Conquer Club

ok well that is the real point ive been trying to make thank you

neoni wrote:i also meant to ask earlier, jamie;
do you believe all species of animals lived within walking distance of noah, never mind that he could fit them and all the necessary food for six weeks on there?
how would animals such as the biblical behemoth fit into this? firstly, there's only meant to be one, and secondly it surely couldn't fit on a boat.
how would just one family control that many animals?
how do you explain things like the kangaroo? how did it get from the middle east to australia?

if you say that it didn't hold every species, as many christians do (never mind that it would be physically impossible as the measurements are given in the bible), rather that it had types how can you deny evolution? if there was enough space on a boat for every species of animal then, and there clearly is not now, where did the rest come from? bare in mind, with women as a distinct exception, god was meant to have completed creation in the first six days, so you can't say he made more after the flood.

God asked Noah to collect the dna from all the plants and animals...obviously the animals themselves would not fit in a boat...it just wasnt practical...he gave him a specialized cloning lab, and gave him all the samples he needed...once the water subsided, Noah simply cloned the animals and God placed them back in their respective homes...he asked that no one spoke of this, because it was too confusing...so it was left out...everyone else was dead, so there were no people to question it.

the other option is that he created an infinite space in the ark, where all animals were placed into a sort of stasis for 40 days...an alter universe if you will...would be much easier than keeping them on a boat...and feeding them would just be impossible since many of them were the meals for the other ones...another plausible explanation

God is all powerful...he can do anything...certainly any God that could create it once could save it from some water...and asking a few people to keep it quiet is easy enough...who would disobey....He just drowned the whole world....Im pretty sure he had their attention

To profess ones faith in God, and share that is a noble and honorable thing. It is bound to elicit much criticism, and therefore takes some courage. However, to claim that some books that some people wrote, have to be true, because someone told you they were, is just naive. Brave perhaps, but naive.

AAFitz wrote:the other option is that he created an infinite space in the ark, where all animals were placed into a sort of stasis for 40 days...an alter universe if you will...

You jest, but this is one answer I have heard before. That with a gods help, noah was able to fit ALL the animals onto his barge...it was a miracle ya know.

Which brings me to the question...why an ark/flood at all? Isn't this A GOD?! If he was THAT unhappy, couldn't he just "smote" the entire planet and start again? Why the drama? Why the ordeal? Isn't this god capable of such things? Why did he need a noah anyway? Couldn't he just snap his fingers and have two of every animal fly/swim/walk to Easter Island or some such remote place...then flood the rest of the planet?

No...that wouldn't make for a good story.

wick wrote:

wick wrote:jay wrote Last I knew it was called the theory of evolution...not the fact of evolution.
There is a difference between "evolution" and "adaptation". Animals do "adapt" to thier surounding there is scientific evidence of this. But there is NO concrete evidence that evolution ever occured. (That is the transformation of one spiecies into another totally different spiecies over a long period of time).

Wick wrote jay your avatar is that of a polar bear an animal that has evolved and adapted in the way you have asked proof of. "(That is the transformation of one spiecies into another totally different spiecies over a long period of time)".

Evolve: To develop or achieve gradually: evolve a style of one's own.
To develop (a characteristic) by evolutionary processes.

Adapt: To make suitable to or fit for a specific use or situation.
To become adapted: a species that has adapted well to different
conditions, environment, etc...

jay why did you change you avatar?

Because I'm in a MLB tourney here at CC and the Mets are the team I am on.

Stopper wrote:

Chad22342 wrote:EVER CONSIDER ALIENSSSSSSS!!!!!

Good man! I often try to introduce aliens into the whole Is-God-Real-Isn't-He farrago, but no-one ever takes me seriously. But they sort-of probably exist! What's the Bible to say about THAT, then?

Nothing.

Here's some evolution for ya jay. The average shoe size for an American has increased from 4 to 9 in the last one hundred years, most likely due to the increased girth of Americans. Call it adaptation if you want, but if you believe this to be true, then you do believe in evolution.

AlgyTaylor wrote:Jay ... I respect your right to have an opinion. But you seem to take the bible as the literal truth with no errors. This is a really stupid position to take.

For example
2 Kings 8:26 says "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."
2 Chronicles 22:2 says "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."

2 Samuel 6:23 says "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death"
2 Samuel 21:8 says "But the king took...the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul"

James 1:13 says "..for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."
Gen 22:1 says "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..."

Submitted anonymously:




(2 Samuel)If you continue in 2 Sam 21:8 it says that Michal raised those kids for another woman.

(James1:13) The Hebrew word that the KJV translated as tempted is better translated as tested.

Backglass wrote:

AAFitz wrote:the other option is that he created an infinite space in the ark, where all animals were placed into a sort of stasis for 40 days...an alter universe if you will...

You jest, but this is one answer I have heard before. That with a gods help, noah was able to fit ALL the animals onto his barge...it was a miracle ya know.

did you hear the cloning lab one before too, because that felt at least a little original to me...i guess its probably been suggested before

but youre obviously right...even assuming there is definitely a God...all he really had to do was give Noah enough animals to think he had them all, and take care of the rest with a little slight of hand...

maniacmath17 wrote:Here's some evolution for ya jay. The average shoe size for an American has increased from 4 to 9 in the last one hundred years, most likely due to the increased girth of Americans. Call it adaptation if you want, but if you believe this to be true, then you do believe in evolution.

Thats adaptation not evolution...we are still Americans...not polar bears.And no I don't believe in evolution.

jay_a2j wrote:

AlgyTaylor wrote:Jay ... I respect your right to have an opinion. But you seem to take the bible as the literal truth with no errors. This is a really stupid position to take.

For example
2 Kings 8:26 says "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."
2 Chronicles 22:2 says "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."

2 Samuel 6:23 says "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death"
2 Samuel 21:8 says "But the king took...the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul"

James 1:13 says "..for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."
Gen 22:1 says "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..."

There are more ... many more.


My question to you now is this ... do you accept now that the Bible contains errors?

No, keeping scripture in context is required. Surprising you didn't bring up the OT "eye for an eye" vs, NT "turn the other cheek".

in other words take the words to mean whatever you want them to mean when its convenient for you....believe in the letter of the law when in makes sense for your particular argument, but the spirit of it when it serves another....youd think He could have hired a better proofreader...seems unfair to deliver upon his people the one and only guide for their souls salvation, and have it littered with mistakes and contradictions...

jay_a2j wrote:

maniacmath17 wrote:Here's some evolution for ya jay. The average shoe size for an American has increased from 4 to 9 in the last one hundred years, most likely due to the increased girth of Americans. Call it adaptation if you want, but if you believe this to be true, then you do believe in evolution.

Thats adaptation not evolution...we are still Americans...not polar bears.And no I don't believe in evolution.

Can you please show me where you have come to learn that evolution is the formation of an entirely new species and not the changes that occur in preexisting species? Because what I just mentioned above IS evolution. Maybe you don't believe it because you don't even know what evolution is.

maniacmath17 wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

maniacmath17 wrote:Here's some evolution for ya jay. The average shoe size for an American has increased from 4 to 9 in the last one hundred years, most likely due to the increased girth of Americans. Call it adaptation if you want, but if you believe this to be true, then you do believe in evolution.

Thats adaptation not evolution...we are still Americans...not polar bears.And no I don't believe in evolution.

Can you please show me where you have come to learn that evolution is the formation of an entirely new species and not the changes that occur in preexisting species? Because what I just mentioned above IS evolution. Maybe you don't believe it because you don't even know what evolution is.

Maniacmath, you have to be very careful in discussions like these to use the most precise and accurate terms possible. In the case you mentioned, the OP is very, very probably right. A non-essential change within a population in the course of so few generations is far more likely to be based upon plasticity than evolution, or any inborn, genetic change in said population. This is especially true in an area like foot size, where the change does not have an impact on the individual's chance of breeding. The changes are most likely related to diet, living conditions, or any numbe r of other changes that our society has undergone in the previous century, just like the height discussion that occurred earlier in this thread.

The fact that this -isn't- an example of evolution, does not disprove, or even effect the case for evolution, though. If anything, it's just not exactly relevent to this line of conversation, even though, in my opinion, it is quite interesting. If you really want an example of observed, recently recorded rapid evolution, I would once again refer both you and Jay to the article linked previously. Sockeye Salmon have, in the course of the previous thirteen generations, evolved into separate populations which -do not- interbreed, one of the first qualifiers for a group of animals to be labled a species. In a matter of a few more generations, we will see a new species of animal living on the planet that did not exist fifty years ago. That is a pretty hard piece of evidence to overlook. For quick refrence, read page 3 and 4 of the second linked article. Evolution isn't just overwhlemingly probably, based on scientific evidence, it's actually observable within a human lifetime, if you know where to look.

I can see how height may be affected by diet changes and other similar factors, but feet size? Seems like if your feet are too small to hold your weight, that could get in the way of breeding.

The only way I could see the change taking place would be those with larger feet were having more success in producing offspring than those with smaller feet since the smaller footed people would be too busy struggling to stay upright on their tiny feet.

Humans are now immune to evolution an in the last hundred years we have developed a scociety whare virtually everyone will live a long life as we have no preditors and the main killers mostly happen to older people

jay_a2j wrote:

maniacmath17 wrote:Here's some evolution for ya jay. The average shoe size for an American has increased from 4 to 9 in the last one hundred years, most likely due to the increased girth of Americans. Call it adaptation if you want, but if you believe this to be true, then you do believe in evolution.

Thats adaptation not evolution...we are still Americans...not polar bears.And no I don't believe in evolution.

Do you even know how the process of evolution works? It's adaptation not 'suddenly we all became ants'.

jay_a2j wrote:No, keeping scripture in context is required. Surprising you didn't bring up the OT "eye for an eye" vs, NT "turn the other cheek".

I didn't choose that example because it isn't contradictory if you take context into account. However, the context doesn't affect the examples I mentioned.

Shall we look at the first example? Feel free to check/show me the other two if you like. Or I can give you several more examples if you feel that those are unfair ...

2 Kings
8:25 In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign.

8:26 Two and twenty years old [was] Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name [was] Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

2 Chronicals 22
22:1 And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned.

22:2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

Explain to me in what way the context alters the fact that these two statements are contradictory! I've included the previous verse to help establish the context. Feel free to include more if you feel that you need them - a copy of the King James Bible is available here

Shaninon wrote:Maniacmath, you have to be very careful in discussions like these to use the most precise and accurate terms possible. In the case you mentioned, the OP is very, very probably right. A non-essential change within a population in the course of so few generations is far more likely to be based upon plasticity than evolution, or any inborn, genetic change in said population.

.....

jay a question for you how long do you think man been living on the earth for

jay_a2j wrote:Thats adaptation not evolution...we are still Americans...not polar bears. And no I don't believe in evolution.

Remember kids...jay's definition of evolution is a fish with wings.

Jay. Simple question. How old is the earth?

umm define wings

I believe WL is refering to a species of fish that uses its fins to soar through the air after jumping....now while not covered in feathers and flapping...while they are in the air, they are used aerodynamically to create lift and could be called wings

this is a guess...

why you may ask because there is a fish where its pectoral fin that is large enough to glide, it uses it tail to gain speed to lift it self out of water to make its escape when under attack

WL_southerner wrote:why you may ask because there is a fish where its pectoral fin that is large enough to glide, it uses it tail to gain speed to lift it self out of water to make its escape when under attack

Excellent! Proof for jay! But then he will demand to see a polar bear with wings or a man with wings.

Oh WAIT! Men with wings DO exist! Angels! Evolution is real!

omg a polar bear with wings i hope not hate to be under neath when it decides to do some droppings (crap)