Can Christianity explain how animals are so locationally diverse

[Erinome]

So is the bible the infallible word of god, Drich? Or is it just some slapped together piece of garbage written by ignorant men who didn't have the foresight to see how open to interpretations it is? Or was it translated incorrectly? If you'd looked into it deeply and objectively, there is no way you'd believe any of that crap.

You, Drich, are the most condescending theist I've ever met (binary wise). You've no basis for it because anyone with a quarter of a brain can read your posts and know that you don't really think things through. Jesus was a Jew. His book was the Old Testament. You discard the OT when it's convenient to your own argument, and then reference it as if it's the living word of god and absolutely true. I've seen you defend it.

So, Drich's answer is:

The flood shit was in the old testament which is Judaism, ergo, NO, Christianity can't explain anything about the locational diversity of species.

Somebody bring the smelling salts, I'm gonna faint from shock.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Can Christianity (IE young earth creationists) explain something as complex as biological diversity?

Oh indeedly doodly YES! Of course the explanation (god-did-it) is wrong,but they've never been swayed by anything as silly as evidence and reason.

[Drich]

[quote='Minimalist' pid='308612' dateline='1341962454']
There is no geological evidence that Australia was flooded to the tops of its mountain tops any more than anywhere else on the earth.

It is a fucking stupid story that Jewish morons stole from the Sumerians and then xtian morons stole it from them.
[/quote]

How would we know what 'geological evidence' would look like for a 'world wide' flood? what we look for now is material moved from point A to point B, (Things that once resided on High ground, but were moved to low) The typical wash out or river over flow is not consistent with the description of how the earth was flooded. How do we know the evidence we are looking for is not what we are looking at? Because if it was truly a planet wide flood all of the data we have would have been influenced by this event. thereby altering all of the base line evidence

---

[quote='aleialoura' pid='308615' dateline='1341962924']
[quote]So is the bible the infallible word of god, Drich?[/quote]
Yes

[quote]Or is it just some slapped together piece of garbage written by ignorant men who didn't have the foresight to see how open to interpretations it is?[/quote]

[quote]Or was it translated incorrectly?[/quote]Are you limited to only one language? Is english the only thing you can read or write? Have you never taken one foeign language class? If you have then you should know the difference between a literal translation, and a contextual one. Literal translation is a work that is taken and recorded as close to the orginal as possiable. For when you go from one language to another things are litterally lost in the act of translating. Because not every language has words to describe what all other languages have. Syntax is another issue (The order in which a simple sentence is constructed.) Even so a litteral translation (Like all of the bibles you all seem to only know and quote from) takes all of these things into account and rewrites God's word into something you can read. God's orginal work does not change, only your translation does. That is why the people who want to know the truth of God's word spend decades studying the orginal script.

[quote] If you'd looked into it deeply and objectively, there is no way you'd believe any of that crap. [/quote] are you new here?

[quote]You, Drich, are the most condescending theist I've ever met (binary wise).[/quote]My work simply reflects the timber and effort of your own works. (this is me doing unto you) If you do not like what you see try a different approach.

[quote]You've no basis for it because anyone with a quarter of a brain can read your posts and know that you don't really think things through.[/quote]I intentionally leave things 'open' to inspire dialog. The bit above for example. As i am not allowed to preach I must find otherways to get people like you to ask for explaination, giving me oppertunities to teach things like how your translation came about. So that you can understand the God's word is infalliable, but if you only know it in english then you have never seen 'God's word.'

[quote] Jesus was a Jew. His book was the Old Testament. You discard the OT when it's convenient to your own argument, and then reference it as if it's the living word of god and absolutely true. I've seen you defend it.[/quote]You have mis identified my effort here I did not disregaurd anything. I simply corrected a misidentification of the account of noah's ark. I spent 20 pages when I first came here answering questions on Noah's ark. I amnot discarding anything by any means.

[quote]So, Drich's answer is:

The flood shit was in the old testament which is Judaism, ergo, NO, Christianity can't explain anything about the locational diversity of species. [/quote]
Actually no. I simply pointed out a misreading/understanding of the OT and provided a glimps of another possiablity of what could have happened if said reading was accurate.

[The Grand Nudger]

A global flood would not alter our "baseline evidence" a single bit. Consider for a moment that a "global flood" of ice (which is much more immediately destructive than liquid water btw) happened more than once, and we are able to determine that, in addition to the situation on the ground before, between, and after. Not only are you woefully incorrect, you're looking to create an unfalsifiable proposition, so you don't get to invoke science. Try again.

We're still left with nothing but you belief in a fairy tale, no explanations. In truth you didn't even attempt an explanation. I understand, you have to create a gap, manufacture a mystery, so that you might hide your god there. "We cannot know this, ergo god", well, aside from that being complete garbage, make sure we "cannot know this" before you decide to go down that route. Speaking of, if "we cannot know this" then how the hell do you know a flood happened in the first place? If you want to create a gap understand that you cannot then fill that gap with whatever you wish, it's your gap ffs.

[Thor]

How would we know what 'geological evidence' would look like for a 'world wide' flood?

Good question! Why don't you ask a geologist? I'm sure a geologist could tell you what sort of evidence would indicate that the world was flooded within the past 5,000 years.

The simplest evidence against a flood (other than the dispersion of animals across the globe) is that the Egyptian pyramids existed at the time this flood supposedly took place. And there is no evidence that these pyramids were ever under water.

Flood story - FAIL!

[Polaris]

The Flood? Though you'd have better luck with asking them how can they explain why two squirrels living on opposite sides of a canyon became two separate species.

[Minimalist]

How would we know what 'geological evidence' would look like for a 'world wide' flood?

You clearly wouldn't. Geologists would. That's why they are more reliable than you.

Get it?

[pgrimes15]

Noah ran a bus-like service with his ark after the flood. He took them where ever they wanted to go. Duh...

I have heard this used by Xtians as an explanation of, for instance, marsupials in Australia but nowhere else. Noah sailed around dropping animals off to their respective homelands.

Regards

Grimesy

[Thor]

I have heard this used by Xtians as an explanation of, for instance, marsupials in Australia but nowhere else. Noah sailed around dropping animals off to their respective homelands.

I love it when Creatards make up shit to explain what is an obvious problem for their beliefs, then they look at you with a stupid smile as if you're the one who's insane.

[Colanth]

What makes you think Australia was inhabbited during the flood?

The word that translates into 'earth' in the english mean the known world or whole inhabited earth.

Actually the best translation into English is "world". (You DO read and understand Hebrew, right?)

Your claim sounds like the claim of some Hebrew-illiterate Christians who claim that "yom", Hebrew for the period from one sunset to the following sunset, as used in the Bible to describe how long it took God to create everything, actually refers to time periods that are longer than a day. Or the Christian claim that "Shabbat", the day God tells us to keep holy, can be some other day, like Sunday. (Shabbat is the name of the day that comes before Sunday, it's not a linguistic equivalent of "the day of rest".) You, and Christianity as a whole, acts as if no one else actually understands Hebrew.

If Wicked man or 'Men of great renoun' (The actual target of the flood) had not made it to Australia then why should it be flooded?

Because your Bible says "all the land", not "all the land in which there were wicked people" or "all the known world". (Do you actually think that the creator of the whole universe didn't know that he had created Australia? The entire planet would have been his "known world". Your only out is that the Bible isn't his word, it's the word of some men who wrote it, with no "godly" inspiration.)

If I remember correctly from my years of indoctrination as a creationist, the "theory" is that there were "ice bridges" that conveniently connected all the continents long enough for the animals to get to them.

Kinda like the 'ice bridge' that allowed man to walk from asia to North America and later become Inuit and Native americans??

No such thing existed. Berigia was dry land, not ice.

"Ice bridge in my theory

Theory? What theory? An assertion isn't a theory. If you have a "flood theory" please post it - along with all the scientific evidence you have. (The Bible isn't evidence of anything more than that some men wrote some words.)

Noah's Ark has nothing to do with the day to day of Christianity. It is OT Judism.

So is the prohibition against homosexuality (if you misread the OT). So I guess you'll drop your objection to that.

And there's nothing in the NT against abortion either. (Or in the OT - it's just a civil tort - against the husband - there.)

BTW, you DO know that the current OT is actually a compilation of four different books, maintained by four different peoples, and only became a single Bible during the Babylonian Captivity, right? (Which is why we have 2 different tales of Genesis, and the compromise that Adam brought Isaac before God but didn't kill him.)