Yabby,

As I'm not up with the pros and cons of Pixie Dust, I googled, and came up with this:
http://www.fairies-secrets.com/pixie-dust.html

Apparently Pixie dust is standard Fairy Dust supercharged with Sparkle - a bit like rationality supercharged with smartartistry....both create effect over substance.

"Yabby, the Fairy King" - yep, I can go with that (might embarrass your dogs, though :)

WmTrevor,

Very good!

Well Poirot, this Pixie Dust is certified genuine and comes to
you for a mere 19.95 plus p&h. The magic coming your way will
elevate your perception and enhance your experience of the world.

Given that pet rocks sold extremely well at the time, this thing
should zoom with online sales around the globe.

Luciferace may have disappeared from the scene, but I would like to respond to some of his later posts, for what it’s worth.

His fairly straight forward but not particularly robust definition of rational thinking concluded with ideocentricsm, meaning he thought could declare who was rational and who wasn’t. As others pointed out, we all think we’re being rational generally, or at least most of the time.

Luciferace, you claim to understand better than others how science works. You also claim that the story of Noah can’t possibly be true. I presume that implies that the Nohaic accounts have decidedly been proven false, although I’m not sure how anyone could arrange such an experiment to come to such a grand conclusion.

But here I offer a few facts: in the light of some saying there isn’t enough water for a global flood, mountain heights and ocean depths averaged out as a whole over the earth would make us all quite wet; fossilised sea creatures have been found at quite high altitudes; continental drift does suggest significant movements of the tectonic plates. This is not offering up any kind of proof, but just the opposite; it is to say that things are a long way from being proven.

So Luciferace, you talk about ‘insults flying from both sides’resulting from creationists holding certain views. Insults flying have nothing to do with deep philosophical positions. Insults arise from people lacking in certain civil niceties, such as grace, patience, and tolerance. Although I can understand when two parties are both making truth claims in similar domains when both cannot possibly be true at the same time, then certain egos and pride will naturally arise. Sparks may fly. And creationists clearly are making certain truth claims in the face of those who hold other positions. Yet this is not in itself reason enough for intemperance and intolerance.

Thanks Dan .....

So God didn't raise the water level, he just dropped the land level ? Well, why bother getting it to rain in the first place, just level out all the land and bingo ! We're all under water.

And then, when everything except what was on the ark has drowned, lift the land again.

Brilliant ! That'll teach the b@stards to feck around with Me !

And those atheists know in their bones that it's all true.

Cheers,

Joe

>>continental drift does suggest significant movements of the tectonic plates.<<

Indeed it does. But that movement is not just significant: it is exceedingly slow. The figure that sticks in my mind is that continents drift about as fast your nails grow. Google could probably give you some actual numbers for plate tectonics.

Most Biblical literalists go with Bishop Usher's chronology and so they argue that the flood happened sometime in the last 6000 years. If it was the result of geological rather than meteorological engineering there is no way the world could have gone from its soggy averaged state to its current topological state in the time frame available: the tectonic plates don't move fast enough. If they did in the days yore and don't anymore we would have geological evidence of that: we don't.

Even if we ignore Bishop Usher because he was wrong Genesis 7 is quite explicit that the floodwaters rose for a mere forty days: for that to happen by geological mechanisms those tectonics plates must have been sliding around at a rate that would make Usain Bolt envious. There is no evidence that this ever happened and it isn't supported by any geological theory I'm cognizant of. Genesis 7 is also quite explicit that rain was the cause of the flood:

Genesis 7:12
KJV

12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

Genesis 7:17
KJV

17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.

TBC

>>This is not offering up any kind of proof<<

Dude: it's not even offering up a plausible hypothesis. You're going to have to do better than that. To get an idea of what a plausible hypothesis should look like you should familiarise yourself with some hypotheses which are not just plausible but which have been tested scientifically: you can find them in any geology textbook.

>>So God didn't raise the water level, he just dropped the land level ? Well, why bother getting it to rain in the first place, just level out all the land and bingo ! We're all under water.

And then, when everything except what was on the ark has drowned, lift the land again.

Brilliant ! That'll teach the b@stards to feck around with Me !<<

Why didn't God just kill all the sinners? All this radical meterological and/or geological engineering seems like a lot of unnecessary stuffing around when He could have just worked a quick miracle and killed everyone He wanted to instantly and directly. The whole Ark thing was so overly complicated that it invited a cock-up: what if some of those sinners had stowed away? It wouldn't have been too hard. They could have dressed up as pantomime horses. Or hid behind the dinosaurs.

Cheers,

Tony