<time is short and the consequences eternal> From this I take it that you think the End Times are coming soon, maybe within our lifetimes. People have been saying that for a while, and they haven't gotten it right yet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsd...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fla...

Notice how the link says "Copyright 1993." Charles K. Johnson, who was the guiding force behind the Society for many years, passed away around 2001. The latest incarnation of the Flat Earth Society was re-founded by other people in 2004.

..<one can support virtually any statement imaginable from Scripture. ... One can play dueling Scriptures all day, and settle nothing.>

Differing interpretations of Scripture has led to the formation of different religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), and numerous sects within these religions, leading to much suffering and death.

Using the Bible as the ultimate source for spiritual matters is one thing. Using these ancient texts, written thousands of years ago by people who didn't have access to the currently available information about the world around us (with or without divine guidance), as the ultimate scientific resource is another matter entirely.>

What is your basis for thinking that?

<i also fail to see how a book which has been so heavily censored and edited can prove anything to anyone about the existence of a deity.>

You are able to change. Don't be persuaded by those who say you can't. There's a lifetime of reward in this world and an eternity in the next readily available to you.

<How do you "justify" your belief when it clashes with your surroundings?>

I'm not sure what you're asking for here. I don't agree with your contention that facts of nature contradict the stories of the Bible. To some degree, the miraculous is by definition an intrustion upon the facts of nature. I don't think you're going there since that would be a tautology and I don't sense that is what you're looking for.

A miracle, by definition, is something that cannot be explained using natural laws, to any degree. So miracles are not invoked when explaining natural phenomena. You may think that's a tautology, but I think it's just common sense.

As to those questions you posed...

1)<Is it (a Noah's-ark-based explanation for the distribution of life on Earth) impossible?>--I pretty much think it is without invoking miracles. Much more sensible explanations have been arrived at by scientists, using only natural laws to explain natural phenonema.

2. <Is this the only thing stopping you from being a believer?> No.

3. <Were you a believer until you read someone else posing these questions?> No, although I am perfectly capable of think up questions like these all on my own. I will admit I read the example of the sloth from a Bertrand Russell essay.

4. <Is this just an ex post facto excuse you are using to justify your unbelief?> I consider my "unbelief" to be a reasonable explanation to what I have observed about the world around me. I wonder how you can justify your unbelief in the commonsense explanations to natural phenomena given by scientists of all faiths.

I agree.

< Whenever observing the natural world, the invocation of miracles is insufficient whenever a plausible explanation exists using the laws of nature.>

This is begging the question. I didn't want to go here, but you didn't avoid the tautology.

On that basis, I set forth this question:

If you were God, and wanted to prove your existence to man, but couldn't do anything outside the normal laws of nature, how would you present/prove yourself to mankind?

<A miracle, by definition, is something that cannot be explained using natural laws, to any degree. So miracles are not invoked when explaining natural phenomena. You may think that's a tautology, but I think it's just common sense.>

I don't know. Here's quotes from a couple PhD's that addresses the matter:

"In times of flood large masses of earth and entwining vegetation, including trees, may be torn loose from the banks of rivers and swept out to sea. Sometimes such masses are encountered floating in the ocean out of sight of land, still lush and green, with palms twenty to thirty feet tall. It is entirely probable that land animals may be transported long distances in this manner. Mayr records that many tropical ocean currents have a speed of at least two knots; this would amount to fifty miles in a day, 1000 miles in three weeks." The Sea Around Us Pg. 262 Paul Moody Professor of Biology, University of Vermont

"It seems certain that land animals do at times cross considerable bodies of water where land connections are utterly lacking....Floating masses of vegetation, such as are sometimes found off the mouths of the Amazon, may be one means of effecting this type of migration. Even the case of the entry of the hystricoids into South America may be a case of this sort...and one successful crossing might populate a continent."

The Sea Around Us Pg 513- Alfred S. Romer Professor of Biology, Harvard

<How did the frogs of North and South America cross the ocean without getting pickled by seawater?>

There are any number of aquatic species that are adaptable to salt and fresh water. Some spend parts of their life in fresh water and then migrate to salt water, and vice versa.

<Why did the kangaroos go hopping to Australia without bothering to stop anywhere in between?>

I don't know. Here's what a PhD has to say about it.

"The marsupials spread over the world, in all directions. They could not go far to the north before striking impossible climate, but the path south was open all the way to the tips of Africa and South America and through Australia...The placental mammals proved to be superior to the marsupials in the struggle for existence and drove the marsupials out...that is, forced them southward. Australia was then connected by land with Asia, so that it could receive the fugitives....Behind them the true mammals were coming; but before the latter reached Australia, that continent was separated from Asia, and the primitive types to the south were protected from further competition."

I did a quick google search with the quotes you provided, and found the following sources:

http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/k4...

http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?cont...

http://www.grmi.org/Richard_Riss/ev...

You have not always attributed the quotes to their actual sources. “The Sea Around Us” was written neither by Alfred S. Romer nor by Paul Moody, but by Rachael Carson. Although Carson wrote the book you cite for these quotes, the sources you give do not attribute them to Carson. They attribute the Romer quote to Romer, and the Moody quote to Moody, but I couldn’t find the book titles for either of these quotes. Both Romer and Moody were indeed eminent scientists (both long since deceased), who wrote textbooks in their respective fields. I suspect that the quotes attributed to Moody and Romer were taken from their textbooks.

The quotations given were written before the development of the theory of continental drift through plate tectonics. The “rafting” method of species spread is still considered valid for the colonization of isolated oceanic islands of volcanic origin, and the subsequent evolution of flora and fauna unique to these islands. The distribution of living things on the major land masses is better explained by the existence of a previous “supercontinent” of Pangaea, and the subsequent splitting and drifting of the modern continents in different directions. The animals did not move to the continents; instead their ancestors remained in place while the continents did the moving.

While there are “aquatic forms” that can move from freshwater to seawater, none of them are frogs. No frog can live in seawater; only a few can live in brackish water and even these cannot live for extended periods in the sea. This provides a good explanation for the lack of frogs on isolated oceanic islands of volcanic origin, unless they have been recently introduced by humans.

The quote you give, which postulates the separation of Australia to explain the continued existence of marsupials there, would (most likely) require a time span of greater than 10,000 years to occur, and is (probably) incompatible with your world view.

<OCF>--You should continue your research on these issues. With continued practice your abilities will improve.

Onto to following question you pose:
<If you were God, and wanted to prove your existence to man, but couldn't do anything outside the normal laws of nature, how would you present/prove yourself to mankind?>

"Better"? I'll still stick with "I don't know." But continental drift is a plausible explanation, and hardly the only one. The standard you set forth for me was "to any degree". Don't backtrack on me now.

<While there are “aquatic forms” that can move from freshwater to seawater, none of them are frogs. No frog can live in seawater; only a few can live in brackish water and even these cannot live for extended periods in the sea.>

So the frogs of today are a good model of the frogs of yesterday? Somehow the evolutionists don't want to recognize the possibility of adapations when they might confirm the Flood. You can't answer that with any degree of confidence any more than I can. Another possibility is that there can be oceanic layers of fresh water and salt water that persist for some period of time.

<This provides a good explanation for the lack of frogs on isolated oceanic islands of volcanic origin, unless they have been recently introduced by humans.>

"Good" explanation? But not the only. And "I don't know" still works for me. How many times does the evolutionist literature reference "unexplainable" occurrences?

<OCF: but couldn't do anything outside the normal laws of nature, how would you present/prove yourself to mankind?>

<GSM: There’s the rub. The proof of God’s existence or non-existence (and proof for any supernatural phenomena) is beyond the scope of the natural world, and of science. When there’s any doubt, I will continue to prefer scientific explanations for natural phenomena, and avoid the supernatural.>

And in my eyes, that is a self serving tautology. Your answer in a nutshell is, "I can't." So you have postulated-by that a priori reasoning- God can't prove Himself and logically conclude from that assumption "God doesn't exist and God can't exist."

Maybe God exists. Maybe He/She/It doesn't. Maybe there are many gods--why not? The Bible is not the only source of supernatural explanations--why shouldn't we give all the possible supernatural explanations equal weight? I think that's what "New Age" believers do, and there are plenty of them out there.

I'll stick to "reality-based" explanations for what happens in the natural world. And really, who knows what will happen tomorrow--maybe the sun will stop rising, or things will start falling upward. But I'll still plan on getting up and going to work.

I don't. I'm already on record for that, to wit:

<GSM: Whenever possible, natural laws should be used to explain natural phenomena.>

<OCF: I agree. >

<GSM: Why not believe the supernatural phenomena described in the Koran, or in the myths of the Greek gods? >

A fine field of inquiry. I don't believe them because of a lack of eyewitness testimony. I am on record for that per this:

<OCF: And 1000 years later, what kind of evidence is left to prove the miracle occurred, beyond historical records of the witnesses? >

<GSM: Any supernatural explanation is equally valid. There is a religion (a parody, I think, although it presents itself with a very straight face) called "Last Thursdayism," which posits that you created the universe last Thursday complete with false history and memories. Why is that not as valid as what you actually believe?>

A lack of eyewitness testimony.

< Can you disprove it?>

Yes. I will say for maybe the millionth time that skepticism invevitably rears its head when discussing the existence of God and no other times. (Editor's note: "Millionth" and "No" are intentionally exagerated) Funny how that works. Very convenient for the unbelievers, too. I will note those unbelievers who ohhhhh so sincerely posit that Know Nothingness will get up and go to work.

<Maybe God exists. Maybe He/She/It doesn't. Maybe there are many gods--why not?>

I see no evidence for many gods. This is treading tautology since I guess I could affirm there are some unknown gods on the other side of Mars and I'm just not aware of them. But still questions that provoke a bit of thought.

< The Bible is not the only source of supernatural explanations--why shouldn't we give all the possible supernatural explanations equal weight? >

Because of the lack of confirming eyewitness testimony.

<I think that's what "New Age" believers do, and there are plenty of them out there. >

Yes.

<I'll stick to "reality-based" explanations for what happens in the natural world. And really, who knows what will happen tomorrow--maybe the sun will stop rising, or things will start falling upward. But I'll still plan on getting up and going to work.>

Yes, and I'll kick a rock. That was quite a pivot from Kant to Johnson.

<Lastly, I don't think that the experiments supporting abiogenesis involve any magic. >

I must have missed those.

<We've known for a while that living things follow the same rules of physics and chemistry as non-living things; no elan vital is necessary.>

<I will note those unbelievers who ohhhhh so sincerely posit that Know Nothingness will get up and go to work.>

Personally, I think the events of the world point more to the existence of many gods, each with their own agendas and spheres of influence, rather than to the existence of one all-seeing, all-knowing God. There's just so much chaos.

No.

<I've heard plenty of eyewitness accounts on TV that sound at least as believable as the stories in the Bible.>

I haven't. But if you're up to a challenge, I'll defend the resurrection of Jesus based on eyewitness testimony and you can defend the supernatural account of your choice.

<Personally, I think the events of the world point more to the existence of many gods, each with their own agendas and spheres of influence, rather than to the existence of one all-seeing, all-knowing God. There's just so much chaos.>

Are you affirming an all-seeing, all-knowing God wouldn't allow chaos in the world?

<But I'm sure that you can explain away these things with arguments that you find entirely satisfactory, even if other seemingly reasonable people find them less than satisfying.>

Yes.

<Have fun kicking rocks.>