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

[We Never Know]

Roman's 1 26-27 is another favorite. In fact many think that from his writings Paul may have been homosexual himself. Since he was brought up in a very very homophobic culture he appears to have seen that as an almost unforgivable flaw of his.

Lol. This post shows how much you depise religion and what people believe.
Where the religious find it annoying or offensive... I find it comical to the lengths you go to to despise them and what they believe. Its almost as if you have a hidden hatred from your past.

 

[F1fan]

Then why are you trying to grade the Bible scientifically if it's a story about God?

If God exists then it's a fact. Science relies on facts, as does reason and logic. So are you suggesting God isn't factual and is merely a concept?

Also, I do believe I have a non-mystical way for there to be God, but since I get reviled I better not try it.

So you're admitting to low confidence in what you believe? Then why believe it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol. This post shows how much you depise religion and what people believe.
Where the religious find it annoying or offensive... I find it comical to the lengths you go to to despise them and what they believe. Its almost as if you have a hidden hatred from your past.

What on Earth are you yammering about now? The subject was when the Bible opposes homosexuality and it was claimed that it was mainly an Old Testament ban. I merely showed that it was hated in the New Testament as well.

 

[We Never Know]

What on Earth are you yammering about now? The subject was when the Bible opposes homosexuality and it was claimed that it was mainly an Old Testament ban. I merely showed that it was hated in the New Testament as well.

Oh my bad. The title of the thread is
"A Bunch Of Reasons Why Noah's Flood Story Is Ridiculous:"

So I guess everyone got sidetracked somewhere and went from a flood to homosexuals. How that happened I guess is another story lol

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh my bad. The title of the thread is
"A Bunch Of Reasons Why Noah's Flood Story Is Ridiculous:"

So I guess everyone got sidetracked somewhere and went from a flood to homosexuals. How that happened I guess is another story lol

Wow! So you cannot follow conversations again. Your terrible bias is laid bare. I was not the one that brought up the homosexuality in the Bible claim. It was implied that opposition to it was limited to the Old Testament and I only corrected that error.

 

[We Never Know]

Wow! So you cannot follow conversations again. Your terrible bias is laid bare. I was not the one that brought up the homosexuality in the Bible claim. It was implied that opposition to it was limited to the Old Testament and I only corrected that error.

I didn't say you. Can you not read a post?

"So I guess everyone got sidetracked"

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't say you. Can you not read a post?

"So I guess everyone got sidetracked"

Once again you need to quit using the facepalm. YOU made the first facepalming post here. You falsely assumed a bias of me towards Christianity when I was merely being accurate. You realized to late that the detour started before I posted but you never apologized for your error.

Really dude, you should be facepalming yourself.

 

[rational experiences]

Could you elaborate?

The argument human science thesis.

Human intelligence says I theory science first about planet earth.

Products for practicing science from earth body. Reactions not controlled in nature.

Theories I want to hold control a reaction.

Machine conditions only.

Says God O is stone. Stone is a one only holy body in science. Stone.

Said stones gas spirits own it's own heavens.

One of known special body a planet. Earth as our God.

Owning no other thesis as earth is not any beginning science.

Says I quantify God as being present first as natural.

I then quantify my own person to be a satanist wanting gods non presence.

As God the seal was only stone that had sealed inside of its body Satan's fall into hell.

Reason.

Eternal always had existed owned no change. Highest place.

Change is forced.

Change is the science status.

Eternal forced change lost God into Satan. The first memory of God O the held eternal God.

Gods first memory an eternal held body.

O gods then burst burnt fell into the hell state.

Status the eternal now owns a hole in its body. The eternal never owned presence radiation.

God however now does.

Memory is the status coerced inaccurate theories about God in creation history. Just stories. Stories are memories.

God the stone is therefore not the origin God form.

God in science is only ever stone A seal. Owning fused particles held together.

Coldest place is deep state empty space only.

Remove God being gases the spirit equals gaining empty space only the deep state. Only a gas burns out into space existing just as empty.

Remove radiation from a metal leaves a Black radiating hole.

Reasoning. If you removed radiation to the deep state no form just complete empty space would exist.

Radiation cannot remove it's form to complete emptiness. As it is not a spirit.

What science says about God is to not allow stone to exist as God as it was never sun mass.

The theist says exactly by description word use the intent so humans can't lie about the intent. Words tell us their intent. Called a confession.

The theist by words proves his intent is to not allow God to exist. As he wants to find God name god convert God into not being God.

A sun was still self consuming in space. God earth was holding its body in hell. Sun was destroying hell.

Deeper colder empty space by pressure cold held the sun metal by mass so if you remove it's cold as cold space itself it reverts back to a state self consuming.

A satanist is a human who never believed in God continuance preaches for gain of the deep state as a total removal of God knowing God was only ever spirit and not a sun.

Why father taught me listen to what words are being used as it owns a confession.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Once again you need to quit using the facepalm. YOU made the first facepalming post here. You falsely assumed a bias of me towards Christianity when I was merely being accurate. You realized to late that the detour started before I posted but you never apologized for your error.

Really dude, you should be facepalming yourself.

Are you beating a dead horse again?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But some smart people have their own reasons which might use one of these themes.

They also might not.
Come back when you have something more then speculation, assumption and fallacious arguments from popularity or perceived authority

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Show me Bible-supported slavery in the New Testament.

First of all, this is shifting the burden of proof. YOU claimed that NT did away with slavery. So really, it is upto you to demonstrate that with passages of the NT saying that slavery is bad and should be done away with.
You can't do that off course, because the NT says no such thing.

The fact is that the OT clearly and unambigously allows slavery and even regulates it in terms of explain in disgusting detail who you can enslave, for how long, from whom you can buy slaves, how your children can "inherit" them, how they are your "property", how you can beat them, etc.

The NT does not repeat this, that is true. It also never recants it or overturns it.

Instead, it treats slavery as a basic fact of life. It is so indifferent to it that it barely mentions it. And in the few spots where it does mention it, it says disgusting things like this:

Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. (1 Pet 2.18)

Nowhere does it say "masters, free your slaves" or "slaves, revolt and demand your freedom" or "slavery is bad" or anything remotely like that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's a very important comment:

"Science competes to bring human capability and religions compete to bring human will power. A good one of either of them allows the other effect too."

It's a comment that is completely irrelevant to the points being raised in the post you were replying to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then it should come as no surprise to you that I don't believe some of your assertions.

Please mention or quote a single instance where I expect you to believe / accept an assertion with as only justification that I believe it.

You won't find such.

In fact, if asked directly, I will always say "don't believe me. don't take my word for it. look it up and verify it for yourself instead".

I don't expect ANYONE to take my word for it on ANYTHING, EVER.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

//facepalm

Good job showing you have no clue what scientific prediction is all about.
It's not the equivalent of "prophecy" you know

A scientific prediction of a scientific theory / hypothesis, are things that naturally flow from the idea. It doesn't matter if those things were already known or not. Off course, I bet that it is, or sounds, more impressive if the prediction is about something that isn't already known, like when Darwin predicted the existance of a hereditary system which turned out to be DNA or when Einstein predicted the existence of black holes.

But that doesn't make things that are already known any less of a prediction when it naturally flows from a hypothesis or theory.
"if this and this, then that". ==> "that" is the prediction which naturally flows from the idea that includes "this and this". Regardless if "that" is already known or not.

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

They would actually have to explain it. ie, demonstrate / support it. And if they can't, they can't claim that.

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)

Again, this would not fit. You really seem to be thinking that scientists can just make claims like religious folks and pretend everything is allright. Science doesn't work that way.

you are assuming that layers are time periods.

Geology is a science. Not an assumption.

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"

The universe doesn't owe us any fossils. It's amazing that we have found as many as we did.
The vast majority of species that ever lived have never fossilized. You might have heard this already if you paid attention, but fossilization is quite a rare process already in environments that provide ideal conditions to fossilize. So don't expect to many fossils in habitats where conditions are extremely unfavorable for fossilization to unfold. Like the habitat that gorilla's inhabit.

note how you didnt answer my point

It's hard to respond to nonsense.
So I just went with the good 'ol Hitch method: that which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence

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.

Unless creationists are claiming this flood occured gradually over a period of millions of years, this claimed MEGA MASSIVE DYING, the biggest one that would have happened in the history of the planet, would have occurred within a year. Let's say 10 years (the bible speaks of a lot less). In geological time, that's pretty much "at the same time".

you are assuming that layers are periods of time

Not an assumption.
You should read up on some basic geology and the geological column.

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.

It's adorable that you think fossils are the only way for us to find out how old certain species are.

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

[/quote]

What hole?

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

Support that claim with evidence.

[quoe]
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,
[/quote]

4. stop ignoring all the other evidence.

All fossils could disappear from the face of the earth, and evolution theory would be as strong as ever.
The genetic record, the distribution of species, comparative anatomy,...

Again you didn’t answer my question.
How do you identify “cambric layers2? …….

I did answer. *I* don't identify layers because *I* am not a geologist.

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

Dating Fossils – How Are Fossils Dated? - FossilEra.com

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The ot law was fulfilled in the nt and no longer necessary. You should know that.

So bye bye 613 commandments, which includes the 10 you previously cited as still being valid.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I will not reveal my reasoning that there is a God.

So you must not be very confident about the validity of that reasoning then.

If your reasoning is sound, it should be able to withstand some basic scrutiny.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What is ridiculous is that you don't understand that it's a STORY.

I think that was directed at @NewGuyOnTheBlock, but that makes it quite surprising that you wouldn't answer @nPeace's very fanciful response in precisely the same way.

 

[BilliardsBall]

My uncle was a chemist but also a creationist. A person can learn a field of study and be able to function in a job, but still hold irrational religious ideas that the field of study does not support. Belief in irrational ideas is not a rational process, and as studies has shown they cannot be reasoned away by a believer. Adopting religious b beliefs is an emotional and subconscious process.


Is this a fact, or are you posting an emotional statement? If this is objective and factual, then present the facts that demonstrate your claim here is true.



Really? Give us examples of prophesies that are indisputable as occurring.

Have you researched the prophecies that Israel would re-achieve nationhood in 1948 CE?

 

[BilliardsBall]

That's really vague. Care to name some along with their degrees and their findings?
Then we can have an open-minded discussion.

You are making an open-minded discussion conditional? Go away.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why don't you start with the simple, reasonable alternatives you think of and mention all the time, but never post.

I often have posted them, however, again, I'm responding to the OP, who seems possibly open-minded.