Noah's Flood...

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:36 pm

Certainly not my intention, Frank. I have a very dear friend who is not quite as obtuse as Arch but fairly close and I'd never treat her the way I blast arch. Of course, she understands that the bible is folklore and believes it as an article of FAITH...not FACT.

However, I can't stand by when he proposes biblically based nonsense on a science board as if it has any scientific merit.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:02 pm

However, I can't stand by when he proposes biblically based nonsense on a science board as if it has any scientific merit.

You do have a point there, but I think we can be a little more civil about it. I keep thinking "what if it was my dad?" He's very devout too and stubborn as hell. I don't get into these discussions with him. There's no point. He's a good honest man always does the right thing and if his religion makes him that way or helps him to be at peace then why rock the boat?

Arch is another story. He should know he will never convince any of us with his increasingly weak arguments. He is sort of invading this board with things that don't rteally belong here. He said yesterday on some thread and I can't find it that he has provided archaeological and historical records which point to creationism. I challenge him to show me one example of either which is credible to a reasonable person.
But anyway, I will try to be more civil about it all. We are aleinating some people and I don't want to do that. I may be out of line here, Bob, but I'd appreciate if you'd tone it down a little too. I know it isn't my place to ask that of you, but I think we're friends and if you think I'm overstepping my bounds just tell me so. I'm sure you will. That goes for Marduk and everyone else too.

Geez I'm in a charitable mood today. Pensive, soft? Something.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:14 pm

I would promise to tone it down but I know that sooner or later he'll say something to piss me off so why should I let him make a liar out of me.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:23 pm

ditto

stan · Post by **stan** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:24 pm

But, Min and Marduk, your blasts have ripple effects...they scare others away.
Everybody understands where Arch is coming from...I wish you would jut ignore him.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:25 pm

That would be like trying to ignore a five pound hemorrhoid.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:27 pm

However, I can't stand by when he proposes biblically based nonsense on a science board as if it has any scientific merit

is thatbecause i can show support for my position and it unnerves you or is it because you feel that the Bible needs to be excluded from every aspect of life?

as i said before, i am just presenting my side of the debate and i think i have shown enough evidence for that side to be seriously considered not only theologically but scientifically as well.

If biblical scholars couls just accept that the bible means well but isn't completely reliable as a history book then they'd be a lot better off.

we can't do that. if we did then we would be undermining the messageof the Bible , who God is and His plan of salvation. what hope would the world have if the Bible was only a feel good book? no one else offers anything of substance and hope.

Arch is another story. He should know he will never convince any of us with his increasingly weak arguments

maybe true, but all i have to do is plant the seed and let God take it from there.

What if we did cause him to lose his faith

i don't think you can and the abuse is expected though my patience wears thin at times. it is not me you are angry at or hate (but whom i represent) and that is something you'll need to deal with at some point in your life.

i just enjoy the discussion as i learn many things, whether you believe it or not.

Arch, if you even read this at all, read it again and try to see the logic and sense of what I'm saying. I'm not trying to convert you. I'm just trying to show the untenability (is that a word?) of the position you take when you defend the bible and claim it to be absolutely true.

that is where faith comes in, if we don't believe that Genesis is true then how can we believe that heaven is true? we don't see God in person but we can see the result of His work so by faith we know God exists, even with scientific proof, we still need faith and you are only going to get so much scientific proof, then you have to make a decision.

i will re-read your posts again Frank don't worry.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:38 pm

However, it contains no evidence that I can see for a global flood

maybe i should have wordedit as evidence that the flood happened as he keeps mentioning the severity of the catastrophe that eliminated all the animals. i am usually basing my finds from chapter 9 onward till he gets to the one about 'problems with evolution'.

whathe describes in those chapters fit in line with what took place with Noah's flood. science certainly cannot explain it nor can they find the source for such an event outside the Bible so it is safe to assume that the credibility of the Flood account is secure.

Really, it's all down to intepretation.

yes i can go along with that. but truth has its way of making itself known.

All of which means that I do not have to take anything in the story too literally and can readily interpret it as a localised event that covered all of the 'land' as far as Noah could see ....

yes, but with the numerous local floods, it would be easy to connect the dots and show that it probably was one great flood. but that is up to what one wants to believe.

Leona Conner · Post by **Leona Conner** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 3:23 pm

There you go with the apples and oranges. Having faith in God and what he can do for you in your personal walk through life is one thing, but your so-called faith in the Bible as being the literal word of God is somethng else. I know many Christians who I consider extremly faith-full who do not have the same thoughts about the Bible as you. Even the ministers wife says you accept the Bible as a guide for living the kind of life God wants you to live. The stories are just that, stories.

I have a friend who is a Buddhist/Christian (or manybe Christian/Buddhist) who believes that if you apply the Buddhist Right Path to your Christian life you don't need anything else.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 3:34 pm

There you go with the apples and oranges

no itis not apples and oranges---faith is a fact of life you can't escape it no matter how hard you try, even with evolution you must exercise some sort of faith to hold to its teachings, if you didn't then it would have been scrapped long ago for its inability to produce any answers.

the rest of your post is for another forum so i will not answer it.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 4:08 pm

.

is thatbecause i can show support for my position and it unnerves you or is it because you feel that the Bible needs to be excluded from every aspect of life?

Part A - You haven't come close to doing so yet.

Part B - Yes.

stan · Post by **stan** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 6:05 pm

First, i am not interested in "Noah " but I am interested in whether and when the Black Sea was flooded from the Mediterranean.
( Have read dates ranging from 12,500 ya to 3,500 ya., as I recall)
It is interesting that a landbridge with istanbul on in now separates the two. No permanent channel.

Marduk,you said the mediterranean would have had to flow uphill to get into the Black Sea, and I thought you also said that the Black sea was fed by salt rivers. (Was this because some glaciers are composed of salt water?)

I assume you agree that although the world's ocean levels rose after the last ice age, they didn't rise enough to overflow into the black sea.
Do you know offhand how much it must have risen in order to do that?
Thanks.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 6:12 pm

Marduk,you said the mediterranean would have had to flow uphill to get into the Black Sea, and I thought you also said that the Black sea was fed by salt rivers. (Was this because some glaciers are composed of salt water?)

Surely you misunderstood. I guess I should find where he said that. I would have register a huge disagreement.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 6:59 pm

he did say it but where i am not sure.

but I am interested in whether and when the Black Sea was flooded from the Mediterranean

putting Noah aside for the moment, it would make sense that if any flood happened, it would have to be a catastrophic one to make sense of the volume of water invloved to do that feat

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 7:07 pm

Marduk,you said the mediterranean would have had to flow uphill to get into the Black Sea, and I thought you also said that the Black sea was fed by salt rivers. (Was this because some glaciers are composed of salt water?)

the danube flows into the black sea

Hungary: The total area of salt-affected soils in Hungary exceed 2.3 million ha, which is more than 24 percent of the territory of the country. Salt-affected soils include both existing and potentially saline and sodic soils which have developed mainly in the Hungarian Plain and only in small spots in other regions of the country. More than 95 percent of the existing salt-affected soils are situated in the valleys of the Danube and Tisza rivers. The salt-affected soils of the Trans-Tisza region belong to the group of solonetz type (alkaline soils with structural B-horizon).

http://www.fao.org/AG/agl/agll/spush/topic2.htm

glaciers are not composed of salt water
are you smoking something ?