Spirituality
07 Mar 12
09 Mar 12
Originally posted by humyYour the pro then and I won't agrue. So if not that way then God made it happen in his way.
I am a fully qualified horticulturist among other things. Also some knowledge in basic botany.
Seeds of most species of plants will not float on water and if all the land was truly flooded, we would not see many species of plants that we see today because they would have been made extinct virtually instantly they were flooded. Many modern plant species are ada ...[text shortened]... with that) or such things as Fittonia, ginger and live flax pot plants were put on Noah's Ark!
But one of many things to think about is the amount of debris those flood waetrs would have caused and the plantlife and seeds that no dobt were floating on that massive amount of debris.
09 Mar 12
If one slowly and clearly reads the account of the flood in Genesis one will notice a couple things. Noah was told to take by 2's and 7's all types of animals on the earth with him.
No where did God tell him to take any plants. But common sense would tell us he did as food for all of them. But God did not tell them to take plants in order to preserve them like he did that animal life.
Also God said he was going to wipe off the face of the earth all breathing living creatures that had "flesh" and that has the breath of life in it. No where does it mention plantlife.
So if this were the only way plantlife were to survive, God would have told Noah to bring all the types of plants, tree's, etc he could onto the ark to ensure their survival also. But he didn't.
Also if there had been no plantlife all the animals after exiting the ark would have starved.
PLUS remember the olive leaf the dove found when it returned to the ark????????? Obviously it survived the flood.
So to say nothing could have survived that flood is incorrect.
09 Mar 12
Originally posted by galveston75“...Could be but the God's power and will can preserve life and make anything possible. ...”
Could be but the God's power and will can preserve life and make anything possible.
Also seeds can be captured and replaced by animal droppings.
that would have to include the biologically impossible possible in this case. I suppose you can always cheat and get out of the difficulty of the physical/biological evidence showing that the religious stories don't add up by just saying 'God' just made it happen anyway by using supernatural magic.
That is the problem of having a belief in a supernatural thing; it has the fatal flaw of it not being possible to disprove in the strict sense (i.e. it is not falsifiable) even though it is certainly false because you can always just dismiss the evidence against it by implying that, because it is supernatural, it doesn't have to make rational sense thus it doesn't have to be consistent with the evidence -impossible stupid fictitious magic will always come to the rescue.
“...seeds can be captured and replaced by animal droppings. ..”
most species of plant seed cannot tolerate the digestive track of animals including most of the flood-sensitive species.
09 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by humySorry your life is void of having a wonderfull God that has created everything you see, including you, and is capable of anything he wants to happen including your birth which would be impossible without the life he put into you while you were concieved.
“...Could be but the God's power and will can preserve life and make anything possible. ...”
that would have to include the biologically impossible possible in this case. I suppose you can always cheat and get out of the difficulty of the physical/biological evidence showing that the religious stories don't add up by just saying 'God' just made it happen any not tolerate the digestive track of animals including most of the flood-sensitive species.
No life at all can begin unless he wills it.
09 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75So now you change your story and say the plants were also put on the ark. Did that include live Fittonia, ginger and live flax plants?
If one slowly and clearly reads the account of the flood in Genesis one will notice a couple things. Noah was told to take by 2's and 7's all types of animals on the earth with him.
No where did God tell him to take any plants. But common sense would tell us he did as food for all of them. But God did not tell them to take plants in order to preserve ly it survived the flood.
So to say nothing could have survived that flood is incorrect.
What about some of the desert species of shrubs and even certain trees that cannot tolerate flood? And the many species of lichen that cannot survive submerging in water for days at a time some of which only exist in Antarctica? -how did he get hold of them? Absurd.
09 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75“...No life at all can begin unless he wills it. ...”
Sorry your life is void of having a wonderfull God that has created everything you see, including you, and is capable of anything he wants to happen including your birth which would be impossible without the life he put into you while you were concieved.
No life at all can begin unless he wills it.
so when a cell divides into two or two humans reproduce, 'God' needs to will it?
That is not supported by the biological evidence.
unless you are talking about abiogenesis in which case we have scientific evidence of ways it could have happened that don't involve stupid superstition.
09 Mar 12
Originally posted by humyNot the growing process. I didn't say that. I said he starts the life process.
“...No life at all can begin unless he wills it. ...”
so when a cell divides into two or two humans reproduce, 'God' needs to will it?
That is not supported by the biological evidence.
unless you are talking about abiogenesis in which case we have scientific evidence of ways it could have happened that don't involve stupid superstition.
Originally posted by PenguinWhat the Holy Bible says:
I've been waiting for someone to mention this for ages!
Some time ago, someone was talking about the flood and rainbow and I asked whether light behaved differently back then. The response was that light always behaved the same but there was no rain.
So I will ask you the same question I asked way back then. Rain is a consequence of evaporation and con bsolutely superb! Evangelical Christians are not the only nutters, by a long way.</edit>
While as yet no rain had ever fallen, God provided the water which was needed for plant life. “But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground” (Genesis 2:6).
There is some discussion over this word ‘mist’ (‘ed). It could mean a mist or a fog, as some contend. The Septuagint used the Greek word pege, which means ‘spring.’ Some have understood the Hebrew word as being derived from a Sumerian word, referring to subterranean waters. It may be that springs flowed out of the ground and that vegetation was perhaps watered by irrigation or channels. This could even explain, in part, the work of Adam in keeping the garden.
http://bible.org/seriespage/meaning-man-his-duty-and-his-delight-genesis-126-31-24-25
Also mist is composed of ground water, not rain water.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_a_mist_and_a_drizzle
Neither I nor the Holy Bible said there was no evaporation and condensation or
that plants and animals were different before the flood than today. I said God
had not made it rain before the flood and everything was watered by a mist
coming up from the ground.
P.S. Today a rainbow can be faintly produced in fog. But apparently before the
flood there was a firmament with water above it that may have had some effect
upon the suns rays that diffused them so no rainbow was produced.
http://www.kjvbible.org/firmament.html
10 Mar 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritI am glad you can at least find something humorous about it because you
this is what happens when you start taking a book of mythologies literally... you find yourself defending more and more absurd positions. it's both sad and funny at the same time.
numbnuts can't tell the difference between books of mythologies and the
Word of Truth. May God have mercy on your soul.
10 Mar 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe question was, do you believe it didn't rain on Earth until the flood?
The Bible is not a scientific text book, its a record of humanity. I believe, according to
the Bible, that prior to the flood there was a 'canopy' of moisture which surrounded the
earth and provided moisture for things to grow, but dont quote me on it for i have not
studied it in any great depth.
10 Mar 12
Originally posted by galveston75But why are you do you have a problem with my theory that God simply replanted the earth? Once you believe in miracles, why not just accept them wholesale? I always find it so weird that theists always try to justify the ark, and all the obvious problems surrounding the story of Noah by trying to find ways to make it all physically possible and rational, when it is so obviously not the case. Why not just accept the miracle and move on? Why try to reconcile two totally incompatible concepts?
Also if there had been no plantlife all the animals after exiting the ark would have starved.
10 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm not saying that God didn't do this in a miraculous way. He may have, but the Bible doesn't say one way other the other so we don't know how it was done. So all we can do is use our imaginations and that's all that's being discussed. But the bottom line that's being argued here is that some are saying it was impossible but we know it did and that's that.
But why are you do you have a problem with my theory that God simply replanted the earth? Once you believe in miracles, why not just accept them wholesale? I always find it so weird that theists always try to justify the ark, and all the obvious problems surrounding the story of Noah by trying to find ways to make it all physically possible and rational, ...[text shortened]... not just accept the miracle and move on? Why try to reconcile two totally incompatible concepts?
10 Mar 12
Originally posted by galveston75“...But the bottom line that's being argued here is that some are saying it was impossible ...”
I'm not saying that God didn't do this in a miraculous way. He may have, but the Bible doesn't say one way other the other so we don't know how it was done. So all we can do is use our imaginations and that's all that's being discussed. But the bottom line that's being argued here is that some are saying it was impossible but we know it did and that's that.
it is impossible unless, of course, there exists the absurdity of true 'miracles' which, without being pedantic about it, are absurd by definition.