The Jesus Freaks Will Hate This

[Brakeman]

No, silly, you have to set Pi = 3

And pie = apple

If anything, you can always divide by unicorn farts and everything adds up nicely.

My comment was a reference to 1 Kings, 7:23

1 Kings 7:23King James Version (KJV)

23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

[SteelCurtain]

*calculates

Not enough significant figures.

No, silly, you have to set Pi = 3

Shit. I was being more accurate than god. Why do I always do that? Dammit, Mike!

[Norman Humann]

My comment was a reference to 1 Kings, 7:23

1 Kings 7:23King James Version (KJV)

23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

Oh... well, in my defense, I was raised catholic, so I barely ever touched a bible :p

[watchamadoodle]

So does Huggy believe in the Biblical Flood and Noah's Ark? I wasn't following this thread, but I see we are discussing those possibilities.

[Esquilax]

So does Huggy believe in the Biblical Flood and Noah's Ark? I wasn't following this thread, but I see we are discussing those possibilities.

If I recall, the last time someone asked him that question directly he got all evasive and didn't answer, which leads me to believe that the answer is yes, but that he at least has the good sense to know how ridiculous and untenable that makes his position.

[Huggy Bear]

So does Huggy believe in the Biblical Flood and Noah's Ark? I wasn't following this thread, but I see we are discussing those possibilities.

If I recall, the last time someone asked him that question directly he got all evasive and didn't answer, which leads me to believe that the answer is yes, but that he at least has the good sense to know how ridiculous and untenable that makes his position.

Really? In case I haven't made myself clear (which I have) I believe the WHOLE Bible, that clear enough? Anytime anyone has asked me a yes or no question I have always gave a yes or no answer, show where that hasn't been the case. Ont the other hand I Just asked you guys to answer a yes or no question, and not one of you has answered, so who's dodging?

To refresh your memory

are you saying that it is impossible for a planetary body to shift in its orbit? A yes or no answer will suffice.

In addition, I suppose it's theoretically possible to shift the moon's orbit; however, the event would be highly unlikely. Despite already showing that this is impossible as an explanation for the Biblical deluge, you tacitly suggest that a second equally unlikely event must have taken place to restore the moon to its original orbit. You see, your proposal rapidly becomes silliness.

In case you haven't heard, the universe, according to "science" was created from a huge series of "highly unlikely" events.

As far as my proposal being "silliness", I going to list three scenarios, Pick the one that is least silly according to what you know to be possible/impossible.

1. The universe created itself.
2. The universe was created by an intelligent being.
3. The universe has always existed.

[watchamadoodle]

Really? In case I haven't made myself clear (which I have) I believe the WHOLE Bible, that clear enough? Anytime anyone has asked me a yes or no question I have always gave a yes or no answer, show where that hasn't been the case. Ont the other hand I Just asked you guys to answer a yes or no question, and not one of you has answered, so who's dodging?

I assume your church preaches that the WHOLE Bible is literally factual?
So do you also believe the genealogy from Adam through Noah to Abraham that suggests 6000 years?
How about the 6 days of creation story?
Drich believes that Adam may have been in the Garden of Eden for billions of years while the Earth was evolving. Is that how you see it?

[Norman Humann]

Really? In case I haven't made myself clear (which I have) I believe the WHOLE Bible, that clear enough? Anytime anyone has asked me a yes or no question I have always gave a yes or no answer, show where that hasn't been the case.

So, you don't wear mixed fabrics? Do you stone adulterers? Do you avoid mixing meat and dairy, eating pork and fat, eating any meat not killed according to kosher practice? Are you circumcised?

[Mister Agenda]

No one's going to bat an eye at this one, huh?

I'll bite. All it would take for a worldwide flood is for the moon to randomly shift orbits to 5% of it's current orbit. Nice.

Couple problems. Why didn't Noah mention that the moon suddenly overwhelmed the night sky? How about the massive seismological activity that would happen when the Earth and the Moon warped each other's shape? Why isn't that mentioned in the Bible? The moon would still have a warped shape. What is the mechanism for by which the moon suddenly shifted orbits, then shifted back? Also, this still wouldn't change the amount of water on the planet. It would create a rolling tidal wave, one that would easily fuck an 800' wooden boat to shit. And one, incidentally, that would leave a LOT more evidence and destruction that a simple flood would. There are too many problems to count.

Not to mention that you haven't come any closer to proving that this actually happened. In fact, you have made it easier to prove that it didn't happen.

Where did I state this is what caused the biblical flood?
I stated that all it would take is for the moon to shift in its orbit to cause a flood, in other words a world wide flood is not outside the realm of possibility.
Or are you saying that it is impossible for a planetary body to shift in its orbit? A yes or no answer will suffice.

Yes. Planetary bodies shift in their orbits all the time. For instance, the moon gets incrementally farther away from the earth every year. When it first formed in the Hadean era, it was about 20 times closer to the Earth than it is now (6,000 years ago it was about 0.14 miles closer than it is now). That was the Hadean Era, when the earth was so hot most of the water was in the form of steam and oceans could only exist because of the high atmospheric pressure. I can't think of any multicellular organism alive today that could have survived the conditions on earth back then.

It would be astronomically impossible for the Moon to have gotten twenty times closer in the last 10,000 years in a matter of days and suddenly zoomed back out to its normal distance without causing way more problems than global flooding. The primary effects would be earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, and violent storms. It would be an extinction-level event comparable to what killed the dinosaurs (or worse), and it would leave unmistakeable geological evidence on both the earth and moon. It would be more likely to turn much of the world's water into steam than to cause global flooding.

I don't have the maths to calculate the energy output of such an event, but the earth's crust would be severely damaged. It would be like pulling on the surface of a rubber ball and letting it snap back.

[Esquilax]

Really? In case I haven't made myself clear (which I have) I believe the WHOLE Bible, that clear enough?

In another thread, fairly recently, you were asked directly whether you believed that Noah's Ark was a real thing, and your answer was, and I quote, "It was just an example..."

Don't blame me for your reactions to straight questions.

Anytime anyone has asked me a yes or no question I have always gave a yes or no answer, show where that hasn't been the case. Ont the other hand I Just asked you guys to answer a yes or no question, and not one of you has answered, so who's dodging?

Yes, you asked a yes or no question in which there are more than just the two answers, which is perfectly in keeping with the profound intellectual dishonesty you've shown so far, but that doesn't obligate us to dance to your falsely dichotomous tune.

To refresh your memory

are you saying that it is impossible for a planetary body to shift in its orbit? A yes or no answer will suffice.

In addition, I suppose it's theoretically possible to shift the moon's orbit; however, the event would be highly unlikely. Despite already showing that this is impossible as an explanation for the Biblical deluge, you tacitly suggest that a second equally unlikely event must have taken place to restore the moon to its original orbit. You see, your proposal rapidly becomes silliness.

Do you actually think this works out in your favor? Seriously? When we know the biblical flood didn't happen due to a planetary body shifting its orbit, because we have good evidence that it didn't happen at all, you really think bringing up this irrelevant nonsense is going to help you? Like I said the first time you brought this up, "is possible" is not the same thing as "has happened," and it's utterly breathtaking that you're persisting with this intellectually vapid argument.

In case you haven't heard, the universe, according to "science" was created from a huge series of "highly unlikely" events.

Yeah, and if you don't think they're possible, that's an argument against them, eh? You're like a walking embodiment of the argument from incredulity fallacy, sometimes.

As far as my proposal being "silliness", I going to list three scenarios, Pick the one that is least silly according to what you know to be possible/impossible.

1. The universe created itself.
2. The universe was created by an intelligent being.
3. The universe has always existed.

Do you really want to add that "what you know to be possible" criteria in there? Because, you know, as far as we can tell it's impossible for intelligent beings to create universes, we've got no evidence for that. I know you baselessly privilege the second option, as though somehow "magic man dun poofed der universe into existence!" isn't a silly idea, but when you actually think about it, proposing a being that exists outside of reality, with universe creating properties, isn't any less ridiculous than the other- grossly oversimplified- strawman possibilities you propose. You just happen to like it better, but that's not an argument for it.

Incidentally, there's a fourth option too, which is to honestly admit that we don't yet know how the universe came to be. It means we don't have to pretend that a book of ancient fairytales is "WHOLLY" true; having a wrong answer is not superior to admitting there isn't an answer yet.