[NuBBiN]

Originally posted by IGotTheCottons
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.



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.



see above reply on crossbreeding



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.



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'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.



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 <b>closest <u>possible</u></b> 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 <b>friendly</b> debate that we both agreed on in a different thread...

Too lazy to read through 13 pages of posts..im sure someone's already covered this, but I figured i'd throw in my two cents just for shits...I dunno where this thread has progressed to, but im taking it back to the first post....

The story of noahs ark was
A-a tale seeded by true events, and
B- grossly blown out of proportion in an effort to send a message to its readers...

First off, its agreed upon that the global flood isn't possible and there would have to be 5 times the volume of water found in our oceans/icecaps to flood earth to the tops of the himalayas. On the other hand, to those who experienced this "global flood", it was possible that their region was entirely flooded..their world as they knew it was flooded...nobody knew about the americas, rarely anyone traveled more than a few miles from their places of birth and thats how it was for thousands of years, so thus, YES to THEM the world was covered by water. (btw..if it were to rain for 40 days and 40 nights even nonstop with record amounts of rain, the earth would not have enough time to flood...a more accurate rate of constant rainfall to flood the earth would be several years)

Secondly...if you read the original texts, god didn't say two of EVERY animal..he said two of every pure land animal (for sacrificial purposes...such as several varieties of goats and what have you)..theres about 60 of them (double that...120 animals)....and two of every inpure land animal (pigs etc.) there are about 30 (doubled=60)...the same went for the birds....impure birds....foul and gamebirds....and pure birds...doves etc.....

he would have only taken around 200 animals total...and there was no message to take larger animals such as camels giraffes elephants and whatever other disney animals we've decided in the 20th century must have been on the ark....


the size of the boat made of wood alone (which the bible says it was) wouldn't have been able to retain its shape had it been roughly the size of the titanic (which it would have been if following cubit measurements given...a cubit is the length of the forearm [about 1.5 feet]) a much smaller version could have been possible


add all this to the fact that the story was written some 300 years after it supposedly took place, by a bunch of jewish exhiles, and its easy to see that they weren't going for accuracy...they were writing a story for future generations to learn from...


having said that..im from a jewish family..am agnostic personally, and don't believe the bible was meant to be taken so damn seriousely as it has been lately....theyre stories...most aren't historically accurate, some are which ones are and which ones arent will always be up for debate...but they DO have a message for their readers...and if approached from this sort of mind frame I think we'd all be much better off than those who are evangelistic and take every word in the book as pure truth...

just a thought....don't stone me to death please

EDIT: and no cottons..the satellite images you're referring to [i]dont/i] show a wooden boat..they show an oval boat shaped groove in the snow in a mountain peak...theres no physical evidence of a boat (i.e. wood)..because wood wouldn't have lasted for more than a few hundnred years after the incedent thanks to erosion...plus the mountain range where its said to lie is covered in glaciers...we all know that glaciers take whatever is in their way...gobble them up and spit them out years, centuries, millenia later as they naturally progress downward off the peaks of the mountain ranges... I just watched a special on those imges that supposedly show the ark..they dont show jack squat....they show a rocky peak, and a flat snowy area roughly 3/4 the size of the supposed arks dimensions....even had the ark ended up there, theres no way in hell that this single spot where it laid thousands of years ago and then rotted away to nothingness would have retained said shape...its just not possible..unless the divine intervention of god has somehow frozen this spot in time to be discovered thousands of years later by an orbitting satellite....theres also one other picture taken by a spy plane that shows an even shittier grainy image in a different poart of the range that is roughly the size of the ark..and yes, it looks like a boat of some sort...but it looks like the wood of a boat..which couldn't be possible..thanks, once again..to erosion..sure..maybe a few scraps of the boat have survived and will someday be found, but noway in hell the entire boat which wouldn't even have physically held its shape when in use is gonna stay in its form for the next couple thousand years and defy all known physics of entripy...


www.godhatesshrimp.com