Noahs Ark

[footprints]

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

And I think from your perception you are most probably correct. Albeit when viewed from reality, another story is told.

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.

Possibly, that certainly is one association which could be made. Another of course is what I have previously pointed out.

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.

Hmmmm, is there a power of suggestion in not suggesting anything? I have no knowledge on the alleged flood and Noah. I know science doesn't have any conclusive evidence either, yet you think and believe you do....... Interesting.

The more knowledge a person has, the more questions there are to answers. You seem to have more answers than questions.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

And I think from your perception you are most probably correct. Albeit when viewed from reality, another story is told.

"Your" reality (perception) could be a manifestation the illusion or of the delusional mind. Everyone has their own "reality" which is the reason why we all can look at something and interpret it different ways. The difference between me and some one who takes the Noah flood as a literal global flood instead of a local flood is I side with the evidence. If there was evidence for it I would not argue against it. Since no credible evidence is available I can not side with a WWF.

Hmmmm, is there a power of suggestion in not suggesting anything?

You made an assumption suggesting there's a possibility Mt. Ararat could have been somewhere else and the name affixed to the Mountain we know today as Mt. Ararat. It's a baseless assumption but it was one you made.

I have no knowledge on the alleged flood and Noah. I know science doesn't have any conclusive evidence either, yet you think and believe you do....... Interesting.

You know no such thing. Archeology and Geology are in agreement there was no global flooding wiping out all the worlds human population leaving only Noah and his family. These are two completely separate fields of science but their data compliments each other very well.

The more knowledge a person has, the more questions there are to answers. You seem to have more answers than questions.

This is your perception. We're only discussing one subject from the bible and taking on the (creationist's) idea of a WWF. I never said I have all the answers but this particular story is an easy one to address from every angle. If we started this debate with a common understanding that this was a local event then the debate probably would have been over long ago. That's an assumption I would even address because the area does record local seasonal flooding.

 

[footprints]

"Your" reality (perception) could be a manifestation the illusion or of the delusional mind. Everyone has their own "reality" which is the reason why we all can look at something and interpret it different ways. The difference between me and some one who takes the Noah flood as a literal global flood instead of a local flood is I side with the evidence. If there was evidence for it I would not argue against it. Since no credible evidence is available I can not side with a WWF.

Look it may be my perception of reality which could be manifested in the illusion of the delusional mind. Than again it could be your perception which is the illusion created in a delusional mind. All is a matter of probability and evidence.

We have already discussed a literal world flood.

You made an assumption suggesting there's a possibility Mt. Ararat could have been somewhere else and the name affixed to the Mountain we know today as Mt. Ararat. It's a baseless assumption but it was one you made.

I am not going to deny scientific knowledge just because it doesn't align with your belief patterns.

You know no such thing. Archeology and Geology are in agreement there was no global flooding wiping out all the worlds human population leaving only Noah and his family. These are two completely separate fields of science but their data compliments each other very well.

We have already discussed a literal world wide flood. Please keep to reality.

This is your perception. We're only discussing one subject from the bible and taking on the (creationist's) idea of a WWF. I never said I have all the answers but this particular story is an easy one to address from every angle. If we started this debate with a common understanding that this was a local event then the debate probably would have been over long ago. That's an assumption I would even address because the area does record local seasonal flooding.

Creationists per se, have many versions of this story. Your attempt to generalise all in the one basket is based on illogical reasoning.

You only think you have addressed a literal world flood from every angle. You have not addressed this reason given by some theists who beleive in a literal world wide flood; God did it.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

All is a matter........ evidence.

Other than the article on Lucy, which I certainly don't deny but submitted one older (Ardi), you haven't from what I've seen, shown any other evidence for or against a global deluge. I don't even think you listed any evidence for a local. Your position is you simply don't know and you're under some impression that no one knows....not even the scientist who make it their business to know. Basically you've contributed nothing to this thread other than your vague assumptions.

I am not going to deny scientific knowledge just because it doesn't align with your belief patterns.

What are you talking about here. I align myself with the scientific discovery. Should what we currently know change then I change. My understanding of the natural world is not static.

We have already discussed a literal world wide flood. Please keep to reality.

No...You stick to reality. You stated you knew scientist don't have conclusive evidence. You've presented nothing to substantiate your claim. In fact it has been shown that during the time the creationist (HERE) say the flood was supposed to have taken place we know of two thriving civilizations, no geological record of a global flood during that time and archeological evidence from various areas around the world during that time giving us the picture of a planet not submerged under billions of gallons of water.

Creationists per se, have many versions of this story. Your attempt to generalise all in the one basket is based on illogical reasoning.

I've done no such thing. I've said over and over again that I'm addressing the creationist that are here in this thread that believe the deluge to have happened and the it was global and it happened in a particular time frame in our Earth's history.

Here are the creationist or theist that think the event actually happen this way;

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1562603-post35.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1605298-post122.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1619154-post137.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1655801-post189.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1681663-post358.html

There were at least one or two others here taking the story literally. So I NEVER generalized. I only addressed those that believed it happened just the way it is written. In fact there were a few other Christians that didn't take it literally. No need for me to address them seeing as though they didn't side with creationist. So it would appear you've made a false accusation and have no idea what you're talking about.

You only think you have addressed a literal world flood from every angle. You have not addressed this reason given by some theists who beleive in a literal world wide flood; God did it.

Actually I have. But It really doesn't matter their reason if the reason given is invalid. If they believe "God Did It" then they must account for civilizations that were alive during said global flood. So saying "God Did It" doesn't help their case. They say "God" did it to the WHOLE planet and their assertions have shown to be baseless thus the statement ("God Did It") is invalid and blurted out with no substantiated evidence other than their vague interpretations of scrolls written by men a few thousand years ago.....

 

[nonbeliever_92]

I can't believe this thread is still going.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I can't believe this thread is still going.

It's almost as though the more ridiculous a claim, the more fervently people defend it.

 

[footprints]

Other than the article on Lucy, which I certainly don't deny but submitted one older (Ardi), you haven't from what I've seen, shown any other evidence for or against a global deluge. I don't even think you listed any evidence for a local. Your position is you simply don't know and you're under some impression that no one knows....not even the scientist who make it their business to know. Basically you've contributed nothing to this thread other than your vague assumptions.

Do you want me to go through the internet like some idiot and pull garbage out of the world wide webb, just to try and prove some irrelevant point which has no significance except to the person who presented it and others who may support their belief. If you have already noticed this penguin I can pretty much pull anything I like from the internet to prove anything I want to prove.

As for assumptions, that is all anybody in this life has to go on pertaining to the flood scenaio. I do not align with any of them, yet I align to all of them.

What are you talking about here. I align myself with the scientific discovery. Should what we currently know change then I change. My understanding of the natural world is not static.

You align yourself with scientific evidence which tends to support your personal hypothesis (perception).

No...You stick to reality. You stated you knew scientist don't have conclusive evidence. You've presented nothing to substantiate your claim. In fact it has been shown that during the time the creationist (HERE) say the flood was supposed to have taken place we know of two thriving civilizations, no geological record of a global flood during that time and archeological evidence from various areas around the world during that time giving us the picture of a planet not submerged under billions of gallons of water.

When and if science ever has evidence to either correlate or deny a flood scenario, I will post it. Until that time, it is impossible for me to do so.

You may believe in miracles and having availablity to knowledge that nobody else knows, but I do not fall into that category.

I've done no such thing. I've said over and over again that I'm addressing the creationist that are here in this thread that believe the deluge to have happened and the it was global and it happened in a particular time frame in our Earth's history.

By your perception you haven't. You keep referring to World Wide Flood, not a literal World Wide Flood. World wide flood has many interpretations as we have discussed before.

Actually I have. But It really doesn't matter their reason if the reason given is invalid. If they believe "God Did It" then they must account for civilizations that were alive during said global flood. So saying "God Did It" doesn't help their case. They say "God" did it to the WHOLE planet and their assertions have shown to be baseless thus the statement ("God Did It") is invalid and blurted out with no substantiated evidence other than their vague interpretations of scrolls written by men a few thousand years ago.....

I think what you mean to say is, you believe you have. Evidence even right here in this thread says your evidence was rejected.

I think what you mean to say is, by saying God did it, doesn't help your cause. From what I have read it fully supports their cause.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Do you want me to go through the internet like some idiot and pull garbage out of the world wide webb, just to try and prove some irrelevant point which has no significance except to the person who presented it and others who may support their belief. If you have already noticed this penguin I can pretty much pull anything I like from the internet to prove anything I want to prove.

Well you didn't "prove" anything. You do understand that there is a difference in (proof) and (evidence) right?

You showed evidence that the oldest traces of man was from Africa when you presented Lucy albeit you were incorrect in your assumption and research considering she's not the oldest but from Africa non the less. I agree with you. You get no argument from me there.

As for assumptions, that is all anybody in this life has to go on pertaining to the flood scenaio. I do not align with any of them, yet I align to all of them.

Great. So just to be clear, you and I are in agreement there was no WWF during the time line creationist gave us. Thanks.

You align yourself with scientific evidence which tends to support your personal hypothesis (perception).

Nope, not at all. If it were discovered that unicorns actually do exist and the data collected showed that the horn was not some Hollywood illusion then I have no problem accepting it. If the geological data or the archeological data gave any credence to a WWF then I would have no problem changing. Again, my understanding of the natural world is not static.

When and if science ever has evidence to either correlate or deny a flood scenario, I will post it. Until that time, it is impossible for me to do so.

Don't bother. We've done all the research for you.....and this thread is becoming stale and redundant.

You may believe in miracles

This is your perception. I'm an Atheist.....:sorry1:

By your perception you haven't. You keep referring to World Wide Flood, not a literal World Wide Flood. World wide flood has many interpretations as we have discussed before.

What you mean to say if Global vs. Local. In that case it doesn't matter. Ask any creationist in (THIS) thread if they are under the impression the biblical deluge was a local occurrence. See what you get. They will tell you straight up....NO!...They "believe" the story told actually happened the way it did. There was no local flood. If you have information from the creationist (here) that their understanding of a (WWF) and (Literal Flood) are different then I await your response. To them, because it is plainly written throughout this thread, they make no distinction.

I think what you mean to say is, by saying God did it, doesn't help your cause. From what I have read it fully supports their cause.

Yes we call that willful ignorance and circular reasoning. Your point was.....?

 

[nonbeliever_92]

[youtube]CccaGaKOlSI[/youtube]
YouTube - Noah's Ark-God, Giraffes & Genocide