Noah's Ark

Astronomer Dr Hugh Ross

Creation As Science. (All Atheotards Watch And Weep) ha ha ha ha

Coincidence. Whoever made up Genesis figured out legs were a lot easier for getting around than belly-crawling. So, they decided the snake was punished by God by losing his legs. Luck guess.

Next question. Originally Posted by ExNYer

What a copt out because the idea of snakes once having legs has just recently been theorized- so the author of Genesis(Moses) just took a lucky guess? Also are you aware that scientist agree that the order of the creation told in the Bible is the order they believe life was created- was that another lucky guess?

What a copt out because the idea of snakes once having legs has just recently been theorized- so the author of Genesis(Moses) just took a lucky guess? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Can you post to a link that says the idea that snakes once had legs was only recently theorized?

Also are you aware that scientist agree that the order of the creation told in the Bible is the order they believe life was created- was that another lucky guess? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

NO, THEY DON'T. Because Genesis got it WRONG.

And I pointed that out to you previously in another post. And here you are again repeating the SAME falsehoods.

Here is the huge thread where you made your incorrect assertion the first time:

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?...hlight=genesis

Post No. 153 is the exact post where you first incorrectly stated that Genesis got the order of creation right:

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=153

Post No. 175 was my response pointing out where Genesis was full of holes:

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=175

So my question to you is this: How long will it be until you AGAIN falsely claim that Genesis got the story of the creation of life on earth right?

God created Atheotards because they are funny and they make us laugh.
Ben Franklin.


ha ha ha ha

I don't believe there was a world wide flood. The idea comes
from the bad translation of the hebrew word Erets translated
Earth in the english, when 1476 other times in the Bible it is
properly translated Land, speaking about a specific area
not the whole Earth.

With the proper translation understood, Noah took animals
onto the Ark that would be for his own use, and to repopulate
the area that was affected by the flood. The Land of Noah not
the Earth of Noah.

The bad translation has lead people that believe in creation
to try and defend some erroneous world wide flood event.
When properly understood the Bible doesn't even make
such a claim.

And gee golly the flood story actually makes sense when properly
understood. Originally Posted by bojulay

Bojulay, basicallly what you're saying if the translation was correct, the flooding wasn't world wide, but localized or regional?

why bother "debating" this ho chasing hypocrite? he's a sinner and he knows it.
for once, i really wish there was a HELL for you to burn in, you turd.

and if there is a HELL, i'll save a seat for ya. Right next to mine.

ok, what's the story on Ballard and his ark in the black sea?

I don't believe there was a world wide flood. The idea comes
from the bad translation of the hebrew word Erets translated
Earth in the english, when 1476 other times in the Bible it is
properly translated Land, speaking about a specific area
not the whole Earth.

With the proper translation understood, Noah took animals
onto the Ark that would be for his own use, and to repopulate
the area that was affected by the flood. The Land of Noah not
the Earth of Noah.

The bad translation has lead people that believe in creation
to try and defend some erroneous world wide flood event.
When properly understood the Bible doesn't even make
such a claim.

And gee golly the flood story actually makes sense when properly
understood. Originally Posted by bojulay

There is no understanding that is capable of making the flood story make sense.

Even assuming I buy your BS revisionist history that only a local area was flooded, not the entire earth, you still have to explain how the local area got buried under enough water to cover the highest mountain peaks.

In the Noah fable, the Ark supposedly landed on Ararat - over 13,000 feet high.

So how do you confine water many thousands of feet high? how do you stop gravit from spreading it outward to cover the entire world? Was there some kind of wall thousands of feet high around the Middle East that allowed all the water to be confined in some mammoth swimming pool?

There is no understanding that is capable of making the flood story make sense.

Even assuming I buy your BS revisionist history that only a local area was flooded, not the entire earth, you still have to explain how the local area got buried under enough water to cover the highest mountain peaks.

In the Noah fable, the Ark supposedly landed on Ararat - over 13,000 feet high.

So how do you confine water many thousands of feet high? how do you stop gravit from spreading it outward to cover the entire world? Was there some kind of wall thousands of feet high around the Middle East that allowed all the water to be confined in some mammoth swimming pool? Originally Posted by ExNYer

It is possible that Ararat was at much lower height. Low enough for the flooding to cover the mountain at some points. A major earthquake would have uplifted the rocks upward,usually very slowly, but some times very quickly and suddenly, This type of earthquake is very rare and has happened before in a number of location. I believe the Ararat mountains are on the fault lines.

yes, there was wall and its called ICE, to be more specific, glacial ice towering at 3 - 4 miles high.. It did not surround the mid-east though.

there could have been a rare double whammy effect from the flooding from the Mediterranean sea and flooding from the melting glacial ice.

It is possible that Ararat was at much lower height. Low enough for the flooding to cover the mountain at some points. A major earthquake would have uplifted the rocks upward,usually very slowly, but some times very quickly and suddenly, This type of earthquake is very rare and has happened before in a number of location. I believe the Ararat mountains are on the fault lines.

yes, there was wall and its called ICE, to be more specific, glacial ice towering at 3 - 4 miles high.. It did not surround the mid-east though.

there could have been a rare double whammy effect from the flooding from the Mediterranean sea and flooding from the melting glacial ice. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Wow. What complete made up nonsense.

Genesis says that the RAIN covered ALL the highest mountain peaks, NOT just Ararat. The Ark supposedly finally settled on a mountain in the Ararat area.

So, did an earthquake lift ALL the mountain peaks?

And is there ANY geological record of a glacier being in the area of the Middle East in the last 6000 years? NOPE.

Wow. What complete made up nonsense.

Genesis says that the RAIN covered ALL the highest mountain peaks, NOT just Ararat. The Ark supposedly finally settled on a mountain in the Ararat area.

So, did an earthquake lift ALL the mountain peaks?

And is there ANY geological record of a glacier being in the area of the Middle East in the last 6000 years? NOPE. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Are you seriously considering the possibilities of a global flood and a cargo vessel that might survive it, or are you simply looking for any excuse to try and discredit the Bible? If Bible-bashing is important to you, it seems like maybe you should address the actual text, rather than arbitrary interpretations.

On the other hand, try to remember that history IS interpretation!

Can you prove that meteors wiped out the dinosaur? How many Meteors fell? Were all the dinosaurs in one place? Couldn't the flying dinosaurs made it to safer places? Weren't their sea dinosaurs and mega Sharks that supposed to have existed that were larger than sperm whales of today? How did they die off? Did the meteors somehow hit the under the sea?

I am still waiting on a logical response- what came first the male or the female? Or did they evolve at the same time? If they evolved in the same time- what are the chances that every species-with the exception of 1 % of asexual creatures like earthworms were able to "evolve" opposite counterparts that amazingly had all of the right parts to reproduce? Was it design or chance?

In high school, , my biology class spent the first semester discussing how ignorant people used to believe that garbage gave rise to rats, and raw meat produced maggots. This now disproven concept was called “spontaneous generation.” Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—this is the law of biogenesis.
The next semester we studied evolution, where we learned that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). “Chemical Evolution” is just another way of saying “spontaneous generation”—life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible.

Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five “heads” in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it’s given, non-life will not become alive.



Ex-Nyer you amaze me when you try to ridicule the Bible when in fact you should be ridiculing every aspect of evolution.

maybe dinosaurs carried the Ark to the top of Ararat.

I am sorry, but this is yet another situation where the biblical literalists tie themselves in knots.

If the bible is literally true and perfect--putting aside which translation--then there was a rather large amount of water, covering Everest. Surface of the earth to 29,000 feet deep. LOTS of water that has since gone "poof" into nothingness. That has some obvious difficulties to try and explain.

This new "Well, it's sort of literal. Locally literal." means it is NOT literally true. It is a story intended to convey a much bigger message than how many cubits the boat was. I have no problem with that, but then one has to treat all of it as a moral message, not a pure historical work.

So giants are not necessarily giants. Six days of creation may be thousands of years of divinely guided evolution. And women may not really be missing a rib. That would not make the moral teachings any less true, but it would sure put some Thumping preachers out of work.

I find it pretty sad when some Christians have so little understanding/true belief in the real Christian message that they feel threatened if some Jews didn't live 900 years, or if Jonah wasn't really inside a whale's belly for a few days.

I am sorry, but this is yet another situation where the biblical literalists tie themselves in knots.

If the bible is literally true and perfect--putting aside which translation--then there was a rather large amount of water, covering Everest. Surface of the earth to 29,000 feet deep. LOTS of water that has since gone "poof" into nothingness. That has some obvious difficulties to try and explain.

This new "Well, it's sort of literal. Locally literal." means it is NOT literally true. It is a story intended to convey a much bigger message than how many cubits the boat was. I have no problem with that, but then one has to treat all of it as a moral message, not a pure historical work.

So giants are not necessarily giants. Six days of creation may be thousands of years of divinely guided evolution. And women may not really be missing a rib. That would not make the moral teachings any less true, but it would sure put some Thumping preachers out of work.

I find it pretty sad when some Christians have so little understanding/true belief in the real Christian message that they feel threatened if some Jews didn't live 900 years, or if Jonah wasn't really inside a whale's belly for a few days. Originally Posted by Old-T

Old-T not true- not every Christian or Jew believe the Old Testament is literal-I personally think it's misunderstood interpretation- it's very difficult for someone to write a book written many thousands of years ago and expect people in modern times to make perfect sense of it- heck they have words in those days that don't even exist on our days now and vice versa.

Here's a perfect example- if a 747 jet landed in some remote village in South america or Africa- if those villagers that never seen a 747 jet before- how would they describe it? The closes thing they could possible compare a 747 jet is a bird? If those villagers were to write or pass this story down wouldn't they say a huge bird that roared like thunder(sound of a 747 jet engine) and had wins over 100 feet and let's say the jet had people on the plane- the villagers might add the Bird swallowed people in it's belly(describing passengers inside the plane)- now if someone 10 years from now were to find that writing- they would laugh and say oh this is a fable- there's no bird that has wings of 100 feet and swallows humans- but overall it was just misunderstood translation and that's how I look at the Bible- real events told in different times by people who had to describe things how they saw it.