Posted on 06/30/2006 8:26:43 AM PDT by DannyTN
it shouldn't give anyone heart burn.
just takes a little humility in our understanding of God's creation, and not assuming that speed of light and time, always behave(d) as we see it/or test it in a laboratory setting today.
that experiment would tend to support that we have very limited understanding of such things.
oh so the more similitaries among and across cultures in traditional oral histories, the more likely false?
game of telephone alway starts with the true and original statement. getting distorted along the way, doesn't mean the original never happened.
Nor can you explain it (or anything else) as a non-yec; so what?
We have no need to explain anything that is so far away, and only can be 'detected' but not even examined. Creation is the best explanation for all that we can touch (IOW fits best) and explanations of that which we cannot touch can never rise above the level of assumption.
How would one test time in a laboratory?
I don't have the knowledge to even speculate? let alone assume it has behaved that same way 'in the beginning'?
talk about a humbling sense of limited knowing!!!!!!
In that 2nd picture, on the right hand side, after the break in the "board," it seems like there are two nails in the board at equal distances from the top and bottom of the board. The nails are lined up with each other. Don't those look like nails?
Too bad it's not in Las Vegas. Gil Grissom of CSI could get Noah's DNA from those nails somehow.
The concept of the 'specious present' is as close as anybody has come to explaining the true nature of time. It is that famous 12 seconds (the pulse of attention) that Madison Avenue calls the attention span and which comedians and the MSM use in their famous one-liners and sound bites. Anything of longer duration is conjectural. Check TV commercials and see if any coherent segment is longer than 12 seconds. That would mean a series of five segments to make up a one-minute spot; any fewer segments mean an amateur produced the commercial.
You claim 'similarities', but ignore the important differences. For example, the sense of which gods are involved.
There are numerous common threads in human societies--fertility rites, rules of conduct, etc. but none of this shows the Bible to be in a unique place.
You seem to think that man's knowlege is inferior, and 'only God's knowlege' matters. This is an odd view. There is the little problem of just who knows what God says? Y'know, there are hundreds of sects and cults and self-appointed priests, preachers, and shamans who make that claim, and they all quarrel with one another, making schism after schism. So the likelihood that any one of them is right has a very small probability. You could do as well by casting dice.
Flapdoodle. I can explain SN1987 and the heartburn it gives YECs very nicely.
Do you mean the image "ark12?"
On the right side I see nothing, but on the left side, just right of a break, there are two 'dots' but they are definately not nails, just irregualrities in the surface. (I blew the image up to 400% to examine it)
Sorry, no heartburn.
If you're happy with your 'explanation,' then I'm happy for you.
Hi, that looks the same as the Painted Desert in Arizona or the Petrified Forest to me.
Gotta know when to hold, know when to fold ...
I long since abandoned this thread. :-)
That was my first thought too, but given the geologist's comments, (link in post 15) I got to believe it's petrified. And they had tests come back that indicated petrified wood.
It's surrounded by rocks, could rainfall generate enough mineralized water to petrify it? I've read of things being petrified quickly in stream water. Would wood at that height above sea level deteroriate quickly or is there a chance decay would be slow enough to allow a slower petrification process?
I'd love to see some independent verification. And maybe some excavation to see if they can determine what the structure really was.
Methinks your head is exponentially larger than your spectacles.
Unfortunately, that's always a possibility. But I don't have evidence yet that he is phony or incompetent or unduly biased. However, I have read some of your other anti-Bible comments and believe that you ARE unduly biased, regardless of whether you might have any qualifications beyond that of anonymous internet poster.
So between the two of you, he's definitely getting the benefit of the doubt for right now.
I obviously don't know the answers since I wasn't there and the Bible doesn't provide the details. Proposals that I've heard that make the most sense are:
Where did all the water go after the flood?
Prior to the Flood the Earth had a fairly mild terrain without high mountains and deep sea trenches. During/After the Flood - when "...all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened" - mountain peaks rose up, and sea trenches were created in the oceans beds -- thus allowing a recepticle for the water that covered the surface of the Earth.
What did Noah feed to the lions and tigers during his voyage? As I understand it both have hearty appetites.
One proposal is that most of the animals went into 'hibernate mode'... I know if I had been on board the last ship on Earth, while 'terra firma' was getting ripped up and covered with water I'd probably been in a 'wake me when its over mode' as well...
God Bless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.