One question for Christians

[Captain Colostomy]

Hi, welcome to the conversation, Chuck. But yes, it really doesn't matter that I was a Priest, an Elder, or Fluffy the Elephant. I suppose your eyes glazed over when reading another of Ronedee's posts (which happens more often than not, and for good reason), and then took my post out of context. I suppose I should have quoted what he said in my same post, but I guess we all are guilty of misconstruing posts from time to time. I'm not surprised that a few of you did so with mine.

Aw...Peter Priesthood would have laid into them more.

*sulks*

[Bad Writer]

Damn, you're right! I totally should have channeled the plucky bastard.

[Cyberman]

That's what I love about those who try to shoehorn mythology into a scientific context in order to find a justification for convincing themselves and others it's a true representation of history. With one hand they point to a patchwork quilt of garbled scientific facts knitted together haphazardly, trying to rationalise things like the interior capacity of the ark, the number of animals aboard, the source of the floodwater etc; which is all well and good except their other hand clutches an escape rope labelled "God". Try it out - see how far into the rationalisation you can get before they pull that magic rope. We could make it a competition.

This only proves that you’re beat either way.

Really? Well, let's see how you do:

Let's just visualise that for a moment. Thousands of wild carnivorous animals ranging from snakes to lions and tigers, all cooped up in an extremely confined space and forced to eat a vegetarian diet - and then in comes Noah and his tasty family. Yep, this was a good plan.

Have you ever even read the Biblical account of the flood? If so, then why are you assuming typical animal behavior tendencies when the account makes it clear the animals’ natural behaviors were altered?

Two sentences; and the first is a preamble leading into the second.

[Statler Waldorf]

No, they were born that stupid.

They’re not stupid; Catholic priests are generally very well educated.

Two sentences; and the first is a preamble leading into the second.

Are you going to actually address my point? I smell weakness.

[Cyberman]

I wasn't aware you'd made a point, beyond illustrating my prediction. Thanks for that.

Can't help you with the smell though. Some people just project that kind of odour.

[Statler Waldorf]

[b]I wasn't aware you'd made a point/b’, beyond illustrating my prediction. Thanks for that.

I see, then I will keep it very simple for you this time. You were making an argument that assumed the animals on the ark would behave like animals typically do. Are you with me so far? I am arguing for the historicity of the Biblical ark account. Still with me? That means that you are going to have to argue against the Biblical account, and not a misrepresentation of the Biblical account? Still with me? The Biblical account clearly states that the animals did not behave normally, so you were arguing against a misrepresentation of the Biblical account by assuming they did. This means your argumentation was fallacious and therefore proves nothing. Did you follow all of that?

Can't help you with the smell though. Some people just project that kind of odour.

Evidently.

[Cyberman]

I'm typing this very slowly for you, so you can keep up. I wasn't making any argument, merely an observation that literal creationists seem to be stuck in a mindset that forces them to pull the "Goddidit" ripcord and abandon their own argument as soon as they paint themselves into a corner. And you didn't disappoint. That's one reason creationists tend not to be taken seriously. I mean, it's cute when a six-year-old tells a story and has a magic butterfly swoop down from nowhere to save the plot from crashing; but a grown adult? For shame!

But please, do prove me wrong. Detail one single account of how the ark could possibly operate as a scientific reality, without once having to throw god magic into the recipe.

[Bad Writer]

I predict a slice of twisted words, a cup of special pleading, and a side of godidit.

[Statler Waldorf]

I'm typing this very slowly for you, so you can keep up.

I have no problem keeping up with you; you’re the one who admitted having difficulties.

I wasn't making any argument, merely an observation that literal creationists seem to be stuck in a mindset that forces them to pull the "Goddidit" ripcord and abandon their own argument as soon as they paint themselves into a corner.

No, we just adhere to the Biblical account, so we’re not going to postulate a natural explanation for something the Biblical account already gave us an explanation for. Pretty simple really.

That's one reason creationists tend not to be taken seriously.

No, it’s a natural tendency for people to ridicule positions they otherwise have no logical defense against.

I mean, it's cute when a six-year-old tells a story and has a magic butterfly swoop down from nowhere to save the plot from crashing; but a grown adult? For shame!

That’s an irrelevant analogy. We live in a Universe governed by the Creator, you cannot avoid His involvement.

But please, do prove me wrong. Detail one single account of how the ark could possibly operate as a scientific reality, without once having to throw god magic into the recipe.

Why do you insist on misrepresenting my position? The Biblical account (which is what I am arguing for) clearly states that God was miraculously involved in several aspects of the ark account. I hate to break it to you, but Donkeys don’t naturally talk either lol.

---

I predict a slice of twisted words, a cup of special pleading, and a side of godidit.

In your next post? Most likely, if you bother actually responding that is.

[Anomalocaris]

No, we just adhere to the Biblical account, so we’re not going to postulate a natural explanation for something the Biblical account already gave us an explanation for. Pretty simple really.

Scientific, isn't it.