Ed and God

chopitdown

Collin wrote:

Well, first of all... this is the internet, that reviewer could be anyone. I happen to know he is a christian, he could have an agenda. I have debated with him quite a few times and I don't think he was telling any lies,

thanks Collin ...*goes back to reading the thread*

the only agenda I try to push in these discussions are 1. there is some level of prejudice to ID (not sure if it's a grand conspiracy or if it's intellectual arrogance or if it's mostly conjured up) and 2. Ones belief in origins of the universe should have no bearing on ones scientific abilities.

writersu

Keiran wrote:

No, writersu, I am not offended by your posts. You do not speak in an arrogant voice and you appear to be able to conjure and express your own thoughts.

Just twixt you and me, I do believe there is a God and in the teachings of Jesus - the rest of the Bible - especially the OT is a bit suspect to me (but that's a whole different thread!) I also believe in evolution. And to me, in my mind, in my heart, between me and my God - it makes sense. I figure if we were all supposed to think and believe in exactly the same manner, we would all have turned out as a batch of clones.

Faith is a unique and personal experience. I respect those who believe in a like mind and those who don't. My struggle lies in tolerating those who think they know exactly what God is all about or what Eddie means with each of his lyrics. Both are impossible as we are neither a deity or Eddie. Although, Eddie may be a deity - it's still up for debate

Sorry if you thought I was speaking harshly of you in my previous post. Peace my friend.

I am so glad, and I will count you as a friend as well...........

yes, you are right Eddie is a deity, like I said to my kids when I want to mess with them, "If Eddie Vedder's name was not Eddie Vedder he would be Ghandi". I love to mess with them ---most of them are teenagers so you can imagine the looks they give me.....so funny.....anyway......

it is so funny how we have spun for days in this Ed/God commment; we truly are guilty of the whole spin as much as the media can be and yet it has triggered us to be able to talk about this subject on a personal level as well.

I love to hear people tell me their thoughts; I have learned so much from a lot of people here and left the threads thinking a bit more enlightened and a bit more evolved as well. So when we do these talks I want to grow and learn from all here, or maybe I do leave with the same outlook as when I came in, but nonetheless, it is worthy of the time providing we respect the others' opinions and outlooks and not try to bully them into our thoughts or ridicule them for thinking different than we do.

I am glad that my true self came through for you and that you know that I respect all here, regardless if they agree with me.........I guess it's only when they want to challenge me as if to say my take is not valid (as I do not do to them) that I take offense. I want to be treated as I treat others and if I have it coming then they should rip me apart but if I don't then I do expect someone to be civil to me.

That is where my faith ultimately lies; in the faith that whether we credit God, Buddha, Mohammad, whatever peaceful a god we credit, then we need to be in a balance with the rest of the world so that we put out good for others and in the faith that we are good people inside, all of us, that we will get it back . The opposite is true as well.

The problem is when religion takes on the position of God Himself and makes the people within take the role of judge on.

Then we get screwed up on just who is God and who is not........(us).........

you know?

writersu

Surf Life wrote:

I respectfully disagree.

Seems we forget about the Old Testament side of the bible.

I'm stating this as an opinion and I'm not trying to put you or your belief down, but one only needs to read Leviticus 26 or maybe begin at Deuteronomy 28:15 or the whole passage of Numbers 31. I find it interesting how christians often pick and choose only the parts of the bible they like and ignore the other side of it.

I am so glad you pointed that out. Because you know, I still struggle with the image of God, my own personal image of Him, that is. For instance, is He the Old Testament God, the fire and wrath and "I will get you , you sinners!!" God because if He is then surely all of the shit I have had in my life has been well deserved and although I will still respect and revere Him, then I can't really say I trust Him because He is judging me harshly and if I am not worthy of His love, due to His personal punishments, then I cannot follow Him----I will never be good enough.
Or is He the "Santa Claus"God, (which truly I did think of that way---before the single really--but more like, "Ok, ask for ANYTHING you want and I will give it to you.........but He is not giving me what I want, so why?? Am I really that bad that MY prayers are unheard?
Or is He my version of the image of the "Jesus Christ Superstar" Jesus, who is laid back, loving and says, "No, man it's cool, really. I love you despite yourself. Just keep trying to get it right. You will."

See, depending on where I am emotionally in my life all has been true.
So, in order for me to have the perspective of respect for this God that I choose to feel is true, then I need to take all in account, hoping that there is a huge answer as to why my life turns and twists as it does, pray I learn from it all and keep in my heart the last image of Jesus I stated, so I too will develop into someone worthy of respect; one who is loving as well as disciplined.
I am accountable for my sins, faults, mess ups and either I will cause my own punishment in respect to a karma type thing or God will allow the bad to come to me due to my own poor judgement. Sometimes people get a lot of bad and in no way do I feel they deserve it on any level as I will never be able to explain the horrors that are in the world that are living realities to some.........I mourn for them; truly I do.........

but I have to believe that regardless of the force that is driving this world and these things to occur, that there is a greater good that will somehow come of it...........(like that boy who got killed so many years ago, that boy Adam Walsh, and although nothing will ever justify or replace him to his parents, look all his father did for child safety, as well as criminals being caught).
If I don't have a hope in something, then I will become an animal as any of us can become and live merely by my primal instincts as well as primal hungers; only living for me. I do not think all non believers are this way; I am saying that in myself I acknowledge this..............so I choose to believe.

Keiran

writersu wrote:

The problem is when religion takes on the position of God Himself and makes the people within take the role of judge on.

Then we get screwed up on just who is God and who is not........(us).........

you know?

Quoted For Truth!!!

When you strip away all the "crap" about who made what and how or when this was created and let me quote you this religious authority or scientific paper blah blah blah - I mean wasn't this whole God thing supposed to be about love?
It seems like we get so bogged down in the bullshit that we lose touch with the ultimate reality. It doesn't matter what you believe or if you believe anything at all - love is the baseline emotion that we all crave. Atheists, agnostics and yes even right wing Christian zealots (lol) understand the concept of love.
Does it really matter how we got here? If we came swinging down from the trees - banana in hand, or if we came from a mixture of some dudes rib and dirt from the ground - our main purpose while on this Earth is to love.
I don't know - it's late, I'm sleepy and it's time for the Colbert Report. Sleep tight all!

sweetpotato

timsinclair wrote:

Please come back if you have something slightly intelligent or, at least respectful to say.

um, i don't need your invitation to comment here, even if my comments make you look ridiculous- which is fitting, considering the subject.

ID doesn't DESERVE respect, plain & simple. it's a pseudoscience and a fantasy dreamt up by ultra-religious weirdos who can't- WON'T- acccept that they evolved- GASP!- from other primates. newsflash: we ARE primates. even GOD would have to fess up to that. :rolleyes:

how about YOU find some respect for SCIENCE?? and while you're at it, get some friends. apparently, you need some, if you feel betrayed by a rock star because you feel he's drifted away from christ... good grief! isn't there a bible study group somewhere with an empty chair?

Cosmo

catefrances wrote:

eyes in the front of the head are able to judge distance. an absolute must for predators. though of course there are some(aquatic predators for instance) that this isnt applicable to for various reasons.

...
I agree... Like sharks that rely on their sense of smell to locate prey (the eyes are needed to scan a wide expanse of open ocean). Some reptiles and amphibians have moved their eyes to the top of the head because they are 'ambush' type predators, but they still focus on their prey using binocular vision.
All of this has transformed over the millions of years of evolution as different species sought survival in the wild.
And even us humans... we have remnants of a tail. If all species were created in tact... why does a human being (who walks upright) need a tail?

writersu

timsinclair wrote:

Ok. So now you get it. Forensics have to be open to both natural and non-natural causes for an incident like a death of a person. Now, what about origins science? If origins science is also to be open to both intelligent and non-intelligent causes then it has to suspend methodological naturalism because an intelligent cause for life and the universe is BY DEFINITION 'supernatural'. That is why my analogy makes sense and that is why applying methodological naturalism to origins science is wrong. Science should serve the people by objectively investigating the questions that are important to them. Instead science has ruled out one of the only two possible answers to the biggest question of all 'Is there a creator?' and given its desired option: 'no' a win by default. This is not what science should be doing. Since most people in the world think that there is something intelligent behind the universe, scientists should at least consider it a possibility. At present they dont even give it a chance, any evidence produced as positive evidence for design is simply called 'psuedo-science' just because it breaks the bullshit rules of naturalism. Even worse, the sincere scientists whose research points out this evidence are ridiculed and slandered as religious zealots. If you were brave enough to watch the film 'expelled', you would see this to be true. But this is not over yet, it has just begun.

Hey Tim,........and all who read this........

I will admit that you got me stumped; it seems that your big words and points you make get me lost.........(just more reason for me to once again take up reading something other than hope repair magazines and gardening mags as well.........) but since you are a fellow believer, I will say that your post inspired me to write this response.......

Could we be fair if we were to say that the same God we believe to be the ruler of this universe, is also the God that is responsible for our brains and so also our great advances in medicine, science, and that perhaps (like was already stated here) there is something to evolution that is tied into Him as well. The free will comes in to play when we say that we have messed up a lot of things, but that is not to credit nor discredit Him in any way.........we were given that and for us believers, we believe that either the factual story or the analogy (to be open minded and fair here; to say that I don't know if ALL THAT WAS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE IS TRUE either),that when Adam and Eve-- either as people or as an analogy (as I have stated already), were in the garden, we made a statement that in order to gain the knowledge we craved, we said we did not want to obey God and instead the apple that was to give us the knowledge God had, was eaten. We chose to give that up. And although I too have joked that Adam and Eve screwed things up for us big time, I too may have been the same in that garden.

And isn't it funny that we still say that those who believe are somehow more naive than those who do not; as if to say that the intelligent ones are the ones who have to figure everything out and the rest of us are naive.

And my proof in our lack of actual ability, whether believer or non believer, to truly do things on our own is that why are we still always so tired, so stressed, so disconnected, so depressed, so useless, so hopeless.....etc. when we have so many things in our lives that are suppose to make our lives easier............
I don't need to convince any one here to believe; I respect all of you. But just like George Carlin use to go on about in his stand up routines, we are so the way he said............

where have we truly advanced? personnally anyway.......

just a thought............

what do you think?

writersu

timsinclair wrote:

Ok. So now you get it. Forensics have to be open to both natural and non-natural causes for an incident like a death of a person. Now, what about origins science? If origins science is also to be open to both intelligent and non-intelligent causes then it has to suspend methodological naturalism because an intelligent cause for life and the universe is BY DEFINITION 'supernatural'. That is why my analogy makes sense and that is why applying methodological naturalism to origins science is wrong. Science should serve the people by objectively investigating the questions that are important to them. Instead science has ruled out one of the only two possible answers to the biggest question of all 'Is there a creator?' and given its desired option: 'no' a win by default. This is not what science should be doing. Since most people in the world think that there is something intelligent behind the universe, scientists should at least consider it a possibility. At present they dont even give it a chance, any evidence produced as positive evidence for design is simply called 'psuedo-science' just because it breaks the bullshit rules of naturalism. Even worse, the sincere scientists whose research points out this evidence are ridiculed and slandered as religious zealots. If you were brave enough to watch the film 'expelled', you would see this to be true. But this is not over yet, it has just begun.

Hey Tim,........and all who read this........

I will admit that you got me stumped; it seems that your big words and points you make get me lost.........(just more reason for me to once again take up reading something other than hope repair magazines and gardening mags as well.........) but since you are a fellow believer, I will say that your post inspired me to write this response.......

Could we be fair if we were to say that the same God we believe to be the ruler of this universe, is also the God that is responsible for our brains and so also our great advances in medicine, science, and that perhaps (like was already stated here) there is something to evolution that is tied into Him as well. The free will comes in to play when we say that we have messed up a lot of things, but that is not to credit nor discredit Him in any way.........we were given that and for us believers, we believe that either the factual story or the analogy (to be open minded and fair here; to say that I don't know if ALL THAT WAS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE IS TRUE either),that when Adam and Eve-- either as people or as an analogy (as I have stated already), were in the garden, we made a statement that in order to gain the knowledge we craved, we said we did not want to obey God and instead the apple that was to give us the knowledge God had, was eaten. We chose to give that up. And although I too have joked that Adam and Eve screwed things up for us big time, I too may have been the same in that garden.

And isn't it funny that we still say that those who believe are somehow more naive than those who do not; as if to say that the intelligent ones are the ones who have to figure everything out and the rest of us are naive.

And my proof in our lack of actual ability, whether believer or non believer, to truly do things on our own is that why are we still always so tired, so stressed, so disconnected, so depressed, so useless, so hopeless.....etc. when we have so many things in our lives that are suppose to make our lives easier............
I don't need to convince any one here to believe; I respect all of you. But just like George Carlin use to go on about in his stand up routines, we are so the way he said............

where have we truly advanced? personnally anyway.......

just a thought............

what do you think?

timsinclair

sweetpotato wrote:

um, i don't need your invitation to comment here, even if my comments make you look ridiculous- which is fitting.........ID doesn't DESERVE respect, plain & simple. it's a pseudoscience and a fantasy dreamt up by ultra-religious weirdos......how about YOU find some respect for SCIENCE?? and while you're at it, get some friends. apparently, you need some, if you feel betrayed by a rock star because you feel he's drifted away from christ... good grief! isn't there a bible study group somewhere with an empty chair?

Why are you here? You said that the subject doesn't interest you. If you are here to try and get me to spit venom by insulting me then you have failed. You say your comments make me look ridiculous, hmmm well I hope you are proud. However, most of us are not here to ridicule eachother. Again, if you have nothing but insults and ridicule, please find somewhere else to vent your venom, go in peace.

God Bless

timsinclair

Keiran wrote:

I asked this question when I was a kid in Sunday School. The teacher told me God put them all in a deep coma like sleep so they didn't eat each other or need to defecate - yes I asked how they cleaned up all the poop. Even as a child, this answer seemed ridiculous. Almost fairy tale in nature.

COSMO wrote:

Oh.. and if God can put them all in a deep coma... why didn't God just tell them all to migrate to the high ground? I mean, they couldn't cover that distance in the time it took Noah to build the Ark and gather up all of the species? How long did it take the lions to walk from Africa to Jordan?

Hi. These are good questions but surely it is not very wise to believe that, since your sunday school teacher did not have the answers, they do not exist. I have already adressed these questions in an earlier post. I will repost below:


First of all, some of the Flood story involves God's direct intervention, which is unverifiable, the most significant of these aspects is God's control of the animals, the text says that God brought them to the ark and shut the door when they were all inside. He may well have also prevented them from attacking one another and quite possibly caused many to hibernate once on board, which would cut down food requirements and labour time quite significantly.

However, many aspects of the flood story are verifiable, such as the size of the Ark and the geological evidence of the flood etc. It is important to note that the ark was not a ship, it did not have to cut through the water, just float, so it would have a been a rectangular box, which is extremely stable and has much more room than a ship.

You may have heard the accepted theory that the continents were originally one land mass. well you probably didn't realise that was first proposed by a creationist, because it is implied in genesis. This means that none of the animals had to travel accross the oceans to get to the Ark. In the creationist model known as 'catastrophic plate tectonics', the supercontinent broke up during, and in the immediate aftermath of the flood. The idea that animals evolved in isolation on the continents is untrue. Many believe that Marsupials evolved in isolation in Australasia but marsupial opposums are found in the Americas and marsupial fossils are found on all continents, its just that they have survived in Australia and become extinct elsewhere.

Both creationist and evolutionist models therefore require that, over time, animals have been able to cross between the continents, either over land bridges, floating on mats of vegetation, or even aboard human vessels. Regarding species with specialist diets, this is a result of a thinning out of the gene pool as speciation has occurred. According to the Bible, God created distinct ‘kinds’, which have diversified into what we now call ‘species’ and ‘sub species’, ‘kind’ is therefore somewhere between ‘genus’ and ‘species’ but we cannot define it precisely because we were not there. One way of knowing which species came from an original ‘kind’ is whether or not they can reproduce. Lions and Tigers, for example, can produce Ligers, and Zebras and Donkeys can produce Zeedonks. This shows that they are from the same ‘kind’ since genesis says that animals reproduce ‘after their own kind’.

Subsequently, the amount of species required on the ark is much smaller than the amount of species and sub-species we have today and also those ancestors represented on the ark would have been much less specialized. To illustrate this, we all know that Great Danes and chiwawas are descendants of an original wolf/dog kind, by selective breeding we have been able to produce this variety in a very short time, however this has meant that modern species have lost their genetic variability, meaning that a chiwawa breeder could selectively breed his chiwawas with all his evolutionary fervour for infinite generations but he will NEVER get great danes again, the genetic potential simply isn’t there. The original kinds had the capacity to adapt to different situations, but this capacity is lost over time as the gene pool is thinned out by speciation.

Now, if we calculate the amount of ‘kinds’ needed to get todays animal kingdom, we find that they would only take up about half of the space on the ark, which would leave plenty of room for exercise areas. Although some of the fossils of T’rex’s and sauropods etc. are HUGE, these are fully grown adults that took a very log time to reach this size. All dinosaurs came from an egg not much bigger than a football and it is entirely logical that God would call juvenile representatives (like teenagers) to the ark. Also, aquatic animals and insects were not represenented on the ark, insects survived on floating mats of vegetation. The labor time required for the animals is also not as great as you might imagine, use of the rainwater (which there was no shortage of) in long troughs, and simple self-cleaning cages, make the care of the animals quite within the powers of the 8 people aboard the ark. All this has been calculated by John Woodmorappe in his published study ‘Noah’s Ark, a feasibility study’ but if you don’t want to get this, check out this link, which covers some more of your questions:

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3027/

writersu

timsinclair wrote:

Why are you here? You said that the subject doesn't interest you. If you are here to try and get me to spit venom by insulting me then you have failed. You say your comments make me look ridiculous, hmmm well I hope you are proud. However, most of us are not here to ridicule eachother. Again, if you have nothing but insults and ridicule, please find somewhere else to vent your venom, go in peace.

God Bless

K, sweetpotato; don't know you so this is not directed at you; it is merely something I am noticing lately that if someone can give me the answer to this question, I will respectfully accept it and also no challenge you

---

I truly am up front telling everyone here that I am only asking because to me this makes no sense.

I thought that liberals, and democrats (to me, I always thought that people who were Democrats and people who are liberals both share this same quality) were those things for the following reasons.......

1) they felt that the conservatives and (perhaps) the Republicans were tight asses (my word--not yours), bigots, close minded, etc. and they wanted the views they shared among their own selves heard so that is why they are who they are
2) they were all about peace and love, tolerance in the differences that make us different and felt that the opposing mentioned above in #1 were the more aggressive group who wanted almost a dictatorship to have their own beliefs taken to the masses of people regardless of those people's views and ideas on them
3) were all for the different and the few; the gay people, those oppressed by pro-life groups, religion, government, etc and wanted to peacefully change this world by asking that we merely open our minds to the thoughts that we may find unfamilar.

so here is the question because you see I have made my point here on what I consider to be the origin of those who are unique (although I feel I am unique---my point is to ask this.....).......

why when a conservative person speaks of God that they believe in, or the morals they believe----even if it is done softly---do they badger the person? where is the love, cool to be different thing then?

again, I am NOT accusing any of you.......I am just asking if you ever have noticed this behavior at all among this subject.....

anyone care to enlighten me??

timsinclair

COLLIN wrote:

The Big Bang theory has lots of things worked out, or so it seems. There are, however, things we know very very little about. The early universe is one of them. We're nowhere near answering the questions concerning the beginning of the universe, or whether there was a beginning.

If there is one thing that the ‘Big Bang’ theory is clear about it is that the universe had a beginning. You can see this certainty in nearly all definitions of the ‘Big Bang’, whether Evolutionist:

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

Or a bit more balanced:

http://library.thinkquest.org/28327/html/universe/cosmology/big_bang.html

COLLIN wrote:

The evidence you have offered has been discussed here (you have links with the evidence, I gave links that refuted and disproved that ID evidence). The evidence ID has offered has been discussed by scientists as well. [/COLLIN]

We have only touched on the evidence because you have stuck to your defence of naturalism. I don’t see any point arguing about the evidence if you are operating within a philosophy that explicitly rejects any evidence for design before we even begin. If you were to concede that, at least in principle, scientific evidence could support the concept of design, then we could discuss the evidence.

COLLIN wrote:

I did not refuse to watch expelled because I was afraid it would shake my beliefs system. I didn't watch it because Ben Stein showed that he was dishonest.

I think this is a poor excuse. I think Dawkins is prone to lying, and I gave you an example of this. Nevertheless I have read his books, I even watched his new documentary about Darwinism on TV last night. This is on top of a lifetime of Evolutionist indoctrination through the countless wildlife documentaries I have keenly watched in my life. Even if you despise pro-ID figures, refusing to read their books, or watch their documentaries does not give you a balanced view. I know you have said that you will read an ID book, maybe we should continue then. You have also said that you have watched some ID films, can I ask which ones?

Keiran

timsinclair wrote:

Hi. These are good questions but surely it is not very wise to believe that, since your sunday school teacher did not have the answers, they do not exist. I have already adressed these questions in an earlier post. I will repost below:

Hi,
Thanks for thinking that our questions are good. But surely, dismissing what other people think and believe as not wise because it disagrees with your thoughts is, well, not wise. I thank you once again for re-addressing these questions that you were benevolent enough to answer earlier by reposting another babel filled wall of text.

Condescending enough for you yet??????

writersu

Keiran wrote:

timsinclair wrote:

Hi. These are good questions but surely it is not very wise to believe that, since your sunday school teacher did not have the answers, they do not exist. I have already adressed these questions in an earlier post. I will repost below:

Hi,
Thanks for thinking that our questions are good. But surely, dismissing what other people think and believe as not wise because it disagrees with your thoughts is, well, not wise. I thank you once again for re-addressing these questions that you were benevolent enough to answer earlier by reposting another babel filled wall of text.

Condescending enough for you yet??????

I know we have already covered this, and you are not asking me these questions, so sorry to jump in here,..........but please remember that the truth of faith is not to be condescending....

where's the love, people?

Keiran

Great question writersu -

Where there is arrogance, haughtiness and self righteousness - there is no room for love.

It is this voice and attitude, when used, that repulses both non believers and those of us trying to have faith.

Cosmo

timsinclair wrote:

Hi. These are good questions but surely it is not very wise to believe that, since your sunday school teacher did not have the answers, they do not exist. I have already adressed these questions in an earlier post. I will repost below:


First of all, some of the Flood story involves God's direct intervention, which is unverifiable, the most significant of these aspects is God's control of the animals, the text says that God brought them to the ark and shut the door when they were all inside. He may well have also prevented them from attacking one another and quite possibly caused many to hibernate once on board, which would cut down food requirements and labour time quite significantly.

However, many aspects of the flood story are verifiable, such as the size of the Ark and the geological evidence of the flood etc. It is important to note that the ark was not a ship, it did not have to cut through the water, just float, so it would have a been a rectangular box, which is extremely stable and has much more room than a ship.

You may have heard the accepted theory that the continents were originally one land mass. well you probably didn't realise that was first proposed by a creationist, because it is implied in genesis. This means that none of the animals had to travel accross the oceans to get to the Ark. In the creationist model known as 'catastrophic plate tectonics', the supercontinent broke up during, and in the immediate aftermath of the flood. The idea that animals evolved in isolation on the continents is untrue. Many believe that Marsupials evolved in isolation in Australasia but marsupial opposums are found in the Americas and marsupial fossils are found on all continents, its just that they have survived in Australia and become extinct elsewhere.

Both creationist and evolutionist models therefore require that, over time, animals have been able to cross between the continents, either over land bridges, floating on mats of vegetation, or even aboard human vessels. Regarding species with specialist diets, this is a result of a thinning out of the gene pool as speciation has occurred. According to the Bible, God created distinct ‘kinds’, which have diversified into what we now call ‘species’ and ‘sub species’, ‘kind’ is therefore somewhere between ‘genus’ and ‘species’ but we cannot define it precisely because we were not there. One way of knowing which species came from an original ‘kind’ is whether or not they can reproduce. Lions and Tigers, for example, can produce Ligers, and Zebras and Donkeys can produce Zeedonks. This shows that they are from the same ‘kind’ since genesis says that animals reproduce ‘after their own kind’.

Subsequently, the amount of species required on the ark is much smaller than the amount of species and sub-species we have today and also those ancestors represented on the ark would have been much less specialized. To illustrate this, we all know that Great Danes and chiwawas are descendants of an original wolf/dog kind, by selective breeding we have been able to produce this variety in a very short time, however this has meant that modern species have lost their genetic variability, meaning that a chiwawa breeder could selectively breed his chiwawas with all his evolutionary fervour for infinite generations but he will NEVER get great danes again, the genetic potential simply isn’t there. The original kinds had the capacity to adapt to different situations, but this capacity is lost over time as the gene pool is thinned out by speciation.

Now, if we calculate the amount of ‘kinds’ needed to get todays animal kingdom, we find that they would only take up about half of the space on the ark, which would leave plenty of room for exercise areas. Although some of the fossils of T’rex’s and sauropods etc. are HUGE, these are fully grown adults that took a very log time to reach this size. All dinosaurs came from an egg not much bigger than a football and it is entirely logical that God would call juvenile representatives (like teenagers) to the ark. Also, aquatic animals and insects were not represenented on the ark, insects survived on floating mats of vegetation. The labor time required for the animals is also not as great as you might imagine, use of the rainwater (which there was no shortage of) in long troughs, and simple self-cleaning cages, make the care of the animals quite within the powers of the 8 people aboard the ark. All this has been calculated by John Woodmorappe in his published study ‘Noah’s Ark, a feasibility study’ but if you don’t want to get this, check out this link, which covers some more of your questions:

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3027/

...
Work restrictions do not allow the downloading of files past the firewall...
If you are talking about the Pangean Super Continent... that break up was some 150 Million Years Ago. The formation of the Himalayas was about 30 Million Years Ago... and the earliest known Neanderthals appearing about 200,000 years ago. This would mean that Noah and the Ark occurred sometime in the middle Jurrassic Period... when Dinosaurs were the dominant creatures. This could explain how Kangaroos got from the Middle East to Austrailia... if kangaroos even existed 150 Million Years Ao.
And regarding the teen-aged T.Rex... what happened to them after the flood? And if the Great Flood was the cause of the mass extinction of the Dinosaurs.. that means Noah and his descendents survived the the catosthrophic event that occurred 65 Million Years Ago.
From the explanations that I was able get to at the website you referenced... it sounds more like someone trying to justify events that occur in a Natural Environment to fit the constraints of a story created by Man. It wasn't all that long ago when Man used to say that the Sun was drawn accross the sky by a chariot and the Earth was the center of the Solar System in order to fit religious constraints... until science proved otherwise.
The case provided... Great Danes, Chihuahuas being descendents of the first canine... it's called, Natural Selection. This is so a species can survive in different environments. Where a Chihuahua may have evolved to survive by eating the only available food source in the region... rodents in burrows. a Great Dane would surely perish. It is one of Darwin's main premises.
...
Do you at least acknowledge where the confusion sets in?

grazman

timsinclair wrote:

The labor time required for the animals is also not as great as you might imagine, use of the rainwater (which there was no shortage of) in long troughs, and simple self-cleaning cages, make the care of the animals quite within the powers of the 8 people aboard the ark. All this has been calculated by John Woodmorappe in his published study ‘Noah’s Ark, a feasibility study’ but if you don’t want to get this, check out this link, which covers some more of your questions:

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3027/

RAOFL!!!! Simple self cleaning cages RAOLF!!! TimBO...your the best!

Cosmo

writersu wrote:

Hey Tim,........and all who read this........

I will admit that you got me stumped; it seems that your big words and points you make get me lost.........(just more reason for me to once again take up reading something other than hope repair magazines and gardening mags as well.........) but since you are a fellow believer, I will say that your post inspired me to write this response.......

Could we be fair if we were to say that the same God we believe to be the ruler of this universe, is also the God that is responsible for our brains and so also our great advances in medicine, science, and that perhaps (like was already stated here) there is something to evolution that is tied into Him as well. The free will comes in to play when we say that we have messed up a lot of things, but that is not to credit nor discredit Him in any way.........we were given that and for us believers, we believe that either the factual story or the analogy (to be open minded and fair here; to say that I don't know if ALL THAT WAS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE IS TRUE either),that when Adam and Eve-- either as people or as an analogy (as I have stated already), were in the garden, we made a statement that in order to gain the knowledge we craved, we said we did not want to obey God and instead the apple that was to give us the knowledge God had, was eaten. We chose to give that up. And although I too have joked that Adam and Eve screwed things up for us big time, I too may have been the same in that garden.

And isn't it funny that we still say that those who believe are somehow more naive than those who do not; as if to say that the intelligent ones are the ones who have to figure everything out and the rest of us are naive.

And my proof in our lack of actual ability, whether believer or non believer, to truly do things on our own is that why are we still always so tired, so stressed, so disconnected, so depressed, so useless, so hopeless.....etc. when we have so many things in our lives that are suppose to make our lives easier............
I don't need to convince any one here to believe; I respect all of you. But just like George Carlin use to go on about in his stand up routines, we are so the way he said............

where have we truly advanced? personnally anyway.......

just a thought............

what do you think?

...
Darwin's theory attempts to explain the origin of Species (through scientific method)... not the Origin of Life.
For all we know... God created Life and Life evolved as Darwin explains. Since the God creating Life part cannot pass scientific methodology, it falls into the realm of Faith. Maybe Faith and Knowledge are products of Life as a human.
Instead of arguing which is right and who is wrong... maybe we should just simply see that Faith and Knowledge are incompatible and leave it at that.
..
As you stated... a personal choice.

catefrances

Cosmo wrote:

...
I agree... Like sharks that rely on their sense of smell to locate prey (the eyes are needed to scan a wide expanse of open ocean). Some reptiles and amphibians have moved their eyes to the top of the head because they are 'ambush' type predators, but they still focus on their prey using binocular vision.
All of this has transformed over the millions of years of evolution as different species sought survival in the wild.
And even us humans... we have remnants of a tail. If all species were created in tact... why does a human being (who walks upright) need a tail?

oh cosmo.. you know we needed that prehensile tail so we could swing from the trees.

writersu

Keiran wrote:

Great question writersu -

Where there is arrogance, haughtiness and self righteousness - there is no room for love.

It is this voice and attitude, when used, that repulses both non believers and those of us trying to have faith.

yeah, really. and if the self rightous zealots who desire to spread the word so that we can win more people to God, go around bashing everyone else then why in the world would anyone at all want to be a believer. If we are so peaceful, then if we showed (not told) others our peace; peace in even the most difficult of times, then maybe someone might think we were on to something.

otherwise,given the tendency that we all can have to ridicule and belittle others, we are no better off than anyone else. where is our light of the world? right?