How did the Koala get from the Ark to Australia? (salvation, Isaiah)

[jeffbase40]

Originally Posted by TroutDude

I don't call myself a Christian. What Jesus was purported to have said by those dozens of ancient dudes who wrote about him decades and centuries after his death means little or nothing to me.

According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science as of 2006 there were approximately 5.8 million science and engineering researchers in the world.

I'll go easy on you and say 1% would represent a handful.

So, with 3 down, you only have 57,997 to go.

Good luck.

Link.

If it is so meaningless to you then why devout so much time discussing the Bible and Christian topics? Seriously, why? If it is to make fun of Christians, that's fine. Just admit it.

[PanTerra]

Dr. Kent Davey, Senior Research Scientist, University of Texas

Ah yes the electrical engineer. Maybe if he wandered over to the BEG at UT he might learn some geology. As it stands, his endorsement doesn't carry any weight.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by cupper3

As most people know, the koala is only found in Australia.

In case you do not know, koala's have a very specialized diet... they only eat eucalyptus leaves. Eucalyptus trees of the kind they need are only, and have only been found, in Australia.

Koala's do not swim. No Koala remains, including fossils, have ever been found outside of Australia.

So, how did the koala get from the Ark to Australia?

Again?

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Again?

Yes, because whenever it was first presented (and I didn't know it was), it obviously was not answered. Perhaps you could take a stab at it, if you can answer this one.

Thanks.

[TroutDude]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

If it is so meaningless to you then why devout so much time discussing the Bible and Christian topics? Seriously, why? If it is to make fun of Christians, that's fine. Just admit it.

I do it for the seekers of truth.

And I love very many Christians. Most of my large family, in fact. I have no reason to make fun of people I love and admire.

I aim to poke holes in the pompous balloons of those who think they know God's mind because they read an old book of myths, metaphors, allegories and a wee dram of historical truth.

[jeffbase40]

Originally Posted by TroutDude

I do it for the seekers of truth.

And I love very many Christians. Most of my large family, in fact. I have no reason to make fun of people I love and admire.

I aim to poke holes in the pompous balloons of those who think they know God's mind because they read an old book of myths, metaphors, allegories and a wee dram of historical truth.

I hope you don't tell them that their beliefs are based on an old book of myths (something which you have ZERO evidence to support anyways). If anyone is acting pompous, it is the atheists who dominate the religious boards.

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

I hope you don't tell them that their beliefs are based on an old book of myths (something which you have ZERO evidence to support anyways). If anyone is acting pompous, it is the atheists who dominate the religious boards.

Jeff, the bible is full of plagiarism from older books and tales/myths from the Middle East.

I can name a lot of them, and actually, you probably can too.

Do you really think that a bunch of bronzed aged desert wandering, superstitious goat herders had so much insight that it is relevant in a literally way today? Why do you put faith in 2-3000 year old stories, but on the other hand, you won't put faith in medical practices from that time?

[Huckleberry3911948]

he lost his ability to swim with time and his diet which included beer and pizza changed also.
he is not very fast swimmer so all these changes took place over a long period of time.

[TRANSPONDER]

Ok Jeffbase40. Looks like Shirina left it to me.

Originally Posted by Shirina View Post
Actually, yes ... evidence, or the lack of it, IS the issue.

Jeff Then why do you keep harping on a single story? The Bible contains hundreds of stories with a lot more detail to examine, but atheists act like belief in God 100% depends on validation of Noah's ark.

Perhaps because it is something of a test case for the reliability or not of the Bible. However, we have examined exodus and it now looks unhistorical, as does the Conquest. We looked at the prophecies of Tyre, Babylon and Daniel and they went down the tube, too. Just recently the Assyrian attack on Jerusalem was considered and that at least is historical, but it came out looking a lot more doubtful as to whether Sennacherib's army really was struck by disaster than when we went in. And of course I have done the Gospels and Paul and they are looking far from trustworthy. No -red herrings won't help you here. And perhaps the reason genesis comes up so often is because of this ongoing campaign to debunk evolution by genesis -literalists.

:
Originally Posted by Shirina View Post

a) The blatant plagiarism from other, older religions and cultures

Jeff Vague similarities are not plagiarism, and how do you know these cultures didn't plagiarize from the Bible? Why did the Bible and Christianity survive but the other religions fell into the dust bins of history?

We have the original writings from the older cultures. Nothing from the Bible before 600 BC. The idea that the older cultures pinched their material from the Bible is unfeasible.

:
Originally Posted by Shirina View Post
b) There's no fundamental difference between the God of the Bible and any one of thousands of gods worshiped by humanity

Jeff Wrong. The God of the Bible has a personal interest in guiding each person's life down a unique path along with giving us special talents and abilities. God examines a person's inner self and heart. Other religions are action based. Do this action and your god will reward you....Pray facing west 3 times a day etc...

As I recall the other personal gods can claim as much. Doctrinal differences do not make one god particularly more worthwhile than the others.

:
Originally Posted by Shirina View Post

c) There is no corroborating historical accounts of Jesus and any of his actions, much less resurrection

Jeff
Simply wrong. Even if you discard Josephus completely, there are references to Jesus from Pliny the Younger, the Talmud, Lucian etc...

I think we do have to discard the Jesus references in Josephus, and the others -apart from possibly Tacitus -are no support for a historical Jesus. Pliny particularly only writes about how to deal with Christians. Nobody denies that they were around.

:
Originally Posted by Shirina View Post

d) Christianity and its stories are completely contained within a small area of the Middle East (i.e. it was a regional religion)

Jeff And funny that the earliest know writings of mankind come from Mesopotamia, the same region.

Of which the Biblical writing are really rather late. Even Hebrew is just another Caananite script. Your point is no point.

:
Originally Posted by Shirina View Post

e) Only the Book of Enoch is written in the first person, and that book was thrown out of the Bible

Jeff. Never read Psalms?

Yes. And I often wonder whether they were written by David musicians For king David. '"The Lord (God) said to my lord (David)...'

:
Originally Posted by Shirina View Post
g) The spread of Christianity was largely done through invasion and forced conversions

Jeff Doesn't explain the spread of Christianity in South Korea and China.

Well, it does. The Opium wars enabled Christianity to get a foothold in China and the present spread of Christianity -though this was looked at, and Buddhism is apparently spreading much faster - can be put down to that. South Korea I can't speak to. I gather that Confucianism is still the principal religion, if religion it is.

And I suppose we must address the attempt to give Creationism some credibility by pointing up those who are 'scientists'

:
Originally Posted by TroutDude View Post
Of course. And the vast majority of Christians aren't biblical literalists. They realize a world-wide flood was impossible, that evolution is a fact, and that much of the bible is allegorical.

What I don't believe, is that more than a handful of scientists in the world believe what you and Viz do. They are too intelligent and well-educated.

And I'm not an Atheist or Agnostic.

Jeffbase40 If you believe the bible is allegorical then you have to believe Jesus Christ was a liar:


"As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."

Matthew 24:37


Jesus certainly didn't treat the Bible as a work of fiction. If you believe Jesus is wrong here then I don't see how you can call yourself a Christian.

Of course, i don't believe that Jesus said any such thing, but Troutdude probably does. Then it can be argued that...supposing Jesus really knew everything..which is arguable from the gospel account, then of course he would talk in terms of the history that the Jews understood, whether it was true or not.

Jeff I certainly think your belief that only a small handful of scientists believe in a literal Bible is a myopic viewpoint based on wishful thinking. Just look on Amazon, and you will find plenty of books authored by extremely well educated people in support of Creationism and a literal Genesis. Here is one I found within seconds:


http://www.amazon.com/In-Beginning-C.../ref=pd_cp_b_0





Walt Brown received a PhD in mechanical engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benet Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility), tenured associate professor at the US Air Force Academy, and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on origins. His biography is in "Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World" by Mulfinger and Orozco.

And looks like the book is endorsed by:


Dr. Kent Davey, Senior Research Scientist, University of Texas


Dr. Stuart Patterson, former Academic Dean and Professor of Chemistry, Furman University



Well there's three down in my first search. How many equals just a handful?

The 'project Steve' list showed what a tiny handful it was. And a number are Engineers rather than scientists. Engineering doesn't question basics but find solutions to problems. Chemists are hardly experts on Palaeontology or evolution. And the few who work in relevant field - geology and biology have shown a curious tendency to switch from the side of their brain with the scientific information when they talk Creationism and seem to access the other side of their brain, which contains unscientific creationism.
Succinctly, even if you get a scientist rather than engineer and who works in a relevant field, when they talk Creationism they talk Creationism, not science.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

If it is so meaningless to you then why devout so much time discussing the Bible and Christian topics? Seriously, why? If it is to make fun of Christians, that's fine. Just admit it.

This question (or last ditch defence, perhaps) is often asked. The answer is, that this stuff matters. It is a major concern to us, not only that so many people continue to believe tall tales and myths in the 21st century, but that it has such a stranglehold on our culture, law and politics.

It is necessary that this religious delusion is rolled back, and there is nobody going to do it other than us. I don't know whether arguing on forums like this is effective, but we have to do it whichever way we can. Last poll, it seemed to be having an effect.