Why I don't believe the story of the Great Flood...

[_LittleNipper]

God miniaturized all of the animals to 1/1000th their normal size and Noah put them all in a shoe box. The rest of the space on the ark was for water-slides, ball rooms, and shuffle board. We can't forget about shuffleboard.

What is sad is this makes as much sense as the crap that is being made up on the spot to get out of the facts that make a global flood 4-5 thousand years ago impossible. It really always goes back to magic. The problem with this is why God is using magic to hide the flood.

The Grand Canyon is hardly what anyone would call hidden. There are vulcanic plateau plugs stripped of their surrounding mountains that testify to quick erosion and not millions of years of rain, etc., or such plugs would be seriously eroded away too ------- which is obviously not the case.

[Guest]

Many animals lay eggs, many animals give milk for cheese. There are insects that people might eat. Fishing might offer a change of diet. Americans today tend to be fat... Seems like you are running out of excuses to not at least imagine that the event occurred.

Insects that people eat????? On the Ark??? Since insects are unclean there would only have been two of each kind on the ark...and then Noah and his family eat them as a snack?????? Not good planning.

You're saying that Noah fished? Weren't all the fishes wiped out by the global flood?. Certainly all fishes that swim in shallow waters and all fish that die in salt water would have been wiped out. And if God was so pissed off with all the animals on the earth, do you have any scripture that proves he didn't feel anger towards fish or sea-going mammals as well? The waters themselves would have been filled with bloated bodies of all the humans on the earth that God had drowned. As well as the millions of rotting animal carcases. What kind of fish do you see Noah fishing for?

Besides, if you read Genesis 9 you'll see that God caused storms across the seas. I think Noah and his family would be fighting their own seasickness as well as scooping up an awful lot of animal barf. Not much time left over for fishing ...with no bait.

[Guest]

Unbelivers burn in hell. Even though the Bible teaches where there is no law there is no sin, those who never hear of the Bible will be sent to a lake of fire and brimstone.

Sheep go to heaven, goats go to hell.

God does grade people on the light they do have. If I never heard the Bible and believed that the only way to heaven was being embalmed and perfectly preserved. God could just point to my mummy and say----sorry not so perfect --- in fact, all your WORK is corrupted. The Jew says that he follows all the rituals, but does he do it to perfection and where are the yearly sacrifices? And he has been exposed to the teachings of the New Testament. The Bible has to some extent been translated into just about every language that exists. The internet goes just about everywhere. There are no honest excuses. All anyone has to do is call out for understanding and God will send it --- but few call...

[_subgenius]

Paraphrasing sub:

Since you can't logically see how magic god made it happen with his mighty magic, I win.

Wow, just wow. Implied magic and logic in the same sentence.....

and yet you have no grasp of either....... i fear it is not what you intended, but what is implied is abundantly clear.

and for what it is worth, you did not paraphrase...you simply gave opinion on it. (or an attempted paraphrase, offered in scientific terms, might be that you simply provided original research...but that would not be accurate as your comment was devoid of either).

[_SteelHead]

If you are arguing about whether the animals could have been "hibernating" then you must have conceded that they were on the Ark, therefore you recognize that God certainly has the power to accommodate the Ark passengers to whatever extent appropriate. [magic]
If you are trying to argue that the Ark is unlikely because you can not "figure out" how the animals (however many) could have been supported then you suffer from basic flaws in logic:
Take your pick,
either is your Fail[since you can not figure out how god magicially made it happen, you fail]

Sorry sub, but magical solutions and logic don't mesh.

[_LittleNipper]

If you are arguing about whether the animals could have been "hibernating" then you must have conceded that they were on the Ark, therefore you recognize that God certainly has the power to accommodate the Ark passengers to whatever extent appropriate. [magic]
If you are trying to argue that the Ark is unlikely because you can not "figure out" how the animals (however many) could have been supported then you suffer from basic flaws in logic:
Take your pick,
either is your Fail[since you can not figure out how god magicially made it happen, you fail]

Sorry sub, but magical solutions and logic don't mesh.

Nothing magical about God --- only supernatural. And He has provided written evidence in the Bible, in the heavens, historically and geologically. One really has no excuse.

[_subgenius]

If you are arguing about whether the animals could have been "hibernating" then you must have conceded that they were on the Ark, therefore you recognize that God certainly has the power to accommodate the Ark passengers to whatever extent appropriate. [magic]
If you are trying to argue that the Ark is unlikely because you can not "figure out" how the animals (however many) could have been supported then you suffer from basic flaws in logic:
Take your pick,
either is your Fail[since you can not figure out how god magicially made it happen, you fail]

Sorry sub, but magical solutions and logic don't mesh.

read the post again...slowly...move lips if necessary

the conclusion is still the same, you concede the magic by letting them on the Ark or you make the fallacies noted....for you, arguing about the "support of animals" is illogical and simply accentuates the weakness of your position.

[_LittleNipper]

Many animals lay eggs, many animals give milk for cheese. There are insects that people might eat. Fishing might offer a change of diet. Americans today tend to be fat... Seems like you are running out of excuses to not at least imagine that the event occurred.
Insects that people eat????? On the Ark??? Since insects are unclean there would only have been two of each kind on the ark...and then Noah and his family eat them as a snack?????? Not good planning.

You're saying that Noah fished? Weren't all the fishes wiped out by the global flood?. Certainly all fishes that swim in shallow waters and all fish that die in salt water would have been wiped out. And if God was so pissed off with all the animals on the earth, do you have any scripture that proves he didn't feel anger towards fish or sea-going mammals as well? The waters themselves would have been filled with bloated bodies of all the humans on the earth that God had drowned. As well as the millions of rotting animal carcases. What kind of fish do you see Noah fishing for?

Besides, if you read Genesis 9 you'll see that God caused storms across the seas. I think Noah and his family would be fighting their own seasickness as well as scooping up an awful lot of animal barf. Not much time left over for fishing ...with no bait.

It appears that the salt of the oceans has happened over time, and it is already known that both can coexist depending on currents and temperature, regardless. John the Baptist survived on locus and honey, and he must have been a pretty strong dude --- dunking all those followers. All insects are not unclean. The animals are not insects and the insects were likely considered as part of the food supply. Just like a plant is not an animal. And God designed the Ark ----Noah built it and I also believe God made the ark go exactly where He wanted it to --- both controlling and floating it in the best of location.

[_SteelHead]

read the post again...slowly...move lips if necessary

the conclusion is still the same, you concede the magic by letting them on the Ark or you make the fallacies noted....for you, arguing about the "support of animals" is illogical and simply accentuates the weakness of your position.

Anyone else think it is funny, that the guy whose whole premise begs the question of the existence of god, begs the question of the inerrancy of the Bible, points to the Bible as an authoritative source, and constantly diverts with irrelevant conclusions, wants to now point to "logical fallacies"? Sub, I am sorry but you don't know how logic works. Your whole argument is proof by verbosity. You will claim victory when we grow tired of the wall of crap you spew.

I concede no magic, only point that magic is the only solution to the problem that you create, and that said solution is proposed by you. I am merely referencing to what you said. See the bolded part "God certainly has the power to accommodate the Ark passengers to whatever extent appropriate ". That was you. I say there is no ark, no flood and no intervening god. The logical inconsistencies that you point to are introduced by you, and/or nipper as you pull pseudo scientific answers out of your asses to support your thesis.

You have already shown you do not understand basic math, do you now need to be schooled on logic?

[_Themis]

The Grand Canyon is hardly what anyone would call hidden. There are vulcanic plateau plugs stripped of their surrounding mountains that testify to quick erosion and not millions of years of rain, etc., or such plugs would be seriously eroded away too ------- which is obviously not the case.

How does this testify to quick erosion. Rock is a very hard substance and large amounts do not erode away in 40 days and nights. Volcanic plugs are material that has worked it's way toward the surface without making it all the way. Some may get close while others not as close, and they didn't all happen at the same time. This is a process continuing today. As rocks slowly erodes over millions of years some of these plugs become open to the surface. The plugs tend to be made of much harder rock and will then erode slower then the surrounding rock exposing more of the plug.