Re: The science of Noah's Ark: Creation society considers the

On 7 June, 09:31, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 6 June, 22:28, "[M]adman" <ad...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





Jim Willemin wrote:
"John Smith" <bobsyoung...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:CFyWl.972$u86.718@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

"Jason Spaceman" <notrea...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:h0ec77$v8s$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From the article:
---------------------------------------------
Perhaps the question should be: Does it matter to a Christian's
salvation whether the story of Noah's Ark is literally true -- or a
fable to impart a
larger truth?

But that is not the mission of the Frederick Creation Society.

Not ANOTHER ignorant fundy maniac!?!?!?!?!

"We think that the Bible is the truthful revelation of the word of
God Almighty," said Dr. Robert Scovner, one of the group's founders
and a "semi-
retired" family practitioner. "Metaphorically, it (the story of
Noah's Ark) may
be useful, but it is presented as history and we believe it is
accurate."

Soooo .... silly!
Even the first two words are an oxymoron.

"We Believe" - a true statement, understanding that "beliefs
(particularly religous beliefs) may have absolutely nothing to do
with reality.

With that in mind, Charles Antilla, of the Kentucky-based Christian
ministry
Answers in Genesis, will present the half-hour DVD "Flood Geology"
at the next
meeting of the Frederick Creation Society on Tuesday.

The debate is not science versus religion, but "science versus
science," Scovner
said

Yep ... and Tinkerbell's Fairy Dust will be discussed, by Nasa, as a
substitute for space shuttle lift-offs.

"We feel the evolution explanation is completely wrong, it just
fails," he said.
"Human life is incomprehensible in its design and complexity. And we
know that
from our own experience, when we see something -- a new tool or
technology, for
example -- with great design and obvious brilliance that it comes
from an intelligent designer. The most fantastic designs and
intricacies found can only
come from an intelligent designer at work."

Gee.... then all you need is VALID evidence - and this will become
something other than the usual, ignorant, bull ***!

-------------------------------------------------

Read it at
http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/art_life/display.htm?
storyID =91149

J. Spaceman

Well, if it's science then the question of 'where's the water?' is
valid, and that is a killer.  There is no way amenable to science to
get rid of all that water within a few thousand years, let alone a
year or two.  There is also the problem of fish, and corals, and
everything else.  If they want to call floodology science, by all
means, let's discuss it - by the rules of science.  That is a dumb
move...  but then, nobody in the Frederick Creation Society cares -
just as nobody in the Frederick Creation Society knows diddly-squat
about geology, or biology, or physics...

Wrong... Wrong... wrong

Look at the oceans with Google earth. Imagine (if you can) water being only
in the deep dark blue areas; and not very deep in those areas at that. See
all of those possible land bridges?

Mountain ranges are not ideal land bridges.

You can almost walk around the earth.
Even to Hawaii.

The chain of islands that make up Hawaii are on a mountain range with
no feasible land bridges linking them to anywhere else.

Now imagine an earth with a water vapor canopy as well as
water much under the ground. So much water under the ground in fact that the
earth was fed by fountains and mist, not rain.

What evidence do you have for this alleged vapour canopy?

What evidence do you have for this alleged underground water supply?

Do you know what happens to water under pressure?

Just as described IN the
bible. THAT would be more then enough to flood the earth then run off into
the lighter areas in the oceans.

A world wide flood is quite possible. Perhaps it did not cover Ararat,
perhaps it did.

According to the Bible all the mountains under heaven were covered, to
a depth of fifteen cubits.

Maybe the story became embellished over time, maybe not.
Maybe Ararat was lower back then unless you think there has been no more
uplifting since the flood.

The corals did not exist before the flood.

Then how do we have coral fossils?

Oh gosh here is an other post which you haven't responded to, but of
course I am sure you will claim you did, but that I have cut out your
reply again.

Dead bodies float and will
essentially disintegrate. Not all animals went into the boat. That suggest
there were parts of the earth that were not completly covered but that does
not mean  Ararat did not get topped.

Face it. You are in denial with a science that is quite imperfect.

.

.

Loading