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

[Subduction Zone]

Well you have been corrected on the issue of mt Everest and you are still rising objections that presuppose that the waters covered my Everest.

So please provide your objections (related to the fossil record) taking in to account that big mountains didn't exist before the flood.

It does not matter if Everest would be covered or not To accomplish what the flood myth claims a massive flood that would have left massive evidence would be required. There is no such evidence. There was no such flood.

Ice floats.

 

[nPeace]

You're not advocating for interpreting the Genesis flood stay literally?

No.

You have no view about any of the Genesis stories?

The Genesis accounts? Yes.

No, it's a matter of fact that ancient stories were embellished.

No. It's not a fact. it's an opinion.
Why do you think it is a fact, because you are called F1fan?

You debate approach. Are you unaware that you're involved in a debate about the Genesis flood myth, and that you're approaching it from a certain way?

My debate approach? How do you justify your approach about the Genesis account?
I have to think about what you are even asking. It makes no sense.

These are absurd questions that aren't relevant to my point.

Then your statement is utterly ridiculous and meaningless, because you said "Sure, since Jack is an actual person that all involved can hear and understand it can be resolved." as though to claim that because we never met those characters in the Bible, it means that no one heard or saw them.
What was writen about individual, was writen by persons who knew them, and saw them.
Hezekiah was a real person, and what was written about him was written by people that knew him, and saw him.
Because you don't believe what is written, does not make the person non-existent.
Think about what you are saying.

It's not my opinion that theists claim their God exists despite a lack of evidence for how they presume to know it. We observe this behavior from theists.

You said...
Well then it looks like you'd better product this God so it can tell us who's correct. Thus far this God behaves as if it doesn't exist outside of human imagination.

That's your opinion.
Yes, you guys are famous for changing what you said, when someone responds to it.

Also, there is no lack of evidence that God is.

 

[Jose Fly]

. There are scientists who are JWs.

And how many of those do you think I've met?

 

[nPeace]

@nPeace science is not equal to faith.



The two "beliefs" are not equal.

"Germ Theory" is not equal to "Terrain Theory".
"Flat Earth" is not equal to "Heliocentrism".
"Creationism" is not equal to "Evolution".
"Faith" is not equal to "Science".



No. The reason why this is not so is right in front of your face. The very fact that science changes its mind in view of compelling evidence is not how "faith" works, because "faith" clings to an idea in spite of evidence. Science is based on observation and experimentation, but faith is "evidence of things not seen".

Yes. you make sense here. Science is based on observation and experimentation.
Which is why I said, I do not believe is claimed science. The one scientist debate, and fight about, and one opinion wins over another; The one scientists say do not pass the test of the scientific method, Nor the hypotheses that are claimed to be scientific facts, or science, (as claimed by those on these forums I don't mean that hypotheses are not used in science as some would _______ suggest)

 

[Jose Fly]

Have you ever noticed that no matter how often that it is pointed out that the fossil record is not the only evidence for the theory of evolution. That they only talk about the fossil record? It is not even the strongest evidence for the theory of evolution. It was not even the original evidence for the theory of evolution. It is merely the easiest evidence for an amateur to understand and they even get that wrong constantly. Of course the fossil record is not the only evidence but it alone is strong enough to confirm the theory. The genetic evidence for evolution is far stronger.

And speaking of predications when it was discovered that other Great Apes have an additional chromosome pair to us it was predicted that either the other three great ape groups had to have three separate cases of chromosomes splitting (highly unlikely) or we had one case of chromosomes splitting. And the more likely prediction was found to be true. We found the two joined chromosomes in our genome:

Evolution: Library: Human Chromosome 2

That is a very specific prediction. One that is not based upon anything but the theory of evolution.

The reason they focus so much on the fossil record is because, IMO, that's what their sources mostly focus on. I mean, let's be honest here. It's not like the creationists in this thread are paleontologists or have any expertise or experience in the field, nor have any of them spent time perusing paleontology journals.

They're parroting what their sources tell them and nothing more.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

one opinion wins over another;

And why does one "opinion" win over another?

Overwhelming preponderance of evidence.

 

[nPeace]

And how many of those do you think I've met?

That's irrelevant to what you were insinuating, or rather, saying.

Here is what readers will see... which is what you want them to see, and which I keep reminding you, shows up your MO, and why you are so interested in JWs here.

...who understood science, which makes sense given how anti-science the denomination is (and how they discourage their members from pursuing higher education).

How can an organization be anti-science, and allow scientist to practice their field of scientific study?
How can it be anti-science, when they praise science achievements and acknowledge scientists, and many of their doctor use science.

You know what.... Your bias and discrimination toward JWs aren't just leaking. They are flowing

 

[nPeace]

And why does one "opinion" win over another?

Overwhelming preponderance of evidence.

Now that's funny. Real funny, indeed.
What happens when that "preponderance of evidence" turns out to be... "Oops. Scientists assumed... but we now know..."
What do you call the "preponderance of evidence" then?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

When scriptural texts make claims about the natural world, they subject themselves to the scrutiny of science because science is all about the natural world.

Atheists often like to make natural claims about the "supernatural"; ie "There Is No God". While I personally believe that statement wholeheartedly, it is nonetheless a statement about the "supernatural" thus it is only appropriate that I stipulate that my claim, "There Is No God", is a "belief based statement" It is inappropriate for me to declare a statement about the supernatural as being "scientific".

However, when we're dealing with Creationism or literal interpretation of Noah's Ark as an actual historical event, we are now delving into the natural world; the purview of science. And science says that the Earth is 4.5+ Billion years old, the Universe is about 13 Billion years old, Evolution happened and there was no global flood on our planet. These conclusions are not reached by consensus of opinion, but by consensus of facts and verifiable evidence.

Abrahamic religions have done themselves a great disservice by making such claims, especially when these claims are clearly shown by scientific rigor and disciplines, to be patently false. There are many within the Abrahamic religions who continue that same disservice by attempting to defend these patently false claims as being "true".

Do you notice that it is very rare that Buddhism, Taoism, and other such religions seldom find themselves confronted? This is because they make few, if any claims, about the natural world.

 

[Jose Fly]

That's irrelevant to what you were insinuating, or rather, saying.

Then you are severely lacking in reading skills.

How can an organization be anti-science, and allow scientist to practice their field of scientific study?
How can it be anti-science, when they praise science achievements and acknowledge scientists, and many of their doctor use science.

Pretty simple really. As long as the scientist doesn't work in an unacceptable field and doesn't reach any conclusions that might cause problems for JW doctrine, they're allowed to stay.

It's just like how AIG is very anti-science, yet has scientists working for them.

You know what.... Your bias and discrimination toward JWs aren't just leaking. They are flowing

Discrimination? Lol....

 

[metis]

I am a person of faith, but the reality is what objective evidence is there that there's one God while at the same time making excuses not to accept even the most basic scientific axioms? IMO, the truth cannot be relative to just one's opinion.

Thus, I've gone first with the science over recent decades, and then I've tried to match my religious beliefs with it, as difficult as that is much of the time because they're based on two very different approaches.

 

[nPeace]

Then you are severely lacking in reading skills.


Pretty simple really. As long as the scientist doesn't work in an unacceptable field and doesn't reach any conclusions that might cause problems for JW doctrine, they're allowed to stay.

It's just like how AIG is very anti-science, yet has scientists working for them.


Discrimination? Lol....

This make no sense, Either they are anti-science, or they are not.
You can't decide what makes a scientist. Scientist disagree all the time. They are still scientist.

Anyhow, I'm done. i am not feeding your MO. Carry one with your agenda.
I think all JWs on here already know what you are up to.... and why you seek us out.

I think I will eventually put you on ignore again, because I don't want to read the nonsense you use to attack JWs..

 

[Jose Fly]

This make no sense, Either they are anti-science, or they are not.

I can understand how it seems that way to a black/white thinker like yourself.

Anyhow, I'm done. i am not feeding your MO. Carry one with your agenda.
I think all JWs on here already know what you are up to.... and why you seek us out.

Are you the only JW here? I haven't seen any others since I returned.

I think I will eventually put you on ignore again, because I don't want to read the nonsense you use to attack JWs..

I'm sure you will. It's one of your preferred coping mechanisms.

 

[nPeace]

I can understand how it seems that way to a black/white thinker like yourself.


Are you the only JW here? I haven't seen any others since I returned.


I'm sure you will. It's one of your preferred coping mechanisms.

Yup. Jesus didn't take too kindly to serpents.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yup. Jesus didn't take too kindly to serpents.

Just can't help yourself, can you?

 

[nPeace]

Just can't help yourself, can you?

Maybe sort of like the problem you are having.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Now that's funny. Real funny, indeed.
What happens when that "preponderance of evidence" turns out to be... "Oops. Scientists assumed... but we now know..."

And here we have a gap in our mindsets; where religious mindset is based on "absolute authority" and "absolute truth" whereas science is not. Science is actually humble and contrite, able to change its conclusions in the light of new evidence. Religion is arrogant, unapologetic and stubborn; and rarely changes its views in the light of new evidence.

Scientific consensus is not "assumptions"; they are "conclusions based on evidence".

If we look at the history of our beliefs and calculations of the distance of the Sun to the Earth, we see the pattern that it continues to move further away from us. That is because new techniques became available and new mathematical techniques were developed and new tools of acquiring information and measurements became available.

As a result, science was wrong (and might not actually be correct NOW as far as this distance); but what we NEVER see is Science reaching the consensus that the Sun is closer than what we thought. So while science is sometimes -- or often -- wrong, it is less wrong than it was before.

Theists try to wield this as a weapon against science; the fact that science changes with new evidence; but they only do so because they are trying to attack something that they don't understand (and most often, refuse to understand).

What do you call the "preponderance of evidence" then?

Best described by an example (that I present begrudgingly for the apprehension that this will turn into a 9/11 thread) ....

American Airlines Flight 77, which struck the Pentagon. That is the topic at hand.

CLAIM 1: It wasn't AA77 at the Pentagon.
EVIDENCE: Photographs of the Pentagon crash site, bereft of what the uninitiated expect to see (No large wreckage, luggage, intact bodies).

CLAIM 2: It was AA77 that struck the Pentagon
EVIDENCE:

• Flight plans filed
• Documentation and eyewitnesses that saw AA77 take off
• ATC Transcripts of communication with AA77
• 58 Passengers never heard from or seen again
• Eyewitnesses and tons of clerical evidence showing these passengers boarded AA77
• Cellphone conversations from the plane
• Much of the flight path tracked by secondary radar (ie information relayed to ATC via the Transponder)
• Some of the flight path tracked by primary radar (ie conventional radar)
• Eyewitnesses of other pilots in the air, visually tracking the flight path of the plane
• Eyewitness accounts from those on the ground who saw an AIRPLANE strike the Pentagon (and though accounts differ -- perceptions are tricky things -- all the witnesses reported an AIRPLANE)
• Forensic evidence
• An airplane never seen again
• Tons more evidence ....

So the overwhelming preponderance of evidence goes to:

CLAIM 2!

Not a whole lot different than:

CLAIM 1: Creationism
EVIDENCE: A scroll

CLAIM 2: Evolution
EVIDENCE: Fossil records, DNA decoding, plate techtonics, geology, biology, etc etc etc

So again, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence goes to CLAIM 2!

-- or --

CLAIM 1: There was a worldwide flood
EVIDENCE: A scroll

CLAIM 2; There was no worldwide flood.
EVIDENCE: See OP

So again, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence goes to CLAIM 2!

So the question, "What is the overwhelming preponderance of evidence" is a futile, useless attempt to cloud a very simple, straightforward concept into something elusive and open to interpretation to try to prove something that can't be proven or infuse a debate where there is none.

 

[nPeace]

And here we have a gap in our mindsets; where religious mindset is based on "absolute authority" and "absolute truth" whereas science is not. Science is actually humble and contrite, able to change its conclusions in the light of new evidence. Religion is arrogant, unapologetic and stubborn; and rarely changes its views in the light of new evidence.

Scientific consensus is not "assumptions"; they are "conclusions based on evidence".

If we look at the history of our beliefs and calculations of the distance of the Sun to the Earth, we see the pattern that it continues to move further away from us. That is because new techniques became available and new mathematical techniques were developed and new tools of acquiring information and measurements became available.

As a result, science was wrong (and might not actually be correct NOW as far as this distance); but what we NEVER see is Science reaching the consensus that the Sun is closer than what we thought. So while science is sometimes -- or often -- wrong, it is less wrong than it was before.

Theists try to wield this as a weapon against science; the fact that science changes with new evidence; but they only do so because they are trying to attack something that they don't understand (and most often, refuse to understand).

No. This is in some areas absolutely false, and others, not entirely true.
In religion, there are changes in understanding, or previous conclusions, and we do make adjustments.

Also, we do not attack science. You just correctly said science is based on observation and experimentation.
That's different to claims made, regardless of how one interprets the evidence.
If one makes an observation that requires forming an opinion as a conclusion. that's another hypothesis that needs testing.
So when you keep building on hypotheses that are never concluded by direct observation, those are assumption, suppositions, conjecture.
We attack those. Especially when they are called facts.

Best described by an example (that I present begrudgingly for the apprehension that this will turn into a 9/11 thread) ....

American Airlines Flight 77, which struck the Pentagon. That is the topic at hand.

CLAIM 1: It wasn't AA77 at the Pentagon.
EVIDENCE: Photographs of the Pentagon crash site, bereft of what the uninitiated expect to see (No large wreckage, luggage, intact bodies).

CLAIM 2: It was AA77 that struck the Pentagon
EVIDENCE:

• Flight plans filed
• Documentation and eyewitnesses that saw AA77 take off
• ATC Transcripts of communication with AA77
• 58 Passengers never heard from or seen again
• Eyewitnesses and tons of clerical evidence showing these passengers boarded AA77
• Cellphone conversations from the plane
• Much of the flight path tracked by secondary radar (ie information relayed to ATC via the Transponder)
• Some of the flight path tracked by primary radar (ie conventional radar)
• Eyewitnesses of other pilots in the air, visually tracking the flight path of the plane
• Eyewitness accounts from those on the ground who saw an AIRPLANE strike the Pentagon (and though accounts differ -- perceptions are tricky things -- all the witnesses reported an AIRPLANE)
• Forensic evidence
• An airplane never seen again
• Tons more evidence ....

So the overwhelming preponderance of evidence goes to:

CLAIM 2!

Not a whole lot different than:

CLAIM 1: Creationism
EVIDENCE: A scroll

CLAIM 2: Evolution
EVIDENCE: Fossil records, DNA decoding, plate techtonics, geology, biology, etc etc etc

So again, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence goes to CLAIM 2!

-- or --

CLAIM 1: There was a worldwide flood
EVIDENCE: A scroll

CLAIM 2; There was no worldwide flood.
EVIDENCE: See OP

So again, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence goes to CLAIM 2!

So the question, "What is the overwhelming preponderance of evidence" is a futile, useless attempt to cloud a very simple, straightforward concept into something elusive and open to interpretation to try to prove something that can't be proven or infuse a debate where there is none.

For a long time, scientists assumed that India was isolated in this way due to continental drift.
Scientists assumed for a long time that the subcontinent was largely isolated during its long journey through the ocean and unique species of plants and animals were therefore able to develop on it.

However, paleontologists at the University of Bonn in Germany are now showing using tiny midges encased in amber that there must have been a connection between the apparently cut off India and Europe and Asia around 54 million years ago that enabled the creatures to move around.

Entelognathus
Prior to the discovery of Entelognathus, scientists assumed that the last common ancestor of jawed vertebrates was a shark-like animal, with no distinct jawbones, and that modern jaws evolved in early bony fishes. This discovery shows that modern jaws evolved earlier.

Dmanisi skull
Until the 1980s, scientists assumed that hominins had been restricted to the African continent for the whole of the Early Pleistocene (until about 0.8 Ma), only migrating out during a phase named Out of Africa I. Thus, the vast majority of archaeological effort was disproportionately focused on Africa.

Fretted terrain
In some of the best images taken by the Viking Orbiters, some of the valley fill appeared to resemble alpine glaciers on Earth. Given this similarity, some scientists assumed that the lineations on these valley floors might have formed by flow of ice in (and perhaps through) these canyons and valleys. Today it is generally agreed that glacial flow caused the lineations.

Aquaporins
Aquaporins are "the plumbing system for cells". Water moves through cells in an organized way, most rapidly in tissues that have aquaporin water channels. For many years, scientists assumed that water leaked through the cell membrane, and some water does. However, this did not explain how water could move so quickly through some cells.

Amy Parish is a Biological Anthropologist, Primatologist, and Darwinian Feminist. She has taught at the University of Southern California in the Gender Studies and Anthropology departments since 1999. She is recognised as being a world leading expert in bonobo studies.
For centuries, the mainly male evolutionary scientists overlooked the significance of female animals behaviour; treating it as a passive constant in a drama dominated by aggressive males.
Scientists assumed that patriarchy was only natural. Bonobos proved them wrong
Bonobos, sometimes known as pygmy chimpanzees, were neglected for decades by primatologists who assumed they were just smaller versions of chimps. But from the 1990s onwards, researcher Amy Parish and others studied bonobos and came to an astonishing conclusion: Chimps and bonobos are nothing alike.

 

[leroy]

Not "we" as in you and I. You may have been discussing fossils with other people. So, not irrelevant.


Try again.

You are the one focusing on Everest. If you want to argue that the flood water didn't have to reach 30,000 feet because there were no high mountains, then you need to explain how the world's high mountains went from zero to over 20,000 feet. There are more than one hundred of them. (List of mountains by elevation - Wikipedia).

Zero to over 20,000 feet in just a comparatively few years and no one noticed or wrote about it. The only "plausible" answer is GodDidIt. Is that your answer? If not, what is?

[/QUOTE]

Again
I made 2 simple points a few posts ago (,in response to the OP)

1 the fossil record doest support evolution
2 the fossil record doesn't refute the flood


Any comments unrelated to this points will be ignored......if you don like this topic the go talk with someone else.

 

[leroy]

@leroy,
Why don't you detail what your view of the beginning of the universe and earth and man are. That way I can direct my comments to your beliefs and not just to some general overall vague beliefs.

Because my views on the begging of the universe are irrelevant, and you will used then to distract and change the topic .


Relevant to this topic my view are
1 the fossil record doesn't support evolution.

2 the fossil record doesn't refute the flood


Any comment on those points?