Mark Nutter wrote:

The story of Noah gets my vote, not only for its pervasive influence
on creationist theory but because of its utter impossibility as truth.

Why do you say that? What base of evidence are you using to make that
erronous statement? What reasons are there for you to offer that
there could not have been a flood?

Consider: Creationists like to disparage the faith of theistic
evolutionists because theistic evolutionists abandon the idea that God
supernaturally intervened to create the world, and instead believe
that God created it by means of the normal operation of natural
forces, with God merely guiding the timing and giving things a gentle
nudge now and then. Yet when searching for evidence of an actual
global flood, and in trying to come up with a scientific explanation
of how such a thing could happen, the ICR folks proposed that there
existed a "vapor canopy" around the earth, with literally ocean-sized
quantities of water, ever since the earth was created. Then, at the
time of the flood, this canopy became unstable, and natural
hydrodynamic forces took over. In other words, they abandon the idea
that the flood was a supernatural intervention, and tried to explain
the flood as God working through the normal operation of natural
processes, only guiding the timing and giving a gentle nudge now and
then to move things the way he wanted them to go.

I have heard the "vapor canopy" explanation as well, and it doesn't make
sense.

I have had another explanation that does make a lot more sense.

We know, from multiple sources, that from time to time the earth's
magnetic poles have switched. North becoming south, and south becoming
north. This is most evident in volcanic flows where magnetic particles
are all laying in direct relation to the current poles, but if you look
at the much older lava, the particles are suddenly going in the opposite
direction.

Now, we have bands in our atmosphere known as the Van Allan radiation
belts. One of these belts contain large amounts of charged hydrogen
ions. Now, what happens when the magnetic poles reverse? What happens
when the magnetic fields collapse?

The polarized hydrogen ions are being suspended in our atmosphere by the
magnetic field. If the field reverses, the belts would collapse. What
would happen if you suddenly mixed large numbers of hydrogen ions with
an oxygen rich atmosphere? H2O. Water.

There is other evidences that a large flood occurred. In one example, a
researcher (I will have to go back to my references to get his name) has
been studying the saline density of the Gulf of Mexico. His discovery
was that at some point (multiple points, I believe) the validity of the
Gulf of Mexico dropped from around an average of 35 ppm, to close to 0.
What could dilute the water in the gulf to that degree?

But there is more. I am not sure if you have heard of a waterfall
gouge. Basically, from my understanding, this is basically a trench dug
by a waterfall pounding down and eroding at the ground below it.

Now, in the Mediterranean Sea, at the Straits of Gibraltar, there is a
fault line that runs from the Atlantic Ocean, right through the straits.
Immediately on the east side of that fault line there is a waterfall
gouge.

This is just a theory, but what if a crack opened where the fault line
is, allowing the waters into the Mediterranean?

If this is the case, it brings up another interesting point. If water
was flowing from the Atlantic into what is now the Mediterranean sea,
what would a boat on that water do? Probably follow the currents. And
if you draw a line from the Atlantic Ocean, through the Strait of
Gibraltar, where would you end up? The mountains of Ararat.

--- Jeremy

We know, from multiple sources, that from time to time
the earth's magnetic poles have switched.

There is other evidences that a large flood occurred.

But there is more. I am not sure if you have heard of a waterfall
gouge. Basically, from my understanding, this is basically a trench dug
by a waterfall pounding down and eroding at the ground below it.

If this is the case, it brings up another interesting point. If water
was flowing from the Atlantic into what is now the Mediterranean sea,
what would a boat on that water do? Probably follow the currents. And
if you draw a line from the Atlantic Ocean, through the Strait of
Gibraltar, where would you end up? The mountains of Ararat.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 23:10:37 -0400, Mani Deli <mani@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

Everyone should caste their vote for the stupidest Bible story.

The story of Noah gets my vote, not only for its pervasive influence
on creationist theory but because of its utter impossibility as truth.

Why do you say that? What base of evidence are you using to make that
erronous statement? What reasons are there for you to offer that
there could not have been a flood?

Or are you just blowing smoke out your butt?

duke32 <duke32@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<gd0akvobps0actmm5a7n59le7vgolt5b5a@4ax.com>...

The bible presents a very good reason for the flood.

Yeah, "everybody that died was a bad guy who deserved to die." Now
there's an unexpected insight. ;-)

Haven't you noticed, whenever tragedy strikes unexpectedly and kills
people not unlike you and me, how eagerly our minds want to leap to
the conclusion that the victims did something to deserve their fate?
We don't like unexpected and unavoidable catastrophes that kill people
who remind us of us. It makes it too obvious that there is no
particular reason why we ourselves might not be the next victims. Far
easier on the nerves if we assume that they really died because they
commited some "sin" which we ourselves would never commit. We feel
safer that way. Whatever they did to deserve it, we don't do, so we
can feel sure that what happened to them won't happen to us. We don't
deserve it, you see.

Frankly, blaming the victim is not a good reason. It's just ordinary
human denial--we don't want to admit that it could happen to us, so we
imagine the victim deserved it in some way that we do not.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 23:10:37 -0400, Mani Deli <mani@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

Everyone should caste their vote for the stupidest Bible story.

The story of Noah gets my vote, not only for its pervasive influence
on creationist theory but because of its utter impossibility as truth.

Why do you say that? What base of evidence are you using to make that
erronous statement? What reasons are there for you to offer that
there could not have been a flood?

Or are you just blowing smoke out your butt?

Noah’s tale is entertaining and lacks any
sensible message. Indeed, it personifies God as a nasty vindictive
grouch (most fairy tales have a villain) and serves as an interesting
subject for fairy tale illustrators.

The bible presents a very good reason for the flood.

Noah has no real lessons for religious proselytizers to rant about. In
the tale, God just got upset and bumped off most everything he
considered offensive which he apparently would do more often.

Genesis 6
5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and
that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all
the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth,
and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe
mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth-men and
animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the
air-for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in
the eyes of the LORD .

See, he had a very real reason for the flood.

...no skill no art!

That's quite right - that's exactly how I see your silly story.

duke, American-American
*****

Everyone should caste their vote for the stupidest Bible story.

So which in your opinion is the stupidest and don’t forget to sight
reasons?

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 23:10:37 -0400, Mani Deli <mani@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

Everyone should cast their vote for the stupidest Bible story.

The story of Noah gets my vote, not only for its pervasive influence
on creationist theory but because of its utter impossibility as truth.

Why do you say that? What base of evidence are you using to make that
erronous statement? What reasons are there for you to offer that
there could not have been a flood?

Or are you just blowing smoke out your butt?

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 23:10:37 -0400, Mani Deli <mani@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

Everyone should caste their vote for the stupidest Bible story.

The story of Noah gets my vote, not only for its pervasive influence
on creationist theory but because of its utter impossibility as truth.

Why do you say that? What base of evidence are you using to make that
erronous statement? What reasons are there for you to offer that
there could not have been a flood?

Or are you just blowing smoke out your butt?

Noah?s tale is entertaining and lacks any
sensible message. Indeed, it personifies God as a nasty vindictive
grouch (most fairy tales have a villain) and serves as an interesting
subject for fairy tale illustrators.

The bible presents a very good reason for the flood.

Noah has no real lessons for religious proselytizers to rant about. In
the tale, God just got upset and bumped off most everything he
considered offensive which he apparently would do more often.

Genesis 6
5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and
that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all
the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth,
and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe
mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth-men and
animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the
air-for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in
the eyes of the LORD .

See, he had a very real reason for the flood.

...no skill no art!

That's quite right - that's exactly how I see your silly story.

duke, American-American
*****
2Cor 5:10 - For we must all appear before the
judgment seat of Christ, that each one may
receive what is due him for the things done
while in the body, whether good or bad.
*****