For Christians. Was the flood real or just a myth?

[Subduction Zone]

And, their conclusions many times are biased!

What, exactly, "exposes the lie"?

All I see is that science doesn't have the ability to "test for intelligent, invisible life, i.e., God", so they reach the conclusion it doesn't exist.

Yet, paranormal events occur everyday, but those with closed minds ignore them! Do you (or other skeptics) ever visit the paranormal board here on RF?

If you want to claim that they are biased you put the burden of proof upon yourself. And no, science does conclude that God does not exist. Where do you get that idea from?

The fact that your personal version of God has been debunked does not mean that all versions of God have been refuted. Creationists appear to have the strange belief that either their personal God exists or no God exists. No wonder they get so threatened by reality.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I stoped short at the sarcasm. Can you give me a connection between the flood and noah's arch?

Why would you think the curvature of Noah's foot would have anything to do with the flood?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Why would you think the curvature of Noah's foot would have anything to do with the flood?

Question with a question?

I was referring to the comment you made awhile back before getting into the science stuff. I wasnt sarcastic. That was a question.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There was this big flood and Noah and his family survived the flood in a big boat called an Ark. The story is found in Genesis a few chapters in.



Our planet is still made up of more water than land, and yet there is not a supercontinent.

What is the connection between the story and real life?

I know where it is in the book. Unless youre correcting me on something?

 

[Jose Fly]

And, their conclusions many times are biased!

Another empty accusation from you.

What, exactly, "exposes the lie"?

The fact that you cry "bias" and use it as an excuse to wave away inconvenient material, while simultaneously exhibiting extreme forms of bias yourself (i.e., being beholden to Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrine).

All I see is that science doesn't have the ability to "test for intelligent, invisible life, i.e., God", so they reach the conclusion it doesn't exist.

Then you haven't been paying attention. There's not a single published scientific paper that concludes God doesn't exist.

Yet, paranormal events occur everyday, but those with closed minds ignore them! Do you (or other skeptics) ever visit the paranormal board here on RF?

In order for something to be scientifically investigated, it must be testable. Can you provide a means by which we can test the supernatural?

And no, I don't visit the paranormal board at RF.

 

[74x12]

The jury seems to be out on this question among those who identify as Christians.....so was the flood a real event or was it just a dramatized myth with a message?

It was very real. The evidence for a world wide flood is great. The point to understand about the flood is it had to happen or humanity was lost. The "sons of God" had corrupted the human genome. They had children who were giants and apparently mostly evil. The people received 120 years to change their ways but refused to do so. BTW, the archons headed up by satan himself are doing this genetic tampering again.

If you people think that they only cloned a lamb and then stopped then you're really naive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was very real. The evidence for a world wide flood is great. The point to understand about the flood is it had to happen or humanity was lost. The "sons of God" had corrupted the human genome. They had children who were giants and apparently mostly evil. The people received 120 years to change their ways but refused to do so. BTW, the archons headed up by satan himself are doing this genetic tampering again.

If you people think that they only cloned a lamb and then stopped then you're really naive.

Sorry, but at best you only have a misinterpretation of the evidence. And as far as scientific evidence for the flood that is totally nonexistent.

 

[74x12]

Sorry, but at best you only have a misinterpretation of the evidence. And as far as scientific evidence for the flood that is totally nonexistent.

How dare you disagree. And you of all people. I would never expect it. (Okay I'm kidding.)

But seriously, why do you think you have the right interpretation of the evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How dare you disagree. And you of all people. I would never expect it. (Okay I'm kidding.)

But seriously, why do you think you have the right interpretation of the evidence?

Because the hypotheses that I rely upon are testable. Flood believers do not appear to know how to even make a testable hypothesis so by definition they have no scientific evidence.

 

[74x12]

Because the hypotheses that I rely upon are testable. Flood believers do not appear to know how to even make a testable hypothesis so by definition they have no scientific evidence.

What about the parameters of the test? Can that be wrong? Or based on assumptions?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What about the parameters of the test? Can that be wrong? Or based on assumptions?

That is always a possibility. The problem is that your side has no testable hypotheses, at least none that have not been refuted that I am aware of. Without a testable hypothesis your side has zero scientific evidence.

 

[74x12]

That is always a possibility. The problem is that your side has no testable hypotheses, at least none that have not been refuted that I am aware of. Without a testable hypothesis your side has zero scientific evidence.

So you're saying Noah's flood has been refuted?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Flood believers cannot explain this formation. Geologists can:

File:2009-08-20-01800 USA Utah 316 Goosenecks SP.jpg - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you're saying Noah's flood has been refuted?

Since about two hundred years ago and the evidence continues to accumulate.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The fact that you cry "bias" and use it as an excuse to wave away inconvenient material, while simultaneously exhibiting extreme forms of bias yourself (i.e., being beholden to Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrine).

"Inconvenient material"?.

There's nothing wrong with examining the evidences in every field, in fact we encourage it.... the only inconvenience is when the evidence is misinterpreted; usually those who prefer a materialistic explanation, their interpretation is given precedence, although it hardly ever fits all the evidence.

"Then you haven't been paying attention. There's not a single published scientific paper that concludes God doesn't exist."

That's just double-talk to me... It's the ultimate goal.

"In order for something to be scientifically investigated, it must be testable. Can you provide a means by which we can test the supernatural?"

No, but does that mean it doesn't exist? It just highlights the limited abilities of current science.

"And no, I don't visit the paranormal board at RF."

I appreciate your honesty. Why not?

Abraham Lincoln, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and many other smart, prominent people did and do believe it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So you're saying Noah's flood has been refuted?

Please look at the detailed evidences i posted, from many different sources. (Keep in mind, it wasn't so much the water, as it was the breaking of the canopy, from which some of the water came, that caused the drastic freezing of these animals.)

The naysayers don't look at all the evidence...only that which seems to fit their paradigm. They really ignore the rest.

 

[74x12]

Please look at the detailed evidences i posted, from many different sources. (Keep in mind, it wasn't so much the water, as it was the breaking of the canopy, from which some of the water came, that caused the drastic freezing of these animals.)

The naysayers don't look at all the evidence...only that which seems to fit their paradigm. They really ignore the rest.

Also the fountains of the deep opened. (Genesis 7:11) Earth's underground oceans could have 3 times more water than the surface.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Also the fountains of the deep opened. (Genesis 7:11) Earth's underground oceans could have 3 times more water than the surface.

Yes and that water cannot be released suddenly. It is not liquid water. It is chemically part of a molecule.

You have seen drywall, haven't you? That is essentially gypsum. The chemical formula for gypsum is CaSO4*2H2O. That means there are roughly two molecules of water for every molecule of anhydrite CaSO4. Yet it is as dry as a bone to you and me. The water in the mantle is far less concentrated and is even more tightly bound.

Once again all you have is a misunderstanding of the science involved. To get that water out of the mantle the crust would have to be utterly destroyed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please look at the detailed evidences i posted, from many different sources. (Keep in mind, it wasn't so much the water, as it was the breaking of the canopy, from which some of the water came, that caused the drastic freezing of these animals.)

The naysayers don't look at all the evidence...only that which seems to fit their paradigm. They really ignore the rest.

Please find some valid sources if you want anyone to look at it. You have only the work of sensationalists that never went through peer review.

 

[74x12]

Yes and that water cannot be released suddenly. It is not liquid water. It is chemically part of a molecule.

You have seen drywall, haven't you? That is essentially gypsum. The chemical formula for gypsum is CaSO4*2H2O. That means there are roughly two molecules of water for every molecule of anhydrite CaSO4. Yet it is as dry as a bone to you and me. The water in the mantle is far less concentrated and is even more tightly bound.

Once again all you have is a misunderstanding of the science involved. To get that water out of the mantle the crust would have to be utterly destroyed.

You say it would need to be utterly destroyed. We're not arguing that all the water came out. Obviously a lot is still down there. But part of it could have come out. It says the fountains of the deep were "broken up". To be broken up is to destroy; so this is actually supportive. It's true it would take a lot of pressure to make this water come out; however it is possible. Another thing is you're assuming conditions then are exactly as they are now. Actually it wouldn't take much water coming out (in comparison to the vast amount stored down there) to create immense geysers sufficient in size to effect the weather and create rain for 40 days straight. Geysers are the best theory in my opinion and there are no geysers without great pressure. So, yes immense pressure had to be involved.