But some are embarrassed in front of the worldly and supposedly sophisticated and that's just too bad seeing that James (another follower of Christ) said friendship with the world is enmity toward God.
That's in the same source that informs Christians about the Flood and Christ and how to be his follower.
“It is embarrassing for fellow Christians to cling in desperation to such foolish notions, rather than acknowledge the FACT that Evolution occurred, and the FACT that a Universal Flood didn’t.”
However if humans didn't bring the flightless birds then they arrived by some other means not yet obvious.
But the dating of the FIRST humans in New Zealand is not settled at all despite using LARGE letters.
> But the dating of the FIRST humans in New Zealand is not settled at all despite using LARGE letters.
It is settled to within a few hundred years based upon extremely accurate and corroborated Maori oral history. Maori are able to recite from memory their whakapapa, or genealogy, from their current generation to the generation which landed in their Iwi’s canoe, and some of them can go back to ancestors living in Hawaiki. I have seen them do it. Anthropologists accept it as an accurate record. That’s good enough for me.
It is a thoroughly preposterous notion to suggest that Maori brought several distinct species of Kiwi, several distinct species of Moa, the Tuatara, the Haast Eagle, the Kea and several species of the Weta with them on their dugout canoes to New Zealand. Even allowing for the FACT that these animals had existed here for many millennia prior to their arrival. No serious scientist would suggest this.
Quite aside from the nonsensical suggestion that they carried these animals here, there remains the question of where they came from and why there are no such animals found anywhere else on this planet — including wherever it is that the Maori presumably brought these animals from.
We can play this precise same game with Australia: they have animals like the Kangaroo and the Platypus and the Echidna that are found nowhere else. Are you suggesting that the Aborigines swam to Australia with these animals strapped to their backs?
As I said earlier, your argument becomes silly and embarrassing the more it gets delved into.
> I see no reason for any of his followers to be embarrassed by their belief in the Flood.
I do. Because the notion of a universal flood that covered the entire planet beggars belief.
There may have been a flood, but it most certainly wasn’t universal. Mathematics and physics prove that beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt. Don’t believe me? Pull out your slide rule and calculate the volume of water necessary to cover the earth to a depth of 29,000 feet above current sea level — for that is what would be necessary to have a universal flood.
There just isn’t enough water on Earth to do that. Don’t take my word for it tho’ — do the maths, melt down the polar ice caps and convince yourself. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed. So where did all this water go?
It went nowhere, because the Genesis flood could not possibly cover the entire planet. Couldn’t.
Leaving aside the problematic New Zealand and Australia, whose unique and flightless animals must have somehow swum from Mt Ararat halfway ‘round the globe to shipwreck ashore DownUnder...
> However if humans didn’t bring the flightless birds then they arrived by some other means not yet obvious.
Any advance on swimming on the backs of aborigines or hitching a ride with the Maori? UFOs perhaps? Or maybe Noah’s Ark had large petrol motors and some means of navigation?
In truth, mate, it really does seriously move from the sublime to the ridiculous. As Christians we are better to accept facts as they are, rather than try to force facts to fit the Genesis record, whose first few chapters are a parable and are largely allegorical.
Otherwise, Atheists and Evolutionists have every right to laugh at our beliefs.