Global flood?

  • Thread starter Thread starter trumpet152
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Orogeny:
It means that all life, whether plant or animal, has a common ancestor. The term “kind” is not a scientific term and is meaningless in the discussion of evolution.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
But you know what i mean by it. Did plant life come from the same flesh or “kind” as the animals? Do plants and animals have a common ancestor.
 
40.png
Orogeny:
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. The “flesh” doesn’t will itself to do anything. Mutations occur all the time. Some mutations are beneficial to the extent that they allow for a higher rate of reproduction. That is how change occurs. The DNA doesn’t decide to change.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
What your saying now is that, these mutations are purly accidental. And in fact, are human bodys are just acidents that some how keep happening.
 
40.png
freesoulhope:
But you know what i mean by it. Did plant life come from the same flesh or “kind” as the animals? Do plants and animals have a common ancestor.
Click to expand...
Yes, the generally accepted form being prokaryotes of some kind.
 
40.png
freesoulhope:
What your saying now is that, these mutations are purly accidental. And in fact, are human bodys are just acidents that some how keep happening.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the word “accident” is favored, but through purely natural scientific means; yes, there is no intent on the part of the organism.
 
I get it now. We fill in the intent by philosophical debate. Meaning scientist have never really said “why” or “How” it happens, just that it does. What your saying is that science is actually only a MEANS FOR IDENTIFYING THAT SOMTHING IS OCURRING.
 
40.png
freesoulhope:
I get it now. We fill in the intent by philosophical debate. Meaning scientist have never really said “why” or “How” it happens, just that it does. What your saying is that science is actually only a MEANS FOR IDENTIFYING THAT SOMTHING IS OCURRING.
Click to expand...
I would say science answers ‘how’, and philosophy answers ‘why’; but I suppose you can believe it as you said.
 
Whats the differents between identifying inteligent design and identifying evolution? please dont tell me about fundementalism, i allready know about it, and that doesnt anwser the qeustion or face the problem.
 
40.png
buffalo:
If they are just campfire stories, they should be removed from the Bible.
Click to expand...
Ok, maybe after dinner stories…

So just how and when do you think oral traditions were passed on? Or are you saying that there is no such thing as oral tradtion and authors went from idea to “paper”?
 
40.png
freesoulhope:
What your saying now is that, these mutations are purly accidental. And in fact, are human bodys are just acidents that some how keep happening.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you mean by purely accidental.
Are there some random factors involved? Sure, but no more than in every day life.*

Consider the improbabilities of your conception. There is nothing inherently wrong with accident.

*Yes, I know that it is tautology. Of course it has to be the same randomness as everyday life. :o
 
40.png
patg:
Ok, maybe after dinner stories…

So just how and when do you think oral traditions were passed on? Or are you saying that there is no such thing as oral tradtion and authors went from idea to “paper”?
Click to expand...
Not at all. Oral traditions were very accurately and efficiently passed down.

It is very interesting that we can think we have a better understanding of the story than the story itself. patg, when we are currently trying to understand scripture one must remember, we are reading it through our current bias. The Traditional understanding must not be ignored.
 
40.png
buffalo:
Not at all. Oral traditions were very accurately and efficiently passed down.
Click to expand...
So then why shouldn’t they be in the bible?
It is very interesting that we can think we have a better understanding of the story than the story itself. patg, when we are currently trying to understand scripture one must remember, we are reading it through our current bias. The Traditional understanding must not be ignored.
Click to expand...
Well, it is quite fortunate then that we are free to believe and follow either approach - I wouldn’t want either of us to burn for eternity.

I don’t ignore traditional understanding - but I certainly apply current knowledge to traditional misunderstandings. And the bible is open to modern re-understanding whenever it mentions geology, biology, geography, math, medicine, or any other science. Denying the authors the right to teach truths using myths, allegories, and any other form of fiction is no different than denying Jesus the right to teach in parables - I don’t see anyone complaining about that!
 
40.png
patg:
So then why shouldn’t they be in the bible?

Well, it is quite fortunate then that we are free to believe and follow either approach - I wouldn’t want either of us to burn for eternity.

I don’t ignore traditional understanding - but I certainly apply current knowledge to traditional misunderstandings. And the bible is open to modern re-understanding whenever it mentions geology, biology, geography, math, medicine, or any other science. Denying the authors the right to teach truths using myths, allegories, and any other form of fiction is no different than denying Jesus the right to teach in parables - I don’t see anyone complaining about that!
Click to expand...
Only the ones God wanted are in the Bible. No more, no less.

Jesus was pretty clear that He was speaking in parables when He did so.

Too bad the Bible didn’t have a list of what is literal, allegory, etc… that God had put in there to help us. 🙂

We must be very very cautious when applying the current worldview and projecting it on Scripture so we bring it current. This approach is one of protestantism. Rather Scripture should be enlightening our current worldview.
 
. Concerning the " 1 BILLION" animals on the ark, lets assume this. there are 30000 species of birds, reptiles, and mammals on earth. If I am correct these are the only grous of animals that have the breath of life. If noah used a 2 and a half foot cubit, the ark was 600 feet long 60 feet high and 100 feet wide, this is excluding decking, walls, beams and such. 60000 animals on the top deck get 20 square feet each. Now it doesnt sound like alot, and it isn’t, but the average size of a land dwelling, air breathing, land vertibrate is the size of a house cat. The rest of the room is for food and supplies.

Just my 2 cents.
 
40.png
freesoulhope:
But you know what i mean by it. Did plant life come from the same flesh or “kind” as the animals? Do plants and animals have a common ancestor.
Click to expand...
Yes, plants and animals are all eukaryotes (their cells have a nucleus) so their common ancestor was a eukaryote of some sort, now extinct.

For more information on how things are all linked together have a look at the Tree of Life. For your homework see if you can get from the root of the tree to Homo sapiens without making any mistakes.

rossum
 
40.png
Curiouse:
. Concerning the " 1 BILLION" animals on the ark, lets assume this. there are 30000 species of birds, reptiles, and mammals on earth. If I am correct these are the only grous of animals that have the breath of life. If noah used a 2 and a half foot cubit, the ark was 600 feet long 60 feet high and 100 feet wide, this is excluding decking, walls, beams and such. 60000 animals on the top deck get 20 square feet each. Now it doesnt sound like alot, and it isn’t, but the average size of a land dwelling, air breathing, land vertibrate is the size of a house cat. The rest of the room is for food and supplies.

Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...
You forgot one small group. Insects. “From studies conducted by Terry Erwin of the Smithsonian Institution’s Department of Entomology in Latin American forest canopies, the number of living species of insects has been estimated to be 30 million.”

That is from si.edu/resource/faq/nmnh/buginfo/bugnos.htm

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
freesoulhope:
Whats the differents between identifying inteligent design and identifying evolution? please dont tell me about fundementalism, i allready know about it, and that doesnt anwser the qeustion or face the problem.
Click to expand...
Read Chapters 4 and 5 of Kenneth Miller’s “Finding Darwin’s God”. Herein, he pretty much demolishes Michael Behe’s contention that there is in nature any validity to the idea of irreducible complexity. Hence any ideas of intelligent design based on the idea of irreducible complexity are also gone. Lots of interesting discussion of evolution on the biochemical level that is accesible to the non-technical reader.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top