Would you be considered mentally slow if you have never read the book, "Noah's Ark a Feasibility Sturdy"
PS....Thank Jesus
2007-09-10 16:25:07
·
answer #1
·
answered by cbmultiplechoice 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
yes there are millions of different animals on the earth so the ark was not big enough and the flood lasted a year and there would be nothing for hundreds of years where the flood waters were and the water had no place to go so it is an impossible story and no one could be naive enough to believe without being slow or brain washed
2007-09-10 13:20:46
·
answer #2
·
answered by wreaser2000 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
No.You should feel vindicated that you didn't fall for all that molecules to man evolution.How do you fossilize something?Rapid burial.If it were left on the ground in the open air,it would not fossilize.Did you know some scientists found a hat that fossilized in just fifty years?Saw it with my own eyes.That's pretty compelling evidence.If it only takes fifty years for a hat to fossilize,just think how quickly Dino bones would fossilize if covered quickly by raging mud and water?The strata shows rapid burial,not a process of millions of years.Have you ever wondered,just maybe all that stuff your teachers fed you through your school years might just be a hoax?How do they know Dino fossils are millions of years old?Were they there?I'm leaning toward the answer no.
2007-09-10 13:20:47
·
answer #3
·
answered by Derek B 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Either you believe in miracles or you don't. Why is the story of Jesus coming back from the dead, or his walking on water, any easier to believe that a story about a miraculous flood and a man in a boat being miraculously saved?
2007-09-10 12:56:31
·
answer #4
·
answered by Randy G 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Actually, you have to be pretty mentally "active" to keep coming up with more and more intricate rationalizations, just to defend a belief as ridiculous as Noah's Ark.
2007-09-10 12:55:26
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
As in the days of noah, so shall the second coming of the son of man be, keep acting like you don't have any brains.
2007-09-10 13:04:10
·
answer #6
·
answered by trinity 3
·
3⤊
0⤋
All things being equal, it is better to be slow and right than quick and wrong. Relatedly, my friend is a slow reader. He is also finishing his Ph.D in Literary Criticism at Yale. Whatever it takes to get there is fine.
2007-09-10 12:55:21
·
answer #7
·
answered by Aspurtaime Dog Sneeze 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
no becuase what would you call the person who wrote it then? it's like a myth for christian poeple n some belive in it so no it's not "slow" for people
2007-09-10 12:54:33
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anna 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't know about "slow"
Slow would indicate that you have a depreciated ability to learn, but that it CAN happen over time.
I would say more like Mentally "stopped".
2007-09-10 12:53:16
·
answer #9
·
answered by Jason H 3
·
0⤊
3⤋
Well if that's how you see it, then that's sometimes the price one pays for having limited perspective.
2007-09-10 13:31:23
·
answer #10
·
answered by kaz716 7
·
0⤊
0⤋