No, He wasn't.No they haven't but they have said that none of that stuff would be needed because god was looking after it,
they just move from illusion to illusion, when they need for god to step in he does,
Wrong conclusion -- based on faulty word choice.what a god!! what stupidity!!
Ah, right, the good ol "God magically suspended the laws of physics enough that a 500 foot wooden boat was possible, and enough that the rain could cover the Earth and then go away again, but not enough that the animals and some humans could survive without a boat" argument.
I suspected as much. Glad I didn't bother reading the whole thread then.
From the guy trying to set himself up for a semantic argument to claim that a large, ocean going, hollow, wooden artefact, built in such a way as to maximise cargo and passenger capacity is not a "ship", I'm not sure whether to take this as a compliment or what.WOW -- an argument is only as strong as the bias it contains, isn't it?
(I just made that up -- )
Are you saying the Ark had a rudder? steering mechanism? sails? propeller?From the guy trying to set himself up for a semantic argument to claim that a large, ocean going, hollow, wooden artefact, built in such a way as to maximise cargo and passenger capacity is not a "ship", I'm not sure whether to take this as a compliment or what.
This is what happens when you take the Bible allegorically, isn't it?Didn't need any of them, a god was guiding it's every move just to make the old story go smoothly
Yes. Just as any engineer creates solutions, any artist creates...well..."art", and any two people create babies, the source is evident in the qualities of the created.
We live in a 3 dimensional universe.
That seems to be infinite.
Is not moving to self destruct.
Has infinite complexity.
Is amazingly stable and capable.
I'm not saying we have ALL the attributes of God.
Just as the image in a mirror is very very close to the real thing...yet is not the real thing.
It's an image of the original.
If the source knew right from wrong, we would know right from wrong.
You might notice that the problems with the Ark have nothing to do with its (nonexistent) rudder, sails, propulsion or whatever it needs to be a "ship" in your terms.This is what happens when you take the Bible allegorically, isn't it?
Suddenly, a wooden containment vessel becomes a ship, then confusion sets in and demands to know how that ship can stay afloat and navigate in the rough seas, and so God is invoked to explain the gaps, when God could have been invoked earlier to explain why it only need be a wooden containment vessel --
That's right -- so why refer to it as a ship?Call it as you like it, a wooden construction of the measurements given would have these structural problems, rudder or not.
Because constructions above a certain size meant to transport passengers and freight on major bodies of water are usually referred to as "ship".That's right -- so why refer to it as a ship?
Are you familiar with the Telephone Game?
If it is a ship, then Noah and family are relegated to the status of crew members -- not passengers.
I wasn't aware the Ark was for transportation.Because constructions above a certain size meant to transport passengers and freight on major bodies of water are usually referred to as "ship".
Yes, it moved -- from New Jersey to Ararat; but not as a ship.So you think the Ark didn´t move at all?
Because constructions above a certain size meant to transport passengers and freight on major bodies of water are usually referred to as "ship".
All so you guys can call it a "ship"?You have problems with the word transport too!
The Ark was designed to move, at the very least to rise up with the waves, and be carried along on the surface. It contained a cargo; of animals.
Uh-huh.I do hope that helps everyone. And I expect Creationists to immediately leap upon the term 'ship' and use it consistently from now on.
You have problems with the word transport too!
The Ark was designed to move, at the very least to rise up with the waves, and be carried along on the surface. It contained a cargo; of animals.
They didn't know a god existed until some one told them, they are only taking some ones word for it,
they have no evidence other than 'isn't the world wonderful and it's so ordered that it must be made by some one'.
It's childrens logic accepted by supposed adults, or are they just adults trying to cling on to their childhood fantasies?
I believe the nautical convention is to call a sea-going vessel a boat, and an ocean-going one a ship.
Therefore, if the flood was localised, then the Ark can be safely regarded as a boat, and if it is worldwide, it is appropriate to use the term ship.
I do hope that helps everyone. And I expect Creationists to immediately leap upon the term 'ship' and use it consistently from now on.