Noah's Ark

[Subduction Zone]

Well someone has to tell Mr. Nye he's got the wrong map up.

He's trying to sound like he knows what he's talking about, and he doesn't.

And he's so worried about how they're going to eat, he forgets Who brought them there in the first place.

Nothing wrong with his map. Why should he use a make believe one?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is the definition of science?

I don't think anyone can understand science per sa, unless you mean the meaning of the term, and that isn't within context of your comment. But lets see what your definition is before we draw any conclusion.

If you still have trouble with the term after a little more research, I will be happy to teach you. While you are making all your claims, probably a good idea for you to know exactly what science is.

Please no false claims. You do not even appear to understand the concept of evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

Amusing.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I did so more than once. I pointed out that over five miles of water would have left some sort of mark. None can be seen

What kind of mark? Are you still ignoring the fossils up there? That would be a mark of "some sort".

I pointed out the problem of the lack of population bottleneck. Without a massive population bottleneck we know that the population never got down to 8 people.

Not sure what you mean... clarify please.

Please no false claims. You do not even appear to understand the concept of evidence.

Yet you do not answer the question? Not sure how I can teach you even the basics here if you aren't willing to cooperate.

IOW if I don't glean what you do from the natural, I don't understand evidence. Don't you think that's a bit arrogant?

And you honestly call that 100% evidence there was no flood...oh my. Just as I thought, through there is at least presented evidence both ways, yet in your mind, for no good reason, yours is automatically correct. You do as scientists do, you deem yourself right, when there is no good reason to at this point. You have wasted my time.

I see marine fossil high on mountain as evidence the water came to those levels, to me that is evidence...have I got it right? At least the concept? And if so why would you make a remark, and still claim you aren't out to demean as part of your defense, like I've been saying all along. If you have a case, you don't need all that. Do you understand now?

To be sure, there was absolutely no evidence I don't understand the concept of evidence, yet you bring on the charge. And it's not the charge that bothers me, so your "too touchy" excuses aren't going to work either. It's just to let you actually see how insecure you are acting. But, alas, the insecure usually refuse to see it.. I can do my part to help you there and that's all I can do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What kind of mark? Are you still ignoring the fossils up there? That would be a mark of "some sort".


Not sure what you mean... clarify please.

Oh please. You can't both act as if you understand the sciences and then play ignorant when convenient. A mark that shows massive amounts of flowing water. We have evidence of smaller older floods. A worldwide flood would have "overwritten" the record.

Yet you do not answer the question? Not sure how I can teach you even the basics here if you aren't willing to cooperate.

No pretending, try again.

IOW if I don't glean what you do from the natural, I don't understand evidence. Don't you think that's a bit arrogant?

No, your posts indicate that you have no understanding of the concept at all. The definition is in my sig. You could have at least read it.

If you don't have a testable hypothesis by definition you do not have evidence.

And you honestly call that 100% evidence there was no flood...oh my. Just as I thought, through there is at least presented evidence both ways, yet in your mind, for no good reason, yours is automatically correct. You do as scientists do, you deem yourself right, when there is no good reason to at this point. You have wasted my time.

Fine, prove me wrong. All you have to do is to come up with a testable hypothesis that has not failed.

Until then there is only evidence that supports the lack of a flood.

I see marine fossil high on mountain as evidence the water came to those levels, to me that is evidence...have I got it right? At least the concept? And if so why would you make a remark, and still claim you aren't out to demean as part of your defense, like I've been saying all along. If you have a case, you don't need all that. Do you understand now?

And I explained why that was wrong. Now you are just repeating refuted claims. If you did not understand you should have asked politely and properly.

To be sure, there was absolutely no evidence I don't understand the concept of evidence, yet you bring on the charge. And it's not the charge that bothers me, so your "too touchy" excuses aren't going to work either. It's just to let you actually see how insecure you are acting. But, alas, the insecure usually refuse to see it.. I can do my part to help you there and that's all I can do.

It is abundantly clear that you do not understand the concept of evidence. Evidence has to be able to cut both ways. For example fossils being terribly out of order without a reasonable explanation would refute the theory of evolution. Evolution is as falsifiable concept. Therefore it can have evidence. You are the one claiming that there is evidence for your side so you need to come up with a hypothesis with reasonable tests. If you create a strawman of evolution to use as a test that is not reasonable.

No one on your side has done so yet, perhaps you can be the first.

 

[AV1611VET]

I did so more than once. I pointed out that over five miles of water would have left some sort of mark. None can be seen.

Perhaps God cleaned up His mess?

Should He have left a scar behind when He took a rib from Adam?

Or was documenting it good enough?

In your opinion?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps God cleaned up His mess?

Should He have left a scar behind when He took a rib from Adam?

Or was documenting it good enough?

In your opinion?

The problem is that it was more than "cleaned up". If it happened he covered all traces of it. That would be a form of lying. I don't think a lying God is acceptable as an explanation.

ETA: Referring to another character that never existed in the Bible does not help your position either.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nothing wrong with his map. Why should he use a make believe one?

Then don't display a map at all. Just say the earth was one supercontinent at the time of the Flood and be done with it.

I'm sure the audience would understand.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

We have evidence of smaller older floods. A worldwide flood would have "overwritten" the record.

All the evidence indicates a flood exactly when and where YHWH said it was - world wide, and destroyed all mankind except those on the ARK.

Everything known and unknown is in line with YHWH'S WORD perfectly.

Mankind is by definition and by nature wicked liars, evil, pernicious, and always wrong.

So everyone gets to choose to believe YHWH, or believe mankind.

To receive LIFE ABUNDANTLY, or death and destruction / cursed.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

be done with it.

< shrugs > They apparently were done before they started - nothing in line with YHWH'S WORD, apparently, whether wittingly or unwittingly --
no matter why - no matter what the reason, it is bad direction to go.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then don't display a map at all. Just say the earth was one supercontinent at the time of the Flood and be done with it.

I'm sure the audience would understand.

But it wasn't. The Earth has not had a supercontinent for 200 million years. His map was perfectly fine.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All the evidence indicates a flood exactly when and where YHWH said it was - world wide, and destroyed all mankind except those on the ARK.

Nope, this is just an empty claim on your part.

Everything known and unknown is in line with YHWH'S WORD perfectly.

Again, this is not the case. Over 200 years ago geologists realized that there never was a worldwide flood.

Mankind is by definition and by nature wicked liars, evil, pernicious, and always wrong.

So mankind was wrong when mankind wrote the Bible?

So everyone gets to choose to believe YHWH, or believe mankind.

Sorry, but not taking Genesis literally is not disbelieving in God.

To receive LIFE ABUNDANTLY, or death and destruction / cursed.

Empty threats are probably frowned upon too. Let's try to stick to science here.

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem is that it was more than "cleaned up".

Cleaning up is a problem for you?

If it happened he covered all traces of it.

Ya ... it's called "cleaning up."

We wouldn't want Noah and his family stepping out into an unsanitary environment, would we?

That would be a form of lying.

I'm thankful our grocery store lies daily.

"Clean up on aisle five!"

And those liars that come by once a week and pick up all those lies I put in a liar bag and set out on the curb need to stop it, don't they?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

What ? re #432.
nothing in line with Scripture to say ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cleaning up is a problem for you?Ya ... it's called "cleaning up."

You went beyond that.

We wouldn't want Noah and his family stepping out into an unsanitary environment, would we?I'm thankful our grocery store lies daily.



"Clean up on aisle five!"

And those liars that come by once a week and pick up all those lies I put in a liar bag and set out on the curb need to stop it, don't they?

Making up a fantasy to cover the fact that Genesis was not meant to be taken literally may be considered blasphemy by some. When did the so called miracles end?

 

[AV1611VET]

But it wasn't. The Earth has not had a supercontinent for 200 million years. His map was perfectly fine.

Thanks for QEDing what that can do to a person.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What ? re #432.
nothing in line with Scripture to say ?

At best the story is a morality tale. That still makes it "profitable to learn from". But it clearly was not meant to be taken literally. Most Christians seem to know this and it poses no problems for their personal beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for QEDing what that can do to a person.

What are you talking about? This was a fact that was known many years ago. Why do you insist on reading Genesis literally when it works just fine as a morality tale? If anything you harm the cause of Christianity by insisting that something that never happened be taken seriously.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Making up a fantasy to cover the fact that Genesis was not meant to be taken literally may be considered blasphemy by some. When did the so called miracles end?

Sounds like someone doesn't believe the CREATOR YHWH.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

At best the story is a morality tale. That still makes it "profitable to learn from". But it clearly was not meant to be taken literally.

Sounds again like someone doesn't believe the CREATOR YHWH.