(February 22, 2016 at 11:26 pm)Living in Death Wrote: With all sincerity, it's just more adaptation of creationist myths to make themselves feel more secure. They try to weave in scientific theories and world views and think that it'll somehow blossom into something plausible (which, as you demonstrated so well, never really does).
Really, the only way they can make themselves feel more secure is by rejecting the story outright, and coming up with some plausible narrative for why fictitious story is in the Bible. Now, this approach has it's own problems, but at least it jettisons the problems of defending things that cannot be true and defending creepy people who kill children and animals because they're mad at the adults. Any person I know IRL that I've talked to about this myth either expresses strong doubts about or flat-out rejects this story.
(February 22, 2016 at 11:26 pm)Living in Death Wrote: It's damaging science, and potentially decent people.
Especially that last one. I've learned a couple of years ago that flood apologetics are the worst. It's this somewhat unique blend of butchered science and murder apologia that makes a person look like a complete ass. At the end of the day, I realize how far they're willing to go to reconcile their beliefs, and it's disturbing.
