abiel said:
Firstly the water itself came from "deep down" and >Heaven<. Why would it not be possible for the water to be removed in a way involving a miracle aswell?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
abiel said:If that's what I wanted to say, that's what I would have said.
A world wide flood didn't happen. It's a story. A story designed to teach.
So where did all the water go?
It's only possible if you allow for miracles.[/size][/color][/font]
Firstly the water itself came from "deep down" and >Heaven<. Why would it not be possible for the water to be removed in a way involving a miracle aswell?
It's only possible if you allow for miracles.
Unfortunately, miracles don't explain anything, because they do not rule anything out (a miracle could have caused anything to happen).
My answer would be "it didn't happen," or at least "it didn't happen in the way Genesis says it did."
It makes sense that Noah fed the animals, of course. It doesn't make sense that he was able to feed the animals, with only seven other people to help him do it, when there would undoubtedly have been far too many to make feeding them all a manageable proposition.Just because Genesis doesnt give every detail of the flood (how they feed the animals, what color of animals they choose, what the sky looked like at night). Doesnt mean it didnt happen. We beleive that Noah feed the animals, it may not say so...but it makes sense.
No, and I don't expect it to. But as I say, miracles are not an adequate explanation, because they do not rule anything out. An explanation is supposed to tell us why something is one way instead of any other way - a miracle cannot do this, because a miracle could conceivably have done anything. Appealing to miracles is never going to convince non-believers.Does Gensies say "God did not perform any mircales to lift the water off the Earths surface"?
If you want to argue evidence, I have plenty.Water comes from heaven...it goes back to heaven afterwards. If this is how athiests try to prove the Bible wrong its poor, a better shot is at the evidence left on earth today (glaciers left behind etc...).
Indeed. But interpreting the Flood myth as a parable can be consistent with reality, whereas a literal global Flood model cannot.Then again, this is if we take it literal.
It makes sense that Noah fed the animals, of course. It doesn't make sense that he was able to feed the animals, with only seven other people to help him do it, when there would undoubtedly have been far too many to make feeding them all a manageable proposition.
This is what we are talking about when we say that the Flood could not have happened. I am not asking for Genesis to include every tiny detail about the Flood. What I want to know is how you can take Genesis at its word when parts of the Flood story are so obviously ridiculous (such as the size of the Ark, the logistical problems of housing, feeding and exercising the animals and so forth.) Surely a non-literal interpretation is easier to reconcile with reality?
No, and I don't expect it to. But as I say, miracles are not an adequate explanation, because they do not rule anything out. An explanation is supposed to tell us why something is one way instead of any other way - a miracle cannot do this, because a miracle could conceivably have done anything. Appealing to miracles is never going to convince non-believers.
If you want to argue evidence, I have plenty.
Indeed. But interpreting the Flood myth as a parable can be consistent with reality, whereas a literal global Flood model cannot.
"That's before you get onto the issue of where all the water came from.
And where it went. And how a wooden boat of such a size could be built.
Or survive the rough seas. And how the animals could be fed. And groomed
And exercised.
And how all the "kinds" could fit on a 450-foot Ark.
And why there is no geological evidence for a flood.
What about the jet stream... where does it go with no mountains to redirect it?
I am not a expert here, but it seems to me that water maintains it temperature much better than air or land does...
so if the world were covered with water, the polar caps would melt, and what would cause them to refreeze after the flood? According to the flood account, the entire episode lasts over a year.
A year in a barge with every animal in the world doing what animals do best!!!
Evolution doesn't require faith - it's an evidence based statement.B®ent;31731407 said:It takes more faith to believe in evolution than in the Bible.
Evolution only requires faith in the scientific methodolgy used to come to its conclusions. Where I see the big division between science and religion is in the conclusions drawn that are not based on evidence... such as the origin of lifeforms and perhaps the speciation of different "kinds" as described in The Bible. (As Hovind points out, dogs speciate other dog types, but has a mouse produced an elephant, or a fish produced a camel? Mutations do not add material to DNA, they only rearrange and remove material)Evolution doesn't require faith - it's an evidence based statement.
Believing in the bible requires faith.
Believing the bible is entirely literal requires faith in the bible, and in a post-enlightenment, man-made, rather silly, and frankly unbiblical doctine about the bible.
Well, obviously it won't do in one generation, but over a period of 20 to 30 million years, who knows?Evolution only requires faith in the scientific methodolgy used to come to its conclusions. Where I see the big division between science and religion is in the conclusions drawn that are not based on evidence... such as the origin of lifeforms and perhaps the speciation of different "kinds" as described in The Bible. (As Hovind points out, dogs speciate other dog types, but has a mouse produced an elephant, or a fish produced a camel? Mutations do not add material to DNA, they only rearrange and remove material)
Always good zen, but what particularly do you mean? Did he address the Flood at some point?I suggest we all read some Stephen Jay Gould.
It would be cause sever problems for the theory of evolution if they did.As Hovind points out, dogs speciate other dog types, but has a mouse produced an elephant, or a fish produced a camel?
As a lot of smart people with degrees in relevant fields have pointed out, such an incident would all but falsify evolution. Luckily, it hasn't happened yet.Evolution only requires faith in the scientific methodolgy used to come to its conclusions. Where I see the big division between science and religion is in the conclusions drawn that are not based on evidence... such as the origin of lifeforms and perhaps the speciation of different "kinds" as described in The Bible. (As Hovind points out, dogs speciate other dog types, but has a mouse produced an elephant, or a fish produced a camel?
The Bible indicates that there was a world wide flood,that is a flood by which each and every land living creature was killed, how? It was a miracle. That is infact "God's wild card", He does it as He wills. Just like how He created all of this from nothing, that is the way He does things
That raises the question of why he invoked another miracle to hide all the evidence and 'fake' a heap of evidence that it didn't happen.The Bible indicates that there was a world wide flood,that is a flood by which each and every land living creature was killed, how? It was a miracle. That is infact "God's wild card", He does it as He wills. Just like how He created all of this from nothing, that is the way He does things
That raises the question of why he invoked another miracle to hide all the evidence and 'fake' a heap of evidence that it didn't happen.
MIRACLES EXPLAIN NOTHING.
See my earlier posts for the reasons why.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?