Ha, huh because.... Science says so!

[Wyrd of Gawd]

It only has to be half right on a couple of things, after severe interpretation, and that's good enough apparently for a divinely inspired book.

Once again, the bar is so low you could stumble over it in your sleep.

Yet a not-insignificant number of christians fail to reach even that high and disregard evolution entirely as either the work of Satan or God testing our faith, which apparently changes depending on their mood...

Even the Catholic Bible mentions the reality of evolution.  The Protestants rejected it.

[Redbeard The Pink]

How do we know the biblical flood story couldn't happen as written?

Because the boat would fill with poop.

Because the animals would kill each other.

Because the animals wouldn't all fit.

Because the animals (and humans, actually) wouldn't have enough genetic diversity to speciate.

Because the herbivores would have no food.

Because every time the carnivores ate an animal, that animal would go extinct.

Because the mixture of salt and fresh water would kill all aquatic life.

Unless your Gaud just fixed all that with magic, but the text sure doesn't say that. It's almost like the people writing this didn't know this stuff...hmmm...

[dyresand]

How do we know the biblical flood story couldn't happen as written?

Because the boat would fill with poop.

Because the animals would kill each other.

Because the animals wouldn't all fit.

Because the animals (and humans, actually) wouldn't have enough genetic diversity to speciate.

Because the herbivores would have no food.

Because every time the carnivores ate an animal, that animal would go extinct.

Because the mixture of salt and fresh water would kill all aquatic life.

Unless your Gaud just fixed all that with magic, but the text sure doesn't say that. It's almost like the people writing this didn't know this stuff...hmmm...

Not even that a ship of that size would be ripped apart. There is limit to how big you can build a wooden ship and the ARK in the bible
is not even sea worthy not even the one in the creationists museum.

[Crossless2.0]

How do we know the biblical flood story couldn't happen as written?

Because the boat would fill with poop.

Because the animals would kill each other.

Because the animals wouldn't all fit.

Because the animals (and humans, actually) wouldn't have enough genetic diversity to speciate.

Because the herbivores would have no food.

Because every time the carnivores ate an animal, that animal would go extinct.

Because the mixture of salt and fresh water would kill all aquatic life.

Unless your Gaud just fixed all that with magic, but the text sure doesn't say that. It's almost like the people writing this didn't know this stuff...hmmm...

Not even that a ship of that size would be ripped apart. There is limit to how big you can build a wooden ship and the ARK in the bible
is not even sea worthy not even the one in the creationists museum.

I've often challenged believers to provide the stowage and stability calculations for the ark and its cargo. Unsurprisingly, no one ever seems interested in doing so. Of course, they'd just pull the "God magic card" anyway to pretend to explain the unexplainable, like they always do.

[Chas]

Here are some other things in the 'because Science says so' set of cool stuff:

-The human race is not descended from a single Middle Eastern couple.

-There has never been a global flood.

-Biological evolution is real.  Like, really real.

-The Universe is billions of years old, the Earth likewise.

-Photosynthesizing plants don't function without sunlight.

-Not all plants are fit to eat.

-Bats are not birds.

-Venomous snake bites require antivenom, not statues.

-Figs do not cure boils.

-Ostriches are actually very good parents.

Too many more to list.  It seems that the Bible, contrary to the claim too often made, is a stunningly bad guide to science.

Boru

Scallops wrapped in bacon are delicious and nutritious.

[Iroscato]

How do we know the biblical flood story couldn't happen as written?

Because the boat would fill with poop.

Yeah, but God.

Because the animals would kill each other.

God again.

Because the animals wouldn't all fit.

God would fix that, duh.

Because the animals (and humans, actually) wouldn't have enough genetic diversity to speciate.

God would find a way around, obviously.

Because the herbivores would have no food.

God,

Because every time the carnivores ate an animal, that animal would go extinct.

God,

Because the mixture of salt and fresh water would kill all aquatic life.

And God again.

Unless your Gaud just fixed all that with magic, but the text sure doesn't say that. It's almost like the people writing this didn't know this stuff...hmmm...

See, now you're getting it!
God > Every argument.
God > All logical processes.
God > Any need for critical thinking.

[Crossless2.0]

Drich wrote: "And if you look further you will note some plants grow better under the lamps than in direct sunlight... almost as if these plants we adapted to work in sunlight but perfered the light of Someone Else."

This could be a handy tip for anyone thinking of starting a grow house. You might be able to cut down on your overhead by skipping the lamps entirely and working with fervent believers who could pray in shifts.

Just doing my part to help fledgling entrepreneurs in the cannabis industry.

[Iroscato]

Drich wrote: "And if you look further you will note some plants grow better under the lamps than in direct sunlight... almost as if these plants we adapted to work in sunlight but perfered the light of Someone Else."

This could be a handy tip for anyone thinking of starting a grow house. You might be able to cut down on your overhead by skipping the lamps entirely and working with fervent believers who could pray in shifts.

Just doing my part to help fledgling entrepreneurs in the cannabis industry.

Truly, doing God's work...

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Not even that a ship of that size would be ripped apart. There is limit to how big you can build a wooden ship and the ARK in the bible
is not even sea worthy not even the one in the creationists museum.

I've often challenged believers to provide the stowage and stability calculations for the ark and its cargo. Unsurprisingly, no one ever seems interested in doing so. Of course, they'd just pull the "God magic card" anyway to pretend to explain the unexplainable, like they always do.

Even the Bible says that the Noah flood story is BS if you read the fairy tale.  For one thing the Garden of Eden was just down the road from Assyria, Persia, Arabia, and Ethipoia.  So those civilizations were in place when Adam & Eve were running around butt naked.  And guess what?  Those civilzations were still in place after Noah's flood that killed all life on Earth except for that which was with him.  And after that Nimrod went to Assyria and built several cities.  

The Noah story is simply a war story.  The flood was the surge of enemy troops who swept through the land on a killing, raping, and pillaging spree.  The Bible is full of war stories that refer to such events as floods.  

We really need a giant asteroid to wipe the stupidty off of the face of the Earth.  It will be better off without billions of stupid people infecting it like a virus.

[Esquilax]

Again the thing is sport that the only example of a legged snake we have just so happens to be 150 million years old (supposedly ) even so, it does not mean that was the last legged snake in existence.

You're actually right there, though your overall point is still wrong: we actually do know of other snake species with legs later on in history than this newly discovered one. See, the big discovery with the snake you listed is that it has four legs, it's a tetrapod, not that it has legs at all. Another species of snake, closer on the family tree to modern snakes though not actually related to any of them, has legs too, though it only had two of them, rear ones that were getting to be vestigial.

That snake is ninety million years old; its closer than the 110-120 million of the new discovery, but it still predates all language by a long ass time, is several speciation events away from even the common ancestor of modern snakes, and had lost two of its legs in twenty million years. But credit where credit's due, you are correct in saying that this new discovery is not necessarily the last legged snake in existence.

The larger problem, however, is that we have no evidence at all that they existed concurrently with human beings, and that your entire position is that your wild claim hasn't been disproven, which is a shifting of the burden of proof.