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.
Your point is that God did not reaaalllly design the ark?? If so I might call it more of a stub nosed twig than a point.
Clam fossils have been found atop Mt. Everest.
Then your model is physically impossible.My model has the sea floor rising uniformly over a vast area, not flattening out as you suggest. The flood story suggests a gradual flood, thus a gradual rise in the sea floor. I suggest viewing some incoming tide video's on u-tube. They provide a good picture of how the flood came in.
The continents would not sink as you are proposing. They are attached to the sea floor that you have rising up. They have to be flooded before they can start to sink. There is no way for them to sink, nor would there be any reason for them to. They would not be flooded by any water.My model doesn't have the water distributed evenly over the earth. The sea floors would rise enough to cover those mountains with water. The sinking of the continents would help in this. A study of glacial rebound reveals how flexible the earth's crust actually is.
No, what we are describing is the flood model as described in the Bible.I proposed a rather gentle flood, not a tsunami, at least in the region of the ark. You are making the same mistake others have made, that is to change the flood model to one that supports your assumptions.
It was, at best a 437ft long barge.Most notably you insist that the ark was an oversized 'ship'. It wasn't. It was a mammoth building capable of surviving the flood it was built for. In all probability Noah used some joinery methods that related to shipbuilding, but only to ensure that the structure was watertight.
Since we have no deathbed confession from anyone at the time, that doesn't seem to have worked out very well.Had God done it your way, then no one would have had a chance to repent as the waters rose.
No deathbed confessions.
That is foolish. How could God directing Noah to build the ark, sending the flood waters, and animals, and closing the door to the ark be 'natural'???No, my point that flood apologists have to rely on invoking the supernatural in order to keep their models from being crushed under the weight of reality.
That is foolish. How could God directing Noah to build the ark, sending the flood waters, and animals, and closing the door to the ark be 'natural'???
Absurd. The reality is that you do not know many things about the ark. Therefore dreaming up one that cannot float properly is your own invention.No, my point that flood apologists have to rely on invoking the supernatural in order to keep their models from being crushed under the weight of reality.
Exactly. Of all the people who insist on explaining creation and all things without God, one would think believers would not be among them.Good question, so why do religious people keep arguing it would work without magic?
Exactly. Of all the people who insist on explaining creation and all things without God, one would think believers would not be among them.
To use science is fine.One would think -- except some believers are so desperate that they'll use anything they can come across to validate their beliefs... including science.
No, what we are describing is the flood model as described in the Bible.
The bible reveals a slow moving flood that took 40 days from the time it started to reach and float the ark.
It was, at best a 437ft long barge.
A portal is just a modern word for a type of window actually. Hatches and decks also are modern terms for concepts that once were named other things.Gen 6:16 describes a building, not a ship or barge.
"A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it."
Ships use the terms portholes, hatches, and decks. Buildings use the terms windows, doors, and stories.
The ark was a building.
The ark was a building.
Exactly. Of all the people who insist on explaining creation and all things without God, one would think believers would not be among them.
Assuming the writers of the account were familiar with maritime terminology.Gen 6:16 describes a building, not a ship or barge.
"A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it."
Ships use the terms portholes, hatches, and decks. Buildings use the terms windows, doors, and stories.
The ark was a building.
I completely agree with you, if a deity is making talking bushes which are on fire, makes pillars of fire, and has the power to flood the world, I think it could spare a bit of magic to keep the ark floating. But hey, if people are going to keep insisting that the ark could float on its own, I'll continue to debate against that point, just because I get bored sometimes.
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?