessly through some ocean of uncertainty that has finally found a little island of data.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#306
#306
Orange_Crush said:
It's fun, but not very constructive, to attribute the standards and expectations of one theory on another. The flood theory does not predict that fish had to have time to evolve into people-- just that fish would need time to evolve into...


Fish.
Click to expand...

:whistling: It was a joke Francis.....lighten up will ya. Y'all way too serious up in here. God's laughing at some of y'all post on here I'm sure.
 
Last edited:
#307
#307
rjd970 said:
Why anybody that believes any of the fantastic stories in the bible would even worry about empirical explanations or theories about what may have physically happened is beyond me. What's the point?

It's faith, is all it is. Then when some piece of "evidence" does come up, be it the supposed remains of the ark itself, Jesus tomb, bleeding statues, or divine faces on grilled cheese...it is pounced on like a man floating aimlessly through some ocean of uncertainty that has finally found a little island of data.
Click to expand...

That's a common, but very strange statement, if I may say so. When two groups are discussing two possibilities of "truth", there are lazy shorthands to discount the arguments of the "other" side. One is to a priori attribute the competing viewpoint as fantasy. The other is slightly more subtle, but equally a lazy, shorthand bypass.

And that is to use a similar argument to "well, you are arguing faith, and that has nothing to do with reality, now does it?"

See how that's an ignorant, lazy shortcut to discussion? Both sides of the argument are wrestling for "truth". Both sides are wrestling with what did, or did not happen on the planet earth. Both sides have physical evidence to observe and weight.

The funny part is that both sides are using forensic and logic to seek that truth. Neither side can recreate the events of the past.

Funny. Really funny way to live life and seek dialog with others...
 
#316
#316
Orange_Crush said:
That's a common, but very strange statement, if I may say so. When two groups are discussing two possibilities of "truth", there are lazy shorthands to discount the arguments of the "other" side. One is to a priori attribute the competing viewpoint as fantasy. The other is slightly more subtle, but equally a lazy, shorthand bypass.

And that is to use a similar argument to "well, you are arguing faith, and that has nothing to do with reality, now does it?"

See how that's an ignorant, lazy shortcut to discussion? Both sides of the argument are wrestling for "truth". Both sides are wrestling with what did, or did not happen on the planet earth. Both sides have physical evidence to observe and weight.

The funny part is that both sides are using forensic and logic to seek that truth. Neither side can recreate the events of the past.

Funny. Really funny way to live life and seek dialog with others...
Click to expand...

Disagree on fundamental grounds. In this case, one side has an end state (Biblical) and is working backwards from that to formulate theories and discuss evidence. The other side is starting with available evidence and using that to formulate theories on an ever changing possible end state(s) as new data becomes available.

Two different modes of thought. One requires faith up front, the other puts faith....I guess you can call it...into the evidence and has no preference to any given final explanation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#317
#317
rjd970 said:
Disagree on fundamental grounds. In this case, one side has an end state (Biblical) and is working backwards from that to formulate theories and discuss evidence. The other side is starting with available evidence and using that to formulate theories on an ever changing possible end state(s) as new data becomes available.

Two different modes of thought. One requires faith up front, the other puts faith....I guess you can call it...into the evidence and has no preference to any given final explanation.
Click to expand...

I would take issue with that, but it's not important. It's not interesting enough to continue the debate.
 
#319
#319
T-TownVol said:
Most of the issues that non-believers hang their hat on, are non issues.
Click to expand...

To believers I would agree. If it is matters of faith people will believe what they feel is necessary, regardless of empirical or physical evidence to the contrary. So any attempt to play that game with non believers seems rather fruitless to begin with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#320
#320
rjd970 said:
To believers I would agree. If it is matters of faith people will believe what they feel is necessary, regardless of empirical or physical evidence to the contrary. So any attempt to play that game with non believers seems rather fruitless to begin with.
Click to expand...

Exactly!
 
#322
#322
T-TownVol said:
Most of the issues that non-believers hang their hat on, are non issues.
Click to expand...

rjd970 said:
To believers I would agree. If it is matters of faith people will believe what they feel is necessary, regardless of empirical or physical evidence to the contrary. So any attempt to play that game with non believers seems rather fruitless to begin with.
Click to expand...

T-TownVol said:
Exactly!
Click to expand...

Honest question, that doesn't sound crazy to you? If it doesn't, it is why I continue to try to understand how people like you think. It is alien to me; utterly fascinating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#323
#323
rjd970 said:
To believers I would agree. If it is matters of faith people will believe what they feel is necessary, regardless of empirical or physical evidence to the contrary. So any attempt to play that game with non believers seems rather fruitless to begin with.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... This, coming from the proponent of a scientific materialism that defines that the only framework from which to interpret evidence is the a priori belief that physical reality is all that exists.

Once again, you show your utter and unabashed hypocrisy.
 
#324
#324
Orange_Crush said:
Hmmm... This, coming from the proponent of a scientific materialism that defines that the only framework from which to interpret evidence is the a priori belief that physical reality is all that exists.

Once again, you show your utter and unabashed hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

How would that be a priori?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#325
#325
Orange_Crush said:
Hmmm... This, coming from the proponent of a scientific materialism that defines that the only framework from which to interpret evidence is the a priori belief that physical reality is all that exists.

Once again, you show your utter and unabashed hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

....and this coming from a person that thinks physical evidence and natural phenomena can somehow explain supernatural beliefs, or would even be relevant for that matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top