Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,925 Year: 4,182/9,624 Month: 1,053/974 Week: 12/368 Day: 12/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Noahs ark is a physical impossibility
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 71 (32358)
02-16-2003 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Philip
02-16-2003 12:54 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
I'm a YEC.
The 40-day global flood seemed a complete physical impossibility based on the data, but the ark with all its room might easily hold all the kinds of necessary gene pools of life-forms on just 2 of the 3 levels (stories) within.
Yet, perhaps, it was a supernatural event, as you sarcastically ridicule, like:
1) Realizing you and I are hell-deserving sinners, fleeing for salvation at a cross-alter, knowing all sins are purged from your conscience forever, etc.
2) Feeding 5000 with several loaves and fishes.
3) Daniel surviving in a lion's den.
4) Jonah in a fish 3 days and 3 nights, before converting Ninevah.
5) A Christ-God fulfilling all Jewish prophecies then raising up to the right hand of God with all power.
6) A cosmos that repeatedly manifests cursed-events and redemptive-events.
7) A lot of things scientists, you, and I don't understand.
Certainly, based on the geological strata studies, the fortuitous concreteness (relatively fixed appearing irreducible complexities) of higher life-forms, and other scientific proofs, this global catastrophy may be postulated/hypothesized and possibly theorized ... albeit, a veritable unexplainable rift in evolution (if you will).

Yes, the Ark story was completely impossible if you are brave (some might say foolish) enough to take it literally, it is interesting how you stress the word 'might' when claiming (without refering to the number of animals) that the Ark would be able to house the animals on 2 of its three levels. Then, (as the creationist usually does) you make an irrefutable appeal to the supernatural in case the reader (having developed a special organ called a brain) sees the fallacy of your claim.
Then as if that were not enough, you make references to several other 'supernatural' ark-like statements used by creationists as if in an attempt to prove your ark-presuppositions by boring the reader to death with yet more irrefutable and purely circumstantial random statements. Indeed, all you have achieved is to inform the reader that there is no reason why he or she should believe anything that you have to say on the ark question whatsoever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Philip, posted 02-16-2003 12:54 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Philip, posted 02-17-2003 8:53 PM Gzus has not replied

  
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 71 (32472)
02-17-2003 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by David unfamous
02-17-2003 5:26 AM


quote:
Originally posted by David unfamous:
I always laugh at the non-believer quoting scripture to bolster their argument. Satan tried the same thing in the wilderness, and it didn't work there either.
Interesting. You're referencing scripture to bolster your argument that scripture is refrenced to bolster an argument.
As for the flood, I still haven't heard any reason why an all-powerful God who allegedly created the Universe needed to use rainfall to wipe out his disobedient children instead of just snapping his fingers and making them all disappear, save Noah. Couldn't this all have been done in an instant?

Why the Answer is simple! For fun! Ever played lemmings?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by David unfamous, posted 02-17-2003 5:26 AM David unfamous has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024