# The Ark



## drippin' rock (Jul 5, 2013)

Speaking of science, there is an estimated 7.77 million animal species that exist right now, with a pretty heavy number predicted to be undiscovered.   How did two of each come from all over the world to hitch a ride? 

The logistics seem impossible.  Is there an answer?


----------



## vowell462 (Jul 5, 2013)

Every time I have asked this question, Im usually answered by it not being exact. That maybe it was only the animals known to exist in "their" world at the time. Still it seems impossible to me. Ive heard all types of things. Including one person saying on this forum ( cant recall who) say that the ark is on Mt Ararat. Im interested to see some answers as well.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 5, 2013)

Two of each? THAT is an almost impossible number and that was just for the UNCLEAN animals. Now add in SEVEN of each of the CLEAN animals and that could mean SEVEN PAIRS!!! Fourteen of each!
But do not let these figures worry you. And never mind that every single one of these animals would have had to make the journey from their places of origin to get on the Ark and do not let the fact that certain animals eat certain food ONLY available in their original habitat ( Koala bears and Eucalyptus leaves for example) and please do not let the sheer amount of excrement that the animals would produce daily would work the 8 people to death just cleaning it up. There are LOGICAL examples that some of us will be accused of not seeing and we have certainly overlooked available EVIDENCE that is clearly seen that can lead to only ONE possible conclusion.
God did it!
NEXT!!!!!!


----------



## bullethead (Jul 5, 2013)

Do not let your mind wonder and think: What if they did all fit and what if they did all make the journey, but what would happen if all the carnivores and predators (Once set free to go back to their home lands) got hungry and ate just one male or female from the Unclean animals...? There has GOT to be Logic and EVIDENCE, unclear to non believers, as to why immediate extinction of the species would not occur.
Uh Ohhh
I am feeling something..
Is it???
Nope!
Oh my goodness yes it is!!!
GOD DID IT!!!!


----------



## bullethead (Jul 5, 2013)

Going camping for the weekend. I'll pop back on Monday. I am sure this will be a good thread.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Do not let your mind wonder and think: What if they did all fit and what if they did all make the journey, but what would happen if all the carnivores and predators (Once set free to go back to their home lands) got hungry and ate just one male or female from the Unclean animals...? There has GOT to be Logic and EVIDENCE, unclear to non believers, as to why immediate extinction of the species would not occur.
> Uh Ohhh
> I am feeling something..
> Is it???
> ...



Once again, you have the correct answer.

Once you believe that God created all those animals, it's an easy matter to believe the management of the ark was no big deal........  But explain it?  You gotta be kidding me.
.


----------



## pnome (Jul 5, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> Speaking of science, there is an estimated 7.77 million animal species that exist right now, with a pretty heavy number predicted to be undiscovered.   How did two of each come from all over the world to hitch a ride?
> 
> The logistics seem impossible.  Is there an answer?



Not difficult if the Ark was actually a TARDIS


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 6, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> Speaking of science, there is an estimated 7.77 million animal species that exist right now, with a pretty heavy number predicted to be undiscovered.   How did two of each come from all over the world to hitch a ride?
> 
> The logistics seem impossible.  Is there an answer?



Honestly.  I have no idea.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jul 6, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> Speaking of science, there is an estimated 7.77 million animal species that exist right now, with a pretty heavy number predicted to be undiscovered.   How did two of each come from all over the world to hitch a ride?
> 
> The logistics seem impossible.  Is there an answer?





bullethead said:


> Two of each? THAT is an almost impossible number and that was just for the UNCLEAN animals. Now add in SEVEN of each of the CLEAN animals and that could mean SEVEN PAIRS!!! Fourteen of each!
> But do not let these figures worry you. And never mind that every single one of these animals would have had to make the journey from their places of origin to get on the Ark and do not let the fact that certain animals eat certain food ONLY available in their original habitat ( Koala bears and Eucalyptus leaves for example) and please do not let the sheer amount of excrement that the animals would produce daily would work the 8 people to death just cleaning it up. There are LOGICAL examples that some of us will be accused of not seeing and we have certainly overlooked available EVIDENCE that is clearly seen that can lead to only ONE possible conclusion.
> God did it!
> NEXT!!!!!!


This one's easy. Humdaddy pointed it out to us in the Political forum. Aliens used a Kitchenaid Monkey Mixer to create humans, so they must also have a nifty little appliance for mixing other critters to make new ones and come up with that 7.7 million that exist now days. 

Surely it isn't possible that there weren't near that many species way back then. I mean, y'all do believe in evolution don't you? If you believed in Creationism then that would mean you would have to subscribe to Humdaddy's theory, because to believe in a Diety figure would be the stuff of fairy tales and magic, right?

There, I think that about covers all of the bases.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 6, 2013)

I have no idea either and have often wondered how it happened. I don't think it is wrong for me to do this. 
What about the fish and marine animals were they on the Ark? Salt water would kill the fresh water marine life and fresh water would kill the salt water marine life. What about the trees & plants? All the various diets of all the animals? There would have to be a "center for disease control" on the Ark. Some of the animals would have to be host to all the necessary parasites and viruses. Special carrier animals(provided by God) to carry sickle cell anemia, meningitus, & AIDS without dieing.
Then we've got the question of how all the animals got back to their respective homes.
Just as the rainbow serves a religious and a scientific purpose perhaps the Ark does to.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 6, 2013)

I'm not saying the Ark story didn't happen but it's purpose or analogy was to show that Jesus is our Ark of Salvation.

There were a couple of animals Noah didn't want to take, the woodpecker and the termite.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 6, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> I have no idea either and have often wondered how it happened. I don't think it is wrong for me to do this.
> What about the fish and marine animals were they on the Ark? Salt water would kill the fresh water marine life and fresh water would kill the salt water marine life. What about the trees & plants? All the various diets of all the animals? There would have to be a "center for disease control" on the Ark. Some of the animals would have to be host to all the necessary parasites and viruses. Special carrier animals(provided by God) to carry sickle cell anemia, meningitus, & AIDS without dieing.
> Then we've got the question of how all the animals got back to their respective homes.
> Just as the rainbow serves a religious and a scientific purpose perhaps the Ark does to.



That's what I like to see.  Someone asking the right questions.


----------



## hummdaddy (Jul 6, 2013)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> This one's easy. Humdaddy pointed it out to us in the Political forum. Aliens used a Kitchenaid Monkey Mixer to create humans, so they must also have a nifty little appliance for mixing other critters to make new ones and come up with that 7.7 million that exist now days.
> 
> Surely it isn't possible that there weren't near that many species way back then. I mean, y'all do believe in evolution don't you? If you believed in Creationism then that would mean you would have to subscribe to Humdaddy's theory, because to believe in a Diety figure would be the stuff of fairy tales and magic, right?
> 
> There, I think that about covers all of the bases.



HUMMDADDY'S THEORY 
original god =energy(mother nature cartoon character)
evolution
aliens made us from bonobo or chimp dna mixed with their own possibly

you figure we just figured out test tube babies a few years back ,we make babies in pastry dishes now,and cloning...how advanced do you think aliens are...


----------



## fish hawk (Jul 7, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> you figure we just figured out test tube babies a few years back ,we make babies in pastry dishes now,and cloning...how advanced do you think aliens are...



Don't you mean petri dishes?A pastry dish is something totally different!!!


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2013)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> This one's easy. Humdaddy pointed it out to us in the Political forum. Aliens used a Kitchenaid Monkey Mixer to create humans, so they must also have a nifty little appliance for mixing other critters to make new ones and come up with that 7.7 million that exist now days.
> 
> Surely it isn't possible that there weren't near that many species way back then. I mean, y'all do believe in evolution don't you? If you believed in Creationism then that would mean you would have to subscribe to Humdaddy's theory, because to believe in a Diety figure would be the stuff of fairy tales and magic, right?
> 
> There, I think that about covers all of the bases.



Back then....?
So how many species has sprung up in the 5000 years since the big flood?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 9, 2013)

When you have such a micro view on evolution as that then there's no wonder it's so unbelievable.


----------



## Mars (Jul 9, 2013)

I have a possible solution to this. When the world wide flood occurred, did it flood the world as we know it or the world known to Noah. Its possible that only that region of the world was flooded which would explain how he had room for all the animals in his world and animals not native to the area were spared. Just a thought.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jul 9, 2013)

That Theory is what I have believed for some time. The flood story was a natural regional happening that was pasted orally over generations. The valley that flooded was Noah's whole world.  They had no global awareness. 

The problem arises when we try to claim everything in the bible is literal.  You are then forced to fall back on the 'God can do anything, who are you to question him' argument.  The 'we cannot understand the actions of God' argument is lame.


----------



## Mars (Jul 9, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> That Theory is what I have believed for some time. The flood story was a natural regional happening that was pasted orally over generations. The valley that flooded was Noah's whole world.  They had no global awareness.
> 
> The problem arises when we try to claim everything in the bible is literal.  You are then forced to fall back on the 'God can do anything, who are you to question him' argument.  The 'we cannot understand the actions of God' argument is lame.



This assumes the modern translation is correct. Translation is key in understanding historical documents.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 9, 2013)

So it's better to say it wasn't translated appropriately?

Let's say it was local. Is it that crazy that a man built a boat, put some animals and his family on it and survived a bad storm and flood for a month? No... The worldwide one is a much better tale than a local flood....


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 9, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> The 'we cannot understand the actions of God' argument is lame.



Why?  Based on what grounds?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 9, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So it's better to say it wasn't translated appropriately?
> 
> Let's say it was local. Is it that crazy that a man built a boat, put some animals and his family on it and survived a bad storm and flood for a month? No... The worldwide one is a much better tale than a local flood....



FWIW I take it as literal.  If it was a local flood why didn't God just tell him to move.  It took what?, 40 years to built the Ark.  He could have moved a long way away in 40 years.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 9, 2013)

Mars said:


> This assumes the modern translation is correct. Translation is key in understanding historical documents.



You gotta figure that the translation is correct.  You can then either chose to believe it or not, but I don't think it a stretch to say most scholars accept todays Bible as an accurate translation of the original manuscripts, with a few exceptions, the JWs version being one of them.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 9, 2013)

So now we are in the game of taking the bible literally? How do you know what to take literally and what not to?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 9, 2013)

Mars said:


> I have a possible solution to this. When the world wide flood occurred, did it flood the world as we know it or the world known to Noah. Its possible that only that region of the world was flooded which would explain how he had room for all the animals in his world and animals not native to the area were spared. Just a thought.



That is a very possible scenario. But if that scenario is true then the Bible is false.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 9, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You gotta figure that the translation is correct.  You can then either chose to believe it or not, but I don't think it a stretch to say most scholars accept todays Bible as an accurate translation of the original manuscripts, with a few exceptions, the JWs version being one of them.



Actually you have to sift through the evidence and see if that translation happened at all before you assume it is also correct. Just figuring it happened and figuring the translation is correct is doing yourself an injustice.

The evidence does not back up a worldwide flood.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 9, 2013)

triplexbullies said:


> so now we are in the game of taking the bible literally? How do you know what to take literally and what not to?



x2!


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jul 9, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So now we are in the game of taking the bible literally? How do you know what to take literally and what not to?



I take it literally unless it is clearly a metaphor or allegory.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 10, 2013)

Clearly is a relative word here. Jesus rose from the dead. I could say clearly not literal... especially since born again is also clearly not literal. All of the animals on the planet, CLEARLY NOT LITERAL.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 12, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm not saying the Ark story didn't happen but it's purpose or analogy was to show that Jesus is our Ark of Salvation.
> 
> There were a couple of animals Noah didn't want to take, the woodpecker and the termite.



Ark = Old Testament
Jesus = New testament

Are you telling us the Ark story was written down a thousand years before Jesus and the purpose of the story was to show that Jesus is our Ark of salvation?

Did you ever hear about the Epic of Gilgamesh?


----------



## mtnwoman (Jul 13, 2013)

Perhaps it was all embryos provided by God. That could also explain why certain 'embryos' were not aboard, like dinosaurs, etc.  Where did they go anyway?


----------



## JFS (Jul 13, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> Once you believe that God created all those animals, it's an easy matter to believe the management of the ark was no big deal...



Seems like it would have been easier to just recreate them after the flood.  In fact, why use a flood anyway?  Would have thought an omnipotent god could get the end result without the need for hijacking weather.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 13, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> The 'we cannot understand the actions of God' argument is lame.



So if a God exists, he must be totally comprehensible to your (in comparison) limited intelligence?

Sounds lame to me.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 13, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> So if a God exists, he must be totally comprehensible to your (in comparison) limited intelligence?
> 
> Sounds lame to me.



Then why try to comprehend the incomprehensible?


----------



## Theodore981 (Jul 14, 2013)

Folks continue to ignore that the majority of what is written in the Bible is symbolism.  Genesis...Revelation...etc........all symbolysm.  Very little, if any at all, is literal.
Ark -yeah, right.
Adam and Eve - with their inbred grandchildren - yeah, right.
Seven 24 hour days for the creation, by a dude that can't even spread his word, without a compiled and translated foreign language - who expects us all to believe what some chump predecessor may have said - yeah, right.
All creatures of the Earth put on a hand-made wooden boat?  Yeah, right.
6,000 years of the Earth and habitation that we know? Yeah, right.

What...ever.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 14, 2013)

Whether literal or symbolic, The Ark is a picture of the coming day. The flood was God's judgement against man who had become one with the falling angels. God destroyed them to start a new creation from Noah's line. The present day judgement "is reserved for fire" with Sodom as an example to purify the world of those who have become one with the false Christ. To create a new world, the Kingdom of God, modeled after God's original plan for man. The Ark  is where we get the idea of a rapture. Paul's use of "caught up" is the same as Gen 7:17, "lifted up". The Ark was the means of protecting from the coming wrath. Same with the rapture.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> Whether literal or symbolic, The Ark is a picture of the coming day. The flood was God's judgement against man who had become one with the falling angels. God destroyed them to start a new creation from Noah's line. The present day judgement "is reserved for fire" with Sodom as an example to purify the world of those who have become one with the false Christ. To create a new world, the Kingdom of God, modeled after God's original plan for man. The Ark  is where we get the idea of a rapture. Paul's use of "caught up" is the same as Gen 7:17, "lifted up". The Ark was the means of protecting from the coming wrath. Same with the rapture.



That is a good take on it, but your take on it. I can use scripture to literally and or symbolically describe any past or future World Series games. Everything written or said can be linked to anything in someone's mind or way of reasoning. The only thing keeping what you have said from being 100% accurate is God himself coming down here and telling us THAT is exactly what is meant by those words. Then again that is THE missing link in every religious discussion.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 14, 2013)

bullethead said:


> That is a good take on it, but your take on it. I can use scripture to literally and or symbolically describe any past or future World Series games. Everything written or said can be linked to anything in someone's mind or way of reasoning. The only thing keeping what you have said from being 100% accurate is God himself coming down here and telling us THAT is exactly what is meant by those words. Then again that is THE missing link in every religious discussion.


Agreed, did you have a good time camping? Misquito's bad?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> Agreed, did you have a good time camping? Misquito's bad?



Camping last weekend was terrific.  Seemed like a 10 degree drop in temps when we took the chairs down to the river and sat with our feet in the water. Bugs were not bad, but the termacell goes along just in case.
This weekend was vehicle maintenance. 
Thanks for asking.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 14, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Then why try to comprehend the incomprehensible?



I said _totally_ comprehensible. 
He has revealed himself to us, in ways our limited minds can comprehend.
The definition of a higher being in itself excludes us from knowing all of its actions


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> I said _totally_ comprehensible.
> He has revealed himself to us, in ways our limited minds can comprehend.
> The definition of a higher being in itself excludes us from knowing all of its actions



I am capable of more comprehension than what he has revealed. Let him know.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Jul 14, 2013)

JFS said:


> Seems like it would have been easier to just recreate them after the flood.  In fact, why use a flood anyway?  Would have thought an omnipotent god could get the end result without the need for hijacking weather.




I've always thought that myself.  Why not just whip up a fresh batch of animals if you're all-powerful?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2013)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> I've always thought that myself.  Why not just whip up a fresh batch of animals if you're all-powerful?



And, why a flood at all?
God was mad at the Angels and man. Snap a finger and they all go away...or just the "bad" ones go away. Instead he slowly drowns everything but the what is on the Ark.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Jul 14, 2013)

bullethead said:


> And, why a flood at all?
> God was mad at the Angels and man. Snap a finger and they all go away...or just the "bad" ones go away. Instead he slowly drowns everything but the what is on the Ark.



Why was he mad at the animals? You darn kids get off my lawn!

Why would God be mad the angels and man anyway? Did they throw a party while he was out of town or something?  If he's all knowing and all that, he obviously knew what they were fixin' to do, so why be mad about it?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jul 14, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Back then....?
> So how many species has sprung up in the 5000 years since the big flood?



If new species have sprung up then that would imply evolution, which wouldn't mesh with The Bible. 

Maybe people just weren't that good at math when the ark story was written. Or, they only knew about common animals in the area at the time, like camels, goats, etc. I'm sure they didn't think about polar bears, kangaroos, wolverines, etc. 

Thus the story sure seems to have been concocted by humans for humans in that particular part of the world.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jul 14, 2013)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> Why was he mad at the animals? You darn kids get off my lawn!
> 
> Why would God be mad the angels and man anyway? Did they throw a party while he was out of town or something?  If he's all knowing and all that, he obviously knew what they were fixin' to do, so why be mad about it?



Because they didn't clean up before he got home.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 15, 2013)

This thread is hilarious.

"God didn't do it my way, so He's not real!"


----------



## 660griz (Jul 15, 2013)

Duh...Shrink ray.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 15, 2013)

Theodore981 said:


> Folks continue to ignore that the majority of what is written in the Bible is symbolism.  Genesis...Revelation...etc........all symbolysm.  Very little, if any at all, is literal.
> Ark -yeah, right.
> Adam and Eve - with their inbred grandchildren - yeah, right.
> Seven 24 hour days for the creation, by a dude that can't even spread his word, without a compiled and translated foreign language - who expects us all to believe what some chump predecessor may have said - yeah, right.
> ...



What is your point?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 15, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> Whether literal or symbolic, The Ark is a picture of the coming day. The flood was God's judgement against man who had become one with the falling angels. God destroyed them to start a new creation from Noah's line. The present day judgement "is reserved for fire" with Sodom as an example to purify the world of those who have become one with the false Christ. To create a new world, the Kingdom of God, modeled after God's original plan for man. The Ark  is where we get the idea of a rapture. Paul's use of "caught up" is the same as Gen 7:17, "lifted up". The Ark was the means of protecting from the coming wrath. Same with the rapture.




This guy's got it all figured out.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 15, 2013)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> Why was he mad at the animals? You darn kids get off my lawn!
> 
> Why would God be mad the angels and man anyway? Did they throw a party while he was out of town or something?  If he's all knowing and all that, he obviously knew what they were fixin' to do, so why be mad about it?



He's easily angered.. God is love.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 15, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> This thread is hilarious.
> 
> "God didn't do it my way, so He's not real!"



That is the message that comes out. I can see that. And your saying that is no different than any childish remark anyone else here says to belittle your god. You're close, but not quite. God didn't do it in any number of ways that would show power. He didn't do it any number of ways that would be logical, based on half the "miracle" stories in the bible. So we get one more huge inconsistency that makes no sense. If you want to ignore it, because the bible tells you to do that too, that's fine.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 15, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> That is the message that comes out. I can see that. And your saying that is no different than any childish remark anyone else here says to belittle your god. You're close, but not quite. God didn't do it in any number of ways that would show power. He didn't do it any number of ways that would be logical, based on half the "miracle" stories in the bible. So we get one more huge inconsistency that makes no sense. If you want to ignore it, because the bible tells you to do that too, that's fine.



Verse please.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 15, 2013)

I assumed that the pastors and leaders in the churches I went to were doing god's work based on the bible... and I heard them to say stop thinking so much and to just have faith when something made no logical sense. I stopped memorizing bible verses a long time ago, so you'd probably know verses that referred to that kind of stuff better than me. You can provide them if you do and tell me how I misunderstood their good message.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 15, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I assumed that the pastors and leaders in the churches I went to were doing god's work based on the bible... and I heard them to say stop thinking so much and to just have faith when something made no logical sense. I stopped memorizing bible verses a long time ago, so you'd probably know verses that referred to that kind of stuff better than me. You can provide them if you do and tell me how I misunderstood their good message.



Having faith, and overlooking "inconsistencies"/logic is nowhere to be found in the bible, so I can't point you to a verse.

Faith is based on logic,reason and consistencies.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 15, 2013)

That must be why I have none in the bible. If the bible had all of that, you wouldn't need faith...


----------



## swampstalker24 (Jul 15, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Having faith, and overlooking "inconsistencies"/logic is nowhere to be found in the bible, so I can't point you to a verse.
> 
> Faith is based on logic,reason and consistencies.





Really?  I though faith is what a person must have in the absence of logic, reason, and consistencies?


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 15, 2013)

swampstalker24 said:


> Really?  I though faith is what a person must have in the absence of logic, reason, and consistencies?



From a Christian perspective:



> *Hebrews 11:1* Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible



Suspension of reason and logic is not required.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jul 15, 2013)

I hope for a Sasquatch although I have never seen a Sasquatch, they must exist because I have faith in the reality of Sasquatch?


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 15, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> I hope for a Sasquatch although I have never seen a Sasquatch, they must exist because I have faith in the reality of Sasquatch?



Who's arguing that faith is the reason God exists?


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 15, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> From a Christian perspective:
> 
> 
> 
> Suspension of reason and logic is not required.



Give me the reason and logic behind belief in a resurrection.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jul 15, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Who's arguing that faith is the reason God exists?





> Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see



Just trying to wrap my head around the logic here.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jul 15, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> From a Christian perspective:
> 
> 
> 
> Suspension of reason and logic is not required.



I am continually baffled by the use of the terms 'logic' and 'reason' in regards to faith.  



> Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.



My only thought on the above verse is, "NO."


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jul 15, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> I hope for a Sasquatch although I have never seen a Sasquatch, they must exist because I have faith in the reality of Sasquatch?



Yep, they exist just like Hummer's aliens that are able to come here and mix up all kinds of DNA and such.

Yep.. I am sure the are real. Not.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 15, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Give me the reason and logic behind belief in a resurrection.



That which creates life should have the ability to restore life, in doing so, proves it is that which creates life.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 15, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> Just trying to wrap my head around the logic here.



A poster defined faith as the suspension of reason and logic. I proved it was not that at all.  Reason and logic can aid or disprove faith, yes, but the suspension of logic is not required for faith.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jul 15, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> I am continually baffled by the use of the terms 'logic' and 'reason' in regards to faith.
> 
> 
> 
> My only thought on the above verse is, "NO."





JB0704 said:


> A poster defined faith as the suspension of reason and logic. I proved it was not that at all.  Reason and logic can aid or disprove faith, yes, but the suspension of Auchincloss is not required for faith.


To be fair, would you agree that what you proved was the Christian's version of the definition of the word faith? And that the confusion comes in when someone uses the actual dictionary definition of the word faith? Some examples -
2.  Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence
2.  belief that is not based on proof
So yes faith is the suspension of reason and logic. And no its not. All depends on if you get word definitions from a dictionary or a bible. Agree?


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 15, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> So yes faith is the suspension of reason and logic. And no its not. All depends on if you get word definitions from a dictionary or a bible. Agree?



I can agree to that.  In the context I use it, and most posters on here, we will usually refer to the Hebrews definition....as I generally see logic in the system, but the premise must be taken on faith.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 15, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> That which creates life should have the ability to restore life



Not necessarily.  That logic doesn't follow and neither does this:



JB0704 said:


> , in doing so, proves it is that which creates life.



Poseidon could only manipulate water.  Zeus had thunderbolts but couldn't control the sea. 

Why would you believe that anybody could resurrect?  That's the meat.  Don't dance now......


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Jul 16, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> That which creates life should have the ability to restore life, in doing so, proves it is that which creates life.



OK, sound enough, if you're a believer, but not anywhere close to good enough for me.  It is only logical if you believe that God created life.

Give us some evidence that God created life not relying on "faith" or a book written by men.

All these arguments return to either you believe or you don't.

I don't.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 16, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Why would you believe that anybody could resurrect?  That's the meat.  Don't dance now......



Because I believe somebody can create life.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 16, 2013)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> OK, sound enough, if you're a believer, but not anywhere close to good enough for me.  It is only logical if you believe that God created life.



Yes.



Dr. Strangelove said:


> Give us some evidence that God created life not relying on "faith" or a book written by men.
> 
> All these arguments return to either you believe or you don't.
> 
> I don't.



I never said that the logic is the same for you and me, only that my faith does not require me to suspend logic.

If we want to step back, from here, to the beginning, then we have to reach a conclusion on origins which neither you or I can answer with 100% certainty.  It is that conclusion which we use to move forward to the present with.

Me:

In the beginning, was there anything?

No.  Because the alternative is infinite everything, that makes less sense to me.  We can discuss the laws of thermodynamics, but then we have to consider why those laws exist?  What force or motivation is there for energy to exist to be neither created nor destroyed?

How did everything get here?

If it wasn't here, then it must have been created, as something doesn't come from nothing.  If there was nothing, how does something exist to create something from nothing?  Our boundaries are physical, and our reality is within those boundaries.  Our something exists within those boundaries..... "IF" something created everything from nothing, that something must be outside the boundaries which something currently exists within......otherwise, it also would have been nothing, and there never would be something.

Something outside the boundaries of the physical, which can create something physical, is either intelligent, or lucky.

^^^^^I have faith it is intelligent, as the universe seems incredibly complex to be the consequence of a lucky, supernatural force.  Much life the carving on Stone Mountain could be the work of water and wind.....but, it ain't.  A good example is universal laws.....why do they exist?  It could have been just as likely for energy to not exist, or be destroyable.  Gravity.....why does it do what it does?  Because it can?  How can it?  Why does the mathmatical certainty, which dictates that gravity must exist, exist in the first place?  Couldn't the universe have been a bunch of space particles floating around for trillions of years, and do nothing?  But, instead, we have all these wonderful circumstances, laws, elements, colliding together in such a way to create everything around us.  But, without a design, there is no reason for it to be that way, or even exist to start with.

So....with logic, I have faith that there exists a supernatural force within the universe which has created existence.  I can keep walking forward to the present, but I think I put a few up on a tee for you guys, and we can bat it around a while, then move on.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 16, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> That which creates life should have the ability to restore life, in doing so, proves it is that which creates life.



Prove the resurrection and I'll believe that it would indicate it is that which could create life. It doesn't prove that it creates life.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 16, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 Great post JB.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 16, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Prove the resurrection and I'll believe that it would indicate it is that which could create life. It doesn't prove that it creates life.



No, but it stands to reason that a force which can create life can also resurect it.....as it animated matter in the beginning.  Not an illogical conclusion if such a force exists.

It all goes back to an individual's logical conclusion of origins.  I have clarified mine in an earlier post.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 16, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Great post JB.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 16, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> No, but it stands to reason that a force which can create life can also resurect it.....as it animated matter in the beginning.  Not an illogical conclusion if such a force exists.
> 
> It all goes back to an individual's logical conclusion of origins.  I have clarified mine in an earlier post.



I would agree that if you know that it created life, it can resurrect it. But you were using the resurrection as proof of what created it - the other way around.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 16, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Great post JB.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 16, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> No, but it stands to reason that a force which can create life can also resurect it.....as it animated matter in the beginning.  Not an illogical conclusion if such a force exists.
> 
> It all goes back to an individual's logical conclusion of origins.  I have clarified mine in an earlier post.



There's alot of assumptions that you make about this beings super powers.  And honestly, admit that your source for how you came to understand these powers was the Bible.  In the same way that  American Indians get their knowledge of their god's super powers from their mythology. 

What I'm getting at is that it's one thing to theorize a god and another thing to theorize what its super powers are.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 16, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> There's alot of assumptions that you make about this beings super powers.  And honestly, admit that your source for how you came to understand these powers was the Bible.  In the same way that  American Indians get their knowledge of their god's super powers from their mythology.



The specifics, yes, the Bible.  The "concept," no, logic.



ambush80 said:


> What I'm getting at is that it's one thing to theorize a god and another thing to theorize what its super powers are.



Ambush.......I believe that life is evidence of a creator.  If life is evidence of a creator, than I must believe the creator has power over life.  If a creator has power over life, then a resurection is within the realm of possibilities.

So, if I believe "God" to be the giver of life, then, "God" as I believe in him, will be that which gives life.  One thing which seperates Christianity from other faiths is that.....a resurection.  

The "faith" aspect comes in when I either believe or don't believe in the resurection story.  That story comes from the Bible.  

I have said it repeatedly on this forum, but God is a logical conclusion, Christianity comes by faith.  But, that faith is supported by the conclusion as to whether or not God exists.  Life.....if a God dun it, then God can do it again.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 16, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I would agree that if you know that it created life, it can resurrect it. But you were using the resurrection as proof of what created it - the other way around.



No, I was saying why I thought a resurection was possible.  I only believe it to be possible because I believe "God" is defined as that which created everything....including life.  Under those circumstances, a resurection would not only be possible, but also proof of such existence.

As stated to Ambush, the resurection story is believed on faith.  However, if I were to believe in God as the giver of life, then Christianity would be a logical faith because it contains a resurection.  Ravi Zacharias wrote a book on this subject, a good read if you are interested.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> The specifics, yes, the Bible.  The "concept," no, logic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All these beliefs. All these examples of design supposedly pointing to a designer. All this talk of a giver of life re-animating life......
It is awesome except there is ONE thing that is missing from it all.....The entity,deity,invisible guy etc....No matter how good all the arguments sound none of it can be taken truthfully when the main person in point is AWOL.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 16, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


>



Oh......if Asath were hanging around more often these days, you guys'd be handing 'em out too.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> No matter how good all the arguments sound none of it can be taken truthfully when the main person in point is AWOL.



He's not, if I am correct.  Life is your evidence.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> All these beliefs. All these examples of design supposedly pointing to a designer. All this talk of a giver of life re-animating life......
> It is awesome except there is ONE thing that is missing from it all.....The entity,deity,invisible guy etc....No matter how good all the arguments sound none of it can be taken truthfully when the main person in point is AWOL.



And we're back to "God's not real because I can't see Him"

Dark matter isn't visible either, yet you believe it exist because of your strict devotion to scientism. God and dark matter are both conclusions based on evidence that we can see.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 16, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Oh......if Asath were hanging around more often these days, you guys'd be handing 'em out too.



That was a joke...  

Asath sure can compose... but I don't agree with everything he says.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 16, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> The specifics, yes, the Bible.  The "concept," no, logic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



While I don't agree with you, you do a good, respectful job of presenting your argument with logic that I can follow. You, my friend, follow your 1 Peter 3:15!


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 16, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> While I don't agree with you, you do a good, respectful job of presenting your argument with logic that I can follow. You, my friend, follow your 1 Peter 3:15!



Thank you, sir!


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> And we're back to "God's not real because I can't see Him"
> 
> Dark matter isn't visible either, yet you believe it exist because of your strict devotion to scientism. God and dark matter are both conclusions based on evidence that we can see.



Not even close.

Dark Matter, Gravity, Radiation......all do not claim to be some sort of superior entity that is responsible for saving us, creating us, offering us an eternity filled with peace and joy. None of them are touted as being able to mingle with humans in human like ways. Nobody is claiming them to be a god or god-like.

Your invisible buddy is not only invisible but he is hands off nowhere to be found.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> He's not, if I am correct.  Life is your evidence.



Show me how life points to the God of the Bible and not any other God.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jul 16, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> While I don't agree with you, you do a good, respectful job of presenting your argument with logic that I can follow. You, my friend, follow your 1 Peter 3:15!



I agree.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Not even close.
> 
> Dark Matter, Gravity, Radiation......all do not claim to be some sort of superior entity that is responsible for saving us, creating us, offering us an eternity filled with peace and joy. None of them are touted as being able to mingle with humans in human like ways. Nobody is claiming them to be a god or god-like.
> 
> Your invisible buddy is not only invisible but he is hands off nowhere to be found.



DM, gravity and radiation's "claims", or lack thereof, have nothing to do with them being invisible.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Show me how life points to the God of the Bible and not any other God.



Bullet, I have articulated that already in this thread, but, I do recognize that the typical response is "how do you know it's your God and not their God."  I get it.  But, the question I answered was specifically in reference to a resurection, and how I could find such a thing possible.

I have articulated my position already in this thread.  I believe life is your most basic evidence for God.  He is not AWOL.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 16, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> I agree.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 16, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> And we're back to "God's not real because I can't see Him"
> 
> Dark matter isn't visible either, yet you believe it exist because of your strict devotion to scientism. God and dark matter are both conclusions based on evidence that we can see.



DM has a theory, not exactly a "belief" like yours.

If you treated your belief like a theory, I'd say you have a much better grip on reality.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> DM, gravity and radiation's "claims", or lack thereof, have nothing to do with them being invisible.



Gravity and radiation are verifiable.
dark matter is something I can say that I Have No Idea about what it is or if it is.

Your God has thousands of claims made for him by his followers and not a single one of you, anywhere, ever has been able to give  a shred of evidence to this God. 
Pointing at a mountain stream or stars or saying the designed need a designer are all good points but they are vague points that lead to no specific god.
All the arguments and evidence could point to something, but in every case that "something" is missing. Where is your God?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> DM has a theory, not exactly a "belief" like yours.
> 
> If you treated your belief like a theory, I'd say you have a much better grip on reality.



yep


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Gravity and radiation are verifiable.
> dark matter is something I can say that I Have No Idea about what it is or if it is.
> 
> Your God has thousands of claims made for him by his followers and not a single one of you, anywhere, ever has been able to give  a shred of evidence to this God.
> ...



I disagree with a shred of evidence. I think there is a ton of evidence. It's just all circumstantial or hear say. 

My ex wife got pulled over while driving drunk and told the cop she was trying to kill herself. The police report was very clear. That document is hear say. I had to have the cop in court for it to be admissible evidence. Of course this god conversation isn't in a court of law, but there are rules for evidence in a court of law for a reason....


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I disagree with a shred of evidence. I think there is a ton of evidence. It's just all circumstantial or hear say.
> 
> My ex wife got pulled over while driving drunk and told the cop she was trying to kill herself. The police report was very clear. That document is hear say. I had to have the cop in court for it to be admissible evidence. Of course this god conversation isn't in a court of law, but there are rules for evidence in a court of law for a reason....



Let me be clear,
Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary evidence.
We are talking about the Alpha and the Omega. The Head Honcho. THE single most powerful spirit that has ever or will ever live. THE God capable of literally anything it could think of. You name it it can be done......and all we get is some circumstantial hearsay and believers non verifiable claims to back up an Entity that could clear the whole mess up in less than one second.....
Sorry. These constant claims of "evidence" is woefully inadequate for such a Big Time God.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 16, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> DM has a theory, not exactly a "belief" like yours.
> 
> If you treated your belief like a theory, I'd say you have a much better grip on reality.



Faith.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I disagree with a shred of evidence. I think there is a ton of evidence. It's just all circumstantial or hear say.
> 
> My ex wife got pulled over while driving drunk and told the cop she was trying to kill herself. The police report was very clear. That document is hear say. I had to have the cop in court for it to be admissible evidence. Of course this god conversation isn't in a court of law, but there are rules for evidence in a court of law for a reason....



I lump God evidence in with the Bigfoot Researchers evidence.

Howling is "typical" 'squatch behavior
Throwing rocks is "typical" 'squatch behavior
Smacking a stick on a tree is "typical" 'squath behavior
Peering into windows is "typical" 'squatch behavior
Shadowy figures moving through darkness is "typical" 'squatch behavior.....

But NONE of the experts have EVER seen a ''squatch or observed a 'squatch, or have done anything anywhere near a 'squatch......they base this "evidence" on what they THINK a "squatch will do based off of what they themselves would do IF they were a 'squatch. They have all the evidence of a 'squatch and Bottom line is all that is missing IS the 'SQUATCH!!!!!!!

There is no difference in here when dealing with anyone that is willing to tell anyone else about what God does or what God is capable of doing.....not one of them has ever seen God or talked to him, they are relying on other God "researchers" just like themselves to pass along information and they buy into it. But incredibly,,,,pass on the info to the next person as if it were somehow true. Still no God to show for it.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I lump God evidence in with the Bigfoot Researchers evidence.
> 
> Howling is "typical" 'squatch behavior
> Throwing rocks is "typical" 'squatch behavior
> ...


...


stringmusic said:


> And we're back to "God's not real because I can't see Him"


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> ...



That is but one little part of it string.

It is more like God is not real because God is not real.
And not being able to see a God is just one of a large variety of reasons he is not real.

If you want to worship a God, carry a lasso for a ride on a Unicorn, follow a leprechaun to his pot of gold or have a snowball fight with a Yeti go right ahead my friend, best of luck to you.
I aint gonna believe any one of them until I see it.

Now if you want to somehow defy gravity try it.
If you want to tell me Radiation does not exist I suggest you do not go near the core in a nuclear reactor or lay out on the beach too long.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Jul 16, 2013)

stringmusic said:
			
		

> And we're back to "God's not real because I can't see Him"



Of course we are, because that's where it always leads back to, as I posted earlier in this thread.

You can make all the eloquent arguments that you like, but they all lead back to faith with no little to no physical evidence.

You can believe a thing as passionately as you possibly can,  and wish it true with every fiber of your being, but that still doesn't make it true.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 16, 2013)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> You can believe a thing as passionately as you possibly can,  and wish it true with every fiber of your being, but that still doesn't make it true.


The direct opposite is just as true.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Jul 16, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> The direct opposite is just as true.



That's correct, however, I'm simply asking for tangible proof of this "God" fellow, (He? She? It? Heavenly Father, so I suppose he?) not one of the ones insisting that circular arguments and "faith" are proof of some pretty outlandish claims.

I'm not passionately arguing that God doesn't exist, I'm simply saying show me some concrete proof outside of "faith" and a book that has been re-written multiple times to suit whoever was in power at the time over the centuries.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 16, 2013)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> That's correct, however, I'm simply asking for tangible proof of this "God" fellow, (He? She? It? Heavenly Father, so I suppose he?) not one of the ones insisting that circular arguments and "faith" are proof of some pretty outlandish claims.
> 
> I'm not passionately arguing that God doesn't exist, I'm simply saying show me some concrete proof outside of "faith" and a book that has been re-written multiple times to suit whoever was in power at the time over the centuries.



You want tangible proof of an invisible Being?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 16, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> The direct opposite is just as true.



Yes, it is. I don't know that you've ever admitted as much as you just admitted with two words there "just as."    How do you feel?


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 16, 2013)

Ok........can any of you prove that inanimate matter can come to life?  When you do that, then I will disqualify life as evidence that something beyond the physical exists.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I am aware of the abiogenesis theories.....I am also aware of a creation museum.

It's funny how the bar keep moving in here,y'all say "you have to suspend logic to believe xyz..."  So, I build a logical case for God.  Then, you say "yea, but it's not your God."  So, I build a case as to why Jesus, if the story is true, should be relatively high on anybody's list of contenders, given that he resurected (again, faith they didn't make it all up).  In addition to this, I explain why it is a logical conclusion that a person who believes in God can determine that such a God can perform such a thing placing Jesus' feats within the realm of possibilities.....given the intitial conclusoin that "a" God exists (back to original logical conclusion).

Then.....back to the beginning....."show me God."


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Ok........can any of you prove that inanimate matter can come to life?  When you do that, then I will disqualify life as evidence that something beyond the physical exists.
> 
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
> 
> ...



I am not sure anyone (on here) has ever claimed that inanimate matter has come to life or that something came from nothing.
I am just as interested in seeing that happen as you are. PM me if you find someone that is onto something along those lines.

"If the story is true"..........
If a god is true.....
If any god is true......
if....
If.....
IF.......

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary bars.....
You have to put together a lot  and then at the end we hope to see this God you are telling us so much about.

Logical conclusions lead us to fictitious characters. It happens all the time. No where have we seen anything that concludes a real god.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Jul 16, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> You want tangible proof of an invisible Being?




Doesn't seem like a very tall order for one who "created the heavens and Earth".


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2013)

And, break us down to our basic composition and we are all inanimate matter or all matter is animate. The iron atom in our blood is the same as the iron atom in a rock.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2013)

wrap your minds around this

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=7356


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2013)

JB, what is life? walking , talking, able to think and make decisions, the ability to learn?
The world of robotics is full of those things


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2013)

http://www.hhmi.org/research/origins-cellular-life

This is the guy you want to check out:
http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I am not sure anyone (on here) has ever claimed that inanimate matter has come to life or that something came from nothing.



Ok.....so, you get to the end, and quit asking "why?"



bullethead said:


> I am just as interested in seeing that happen as you are. PM me if you find someone that is onto something along those lines.



Infinite everything is the ONLY other choice you have.  If everything is infinte, then this infinite everything had to animate at some point.  Life could not have survived the big bang, too fragile.



bullethead said:


> "If the story is true"..........
> If a god is true.....
> If any god is true......
> if....
> ...



Hang on, now.  Let's go back my post before that....where a "beyond the physical" OC was discussed as a logical conclusion....everything builds on that.  Let's at least be fair in our discussion.

There are two different questions all-together:

1. Is there a God?

....if yes, you can continue.....

2. Which God?

The "ifs" you reference above assume we have cleared hurdle #1.  You are jumping from #1 to #2......any conversation about God must begin with 1.  I was specifically requested to discuss a resurection, which is the ONLY reason I even got anywhere near #2....I generally avoid it in this forum because none of us agree on #1, and discussion on 2 is a waste of time.  But, I was asked, so I went there.




bullethead said:


> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary bars.....
> You have to put together a lot  and then at the end we hope to see this God you are telling us so much about.



YEs sir.  As evidence, I presented a pic of my daughter feeding seagulls on a sandy beach.  The pic was full of life....folks in the water, birds in the air, a happy little girl, and most likely all kinds of little critters buried in the sand and certainly swimming in the waves (surf fishing was absolutely insane that week).  Conclusion to question #1 leads me to believe that there MUST exist something beyond the physical to create the physical, so the life in that picture must be a result of the actions of that something....no other choice besides it always being there, and I explained why I cannot accept that.

So, I gave you a picture of life.  Extraordinary.  Cannot be created, yet it can create on it's own.  Delicate.  Complex.  Amazing.

You show me evidence that such a thing is possible without something beyond the physical involving itself, and I will reconsider my position.

And, as I said before, any abiogenesis theories will be answered with links to the creation museum......

Extraordinary evidence. Impossibly, life exists in such a harsh universe.



bullethead said:


> No where have we seen anything that concludes a real god.



And I would contend that you have, and continue to do so.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> http://www.hhmi.org/research/origins-cellular-life
> 
> This is the guy you want to check out:
> http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/



Dang Bullet.....that fella starts with a conclusion, and is working from there....from the first page:



> We hope that our explorations of the chemistry and physics behind the emergence of Darwinian evolution will lead to explanations for some of the universal properties of modern cells, as well as explanations of how modern cells arose from their simpler ancestors



"Hope."  What do you guys say to us when we offer "hope...."

As promised:

http://www.creationstudies.org/


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> And, break us down to our basic composition and we are all inanimate matter or all matter is animate. The iron atom in our blood is the same as the iron atom in a rock.



The rock doesn't feed the seagulls, then go catch a speckled trout.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Ok.....so, you get to the end, and quit asking "why?"


Get to the end of what?





JB0704 said:


> Infinite everything is the ONLY other choice you have.  If everything is infinte, then this infinite everything had to animate at some point.  Life could not have survived the big bang, too fragile.


The Big Bang could have re-created life.
All the elements were there.
There is nothing in us that is not found elsewhere in the Universe.





JB0704 said:


> Hang on, now.  Let's go back my post before that....where a "beyond the physical" OC was discussed as a logical conclusion....everything builds on that.  Let's at least be fair in our discussion.
> 
> There are two different questions all-together:
> 
> ...


Better now that I know your intentions






JB0704 said:


> YEs sir.  As evidence, I presented a pic of my daughter feeding seagulls on a sandy beach.  The pic was full of life....folks in the water, birds in the air, a happy little girl, and most likely all kinds of little critters buried in the sand and certainly swimming in the waves (surf fishing was absolutely insane that week).  Conclusion to question #1 leads me to believe that there MUST exist something beyond the physical to create the physical, so the life in that picture must be a result of the actions of that something....no other choice besides it always being there, and I explained why I cannot accept that.
> 
> So, I gave you a picture of life.  Extraordinary.  Cannot be created, yet it can create on it's own.  Delicate.  Complex.  Amazing.


I see evidence of life. Not a single thing about who or what is responsible.



JB0704 said:


> You show me evidence that such a thing is possible without something beyond the physical involving itself, and I will reconsider my position.
> 
> And, as I said before, any abiogenesis theories will be answered with links to the creation museum......


I purposely did not include abiogenesis



JB0704 said:


> Extraordinary evidence. Impossibly, life exists in such a harsh universe.


All that is, is evidence of life....which we already know exists.





JB0704 said:


> And I would contend that you have, and continue to do so.


If that was true I would not be here having these discussions.
Logic says that if I was satisfied I would not continue looking for more. I contend that No where have we seen anything that concludes a real god.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Dang Bullet.....that fella starts with a conclusion, and is working from there....from the first page:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I see trials and errors, success and progression.

With religion I see "this is the way it is" without anything else.

If you care to research the progression made in that area of science, you will see they are gaining ground.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 16, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> The rock doesn't feed the seagulls, then go catch a speckled trout.



That sort of thing would only happen in the Bible or some other religious story.

Every single element in our body is found in this Universe. It is how they are assembled that differentiates things.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Get to the end of what?



Wherever the trail leads.  In order to rule out an OC, you must conclude everything is infinite.....just always was.



bullethead said:


> The Big Bang could have re-created life.
> All the elements were there.
> There is nothing in us that is not found elsewhere in the Universe.



Yes.  My son had a birthday recently, so I let he and his buddies blow junk up in the yard.  It was awesome.  At one point, they tossed a bunch of little green army men in big pot and lit some mortar shells to blow them to smithereens.  Very cool.   Anyway, at no point did I think the little green army men would come to life......that would be ridiculous.  I understand that the big bang is much more involved than a pot, some army men, and some really cool fire crackers.  I also understnad that man intelligent people have devoted their time and efforts to understanding origins.  My point in this is to say that we would not expect a similar result in our current settings.  That is terribly familiar with the arguments against the supernatural God.

Or....God could have created life.  



bullethead said:


> Better now that I know your intentions



I am very honest in here, and I gave a very detailed response to your "if's" statement.  Not sure why you responded like this.



bullethead said:


> I see evidence of life. Not a single thing about who or what is responsible.



Interesting thing about life.....it only comes from life.




bullethead said:


> I purposely did not include abiogenesis



But you did provide links to some fella trying to prove what he already believes.



bullethead said:


> All that is, is evidence of life....which we already know exists.



.....which comes from life.




bullethead said:


> If that was true I would not be here having these discussions.
> Logic says that if I was satisfied I would not continue looking for more. I contend that No where have we seen anything that concludes a real god.



I agree with that.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I see trials and errors, success and progression.
> 
> With religion I see "this is the way it is" without anything else.
> 
> If you care to research the progression made in that area of science, you will see they are gaining ground.



I read your links.  Often, as with above, they have a conclusion before they start looking.  Same with religious folks.  WE "believe" something, so we set out to prove it.

Life is mechanical on some level, and can be disassembled and researched.  It's the putting it back together part that gets tricky.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> That sort of thing would only happen in the Bible or some other religious story.



Yes.....or the big bang theory, you said so above.



bullethead said:


> Every single element in our body is found in this Universe. It is how they are assembled that differentiates things.



Why is that?


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 16, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> YEs sir.  As evidence, I presented a pic of my daughter feeding seagulls on a sandy beach.  The pic was full of life....folks in the water, birds in the air, a happy little girl, and most likely all kinds of little critters buried in the sand and certainly swimming in the waves (surf fishing was absolutely insane that week).  Conclusion to question #1 leads me to believe that there MUST exist something beyond the physical to create the physical, so the life in that picture must be a result of the actions of that something....no other choice besides it always being there, and I explained why I cannot accept that.
> 
> So, I gave you a picture of life.  Extraordinary.  Cannot be created, yet it can create on it's own.  Delicate.  Complex.  Amazing.
> 
> ...



The fact that your picture exists at the same time as that picture of the vulture waiting for the starving child to die points to random.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 16, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> The fact that your picture exists at the same time as that picture of the vulture waiting for the starving child to die points to random.



I figured that was coming, and appreciate you not posting it directly......as I definitely left that one hanging.  

That contrast is mving into the nature of the creator, not the existence.  The problem of evil is.....problematic for a believer.  Any response we might have assumes the premise of existence.  Such responses are worthless in a discussion with somebody who has a different answer to "the great question."  I recognize that.

Without going "there," I would only ad that both pictures contain life.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I lump God evidence in with the Bigfoot Researchers evidence.
> 
> Howling is "typical" 'squatch behavior
> Throwing rocks is "typical" 'squatch behavior
> ...



But there is definitely evidence for sasquatch... It's just not convincing.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 17, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> I figured that was coming, and appreciate you not posting it directly......as I definitely left that one hanging.
> 
> That contrast is mving into the nature of the creator, not the existence.  The problem of evil is.....problematic for a believer.  Any response we might have assumes the premise of existence.  Such responses are worthless in a discussion with somebody who has a different answer to "the great question."  I recognize that.
> 
> Without going "there," I would only ad that both pictures contain life.



That's right. Some think they have insight into the 'premise of existence' because what's in a book, or a scroll or an oral tradition (which many regard as a poor sources) or because they think they alone can discern the intent if the creator because he communicates to them directly (a much, much worse source).  

Some see the situation and it leads them to believe that no one is at the wheel.

Others see the situation yet still believe in a creator but concede that they can't possibly know what he is up to; essentially the same as if he wasn't there at all.  

What is most offensive to me is people that insist that they alone know what the truth is.  If religious people everywhere would just allow themselves to admit that they might be wrong and the other guy might be right just think about how much strife would be avoided.

P.S. I keep that vulture image saved and look at it occasionally.  It reminds me of how lucky I am and how important it is that I treasure my loved ones here and now as if there were no re-do's.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 17, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Wherever the trail leads.  In order to rule out an OC, you must conclude everything is infinite.....just always was.



We have no idea what was around before the Big Bang or how long it was here. We are fairly certain that the Big Bang happened the way we think it happened but before that point we don't know anything and even after there are a lot of guesses that go into how things were formed. The majority of people that study these things all agree on certain points about how things formed like stars,planets, moons etc and none of the popular theories have anything to do with a god. It all involves atoms, molecules, intense heat, intense cold and a ton of other things to detailed to fit into here, but again...no god in the mix. Because the Bible says the stars formed one way and we know that they formed another way I am ruling out the Biblical version of everything.... especially life. If the right concoction of atoms can get together and make the sun and every other single piece of matter in the universe AND all life as we know it is made of those same elements I have no problem thinking life got here the same way.
Life happens.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 17, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> That's right. Some think they have insight into the 'premise of existence' because what's in a book, or a scroll or an oral tradition (which many regard as a poor sources) or because they think they alone can discern the intent if the creator because he communicates to them directly (a much, much worse source).
> 
> Some see the situation and it leads them to believe that no one is at the wheel.
> 
> ...



Yes.



ambush80 said:


> P.S. I keep that vulture image saved and look at it occasionally.  It reminds me of how lucky I am and how important it is that I treasure my loved ones here and now as if there were no re-do's.



Makes sense.  But personally, I can't look at it.  I'm a softy when it comes to that stuff.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 17, 2013)

bullethead said:


> We have no idea what was around before the Big Bang or how long it was here. We are fairly certain that the Big Bang happened the way we think it happened but before that point we don't know anything and even after there are a lot of guesses that go into how things were formed. The majority of people that study these things all agree on certain points about how things formed like stars,planets, moons etc and none of the popular theories have anything to do with a god. It all involves atoms, molecules, intense heat, intense cold and a ton of other things to detailed to fit into here, but again...no god in the mix. Because the Bible says the stars formed one way and we know that they formed another way I am ruling out the Biblical version of everything.... especially life. If the right concoction of atoms can get together and make the sun and every other single piece of matter in the universe AND all life as we know it is made of those same elements I have no problem thinking life got here the same way.
> Life happens.



Without chopping that paragraph up, I am just gonna say that no discovery of how the stars and planets formed have ruled out God creating them.  Such discovery could be explaining "how" God dun it.  Going back to one of my previous responses.......the natural laws which exist that mandate things happen the way they do have no reason to be here......they just are.  And, without a God, it is an incredibly fortunate circumstance for us.

As far as life goes, well, I just don't see it as happening.  Life needs life to continue.  It's like a torch passed along from one generation to the next.  Yet it exists in so many different forms here.  Trees did not evolve with animals.  They came from a different direction.  Both forms are life.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 17, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> Makes sense.  But personally, I can't look at it.  I'm a softy when it comes to that stuff.



That horrible image makes me feel alive to feel so sad they way that your picture makes me feel alive to be to be so happy. Those kinds of images make me want to treat everyone with love and respect.  It makes me feel closer to everyone; like we're on the same thin raft together.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 17, 2013)

Without being obtuse, isn't the vulture on the same thin raft as us? 
Why are we saddened by his gaining?


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 17, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Without being obtuse, isn't the vulture on the same thin raft as us?
> Why are we saddened by his gaining?



Because I'm a speciest and I'm hardwired to empathize with my kind.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jul 17, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Because I'm a speciest and I'm hardwired to empathize with my kind.


We wouldn't have to worry about vultures if Noah woulda just left them off the boat.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 17, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Because I'm a speciest and I'm hardwired to empathize with my kind.



I see you now accept intelligent design.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 17, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I see you now accept intelligent design.



No.  Intelligent design is why bananas fit just right in our hands so that we can eat them.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 18, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Those kinds of images make me want to treat everyone with love and respect.



We have a similar reaction here, but for me, the vulture picture makes me feel sad and helpless that I cannot protect the child.  I can't translate that into a positive, unfortunately.  The pictures of happy kids make me glad to know there is still innocence in the world.

I think my and your daughters are about the same age.  That is a fascinating time in life, where magic and wonder still exist......my daughter had zero fear of the seagulls eating crackers out of her hand, becuase she had no reason to fear them.  That is why the vulture picture makes me sad, angry, and helpless, becuase that child doesn't get to experience such wonder.

Another similarity is that neither you or I blame God for the vulture pic.  You don't believe in him, and I think man ahs responsibility for that child's condition.  Do I wish I could make a difference, yes.  I guess we could take that into an argument over the problem of evil......



ambush80 said:


> It makes me feel closer to everyone; like we're on the same thin raft together.



We are on the same thin raft together.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 18, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> No.


Oh, I thought being "hardwired to emathize" was your example of ID.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 18, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Oh, I thought being "hardwired to emathize" was your example of ID.



I understand those impulses evolved.....by chance.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 18, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Because I'm a speciest and I'm hardwired to empathize with my kind.



He is your kind. As is so often pointed out on this forum, we are all star stuff that was simply arranged differently. 
Stop being prejudiced.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 18, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> He is your kind. As is so often pointed out on this forum, we are all star stuff that was simply arranged differently.
> Stop being prejudiced.



It's not advantageous to my species to care as much for a vulture as I do for humans.  I do understand that the vulture serves a purpose in the food chain.  

Nothing inherently wrong with prejudice when applied correctly.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 18, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I understand those impulses evolved.....by chance.



Your faith is strong.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 18, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I do understand that the vulture serves a purpose in the food chain.



Funny how balance is achieved in nature.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 18, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Your faith is strong.



It's a moderate belief, not as strong as my belief in gravity, but certainly based on reasonable evidence.

It's not faith because there's tangible evidence.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 18, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Your faith is strong.



"The Force is strong in this one"

That is from another good fictional book


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 18, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> there's tangible evidence.



Let's hear it. Maybe you could start a thread.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 18, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Let's hear it. Maybe you could start a thread.




Do you think that god made the facets on a banana so that it would fit 'just so' in our primate hands?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 18, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> It's not advantageous to my species to care as much for a vulture as I do for humans.  I do understand that the vulture serves a purpose in the food chain.
> 
> Nothing inherently wrong with prejudice when applied correctly.



Why are you concerned with what is advantageous to your species? 
If you were truly objective, you would see that the weak, helpless child should die to better the species. No sense in passing along inferior genetic traits...


----------



## bullethead (Jul 18, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Why are you concerned with what is advantageous to your species?
> If you were truly objective, you would see that the weak, helpless child should die to better the species. No sense in passing along inferior genetic traits...



 Survival of the fittest. Natural Selection.
I think you may be on to something.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 18, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Why are you concerned with what is advantageous to your species?
> If you were truly objective, you would see that the weak, helpless child should die to better the species. No sense in passing along inferior genetic traits...



It's just empathy.  I feel it for most animals with eyelids.

He might have been strong as a bull and smarter than Dolph Lundgren but for his circumstance.  And who put him in that circumstance?   God?  Satan (god's agent)?  Or just bad luck?


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 18, 2013)

Just say that he does things that anybody in their right mind would call 'bad' but they are 'good' because he did them.

That's the poop can that you're in.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Jul 18, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Survival of the fittest. Natural Selection.
> I think you may be on to something.



Now if we can just get ambush and his pesky "feelings of empathy out of the way..." 

Nothing like emotions to ruin a good scientific viewpoint.


----------



## bigreddwon (Jul 18, 2013)

It's absolutely ridiculous to even pretend this fairy-tail ever actually happened. It did not.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 18, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Now if we can just get ambush and his pesky "feelings of empathy out of the way..."
> 
> Nothing like emotions to ruin a good scientific viewpoint.



It's pretty cool how feelings developed.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 18, 2013)

bigreddwon said:


> It's absolutely ridiculous to even pretend this fairy-tail ever actually happened. It did not.



If he can make a donkey talk, he can make them fit.


----------



## bigreddwon (Jul 18, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> If he can make a donkey talk, he can make them fit.



I guess. Makes perfect sense.


----------



## piratebob64 (Sep 25, 2013)

*umm answer this riddle then*



Mars said:


> I have a possible solution to this. When the world wide flood occurred, did it flood the world as we know it or the world known to Noah. Its possible that only that region of the world was flooded which would explain how he had room for all the animals in his world and animals not native to the area were spared. Just a thought.



How come almost every religion in the world has an oral history of a flood and an ark saving animals and people.  If this was just for Noahs little peice of the pie then other religions would not have known about it. 
If I remember the scripture right it not only rained but water sprang up from from the ground as well.


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 25, 2013)

piratebob64 said:


> How come almost every religion in the world has an oral history of a flood and an ark saving animals and people.  If this was just for Noahs little peice of the pie then other religions would not have known about it.
> If I remember the scripture right it not only rained but water sprang up from from the ground as well.



Same reason many cultures have their own version of Santa Claus?  Myths get told and retold.


----------



## piratebob64 (Sep 25, 2013)

Ahhh so Noah and the ark are like Santa claus a myth?  Am i miss understanding your words?  Maybe a life lesson to be learned ??? As in Jesus going to the desert and being tempted by Satan!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 25, 2013)

piratebob64 said:


> Ahhh so Noah and the ark are like Santa claus a myth?  Am i miss understanding your words?  Maybe a life lesson to be learned ??? As in Jesus going to the desert and being tempted by Satan!



From what I gather God made the Noah's Ark episode to show us the comparison of Baptism and Jesus saving us from sin.


----------



## piratebob64 (Sep 26, 2013)

I can see the connection in that!  One thing though using that as a guide or comaparison then should`nt you be baptised in a boat on the water and not  in the water without a boat (just saying)?


----------



## hunter rich (Sep 26, 2013)

piratebob64 said:


> I can see the connection in that!  One thing though using that as a guide or comaparison then should`nt you be baptised in a boat on the water and not  in the water without a boat (just saying)?



I think he meant that the flood = cleansing of the world and baptism=cleansing of your soul.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 26, 2013)

hunter rich said:


> I think he meant that the flood = cleansing of the world and baptism=cleansing of your soul.



And Jesus is our Ark.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 26, 2013)

So the entire bible is symbolic? It can be summed it with two words, "be good."


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 26, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> So the entire bible is symbolic? It can be summed it with two words, "be good."



And considering ET said that, we don't need the whole guy in the sky thing, either.


----------



## drippin' rock (Sep 26, 2013)

piratebob64 said:


> Ahhh so Noah and the ark are like Santa claus a myth?  Am i miss understanding your words?  Maybe a life lesson to be learned ??? As in Jesus going to the desert and being tempted by Satan!



There was no flood, there was no ark.


----------

