JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 07:36 pm
Arella Mae wrote:
First of all, I said, I think........for the first statement.


Isasah 45:18. For thus says the LORD, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited: "I am the LORD, and there is no other. 19. ... I, the LORD, speak righteousness, I declare things that are right. 21. ... there is no other God besides Me, A just God and a Savior; There is none besides Me.


You think you know what will make Frank happy, but you know for a Fact that He (Jesus) is God?

Your quote is exactly the basis of Islam as retold to Muhammad, written approx 550 BCE.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 07:41 pm
Dys,

Uh, that would be a fact or an opinion? Laughing

J_B,

Just as Dys thinks I'm a fruitcake, I think Frank wouldn't be happy.....so?

The Bible stated that J_B. I believe it but I didn't make it up.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 07:44 pm
Ay, yi yi! Momma, it doesn't make the point you want to make. It actually makes the opposite point.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 07:52 pm
timberlandko wrote:
An actual fact, for those keeping track, is that there exists no external-to-scripture evidence "He" said or did anything, no evidence "He", as portrayed in scripture, ever existed.

Another actual fact is that there is more science in astrology than is to be found in the Bible.


What, are you trying to get this thread back on topic, Timber? Smile
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 08:01 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
neologist wrote:
The Mosaic Law was put into effect to lead the way to Christ. (Galatians 3:19-25) It was impossible for imperfect humans to keep. Christ, by keeping the law, demonstrated his perfection and proved himself worthy of everlasting life.


Actually, Neo...he didn't "keep the law."

He changed it...after swearing that he was not here to change it.

In the story of the adultress (or prostitute) who was about to be stoned...

...Jesus told the assembled would-be stoners that the one among them who was without should cast the first stone.

Supposedly...he was without sin.

If he had "kept the law"...he would have cast the first stone...and begun the stoning the god he worshipped ordained for this offense.

He did not keep the law.

HE DID NOT KEEP THE LAW.

Quote:

It was this perfect life that he offered up in behalf of mankind.


See above.
AWW, Frank. Didn't you see where he claimed to have the authority to forgive sin? (Matthew 9:2)

Maybe he was right.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 08:05 pm
timberlandko wrote:
An actual fact, for those keeping track, is that there exists no external-to-scripture evidence "He" said or did anything, no evidence "He", as portrayed in scripture, ever existed.

Another actual fact is that there is more science in astrology than is to be found in the Bible.
Is not. . .

Nyaaa!
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 08:48 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
RexRed wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
I hope nobody minds if I attempt to shed some light on this item. The Mosaic law in the New Testament believer's life can be different than what some might expect. Not everyone looks at it the same way.

There is an emphases, in the New Testament, especially through the words of Paul, that Christians are no longer under the rule of the Mosaic law. We can read this in Romans, Galations, Corinthians etc.

Some insist that the Mosaic Law (Ten Commandments) are still in force for the Christian. However, the New Testament makes it clear that believers in Christ are no longer under the Mosaic law. This does not mean that they are to break these laws, it means that they are in the age of grace and justified by faith to follow the teachings of Jesus. This includes in Romans 6:14, "For sin will have no mastery over you, because you are not under law but under grace."

Matthew 22:37  Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

Mark 12:30  And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

Luke 10:27  And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

Of course, I cannot answer why some in the U.S. fight for the 10 commandments to be in public buildings. I suspect it has more to do with power than with Christianity.


How about if we replace those ten commandment monuments with monuments that have one commandment. LOVE GOD AND YOUR NEIGHBOR?

I think most Christians would go along with that.


How about instead we have monments that suggest we love one another...

...and fuk all your gods?



Frank you sound like some humble agnostic that does not KNOW...

YOU ARE GUESSING.

God forgives you Frank...
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 11:16 pm
timberlandko wrote:
An actual fact, for those keeping track, is that there exists no external-to-scripture evidence "He" said or did anything, no evidence "He", as portrayed in scripture, ever existed.



Since this tired old objection keeps showing up, I guess I'll continue to point out that when the books of Matthew , Mark, Luke and John were written , they were not 'books of the Bible'. They were 'external-to-scripture'.

Simply because these seperate books are all now commonly printed and bound in one volume for ease of reference, this somehow makes them invalid ? Ridiculous.

And what of the various 'gospels' that are not part of the Bible? Are they not 'external-to-scripture' ? They do indicate that Jesus lived, don't they?

Yer chasin' yer tail, Timber. But keep spinnin' yer circles. It's entertaining.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Jul, 2006 11:35 pm
Setanta wrote:
real life wrote:
Setanta wrote:
RexRed wrote:
Set you make a cubit large enough to make the boat the size of a football field... Nowhere in the Bible is a cubit defined. So you do not know how big the boat was. Yet you make it so enormous that it could not float. Typical...


The only thing typical here is your complete inability to comprehend what has been said to you. The actual size of the boat doesn't matter--it is the proportions of the vessel which make it unseaworthy.



First, I am glad to see you admit that the size is not an issue and I agree.

Your focus now seems to be on the proportions.

Henry Morris, a professor of hydrology and author of the Genesis Flood, has studied and written extensively on this, and doesn't share your opinion that the Ark would under no circumstance prove seaworthy.

Setanta, I don't doubt for a moment your knowledge of American sailing vessels.

But you assume that the Ark wasn't designed with the proper cross members to stabilize it, etc when all you really know about it is the outside dimensions.

You have no evidence regarding the interior construction (what it was or even what it was claimed to be, because those subjects were not addressed in the text). In short, you are guessing.

Hope you are having a great day.


Trot out your boy's evidence in detail any time you would like to do so. I would be at pains to warn you though, that debunking Mr. Morris' hilarious claims has become a cottage industry, up to an including his claims of credientials as "a professor of hydrology." It is also significant that he is the founder of the Institute for Creation Research, which bills itself as a "Christ-focused Creation Ministry." Mr. Morris received a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from Rice University in 1939--that does not equate to a claim that he is a "professor of hydrology." Mr. Morris' claims to expertise were based on "flood geology," and not naval architecture--and he has no demonstrable credentials in geology, either.

I've compared the vessel to American frigates because they represented extreme examples of wooden sailing vessels with high rations of length to breadth at the beam and draft at the load-waterline. The reason that i chose to do so--apart from the data for those vessels being readily available--is because they were exceptionally narrow vessels by the standards of their day, and yet were both seaworthy, and had exceptional bracing against the effects of hogging.

Any stipuations of internal bracing for "the Ark" are speculative, because there is not a scriptural basis for such stipulations--and this thread concerns itself specifically with the text of the bobble--so your boy Morris is, in fact, the one who is guessing. Furthermore, as i have pointed out many, many times, increasing the internal bracing adds to the weight of wood, and therfore the stress on the hull, and significantly decreases the the cargo capacity, which is a significant issue. It you want to claim that it was well-braced internally, i have no problem with that. I will point out, however, that you have no textual evidence, and point out to you that the more bracing there were internally, the less cargo space there were.

The dimensions show a vessel which is as 6:1, length to breadth at the beam (300:50). Constitution was less than 5:1, at 204 feet in lenght to 42.5 feet at the beam. Additionally, we have a vessel which is described as being 30 cubits in height. That is a clue right there, by the way, that the authors knew nothing of sailing vessels. The pertinent question is how much water does the vessel draw. If "the Ark," fully laden, drew two thirds of its height, it would draw 30 feet (based on an 18" cubit)--and that is a ratio of 2.5:1 in draft as compared to breadth at the beam. Constitution fully laden drew 22.5 feet--which is a ration just less than 2:1 in comparison to it's breadth at the beam.

Regardless of the dimension specified for a cubit, this is a description of a drastically, and very likely a fatally, unstable vessel. All ships at sea are subject to universal stress on support members--meaning that they are stressed in every direction thoughout 360 degees on a plane continguous with the surface of still water, and from above and below as well. An infinite series of lines of equal length drawn from any part of a support member would describe a sphere. This is because three types of motion affect the vessel and all of its support members. Vessels "pitch," which means that they rock back and forth along the centerline due to the motion of the waves as the vessel passes through the water (if the waves are passing the vessel as it lies in the water, it is doomed at the outset). The vessel also rocks from side to side, and that is known as "roll." Finally, the combined effect of pitch and roll produce "yaw," which means that the any point on the vessel describes a figure of eight relative to a stationary point immediately above it. If you were flying in a helicopter above a sailing vessel at night with a navigational light at the truck (the top plate) of the mast, you would see the light describe a figure of eight.

The narrower a vessel is, the more it is subject to roll, and the more endangered it becomes by swamping from the effects of yaw. The vessel described is extraordinarily narrow, narrower by far that Constitution and her sister ships, which were already the most extraordinarily narrow warships ever built. I have already pointed out that warships were much "sleeker," much narrower than cargo vessels, because hold space could be sacrified to performance.

The "Ark" which you wish to purport were real was essentially a cargo vessel, and which intended to ship an extraordinary amount of cargo, especially as its capacity is so small. The dimensions given, if referential to an 18" "cubit" yields just over 10,000 tons--not the 15,000 tons which Morris erroneously refers to (given that he lied constantly about geology in his "flood geology" thesis, i'm not surprised to find that he lies about this, as well). And that calculation does not consider whether or not there were internal bracing, which would further reduce the capacity of the vessel.

My point has been that the vessel were unseaworthy based on the dimension, because of performance. The internal bracing which would have been needed to reduce hogging, and prevent a fatal shipping of water from the starting to the hull planks was a separate issue. When Rex attempted to say that the geezers on board could have "stopped leaks" with coal tar (he wanted the word bitumen), i not only accepted that, i pointed out that the use of hemp fiber combined with coal tar produced oakum, which is what was used to caulk the vessel. My point in reference to that was that you've got four old geezer and their geezer wives to do all the caulking (a constant procedure, which wasn't a problem on a frigate--Constitution's complement numbered about 500 (it varied), which, exclusive of officers, midship, ship's boys, ship's specialists (such as the cook, carpenter, sail maker, rigger, etc.), and marines, still leaves more than 300 men, and at least 100 men available on any given watch--but is more than hilariously improbable for these eight superannuated landlubbers. They'd not have time and hands enough to keep up with the normal seepage in a vessel the size of Constitution, let alone a behemoth such as this is described as being. They also would have had all the other duties necessary to the living cargo, as well as handling the vessel.

And it it the performance of the vessel which becomes the issue here. The vessel is going to roll far more than a vessel with more sensible dimensions, which exacerbates hogging and other causes of the hull planks starting, which leads us back to seepage. The seepage means that the hull will constantly have to be caulked, and the water pumped or bailed. If bailed, you are sunk, because a crew the size of that on board Constitution would be hard pressed to bail rather than pump in heavy waters, when vessels ship water onboard over the deck.

There is no stipulation in the text for a motive power. Any ship, even modern ships built of steel, must move forward through the water to avoid broaching in even moderate seas, nevermind the heavy seas implied by forty days of storm. So, if this "Ark" is going to swim, it either needed sweeps or sails. So now you've got four old geezers, and their geezer wives, to feed the living cargo and heave the manure overboard (lest the smallest passenters--pathogens--start killing off the beasts), to caulk the hull planks when they inevitably start, to bail or pump out the water which seeps and which comes on board through normal pitch, roll and yaw through the waves, and to handle the sweeps (oh please, i'm busting a gut here), or the sails. Without sails or sweeps, she is doomed to founder in the first heavy seas she encounters.

The proportions of the vessel, without regard to internal bracing, are of a vessel which will roll extraordinarily, drastically increasing the effects of yaw. With internal bracing, the cargo space is drastically reduced, and the weight of wood putting stress on structural members (which would necessarily be proportionally smaller in such a narrow vessel), so that it's a toss-up whether the reduction of hogging would not have been negated by the additional stress to start the planks at the strakes. Without that internal bracing, hogging would have been fatal. Without significant motive power from sweeps or sails, she'd broach, roll over and sink like a stone.

You try to cherry-pick an issue. You refer to a man who has no credentials as a hydraulic engineer or a naval architect, and who habitually lies about his credentials and about geology. Why should i believe he knows anything about naval architecture?

Neo is at least honest enough to invoke supernatural aid. All of the considerations of this silly set of design specifications combined spell suicice at sea. That probably accounts for why Neo invokes supernatural aid. You need to do so, your efforts to sustain a contention that such a vessel could have safely swum for at least 197 days are going to fall flat. Stop the cherry-picking, by the way--address all of the issues of why i claim this is an absurdity, and not just one at a time. I know that is a favorite technique of yours, you've demonstrated it time and again. I'm not going to let you get away with it, though.


hi Setanta,

I do not know if supernatural intervention was required to keep the Ark afloat.

Neither do you.

That is my point. You are guessing regarding the Ark's construction and seaworthiness.

All we know from the text is the external dimensions, and that it had three decks.

You want me to answer your guesses point-by-point with guesses of my own, but that I won't do.

Your guesses regarding the actual design of the ship, the number of animals, how it was caulked, the bracing of the ship, whether it had sweeps or sails, the conditions at sea, etc are based on air.

I will not pretend that my guesses carry the weight of scripture, just as you shouldn't pretend that your guesses invalidate it.

You want to make an airtight case that the Ark could not have been seaworthy under any circumstance.

You are miles away from a convincing case, but you're welcome to keep trying to prove a negative, if you so desire.

Hope you are having a great day.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 03:15 am
Arella Mae wrote:
I think you're just not going to be happy Frank until someone is out there somewhere stoning someone. Shocked

What part of this don't you get? He is God Frank. If He didn't stone her then He was right. Period! You don't accept that, that's fine but it doesn't change the fact He was right.


Why don't you think before you post.

The thing being dealt with was whether or not Jesus "kept the law."

IF JESUS HAD KEPT THE LAW...HE WOULD HAVE STONED HER.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 03:18 am
neologist wrote:

See above.
AWW, Frank. Didn't you see where he claimed to have the authority to forgive sin? (Matthew 9:2)[/quote]

He also claimed he was not here to change the law.


"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come, not abolish them, but to fulfill them. Of this much I assure you: UNTIL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY, NOT THE SMALLEST LETTER OF THE LAW, NOT THE SMALLEST PART OF A LETTER, SHALL BE DONE AWAY WITH UNTIL IT ALL COME TRUE." Matthew 5: 17ff


Quote:

Maybe he was right.


Maybe he was a liar. Maybe he was mistaken.

Fact is though, if he was keeping the law as you claim...he would not be forgiving anything. He would have been stoning the woman.
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 05:42 am
The thing being dealt with was whether or not Jesus "kept the law."

IF JESUS HAD KEPT THE LAW...HE WOULD HAVE STONED HER.


Which law requires stoning?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 07:28 am
timberlandko wrote:
Another actual fact is that there is more science in astrology than is to be found in the Bible.


Thank you for the morning chuckle, Big Bird . . .

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

-- Hamlet, Act I, Scene 5
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 07:40 am
you have good breakfast?
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 07:53 am
Let's also imagine that we are all at a cocktail party or lounge (well, not this early in the morning! Very Happy ). What is this ALL CAPS and bold print crap? I think we can hear and comprehend without the shouting and screaming. How would one react to that in person?

Would you step outside, please?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 08:09 am
real life wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
An actual fact, for those keeping track, is that there exists no external-to-scripture evidence "He" said or did anything, no evidence "He", as portrayed in scripture, ever existed.



Since this tired old objection keeps showing up, I guess I'll continue to point out that when the books of Matthew , Mark, Luke and John were written , they were not 'books of the Bible'. They were 'external-to-scripture'.

Simply because these seperate books are all now commonly printed and bound in one volume for ease of reference, this somehow makes them invalid ? Ridiculous.

And what of the various 'gospels' that are not part of the Bible? Are they not 'external-to-scripture' ? They do indicate that Jesus lived, don't they?

Yer chasin' yer tail, Timber. But keep spinnin' yer circles. It's entertaining.


Just don't know when you're beat, do you? No historigraphic argument for the putative Jesus is supported by any independent-of-scripture evidence, period. The Christian Tradition within the Abrahamic Mythopaeia is without external reference, period. Now, for what its worth, many OT figures are known to have existed, and many OT events are knhown to have occurred. Mohammed is known to have existed, and there exists outside the Qu'ran evidence confirming details written in the Qu'ran. The same cannot be said of the NT and its central figures - apart perhaps from Paul and certain othe purported "Apostles", though there is dispute there - who themselves are not historic figures wholly apart from the Christian Tradition. The Christian Tradition exists solely in and of itself.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 08:13 am
real life wrote:
I do not know if supernatural intervention was required to keep the Ark afloat.

Neither do you.


I have a well-informed opinion that the dimensions specified for that vessel describe a vessel which was dangerously unseaworthy. If it were to remain afloat, it would need extraordinary motive power, either sweeps or sails. Since there were only eight crew members, and leaving aside their "geezerhood," it makes the probability that the "Ark" could have swum just about nil. We are exchanging opinions here, and mine is informed by an intimate knowledge (albeit and admittedly amateur) of naval architecture in wooden vessels. Your opinion is founded on a desire to "prove" that the bobble is inerrant. You've brought a paring knife to a gun fight.

Quote:
That is my point. You are guessing regarding the Ark's construction and seaworthiness.


No, i'm relying upon the biblical text, to which you refer below. As to it's seaworthiness, that is the point of my constant references to the stipulated dimensions. It describes an almost fatally narrow and shallow vessel. For even well-founded large wooden ships to swim safely, they required large crews--12 to 20 men on a watch, with three rotations, at the least. You've got eight geezers, four of whom were women (the reference being that they were likely smaller and weaker) to handle a vessel larger than the largest wooden vessel ever built in historical times. You're cherry-picking again, and ignoring the totality of the argument i advance against this silly boat.

Quote:
All we know from the text is the external dimensions, and that it had three decks.

You want me to answer your guesses point-by-point with guesses of my own, but that I won't do.


And as i have pointed out again and again, the ratio of the dimensions describe a vessel which will roll horribly, and which will be subject to the starting of the planks from hogging, which will be exacerbated in a vessel of that size.

Quote:
Your guesses regarding the actual design of the ship, the number of animals, how it was caulked, the bracing of the ship, whether it had sweeps or sails, the conditions at sea, etc are based on air.


The "guess" about the design of the ship is based on the stipulated dimensions, and then compared to human experience with wooden ships. It is referential to the physics of hydrodynamic, which is not a matter of guessing. For such a vessel to swim, it needs sails or sweeps. Sails would require a crew of at least ten times the size of the crew stipulated, and would need crew members who were young, healthy and strong--not geezers alleged to be more than a half millenium old. If sweeps, you'd need an even larger crew. Of course, you could stipulate that Noah had a diesel enging (insert rolly-eyed emoticon here), in which case, half or more of the hold space would have been needed for fuel, further reducing the space for all the beasts and their fodder (keep in mind that the text does stipulate that food for the beasts was to be taken on board.

The number of animals is not a guess, either. The contentions of young earth creationists require you to have every species now known, plus all fossilized species known, on board. It is not a guess that the numbers for that run into the tens of thousands, exclusive of insects. The order insecta adds more than a million examples of seven pairs of every species. You have attempted to dodge that by claiming that the definition of species is blurred, and that what scientist refer to as species is inexact, and could result from cross-breeding. That is scientifically false, which is germane to a discuss of "Bible v. Science." Additionally, another favorite dodge of yours, about hull bracing, serves to drastically reduce available hull space--which makes it even more implausible that the old geezer got seven pairs of "clean" beasts and two pairs of "unclean" beasts in the "Ark."

The point about bracing is not whether or not it could have been braced so as to reduce seepage from the hull planks starting. It refers to the available space in the cargo hold. I have referred to Wyoming, the largest wooden veseel built in historical times, which is still smaller than the "Ark," given 18" for a cubit. If you specify a cubit which is smaller, you once again drastically reduce available hold space. Wyoming had steel bracing internally to reduce hogging and the starting of the planks, but nevertheless, had such significant seepage that there was a steam pump on board to constantly pump water out of the bilge. Do you now wish to suggest that old Noah invented steam power, and had a pump constantly in operation? You've just reduced the hold space again by the amount of fuel which would have been necessary to operate the pump.

The conditions of the sea are informed by the scripture as well. It was raining for forty days and nights to cover the face of the earth. You'd need one hell of a constant storm to accomplish that in just forty days and nights. Additionally, once the earth was covered with water, you're going to have some monstrous ground swell (translation: constant gigantic waves). The "Southern Ocean" is a term used to describe the waters around Antarctica. In the Southern Ocean, the sea condistions are always very heavy. That is because a wave which starts east of Cape Horn runs completely around the globe until it reaches the west side of Cape Horn. If the earth were covered with water, waves would being running constantly around the globe, and the "Ark" can be reasonable said to have launched at or near Palestine--which puts it in a region of the globe much closer to the equator than the Southern Ocean, which means even more drastically gigantic waves. There can be no doubt that the "Ark" was swimming in dangerous waters based on the scripture. You can claim otherwise, but you'll have to deny science, which is the point of this thread.

There is no "air" in pointing out obvious flaws in the story. You continue to attempt to ignore the totality of the improbability. You've got a vessel which is dangerously narrow in relation to its length and draft. From that it is scientifically valid to infer very poor handling properties, and the absolute necessity of sails or sweeps to keep it alive at sea. You've only got eight geezers to handle the largest wooden vessel ever known (if, in fact, it ever were known). Additionally, you've only got slightly more than 10,000 tons of hull space for seven pairs of every "clean" beast and two pairs of every "unclean" beast, and all of their fodder. You've only got eight geezers to feed those beast, and remove the manure. Your references to hull bracing do not serve to prevent seepage, only to reduce it. Nevertheless, you've got eight geezers to bail or pump out the water in the bilge, while handling the vessel, and feeding all the beasts and removing the manure. Your objection about caulking is just silly--i was more than happy to stipulate Rex's speculation about caulking, because it was so close to what was done historically. You've got eight geezers to constantly renew the caulking, while bailing or pumping, while feeding all the beasts, and removing the manure (you surely don't want to suggest that these beasts did not sh!t, do you?), and while handling the vessel. That is why i object to your cherry-picking individual points of objection. The sum of all the objections is to remove the concept of these eight geezers building this vessel, handling the vessel at sea (even in calm waters, it needs to be "sailed" to avoid broaching and capsizing--and a vessel such as described would sink like a stone if it broached), bailing or pumping water out of the bilge, caulking the started planking, feeding all the beasts and removing the manure--i say removes the concept to the realm of the surreal and the silly. I'm not surprised that you object to answering all the charges against this fairy tale, to do so, you're going to be obliged to invoke the supernatural, very much to the point of this thread.

Quote:
I will not pretend that my guesses carry the weight of scripture, just as you shouldn't pretend that your guesses invalidate it.

You want to make an airtight case that the Ark could not have been seaworthy under any circumstance.


No, you apparently missed my earlier reference to the Santa Claus thesis. It isn't necessary to prove that reindeer can't fly, or that there are no elves working in sweat shops at the North Pole, one can simply demonstrate that Santa Claus cannot possibly visit all of the Christian households in the northern hemisphere between sundown Christmas Eve to sunrise Christmas morning.

Applying the same principle here, i am asking the questions: how can eight geezers claimed to be more than a half millenium old be expected to build the vessel, collect and stow all the fodder for all the beasts (are you going to tell me know that tons of hay gathered itself for them?), round up all the beasts (remember, stipulating that your god made the beasts come to Noah invokes the supernatural), put to sea and handle the vessel, including handling sails or sweeps, bailing or pumping all of the water, caulking the planks which have started, feed all the beasts and remove all the manure? I don't have to "prove a negative"--all i have to do, and what i have been doing, is to point out the absurdity of the thesis that eight quincentenarians could have managed the task.

Quote:
You are miles away from a convincing case, but you're welcome to keep trying to prove a negative, if you so desire.


I've already made a convincing case. I know that i would have miles to go to convince you--but i'm not such a fool as to believe that you will ever stop desparately clinging to your "inerrant" bobble, so i don't care if you believe. I'm discussing the topic, "Bible v. Science," and the flood story is one that falls flat in such an arena. FM can tear you up on the geological evidence, even if you trot out your fraud, Mr. Morris (especially if you bring that fool in). I'm just doing the same thing from the point of view of naval architecture, hydordynamics and the realities of sailing wooden vessels.

Quote:
Hope you are having a great day.


Marvelous, thank you--especially when i get to do this.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 08:15 am
Bartikus wrote:
The thing being dealt with was whether or not Jesus "kept the law."

IF JESUS HAD KEPT THE LAW...HE WOULD HAVE STONED HER.

Which law requires stoning?


Good point, he could have just strangled her, or beaten her to death with a big f*cking stick . . .
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 08:49 am
real life wrote:
. . . I do not know if supernatural intervention was required to keep the Ark afloat. . .
I don't know either. But I do know that when we act in good faith God will provide the result. Do you really think we are to believe David killed Goliath because he was a good shot?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 08:52 am
Actually, i think it is far more likely that David killed Goliath because he was a good shot. The Romans relied upon auxiliaries who used the sling to deadly effect, and the people of the island of Rhodes specialized in the use of the sling. Rhodian slingers hired out as mercenaries because they were well-known to be deadly accurate--and they used purpose-made sling bullets made of lead or ceramic (baked clay, at least).

Pick a different example.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bible vs. Science
  3. » Page 36
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/15/2025 at 06:56:58