Taking Question on the Creation and/or the Flood

[TheOutsider]

"No evidence" --- that's exactly the point of the thread.

Like I say, even when we agree with you guys, you're not happy.

It's not what we say that matters, it's what we are that seems to bother you guys.

I think you are missing the fact that we don't see any reason to believe in something that has no evidence. Evolution has plenty of evidence, creationism has zip. I think I'll go with the one that I can see.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think you are missing the fact that we don't see any reason to believe in something that has no evidence.

Like SETI?

Evolution has plenty of evidence, creationism has zip. I think I'll go with the one that I can see.

Be careful --- here's my Scientist's Caveat:

• [bible]Ecclesiastes 3:11[/bible]

 

[TheOutsider]

Like SETI?

What about SETI? I believe that the organization exists, if that's what you mean.

Be careful --- here's my Scientist's Caveat:

• [bible]Ecclesiastes 3:11[/bible]

Sure, no one can see the Big Picture all at once. That doesn't mean that we can't see small bits of the picture. Science is only about what we can observe not what we wish was there.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Like SETI?

Lost interest in the topic already, AV?

Be careful --- here's my Scientist's Caveat:

• [bible]Ecclesiastes 3:11[/bible]

Here's my Response:

What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals!

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

"No evidence" --- that's exactly the point of the thread.

When it comes to the global flood there is a huge mass of evidence. The problem is that all of that evidence shows it didn't happen.

Like I say, even when we agree with you guys, you're not happy.

It's not what we say that matters, it's what we are that seems to bother you guys.

In your case it is what you say. Anyone who says the earth is 4.5 billion years old and was created 6000 years ago is saying something that makes no sense at all. Of course saying that a creation that quickly became so messed up that its creator repented making it and decided to destroy it was perfect is also something that makes no sense. It also makes no sense to say that nature is "against" God if God created nature. (Unless God is just a complete bungler, which actually does fit with what you have said so far on this thread).

 

[Nathan Poe]

It also makes no sense to say that nature is "against" God if God created nature. (Unless God is just a complete bungler, which actually does fit with what you have said so far on this thread).

Incompetent Design actually has a lot more going for it than Intelligent Design.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Incompetent Design actually has a lot more going for it than Intelligent Design.

That would fit with the bungling God of YEC.

 

[Nathan Poe]

That would fit with the bungling God of YEC.

The one who's been dropping the ball since putting the talking snake in the magic garden, and shifted the blame to the nekkid couple who didn't know any better?

Right, the little God with the zero foresight.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The one who's been dropping the ball since putting the talking snake in the magic garden, and shifted the blame to the nekkid couple who didn't know any better?

Right, the little God with the zero foresight.

Yeah, the one who ended up repenting of his creation because his own sons mated with the daughters of men causing great evil. The bungler who deciding to destroy his creation with a global flood to end evil but then picked a survivor who he thought was righteous but who turned out to be drunk. He didn't do too good a job of ending evil either.

 

[metherion]

I think I'm going to repost my list of questions every page until AV either answers them or admits he can't. Those are the only two acceptable options.

1. Wasn't the earth dry in 8:11, when Noah knew the waters were abated from the earth? Doesn't that mean that it was dry? After all, if the water is gone it can't be wet.
So now we have 3 dry dates, each more than a month apart!

2. Noah doesn't disembark until 8:18, which is at the direct behest of God from the prevous few verses, and no date was mentioned in the disembarking description. So how do we know which one it was?

3. Noah knows it is dry, but doesn't poke his head out of the Ark for more than a month afterwards?

4. How long was the raven in the air? After all, it specifically says the raven was in the air until the earth was dry. So, how long was it?

5. Where did the olive tree come from? After all, it specifically says in Gen 7:23 that all that lived on dry land died.

Quote:
Gen 7:23
23And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
Emphasis mine

So, where did the olive branch come from? It says all living substance. Not all living creatures, not all living animals, all living substance.

6. Is the 40 days of rain in the 150 or not? I never really understood that. It doesn't seem like it should be. Why else would they numerate the days it rained separately?

7. How do 7:24 and 8:3 not indicate that the Flood was ended?
For 7:24, if the waters prevailed upon the earth for 150 days, doesn't that mean that after 150 days the waters weren't prevailing on it anymore? And for 8:3, aren't the waters gone if it specifically says that after 150 days they were abated?

Metherion

 

[[serious]]

closed at the request of the OP