• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Bunch of Reasons Why I Question Noah's Flood Story:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The “sorting” was known long before evolution was proposed. Everybody knew that there were no rabbits in the Cambrian long before evolution. If there where rabbits in the Cambrian you would have simply moved the evolution of mammals a few hundredth million years earlier.

The theory can still predict that, In fact that is one way to test the theory of evolution. If it is not true there is no reason that animals could not be found out of their time zone in the fossil record.

Well we don’t find gorillas and humans together in the fossil record, even though we know that both are contemporaneous, …. This proves that the order in the fossil record has nothing to do with ages

mammals and birds woudl have been the last ones to die in a global flood, this is why we usually find them at the "top".

That is because we have almost no gorilla fossils at all. I know why, I am betting that you do not. And no, that is quite wrong. I see that you do not understand how we know the dates of objects. Once again instead of making incredibly poor arguments you should be asking questions. Politely by the way. Rude questions only merit rude responses.

Why? The level of the water was slowly rising for months and tides went up and down all the time. Many ammilals (birds mammals etc) could have run away for months while other animals where being buried.

Animals are not expected to die at the same time in a global flood

Their date of dying in the flood has nothing to do with their ability to run. We can find some very fast dinosaurs below the levels of very slow sloths. Once again, ask questions. Try to avoid making ignorant claims

again, we know that gorillas where around 100,000 years ago and we dont find any fossils,

So what?


Aja and how do you identify “precambric layers”?............

It depends upon what it is. Today for a certain date one uses radiometric dating. Though sedimentary strata cannot be dated that way there usually will be some layers of volcanic ash. Those can be dated. That gives us a bracket. The fossils found in it may enable us to match it up to other Precambrian strata elsewhere that does have some volcanic layers in it.

That which matches the evolutionary history narrative.

Nope
 

ecco

Veteran Member
20 Arguments for God's existence:
Easily refuted. Let's start with one of the dumbest arguments...
20. Pascal’s Wager•Logical reasoning can not finally settle the matter of the existence of God. There is some evidence on both sides of the issue.•If reason itself cannot decide the matter, then we must decide somehow, and we “wager” what we cannot absolutely prove. You must place a bet on either the existence of God or on His non-existence.•If you place your bet on God, you lose nothing even if it turns out that God does not exist.•If you place your bet on God’s non-existence, you lose everything if it turns out that God does exist.•Therefore it is reasonable and logical to believe that God exists, even despite the absence of absolute evidence.

The Christian bets on the Jesus/Christian God.
The Muslim bets on Allah.
The Hindu bets on Shiva.

Oh, wait! There is more than just one god? Yes, there is. For that reason alone your strawman phrases like "both sides" and "bet on either" are destroyed. It's not 50/50 is it? With just three gods, it's 33/33/33.

Take it a step further. Let's assume one of these Gods is the real God. Let's refer to Him as x.
X sends the dead who worshipped Him to eternal bliss.
X sends the dead worshippers of the other two "gods" to eternal punishment worse than anything imaginable because they let themselves be taken in by false gods.

X looks at atheists and says "Well, at least you didn't worship any of the phony wannabes. I'll just let you cease to exist.

Now your odds for "reasonable and logical" believing in a god just got reduced to one good outcome versus two bad outcomes. Who is making the better choice? You with a good chance of spending eternity writhing in unbelievable agony or me, who will just cease to exist?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The OP made several dozen statements, some of which have been refuted clearly elsewhere. I'll reply to him.
The only claim that was "refuted" was this one, and I was the one that explained to him how it was wrong:

" The altitude to Mt. Everest places temperatures at a range of -15 to -30 Degrees Fahrenheit. Noah and his animal companions would have frozen to death.
- The altitude of Mt. Everest places an oxygen level insufficient for sustaining life. Noah and his animal companions would have asphyxiated, provided the cold didn't get them first."
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Easily refuted. Let's start with one of the dumbest arguments...


The Christian bets on the Jesus/Christian God.
The Muslim bets on Allah.
The Hindu bets on Shiva.

Oh, wait! There is more than just one god? Yes, there is. For that reason alone your strawman phrases like "both sides" and "bet on either" are destroyed. It's not 50/50 is it? With just three gods, it's 33/33/33.

Take it a step further. Let's assume one of these Gods is the real God. Let's refer to Him as x.
X sends the dead who worshipped Him to eternal bliss.
X sends the dead worshippers of the other two "gods" to eternal punishment worse than anything imaginable because they let themselves be taken in by false gods.

X looks at atheists and says "Well, at least you didn't worship any of the phony wannabes. I'll just let you cease to exist.

Now your odds for "reasonable and logical" believing in a god just got reduced to one good outcome versus two bad outcomes. Who is making the better choice? You with a good chance of spending eternity writhing in unbelievable agony or me, who will just cease to exist?
Then you bet on the God that helps you be the most righteous in this life.

We should want to do right and we can seek religions that help.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
leroy said:
The “sorting” was known long before evolution was proposed.


It wasn’t a prediction. That s my point.



Assuming that all other facts remain the same, that would not have worked.
If tomorrow you find a rabbit fossil in a pre-cambrian strata, evolution will not be able to explain that.
And it's extremely naive of you to think that evolutionary biologists could then "just" move the evolution of mammals back a couple 100 million years. The whole thing would come crumbling down in that case.

If we find a single rabbit evolution could explain it by contamination, wrong dating, fraud etc.

If there would have been many rabbits in the Precambrian evolution/geologic column would have accommodated to explain that data (rabbits evolved before previously thought for example)


We find them in the same layers. ie, time periods.

you are assuming that layers are time periods.

When I say "together", I don't mean physically next to eachother. I mean contemporary with eachother.

Sorry, I made the mistake of assuming you would be intellectually honest and educated enough to realize that.


Granted my point is that we don’t find gorillas within the last say 1,000,000 years…………..even though we know that gorillas have existed since then.

The point is that not finding an animal in a given “geological era” doesn’t mean that the animal weren’t living back then.

Note that “gorillas” are not a rare exception, there are many cases where modenr animals dont have "joung fossils"




leoy said
mammals and birds woudl have been the last ones to die in a global flood, this is why we usually find them at the "top".


TagliatelliMonster said: //facepalm

Did Ken Ham tell you that?

note how you didnt answer my point



Because that's what happens with floods.

Again tides went up and down, not everybody died at the same time…………..you don’t have to accept the flood story, but at least make an honest effort in understanding what creationists claim.


leroy said
The level of the water was slowly rising for months and tides went up and down all the time. Many ammilals (birds mammals etc) could have run away for months while other animals where being buried.

said TagliatelliMonster
Only in your imagination. This is just fantasy. You have zero evidence of this. In fact, all the evidence points to such physically impossible flood never having occured.

Note how you didn’t answer to my point.





In geological timescales, within a year is pretty much at the same time. Within a decade is pretty much at the same time.
you are assuming that layers are periods of time




Do you also know why it is very hard to find fossils of gorilla's and alike?



Could it perhaps have something to do with their habitat and the fact that in that habitat, it is extremely hard to get fossilized?

Well you see, gorillas did lived durign the cambrian (and therefore evolution is falsified by your rules)…………… but we don’t find their fossils becausae its hard to find gorillas and alike in the fossil record, bacuse of the habitad and bla bla bla.

You see, if you use the “fossilization is hard” excuse to explain the holes in your theory, so can I.

So in short, yes there where gorillas in the Cambrian, but we don’t find fossils because fossilization’s hard.

So ether

1 accept my theory of gorillas in the Cambrian

2 or stop using the “fossilization is hard” as an excuse

3 or ignore the point and change the topic,




"I" didn't. Geologists did. Go and tell geologists that you know better then them.
You are free to publish papers to overturn their work.

Again you didn’t answer my question.

How do you identify “cambric layers2? …….

Answer: based on the fossils……………if one finds fossils that are thought to have evolved during the cambrian, geologists will label it a “cambrian”……………if one finds rabbits then by default it cant be “Cambrian” because we "know" that there where no rabbits in the cambrian
 

ecco

Veteran Member
20 Arguments for God's existence:
12. The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God (Rene Descartes)•We have ideas of many things; these ideas come either from ourselves or from outside of ourselves.•One of these ideas is the idea of God.•This idea of God could not have come from ourselves, because we know that we are limited and imperfect, and no effect can be great than the cause.3•Only God has the qualities of God; therefore God must be the cause of the concept of God, and therefore God exists.
What effect is "greater than the cause"? The effect is not the creation of an actual GOD. The effect is the creation of mythological entities. The cause is curiosity and ignorance.

Oh, Great Wise Tribal Leader, where did man come from?
(Keep in mind that Great Wise Tribal Leaders cannot say "I don't know" if they want to continue to be the Great Wise Tribal Leader).​
In the beginning, a Great Swan flew through the nothingness and made the heavens and the earth and man.
Where did the Great Swan come from?
The Great Swan has always existed.


Oh, Great Wise Tribal Leader, why did the big mountain begin to throw fire into the sky?
Because living under the mountain is a powerful entity who gets angry sometimes.


Your twenty arguments are all full of really big holes. They are nothing more than concepts thought up by the religious to convince the religious. They do not stand up to even rudimentary scrutiny.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
The level of the water was slowly rising for months and tides went up and down all the time.
SLOWLY? Do you understand your bible? Do you know basic geography? Can you do simple math? Mount Everest is about 30,000 feet high. It was covered after 40 days. That's a rise in water of 750 feet per day. Thirty one feet per hour. Everywhere!

Many ammilals (birds mammals etc) could have run away for months while other animals where being buried.

It's kinda hard to run or fly away when rain is steadily coming down at the rate of 31 feet per hour. It's kinda hard to run or fly away for months when there is no sunshine. It's kinda hard to run or fly away for months when there is no food to eat because it is raining 31 feet per hour. It's kinda hard to run or fly away when there are constant mudslides burying everything everywhere.

Do the words "critical thinking" have any meaning?
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
What effect is "greater than the cause"? The effect is not the creation of an actual GOD. The effect is the creation of mythological entities. The cause is curiosity and ignorance.

Oh, Great Wise Tribal Leader, where did man come from?
(Keep in mind that Great Wise Tribal Leaders cannot say "I don't know" if they want to continue to be the Great Wise Tribal Leader).​
In the beginning, a Great Swan flew through the nothingness and made the heavens and the earth and man.
Where did the Great Swan come from?
The Great Swan has always existed.


Oh, Great Wise Tribal Leader, why did the big mountain begin to throw fire into the sky?
Because living under the mountain is a powerful entity who gets angry sometimes.


Your twenty arguments are all full of really big holes. They are nothing more than concepts thought up by the religious to convince the religious. They do not stand up to even rudimentary scrutiny.
Even if this argument is faulty you did not grasp it.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
20 Arguments for God's existence:

https://enduringword.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/20-Arguments-for-the-Existence-of-God.pdf

1Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God1. The Argument from Change [An Aspect of the Cosmological Argument]•The universe is filled with changing things; as far as we know, the entire universe is changing. •All change needs an outside force to actualize it.•Therefore, there is some force outside (in addition to) the universe, some real being transcendent to the universe. This being we call “God.”
2. The Argument from Efficient Causality [An Aspect of the Cosmological Argument]•All things that exist are the result of some cause.•There must be something uncaused, something on which all things that need an efficient cause of being are dependent. This being we call “God.”•The idea that something can be caused by nothing is absurd.
3. The Argument from Time andContingency•The universe is filled with things that do not need to exist; their existence is not necessary.•There must be something in the universe which mustexist; some absolute necessary being. This necessary being we call “God.”
4. The Argument from Degrees of Perfection•The existence of degrees of perfection means that there is a perfect ideal.•The concept of a perfect ideal applies not only to material things and properties, but also to being.•There exists an absolutely Perfect Being, whom we call “God.”
5. The Argument from Design [Teleological Argument]•The universe displays a staggering amount of design.•This design is the result of either chance or intelligence.•Chance is a completely inadequate explanation for design; therefore it must be designed by a Supreme Intelligence. This Supreme Intelligence we call “God.”
6. The Kalam Argument; the Argument from Eternity•If the universe never began, then it always was.•If the universe always was, then it is infinitely old.•If it is infinitely old, then aninfinite amount of time must have elapsed before the present time.•The idea of an infinite amount of time having a completion is irrational; therefore the universe is not infinitely old, had a beginning, and the “Beginner” we call “God.”2
7. The Argument from Contingency [An Aspect of the Cosmological Argument]•If something exists, there must exist things upon which the existence of that thing depends.•The universe exists; therefore there must exist something upon which the universe depends.•That which the universe depends upon cannot be withinthe universe, or be bounded by space and time.•That being that transcends space and time, upon which the universe depends, is the being we call “God.”
8. The Argument from the World as an Interacting Whole•The universe is a dynamic, ordered system of many active, interacting parts.•The active nature of each part is defined by its relation to the other parts.•The system as a whole cannot explain its own existence; it needs a planner and a cause outside the system. This planner and causer of the system we call “God.”
9. The Argument of Miracles•A miracle is an event whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.•There are numerous well documented miracles.•Therefore, there are numerous events whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God. Therefore, there must be a God.
10. The Argument from Consciousness•We experience the universe as something can be understood, at least in part.•Therefore, the universe is graspable by intelligence.•This universe that can be understood and the intelligence by which we understand it are either the products of a transcendent intelligence, or the product of chance.•Since chance is a completely inadequate explanation, the best explanation is a transcendent intelligence. This transcendent intelligence we call “God.”
11. The Argument from Truth•Our limited minds can discover some truth about eternal being.•Truth properly resides in a mind; but our minds are not eternal.•Therefore, there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside. This eternal mind we call “God.”
12. The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God (Rene Descartes)•We have ideas of many things; these ideas come either from ourselves or from outside of ourselves.•One of these ideas is the idea of God.•This idea of God could not have come from ourselves, because we know that we are limited and imperfect, and no effect can be great than the cause.3•Only God has the qualities of God; therefore God must be the cause of the concept of God, and therefore God exists.
13. The Ontological Argument (Anselm)•It is a greater thing for something to exist in the mind andin reality, more than just in the mind alone.•“God” means “the ultimate” –that than which a greater cannot be thought.•Suppose that God exists in the mind, but not in reality. Then a greater than God couldbe thought; namely, a being that has all the qualities of our thought of God plusreal existence.•But, this is impossible, because God is “theultimate” –that than which a greater cannot be thought.•Therefore, God exists in both the mind andin reality.
14. The Moral Argument•Real moral obligation is a fact. We are really, truly, objectively obligated to do both good and evil.•The atheistic world view is incompatible with the idea of a true moral obligation.•Therefore, there must be a God who establishes moral obligations.
15. The Argument from Conscience•It is good to obey one’s conscience; our conscience has moral authority.•There are possiblesources of this moral authority: nature (less than me), the individual (me), society (equal to me), and God (greater than me).•Only God is an adequate explanation for the moral authority of conscience.
16. The Argument from Desire•Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds with some real object that can satisfy that desire. •There exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, and no creature can satisfy; we desire the eternal and the transcendent. •Therefore, there must exist somethingthat is greater than time, earth, and all creatures, which can satisfy this desire.•This something is what we call “God” and relationship with God.
17. The Argument from Aesthetic Experience•There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach.•Therefore there must be a God.
18. The Argument from Religious Experience•Many people of different eras and of widely different cultures claim to have had an experience of the “divine.”•It is inconceivable that so many people could have been so utterly wrong about the natureand content of their own experience.4•Therefore, there exists a “divine” reality which many people of different eras and of widely different cultures have experienced.
19. The Common Consent Argument•Belief in God is common to almost all people of every era.•Either the vast majority of people have been wrong about this most profound element of their lives or they have not.•It is more plausible to believe they have been right than it is to believe they have been wrong. Therefore it is more plausible to believe that God exists.
20. Pascal’s Wager•Logical reasoning can not finally settle the matter of the existence of God. There is some evidence on both sides of the issue.•If reason itself cannot decide the matter, then we must decide somehow, and we “wager” what we cannot absolutely prove. You must place a bet on either the existence of God or on His non-existence.•If you place your bet on God, you lose nothing even if it turns out that God does not exist.•If you place your bet on God’s non-existence, you lose everything if it turns out that God does exist.•Therefore it is reasonable and logical to believe that God exists, even despite the abscence of absolute evidence.
Wow, these are all regurgitated nonsense that countless others have pointed out flaws. The bottom line of all these arguments that is a huge problem is that they have to assume a god exists as a premise. Fine, assume what you want, but there's no conclusive conclusion from any argument that makes an assumption. The assumptions have to be reconciled as factual for the argument to be conclusive and not speculative.
 

NewGuyOnTheBlock

Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
You are unscientific to assume there cant be a God. Not only is it unprovable it is outside the realm of science.

To a point, I can agree with this. I adamantly state, "There Is No God" and believe it wholeheartedly, and am absolutely convinced. However, I can not objectively disprove the same thing that can't be objectively disproven; so I should be humble enough to admit that my sentiment of "There Is No God" is a belief-based statement.

HOWEVER, "There was no global flood" is far different as such an event can be objectively proven or disproven, and it is objectively disproven beyond any reasonable doubt to any person who respects objective, unbiased evidence.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
And yet Jesus did away with it.
Well Christians say that homosexuality is a sin based on these old laws, so what did Jesus actually do? Are you going to cherry pick the laws that are pretty much resolved;ved as being immoral while holding on to the ones that still attract fundamentalist intolerance?

Different laws for different levels of civilization.
Looking at modern conservative Christians I'd say they are not much further along than the Dark Ages.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Wow, these are all regurgitated nonsense that countless others have pointed out flaws. The bottom line of all these arguments that is a huge problem is that they have to assume a god exists as a premise. Fine, assume what you want, but there's no conclusive conclusion from any argument that makes an assumption. The assumptions have to be reconciled as factual for the argument to be conclusive and not speculative.
I didn't say they were correct but some people might have variants.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
To a point, I can agree with this. I adamantly state, "There Is No God" and believe it wholeheartedly, and am absolutely convinced. However, I can not objectively disprove the same thing that can't be objectively disproven; so I should be humble enough to admit that my sentiment of "There Is No God" is a belief-based statement.

HOWEVER, "There was no global flood" is far different as such an event can be objectively proven or disproven, and it is objectively disproven beyond any reasonable doubt to any person who respects objective, unbiased evidence.
I didn't say there was a flood.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Well Christians say that homosexuality is a sin based on these old laws, so what did Jesus actually do? Are you going to cherry pick the laws that are pretty much resolved;ved as being immoral while holding on to the ones that still attract fundamentalist intolerance?


Looking at modern conservative Christians I'd say they are not much further along than the Dark Ages.
Homosexuality was also frowned upon in the nt.

And fortunately I don't think it was frowned upon too much.
 
Top