Replies

"Wrong, I gave you the scripture that tells about who were taken on that Ark. You have a reading comprehension problem, Genesis 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of ALL FLESH, wherein is the breath of life. Sorry only a blind, sottish mind can ignore these words."

Um, sorry, but that verse is talking about the ANIMALS, not the people. The scripture you gave tells of WHAT was taken on the ark, not WHO was taken. There were more than two people taken onto the ark, according to Genesis. Noah and his family. You on the other hand, chose to invent other people around the world who somehow survived the Flood along with Noah, even though Genesis makes no mention of them and the whole story makes no sense if the Flood was a localized event.

" ADDDDDD WHAT EXACTLY."

See above.

"The words of Genesis are all I used,..."

That and some other stuff you made up about people other than Noah surviving the Flood.

"Well golly gee, science hasn't figured out how to observe a soul. Look in the mirror."

Two points: 1) That's not a very Christian statement. 2) How do YOU suppose we go about detecting souls?

"I am not the holder and planter of mystical 'subjectivism'. That "hot" bowl of primordial soup is the bed of mystical 'subjectivism'. No evolutionists are not going to overthrow God, reject him, yes they are, but that is NOT a new thing, had you understanding you would find it written that flesh man's purpose is as result of one who rebelled and attempted to overthrow God and a third of God's children, called Sons of God followed that one. Just a replay in the flesh going on again."

A whole paragraph of mystical subjectivism. Impressive. :)

"Sadly there are people who do indeed seek to claim some are more fit than others based upon their races. Darwin himself promoted that theory."

I notice you ignored my argument that race is not a biologically meaningful category for people. As for Darwin, his views on race were just like 99% of the population at the time. It's almost impossible to find whites in the 19th century who believed that blacks were their equals. Darwin did however believe that slavery was an evil, and he almost got kicked off the Beagle voyage over a dispute on this point with the ship's captain, who was pro-slavery.

" What possible words can I say to you, I quote you verbatim what is written and you accuse me of adding,..."

Because you DID add things. Quote the chapter and verse where Genesis says that people other than Noah and his family survived the flood.

"I show you two different days of creation written, the differences, I tell you what is written and you just plainly do not have the mind to accept."

The two different days don't have anything to do with the invented people in Noah's time you claim survived the flood.

" It is not a non-answer, it is the only answer cause you are a cement head."

Don't hold back, tell me what you really think. :)

" I know it has nothing to do with an island, but that is the place where old Darwin got his dark ideas."

Genetic Bottlenecks have NOTHING to do with Darwin. Nada.
I notice you have ignored my argument that it is impossible for the pair of animals taken on the ARK to have been the only ancestors of today's animals because of the massive genetic bottleneck. I guess it either went over your head or else it just didn't fit into your mystical subjectivist world view.

"Um, sorry, but that verse is talking about the ANIMALS, not the people. The scripture you gave tells of WHAT was taken on the ark, not WHO was taken. There were more than two people taken onto the ark, according to Genesis. Noah and his family. You on the other hand, chose to invent other people around the world who somehow survived the Flood along with Noah, even though Genesis makes no mention of them and the whole story makes no sense if the Flood was a localized event."

Wrong as the words breath of life, same words use to describe what it was that gave The Adam life, when he was formed.

No I did not invent anybody. I read what is written and accepted what is written ignoring the traditions of man that make the word null and void. You have the reading comprehension problem.

Further I stated was given the purpose of the flood, and who it was fit to "survive" (saved) was Noah and his family.

Noah was described "a just man and perfect in his generations and Noah walked with GOD". Now this word generations = family history, perfect, without blemish as to breed or pedigree. All flesh corrupted but Noah's family Now Genesis 6:2 says "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men (word should actually be =the man Adam because the Hebrew form of The Adam is set apart with an article attached to Adam) they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

That was the purpose of the flood.

Given that the flood was to destroy all corrupted flesh, is what sets the parameters of where the flood waters would flow.

You don't believe the story to begin with, let alone try and make sense of it, who are you trying to kid.

"Two points: 1) That's not a very Christian statement. 2) How do YOU suppose we go about detecting souls?"

Given what you believe you are hardly in a position to know what is Christian and what is not.

A follower of Christ, is the method and the tool to detect the status of ones soul. Remember Christ was killed for what He had to say, and how many stayed with Him when He was killed. Might call that a measuring of what is to be expected these days.

"I notice you ignored my argument that race is not a biologically meaningful category for people. As for Darwin, his views on race were just like 99% of the population at the time. It's almost impossible to find whites in the 19th century who believed that blacks were their equals. Darwin did however believe that slavery was an evil, and he almost got kicked off the Beagle voyage over a dispute on this point with the ship's captain, who was pro-slavery."

There are allll methods and manner of slavery, we still have slavery this day. Ones mind can be enslaved to a belief system. Well 99% of the population had it wrong BIG Time now didn't they, the majority has never been on the side of "RIGHT" since the beginning. I have even had some preening evolutionists accuse me, being Christian a supporter of the slave system.

"The two different days don't have anything to do with the invented people in Noah's time you claim survived the flood."

Well given that we are told the specific reason why there was to be a flood and Noah was the only from the Adam perfect in his generations, does not remove what we are told about two different days of creation.

"Genetic Bottlenecks have NOTHING to do with Darwin. Nada.
I notice you have ignored my argument that it is impossible for the pair of animals taken on the ARK to have been the only ancestors of today's animals because of the massive genetic bottleneck. I guess it either went over your head or else it just didn't fit into your mystical subjectivist world view."

Gee, and look what happened to your mind when I said my belief does not hinged upon the flood literally covering the whole earth. I can easily accept, given what is evidence here this day, and what is known about DNA saying what is possible and impossible. Obviously those creatures taken and given the size of the ark present some limitations upon what we find here this day, correct.

So what if I blindly believe that all of what is here today came off the ark, you call me stupid, or recognizing that based upon what we are told things need be examined, you tell me I am adding things.

But hey I am not the one preaching a whole different way.

Then again maybe this earth is filled with "bottlenecks", after all the preservation of the seed line was for the purpose of Christ. Man does have a habit of muddying the waters.