Article, “Internal Proofs of Bible Authenticity”

[clara17]

The burden of proof is on me to disprove your claim, for which you have no evidence? Thanks for the link. It provides nothing but speculation. Here is one that shows very good evidence for the flood. Not proof though, it will require faith, just like your belief will.

 

[Audie]

Things happen for a reason, there would be little reason to create a flood myth if there wasnt one.

Same with Nessie and mermaids.

But why bother with even a feckless argument
for something disproven 10,000 times over?

 

[clara17]

Same with Nessie and mermaids.

But why bother with even a feckless argument
for something disproven 10,000 times over?

On what date was it disproven and by whom?

 

[Audie]

On what date was it disproven and by whom?

All 10,000 is a big order.

Youve made it plain you intend no reasoned discussion.

You respond to question with a question.
You useplainly false reasoning as good Evidence for
what you already believe.
You deny and disparage anything contrary, displaying no
interest in learning, only a determination not to.

Even a hint of willingness to learn, maybe i will take the time for it.

 

[clara17]

Im asking a VERY simple question. Forget 10,000 that was a lie anyway. Just tell me the first date/person. If something HAPPENS, there is a date.

 

[Audie]

Im asking a VERY simple question. Forget 10,000 that was a lie anyway. Just tell me the first date/person. If something HAPPENS, there is a date.

As before,you’ve no intention of reasonable discussion.
Calling me a liar is just another to add to the examples already given.

 

[clara17]

As before,you’ve no intention of reasonable discussion.
Calling me a liar is just another to add to the examples already given.

Thats what I figured. Its nothing personal at all. You have a right to your religious beliefs just like anyone else. Just dont pretend they are something else.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The burden of proof is on me to disprove your claim, for which you have no evidence? Thanks for the link. It provides nothing but speculation. Here is one that shows very good evidence for the flood. Not proof though, it will require faith, just like your belief will.

No, i have plenty of evidence. You do not even know what is and what is not evidence. And a video, especially by a liar, is not evidence. Are you willing to learn what is and what is not evidence? In the sciences evidence is very well defined. Here you go:

Scientific evidence consists of observations that support or oppose a scientific theory or hypothesis.

So what is your hypothesis? What tests could possibly refute it? If you cannot answer at least those two questions you do not have evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Im asking a VERY simple question. Forget 10,000 that was a lie anyway. Just tell me the first date/person. If something HAPPENS, there is a date.

10,000 would be an underestimate. By the way, if you refuse to learn at least the basics of science your demand is extremely disingenuous since without such knowledge you would not be able to know if an idea had been refuted or not.

 

[clara17]

No, i have plenty of evidence. You do not even know what is and what is not evidence. And a video, especially by a liar, is not evidence. Are you willing to learn what is and what is not evidence? In the sciences evidence is very well defined. Here you go:

Scientific evidence consists of observations that support or oppose a scientific theory or hypothesis.

So what is your hypothesis? What tests could possibly refute it? If you cannot answer at least those two questions you do not have evidence.

There is plenty of evidence on both sides. You can make of it whatever you want, Just stop pretending anything has been proven, It hasnt and you know it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is plenty of evidence on both sides. You can make of it whatever you want, Just stop pretending anything has been proven, It hasnt and you know it.

No, there is not. Once again, this is a scientific question. That means that one needs scientific evidence. What is your scientific evidence for a flood?

 

[Audie]

Thats what I figured. Its nothing personal at all. You have a right to your religious beliefs just like anyone else. Just dont pretend they are something else.

what’s wrong with you? Attitude, phony questions, calling me a liar and a phony.
Thats real personal.

My first post on flood said polar ice disproves flood.
As any educated person knows.

Up to,you if you will continue spreading falsehoods.
And further discrediting your religion.

play your game with someone else.

 

[clara17]

what’s wrong with you? Attitude, phony questions, calling me a liar and a phony.
Thats real personal.

My first post on flood said polar ice disproves flood.
As any educated person knows.

Up to,you if you will continue spreading falsehoods.
And further discrediting your religion.

play your game with someone else.

I think religions are nonsense, I dont know where you got that. Never insulted you, and you never explained how polar ice disproves flood.

 

[clara17]

No, there is not. Once again, this is a scientific question. That means that one needs scientific evidence. What is your scientific evidence for a flood?

I already posted a link with extensive evidence for a flood. The fact that you arent aware how much evidence there is, suggests your info is coming from limited sources.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Things happen for a reason, there would be little reason to create a flood myth if there wasnt one.

Again, which is far more likely?
A. That there have been many disastrous local floods around the world in history.
B. There was a single global flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already posted a link with extensive evidence for a flood. The fact that you arent aware how much evidence there is, suggests your info is coming from limited sources.

No, you did not. You posted a link to a video by a known lying source. Let me help you out. This is the definition of scientific evidence:

Scientific evidence consists of observations that support or oppose a scientific hypothesis or theory.

So what is the scientific hypothesis that they proposed? Please note it has to be able to explain all applicable observations. What predictions does it make? And how could those predictions refute it?

If you cannot answer those questions then by definition you do not have any scientific evidence for the flood. If you have any questions for me I will gladly answer them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, which is far more likely?
A. That there have been many disastrous local floods around the world in history.
B. There was a single global flood.

Oh that is easy. Since we do know that floods occur at times on many navigable waterways and such waterways are usually necessary for a civilization then multiple local floods is the more reasonable explanation. Especially since all of the physical evidence tells us that there was no flood of Noah.

 

[clara17]

Again, which is far more likely?
A. That there have been many disastrous local floods around the world in history.
B. There was a single global flood.

I don't claim to know which is more likely. Could be both. The only thing I claimed, is that the evidence supporting the Biblical flood outweighs the evidence against it. Does that mean it's been proven? No.

 

[clara17]

No, you did not. You posted a link to a video by a known lying source. Let me help you out. This is the definition of scientific evidence:

Scientific evidence consists of observations that support or oppose a scientific hypothesis or theory.

So what is the scientific hypothesis that they proposed? Please note it has to be able to explain all applicable observations. What predictions does it make? And how could those predictions refute it?

If you cannot answer those questions then by definition you do not have any scientific evidence for the flood. If you have any questions for me I will gladly answer them.

Your claim of a "known" (known by who?) lying source is not relevant. The evidence is. If the truth is written on a napkin it is still the truth. If it is spoken by a liar it is still the truth. And there are far more sources than the one I linked to.

 

[jimb]

Again, which is far more likely?
A. That there have been many disastrous local floods around the world in history.
B. There was a single global flood.

They are not mutually exclusive.