(May 6, 2016 at 12:27 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: The ad-hoc part is the most comical portion of their arguments.
Take Ken Ham for a perfect example. It's 2016 and he cant build this "ark" without modern steel and cranes. So he says that Noah must have had both, and that the technology must have been lost in the flood and resulting chaos.
It would be comical if it weren't so damned sad.
Noah had steel in 2348* BCE? That means the guy was a prodigy! He beat the Anatolians, who have the record for the oldest steel known to have been made on this planet, around the year 1800 BCE, by over 500 years!
Unfortunately, the Anatolians could only produce it in small amounts, so a short-sword or dagger is the best one could expect, and most of what was found were small bits of jewelry. The Hittites (same region) would be the first to "mass produce" steel (true mass production, such as necessary to construct girders of the size we're talking about here, would have to wait until the invention of the Bessemer process in the mid-1800s CE) in useful quantities, but that was not until just before 1000 BCE, around the time the Bible claims Saul was becoming Israel's first king.
[*This is the date claimed by Answers in Genesis to be the year of the flood.]
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.