I just saw this ridiculous commercial for the 2nd time:

[Hockeycowboy]

Far more so than god dun it so everything else is wrong creation.com. A least i will review evidence and proof before making a decision

I really hope so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you unbiased?

Creation.com goes so far as to require their workers not to use the scientific method. One cannot use such a source for a scientific debate, they are beyond biased.

 

[Skwim]

I’d suggest you should at least consult another Bible. (Check BibleHub.) Apparently, the translators of the one you use, had an a priori motive and wanted nothing in theirs that would support a literal understanding of the Flood. This is the second time now.... 2 in a row, actually....where I’ve found misleading terms.

Instead of making us readers ferret out your translation how about simply providing it yourself? Show where Psalms 104 is says that "the Flood caused mountains and valleys to form." If you can't or won't I'll simply assume it doesn't exist and that you're blowing smoke.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, yes...God would cause the worst cataclysm the Earth ever experienced, but then not protect the Ark or it’s contents.

That makes sense.

The favorite get out of jail free card: God magic.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Provide an original manuscript and ilI tell you, howerver, considering the oldest was written some 80 years after and that is the Vulgate. How does the version you prefer compare to that?

And of course even books like the kjv and niv differ so much with whole verses and groups of verses omitted from the niv i am surprised you actually asked that question.

The kjv is old, and was based on manuscripts no older than the 10th century. That’s why it contains the Comma Johanneum.

Archaeologists have discovered much older, therefore more reliable, manuscripts since then.

Yes, there are discrepancies, but the DSS revealed there are very few that alter any meaning substantially.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Instead of making us readers ferret out your translation how about simply providing it yourself? Show where Psalms 104 is says that "the Flood caused mountains and valleys to form." If you can't or won't I'll simply assume it doesn't exist and that you're blowing smoke.

I gave you a tool: BibleHub.

You’ll assume whatever you want, anyway.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Gotta go for now....but will be back.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Not a valid source for any scientific argument.

Creation.com? Right, a totally unbiased and professional article no doubt with valid references.

Safety investigation of Noah's Ark in a seaway - creation.com

Dudes, it was clearly a scientific article in the link. Or decide for yourself. Please browse it really quick and then state whether you think it is scientific. It is very much just approaching the ark's shape and size from an engineering problem standpoint to see if it would work. If the math and science are correct it should be valuable.

But if the math and science are not correct, I am OK. I have a dismal record debating against you Subduction Zone and am happy to turn over beliefs. But please, let me know if the actual article is scientific.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Safety investigation of Noah's Ark in a seaway - creation.com

Dudes, it was clearly a scientific article in the link. Or decide for yourself. Please browse it really quick and then state whether you think it is scientific. It is very much just approaching the ark's shape and size from an engineering problem standpoint to see if it would work. If the math and science are correct it should be valuable.

But if the math and science are not correct, I am OK. I have a dismal record debating against you Subduction Zone and am happy to turn over beliefs. But please, let me know if the actual article is scientific.

No, it is not. Once again, that source requires their workers not to use the scientific method. It does not matter how "pretty" it looks to you, that does not make it scientific. The good news is that if it is a scientific article that you should be able to find support for it form a valid source.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I gave you a tool: BibleHub.

You’ll assume whatever you want, anyway.

Did you use that after I pointed out that it agreed with your usage?

 

[Skwim]

I gave you a tool: BibleHub.

You’ll assume whatever you want, anyway.

Lacking any evidence, yes I will, which is.

It doesn't exist and you're blowing smoke.
​

Shame! Shame! Shame!

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lacking any evidence, yes I will, which is.

It doesn't exist and you're blowing smoke.
​

Shame! Shame! Shame!

.

All that Bible hub did was to show that "Get" was a poor word. That really has no effect on the flood myth. That was an example of grasping at straws. If one is correct on a point that makes no difference why even bring it up in the first place? As you pointed out it is way of blowing smoke to try to distract from the epic failures of the story.

 

[Father Heathen]

You should read the Scriptures without your mind closed.

The extreme nature of the Flood....being global, and destroying everything.... was unfortunately necessary, because God was dealing with spirit creatures who had come to Earth with materialized bodies, wanting to have sex with women. Their influence was everywhere. (God was actually protecting the human race.) And yes, the Bible explains this, @ Genesis 6:1-4.

These were the “Angels that sinned”, referred to by Peter.

(They had hybrid offspring, who were bigger than humans. Does this sound like the Greek and Roman mythologies, with their gods having sex with human females? Have you never read that mythologies, at their base, have some kernel of truth that’s been embellished?)

The Gospel accounts reveal that these spirit creatures, now called demons, have the ability to possess animals, if need be.

It’s too bad, that most of you reading this will just laugh and deride it. And me too, probably.

That’s alright.

Sounds like teenager's hack attempt at penning high fantasy.

 

[robocop (actually)]

The good news is that if it is a scientific article that you should be able to find support for it form a valid source.

That is good news. Anyway I just look at it like an engineering problem. Someone recently used a computer program with Wikipedia to identify 35,000 vastly-underrated scientists. I still wonder about the worth of non-scientifically mainstream sources. But I recognize again that my record is pretty dismal with them on religiousforums. I was just kind of hoping we could look at this one objectively anyway.

Safety investigation of Noah's Ark in a seaway - creation.com

No I can't find a scientific source to verify it, but one time I found a scientific journal that found a dinosaur bone with some sort of tissue or blood on it. It was in a peer-reviewed journal in my college's periodicals.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is good news. Anyway I just look at it like an engineering problem. Someone recently used a computer program with Wikipedia to identify 35,000 vastly-underrated scientists. I still wonder about the worth of non-scientifically mainstream sources. But I recognize again that my record is pretty dismal with them on religiousforums. I was just kind of hoping we could look at this one objectively anyway.

Safety investigation of Noah's Ark in a seaway - creation.com

No I can't find a scientific source to verify it, but one time I found a scientific journal that found a dinosaur bone with some sort of tissue or blood on it. It was in a peer-reviewed journal in my college's periodicals.

You misunderstood the article about soft tissue. No blood was found. Heme, a chemical found in blood was found. It's preservation has been explained.

at any rate I don't pay attention to the bottom of the barrel. Do you have anything of substance?

 

[robocop (actually)]

You misunderstood the article about soft tissue. No blood was found. Heme, a chemical found in blood was found. It's preservation has been explained.

Thanks. You always win.

at any rate I don't pay attention to the bottom of the barrel. Do you have anything of substance?

To each their own I guess.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks. You always win.

To each their own I guess.

No, I only win when I am correct. I could supply you with articles that explain this or give you a quick synopsis.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I could supply you with articles that explain this or give you a quick synopsis.

Explain what?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Explain what?

You mentioned "blood" found in a dinosaur fossil:

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You don't "know" that...there's all kinds of evidence. We've done this dance before, you and I.

No.. there is not one shred of evidence in support of global genocide.

However, there are long-long lists of why it would be impossible for that story to have worked as written.

Just the boat itself, made of wood, would crack into pieces and sink within minutes on any but the most calm of seas.

Nevermind leaking -- a boat that long, using **wood** would leak to the point that nothing could pump fast enough to bail out the leakage. Noah did NOT have modern glues, and nothing from 4000 BCE would work for a boat that big.

So yeah. We DO know the Ark Story is entirely fiction as written.