Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
As opposed to the global flood idea with no concrete evidence supporting it
-
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!
Evidence of NOAH's FLOOD
- Thread starter Little Nipper
- Start date
As opposed to the global flood idea with no concrete evidence supporting it
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
But so is the flood myth.
It's your choice if you believe that the bible is preposterous.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Genesis 7 is easy to understand.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, and it is easy to understand how we know that it never happened.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Reasoning in a circle again.
How do you KNOW?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nope. If you want an explanation you need to drop the false accusation. Don't worry, everyone already knows that basic logic is a skill that you do not understand.
Mirror, mirror on the wall, oh my, I see the bull!
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
You just said that in looking in the mirror, you see the bull.
What was the first living thing made of? Was it DNA? Was it RNA? Was it just proteins? Was it some mix?
What was its code? How many amino acids did it have? When did it come into being?
How many kinds of proteins did it have? How many of each?
Why is that a deal killer for you? You believe that some people followed a star one night to a specific manger, where a human being was born to a virgin. Imagine even coming up with the star part, as if people could move as fast as a star appears to move through the sky (about 1000 mph at the equator) or could identify what structure was directly below the star or when the star stopped moving ("Balthazar! Melchior! Stop! This is it! We're here.").
The entire Bible is easy to understand, if by understand we acknowledge that understanding means understanding that certain passages have no specific meaning and others contradict one another. We're told otherwise by those attempting to defend their scriptures from literary criticism, that only they possess spiritual discernment, but those who don't believe in their spirits aren't moved by that.
But I realize you're in a theological battle here, which is none of my business or interest. Global flood, local flood - it really doesn't matter what any given reader thinks the words mean except to him. What matters to me is what the church teaches. In this case, it doesn't matter what they teach the adherents - global or local flood. Bad science isn't the problem. Bad morals are. Either way, the deity depicted is cruel, unfair, and not very smart if it intends to correct its engineering error using the same breeding stock.
And *this* does have consequences. From The Atheist Experience, a cable talk show:
Tracie (humanist host): "You either have a God who sends child rapists to rape children or you have a God who simply watches it and says, 'When you're done, I'm going to punish you' If I were in a situation where I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That's the difference between me and your God."
Shane (Christian caller): "True to life, you portray that little girl as someone who is innocent. She's just as evil as you."
This is why that story matters. He learned to think that way in his church because of stories like that which continually depict man as an evil failure and disappointment worthy of punishment. He was first thrown out of paradise as punishment for being human and daring to reach, then subjected to this watery death whether local or global for the same crime, and later subjected to multiple confounding and mutually unintelligible language for - you guessed it - being human and daring to reach once again.
Your mirror, your bull***.
And that the story simply describes a local river flood which was 15 cubits high and had no effect on a nearby olive tree growing outside the flooded area. QED
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Wrong again.
why are there sea shells on the top of Mount Everest?
Why is there a record of a worldwide flood in many ancient cultures and why do they match quite well the Genesis 6-8 description ?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Plate tectonics. We can measure the rate that the continents are moving today using satellites. We can measure their progress in the past because they left a record behind.
Because people need water. Larger groups of people need a lot of water, which implies that they need to live on a navigable waterway. Navigable waterways tend to flood at times. And stories grow with the telling. We would expect to see a whole serios of flood myths, and that is what we see. Outside of the Abrahamic faiths they tend to vary quite a bit.
Because the mountain climbers left them there.
That's your choice if you don't believe what the bible actually says and means, and just make up your own fantasy stories instead.
Do you mean you? If so, I would agree.
The evidence indicates that 60 million years ago, it was under the sea.
Many cultures have myths about floods, but they are not all the same. Some are just myths about local floods. Some cultures have no flood myths.
The older ones match with the Genesis account, because they are the source of the Genesis account. The biblical myth was borrowed from myths from existing cultures due to cultural contamination.
Evidence supports all of this. It is why you fight so hard to reject it all and fail constantly to the point that what you do is all you can do.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Nonsense from circular reasoning in your post .
Continental drift cannot raise mountain ranges and Dino fossils are not that old..
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I see that you used the same lying source twuce.
There was no circular reasoning in my post. That's your hobby.
I appreciate these examples of pseudoscience, but I am well aware that it is used to argue in circles.
You're just phoning it in now and not even trying.
Where is the "Big Giant List of Repeated Questions"? Where are the declarations of victory? Where are your claims of irrefutable proofs?
I feel cheated.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
the Big Bang is dead.
The red shift theory is dead.
Evolution and billions have year is dead.
Abiogenesis is dead.
Atheism is dead.
The dating of fossils and rock layers is false.
Uniformatraianism is dead.
Christ has no rivals, being God Almighty.
The redshift theory has been disproved, even your guys know it,
So there is no expansion of the universe.
So no Big Bang,
But then there should just be ghostly neutrinos and nothing else.
The Hubble Tension Is Extremely Real—and Extremely Frustrating
We still don’t know why different measurements of the rate of the universe’s expansion don’t match. But at least we know we can’t blame the Hubble telescope.