Noah's Ark

[AV1611VET]

Let me guess, because magic right?

Because miracle.

Magic would require a constant supply of energy from an outside source, keeping the pitch and boards intact and impenetrable.

Put another way, magic would require a force field around Noah's Ark from the outside.

A miracle could simply protect the Ark from the inside of its individual parts: (each board and each drop of pitch).

In short, Noah's Ark was a gestalt: meaning it was greater than the sum of its parts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because miracle.

Magic would require a constant supply of energy from an outside source, keeping the pitch and boards intact and impenetrable.Just

Put another way, magic would require a force field around Noah's Ark from the outside.

A miracle could simply protect the Ark from the inside of its individual parts: (each board and each drop of pitch).

In short, Noah's Ark was a gestalt: meaning it was greater than the sum of its parts.

Just getting the Ark not to sink when the first wave hit it is the least of your problems. All of the evidence that we can see today tells us that there was no flood. That means either God lied or the flood did not happen.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Just getting the Ark not to sink when the first wave hit it is the least of your problems.

There you go again, making my point that there are two floods; the biblical one, and the one commonly envisioned. In the biblical flood the ark is 'lifted up' by a slowly rising sea, not washed away by a tsunami. The gentle support by water of the whole structure ensured that it would survive. It also "went on the flood", not against it, which would indeed place great stresses on it. If science actually read the account as written we could have a really interesting discussion.

 

[quatona]

In my opinion, any attempts to replicate the Ark as it existed in Genesis should fail.

First of all, we don't know what gopher wood is.

Second of all, the Ark only consisted of two materials: gopher wood and pitch pine. Any attempt to build it with ... say ... oak and tar, and it would fall apart; probably within days.

...and the flood didn´t consist of your normal water either, but some miraculous fluid.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just getting the Ark not to sink when the first wave hit it is the least of your problems.

Wave?

It would have fallen apart long before it even began to rain.

Either that, or the first dinosaur or elephant to board it would have smashed it to smithereens.

All of the evidence that we can see today tells us that there was no flood.

Does your evidence tell you there was no miracle?

That means either God lied or the flood did not happen.

Or the Flood did happen by way of a miracle; and we all know miracles don't show up on science's myopic radar.

 

[AV1611VET]

...and the flood didn´t consist of your normal water either, but some miraculous fluid.

That's the first I ever heard this.

What academician thought that up?

 

[lesliedellow]

Because miracle.

Magic would require a constant supply of energy from an outside source, keeping the pitch and boards intact and impenetrable.

Put another way, magic would require a force field around Noah's Ark from the outside.

You sound like what any good creationist should sound like. They make it up as they go along.

 

[quatona]

That's the first I ever heard this.

Yeah, but once you start explaining facts away by reference to miracles/magic, everything is possible.

What academician thought that up?

It´s you who keeps invoking miracles/magic, not academians.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There you go again, making my point that there are two floods; the biblical one, and the one commonly envisioned. In the biblical flood the ark is 'lifted up' by a slowly rising sea, not washed away by a tsunami. The gentle support by water of the whole structure ensured that it would survive. It also "went on the flood", not against it, which would indeed place great stresses on it. If science actually read the account as written we could have a really interesting discussion.

No, there was "one flood". You are making a flood where water did not act like water.

And forget the water right now. You run away from the fact that life tells us that there was no flood. Why can't you go harvest organs from anyone, moral conflicts aside. Why do people have to wait until a matching donor is found. The flood story tells us that that should not be a problem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wave?

It would have fallen apart long before it even began to rain.

Either that, or the first dinosaur or elephant to board it would have smashed it to smithereens.

Now please don't mix your myths. Dinosaurs died off roughly 65 million years ago.

Does your evidence tell you there was no miracle?

Or the Flood did happen by way of a miracle; and we all know miracles don't show up on science's myopic radar.

If you have to keep relying on "miracles" it simply tells us that there was no flood. You are calling God a liar again.

 

[AV1611VET]

You sound like what any good creationist should sound like. They make it up as they go along.

Yup.

Anything wrong with that?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, but once you start explaining facts away by reference to miracles/magic, everything is possible.

That's why you need a set of standards to keep things in check.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you have to keep relying on "miracles" it simply tells us that there was no flood.

Show me a miracle that tells us there was no flood.

 

[lesliedellow]

Yup.

Anything wrong with that?

So you admit it now, and there is no need to take a word you say seriously. You and Dad should get together; you would make a fearsome double act.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Show me a miracle that tells us there was no flood.

That makes no sense. If you want to claim miracles the burden of proof is upon you. The lack of miracles, and the lack of a dishonest God is more than enough to refute the flood.

If you have no problem saying "God lied" then you might get away with your claim of miracles.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you admit it now, and there is no need to take a word you say seriously. You and Dad should get together; you would make a fearsome double act.

I asked if there was anything wrong with that.

 

[AV1611VET]

That makes no sense.

Thank you.

I agree.

If you (or anyone) has studied Christianity and religions for any length of time and expect them to "make sense," then something's wrong with that mindset.

People who apply standard rules of logic, sense, and science to the Bible just end up confusing themselves.

Do you think God was kidding when He said this?

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you.

I agree.

If you (or anyone) has studied Christianity and religions for any length of time and expect them to "make sense," then something's wrong with that mindset.

People who apply standard rules of logic, sense, and science to the Bible just end up confusing themselves.

Do you think God was kidding when He said this?

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

Amazing. Now AV is claiming that Christianity is not a path to the truth.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Amazing. Now AV is claiming that Christianity is not a path to the truth.

Probably just the opposite. The truths of God are self-evident while man confuses them with disparate facts, the "Yahbuts". For example, "Yah, I murdered that guy, but he had it coming."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Probably just the opposite. The truths of God are self-evident while man confuses them with disparate facts, the "Yahbuts". For example, "Yah, I murdered that guy, but he had it coming."

"Self evident" code words for nonexistent.