Noah's Ark

[Frozenwolf150]

Pure logic says I can.
We have been relying on science since the fall.

Wow, I was talking about biblical interpretation and literalism, and you completely changed the subject to an unrelated assertion. My point was that you can't use special pleading to pick out some ridiculous parts of the flood myth as true, while tapdancing away from other ridiculous parts of the flood myth just because they make your argument look stupid.

He wasn’t in a sense but because he was righteous he was blessed to continue or we would have had the kinds of changes the other epochs experienced in the form of re-creations and extinctions.
Since he was so righteous Gods dissension to allow grace to continued and the plan was to give a second grace continued in the form of the Messiah.
God had hope in us.

I hope you realize that the first thing Noah did after the flood was to get drunk and pass out with his genitals exposed. Not that this makes him a bad person, mind you, but by your logic he was fulfilling God's intended role for him.

But still, you didn't answer my question. If God could have miracled away all the inconsistencies found in the flood logistics, then why was it even necessary to put Noah and his family through that pointless exercise? I'll give you a clue. The correct answer has nothing to do with grace, or the messiah, or whether the flood actually happened.

That’s why we are looking at the bones of Neanderthals and not humans.
But there is a third grace that will happen.

What in the world do neanderthal bones have to do with this?

Your whole point is moot.

So genocide is okay as long as you say that God told you to do it? Right, gotcha. Excuse me while I vomit blood.

So it is written.
Baptism by fire, what is the whole world, is it not you, from your perspective?
What I would think doesn’t matter. What makes you think it is Gods will when man can’t follow Gods will and aren’t we capable of accomplishing that on our own with nuclear proliferation as it is now the way of the world?
The third grace will happen. It will happen before the world is engulfed in fire brought on by us.

It would help if you didn't just finish arguing that certain forms of genocide are a fulfillment of God's will. It really shoots down your claim that post hoc justifications for violence are a separate thing.

You can use science for good or evil inadvertently or on propose.
Are you telling me that the News is wrong when they say that the food crises is worse than ever because of our greed and the use of fossil fuel is driving economy to ruin. So much for science turning grains to fuel.
Do you think that suppression of new technologies is real? What is this, thirty-six years after the knowledge of hydrogen as a fuel for cars derived from water is finally being brought to light recently.
This was known in 1972.
All we got now is hybrids that still burn gas.
Tell me this knowledge hasn’t been suppressed, seems like the people that are into the oil business are at the end of their rein and are going to extract all that they can till end of their rein, and they must know something for all this to be occurring, wake up!

So science is fallible and people make mistakes. How is this a vindication of your faith? How is this proof of a conspiracy, as you seem to be implying here?

The point is if we all had faith then there would be no bad science.
In my world the evidence points to something else. Faith is prayer and prayer is faith.

So then you're admitting that your assertions are meaningless to people living in the real world? Thanks for being honest.

God will not be tested even Jesus knew that, I can give you many links where prayers were answered, you can only go by a couple of tests, and not all are answered or we would all be in the position of Bruce all Mighty, every one would win the lottery.

If prayers that were not answered were part of God's plan, then what about people who were praying over life and death matters? Was it part of God's plan to allow people to die of war, famine, natural disasters, or horrible diseases, even if they were praying for him to save them? If the answer is no, then God is useless or weak, which is probably not what you were arguing for. If the answer is yes, then you are essentially admitting that any kind of horrible tragedy or atrocity can be attributed to God's will.

I suppose it's easy to believe in justifiable genocide if your worldview consists of resurrection as a 100% certainty. Perhaps you could provide your "many links" where people have been resurrected after dying horribly? No? Didn't think so.

 

[articulett]

Wow, I was talking about biblical interpretation and literalism, and you completely changed the subject to an unrelated assertion. My point was that you can't use special pleading to pick out some ridiculous parts of the flood myth as true, while tapdancing away from other ridiculous parts of the flood myth just because they make your argument look stupid.

What do you mean he can't do that? What else is a woo to do? When has one ever used logic or reason or evidence to advance an assertion?

 

[edge]

Wow talk about changing the topic!
Putting words in my mouth.
I think that I have been quite clear by using some of science, to prove that world under went a change of major proportion.

So because you ask lets make it clear what you do first.

Romans 1:25 (New International Version)

25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Further down the page,
They are gossips,
30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful
1they are senseless, faithless, heartless, and ruthless.


You then say another stupid thing,

I suppose it's easy to believe in justifiable genocide if your worldview consists of resurrection as a 100% certainty. Perhaps you could provide your "many links" where people have been resurrected after dying horribly? No? Didn't think so.

Your whole response is like this, you ask a question and then you answer it for me.

Didn’t think so

That’s the most truthful thing you have said yet, you said, “didn’t think so”, so you are not thinking you have made up your mind but not in the positive, but in the negative, typical reaction when one wants to be stuck in darkness and preferred to self-exalt yourself above God.

None of your deceptive responses are fooling me, trying to use deception and changing the topic is what you are now programmed to do, we are talking about Noah and the flood, not the resurrection of man, or Christ since you do that you are avoiding the truths put down form me about the scientific evidence that I have presented.

Justifiable genocides haven’t occurred since the O.T. ….


Now do you want proof of physical resurrection or spiritual resurrection or would both be good, since you want to make me out as the liar and the deceptive one?

If you are really curious such evidence exists then you might want to start a new thread and stick to the subject matter of this one.

BTW

I wonder, isn't it 'easy' to debunk (or not) this story by building a virtual ark?
You need a few experts, shipbuilder, some biologists, botanicals, stable builders and others.
And yes, some to make the actual simulation.
What do you think?

Yes but it didn’t go over to well with the skeptics as the simulation was quit stable and with the adaptations of what was the earliest design of a ridged sail and rudder at the front of the ship/ark it would steer it’s self into the wind.
Any thing you want can be googled on the subject.
They will say that it is too big but yet the Chinese built one call the emperors Treasure junks.
Here’s, a link if you are still there.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sultan/explorers.html


Interesting note: they backed engineered one of these from a rudder they found and think it was more than 500 feet long.
So it is possible.

And why would an infallible god need to correct his creation?

Because people were skeptical.
And you want to self-exalt yourself above God.
And at that point God giveth and taketh away, proving his point.
You don't give thanks you don't praise.

Romans 1:25
Heck the whole chapter.

Scripture explains that Satan and his host of fallen angels rule over this planet, it also details a hierarchy of demonic echelons.
Jesus Christ explained to his apostles what events would immediately precede his second coming, "It shall be exactly as in the days before Noah entered the ark". Matt 24:38 , Luke 17:27
The "fallen ones" sought to merge with the bloodline of Adam, because of the promise to send a redeemer through Adam's kinsman. The Hebrew says that the Sons of God saw that the women were a fit "extension", for they sought to extend themselves into this realm from the spirit realm, as well as to extend themselves into the "children of the promise" the lineage of Adam. Satan tried to prevent the eventual birth, in the distant future, of the Messiah.

The mating of human beings with angels resulted in hybrid creatures, evil spirits with human bodies. The human \ angel hybrids began to corrupt and destroy the human race, resulting in the Deluge, "the end of all flesh" except Noah and his family.

Funny how Neanderthals were around at this time and now they are not.
After all they where built for extreme survival.

I don't know why I waste my time, you won't get any of this, because you have shut your mind off from the truth.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I think that I have been quite clear by using some of science, to prove that world under went a change of major proportion.

Correlation does not equal causation, and your arguments involving "sin," which is a religious concept contingent on the existence of God, have nothing to do with scientific evidence.

So because you ask lets make it clear what you do first.

Romans 1:25 (New International Version)

25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Further down the page,
They are gossips,
30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful
1they are senseless, faithless, heartless, and ruthless.

Using that arbitrary bible verse to attack anyone who disagrees with you, to insult them with someone else's words, is a cowardly dishonest tactic. It works both ways and doesn't prove anything, you know. I could say that the following verse describes creationist apologists perfectly:

11 As a dog returns to its vomit,
so a fool repeats his folly. (Proverbs 26:11)

That’s the most truthful thing you have said yet, you said, “didn’t think so”, so you are not thinking you have made up your mind but not in the positive, but in the negative, typical reaction when one wants to be stuck in darkness and preferred to self-exalt yourself above God.

You are the one exalting yourself above God by pretending to act as his spokesperson to sell an idiotic interpretation of the flood myth.

None of your deceptive responses are fooling me, trying to use deception and changing the topic is what you are now programmed to do, we are talking about Noah and the flood, not the resurrection of man, or Christ since you do that you are avoiding the truths put down form me about the scientific evidence that I have presented.

You can chant "scientific evidence" all you want, but that doesn't let you get away with equating your arguments about the unknowable will of God, the faith-based claims about sin, or the untestability of God with "science."

Justifiable genocides haven’t occurred since the O.T. ….

You have yet to prove that those were even justified. Mass murdering people, including their children, to prevent them from teaching the same children to sin or follow the wrong gods? Explain how it's moral to think that way.

Now do you want proof of physical resurrection or spiritual resurrection or would both be good, since you want to make me out as the liar and the deceptive one?

You did that on your own, with your own words. I was asking for proof of the type of "resurrection" that you base your "God has the right to kill anybody" worldview on.

Funny how Neanderthals were around at this time and now they are not.
After all they where built for extreme survival.

Did you even bother to look up the current hypotheses for why neanderthals went extinct? Every species that has ever lived has been "built for extreme survival" yet 99% of them are extinct today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neandertal_interaction_with_Cro-Magnons

What in the world does this have to do with Satan, or angels screwing humans? Need I remind you that they are mythological creatures?

I don't know why I waste my time, you won't get any of this, because you have shut your mind off from the truth.

With a statement like that, one can make it look like one has done some actual research, instead of just copy-pasting claims from creationist websites.

 

[articulett]

Edge is so worth reading when quoted in Silent Knights posts.

I laughed. I cried. I laughed.

 

[Madalch]

And you want to self-exalt yourself above God.

How can one want to do such a thing, unless one believes in the existance of such a being?

 

[articulett]

Let's try, shall we?

Maladach... you want to self-exalt yourself above Santa. And given your avatar, you want to self-exalt yourself above Bozo the Clown as well.

 

[Darkhole]

Now, you guys are being unfair... sure god killed his failures...

Even the kids and the unborn?

 

[Beerina]

I like it. You could try first "building" a realistic floating zoo, and noting that things were a bit cramped and unsanitary you would note that "obviously", during the ark time animals neither ate nor excreted. When the ark still didn't fit all the animals, you could note that "obviously" the animals were shrunk to miniature size.

Or maybe, you could put forth different theories on how to make the ark "work". If you could figure out how big a realistic ark would have to be, you could use that measure to determine the size of a Biblical cubit. 18 inches is often used as a standard cubit measure, but it's actually the length from the elbow to the fingertips. Now, consider for a moment that just before the ark story, Genesis 6 talks about the giants in the Earth. Obviously, once you calculate the size the ark would have to be, you could use that to determine the size of a cubit, and it would "prove" that there were, in fact, giants in the Earth, and you could use the cubit calculation to determine the size of the giants, because obviously, Genesis was using the "giant cubit", based on the size of the giant's forearm.

I think this has real potential.

Man, science is powerful in the right hands!

 

[Beerina]

1. You don't need hyper-evolution if goddidit.

2. Dinosaur bones and the like are just plants by the devil to deceive you and make you think the Earth is older than 6,000 years.


What about remnants of a tail in humans' "junk DNA", or legs for a whale? Nipples for men, or a spinal column instead of 2 or 3 long bones with joints, like knees?

And isn't it exceedingly rude for a god to inflict on us the potential for such massive pain and terror and fear of death, when said god has none of these issues? Oh, he could "know" these things because he knows everything, but he doesn't need to "know" them, and in any case, that God "experiences" these things that we do, as we do, is a half-assed whinebag apology for a supposedly infinite god anyway.

 

[articulett]

Even the kids and the unborn?

Sure... what's death but a beginning to the journey of happily ever after? The young 'uns never have to experience the strife of the "life test" god makes the rest of the folks go through--it's zippity split up to heaven for them (they are his favorites, you know... and he "needs another angel") Or so the theists tell me. But what do I know... I've never been able to make much sense of any of it. Why wouldn't relatively strife-free short lives trump long strife-filled lives if the goal was to get to the "eternal paradise"? What does it matter when you start your "eternity" as long as you get there, right? What better way to get there than to die young?

 

[edge]

I looked for evidence of the flood and because I mine I found a great example in the top layers of the areas that I mine to understand what I am looking at, you need to know how the hydraulics of water works in soil and weathering.
I found a giant sand wave deposited from such an event preserved in nature along with giant banks of sand as a top later and it's everywhere.
The only thing that uncovers the evidence is erosion from creeks and rivers and if you didn't know what to look for you would never notice.
They are too young to be from Mountain building or ocean effect before those times.

Sand is the last thing to settle to the bottom and all these layers are on top of glacial deposits that are recognized in the next layers down. That is where the gold and other metals are.
Those layers are sediments that are deposits of bigger rocks and overburden and underneath those are the glacial deposits.
Pretty easy to recognize that these sand deposits were stirred up in a suspended very big event and then dropped last and pushed by water action and waves.
The sand waves are on the bottom in a valley not just this one but also others around here, at 2500 feet elevation in the mountains and not at anything close to sea level this is where I live, on the old continental Plate. Eighty miles to the west is the Pacific.
There can be no other explanations for that amount of sand and the shapes of them.
It is similar to the mud waves that are found under the Artic ocean and the scientist can't explane these either, they are smaller because there was less depth of water on the land than in the Artic ocean, currents would have been slightly less here because of the landmasses causing more friction against the currents because the mountains where already here.
But still these are an impressive size thirty feet tall. With other deposits that are at least fifty feet tall that’s a lot of material.

As far as your other drivel it's all bull...

Ask a doctor in the medical field what these structures are for, like tail bones; and as far as whales they are not leg bones how stupid.
Here’s a picture of a fossil whale that looks the same in prehistoric times and the bones serve the same function then as they do now and the reason is similar to why humans have tail bones.

I made a film of the sand wave and hope to have it up on U-Tube soon if you are actually interested.


You are here because the grace of God, but even your linage could have been wiped out but it wasn’t, and you still mock God.
He’s so bad for taking out people that would have cut your heart out and shown it to you before you died all for a serpent, or for good crops.
See Apocalypto; the movie if you can’t wrap your head around the thought.
Then tell me where your sympathy lies.
But of course since you are self proclaimed hedonists I can guess that you would have participated in such events because that is who you seem to emulate in at least being blind to the ways of the so called real world.

 

[edge]

14 I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it. God does it so that men will revere him.

15 Whatever is has already been,
and what will be has been before;
and God will call the past to account. [a]

16 And I saw something else under the sun:
In the place of judgment—wickedness was there,
in the place of justice—wickedness was there.

17 I thought in my heart,
"God will bring to judgment
both the righteous and the wicked,
for there will be a time for every activity,
a time for every deed."

18 I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath ; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal [c] goes down into the earth?"

22 So I saw that there is nothing better for a man than to enjoy his work, because that is his lot. For who can bring him to see what will happen after him?

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I looked for evidence of the flood and because I mine I found a great example in the top layers of the areas that I mine to understand what I am looking at, you need to know how the hydraulics of water works in soil and weathering.
I found a giant sand wave deposited from such an event preserved in nature along with giant banks of sand as a top later and it's everywhere.
The only thing that uncovers the evidence is erosion from creeks and rivers and if you didn't know what to look for you would never notice.
They are too young to be from Mountain building or ocean effect before those times.

Sand is the last thing to settle to the bottom and all these layers are on top of glacial deposits that are recognized in the next layers down. That is where the gold and other metals are.
Those layers are sediments that are deposits of bigger rocks and overburden and underneath those are the glacial deposits.
Pretty easy to recognize that these sand deposits were stirred up in a suspended very big event and then dropped last and pushed by water action and waves.
The sand waves are on the bottom in a valley not just this one but also others around here, at 2500 feet elevation in the mountains and not at anything close to sea level this is where I live, on the old continental Plate. Eighty miles to the west is the Pacific.
There can be no other explanations for that amount of sand and the shapes of them.
It is similar to the mud waves that are found under the Artic ocean and the scientist can't explane these either, they are smaller because there was less depth of water on the land than in the Artic ocean, currents would have been slightly less here because of the landmasses causing more friction against the currents because the mountains where already here.
But still these are an impressive size thirty feet tall. With other deposits that are at least fifty feet tall that’s a lot of material.

Does the sand all have a uniform age? If not then your argument goes nowhere.
Did you account for the fact that sands occur on shorelines and can be left covering large areas as the shoreline recedes? Look at any illustration of North America during the Ordovician, see if you can figure out what all that blue stuff is all over it, and tell me whether or not it's still there today.
A massive global flood would have mixed everything together and dumped it all at once, not settled it in layers. Layered sedimentation takes a long period of time.

Paleogeographical maps of North America

As far as your other drivel it's all bull...

Is this kind of helpless gesticulating a part of some bizarre creationist ritual to ward off logic?

Ask a doctor in the medical field what these structures are for, like tail bones; and as far as whales they are not leg bones how stupid.
Here’s a picture of a fossil whale that looks the same in prehistoric times and the bones serve the same function then as they do now and the reason is similar to why humans have tail bones.

What exactly are you claiming that the whale bones are then? I hope you realize that "vestigial" means "rudimentary" and the coccyx does apply, muscle attachments or not. People who have had their tailbones surgically removed are still able to walk and live normal lives.

Similarly, creationists have vestigial brains, but that doesn't mean their brains don't still have some rudimentary function, such as praying, proselytizing, and copy pasting Kent Hovind's claims. Creationists can still live normal lives (well, normal for creationists) when their brains are surgically removed.

You are here because the grace of God, but even your linage could have been wiped out but it wasn’t, and you still mock God.

So you're saying I should bow down to every single deity that has failed to kill me or my ancestors? That's going to take some time to sort out. I guess Jehovah will have to wait his turn then, since it's a pretty long line.

He’s so bad for taking out people that would have cut your heart out and shown it to you before you died all for a serpent, or for good crops.

See Apocalypto; the movie if you can’t wrap your head around the thought.
Then tell me where your sympathy lies.

But of course since you are self proclaimed hedonists I can guess that you would have participated in such events because that is who you seem to emulate in at least being blind to the ways of the so called real world.

Yes, those civilizations were taken out by people who would have killed or enslaved me for having the wrong beliefs or skin color. I don't see much of a difference between two violent religions who sought sacrifices in the name of their war deity. The lesser of two evils is still evil, and the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

The reasons the Conquistadors won had nothing to do with cultural or religious superiority.

Also, fundies can keep their sadomasochistic Mel Gibson snuff films to themselves for all I care.

 

[articulett]

Is this kind of helpless gesticulating a part of some bizarre creationist ritual to ward off logic?

You slay me. Permission to use this phrase in the future?

 

[edge]

O h jezz get a room...
That's the kind of drivel I am talking about and the mockery of the beerina beer drinker or what ever.

Is this kind of helpless gesticulating a part of some bizarre skeptics ritual to ward off logic?

There I fixed it for you.

Does the sand all have a uniform age? If not then your argument goes nowhere.
Did you account for the fact that sands occur on shorelines and can be left covering large areas as the shoreline recedes? Look at any illustration of North America during the Ordovician, see if you can figure out what all that blue stuff is all over it, and tell me whether or not it's still there today.
A massive global flood would have mixed everything together and dumped it all at once, not settled it in layers. Layered sedimentation takes a long period of time.

The place I'm talking about is still there even in your map. Still there.
You have to go further back, maybe to have it under water.
The further you go back the more there should be other layers on top.
It has been under water because Serpentine is high on the mountains here but that was before the mountains got pushed up and by now there would be no signs of it if the sand waves where that high up on the mountains and I haven’t seen any past 2500 foot elevations.
The Valleys I describe are encircled by mountains.
And yes the sand is all of uniform consistency.
If my video is clear enough you can see that it is on the top of the ground.

You are wrong about all deposits being jumbled may haps in certain instances but experimentation prove that the biggest and heaviest things settle first then the light materials.


The position of the of the sands indicates that it settled last then there are layers under that but only about three or four, under that is what was laid down by the glacier that covered that.
It is like cement or conglomerate then bedrock.

This sand wave in the past went from one side of the valley to the other, and then man and a creek cut through it.
It is what I believe to be a fossilized wave of sand all uniformed.
On top is a thin layer of topsoil from the forest that grows on it.
From an inch thick to a foot, which would mean that it is a most resent deposit.


Still there
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/namQ.jpg

still there

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/namNm15.jpg

You ask me what

What exactly are you claiming that the whale bones are then?

You mean you don’t know what they are for in the physiological sense for the whale?
They can’t mate with out it.


And here it still might be there.
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/namPp60.jpg
But this would account for the serpentine deposits before the mountains got pushed up.


So even further back still there.

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/namK100.jpg

If it was there before the glaciers where it would have took it off of the valley floor and flattened it.

 

[Reality Check]

There are all sorts of things that amaze me about these YECs and their belief in the flood. Here are a few of my favorites:

These guys should really get together and agree on a date for the flood. Here is one site's interpretation: "According to the Jewish historian Josephus, Irish archbishop and chronologist James Ussher, Bible historians and most conservative Christian scholars, the Flood of Noah's time occurred between 2500 BC and 2300 BC.".
But I believe that edge and others allow the flood to happen earlier (back 12 thousand years?).

It amazes me that these YECs so believe in the flood and yet cannot point to any geological evidence for it. No large scale sedimentation laid down in the last few thousand years. The Antarctic ice sheets have annual layers documenting 100's of thousands of years. For some strange reason there is no massive sedimentation layer.
Edge: there all sorts of things that create waves in sand. Without an accurate description of your "waves" I can only guess and that is dunes created by wind action (were you in a desert area?).

It amazes me how YECs are willing to rewrite the Bible to support the flood. They basically say that they are free to add whatever they like to the truth in the Bible so long as it is not mentioned. For example

• Dinosaurs are not mentioned therefore put them on the Ark. Kill them off afterward. Ignore the fact dinosaur fossils are dated to over 65 million years ago.
• The Ark cannot contain all of the modern (or past) species so interpret "kinds" as groups of species. And then add "hyper-evolution" (of just animals not humans) to create the modern species.
• No mention of how the various animals were kept so apply modern techniques such as automatic feeding and manure processing.

One wonders what their reaction would be to people adding to other parts of the Bible would be, e.g. explaining the miracle of the loaves and fishes by use of a time-traveling McDonalds?

It amazes me how many post-flood practical things that they ignore, e.g.

• The flood covers the world for most of a year and somehow the animals leave the Ark and find food.
• The carnivores somehow ignore all of the other animals until a sustainable population of prey is established. Yet they do not starve to death in the meantime!
• Somehow animals get to inaccessible places in a short period of time. Some examples: koalas to Australia (munching on their only food of eucalyptus leaves all the way); snails and kiwi to New Zealand; Galápagos tortoise and Galapagos land iguana to the Galápagos islands, etc.

 

[articulett]

And dogs can breed with wolves... but 12,000 years is not enough to account for all the breeds a canine "kind" could have produced in the mean time....

Oh that's right... god has his finger on "fast forward".

Now, tell me, how cruel isn't to tell trusting and/or daft people this stuff and then tell them that their salvation depends on believing it and that evil spawns of the devil will be testing their faith? Ah well, I guess the Muslims indoctrinate worse. But, it's all sick-- isn't it. And eventually the damage to the brain can't be undone.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

One wonders what their reaction would be to people adding to other parts of the Bible would be, e.g. explaining the miracle of the loaves and fishes by use of a time-traveling McDonalds?

In 2060, the Israeli Air Force will have invented time travel technology. They will organize a huge armada of aircraft and send them back in time in droves, carrying out a Air Lift. The Israelites won't be able to identify the aircraft as such, and will attribute the falling packages of food as divine intervention.

I hope I'm not giving YEC's any ideas here.

The thing is, as you point out, that every work of fiction, no matter how absurd, can be rationalized using special pleading, leaps of faith, etc. The old web master of FSTDT had this article in which he went through a long list of contradiction in Star Trek and rationalized every single one, using heaps of logical fallacies.

There are all sorts of things that amaze me about these YECs and their belief in the flood.

The fact that they believe in the flood is alone amazing enough to me. The details of the belief don't even come close.

Ask a doctor in the medical field what these structures are for, like tail bones; and as far as whales they are not leg bones how stupid.

Where's that parody tract that debunks the "Aryan YEC schooling Jewish evolutionist teacher" tract?

You are here because the grace of God, but even your linage could have been wiped out but it wasn’t, and you still mock God.
He’s so bad for taking out people that would have cut your heart out and shown it to you before you died all for a serpent, or for good crops.

Excuse me - He took them out? I thought humans had free will, and that you fundies hated it when God interfered with that.

Oh, wait, that's when we suggest he stops rapes, etc. When He uses mind control to make humans carry out genocides or refuse to let slaves leave it's totally OK. Silly me.

 

[Radrook]

One might argue that it would be basic to anyone trying to make the story work - otherwise the logistics would patently be impossible. It does rather beg the question regarding exactly what was on the Ark if this was the case. The difficulty is that one can make a series of assumptions that could just about explain anything in the end.

Right, exactly what you are doing.

The point was that this person is changing the account itself and even going against scientific evidence which proves that all those creatures he wants included in the Ark were extinct at that time.


Strange that suddenly you wish to ignore the geological record and have these creatures living alongside mankind in order to make the flood account impossible. Which only goes to show that when it comes to rejecting what the Bible tells us anything goes. The point obviouisly is to reject. Everything else such as logic and science is irrelevant.