Noah's Ark Has Been Found? (sex, Catholic, Roman, teachings)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Literal interpretation and belief in the Bible is simply unreasonable and foolishness to those who have a rational scientific understanding of reality. It simply IS. To those who believe everything is in the mind of God . . . nothing is the Bible is unreasonable or foolish.
The highlighted part sums up why we don't believe.
Rational, with an understanding of reality, thanks to science and education.
A thread like this just makes me wonder how some people decide what is literal and what is not in the bible. Seems like a free for all.
You're exactly right. It does seem people grab tidbits and ignore others to prove or justify almost anything. (Women's rights, slavery, condemning witchcraft and homosexuality, etc.)
You're exactly right. It does seem people grab tidbits and ignore others to prove or justify almost anything. (Women's rights, slavery, condemning witchcraft and homosexuality, etc.)
Which largely accounts for its status as the all-time bestseller.
It's a magical book - capable of any and every interpretation.
All one need do is believe...
...and tap your ruby-red slippers and it can become true!
It is pretty ironic that the focus is on Africa with the variants either from creationism or evolution. The early white settlers actually inferred these natives were the missing link as the concept of evolution made its début.
I wonder just how many have indeed visited Africa or still have the Disney concept of Lion King of what it is like here.
Perhaps they see a generic black. In SA we have a number of different tribes and they are not the same in stature, build nor facial features. We have 11 official black languages here in SA (I do not think the click bushmen language is included as they are a very small group, speaking of which, as desert dwellers, they do not even look like a Zulu or a Swazi, they by comparison are like a white surfer at the coast with a serious tan)
Bushmen Kalahari West Coast area
Zulu which is more east coast. These are loosely affiliated to the Ndebele of Zimbabwe, history of wars and migrations. They are generally much taller than a Shangaan from Mozambique.
They still tend to marry within their own tribal affiliation just like white folk still tend to marry whites.
Having seen just how different their traditional structures were, tells me there are huge differences. Nowadays, they are pretty westernised so finding these primitive dwellings and culture first hand is rare. I have seen it in person.
If you look at the natives of Australia, they too are black and do not look anything like like Africans. You get very dark Indians, Arabs and even Eskimos. The pigmentation is thus a non sequtur as far as evolution goes. Even folk who are white vary from anaemic pinkies to olive skinned folk. To even postulate a Neanderthal cross breeding and mass migration to get these differences is a huge guess IMO.
My blood line has a defective gene that causes the loss of pigmentation just like what Michael Jackson had; he lost his pigmentation. The term for these folk here used to be albinos. My dad had it and my son has it. Tends to skip a generation.
Genetics is still infantile and I really do not think what we know can be extrapolated to draw conclusions one way or the other.
Even the story of the tower of babel is not real, It was invented to explain this diversity.
Sorry but the evidence is left all over the world: land animals in the same layer with sea animals. You lose.
I can see that this has turned into an all out exchange of fire on the whole subject and not just the Flood, let alone the Ark.
So I am going to back out, and no doubt you will claim that as a win. Indeed you do purely on the bland claim that there are 'land animals in the same layer with sea animals.'
I said that one Ankylosaurus does not make a flood, nor does it. Despite you over eager claim, I don't lose.
You do have a 'shred' of evidence for a flood. However, you need a lot more than that. To point to a dinosaur where 'it should not be' and then hitch 'millions', I think you said, of supposedly similar finds to it as proof of a global sudden flood is as you said 'playing games'.
Let me tell what I would need to see before I would even begin to consider a global flood on a YE basis - with everything from Cambrian to Miocene being covered up, as required by the Bible.
Sites all over the world, with more than just sea snails and clams, because sea -floors and ocean sediment turn into strata and later fossils, and they could be of land - animals - get deposited on them.
This is east to present as 'land animals in the same layer with sea animals' with just changing 'on' to 'in'. I have nmentioned one site -the S Carolina phophate beds, in fact - where such a claim turned out to be literally a couple of fragmentary animal bones with every sign of having been washed into what was exclusively ocean - fossils. So over-drawing the facts does occur.
So we are looking for real mixes, with Eohippus in with Edaphasaurus and humans and their ruined buildings in with Dinotherium. All over the world, time and again, before I could even begin to wonder whether there wasn't something in the Creationist claim.
The one example I have seem that even comes close is the ocean -going Ankylosaur and the reports I read were quite happy with it being swept out to sea, but there could be many ways this could happen. Remember, it wasn't out in the middle of an ocean flood layer but 200 feet off -shore - quite near to land. And the Ankylosaurus is a heavy animal. If it fell in the water, or even get stuck in mud, it wouldn't get out easily.
Which is perhaps why that is the only land animal in an otherwise marine fossil -scape.
Any reasonable person must see that it isn't valid to leap overboard shouting 'It's all true!' just on the basis of that find. There needs to be more and yet more, ever harder to explain without a global flood.
You claim there are many more examples, millions, I think you said. In order to substantiate that claim, you have to list them, with some source where the site can be understood. Because just the say - so of a creationist who has been found glossing over the facts three times (Precambrian rocks, extinction(s) and Polonium haloes) is not good enough.
You know now what you have to do to make your claim credible. Off you go.
I can see that this has turned into an all out exchange of fire on the whole subject and not just the Flood, let alone the Ark.
So I am going to back out, and no doubt you will claim that as a win. Indeed you do purely on the bland claim that there are 'land animals in the same layer with sea animals.'
I said that one Ankylosaurus does not make a flood, nor does it. Despite you over eager claim, I don't lose.
You do have a 'shred' of evidence for a flood. However, you need a lot more than that. To point to a dinosaur where 'it should not be' and then hitch 'millions', I think you said, of supposedly similar finds to it as proof of a global sudden flood is as you said 'playing games'.
Let me tell what I would need to see before I would even begin to consider a global flood on a YE basis - with everything from Cambrian to Miocene being covered up, as required by the Bible.
Sites all over the world, with more than just sea snails and clams, because sea -floors and ocean sediment turn into strata and later fossils, and they could be of land - animals - get deposited on them.
This is east to present as 'land animals in the same layer with sea animals' with just changing 'on' to 'in'. I have nmentioned one site -the S Carolina phophate beds, in fact - where such a claim turned out to be literally a couple of fragmentary animal bones with every sign of having been washed into what was exclusively ocean - fossils. So over-drawing the facts does occur.
So we are looking for real mixes, with Eohippus in with Edaphasaurus and humans and their ruined buildings in with Dinotherium. All over the world, time and again, before I could even begin to wonder whether there wasn't something in the Creationist claim.
The one example I have seem that even comes close is the ocean -going Ankylosaur and the reports I read were quite happy with it being swept out to sea, but there could be many ways this could happen. Remember, it wasn't out in the middle of an ocean flood layer but 200 feet off -shore - quite near to land. And the Ankylosaurus is a heavy animal. If it fell in the water, or even get stuck in mud, it wouldn't get out easily.
Which is perhaps why that is the only land animal in an otherwise marine fossil -scape.
Any reasonable person must see that it isn't valid to leap overboard shouting 'It's all true!' just on the basis of that find. There needs to be more and yet more, ever harder to explain without a global flood.
You claim there are many more examples, millions, I think you said. In order to substantiate that claim, you have to list them, with some source where the site can be understood. Because just the say - so of a creationist who has been found glossing over the facts three times (Precambrian rocks, extinction(s) and Polonium haloes) is not good enough.
You know now what you have to do to make your claim credible. Off you go.
Umm, we aren't talking about one animal that got a little too close to the sea and got swept 200 feet off shore. We are talking about millions if not billions of sea creatures being entombed all of a sudden with land creatures and land plants.
Jelly fish are a prime example. They are so sensitive to destruction that they get knocked to pieces if swept ashore. What happened is in the world-wide flood, the Jelly fish along with the bear, zebra, and a host of other animals were inundated by flood waters and sand and mud and this mixture encapsulated them. That is how they became trapped like in cement and preserved only to be discovered a little over 4000 years later to prove Noah's flood was a real historic event after all.
Please re-review the video provided along with the PROOF the scientist gave. I don't have to go out and do your homework.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
