Taking Question on the Creation and/or the Flood

I think you are missing the fact that we don't see any reason to believe in something that has no evidence. Evolution has plenty of evidence, creationism has zip. I think I'll go with the one that I can see.

__________________

Like SETI?

Be careful --- here's my Scientist's Caveat:

• [bible]Ecclesiastes 3:11[/bible]

__________________

What about SETI? I believe that the organization exists, if that's what you mean.

Sure, no one can see the Big Picture all at once. That doesn't mean that we can't see small bits of the picture. Science is only about what we can observe not what we wish was there.

__________________

Lost interest in the topic already, AV?



Here's my Response:

When it comes to the global flood there is a huge mass of evidence. The problem is that all of that evidence shows it didn't happen.

In your case it is what you say. Anyone who says the earth is 4.5 billion years old and was created 6000 years ago is saying something that makes no sense at all. Of course saying that a creation that quickly became so messed up that its creator repented making it and decided to destroy it was perfect is also something that makes no sense. It also makes no sense to say that nature is "against" God if God created nature. (Unless God is just a complete bungler, which actually does fit with what you have said so far on this thread).

__________________
A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring:
There shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.

Alexander Pope

Incompetent Design actually has a lot more going for it than Intelligent Design.

That would fit with the bungling God of YEC.

__________________
A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring:
There shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.

Alexander Pope

The one who's been dropping the ball since putting the talking snake in the magic garden, and shifted the blame to the nekkid couple who didn't know any better?

Right, the little God with the zero foresight.

Yeah, the one who ended up repenting of his creation because his own sons mated with the daughters of men causing great evil. The bungler who deciding to destroy his creation with a global flood to end evil but then picked a survivor who he thought was righteous but who turned out to be drunk. He didn't do too good a job of ending evil either.

__________________
A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring:
There shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.

Alexander Pope

I think I'm going to repost my list of questions every page until AV either answers them or admits he can't. Those are the only two acceptable options.

1. Wasn't the earth dry in 8:11, when Noah knew the waters were abated from the earth? Doesn't that mean that it was dry? After all, if the water is gone it can't be wet.
So now we have 3 dry dates, each more than a month apart!

2. Noah doesn't disembark until 8:18, which is at the direct behest of God from the prevous few verses, and no date was mentioned in the disembarking description. So how do we know which one it was?

3. Noah knows it is dry, but doesn't poke his head out of the Ark for more than a month afterwards?

4. How long was the raven in the air? After all, it specifically says the raven was in the air until the earth was dry. So, how long was it?

5. Where did the olive tree come from? After all, it specifically says in Gen 7:23 that all that lived on dry land died.

Quote:
Gen 7:23
23And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
Emphasis mine

So, where did the olive branch come from? It says all living substance. Not all living creatures, not all living animals, all living substance.

6. Is the 40 days of rain in the 150 or not? I never really understood that. It doesn't seem like it should be. Why else would they numerate the days it rained separately?

7. How do 7:24 and 8:3 not indicate that the Flood was ended?
For 7:24, if the waters prevailed upon the earth for 150 days, doesn't that mean that after 150 days the waters weren't prevailing on it anymore? And for 8:3, aren't the waters gone if it specifically says that after 150 days they were abated?

Metherion

__________________
I can't go back to yesterday - because I was a different person then.

If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.

One of the secrets of life is that all that is really worth the doing is what we do for others.

--Lewis Carroll, all three.