Noah's Ark

[AV1611VET]

2. If Kent Hovind contradicts the Bible you support his position.

You're new here, aren't you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

* I ... I mean "formed."

That is where I already live.

Please note, AV is going to live in a cave. It has been nice. Don't forget to write.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Ruin/restoration answers your questions (the geologic record plainly attests to this phenomenon).

I like this statement: "the geologic record plainly attests to this phenomenon". In a very real sense, yes, yes it does! But I sense (based on what I've read of your posts) that you are not really familiar with any of the details in this.

You (and so many other YEC) simply seem to think that geologists don't get any education or training and that one needn't even have to "know" much of anything to be a geologist! Don't get me wrong, it's not as complex as some other sciences, but it is dismissive in the extreme to assume that your jumbled "guesstimate" of what Geology is or isn't is not equal to what it takes to actually be a geologist.

You might be surprised to know there is a HUGE amount of information about what the rocks actually say. So when a geologist goes up to a complex formation he or she doesn't just shake his or her head and say "Gosh, it's all jumbly...I bet it could say just whatever it is I want it to say!"

Nope, there are very well established things we know about how rocks end up looking as they do.

So just because it looks big and complex doesn't mean it's anyone's guess as to what it all means.

 

[Obliquinaut]

You're new here, aren't you?

I just saw you seeming to defend Kent Hovind and he seems to be a pretty good anti-christian activist (at least he seems to be doing his level best to avoid God's rules.)

Is there an alternative interpretation to "sin" here on CF that us newbies are unaware of? Is sin somehow a virtue on here?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Kent Hovind is more of a hard-core atheist than I could ever be. I simply fail to believe in God, Kent appears to make rude hand gestures at God and stick his tongue out at him and actively do evil in His name. (To be honest I would never want to be as much of an atheist as that!)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Only if you get to define how the flood acted

Huh? Water is water dude and it acts like it acts.

If all flood conditions were viewed in the light of the fact that the ark survived the flood it would paint a much different picture than is generally supposed.

There's not much to say here... for a flood to happen as described in that story in the time the story mentions, this had to be an extremely violent and apocalyptic flood that WOULD leave its mark. Marks that we don't find anywhere.

The fact that no wooden boat (or plant, for that matter) would survive such a violent flood, only goes to show just how ridiculously false this story has to be.

The problems and implications of this flood story are indeed so huge that it's quite amazing that there are still people desperatly trying to defend it.

Literally every aspect of the story just screams that it never happened.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The picture would support the story. In order for the ark to fail it's mission skeptics have to include conditions that the ark could not meet. Such was not the case as the ark and all (most) passengers survived. Skeptics have to rewrite the story to support their contentions, and ya can't do that. Skeptics have to explain how the ark 'broke up' and yet survived.

Lol... no. Skeptics don't have to explain how the ark managed to survive.
Because skeptics don't even agree there ever was an ark in the firstplace.

The collective DNA of all living things alone, already shows that such mass reduction of population sizes in all species, simply never happened.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

A better point is that the collective DNA of all living things demonstrate beyond any doubt that no such mass-killing ever took place.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Recall that my base position is that everything is supernatural, everything.

Then why are you even bothering with discussing it and/or arguing about the science?
If "everything is supernatural", then you can just say whatever you want - it won't be falsifiable or supportable in any way, because it's "magic".

It by definition means that you have no need to marry anything about this fantastical claim with the natural laws of physics, chemistry, biology, genetics, geology, climatology,....

Because what is the "supernatural", if not the suspension or violation of the natural?

In other words, your apparant need to "scientifically defend" this fantastical story proves to me that you don't really believe all this supernatural stuff. Why else would you have a need to argue about the science?

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.

That's in direct contradiction with your claim that "everything" is supernatural.
If this all-powerfull supernatural entity can do anything, then why must this event be explained or explaineable through the laws of nature?

You're not making any sense at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Human population was never reduced to less then a couple thousand, as is demonstrated through our collective genome.

There are no genetic bottlenecks of the scale your story requires.
And that goes for all species - not just humans.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I like this statement: "the geologic record plainly attests to this phenomenon". In a very real sense, yes, yes it does! But I sense (based on what I've read of your posts) that you are not really familiar with any of the details in this.

You (and so many other YEC) simply seem to think that geologists don't get any education or training and that one needn't even have to "know" much of anything to be a geologist! Don't get me wrong, it's not as complex as some other sciences, but it is dismissive in the extreme to assume that your jumbled "guesstimate" of what Geology is or isn't is not equal to what it takes to actually be a geologist.

You might be surprised to know there is a HUGE amount of information about what the rocks actually say. So when a geologist goes up to a complex formation he or she doesn't just shake his or her head and say "Gosh, it's all jumbly...I bet it could say just whatever it is I want it to say!"

Nope, there are very well established things we know about how rocks end up looking as they do.

So just because it looks big and complex doesn't mean it's anyone's guess as to what it all means.

Why do you think I'm a YEC?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Huh? Water is water dude and it acts like it acts.




There's not much to say here... for a flood to happen as described in that story in the time the story mentions, this had to be an extremely violent and apocalyptic flood that WOULD leave its mark. Marks that we don't find anywhere.

The fact that no wooden boat (or plant, for that matter) would survive such a violent flood, only goes to show just how ridiculously false this story has to be.

The problems and implications of this flood story are indeed so huge that it's quite amazing that there are still people desperatly trying to defend it.

Literally every aspect of the story just screams that it never happened.

Apparently you've never watched the tide come in.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Lol... no. Skeptics don't have to explain how the ark managed to survive.
Because skeptics don't even agree there ever was an ark in the firstplace.

The collective DNA of all living things alone, already shows that such mass reduction of population sizes in all species, simply never happened.

As far as they know, it never happened.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then why are you even bothering with discussing it and/or arguing about the science?
If "everything is supernatural", then you can just say whatever you want - it won't be falsifiable or supportable in any way, because it's "magic".

It by definition means that you have no need to marry anything about this fantastical claim with the natural laws of physics, chemistry, biology, genetics, geology, climatology,....

Because what is the "supernatural", if not the suspension or violation of the natural?

In other words, your apparant need to "scientifically defend" this fantastical story proves to me that you don't really believe all this supernatural stuff. Why else would you have a need to argue about the science?



That's in direct contradiction with your claim that "everything" is supernatural.
If this all-powerfull supernatural entity can do anything, then why must this event be explained or explaineable through the laws of nature?

You're not making any sense at all.

The laws of nature are supernatural. Science is the study of supernatural creation.

This is a Christian forum. We discuss the supernatural a lot here.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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

Doesn't science agree that the universe came into being through magic of "the big bang"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The laws of nature are supernatural. Science is the study of supernatural creation.

This is a Christian forum. We discuss the supernatural a lot here.

There is no need to invoke the supernatural for any part of Earth's history.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Doesn't science agree that the universe came into being through magic; the big bang?

No magic involved with the Big Bang.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Lol... no. Skeptics don't have to explain how the ark managed to survive.
Because skeptics don't even agree there ever was an ark in the firstplace.

And yet they say that if there was an ark it wouldn't have survived (which is understandable as they also say that if there was a flood it would be violent enough to sink the aforementioned ark). It seems to me that much of their skepticism rests on the contention that the ark as described would not be 'seaworthy'. If they had to admit that such a structure could survive then they would be faced with yet more concessions regarding the story. I believe this is why they will not admit that the ark was not a 'ship' or 'boat' of some familiar design.

 

[Cearbhall]

There is no need to invoke the supernatural for any part of Earth's history.

There is if you're someone who can't handle saying "We don't know yet."

And yet they say that if there was an ark it wouldn't have survived (which is understandable as they also say that if there was a flood it would be violent enough to sink the aforementioned ark). It seems to me that much of their skepticism rests on the contention that the ark as described would not be 'seaworthy'.

Oh goodness, I assure you, none of the skepticism relies on the idea that the ark wouldn't have made it. That argument is purely an attempt to catch the people who somehow continue to believe it despite the more obvious problems with the story. Like, you know, basic history.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There is no need to invoke the supernatural for any part of Earth's history.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth". Good enough for me.