Are Saturday Nights a good time for a heart to hea

Originally posted by Nordlys
Yeah, I know, I know. God can do anything, so he could guide those polar bears to the ark and let them survive under conditions they usually wouldn't survive, and he could keep all the animals on the ark from eating each other, etc. etc. But if he can do anything, what was the point of making things so complicated? And why did he choose a solution which wou ...[text shortened]... y clear on the point that it was the humans he had a problem with. Does he not care for animals?

I think the polar bears adapted to cold regions after the flood happened, I think that before the flood, the earth was a constant temperature, Again I may be wrong, I dont have all the answers, this is just my theory, and I would like to see others point of view

Also I have a very good idea what you accept of science, based on the threads you posted, I have never seen you argue with an evolutionist scientist, any scientist you disagree with you call them "quack apologists".

This is false. I call quack apologists "quack apologists." Also remember that not all scientists are evolutionary biologists.

Take your home schooling thread as a counterexample. You plagerized some stuff from a site that pointed to findings by certain scientists (social scientists). I disagreed with these scientists (something you claim that I never do), and despite my objections, I never called them "quacks."

And about me walking in the flesh or spirit, I am far from perfect, Hope you realize that. I may be wrong in what science I believe. I'm not saying that what I say is true, I'm just saying that that's what I believe

Fair enough. We all make mistakes. Just be careful when you try to pigeon-hole my ideas. While a lot of xtians I meet would like to think that we non-believers are all worshippers of the Science god, nothing could be farther from the truth.

Most of the science that you know that I accept is limited to biology and economics. These are the areas that I focused on here. You know nothing of my thoughts in physics, chemistry, archaelogy, anthropology, etc.

I do believe that the flood actually happened,

My family and I are going on a walk right now. I have a whole bunch of serious objections to a literal reading of the Flood myth. I'll give you some when I return.

A question for you, lets say in 10 years or so, that there is clear evidence of the ark being found, and it matches the bible, would you believe it then? or would you make up a new theory supporting that it never happened? I'm not saying this will happen, I'm just asking what you would do if it does

Sure. I understand your question. First, we must clarify. We would not find the "ark." We'd find a boat with dimensions that match the ark. Calling it the ark in the first place, begs the question. If we found a boat that exactly matched the dimensions of the ark and our dating methods put it somewhere around 3500 years ago, then that would at least help. There really is so much more left to be explained though that just finding a boat with those dimensions wouldn't make me an immediate convert.

Locating the ark should be the least of the literalists worries. Finding a specific big boat from almost 4000 years ago is a shot in the dark. They would be better served to find abundant evidence that a global flood occured 3600 years ago (It should be obvious being so recent.)

Originally posted by telerion
[b]Also I have a very good idea what you accept of science, based on the threads you posted, I have never seen you argue with an evolutionist scientist, any scientist you disagree with you call them "quack apologists".

This is false. I call quack apologists "quack apologists." Also remember that not all scientists are evolutionary biologists. ...[text shortened]... dant evidence that a global flood occured 3600 years ago (It should be obvious being so recent.)[/b]

ok I will await your return meanwhile check this out

http://pilgrimpromo.com/WAR/noah/html/n03.htm

Some say that the Flood was just a local flood

http://www.icr.org/bible/bhta41.html

Here is a link I find intersting,

http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/noahsark.htm


I dont expect you to believe any of these links, as you will probaly refer them as "quacks" lol (I had to say it)

Originally posted by flyUnity
I think the polar bears adapted to cold regions after the flood happened, I think that before the flood, the earth was a constant temperature, Again I may be wrong, I dont have all the answers, this is just my theory, and I would like to see others point of view

Hello creationist nutter.

Originally posted by flyUnity
ok I will await your return meanwhile check this out

http://pilgrimpromo.com/WAR/noah/html/n03.htm

Some say that the Flood was just a local flood

http://www.icr.org/bible/bhta41.html

Here is a link I find intersting,

http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/noahsark.htm


I dont expect you to believe any of these links, as you will probaly refer them as "quacks" lol (I had to say it)

http://pilgrimpromo.com/WAR/noah/html/n03.htm

NUTTERS

http://www.icr.org/bible/bhta41.html

MORE NUTTERS

http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/noahsark.htm

Very convincing: as soon as I saw the photographs of the Ark landing on Mount Ararat I realise my errors.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome

Very convincing: as soon as I saw the photographs of the Ark landing on Mount Ararat I realise my errors.

hehe, its gets them every time

Originally posted by flyUnity
hehe, its gets them every time

Even I could detect the sarcasm. Did you miss that?

Originally posted by flyUnity
ok I will await your return meanwhile check this out

http://pilgrimpromo.com/WAR/noah/html/n03.htm

Some say that the Flood was just a local flood

http://www.icr.org/bible/bhta41.html

Here is a link I find intersting,

http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/noahsark.htm


I dont expect you to believe any of these links, as you will probaly refer them as "quacks" lol (I had to say it)

Well, the ICR is quackery so your one for three. The other two are written by people not claiming to be scientists, so I would simply call them deluded fanatics. But who cares what I think of them? Let me summarize why I think each in turn fails. Before doing this however I want to point out that not one of the sites attempts to actually give a model for what happened. They provide no extra-Biblical evidence with the exception of the final link which only makes an extremely weak appeal to authority.

http://pilgrimpromo.com/WAR/noah/html/n03.htm

This one has what appears to be a photograph of an oblong impression in a hillside. Apparently it is a strange topological pattern on the side of a mountain. Apparently this site is by a rogue in the creationist community. Apparently Gish and the other whackos at ICR believe Brandenburger's work to be a hoax.

Note that this site claims that they have found rusted metal brackets. Now I'm not a chemist, but is this guy actually suggesting that a ship built supposedly 4000 years ago had not only metal bracings but iron at that! I guess the "Iron Age" is misnomer. It appears man had been smelting iron for thousands of years previously.

In all I was very disappointed that the site gave no links to their evidence, instead making wild claims to data, but nothing to show for it. I would put this site up there with the UFO landing investigations in terms of veracity.

http://www.icr.org/bible/bhta41.html

This is a criticism against the "local flood" hypothesis. Primary argument is theological. The Bible says this or that just this way. As both a non-xtian and a non-literalist, I find these arguments to be meaningless. Useful for dogma, but little else.

The remainder of the article attacks a straw man of the geological community. It drags out the same tired deceitful tactics. Geologists are blinded by uniformatarianism - a philosphy, ironically, that creationists subscribe to when it supports their case- or geologists are purposefully ignoring the evidence because they promote an agenda of "humanism and evolutionary socialism."

This sort of frantic scatter attack is a strong signal that ICR has no real model or evidence to support their claim. So rather than address criticisms, they create conspiracy theories.

Unfortunately, in the end, the site offers no shred of evidence for the Noah's ark case.

http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/noahsark.htm

This site is authored by a guy who claims to be an M.D. He offers short responses to what he thinks are the most common objections to a literalist interpretation of the Flood. Frankly, I found them all very lacking. If you use any of them, we can get into it as I don't want to go over all 16 of his responses.

I did find it interesting that quite a few of them were appeals to "Magic" as I've pointed out earlier. When faced with a particularly difficult criticism, the author always retreats to Goddunnit. If that is where you're going to go, why even attempt a naturalistic explaination for any of it. It seems even the author realizes that naturalistic explainations are more satisfactory and so he attempts them whereever possible.

So, no I wasn't too convinced. I'd like to hear what makes you convinced though. My criticisms will come later. It's dinner time now.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I think it points to pre-civilization origin of the flood myth. Frogstomp's explanation utterly fails to take into account the fact that various people's the world over have a flood myth which is pretty similar in form to the Noah one; they can't all be derived from the Sumerian one. I submit the worldwide flood story is simply a very old t ...[text shortened]... in area to Africa and the Middle east. As Man spread over the globe, he took this myth with him.

Although I do like the Sumerian origin for the account that's in the xtian bible (too many similarities to dismiss), I think there appears to be a basis for a global event as well. Whether the Enlil/Atrahasis tablets are based on that widespread catastrophe or the more recent Black Sea event as Froggy suggested is speculative.

Wish I had more time on my hands. :-/

Originally posted by telerion
http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/noahsark.htm

This site is authored by a guy who claims to be an M.D. He offers short responses to what he thinks are the most common objections to a literalist interpretation of the Flood. Frankly, I found them all very lacking. If you use any of them, we can get into it as I don't want to go over all 16 of his responses.

I don't want to go over all of them either, but this one about god killing innocent children caught my attention:

"History is filled with examples where children were destined to suffer because of the choices of their parents. If we believe these children were innocent, then we should be comforted to know that by their drowning, God removed them from a wicked society and took their souls to eternal peace and rest."

Wait a minute - why would he have to remove the children from a wicked society when he removed the wicked society anyway? You might say that the children couldn't have survived without their parents, but that would contradict the notion that god can provide for everybody's needs. And if it's best for innocent children to have their life taken and get eternal peace and rest, what's the point with life on earth in general? If it's rather a privilege than a punishment to be drowned, why were Noah and his family not drowned, too? And why does god not kill children who suffer nowadays? It's interesting - when there's a story about a child who was dying and was saved, it's used to show god's mercy and love. But when the child dies, it also shows god's mercy and love, because he freed it from suffering. So basically, whatever god does, it shows his mercy and love.

My question about the animals (which I asked earlier in this thread) was not addressed on that page. Maybe animals are just too unimportant. 😕 In any case, the argument with the "wicked society" works even less for the animals, as long as they weren't domestic animals.

Originally posted by telerion
Well, the ICR is quackery so your one for three. The other two are written by people not claiming to be scientists, so I would simply call them deluded fanatics. But who cares what I think of them? Let me summarize why I think each in turn fails. Before doing this however I want to point out that not one of the sites attempts to actually give a model fo ...[text shortened]... at makes you convinced though. My criticisms will come later. It's dinner time now.

Maybe later tonight I might reply to your post, Im gonna help somone build his computer now.

Ben

Originally posted by Nordlys
I don't want to go over all of them either, but this one about god killing innocent children caught my attention:

"History is filled with examples where children were destined to suffer because of the choices of their parents. If we believe these children were innocent, then we should be comforted to know that by their drowning, God removed them from a ...[text shortened]... e "wicked society" works even less for the animals, as long as they weren't domestic animals.

Every animal has to die, does that mean its cruel when they die because of drowning? but no cruel when they die of old age, or any other way. I just dont get what your trying to say

Ben

Originally posted by David C
Although I do like the Sumerian origin for the account that's in the xtian bible (too many similarities to dismiss), I think there appears to be a basis for a global event as well. Whether the Enlil/Atrahasis tablets are based on that widespread catastrophe or the more recent Black Sea event as Froggy suggested is speculative.

Wish I had more time on my hands. :-/

The geologic evidence is as clear as any scientific evidence can be: there was no world wide flood - EVER! Unless Satan has messed with the Earth's physical features to hide such evidence, the world wide flood assertion is not credible. Therefore, the derivation of the flood myths must be found in the cultural history of Man, not in non-existent physical evidence.

Originally posted by flyUnity
Every animal has to die, does that mean its cruel when they die because of drowning? but no cruel when they die of old age, or any other way. I just dont get what your trying to say

Ben

He's saying that it was cruel for Yahweh to destroy nearly all the animals alive at that time for things which they had no control over.

Consider:

If I go grab an alley and then proceed to rip each of its limbs off and dose it in acid, would you call that cruel? Or would you say that the cat was going to die one way or another so no big deal?

How about if instead of torturing it, I just shot the cat for the hell of it?
Is that cruel?

Originally posted by David C
However, Mesoamerican cultures in the Americas contain similar deluge myths, although one might discount the Aztec version which was revealed after the infection of christianity. Maybe this does point to a global event rather than a mere local one?

Parallel accounts of the flood, some written hundreds of years before Genesis was written, support its historical basis. In his book, Noahs Ark and the Ziusudra Epic. Robert Best

gil