Noah's Ark

[gudz23]

The flood took six months to crest. It was a slow process. It was God's purpose to kill off humanity, not destroy the earth.

Suggesting that the Moon was moved close enough to submerge whole continents in ocean tides, in the matter of just 6 months, does not constitute slow process.

 

[Kenny'sID]

And, you are welcome to believe any fantasy you fancy, but space angles flying hotter than the hottest supernova holds no merit in a science debate.

You mean fantasy as in the erath and everything in it just kind of...is?

Just admit that you don't care about science.

See the threat there folks, and exactly how the "science" claim is used to intimidate? Are you intimidated? Does the false notion they try to put out there suck you in? Or do you see "science" for just what it is, opinions of people, people with agenda, and far from the end all those who beat their chest and shout it surpasses all other ideas, and cannot be wrong .

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you continue to argue with me. Don't you see that it's hopeless?

I am hoping for a "miracle". I am only here to help. One does not have to drop ones Christian beliefs to face reality.

 

[gudz23]

See the threat there folks, and exactly how the "science" claim is used to intimidate? Are you intimidated? Does the false notion they try to put out there suck you in? Or do you see "science" for just what it is, opinions of people, people with agenda, and far from the end all those who beat their chest and shout it surpasses all other ideas, and cannot be wrong .

Do you consider that "God did it" is a valid "scientific" objection, when it is noted that there is no evidence of an event that if occurred would have left behind major geological remnants globally?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Do you consider that "God did it" is a valid "scientific" objection, when it is noted that there is no evidence of an event that if occurred would have left major geological remnants globally?

Noted? And that is supposed to be a defense?

 

[gudz23]

Noted? And that is supposed to be a defense?

Defense of what? It was a question, to you.

I might perhaps phrase it differently:

Do you consider that merely stating that "God did it" is an appropriate way to make a scientific problem "go away"?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Do you consider that merely stating that "God did it" is an appropriate way to make a scientific problem "go away"?

Define scientific problem, it's important to the present argument.

 

[gudz23]

Define scientific problem, it's important to the present argument.

Then I suggest you go back and read the post I was responding to (with that quick little jab you jumped on me for), and then the post it was responding to. Keyword: heat.

To help out further: Someone noted an actual problem with a proposed explanation for the flood, and the OP responded with heat absorbing angels. Good grief...

 

[Kenny'sID]

Then I suggest you go back and read the post I was responding to (with that quick little jab you jumped on me for), and then the post it was responding to. Keyword: heat.

And I'd suggest you define it. I explained it was important, but if there is some reason you cannot, suit yourself, but the conversation will end at that.

 

[Obliquinaut]

In the 'hills" of Ararat. Why park the ark on a mountaintop making it impossible for Noah and the others to climb down. Just change "mountains" to "hills" and the story makes perfect sense. Remember that the translators were affected by the mythology of the story and the artists depictions long before the bible was 'assembled'. They got a little carried away. A slow incoming tidelike flood that took six months to crest and another six months to recede became a raging tsunami accompanied by hurricane force winds. Nonsense.

So all the animals of the earth (including every man woman and child not on the ark) were incapable of climbing even modest hills?

Don't get me wrong, I like this idea of a modest flood that would leave no world-wide evidence as it is certainly less problematic to explain away than a gobal flood that killed all life on earth save those on the Ark, but the less "catastrophic" it becomes the more holes there are in the other side of the story.

 

[Obliquinaut]

The point is that the flood killed everything God intended to kill regardless of elevation.

Was it a "miracle killing"? Because it seems like we are now talking about a mild flood which would, indeed be pretty dramatic but even in major inundations of land (like tsunamis) they usually kill only a portion of the life...but somehow this flood which didn't inundate TOO high managed to kill all life (save those on the Ark) but not leave any evidence of it (no death assemblanges world wide from a couple thousand years ago).

This really must have been a Miraculous Killing and Flooding. Because it sounds like the more you make it "explicable" the less likely it would be to kill all life save those on the ark. Was the miracle the FLOOD that LEFT NO EVIDENCE or the KILLING that DEFIED BASIC SURVIVAL AND LEFT NO EVIDENCE?

 

[AV1611VET]

And, you are welcome to believe any fantasy you fancy, but space angles flying hotter than the hottest supernova holds no merit in a science debate.

Looks like science is SOL then (short on luck).

Just admit that you don't care about science.

Only if it contradicts the Bible.

If it does, then the caption under my picture applies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Noted? And that is supposed to be a defense?

Since there is no any evidence of a global flood and strong evidence to the contrary you have to use the excuse of a dishonest God to account for that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you consider that merely stating that "God did it" is an appropriate way to make a scientific problem "go away"?

Yes.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Looks like science is SOL then (short on luck).Only if it contradicts the Bible.

If it does, then the caption under my picture applies.

So what happens when Kent Hovind contradicts the bible (Matt 22:21)? Does he have to take a hike? Oh, no, clearly not! He gets elevated to an AUTHORITY on the topic of faith and science!

I think I see how this works.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Yes.

^^^Points for honesty!^^^^ I like that! (And I'm not joking here).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Looks like science is SOL then (short on luck).Only if it contradicts the Bible.

If it does, then the caption under my picture applies.

You are creating a false dichotomy. It may not be that the Bible is wrong (highly doubtful since it is rather full of errors) or that science is wrong. You may simply have a poor interpretation of your Bible. And since you rely heavily on the science that you despise this might be a much more reasonable approach.

If not you really should eschew all of the sciences and live in a cave. Or in other words, put your money where your mouth is.

 

[AV1611VET]

So what happens when Kent Hovind contradicts the bible (Matt 22:21)?

What happens when science contradicts the Bible?

What happens when you contradict the Bible?

What happens if ... (okay, when) ... I contradict the Bible?

 

[AV1611VET]

If not you really should eschew all of the sciences and live in a cave.

I'll do that when you go live on the planet you say nature created* ... how's that?

* I ... I mean "formed."

 

[Obliquinaut]

What happens when science contradicts the Bible?

What happens when you contradict the Bible?

What happens if ... (okay, when) ... I contradict the Bible?

I think we know:

1. If Science contradicts the Bible you tell it to take a hike.
2. If Kent Hovind contradicts the Bible you support his position.

It's a simple as that!

(And I doubt very highly you could ever contradict the Bible. Most true believers of sufficient piety know that what they believe is what the Bible says and what the Bible says is what they believe. Usually in that order).

 

[VirOptimus]

Ruin/restoration answers your questions (the geologic record plainly attests to this phenomenon). Recall that my base position is that everything is supernatural, everything. That God uses his creation to accomplish his purpose is why I speculate about how he might have done it using or interfering with the very laws he created.

If you going to rely on magic your argument is worthless.