Noahs Ark

[painted wolf]

Remember... "many" is any number greater than three.

wa:do

 

[AxisMundi]

Remember... "many" is any number greater than three.

wa:do

Except on internet forums when someone is attempting to insinuate that something is a widely held opinion among the scientific community.

 

[rusra02]

Yea, this means absolutely nothing considering I posted a few bibles that DO agree with me. The majority of scholars agree while some don't...so what....

The main point is there is NO manuscript support to render the word [Son] at the end of that verse because some scholar believes it's OK to place it there so the general rule is not to render the verse that way. Thats the reason why more reliable translations don't.

Here's a decent critique;
For an Answer: Chrsitian Apologetics - Acts 20:28

These scholars and linguistic professionals, although critiquing John 1:1, had this to say about the renderings. The information was taken from Blue Letter Bible - Home Page. I like the site because they offer some useful tools.

NOTE: My focus is not to start a whole new debate on John but to show that support for the NWT is not how you make it out to be.

Blue Letter Bible - Study Tools

DR. J.R. MANTEY (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159, of the Society's Kingdom Interlinear Translation): "A shocking mistranslation". "Obsolete and incorrect". "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 "The Word was a god."
​

DR. BRUCE M. METZGER of Princeton University (Professor New Testament Language and Literature): "A frightful mistranslation...", "erroneous...", "pernicious..." "reprehensible...". "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists."
​

DR. SAMUEL J. MIKOLASKI of Zurich, Switzerland: "This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article 'a' means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was a god.'"
​

DR. PAUL L. KAUFFMAN of Portland, Oregon: "The Jehovah's Witnesses [translators] evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1."
​

DR. CHARLES L. FEINBERG of La Mirada, California: "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."
​

DR. JAMES L. BOYER of Winona Lake, Indiana: "I have never heard of, or read of any Greek scholar who would agree to the interpretation of this [John 1:1] verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses... I have never encountered one of them [Society member] who had any knowledge of the Greek language."
​

DR. WALTER MARTIN (who does not teach Greek but has studied the language): "The translation 'a god' instead of 'God' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary, and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language, many of whom are not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention."
​

DR. WILLIAN BARCLAY of the University of Glasgow, Scotland: "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: 'the Word was a god.' a translation which is grammatically impossible. It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."
​

DR. F.F. BRUCE of the University of Manchester, England: "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'and the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction... 'a god' would be totally indefensible."
​

(The late Dr. Barclay and Dr. Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Each have New Testament translations in print.)
​

DR. ERNEST C. COLWELL of the University of Chicago: "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb... this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas: 'My Lord and my God.'--John 20:28."
​

DR. PHILIP B. HARNER of Heidelberg College: "The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the LOGOS was 'a god' or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of THEOS but a distinct being from HO THEOS. In the form the John actually uses, the word THEOS is placed at the beginning for emphasis [thus ruling out the 'a god' translation]."
​

DR. J. JOHNSON of California State University, Long Beach: "No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.' There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 23:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct... I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian."
​

DR. EUGENE A. NIDA, head of Translation Department, American Bible Society: "With regard to John 1:1, there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek." (Responsible for the Good News Bible -- the committee worked under him.)
​

DR. B.F. WESTCOTT (whose Greek New Testament text -- not the English part -- is used in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in John 4:24. It is necessarily without the article... No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by [this] form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word... in the third clause 'the Word' is declared to be 'God', and so included in the unity of the Godhead."
​

DR. J.J. GRIESBACH (whose Greek New Testament text -- not the English part -- is used in the Society's publication The Emphatic Diaglott): "So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1:1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."
​

​

I realize we're way off topic here but those assertions should not go unanswered.
Many Greek scholars and Bible translators acknowledge that John 1:1 highlights, not the identity, but a quality of “the Word.” Says Bible translator William Barclay (Whom you quote above): “Because [the apostle John] has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description . . . John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God.” Scholar Jason David BeDuhn likewise says: “In Greek, if you leave off the article from theos in a sentence like the one in John 1:1c, then your readers will assume you mean ‘a god.’ . . . Its absence makes theos quite different than the definite ho theos, as different as ‘a god’ is from ‘God’ in English.” BeDuhn adds: “In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being.” Or to put it in the words of Joseph Henry Thayer, a scholar who worked on the American Standard Version: “The Logos [or, Word] was divine, not the divine Being himself.”

Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse:
1808: “and the word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text.
1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.
1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.
1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.
1950: “and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.
1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.
1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.
1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.​

That is a few of many quotes from respected Bible translators and Greek scholars. Trinitarian translators, will of course, take issue with these, since John 1:1 has been one of their favorite scriptures to misapply in a vain attempt to prove that Jesus is Almighty God.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

[/indent]I realize we're way off topic here but those assertions should not go unanswered.
Many Greek scholars and Bible translators acknowledge that John 1:1 highlights, not the identity, but a quality of “the Word.” Says Bible translator William Barclay (Whom you quote above): “Because [the apostle John] has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description . . . John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God.” Scholar Jason David BeDuhn likewise says: “In Greek, if you leave off the article from theos in a sentence like the one in John 1:1c, then your readers will assume you mean ‘a god.’ . . . Its absence makes theos quite different than the definite ho theos, as different as ‘a god’ is from ‘God’ in English.” BeDuhn adds: “In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being.” Or to put it in the words of Joseph Henry Thayer, a scholar who worked on the American Standard Version: “The Logos [or, Word] was divine, not the divine Being himself.”

Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse:
1808: “and the word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text.
1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.
1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.
1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.
1950: “and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.
1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.
1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.
1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.​

That is a few of many quotes from respected Bible translators and Greek scholars. Trinitarian translators, will of course, take issue with these, since John 1:1 has been one of their favorite scriptures to misapply in a vain attempt to prove that Jesus is Almighty God.

Again, I wasn't trying to debate that here. Just merely showing that while you believe your scripture to be the best translation there are others who have actually identified themselves and their credentials and are there for all to see. They are respected in their field.....and theirs words do not agree with your assertion. As far as actually debating over John 1:1..well if you like you can start a thread on it...I'll contribute.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Are we done with this thread....? Can we shut the lights and close the door on this one?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It may be comforting to you to dismiss the Bible history of Babel as 'fairy-tale'. So many others have thus dismissed Bible accounts that later were confirmed by archeological finds. There are thousands of languages and dialects, and the Bible explains why.

... in the same manner, and with the same authority, that Rudyard Kipling's "Just So Stories" explains how the camel got its hump.

 

[painted wolf]

Aesop's fables.

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Aesop's fables.

wa:do

Chronicles of Narnia......

 

[URAVIP2ME]

[/indent]I realize we're way off topic here but those assertions should not go unanswered.
Many Greek scholars and Bible translators acknowledge that John 1:1 highlights, not the identity, but a quality of “the Word.” Says Bible translator William Barclay (Whom you quote above): “Because [the apostle John] has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description . . . John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God.” Scholar Jason David BeDuhn likewise says: “In Greek, if you leave off the article from theos in a sentence like the one in John 1:1c, then your readers will assume you mean ‘a god.’ . . . Its absence makes theos quite different than the definite ho theos, as different as ‘a god’ is from ‘God’ in English.” BeDuhn adds: “In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being.” Or to put it in the words of Joseph Henry Thayer, a scholar who worked on the American Standard Version: “The Logos [or, Word] was divine, not the divine Being himself.”

Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse:
1808: “and the word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text.
1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.
1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.
1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.
1950: “and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.
1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.
1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.
1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.​

That is a few of many quotes from respected Bible translators and Greek scholars. Trinitarian translators, will of course, take issue with these, since John 1:1 has been one of their favorite scriptures to misapply in a vain attempt to prove that Jesus is Almighty God.

Doesn't the same 'Greek grammar rule' apply at John 1:1 that is also used at
Acts 28:6? Why is the 'a' inserted at Acts if it would not belong there?_____
The missing 'a' at John 1:1 shows that a minor mistake that crept into copies of the Bible text should not dismiss other Scriptures such as: Revelation 3:14 B.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Doesn't the same 'Greek grammar rule' apply at John 1:1 that is also used at
Acts 28:6? Why is the 'a' inserted at Acts if it would not belong there?_____
The missing 'a' at John 1:1 shows that a minor mistake that crept into copies of the Bible text should not dismiss other Scriptures

It depends on which Greek text you want to go with. As a rule I stay away from cross referencing KJV ("Greek") to English. I have to be honest. There's some debate out there on what to use. Byzantine, Textus Receptus etc. You make your own choice.

Here's what I see in the two verse above;

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh1.pdf
εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
In the beginning was the Word and the word was with God and God was the word

Now compare to;

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/act28.pdf
οι δε προσεδοκων αυτον μελλειν πιμπρασθαι η καταπιπτειν αφνω νεκρον επι πολυ δε αυτων προσδοκωντων και θεωρουντων μηδεν ατοπον εις αυτον γινομενον μεταβαλλομενοι ελεγον θεον αυτον ειναι

Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.


The above is all (Textus Receptus - Received Text).

I apologize everyone for taking the thread off course. I wasn't really trying to "debate" John 1:1. Perhaps a thread could be opened for discussion/debate on the NWT vs. the actual Greek.

 

[footprints]

I know what I said and I know what I mean. You constantly want to tell people (what they meant to say is.....). If we make a statement then it's obvious we meant exactly that...unless we change it or re-post with a correction.

I constantly tell people what I think. I am not responsible for weird association patterns by people who want to make it all about them.

It's not unreasonable in a debate forum to ask for evidence to support the assertion of a WWF when it's clear the people making a case for it states it as though it is fact. What is unreasonable is for them to make the claim and not backup what they claim with evidence. I'm fine if they disagree with me but some never show any reason for the disagreement. We don't get evidence to substantiate the claim made, instead we get more religious dogma. Using religious text to validate the claim contained in the religious text is called circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is not evidence.

People give you evidence, you just don't accept it.

You going around in circles is also circular reasoning. The above post was in reference to people opposing you with their own evidence and reasoning.

I never made one....

You raised the issue, I was just letting you know before you made any.

It hasn't been refuted.....so I must conclude it is irrefutable by creationist. Hear the silence? You can almost hear a pin drop.....

It hasn't been refuted by you, it has been refuted by others. Read the thread.

.......

How dare I say what I think, your association patterns cannot handle it.

Considering there was no WWF what's the point? "God" is not the evidence. It's an idea that helps others explain what they don't understand about the natural world. Local flood (god did it), flat earth (god did it), life (god did it), drought (god is punishing us), crops won't grow (god is punishing us)...etc...etc...etc...

There was no literal world wide flood according to you. Others don't agree with you and God is evidence to them.

Who says I'm arguing "against" a perception? Considering there is irrefutable geological evidence contradicting a WWF in the time frame given..it is very much the collected perception (belief) of creationist that a WWF event actually happened...regardless of the evidence. In some cases we call this (delusional)....

You keep saying a world wide flood could not happen. You don't say a literal world wide flood.

We also call it delusional, when people try to generalise everything under one umbrella and deny all other evidence around them.

Get yourself an atlas or find it at wikipedia.

LOL, did you read the rest of this, or does it suit your own special and private purpose to seperate it?

Seems to be irrefutable to creationist as well as yourself.....

Anybody who opposes you, just has to deny what you say, that is how easy it is for the human brain to refute you. That is all you have to do to conclude those against you wrong as well.

It's not my job to do so. I'm not the one making a case for the WWF. I think it's all made up. Start at Genesis 6 and go from there.

Of course it isn't, your job is just to sit back and ridicule those who oppose you.

Maybe the field of psychology but none of the disciplines I've mentioned earlier. The ones I've mentioned earlier totally refute the notion of a WWF event in he time line given.

Yes maybe the field of psychology for one, the field of sociology for another. The fields you mention refute a literal world wide flood, not a world wide flood.

I don't have to because I didn't, and don't make the claim there were never floods......just not a WWF event in the time line given to us by the creationist here. We most certainly have evidence of local flooding, cites being buried by sand, cities buried in volcano ash, cities destroyed by earthquakes but what we don't see is evidence for a global flood event as described in the bible.

The simple fact is you do make a claim. A perceptional world wide flood, is a world wide flood to the mind which perceives it a world wide flood.

No you don't. The evidence is posted throughout this thread by you.....

LOL that is your perception.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I constantly tell people what I think.

Yea, but it would greatly appreciated if you'd stop telling others (what THEY mean to say).

People give you evidence, you just don't accept it.

No they've given me what they believe. One is not exclusive to the other.

The above post was in reference to people opposing you with their own evidence and reasoning.

No they haven't. They have not presented testable evidence. What they do consider "evidence" has been rejected by multiple scientific fields of study.

It hasn't been refuted by you, it has been refuted by others. Read the thread.

And where, in my response, did I say ("I") refuted it?......even though I'm quite sure, on some long forgotten page here, I have....

There was no literal world wide flood according to you.

No.....

There was no "literal" flood in the time frame given to us by creationist...accordingly to the geology of the earth.

Others don't agree with you and God is evidence to them.

Geology of the natural world says they're wrong.

You keep saying a world wide flood could not happen. You don't say a literal world wide flood.

Pay attention. A WWF in the time frame creationist give us could not and did not happen.

We also call it delusional, when people try to generalise everything under one umbrella and deny all other evidence around them.

I never generalized. They did not give any evidence as to why we don't find ANY of the hundreds of "KINDS"(?) Noah carried above the ark near or around the Mt. Ararat area. They have not offered any evidence that would shed any light on how these animals, after leaving the ark, got to where we find them today.....but not traces of them anywhere else.

LOL, did you read the rest of this, or does it suit your own special and private purpose to seperate it?

You asked where was Mt. Ararat. Your question was elementary. You appeared to be suggesting that a people could move from one location and give the names of the previous locations to the new location. While I suspect this could be true you haven not established this assumption to be factual in the case of the biblical Noah. That is why I only answered the fist half of your question. The rest was pure speculation, like most of your responses, on your part...

Anybody who opposes you, just has to deny what you say, that is how easy it is for the human brain to refute you. That is all you have to do to conclude those against you wrong as well.

Opposition does not constitute refutation unless your opposition is backed up by evidence.

Of course it isn't, your job is just to sit back and ridicule those who oppose you.

We all ridicule so I fail to see your point....

The fields you mention refute a literal world wide flood, not a world wide flood.

What...?.....The fields I mentioned refute the claim of a WWF creationist believe took place. I have not debated with them on "flooding" that occurred millions of years ago. For starters some of them believe the earth is (young). The ones who don't are simply wrong given the testable evidence made available to them.The creationist here who are suggesting a WWF have gone as far as to use the bible to chronologically postulate the supposed global deluge. The fields of science I mentioned (Geology, Archeology and Anthropology) say they are incorrect.

The simple fact is you do make a claim. A perceptional world wide flood, is a world wide flood to the mind which perceives it a world wide flood.

No I don't. It's without a doubt they "perceive" it to have happened and is true. I'm saying...regardless of their perceptions, which is not based on any evidence, it is incorrect based on the the overwhelming amount of evidence that is constantly presented to them.

LOL that is your perception.

..... Those are the facts.

 

[footprints]

Yea, but it would greatly appreciated if you'd stop telling others (what THEY mean to say).

And I would greatly appreciate it if you could be reasonable, then I wouldn't have to correct you in my own thinking. I cannot have my brain cluttered with unreasonable assumptions, especially when the evidence to conclude your assumption wrong is evidenced directly in front of you in the thread you are replying to.

No they've given me what they believe. One is not exclusive to the other.

Yeah and you give them what you believe. You give your supporting evidence, they give their supporting evidence. Big deal.

No they haven't. They have not presented testable evidence. What they do consider "evidence" has been rejected by multiple scientific fields of study.

And you give no testable evidence. You don't even know what this story pertains to, whether it is a literal world wide flood, or otherwise, nobody does. We don't even have any realistic evidence of when this alledged flood happened or if it even happened in any context. And you reckon you give testable evidence. Please give me a break.

I never generalized. They did not give any evidence as to why we don't find ANY of the hundreds of "KINDS"(?) Noah carried above the ark near or around the Mt. Ararat area. They have not offered any evidence that would shed any light on how these animals, after leaving the ark, got to where we find them today.....but not traces of them anywhere else.

Unless you can give me a detailed list of all alleged animals said to be onboard at the time, you are generalising whether you know it or not.

You asked where was Mt. Ararat. Your question was elementary. You appeared to be suggesting that a people could move from one location and give the names of the previous locations to the new location. While I suspect this could be true you haven not established this assumption to be factual in the case of the biblical Noah. That is why I only answered the fist half of your question. The rest was pure speculation, like most of your responses, on your part...

I would say, history in general is over 90% speculation. That which we do have is generally written from the perception of the victor or writing party, and that which we do not have direct knowledge of comes from belief patterns.

Unlike you, I do not pretend to have knowledge of Noah and the alledged flood. That is why I seek knowledge and evidence.

Opposition does not constitute refutation unless your opposition is backed up by evidence.

I would suggest you remember that.

..... Those are the facts.

Those are your facts which you live by. They are not the facts that those who oppose you live by.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

And I would greatly appreciate it if you could be reasonable, then I wouldn't have to correct you in my own thinking.

It's ok if you disagree with me but no one here is interested in you telling them (Well, what you mean to say is.....). We know what we mean and for you to constantly do this is uncalled for. I don't put my words in your mouth so again...it would be greatly appreciated if you can refrain from that...

I cannot have my brain cluttered with unreasonable assumptions, especially when the evidence to conclude your assumption wrong is evidenced directly in front of you in the thread you are replying to.

Look, the creationist here say the whole planet was flooded and I asked for evidence of this and it was not forthcoming, they were asked about the living conditions and food for the animals on a wooden boat and the evidence was not forthcoming, It's been asked of them to account for why we don't see evidence that animals migrated away from Mt. Ararat after Noah, his family and the animals disembarked and no evidence was forth coming. If Noah, (from THEIR understanding of the story), put animals two by two on the ark then how did the penguin get to Antarctica? I don't think these are unreasonable questions at all.

Yeah and you give them what you believe. You give your supporting evidence

I've given them the testable evidence. All of the testable evidence says they're wrong. If they want to try and refute the evidence that says the Egyptians and the Sumerians were living during said flood then they're welcome. They actually did try pages upon pages ago but they failed.

they give their supporting evidence.

No they didn't. They've given us their belief based on a book. There's been no evidence given. If so can you point that out to me? I've been following this thread from the beginning and you're mistaken.

And you give no testable evidence.

I have so....as well as others here...Do you even know what testable evidence means?

You don't even know what this story pertains to, whether it is a literal world wide flood, or otherwise, nobody does.

I'm only addressing the claims of those who take it literal. Have you not been listening? I can speculate with the best of them as to what the story might mean...but my focus has been on addressing the claims of the creationist (here) who have been presenting the story as an actual event that took place in history. I have, as well as others, listed evidence against that assumption. So yes, we actually DO KNOW....Maybe you're the only one who doesn't know.....

We don't even have any realistic evidence of when this alledged flood happened or if it even happened in any context

My point exactly. So what's the problem? I didn't make the claim that it did happen...I'm totally in agreement here.

And you reckon you give testable evidence. Please give me a break.

Again, the geological record does not record such an event happening EVER in the time frame creationist give us for a WWF. We presented plenty of evidence of "existing" civilizations during said time frame that weren't aware they were under water. This is what is meant by testable evidence. Geology and Archeology adheres to the scientific method....but..guess what?....even creationist rely on it.

Unless you can give me a detailed list of all alleged animals said to be onboard at the time, you are generalising whether you know it or not.

I don't have to. Their very own bible generalizes. Creationist make the claim that all the animals entered the ark. My question was an appropriate one to ask.

Unlike you, I do not pretend to have knowledge of Noah and the alledged flood. That is why I seek knowledge and evidence.

I never said I did as I think the story is completely made up. Given current evidence it appears the story was taken and reworked from an earlier recorded flood myth. I seek evidence as well and nothing about that story has any evidence to substantiate it...especially not as creationist portray it.

Those are your facts which you live by. They are not the facts that those who oppose you live by.

If you believe for one moment that creationist do not accept geology and archeology then you really don't know very much. They just happen to pick and choose bits and pieces of the evidence..

 

[Autodidact]

Surely you don't mean to say ALL scientists say it's science. Many scientists say the TOE is not science.

A tiny number of Biologists disagree with it, less than 1%, but a tiny number of scientists disagree with any scientific theory. What I mean is that the overwhelming consensus (>99%) of Biologists accept it. Even among the small percentage of those who don't, I don't think there are any Young Earth Creationists. You really can't do science for 5 minutes and buy that.

 

[footprints]

It's ok if you disagree with me but no one here is interested in you telling them (Well, what you mean to say is.....). We know what we mean and for you to constantly do this is uncalled for. I don't put my words in your mouth so again...it would be greatly appreciated if you can refrain from that...

I am not here to deal with your personal, issues and problems. If you have a problem then deal with it, within yourself, and do not try and make your problems and issues my problem. I will not accept them, I do not have your problem and issue, and I do not want them. As you can say what you mean, allow me the same right to say what I mean.

Look, the creationist here say the whole planet was flooded and I asked for evidence of this and it was not forthcoming, they were asked about the living conditions and food for the animals on a wooden boat and the evidence was not forthcoming, It's been asked of them to account for why we don't see evidence that animals migrated away from Mt. Ararat after Noah, his family and the animals disembarked and no evidence was forth coming. If Noah, (from THEIR understanding of the story), put animals two by two on the ark then how did the penguin get to Antarctica? I don't think these are unreasonable questions at all.

Asking for evidence is reasonable. Not accepting the evidence they give you unreasonable. Accepting evidence given, in no way, shape or form, even remotely suggests that you have to believe this evidence as gospel. Just accepting the fact, that another intelligent human being does hold this evidence as gospel, as you yourself, hold your own evidence as gospel.

As far as Mt. Ararat is concerned, In all rationale, logic and reason, I cannot even begin to tell you if the Mt. Ararat listed in the bible, is the same Mt. Ararat listed in our geographical reference. Then again, I suppose I could be dealing with a lot more knowledge pertaining to ancient cultures than you put into your equations. Working with limited knowledge sometimes gives a person clearer answers for they do not have all knowledge to work with. Gaining knowledge generally gives a person more questions than it does answers. It is ignorance of knowledge which gives a person subjective answers, and more answers than there are questions.

 

[footprints]

A tiny number of Biologists disagree with it, less than 1%, but a tiny number of scientists disagree with any scientific theory. What I mean is that the overwhelming consensus (>99%) of Biologists accept it. Even among the small percentage of those who don't, I don't think there are any Young Earth Creationists. You really can't do science for 5 minutes and buy that.

The majority have been known to be wrong on many occasions. So your point being as to a 99% consensus is?

A) that the majority is absolutely right because you say so

B) that the majority have a probablity of being wrong because science says so

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Asking for evidence is reasonable. Not accepting the evidence they give you unreasonable.

No it's not. Their "evidence" as you call it is what's in question. And by your logic...you as well are being "unreasonable" with them. You've postulated it being a local one. You said in your last post ("We don't even have any realistic evidence of when this alledged flood happened or if it even happened in any context") but then you tell me I'm unreasonable for NOT accepting the "evidence" they present. Yea..OK......Look, the information they submitted to use as their evidence was evaluated and it was inconsistent with what we know of the natural world.

Accepting evidence given, in no way, shape or form, even remotely suggests that you have to believe this evidence as gospel. Just accepting the fact, that another intelligent human being does hold this evidence as gospel, as you yourself, hold your own evidence as gospel.

I'm open to you or any creationist to refute the geological record. I await a refute to the Egyptian and Sumerian dynasties in existence during the time frame the creationist give us for the WWF. See, I don't hold it the be "gospel". I'm willing to change if it's logical for me to do so.

As far as Mt. Ararat is concerned, In all rationale, logic and reason, I cannot even begin to tell you if the Mt. Ararat listed in the bible

There's no reason for us to assume that the current location is not the original location.

 

[footprints]

No it's not. Their "evidence" as you call it is what's in question. And by your logic...you as well are being "unreasonable" with them. You've postulated it being a local one. You said in your last post ("We don't even have any realistic evidence of when this alledged flood happened or if it even happened in any context") but then you tell me I'm unreasonable for NOT accepting the "evidence" they present. Yea..OK......Look, the information they submitted to use as their evidence was evaluated and it was inconsistent with what we know of the natural world.



I'm open to you or any creationist to refute the geological record. I await a refute to the Egyptian and Sumerian dynasties in existence during the time frame the creationist give us for the WWF. See, I don't hold it the be "gospel". I'm willing to change if it's logical for me to do so.



There's no reason for us to assume that the current location is not the original location.

Not being able to keep knowledge in context is the first sign of losing the plot.

I think what you mean to say is there is no reason for you to assume that the current location is not the original location. I have already listed other related topics which suggest that it might not be and the reason why.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Not being able to keep knowledge in context is the first sign of losing the plot.

I think what you mean to say is not being able to show verifiable evidence is the first sign in loosing the debate....

I think what you mean to say is there is no reason for you to assume that the current location is not the original location.

I think what you mean to say is you prefer to assume the current location was not the original location to satisfy your belief pattern even though you have no evidence at all to even suggest it was somewhere else.

I have already listed other related topics which suggest that it might not be and the reason why.

I do not appeal to you powers of suggestion and prefer to think for myself. If you have actual evidence of what you assert then I'm interested.