"For instance, two members of the dog kind walked off the Ark. Then, as the number of dogs increased, eventually the population split up and different groups formed."
This type of argument is definitely more than 30 years old. "Kinds" (for mammals) might be "about families". So, a "dog kind" was created, and got of the ark, and diversified into dogs, wolves, foxes, jackals, hyaenas, and other dog-family (Canidae) animals. I've seen this literally written down in a creationist book in about 1977.
The beauty of it is that the author did not know his dogs nor other mammals.
Creationists endlessly spout silly ideas about how the planet came to be, and reasoned rebuttals refuting their rantings also have no end. It's like being caught in an intellectual whirlpool without an escape route, short of drowning. Perhaps, it's time to go on the offensive, confronting Creationism one bible college, one christian school, one fundamentalist preacher, and one creationist ministry at a time. Doing that would be a life's work in itself. Who would care to waste their time pounding rocks?
At least they recognize that 6,000 years is truly NOT enough time for all the diversity of life we see around us to appear. Via evolution, that is, which they seem to be accepting, in a roundabout way.
Anyway, what's the problem with 6,000 years if God did it? He could do whatever he wanted.
On both counts, the argument fails. Obviously
Flood myth is a rip-off of an earlier story, has even less validity than christians think. Go look....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrahasis
Tablet III of the Atrahasis Epic contains the flood story. This is the part that was adapted in the Epic of Gilgamesh, tablet XI. Tablet III of Atrahasis tells how the god Enki warns the hero Atrahasis ("Extremely Wise") of Shuruppak, speaking through a reed wall (suggestive of an oracle) to dismantle his house (perhaps to provide a construction site) and build a boat to escape the flood planned by the god Enlil to destroy mankind. The boat is to have a roof "like Apsu" (a fresh water marsh next to the temple of Enki), upper and lower decks, and to be sealed with bitumen. Atrahasis boards the boat with his family and animals and seals the door. The storm and flood begin. Even the gods [priests?] are afraid. After seven days the flood ends and Atrahasis offers sacrifices to the gods. Enlil is furious with Enki for violating his oath. But Enki denies breaking his oath and argues: "I made sure life was preserved." Enki and Enlil agree on other means for controlling the human population.
let's make believe the flood is a true story. why would you want to worship a god that killed all those innocent babies, plus all those weak and helpless elderly folks. if the flood story is true we need to rename god (Satan sounds reasonable)
As long as it is encourage in America to lie in the name of Jesus, there is very little that can be said to change people’s mind on the flood. It reminds me of confronting a 4 year old in a lie about the cookie jar. As time goes on the lie just grows and grows and grows.
Most estimates say that ark couldn’t even hold all the insects on earth. But there is an easy out for that. You have the bugs living happily on floating plants for a year, so we didn’t have to put bugs on the ark. Then we find the ark at 5800 feet in elevation on Mount Ararat and ask; ok 5000 feet of water in 40 days, that’s about 125 feet of rain a day? That’s a heck of a bug that can handle that.
And then there is all the poop and only one window. If one were to ask a young earther to clean the stalls of 2 horses for a year and to stock the poop where they live, I’m sure they will have a better understanding of the poop question.
The only way to prove the Ark story to be true is to lie. (Kind of ironic isn’t it?)
I could go on an on, but here is the intelligent design question. Didn’t God know that his perfect creation was going to go bad and he would have to kill them? Is God not onimopent or is his intelligent design not intelligent?
RSR and friends seek an understanding of creationist logic. I fear next week they'll be out with their oil lamps, looking for an ethical Republican.
Just to brighten the outlook, we could pour the oil on the dishonest republicans....
"Dishonest Republicans" - - Isn't that a redundancy?
http://www.republicansexoffenders.com/
Commenting by HaloScan
