[IGotTheCottons]

Originally posted by Zylark
no, round won won be me. you can't have your cake and eat it too. you claim it was not all the species, merely all kinds of animals, and they (the survivors of the ark) then evolved into all the animals we have today. wrong. the time-scale of the bible is a mere 8000 years. beginning with the creation. is creation true? you claim so. according to the bible, at the end of seven days the world and the universe was created in perfect mint condition, with all the species (yes species, all 30 million of them) intact. noah's ark came long after these events.

you must have misinterpreted that. i never once said that they evolved. this is what i meant by what i said... instead of having 2985739874 kinds of dogs (not the actual number obviously... just to make a point), they had just 2 dogs. then through cross breeding afterwards is how you have the different variations today. if you think this takes millions of years, you are wrong. don't believe me? look at the cannabis plant, and how many different variations there are today (do to selective crossbreeding), compared to how many different variations there were a century ago... or even a few decades ago for that matter. i'm sorry if how i described it came off as evolution, and can see how it would be interpreted as such. but rest assured, i do not believe at all in evolution.

second, there is no, absolutely no proof whatsoever, of the ark. there is a lot of (convincing) arguments that UFO's are visiting the earth. backed by pseudo-science. none of it has been irrefutably proven beyond any shadow of a doubt. likewize with any "proof" regarding the ark. natural formations that may look like a boat on a radar-picture does not prove anything.

ok... so first hand accounts of people who actually saw this HUGE wooden, bardge-like (sp?), obviously man-made object (that just so happens to go along with the dimensions given for Noah's Ark in the Bible) on top of a mountain mean nothing to you? not to mention that, but satellite photographs (not radar images) taken by OUR government that show a very well defined wooden object also means nothing i guess. if it's not the ark, what is it? and how did it get on-top of a mountain in an un-inhabited area? oh, and i guess all the scientific evidence of a global flood also doesn't convince you either.

the point i'm trying to make is that there's pleanty of evidence that it did happen. it hasn't been prooven, but yet neither has the evolution theory, or the big bang theory... and people believe those, most of the time without a second thought.

and how did polar bears get to the ark withoud dying of thirst and heat firs, after trekking all the way from the arctic to the middle-east?

see above reply on crossbreeding

and fresh-water fish that are local to the americas, did the "fly" to the middle east or swim and salt-water, and thus die on the way?

um... pangea. what if there were rivers that attached the two before the flood? the fish were located in both regions at the time of it happening, and this could explain why you find fossils of american fish over in the mid-east. a global flood would explain fossils of giant clams 6,000ft above sea-level in the apalachian mountains. how does science explain that one? also... how do you explain massive salt water lakes and salt-flats that are land-locked? (ie the dead sea, and the salt-flats out in the west -- i forget which state). things that could only have come from a massive oceanic, flood.

the theory of pangea is a sound one, so is plate-tectonics. only one problem here, back when all the continents were one huge one, there was no humans. no noah. dino's roamed the earth, and mammals like us looked more like little rodents.

this, of course, assuming you believe in evolution and the scientific time-line. you can't really use this in your argument because there's too many unexplainable and legitimate flaws in the theory of evolution.

there is no good proof of the noah myth. stating that many religous traditions got this myth (among them hindu and arab tradition) does not make it true. it only goes to show that the bible is a hodge-podge of stolen ideas from other mythologies. revised and altered and revised again.

there's pleanty of good proof that the flood happened (see above replies). i never said that just because other cultures has it that it makes it true. it makes it more believable... especially when some of these cultures were totally isolated from the others that have similar stories. this combined with the other evidence that the flood did occure makes it quite believable. at least in my opinion.

do not make the mistake of contradicting yourself, if you want to use the argument of evolution, then you must also see that creationism as portrayed in genesis is wrong. what will it be? fact or fiction.

this i explained earlier. evolution has too many flaws that can't be explained (unlike your "flaws" of the Bible). and also, for future reference, the only text of the Bible that contains no single error is the original greek and hebrew texts. during translations there are some mistakes that happen (due to it being translated by man). the closest possible match would be the King James version (they took each word, and tralslated it to the closest possible matching english word... i say this because of your 'part two'. which version are you using for those verses? if it's KJV good. if not, you need to get a KJV because the other versions were taken from a different text, and they're interpreted versions (meaning the people put their interpretations down instead of what each word translates to in english).

also, regarding part-two. i don't have all the answers, so it might take me a while to find the answers to some of your posts. back when i first received that thing from my friend that was full of supposed Bible contradictions and errors, i remember being able to explain it... but that was like a year ago, so i'm going to have to do a little reading and such in order to find the answers. but don't worry, i will beable to.

i'd also like to point out to some of the other blades who think this debate shouldn't be happening and such... this is a friendly debate that we both agreed on in a different thread...