Did a World-Wide Flood in Noah's day Happen? (Biblically, secret, experiences)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And so, if we provide other scientific posts in hydrology, geology, biology, ecology, and plate tectonics that completely prove the flood could not have happened, are you going to bow out of your incessantly stubborn argument?
As in: some majority vote counts of scientific proofs wins? WEll OK then: I hoped you'd see the light eventually!
Or are you guilty of the "one post proves it all and simultaneously disproves thousands of others" disease you have so thoroughly demonstrated over and over?
I'm just curious. But... you really don't have to answer, because, well... you never do anyhow.. And we all know how your mind works now.
In other words, rifleman, with a fourth grade education (at best), cannot disprove the page I provided. He can't even follow simple instructions. I asked for proof they were wrong in their methodologies proving Noah's ark was viable. He can't do that. Why? Because he either has ADD or just is too immature to follow simple instructions. So he has to go into a tirade like a little child as if that disproves the article.
Moderator cut: edit , I already reviewed that stupid site a long time ago on this thread and noted that it is from some indubitable "Korean Creationist Ministries" or some such self-annointed but illiterate site.
They do not, of course, mention if a pitch-sealed vessel made from green gopher-wood (which only grows to 3 feet of total length anyways!) could have possibly withstood a flood and deluge-associated oceanic weather conditions, which it obviously could not have. *QED #2.
So you fail again, hoping again that blindered rote re-parroting would make your case. That only works for the idiot fringe!
Saying a web site is designed for children does not disprove the scientific proof. If, as you say it is designed for children it shows our children can understand this at the web page I just provided
So you have to say our children can understand that and yours are dumb as 'H'
Now, you can't just say, "the scientists are wrong." You have to actually prove by their methodology they are wrong. AREQUIPA, you can now add this scientific proof to my list of things proving my side to be correct.
Last edited by june 7th; 04-01-2012 at 01:48 PM..
Reason: Red reserved for moderator action, but any other color is okay.
BW, Euselessibius, I already reviewed that stupid site a long time ago on this thread and noted that it is from some indubitable "Korean Creationist Ministries" or some such self-annointed but illiterate site.
They do not, of course, mention if a pitch-sealed vessel made from green gopher-wood (which only grows to 3 feet of total length anyways!) could have possibly withstood a flood and deluge-associated oceanic weather conditions, which it obviously could not have. *QED #2.
So you fail again, hoping again that blindered rote re-parroting would make your case. That only works for the idiot fringe!
FYI: *QED means "Thus it has been PROVEN!"
Man! You just can't follow simple instructions! can you?!
You need to use their methodologies to prove they are wrong.
Saying it was made of "Gopher wood" does not disprove their methodologies. Saying Gopher wood grows to 3 feet does not disprove their methodologies. You just can't understand the most basic of instructions! Besides, it was not Gopher wood it was constructed of. That is just what the King James translators called it. Concordant Literal translated it differently. But that is going beyond my instructions. You are bringing in red herrings! Stick to the instructions or just don't post your infantile tripe.
Quote:
They do not, of course, mention if a pitch-sealed vessel made from green gopher-wood (which only grows to 3 feet of total length anyways!) could have possibly withstood a flood and deluge-associated oceanic weather conditions, which it obviously could not have. *QED #2.
Actually, if you read the web page you'd have read this:
Conclusion Here is their final evaluation:
"In conclusion, the Ark as a drifting ship, is thus believed to have had a
reasonable-beam-draft ratio for the safety of the hull, crew and cargo in the high
winds and waves imposed on it by the Genesis Flood."
and
"The voyage limit of the Ark, estimated from modern passenger ships’ criteria
reveals that it could have navigated sea conditions with waves higher than 30
metres."
Their first conclusion means that even though the ark was
economical it could still survive the treacherous conditions of a
global flood. The second part means it could even handle waves
that were 98 feet high!" (end of quote)
Now please stick to my requirements. You have to disprove them using their methodologies.
LOL... Oh my, since when do YOU make the rules? Your ego seems to be exploding!
Sorry, but making puerile remarks only established the fact you are not capable of following my instructions. It has nothing to do with me or my pride. I made a simple request. If you can't prove those scientists wrong by their own methodologies then you needn't post.
Sorry, but making puerile remarks only established the fact you are not capable of following my instructions. It has nothing to do with me or my pride. I made a simple request. If you can't prove those scientists wrong by their own methodologies then you needn't post.
Pot/Kettle, aren't you the one who said that rifleman has a fourth grade education at best? and you talk about a purile comment!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
QED yet again! An EPIC FAIL is born yet again!
