Theists: Why do you love God?

[chi pan]

then i guess we agree reverendjeremiah except for the part where you think the flood didn't happen of course

[ElDinero]

So where did all the various breeds of these animals come from then, genius?

where did the poodle come from? the same process applies here.

You absolutely cannot be serious. So from two cats were bred all the hundreds of species of cats that exist, in all their various shapes and sizes, spread across the globe and adapted to their surroundings (consider the different needs of snow leopards and lions, for example)? Can you really say you believe that with a straight face? It's becoming less and less surprising that you probably can, because you've demonstrated that you don't have the first idea about how anything works.

So in answer to my question about how polar bears got onto the ark in the first place (which you ignored, as ever), are you saying they didn't exist before the flood? That some other kind of bear got on the ark and then polars were bred afterwards and TAKEN to the arctic? Or maybe that regular bears were dropped into the middle of the arctic afterwards and bred into polars from there? How does it work in your stupid, ignorant little fantasy world?

[Ace Otana]

then i guess we agree reverendjeremiah except for the part where you think the flood didn't happen of course

The flood never happened.
I want to list some of the problems with the whole story.

1. The boat would never float because it'll be too big, wooden ships built at 355 ft were weak and suffered structural failer. The idea of one being at 450 ft is simply a disastrous idea.
2. Two of each animal would mean inbreeding which causes genetic disorders, fatal for the species. The very attempt to save the species would be futile.
3. Noah only had 7 days to build a 450ft ship (that cannot float) before the flood arrives. Also he has to gather the animals up which is also impossible, since most would rip him to shreds and they are far away.
4. The ship at 450ft would have to survive many days of rough water and being at it's size and weight would prove fatal.

Thing is, people who invented this story didn't know about the size limits of ships, nor did they know about genetics, nor were they aware of animals living in the Americas or Australia or Antarctica. Which is why Koalas among many other animals were never mentioned. People back then (like you) didn't know.

[downbeatplumb]

Noah didnt do a very good job with gathering the 'kinds' he seems to have forgotten to pack any dinosaurs despite them being found over the entire earth including the poles. he didnt save the ammonites the trilobites or any armoured fish not to mention the very early types of life for which nothing remotely similar lives today.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn61...ealed.html

[chi pan]

You absolutely cannot be serious. So from two cats were bred all the hundreds of species of cats that exist

and this is more rediculous than 1 or a few cells bred all the millions if not billions of organisms?

Can you really say you believe that with a straight face? It's becoming less and less surprising that you probably can, because you've demonstrated that you don't have the first idea about how anything works.

yes, cuz it's clearly impossible for any animal to change over time. right?

So in answer to my question about how polar bears got onto the ark in the first place (which you ignored, as ever), are you saying they didn't exist before the flood?

well it's possible that they did not exist at the time. it could be that polar bears migrated to artic regions and adapted to their surroundings. i don't know for certain but that could be it. also fun fact, did you know that they have found giant clam shells on mount everest? how do you explain that?

Ace Otana
1. if the hull is big and supported enough, it won't break.
2. it was a very different time back then and for all you know inbreading could have been possible without creating genetic disorders
3. Noah had help from his sons. it was also theorised that due to the fact that there was water encircling the earth, there were ideal conditions for all animals and humans to live longer and grow bigger. so they theorise that everyone was a giant back then as compared to today. the reason for this is that the water would block radiation from the sun and create more atmospheric pressure. and no, Noah did not have to gather them, God did that for him.
4. the site i provided stated that some Korean scientists did some math and calculated that it would be possible and such a boat could stand waves that are 98 feet high. do you claim to know more than them?
http://sciencesplat.com/NoahsArk.html

[ElDinero]

You absolutely cannot be serious. So from two cats were bred all the hundreds of species of cats that exist

and this is more rediculous than 1 or a few cells bred all the millions if not billions of organisms?

Ok, time to show that you can manage the slightest bit of reasoning yourself. I want you to do this on your own and tell me how evolution differs from your idiotic idea (apart from the fact that one is proven to have happened, and the other one is a story in a shit little book). This will require you to actually give it some thought, so you might want to get your helper to give you a hand. When you're ready, you tell me what the differences are.

In the meantime, here are some more questions for you:

If polar bears developed afterwards (by the way, fossil and DNA records age the polar bear at around 130,000 to 150,000 years old), how did they get there? Swim? Were they dropped off? Was it brown bears that were dropped off and then over 6000 years they evolved into polar bears (which we know would be impossibly fast for this kind of change to occur)? If it was brown bears, how do you think the first ones survived when they were not suited to that climate, and when their brown coats would have made them extremely conspicuous and therefore made the job of hunting much harder?

I've noticed a theme, that every time you provide an answer, it just raises further questions. That's because your ideas are ill-thought out and absurd.

---

well it's possible that they did not exist at the time. it could be that polar bears migrated to artic regions and adapted to their surroundings. i don't know for certain but that could be it. also fun fact, did you know that they have found giant clam shells on mount everest? how do you explain that?

Again, I want you to answer the question yourself. You strike me as someone who never checks, thinks about or examines evidence as long as it supports something you already believe. Because the answer to this question can be found by searching on Google for 'giant clams mount everest' extremely easily.

The internet has a lot of the information you're asking for, so instead of trotting out your lazy, inept arguments and then sticking your chest out and thinking you've scored a point, why don't you go and read a book (not the Bible) or a couple of websites and maybe you won't come across as such an idiot.

If you really struggle with finding the answer I will explain it to you.

[Shell B]

This guy is just saying the first things that pop into his head. This thought vomit is rediculous [sic].

Chipan,

1. You are illogical.
2. You cannot spell.
3. You do not read the evidence against you.
4. You admitted to not reading the very sources you quote.

I really think you need to rethink your position here. Perhaps you should talk to the more level theists here and get a grasp of what you are defending. I mean this in a nice way, though I am sure you will ignore it, coming from an atheist and all. It is just that you are never, ever going to gain anything from a conversation here or change anyone's mind with what you have brought to the table.

[chi pan]

I want you to do this on your own and tell me how evolution differs from your idiotic idea (apart from the fact that one is proven to have happened, and the other one is a story in a shit little book).

the difference is a lot and i mean A LOT more change in a longer period of time. the difference is all those animals can interbreed. dogs developing to different, more diverse dogs is actually supported by the theory of evolution.

If polar bears developed afterwards (by the way, fossil and DNA records age the polar bear at around 130,000 to 150,000 years old), how did they get there?

i don't consider the dating methods accurate. i've seen textbooks that say "the fossils date the rocks" and that say "the rocks date the fossils." one even said "the rocks date the fossils but the fossils date the rocks more accurately." i've seen a rational explination from those who dated new rocks and got dates of millions of years in the dating. their explination was "due to the the fact that the halflife of potassium 40 is fairly long, it cannot accurately date rocks that are younger than 6000 years old because that is not enough time for patissium 40 to accumulate" what does that mean for your theories?

Again, I want you to answer the question yourself. You strike me as someone who never checks, thinks about or examines evidence as long as it supports something you already believe. Because the answer to this question can be found by searching on Google for 'giant clams mount everest' extremely easily.

ya b/c i didn't do any research. i didn't provide any sources and put them up. sure....

[ElDinero]

i don't consider the dating methods accurate. i've seen textbooks that say "the fossils date the rocks" and that say "the rocks date the fossils." one even said "the rocks date the fossils but the fossils date the rocks more accurately." i've seen a rational explination from those who dated new rocks and got dates of millions of years in the dating. their explination was "due to the the fact that the halflife of potassium 40 is fairly long, it cannot accurately date rocks that are younger than 6000 years old because that is not enough time for patissium 40 to accumulate" what does that mean for your theories?

That you don't understand them, or refuse to acknowledge them because they are inconvenient for you. And that you don't understand where one method of dating ends and another begins. Hidden in there is a half truth somewhere, because potassium-argon dating is best used on older rocks (older than you even think the world is, because you're a numbskull), but what that has to do with DNA and fossil evidence I have no idea. Your distrust of the methods flies in the face of decades of scientific research by the greatest names in those fields, and the evidence is readily available and their results can be recreated. It is perfectly obvious now that you are suffering from cognitive dissonance (look it up). You're ignoring the evidence because you've already made up your mind and if something contradicts what you already believe, you claim it to be unreliable.

By the way, you have to be a special kind of stupid to spell the same word two completely different ways in the same sentence. 'Patissium'? How do you even tie your fucking shoelaces?

I noticed you dodged all my questions about your 6000 year old polar bears, by the way. Doing a smashing job of proving that you ignore things you don't have answers for or that force you to do even the slightest bit of thinking. You are without a doubt the stupidest person who has ever posted on these forums, and I think it's important that you realise it.

ya b/c i didn't do any research. i didn't provide any sources and put them up. sure....

Then how do you not know the answer to your question? The answer to it is so easy to find, and I've told you how to find it. So again: You tell me. How did clam shells get into tall mountains?

[chi pan]

That you don't understand them, or refuse to acknowledge them because they are inconvenient for you.

how the hell do you know what i understand? i understand how halflife works. i understand how radioactive isotopes decay over time and it's at a constant rate. don't tell me what i don't understand.

Hidden in there is a half truth somewhere, because potassium-argon dating is best used on older rocks (older than you even think the world is, because you're a numbskull), but what that has to do with DNA and fossil evidence I have no idea.

ok you didn't catch it so i'll spell it out for you. if the earth is 6000 years old, this form of dating cannot be accurate b/c there won't be a single rock old enough for it to get an accurate date on it.