If the animals were babies how than did they bow to Noah.

Noah was not the only person to percive the flood and take action.

There are flood accounts in most ancient histories. Many others also
survived said flood.

Their accounts have also survived with them. Or will you know claim
that only the account in the bible is correct.

AdventureBegins wrote:

If the animals were babies how than did they bow to Noah.

Noah was not the only person to percive the flood and take action.

There are flood accounts in most ancient histories. Many others also
survived said flood.

Their accounts have also survived with them. Or will you know claim
that only the account in the bible is correct.

===========================================================================================
SpiderCMB replied:

I'm not sure what you mean by your first statement. The animals were
under the command of God, regardless of their age they would have done
exactly as God commanded.

Noah didn't perceive the flood, he was told by God that it was coming.

There have been millions of floods in the history of the world, but only
one world wide flood. There is a group of primitive people in China who
have a world flood story that matches the Bible completely. Infact they
call the first man as "red earth", which is what Adam was called. You
can read about it here: http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v06n2p04.htm
Or you can google the story and read any description you so desire.

and gilgamesh? Was he not also told by god.

Research this and you will find many accounts of others. (strip away
the symbology and the truth will be revealed). Look at mankinds rich
history with the eyes of a christian and you will see the truth. The
bible is not the only book with history. There are many each with its
own symbology.

You claimed once within these threads that before Noah there were no
mountains. How then could even the mountians have been covered if none
existed.

If eight Jews got on the Ark, and everybody else on earth died, where do
asians and blacks come from?


How did four men build a ship the size of the titanic out of wood in so
little time - Noah hired workers and then left them to drown; that's
very Christian!!!

Belushi wrote:

If eight Jews got on the Ark, and everybody else on earth died, where do
asians and blacks come from?

How did four men build a ship the size of the titanic out of wood in so
little time - Noah hired workers and then left them to drown; that's
very Christian!!!

==========================================================================================
SpiderCMB replied:

Read this article: http://www.justsayhi.com/topic/show/21627 for answers
about race.

Noah worked on the Ark for 120 years, that doesn't seem like a "little
time" to me.

AdventureBegins wrote:

and gilgamesh? Was he not also told by god.

Research this and you will find many accounts of others. (strip away
the symbology and the truth will be revealed). Look at mankinds rich
history with the eyes of a christian and you will see the truth. The
bible is not the only book with history. There are many each with its
own symbology.

You claimed once within these threads that before Noah there were no
mountains. How then could even the mountians have been covered if none
existed.

===========================================================================================
SpiderCMB replied:

The Gilgamesh epic was originally contained on 10 tablets. In 650 BC,
some unknown person added the flood story at adding an 11th tablet. At
that time, the flood had been over for thousands of years and the Hebrew
account had been written down about a thousand years before.

"If the animals were babies how than did they bow to Noah?"

Uhhh...I don't get the question.

People are willing to accept all of these absurdies with no problem, yet
they will argue until they are blue in the face that evolution make no
'sense'.

I think I just might die today from chronic belly laughing.

what's so absurd about baby animals? What's so absurd about thinking all
but a few select people could have been corrupt and evil? You watched
the news lately?

Abra, I've said this before and I'll say it again...it's fine that your
views are different, but I for one am getting SICK to death of your
acting as though someone who believes in the Bible is an idiot.

And you can twist it around and circumvent your words all you want; the
fact is, that IS what you're saying.

Well, I've got news for you. Contrary to your self-inflated perception
of your intellect, YOU don't have all the answers either. Quite frankly,
I'm offended (and amused at the same time) at a MERE human being who
would place himself above the Almighty God.

Talk about a belly laugh...

Abracadabra wrote:

People are willing to accept all of these absurdies with no problem, yet
they will argue until they are blue in the face that evolution make no
'sense'.

I think I just might die today from chronic belly laughing.

===========================================================================================
SpiderCMB replied:

Surely you aren't talking about me, the guy who has supported the belief
in micro-evolution in many recent posts? Obviously I believe in
micro-evolution, it is the only evolution theory that is supported by
science. It is the belief that one species can turn into another
species that I reject, because it isn't a scientific theory and never
can be by definition.

Abracadabra:

You're right that I think this is a purely philosophical problem. I do
believe that everything can (and must be) known through thought alone.
The reason: even if you conduct experiments and witness observations, it
is ultimately just sensory data submitted to your brain for you to think
about. Therefore, to understand when empiricism is the correct way to
think requires philosophical inquiry. To understand when empiricism is
a bad way to think also requires philosophical enquiry.

In the case of pharmacology, for example, I think empiricism is
beneficial and helpful to mankind and does help us determine true things
about reality. In the case of evolution, though, I think empiricism is a
bad line of thinking that does not lead to correct conclusions. My main
interest in this topic is trying to figure out why modern humanity
thinks that empiricism should be uniformly believed in every setting.

I think empiricism works great in engineering, but poorly for evolution.
It works great for Newtonian physics, but poorly for quantum physics. It
works very well for science, but it does not work at all for mathematics
or (necessarily) philosophy. And since I feel that the questions about
evolution have to first be settled philosophically before you can even
start talking about what the observations say, I therefore feel that it
should be disputed.

Ely wrote:
“You're right that I think this is a purely philosophical problem. I do
believe that everything can (and must be) known through thought alone.”

But pure thought alone is meaningless. What would be ‘truth’? What
would you have to test ‘truth’ against?

When we say that there is a law of physics we are talking about an
explanation for something that can be tested. The law is only ‘true’ of
the physical world. It’s ‘truth’ relies upon the existence of the
physical world. If you take the physical world away the law no longer
even has any meaning (i.e. it no longer even has a ‘truth’ value) If
the law is stating something about a physical universe that doesn’t even
exist then it’s neither true nor false. It’s simply meaningless.

You’ve used empirical information in much of your arguments. You’re
referred to the law of entropy. The law of entropy is a law of this
physical universe. It has nothing at all to do with ‘pure thought’.

You can easily imagine a universe that has a differnet law concerning
it’s behavior with respect to entropy.

The law of entropy is a law of physics. It’s an observed property of
the universe. That’s empirical knowledge. There is no specific reason
why you would you would need to come up with that idea using nothing
more than pure thought. You could easily imagine a differnet that
behaves differently.

You’ve also mentioned coding theory which is also a law that is based on
empirical knowledge observed in this universe.

If you think you are working from a foundation of pure thought you are
totally kidding yourself.

Even your prized ‘coding theory’ is a theory that stems from
mathematics, and mathematics itself stems from our observation that the
universe had a quantitative aspect to it.

If you think that mathematics is nothing more than an invention of man
created by nothing other than ‘pure thought’ you are grossly mistaken.
Mathematics originally arose from our very observation that of
quantitative nature of the universe.

In fact, I am currently writing a book on that very topic.

So, in any case, if you want to use ‘pure thought’ you’d have to reject
any conclusions about entropy or coding theory because those ideas are
not ‘pure thought’ they are direct empirical knowledge gained from
observing the behavior of our very own universe.

If all you had to work with was ‘pure thought’ you could imagine
anything you like. And to ask wither or not it’s ‘true’ would be
meaningless. “True” relative to what?

When physicists ask if something is ‘true’ they are asking whether it’s
true of our universe? We can say a multitude of things that are
‘logically’ true in the sense of pure logic, but that doesn’t make them
true in any meaningful way. There are probably an infinite number of
things that can be said to be true using pure logic.

In fact, using pure logical you can imagine a universe where light
travels infinitely fast and there is no such thing as gravity. What
does it mean for that to be ‘true’? True in what sense? It certainly
isn’t true of the universe we live in. So what would it mean to say
that it’s true in pure thought?

I’m totally unimpressed by any idea of ‘pure thought’ You’ll never
‘prove’ anything using pure thought. You can use pure thought to imagine
a world were demons rule? Does that make it ‘true’?

If you aren’t going to use an empirical basis for ‘truth’ then how can
you even claim to have found a ‘truth’?

Like I say, you have already been using things like entropy and coding
theory which are empirical things of this world. They are not things of
pure thought. Pure thought has no ‘things’ to test truth against.

In short, you can’t logic your way to god. God defies logic.

Sheila wrote:
“Quite frankly, I'm offended (and amused at the same time) at a MERE
human being who would place himself above the Almighty God.”

I’m glad you are amused, and sorry that you feel offended.

I have come to the rational conclusion that the Bible was written by men
for their own purpose. I’ve told you many times that this is by belief.
I’ve come to this conclusion based on much thought and consideration.

Therefore I simply do not believe that the book has anything at all to
do with any god.

So your suggestion that I am placing myself above an “Almighty God” is
an utterly absurd and totally incorrect accusation. It simply shows
that you haven’t been comprehending my posts.

There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to
death.
Proverbs 14:12

I wrote in reponse to Ely:
"In short, you can’t logic your way to god. God defies logic."

I just realized that this statement is going to come back to haunt me.
I posted this with repsect to Ely's comments concerning 'pure thought'
not with repsect to the empirical experience.

I have come to the rational conclusion that the Bible was written by men
for their own purpose. I’ve told you many times that this is by belief.

Yes, I completely understand that. And by saying that you have come to
the "rational conclusion," that, therefore, must mean that anyone else
who has not reached that conclusion must not be rational.

"Therefore I simply do not believe that the book has anything at all to
do with any god."

That's YOUR prerogative, but when you assign words such as absurd to
your opinions you insult the people who believe that the Bible is the
Holy Word of God.

"So your suggestion that I am placing myself above an “Almighty God” is
an utterly absurd and totally incorrect accusation."

Not from where I'm sitting it isn't. You act as though you KNOW "what's
what," and that, because YOU deem the Bible to be fallible, it therefore
must not be true. If you mock the Word of God, you therefore mock God
and you also mock those of us who believe in Him.

"It simply shows that you haven’t been comprehending my posts. "

Ohh, I beg to differ. I comprehend them quite clearly and your pathetic
attempts to "coverup" your blatant arrogance and feelings of superiority
over anyone who "hasn't quite yet figured out," like you have, that the
Bible is a "farce."

Opps...I posted this in the wrong thread...

Abracadabra wrote:

I’m glad you are amused, and sorry that you feel offended.

I have come to the rational conclusion that the Bible was written by men
for their own purpose. I’ve told you many times that this is by belief.
I’ve come to this conclusion based on much thought and consideration.

Therefore I simply do not believe that the book has anything at all to
do with any god.

So your suggestion that I am placing myself above an “Almighty God” is
an utterly absurd and totally incorrect accusation. It simply shows that
you haven’t been comprehending my posts.

=========================================================================================
SpiderCMB Replied:

Abracadabra said: "I have come to the rational conclusion that the Bible
was written by men for their own purpose."

Did you know that by saying that the Bible was just written by men you
are directly calling my religion false. You aren't just saying you are
right, but you are calling my religion wrong.

Abracadabra said: "In fact, they force the rejection of other’s people’s
personal paths thus leading to intolerance and war. "

My religion teaches that the Bible was inspired by God, you just
rejected that "personal path".

Abracadabra said: "Your belief rejects his personal path. "

Kinda like how you consistantly reject mine?

Hypocrite much?

Also, as I have posted before...

Romans 2:14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of
the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Christians are a "law to themselves" and Christians aren't to judge
them or assume they are going to hell. It's possible that if you live a
good life, but never love or accept Jesus, that Jesus will accept the
person regardless. I repeat the things tha Jesus taught, but there is
always the possiblity that anyone, of any religion, will be accepted by
Jesus.

I teach about the guaranteed way to God that Jesus taught.

Sheila wrote:
"Ohh, I beg to differ. I comprehend them quite clearly and your pathetic
attempts to "coverup" your blatant arrogance and feelings of superiority
over anyone who "hasn't quite yet figured out," like you have, that the
Bible is a "farce."

You're certainly welcome to your view. I respect that. However, the
very same people who you claim that I am offending have no problem at
all telling me that evolution is a "farce" read the TITLE OF THE
THREAD!.

So it’s ok for them to tell me that they think it’s stupid to believe in
evolution but it’s not ok for me to tell them that I think it’s stupid
to believe in fairytales?

Like duh?

Sheila,

You understand and vocalize the point so much better than I can. Abra
does't just suggest that his beliefs are correct, but also that we are
wrong, that our beliefs are absurd and that we are stupid. I will never
understand how I get called to task for making statements of faith, but
nobody is offended by Abra insulting the billions of Christians in the
world.

spider wrote:
"Kinda like how you consistantly reject mine?

Hypocrite much?"

Those comments were made with respect to AB and I don't think he ever
rejected your religion.

As for me personally, I'm not coming at it from a religious point of
view at all. From my point of view god doesn't care what you believe.
Therefore you belief in the Bible is fine with god.

My concerns are purely humanitarian. I don't tell anyone what they
should believe. I merely voice my belief that the bible was written by
men, and not by god. If you don't share my belief more power to you.

I am not making any attempt to change your personal beliefs. If you
think that’s what I’m doing I apologize. I’m merely voicing my views on
a public Internet forum where anyone may read them or skip over them as
they chose.

Have I ever once told you personally how you should believe?