Because I have a few hours of free time today, and this is an interesting subject.
Was hoping to save time by including everyone in one post.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, I personally don’t know of anything interesting enough to make a comment of that size, and definitely not trying to answer everyone in the thread.
What’s interesting to me is how intensely interesting it is to you. I’m trying to understand that intensity and what drives it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If it were just a trivial matter, then nobody would bother posting repeatedly about it, and yet they do.
Why? Obviously because they think it’s very important.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That’s not what I asked, BroJoeK. I asked, if they were wrong, what harm would that do?
Let’s say for some reason you’re not here to tell them how wrong they are.
What harm would come from that?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My goal is simply to defend the Christianity and modern science I began learning as a child.
I don’t consider them at war against each other, and don’t like seeing either distorted.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is this goal of yours achievable? If so, is using an abrasive tone (i.e., calling any doubt of it “rubbish and nonsense, blathering, denier”) an effective way of doing so?
As an aside, do you defend Christianity at atheistic evolution blogs and message boards like you defend your views of science here? If not, why not? Is that not part of your stated goal?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How about you?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We’ve strayed far from the original topic of the Flood, but in that context I’ve stated my position upthread. Let me repeat it for you so you don’t have to scroll up and search a bunch:
“No worries, it wasn’t a “reliance”, it was something I am keenly interested in, that being how do people reconcile seemingly impossible positions.
The supposedly impossible position in this case was reconciliation of the Flood story with the current scientific theories of geology.
I’m agnostic to this particular subject; it doesn’t really matter to me whether or not the current scientific theories are correct or the Flood story is 100% literally accurate. I have to work, pay bills, love my family, and do what my God tells me is right. What Noah did or what some ape did thousands or millions of years ago doesn’t affect me except by example.”
“My answer? It doesn’t directly affect me in my day-to-day life exactly what Adam did, or Cain did, or Abel did. The only thing I can do is try to learn lessons about how to conduct myself from such stories. I’m not always successful, but neither am I perfect, so it is what it is.”
Just my opinion, but virtually everyone seems confused about the boundary-line and interface between natural-science and the Bible.
Apparently, many think they must either reject one or the other, maybe both, since supposedly they can't all be true.
So my basic argument here is that if you understand the differences between natural and spiritual realms, you can accept both for what they are.
And despite your claims, the issue here is not your FRiend, BroJoeK, because I'm merely responding to frequent posts on this subject by people who obviously consider it hugely important.
Why do they think it's important enough to stubbornly make their cases over & over?
Presumably, because they think the only way to defend the Bible is to defame science, and that's what I respond to.
angryoldfatman: "...is using an abrasive tone (i.e., calling any doubt of it “rubbish and nonsense, blathering, denier”) an effective way of doing so?"
But there's a lot of rubbish & nonsense posted here.
Are we to be so politically correct we can't call it what it is?
angryoldfatman: "As an aside, do you defend Christianity at atheistic evolution blogs and message boards like you defend your views of science here?
If not, why not?
Is that not part of your stated goal?"
I've never seen such a thread or poster on Free Republic.
I have no interest in other sites.
angryoldfatman: "The supposedly impossible position in this case was reconciliation of the Flood story with the current scientific theories of geology."
Curious it could be an issue, since the geological record is chock full of data relating to past mass extinctions -- some over 90% of fossilized species -- floods and other catastrophic events.
So the importance of Noah's life is not the scientific details, but the spiritual message from God, in this case reminding us by a rainbow, that we will not see such a flood again.
But Noah's flood also reminds us that we may have an important role in preventing future mass extinctions.