Dinosaurs On Noahs Arc...

[phee]

http://www.yahoo.com/s/589810

[Dubh Aingeal]

Well none of the scientific evidence of dino's would work otherwise in their theories. How ever stupid they may be.

[BrassFusion]

Lol, how cute...

A Gallup poll last year showed almost half of Americans believe that humans did not evolve but were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years.

I had no idea there were THAT many stupid people.

btw... how big was this ark exactly

[Der Nister]

I remember reading in the bible where Noah ushered the dinosaurs onto his ark ~ oh yea.

those who believe God created the heavens and the Earth in six days about 6,000 years ago

I did not know the Earth was only 6,000 years old - amazing.

[Head Wreck]

okay what evidence do they have of dinasours on the ark

what evidence do they have there was this big F OFF sized boat in the first place

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Lol i knew it was going to be Ken Ham.

He is one of the hard core biblical literalist that gets a fair amount of press. If i was a fundamentalist Christian I'd be embarrassed to have that guy on my side.

I'd consider myself up until about the last 8-9 years or so as a "Biblical Literalist" (a.k.a. Fundamentalist) which means, the bible is to be read literally. I've spent a lot of time researching reasonable defenses of various aspects of the bible. This guy sucks, bad.

His arguments don't even have the "wif" of scientific credibility. His argument against geologic timescale ? "If someone says "millions of years ago" ask him if he was there. He'll say no, and you'll win."

Well damn im convinced!!

Don't bother trying to justify the ark story in its traditional telling, dinosaurs or not. It's just not defenseable scientifically by anything other than ignorance of science. If you want to defend the biblical telling of the ark story, it can only be defended as parable, not as a historical event.

Much of the bible is undfendable if you read it as its been taught for the last 2000 years from a scientific standpoint.

Really they should stop trying and just concede that its a matter of faith. If they'd do that, they wouldn't be embarrassed over and over again every time their arguments are destroyed.

[Head Wreck]

exactly.

we all know the dinasours were wiped out when the galactic warlord Xanu dropped the H-Bombs on the volcanoes

[n0Mad]

Free Xenu!

[Mizuna]

I like it how if they change the bible for a new religion but still say Jesus etc said and wrote it, it is true. Much common sense there. I mean trying to change the bible to fit new findings, is like saying a penis red when you can't see it, then saying you said it was blue once you can.

[Steven]

okay what evidence do they have of dinasours on the ark

what evidence do they have there was this big F OFF sized boat in the first place

adding to this:

what evidence is there that the "6 days" used to describe the period of creation is literally 6 24 hour time periods? The fact is that when you look into this biblically your actually led away from that theory. And then we like to insert hard evidence such as carbon dating - sobody in here tell me the length that carbon dating can REALLY measure accurately based on how the system works - I know some of you braniaces know the process. So tell me about the scientific measurement of "millions" of years based on carbon dating. We also measure things (if I understand correctly) by light and distance. And we had all agreed scinetifically the the univers was X amount of years old. Till we put up the Hubbel telescope. and discovered that we were way, way off. I remember that front pagge article on time magazine and teh quick and quiet furor it stired. and then you never heard about it again. ever. Seems to me that hard science can become quite emotional and agenda laden when placed in human hands, sort of like religion can.

And to dig a little deeper - what is the PURPOSE of the creation text anyway? The message being communicated to mankind is ?????(insert answer here) Is there any chance whatsover that the author of this portion of text is quite simply setting up a scenario that presents "GOD" as an organized and authoritive beginning to all things? After all when you dig into christianity and its basic structure, how much of it pivots on the length of time needed to create th euniverse? Or the amount of animal types housed in a huge wooden box? Or where cain got his wife?

Look, I think this stuff when presented in this way is bullshit too. And desperate. But we use stuff like this to argue away christianity almost as if we argue the merits of a particular person based on what shoes he was or was not wearing at the time.

[Steven]

Lol i knew it was going to be Ken Ham.

He is one of the hard core biblical literalist that gets a fair amount of press. If i was a fundamentalist Christian I'd be embarrassed to have that guy on my side.

I'd consider myself up until about the last 8-9 years or so as a "Biblical Literalist" (a.k.a. Fundamentalist) which means, the bible is to be read literally. I've spent a lot of time researching reasonable defenses of various aspects of the bible. This guy sucks, bad.

His arguments don't even have the "wif" of scientific credibility. His argument against geologic timescale ? "If someone says "millions of years ago" ask him if he was there. He'll say no, and you'll win."

Well damn im convinced!!

Don't bother trying to justify the ark story in its traditional telling, dinosaurs or not. It's just not defenseable scientifically by anything other than ignorance of science. If you want to defend the biblical telling of the ark story, it can only be defended as parable, not as a historical event.

Much of the bible is undfendable if you read it as its been taught for the last 2000 years from a scientific standpoint.

Really they should stop trying and just concede that its a matter of faith. If they'd do that, they wouldn't be embarrassed over and over again every time their arguments are destroyed.

But heres the thign Troy.....the bible itself is deliberately full of historicals, parables, prophesies, letters, and songs. You know this. Therefore you know or should know, that it takes a relational approach ...

[Homicidalheathen]

Ugh. Americans and their stupidity.

[Scary Guy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

Simply put it measures the rate at which carbon decays to determine that objects age "up to about 60,000 years".

[Head Wreck]

i just put it down to religeons that specify an inteligent being overseeing everything.

and i dont find a lot of the bible rational tbh.

maybe its me being put of by the methodist laypreachers in the family

[BrassFusion]

as for the "purpose" of the creation myth, it's as antiquated as the texts themselves. man didn't have reliable science so he made up stories to explain what he didn't understand- BOOM. religion.

[Scary Guy]

and i dont find a lot of the bible rational tbh.

That's probably because it isn't. Taken literally it contradicts itself so much it makes your head spin. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com is some good reading.

However it's not all bad. I believe that some of it is good advice, but that's all it should be taken as is ADVICE. I also believe that each religion has its own merits too and no one should limit themselves to the teachings of just one.

[Steven]

That's probably because it isn't. Taken literally it contradicts itself so much it makes your head spin. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com is some good reading.

However it's not all bad. I believe that some of it is good advice, but that's all it should be taken as is ADVICE. I also believe that each religion has its own merits too and no one should limit themselves to the teachings of just one.

this link you posted.....to me its kind of old and tired and full of rhetoric. I see people use this as a tool of sorts as opposed to doing their own research. Ive often used this tired old argument that these "examples" such as is found in this link, never set up the text being quoted, never refer to the text preceeding and proceeding the alleged conflict, never introduce the intended recipient of the text to whom it was addressed, never provide any insight in to the potential writer of the text, never expound on the culture of the day and the surrounding environment to include other non YHWH fearing peoples and their cultures and any potential conflcits with the people at hand. Never at any point get to the point about why said text was written in the frst place etc. etc. etc.

Ask anybody who uses one of these links to tell you about "common" things such as...oh....I dont know....

Abraham and some of his vices -or -

the statement made by YHWH and the use of the plural in his first person statments regarding man and how that ties into the tower of Babel...-or -

the constant back and forth between He and Them in the writers reference to God or The ANgel of The Lord -or-

the land of Cannan and its descendents -or -

the culture of these surrounding peoples during biblical times -or-

some info on the Philistines -or-

Molech or the many BAAL's of the surrounding area and how they were worshipped -or -

who was in power regionally and why -or -

the culture of the Hebrews as it relates to spoken words and curses and or blessings or -

the provision as intended to the first born and the after effects of the first born's responsibilities -or -

the Sanhedrin court - or -

the woman at the well -or -

a man named Saul who wrote a great deal of the new testament -or -

a rabbi named Gamliel -or -

how a young Hebrew boy was to even be considered to be taken under the wing of a Rabbi to be trained and what had to be done to even be considered -or -

the Nephilim and its varied history - or -

the sons of Anak and archeological discoveries as relates to the kingdom and the Nephilim -or -

oh I dont know......name it.

there are really only a few of you in here at best, who have actually done their own homework to understand the WHY behind the WHAT.

[Steven]

as for the "purpose" of the creation myth, it's as antiquated as the texts themselves. man didn't have reliable science so he made up stories to explain what he didn't understand- BOOM. religion.

and so with this argument....its a fair statment to say that a man such as myself, clings to "religion"?

Adder: and that it pivots or hinges upon my acceptance of understanding how I physically came into existence, for example if the Gensis account was proven to be a flawed misconception then my foundation in effect should crumble??

[Steven]

That's probably because it isn't. Taken literally it contradicts itself so much it makes your head spin. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com is some good reading.

However it's not all bad. I believe that some of it is good advice, but that's all it should be taken as is ADVICE. I also believe that each religion has its own merits too and no one should limit themselves to the teachings of just one.

ok grab your head so it stops spinning for a minute, and tell me about what you find good.

but please use referance points, Im trying to get a feel for what appeals to you and why it does, and how you came to accept "that" particular portion as "good".

[Scary Guy]

Your right, I really haven't done my homework. I can't remember any of it from when I did attend church for that brief period of time with my aunt/uncle. Not that I really care to do said "homework" since they've already done it for me (I'm also using the same technique to administrate my webserver, it's all referenced).

But maybe I should read it considering it sounds like a good story. I mean a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

Then again I just came up with the ultimate cop out to explaining myself. To which if our lord and savior doesn't feel the need to explain himself then why should I? Since I'm his creation and therefore an extension of his will.

Oh yeah I'm going to hell for the previous sentence.

[BrassFusion]

and so with this argument....its a fair statment to say that a man such as myself, clings to "religion"?

Adder: and that it pivots or hinges upon my acceptance of understanding how I physically came into existence, for example if the Gensis account was proven to be a flawed misconception then my foundation in effect should crumble??

First question: Yes. Although in YOUR case, I'd say you probably "cling" to spirituality in general rather than religion in general, which is a much lesser sin, if a sin at all. Your faith takes care of what you don't understand. I'm not going to say it's a more comfortable way to live, because you're probably under stress when it comes to decisions you have to make in wondering what your lord wants you to do. But you do have the option of atoning for when you make incorrect decisions, and according to your myth, that atonement will make everything right in the end and you'll go to heaven when you die.

I choose not to trick myself into believing that I can influence the possibility of my entry into an afterlife.

Second question: I don't claim to know the boundaries of your faith, and whether the genesis myth in particular is a foundation for you. I'm sure, for some people (Oklahomans), it is.

I just believe that religion in general sprang from curiosity about the origins of life, the transfiguration of death, and the physical world. The men who wrote the holy books didn't have a scientific outlet (cept Joseph Smith and L. Ron Howard, to name two, and they were WHACKJOBS), so they fell back on making up stories that made sense in the context of their own lives. Every culture has their set of creation/death/science myths. I like the animalistic Native American ones for entertainment value. AND because I haven't had them pounded into my brain as being irrefutable truth for 20 years.

Your right, I really haven't done my homework. I can't remember any of it from when I did attend church for that brief period of time with my aunt/uncle. Not that I really care to do said "homework" since they've already done it for me (I'm also using the same technique to administrate my webserver, it's all referenced).

But maybe I should read it considering it sounds like a good story. I mean a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

Then again I just came up with the ultimate cop out to explaining myself. To which if our lord and savior doesn't feel the need to explain himself then why should I? Since I'm his creation and therefore an extension of his will.

Oh yeah I'm going to hell for the previous sentence.

hahahah omg ur such a bastard doubleplus cool pts

[Scary Guy]

hahahah omg ur such a bastard

Yes, yes I am.

[hellequin]

Here's my brainstorm/theory for the Biblical creation story: it is a Judaeo-Christian explanation of evolution.

Gen 1:2

"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep..."

Gen 1:3

"And God said, 'let there be light," and there was light."

Big Bang

"In physical cosmology, the term Big Bang has two related meanings. It is a cosmological model in which the universe has been expanding for around 13.7 billion years (13.7 Ga), starting from a tremendously dense and hot state. The term is also used in a narrower sense to describe the fundamental 'fireball' that erupted at or close to time t=0 in the history of the universe."

Gen 1:2 describes, in the best way for its time, matter and the universe before the big bang and Gen 1:3 describes the Big Bang.

Gen 1:6

"and God said, 'let there be an expanse between water to separate water from water."

Gen 1:9

"...and let dry ground appear."

Gen 1:11

"Let the land produce vegetation."

Gen 1:20

"Let the water teem with living creatures."

Gen 1:24

"Let the land produce living creatures..."

Gen 1:26

"Let us make man..."

Evolution

"Despite the uncertainty on how life began, it is clear that microorganisms were the first organisms to inhabit earth, approximately 3–4 billion years ago. Later on, an independent second engulfment of cyanobacterial-like organisms by some mitochondria-containing eukaryotes led to the formation of chloroplasts in algae and plants. Soon after the emergence of the first animals, the Cambrian explosion, a geologically brief period of remarkable biological diversity, originated the majority of body plans, or phyla, seen in modern animals, as well as a number of unique lineages that subsequently became extinct."

So basically the biblical creation story and evolution have something in common: it starts with a big bang moves on to simple organisms and ends with complex organisms. stuff->boom->planets->water->bacteria->plants->animals->humans.

I view the genesis creation as having been written at a time when very few people would have been able to grasp the concept of evolution and so God found a way to explain how we got here in the easiest terms possible. After all, most people begin self-reflection and realization with the question, "how and why did i get here?" So God started the bible out answering the question. God: "Well, I started small and ended big. Can we now move on to where I teach the stuff that matters?" And as usual humans completely miss the big picture of the lessons that were being taught and added on their own weirdness and now we have dinasours on the arc in kentucky. *sigh*

Savvy?

[BrassFusion]

I still don't get what makes people think that the old testament was written by the big G himself.

[Steven]

First question: Yes. Although in YOUR case, I'd say you probably "cling" to spirituality in general rather than religion in general, which is a much lesser sin, if a sin at all. Your faith takes care of what you don't understand. I'm not going to say it's a more comfortable way to live, because you're probably under stress when it comes to decisions you have to make in wondering what your lord wants you to do. But you do have the option of atoning for when you make incorrect decisions, and according to your myth, that atonement will make everything right in the end and you'll go to heaven when you die.

I choose not to trick myself into believing that I can influence the possibility of my entry into an afterlife.

Second question: I don't claim to know the boundaries of your faith, and whether the genesis myth in particular is a foundation for you. I'm sure, for some people (Oklahomans), it is.

I just believe that religion in general sprang from curiosity about the origins of life, the transfiguration of death, and the physical world. The men who wrote the holy books didn't have a scientific outlet (cept Joseph Smith and L. Ron Howard, to name two, and they were WHACKJOBS), so they fell back on making up stories that made sense in the context of their own lives. Every culture has their set of creation/death/science myths. I like the animalistic Native American ones for entertainment value. AND because I haven't had them pounded into my brain as being irrefutable truth for 20 years.

hahahah omg ur such a bastard doubleplus cool pts

well in response....

first I dont worry at all, ever, about what Im supposed to do or how it plays out alongside my faith. I beleive that I have an inner knowledge of what is and is not appropriate for Steven the Christian, which is no different than say - Steven the American or Steven the Citizen. It has nothign to do with anybody ewlse or any religeous governign body. I do what I know that I should, and dont do what I know I do not agree with. I wake up and make everyday choices. I imagine you do the same?

And to answer the atonement question/statement (a good one by the way) here's the thing: I beleive my atonement, ro salvation per se - is a minor part of my spiritual walk and relationship with Christ. You simply never hear naysayers quote scipture about Christ coming here to bring us a life of abundence (no Im not talking about $$$. The more I understand (via pursuit) Christ and his role in my life the more I understand myself and my own sense of Liberty. I dont concern myself with atonement because although I do beleive that the sacrifical lamb in Christ is an eternal provision, its again not the center of the God to man relationship. If I was concerned with that then I'd be living a fear based lifestyle no? And thats not faith.