#1. Fossils Do Not Tell The Whole Story— http://ageofrocks.org/2015/06/19/dear-ken-ham-about-those-kangaroo-fossils/
If there’d really been a global flood, we should find fossils of kangaroos that traveled from Noah’s Ark to Australia, and we don’t.
I get a kick out of the owner of age of rocks because he tries so hard to disprove the Bible and he uses very creative arguments to attempt this quest but in reality, even his best arguments fail because he lacks knowledge of the details. At that link he rags on Ken Ham for minor issues then bring sup the issue of a lack of kangaroo fossils en route to their final home– Australia.
But as I commented there, we do not know which animals were on the ark, which original pair or offspring were either taken to or traveled on their own to Australia nor do we know exactly where the kangaroo falls in the breeding chain of events. I say breeding for all we know, some ancient animal lover may have bred the kangaroo for a specific purpose or it was the result of an experimental breeding match.
We cannot assume that the kangaroo or any present day species was actually on the ark because all the Bible says about it is:
19 And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive. 21 As for you, take for yourself some of all food which is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them.” (Gen. 6)
The only people who actually knew which specific animals were included in that invitation are long dead and if they made a list, that is long gone as well. Then, the majority of fossils would come from those animals from the pre-flood world and we have no idea if the kangaroo was in the pre-flood world or not. If they were and their remains were found on what i snow kangaroo island then it stands to reason that before the flood that island was attached to Australia and the animals, whose remains we see today, fled the rising waters by hiding in those caves
We don and cannot know for sure how they got there but one thing is for sure, they did not evolve.
#2. Atheists Do NOT Know The Biblical Definition Of Marriage— http://robertcargill.com/2015/06/30/robert-cargill-interviewed-by-iowas-kcrg-news-on-same-sex-marriage/
The debate about marriage equality often centers, however discretely, on an appeal to the Bible. Unfortunately, such
appeals often reflect a lack of biblical literacy on the part of those who use that complex collection of texts as an
authority to enact modern social policy.
The quote is not from that link but from the PDF article I had to download to read but he links to that article in that post. Unbelievers are not searching for the truth and rarely are they honest in their research concerning biblical topics. Just because some biblical figures had more than one wife does not mean the Bible does not define marriage as between one man and one woman.
When we read about those biblical figures marrying more than one woman, we do not find any biblical instruction saying that such action is okay, is God’s idea of marriage, or that we are to do likewise. And if Cargill and his associates were honest, they would have mentioned this fact in their article. They would also explore more deeply into what reasons lie behind the fact that only a few major figures had multiple wives while the majority of biblical people only had 1 wife.
We are not given the details of what went on in their hearts when these men took more than one wife. We also do not know if they made a sacrifice of atonement for their marrying more than one woman. There are a lot of details missing which makes Cargill’s and his friends’ assumptions about biblical marriage an argument from silence.
What we do know is that not one biblical male figure married a man and not one biblical female figure married a woman. This fact undermines their position that same-sex marriage is okay. Biblical marriage has always been between a man and a woman. The confusion comes in when we take the actions of some people and think that those actions give us permission to disobey God and his rules. As I stated before, no such biblical instruction/permission is found along side those examples.
#3. Everybody Knew This Would Happen— http://www.christianpost.com/news/polygamist-says-its-about-marriage-equality-threatens-lawsuit-against-montana-if-officials-deny-marriage-to-2-women-amid-supreme-court-ruling-on-gay-marriage-141110/
A Montana polygamist who was excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said earlier this week that he plans to file a lawsuit against the state if it denies his application for a marriage license with his second wife.
Nathan Collier, who once starred on TLC’s “Sister Wives” alongside his two wives Victoria and Christine, applied for a marriage license at the Yellowstone County Courthouse in Billings on Tuesday with hopes of legally marrying his second wife, Christine. His decision to do so came last week after Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissent on gay marriage, which raised the issue of plural marriage following the U.S. Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage
When you open the door by claiming discrimination and inequality then you must let the other alternatives in or you will be practicing discrimination and inequality. This is something I have posted on several websites arguing for same-sex marriage and I do not recall if any one has ever challenged me on it. We all knew this was going to be a problem once the Supreme Court decided to legalize same-sex marriage and it doesn’t matter what Kennedy wrote in his opinion, he opened the door and now he cannot close it.
(And I meant Kennedy not Roberts) There are reasons why there are rules. Rules are not made to be broken but are put in place to guide us to do what is right and good and keep us from what is wrong and evil.
#4. Please Stop trying To Get Peace— http://www.christianpost.com/news/ray-comfort-believes-his-new-film-audacity-may-bring-peace-between-the-church-and-lgbt-communities-141138/
Ray Comfort, a well-known Christian evangelist who’s preached the Gospel alongside actor Kirk Cameron in the TV series “The Way of the Master,” hopes to bring peace between the church and the LGBT community with his new film, “Audacity.”
Comfort is the executive producer of the short film, which deals with the topic of Christians engaging gays and lesbians in a loving and respectful way with the Gospel.
Peace will only come when people agree and peace in the church comes when all the congregants reject sin and keep it out of the church. So please stop looking to have peace between righteousness and unrighteousness because it just isn’t going to happen. Here is what Jesus said on this issue:
34 “Do not think that I came to [a]bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. (Mt. 10)
If someone adopts an alternative theological belief do not try to seek peace for it will not happen until one or the other changes their viewpoint. What do these verses mean for the church? It means that they kick out of the congregation those members who do not believe God or the Bible anymore, and I am referring to those who go for alternative beliefs after once believing the truth, not those new believers who do not know any better. The latter you nurture, the former are enemies, like wolves in the hen house and no chicken farmer lets a wolf into the hen house.
This also means that those who teach in Sunday School, or one of the many christian educational institutions yet do not teach the truth must be removed from their positions, for they are not leading their students to the truth or belief in God.
We err when we try for peace without bringing the wrong side to repentance of their sin of disbelief and rejection of God’s word.
#5. I Do Not Normally Do This But...– http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/forum.php
It is a nice group of people who actively engage those who want to talk about cults, or more specifically Mormonism. I am a member but do not participate because the topics I am interested in do not generate the same level of interest in other members. Check them out and join in if you like what you find
#6. Christianity Is Not Changing — http://kathyescobar.com/2015/06/04/christianitys-faith-shift/
I have been thinking a lot about applying the faith evolution model that is in Faith Shift and we’ve been walking through this past week to the wider system of Christianity.
Contrary to the opinions of alternative believers and other unbelievers, Christianity is not changing nor will it ever change. Both God and Jesus remain the same, as does the bible thus the faith they originated on Earth will not change nor will God’s word as God promised to preserve it till the end.
WHAT IS CHANGING are the people who claim to be Christian. It is their beliefs that are under renovation, not what God has said in the bible and it is those beliefs and people who are changing. It is people who are moving away from God, Jesus and their instructions not the other way around. If you want to find true Christianity, it is found in the Bible not in the words of those disgruntled people who do not like or want to accept what the Bible is saying.
Humans do not have the power or authority to change Christianity. They only have power and authority to alter their own beliefs. They can make all the proclamations or models they want to but the fact is, when they do that they become false teachers, cult leaders and unrepentant sinners. They do not speak for God nor represent him any longer.
If some remain Christian it may only be barely but they are on their way out the door unless they repent and let Jesus change their thinking back to the truth. Remember we do not go for the interpretation but we seek and accept the truth.
6 thoughts on “Much To Talk About- 145”
“You still haven’t answered the question..”
Yes I have, I said ‘I do not know which animals (ones) were [on the ark]
No one knows which animals were on the ark except that they were clean and unclean animals. Anything further would be pure speculation and opening me and other believers up to charges of lying.
For all we know, when God dispersed the people at babel, the group that went to Australia probably took them along as pets or for food. You unrealistic demand for a specific answer when no specific answer can be given is ridiculous.
You still haven’t answered the question..
“You said that there have been fossils of animals found ‘migrating’ BUT who is to say that kangaroos traveled the same paths or with those animals? You are assuming far too much here.”
It matters not if they traveled the same paths; what matters is that they had to migrate or evolve. So once more, which was it?
No I disagree. I did not say they were not on the ark, I said I do not know which ones were. I also said that the lack of kangaroo fossils does not mean they were not on the ark or that they did not migrate to Australia.
You said that there have been fossils of animals found ‘migrating’ BUT who is to say that kangaroos traveled the same paths or with those animals? You are assuming far too much here.
As for the man suing to marry multiple wives, it doesn’t matter weight the Supreme Court gives or how many cases they throw out, once public opinion turns, like in the same-sex issue, they will fold , especially if they have 2 or 3 people on the court who have performed and agree with more alternative marriages.
“There is no contradiction. Kangaroos do not have to be on the ark to come into existence and we know this by the innumerable existing species in the world today.”
So… you didn’t answer the question—where else could they have come from? Either they were the on the ark and we find their descendants today in Aus, or they evolved from an ancestral species. You reject the latter and the former…what’s left?
“Yet if you read the story, he did not make his decision to sue until the Supreme Court’s decision or Kennedy’s opinion became public.”
And..? 😉 Desperate people take any legal precedent they can. People have been suing and lobbying over polygamy for well over a century. What’s important is that the latest supreme court decision doesn’t give any more weight to polygamy than existed prior. Hence the courts will continue to throw out pleas like this (and thus challenging your comments, which you feel have been unchallenged).
Yet if you read the story, he did not make his decision to sue until the Supreme Court’s decision or Kennedy’s opinion became public. His decision had nothing to do with those other demographics.
“Don’t you see the contradiction here? 🙂 If kangaroos did not evolve, then (according to your literalistic approach to Gen. 6–9) they must have been aboard the ark. Otherwise where did they come from?”
There is no contradiction. Kangaroos do not have to be on the ark to come into existence and we know this by the innumerable existing species in the world today.
Since evolution does not exist, it had no hand in the development of the kangaroo. But as I said on your website, your argument is base din unreality and accompanied by unreal expectations. We do not even know if the original kinds selected for the journey still exist.
Appealing to an incomplete fossil record as proof against the flood is reading into history what you want. The appealing to a mechanism that has rarity as its main contributing element is manipulating the mechanism to fit your point of view.
Don’t you see the contradiction here? 🙂 If kangaroos did not evolve, then (according to your literalistic approach to Gen. 6–9) they must have been aboard the ark. Otherwise where did they come from?
In that case, I make no assumptions about which animals were on board; we conclude that any species alive today was on the ark.
If kangaroos were not on the ark, either they evolved from an ancestral species or they were specially created post-Flood.
So, which is it? Either answer is contradicted by the details of geology (and the Bible, which you unintentionally undermine!).
P.S. Various demographics have demanded legal recognition of polygamy as long as the U.S. has been around, long before any discussion of gay marriage. To insist that the case in Montana was insightfully predicted by opponents of gay marriage requires some level of historical ignorance. By the way, the main difference between gay marriage and polygamy, in terms of discrimination law, is that the latter is a lifestyle choice (which typically leads to all sorts of abuse; e.g. Warren Jeffs).
Comments are closed.