May 4, 2005
Why God told Noah to Build an Arky ArkyPosted by Bryan
Not only is this photographic evidence of why women think men are immature, I find this to be another one of those clear images that affirm the biblical account of the global flood. This can't be explained by erosion, eruption, glacial movement, or even inanimate evolution (okay, I made that one up). The only way you get a multi-ton boulder to rest comfortably atop a high point in a geographically rolling area is through moving that boulder as though it were a pebble with a large volume of water rushing through an area, settling, and ultimately receding. God's word is trustworthy about Noah's big dipper...and everything else, too.
The boulders are actually proof that the Bible is not literally true, in that the boulders go far back beyond the time period outlined in the Old Testament. We have similar rocks here in Missouri that are over a billion years old.
Posted by: Dan at May 6, 2005 7:42 AMAre you sure its not meeelllions of beeellions years old. Maybe if we bisect the boulder and see how many rings are in it, we can count backward. Maybe, in fact, if we do that, we'll discover all the transitionary forms of life that have heretofore never been discovered. Maybe...just maybe...this is no boulder of all, but in fact a prehistoric (an oxymoronic term, by the way) egg, that if it had been allowed to hatch, could have instantaneously birthed a twin universe, repleat with its own 50 billion (and counting) galaxies.
In a word....puh-lease.
Posted by: Bryan at May 6, 2005 9:09 AMWow. Are you against all science? Do you not believe in galaxies? I'm not sure how to read your message. I'm sincerely interested if you genuinely believe that other galaxies don't exist.
Posted by: Dan at May 6, 2005 10:13 AMI don't disbelieve in science. I simply don't ascribe to science that requires more faith because of its implausibility and lack of evidence than what it purports against biblical revelation. In this, science is its own religion, and its fanatics are no less zealous nor unreasonable than "spiritual" counterparts.
I apologize for the confusion...I completely believe in other galaxies...they are observable. They affirm what Scripture says about man being unable to number the stars the in the sky. My point is that the hooha of "billions of years" old is so replete with inaccuracy and fantastic hypothesizing that you may as well be able to crack open this boulder as a "universal egg..." that my deliberately outrageous hypothesis to explain the observable is no less provocative and delirious than many other theories...including the Big Bang and a "billions of years old" earth.
Posted by: Bryan at May 6, 2005 12:12 PMWell, Bryan, I'm glad we can at least agree on galaxies. I won't engage you on the relative plausibility of the earth's age (how old do you guys think it is? Something like 70,000 years old?), since you probably don't need or want my input.
Posted by: Dan at May 6, 2005 4:34 PM