So basically you say God cannot exist because the Flood never happened. First off, this has never actually been proven(although I agree there are some
evidences against it), and nor has it been proven to actually happen(although there are some evidences for it). I take the Flood as a matter of faith.
Now quite honestly, one of the best arguments you had was that trees older than the Flood should not still be alive. However, God says numerous times
in the Bible that he will destroy all flesh. I believe it is possible God lent some kind of supernatural protection to the plants, and another theory
is that plants were still much closer to their perfect state(Just like the Humans back in those times appeared to live far longer)making them more
This may have not been the type of answer you were looking for, but I have no problem relying on Faith when it comes to the Flood. I could sit here
and argue with you over whether the Flood actually happened, but at the end of the day it will come down to faith for both sides of the argument
because all either of us can do is show circumstantial evidence to support our opinion on the fact at hand. This isn't going to get us anywhere.
However for the sake of conversation I do have a question for you Flyers Fan. In one of your previous post on the other thread you said:
and quoting a myth that has been (poorly) transposed by the Hebrews from the Summerians isn't 'proof'
Can you prove to me that this is what happened? No. It is circumstantial, and you infer that is how those events played out. How do we know the
Summerians didn't transpose their flood story from oral traditions of the Hebrews? We don't, but it is no less accurate then what you are assuming.
Does it mean I am right, and have proven the Flood ? No.
Another thing you stated that confused me it this:
If Noahs Ark happened - the human race couldn't reproduce and survive with only 3 pair of reproducing humans.
So you are telling me that this is impossible? How then can Science say that we spawned from a single celled-organism in which genes randomly mutated
to create a new species? You see here is the major flaw with Evolution. It works off mutations. So this single celled organism mutated, and now we
have to infer that its mutations are positive mutations and that they are dominant genes ready to be passed on to the offspring. Not only do these
inferences have to be made for the single-celled organism that existed in the Primordial Soup, but every organism there after, which once asexual
reproduction no longer becomes possible is much much harder to assume things could reproduce or that the mutations would be present within the next
generation. For example, the first animal that evolved to reproduced sexually, what did it mate with. I have offered this argument before, and people
give me a fish that can reproduce both ways as an example. This is another inference made by Scientist regarding macro-evolution, that just doesn't
work. You cannot make that many assumptions without evidence.
I would also like to leave with another thought on evolution. If natural selection works, then why do we constantly try to intervene with the process
with Selective Breeding.
I mean if natural selection works as Science says wouldn't leaving say the Dog population to breed on its own(rather than selective breeding) get us
much closer to the desirable traits everyone wants? I mean breeders can only choose from traits existent in that gene pool, and if all the desired
traits exist in that gene pool, does it not mean that the animal was once a perfect specimen?
I would like to leave by asking anyone to give me an example of an observed positive mutation, because as far as I know one has never been shown to
occur rather only inferred.
edit on 25-2-2014 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)