Does Anyone Take the Story of Noah's Ark Literally?

[First Baseman]

ROTFLMAO

Yeah, because "GodDidIt" isn't an assumption at all.....

ROTFLMAO

No I don't. The evidence and science backs up "God did it." You just reject it and assume it is invalid.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Well, your quoted post is assumption, it isn't fact. I don't see any questions in it:

Not only would a global flood have destroyed world ecology but it would have made the world uninhabitable for hundreds of years, if not permanently through changes in the wobble and rotation of the Earth. Things like poisoning the soil, ripping off the top layer, destroying the oceanic ecosystem by scattering plankton outside the currents, poisoning freshwater bodies with saltwater and throwing off the PH, killing any coral beds and all deep ocean life through excess PSI, cold and lightlessness.

If the flood were an actual physical event it would have done a lot more than anything any evidence indicates.

Please tell me how it is an assumption? What specifically about what I said was incorrect and how?

 

[First Baseman]

Please tell me how it is an assumption? What specifically about what I said was incorrect and how?

I didn't say it was incorrect. I said it was an assumption. It is an assumption because you can't prove any of it.

 

[McBell]

No I don't. The evidence and science backs up "God did it." You just reject it and assume it is invalid.

Yes, I reject "GodDidIt" as an answer to questions that need an actual answer, not a cop out reply.

 

[First Baseman]

Yes, I reject "GodDidIt" as an answer to questions that need an actual answer, not a cop out reply.

Opinion noted.

 

[McBell]

I didn't say it was incorrect. I said it was an assumption. It is an assumption because you can't prove any of it.

god did it.
There, it has been proven to the same standards by which you have presented.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I didn't say it was incorrect. I said it was an assumption. It is an assumption because you can't prove any of it.

You know someone is scientifically illiterate when they approach scientific inquiry with 'you can't prove x, therefore y is an acceptable alternative.'
Anyway it's not an assumption that enough flood waters to bury mountains would catastrophically effect life on Earth in a way creationists have failed to account for.

 

[First Baseman]

god did it.
There, it has been proven to the same standards by which you have presented.

Trolling, are you? I believe you are. An argument against the flood was endorsed by the same God who flooded. Next time you troll me do try and be a little more believable about it, will you? Have a good day.

 

[McBell]

Trolling, are you? I believe you are. An argument against the flood was endorsed by the same God who flooded. Next time you troll me do try and be a little more believable about it, will you? Have a good day.

How is it "trolling" when I present back to you the same standards you present to everyone else?
It is not any fault of mine that you dislike your own logic.
It is not any fault of mine that you dislike how low your standards are.

Why is it that "GodDidIt" is good enough for you, but not good enough for me?
Is it because I forgot to capitalize the word god?
Seems you should go home and do some serious rethinking of your "arguments"...

 

[First Baseman]

You know someone is scientifically illiterate when they approach scientific inquiry with 'you can't prove x, therefore y is an acceptable alternative.'
Anyway it's not an assumption that enough flood waters to bury mountains would catastrophically effect life on Earth in a way creationists have failed to account for.

You have no idea how much water would be required because you have no idea about the topography of the Earth before or really even after the flood. You are assuming again. Macro-evolutionists are very good at assuming their arguments.

What you are not doing is merely theorizing and I won't hear your theory because it is based on assumption.

 

[PackJason]

Although, I didn't think much about the flood as a child, I do believe the literal biblical account now.

I think that there are various possibilities concerning kangaroos and platypuses. I believe before the flood the land was one continent which then broke up and spread apart (rapid continental drift)- either during the Flood-or as some believe during the days of Peleg, perhaps 100-600 years later. So it would not have been difficult for kangaroos or platypuses to get onto the ark or to Australia afterwards. Other possibilities are land bridges, floating masses of vegetation, or humans transporting them.

Ok, this entire thing is beyond ridiculous, but the one point I want to ask about is the humans transporting them back to Australia part ... WHO? Who of Noah's family brought the kangaroos back to Australia, the polar bears back to the arctic? And the lemurs back to Madagascar? How did they bring them back?

 

[First Baseman]

How is it "trolling" when I present back to you the same standards you present to everyone else?
It is not any fault of mine that you dislike your own logic.
It is not any fault of mine that you dislike how low your standards are.

Why is it that "GodDidIt" is good enough for you, but not good enough for me?
Is it because I forgot to capitalize the word god?
Seems you should go home and do some serious rethinking of your "arguments"...

You are trolling, sir. Attempting to bait me into a meaningless argument. I'm done with you here.

 

[McBell]

Trolling, are you? I believe you are. An argument against the flood was endorsed by the same God who flooded. Next time you troll me do try and be a little more believable about it, will you? Have a good day.

Does this mean that every time you replied with a "GodDidIt" answer you were trolling?

 

[Thana]

I was brought up to believe the story was literal. Even at a young age I recognized it was a bunch of baloney.

What goes on inside the head of a person who believes the story in a strictly literal sense?

I just take it as fact in the sense that it was how it seemed to the person writing the account. To someone pretty darned ignorant, their land being completely flooded they'd probably have assumed the world had flooded (And rightly so, since their world did flood, their world was just very small and limited). If I didn't know any better I'd have probably assumed the same thing. So I figure a lot of land flooded a lot, but the entire world? Meh.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

You have no idea how much water would be required because you have no idea about the topography of the Earth before or really even after the flood. You are assuming again. Macro-evolutionists are very good at assuming their arguments.

What you are not doing is merely theorizing and I won't hear your theory because it is based on assumption.

Never minding that there is no evidence that all mountains over a certain critical size originated in the flood, and quite a bit of evidence that they Are much older than thousands of years.
Even enough water to cover the relatively small Ararat mountains described in the very story would be sufficient to kill every coral bed in the world.

 

[McBell]

You have no idea how much water would be required because you have no idea about the topography of the Earth before or really even after the flood. You are assuming again. Macro-evolutionists are very good at assuming their arguments.

What you are not doing is merely theorizing and I won't hear your theory because it is based on assumption.

So you have no problem with people dismissing your assumptions based on the fact that they are assumptions?

 

[McBell]

You are trolling, sir. Attempting to bait me into a meaningless argument. I'm done with you here.

Rather difficult to take you seriously when your own standards are not good enough for you.

 

[YmirGF]

I was brought up to believe the story was literal. Even at a young age I recognized it was a bunch of baloney.

What goes on inside the head of a person who believes the story in a strictly literal sense?

I never believed it, then again, I come from a long line of proud atheists.

 

[InChrist]

Ok, this entire thing is beyond ridiculous, but the one point I want to ask about is the humans transporting them back to Australia part ... WHO? Who of Noah's family brought the kangaroos back to Australia, the polar bears back to the arctic? And the lemurs back to Madagascar? How did they bring them back?

It is a ridiculous question to ask me WHO, as if I can supply a name. Noah and his family re-populated the earth and it could have been any of the many descendants who traveled elsewhere bringing various animals to different areas. I see no reason to assume that Kangaroos were in Australia or polar bears in the Arctic to begin with if these continents did not exist prior to the flood.

 

[PackJason]

It is a ridiculous question to ask me WHO, as if I can supply a name. Noah and his family re-populated the earth and it could have been any of the many descendants who traveled elsewhere bringing various animals to different areas. I see no reason to assume that Kangaroos were in Australia or polar bears in the Arctic to begin with if these continents did not exist prior to the flood.

I think you need to take a geology class.