The flood

[RedOne77]

I am aware with God's allegged difficulties with being tolerant to those who are not as perfect as him.

Why on earth do you think we are more evil than good? People are generally tolerant, peaceful, and considerate.

The simple truth is that the great flood was mythology made up by superstitious people which may be based on actual events. The God these people imagined was often vengeful, angry, bigoted, and unforgiving, not to mention that he demanded worship.

I don't think people are more evil than good; we were designed to be "good".

I hope you realize that much of the attributes/actions attributed to God by the Jewish people were very much aligned with how the Jewish people felt and thought about people around them. When you say the Jewish God is often vengeful etc., you can just as easily say 'oftentimes the Jewish people were vengeful etc.' and it would be just as accurate.

 

[outhouse]

I don't think people are more evil than good; we were designed to be "good".

I hope you realize that much of the attributes/actions attributed to God by the Jewish people were very much aligned with how the Jewish people felt and thought about people around them. When you say the Jewish God is often vengeful etc., you can just as easily say 'oftentimes the Jewish people were vengeful etc.' and it would be just as accurate.

correct

its a direct reflection of their imagination

 

[micrurus]

Many books were compiled into the NT much later then 60-100 years

mark is thought to be the youngest and its first book is thought to be 20-30 AD as to where john is 85-95AD with matthew and luke in the middle.

marcion compiled pauls letters and luke in the first bad attempt at creation of the NT around 150AD

constantine put called all the bishops together in 325AD to talk about how divine jesus was and he ordered a bishop who collected religious text to put together a book and supply 50 to him. we dont have copies of these books. theres 2 known but the 2 books differ and one is heavily fragmented and the other partially fragmented so its unknown if any of the original 50 survived.

I would think that if the new canonization differed from those 50 they would have been burned by the church, i have been told they would not have. just my opinion

i know, i ment the ones about jesus, but nvm cause im also wrong there.

but it still doesn't discredit the point i was making

 

[Bereanz]

you dont need it, it is there none the less.



if you believe the fictional event took place then it is you that needs to post evidence.

fact is it never happened so you have nothing.



That is the story of noah.

Equally the sceintific proof of a world wide deluge is there as well. I'll show you mine if you show me yours, otherwise its just the usual Co2 emission talk fest. Every so called scientific discipline over the course of time, archeaology, biology, chemistry, mathematics, anthropolgy, zoology, cosmology etc etc proves (or at the very least does not refute) biblical accounts. There has yet to be any reputable bonna fide "scientific evidence" to refute anything recorded in the Bible in any way shape or form. Which is why Dawkins resorted to a devilish PR campaign in a failed attempt to discredit the character of the God of the Bible.

If you athiest "scientists" had any proof whatsoever, you wouldnt have the slightest inclination or need to even open a bible. In fact if you had conclusive proof of any kind, the bible woundn't be rushing of the shelves faster than any book known to mankind for, well, forever, inspite of no good press about it publically ANYWHERE, EVER!

The most ludicrous thing of all in this whole sad scenario is that Dawkin's turns to a weird and whacky twisted exigesis of holy writ as EVIDENCE for athiesm. Thats right folks, the Word of God is now the accepted text for atheism. This is no different than any other form of Cult religion on the planet, the Cults are known for twisting scripture to make it line up with what they want it to say. Atheism is now no different. It really is a laugh riot folks, and very entertaining.

 

[David M]

Equally the sceintific proof of a world wide deluge is there as well. I'll show you mine if you show me yours, otherwise its just the usual Co2 emission talk fest. Every so called scientific discipline over the course of time, archeaology, biology, chemistry, mathematics, anthropolgy, zoology, cosmology etc etc proves (or at the very least does not refute) biblical accounts.

Completely untrue, show us this amazing scientific evidence (that you used the phrase scientific proof shows you have only a tenuous grasp on science in the first place) from any of those fields that shows a world wide flood during the time humans were around.

The truth is that the evidence shows that there was no global biblical flood and this was realised over 2 centuries ago.

 

[Bereanz]

Completely untrue, show us this amazing scientific evidence (that you used the phrase scientific proof shows you have only a tenuous grasp on science in the first place) from any of those fields that shows a world wide flood during the time humans were around.

The truth is that the evidence shows that there was no global biblical flood and this was realised over 2 centuries ago.

I'll believe that when I see the "evidence". And I mean that, I will believe it if it's the truth. I see you have "Christian" as your religion or faith? Interesting. God bless you (if He exists) If He doesn't, then you're on your own, or perhaps maybe Bhudda bless you, would suffice?

 

[painted wolf]

Equally the sceintific proof of a world wide deluge is there as well. I'll show you mine if you show me yours, otherwise its just the usual Co2 emission talk fest. Every so called scientific discipline over the course of time, archeaology, biology, chemistry, mathematics, anthropolgy, zoology, cosmology etc etc proves (or at the very least does not refute) biblical accounts. There has yet to be any reputable bonna fide "scientific evidence" to refute anything recorded in the Bible in any way shape or form. Which is why Dawkins resorted to a devilish PR campaign in a failed attempt to discredit the character of the God of the Bible.

If you athiest "scientists" had any proof whatsoever, you wouldnt have the slightest inclination or need to even open a bible. In fact if you had conclusive proof of any kind, the bible woundn't be rushing of the shelves faster than any book known to mankind for, well, forever, inspite of no good press about it publically ANYWHERE, EVER!

The most ludicrous thing of all in this whole sad scenario is that Dawkin's turns to a weird and whacky twisted exigesis of holy writ as EVIDENCE for athiesm. Thats right folks, the Word of God is now the accepted text for atheism. This is no different than any other form of Cult religion on the planet, the Cults are known for twisting scripture to make it line up with what they want it to say. Atheism is now no different. It really is a laugh riot folks, and very entertaining.

What about non-atheist scientists?

Science isn't in the business of disproving the Bible... nor is it in the business of supporting it.

However, if you think geology supports a Biblical flood perhaps you could tell me how the Ashfall fossil beds happened? How could a fluffy dry ash kill so many critters in what is supposed to have been a flood?

Now, even if a global flood didn't happen literally... doesn't make the Bible false. It is a book of scripture and faith rather than a science text.

wa:do

 

[David M]

I'll believe that when I see the "evidence". And I mean that, I will believe it if it's the truth. I see you have "Christian" as your religion or faith? Interesting. God bless you (if He exists) If He doesn't, then you're on your own, or perhaps maybe Bhudda bless you, would suffice?

So you dont have any evidence of this worldwide deluge then, thought not.

 

[micrurus]

Every so called scientific discipline over the course of time, archeaology, biology, chemistry, mathematics, anthropolgy, zoology, cosmology etc etc proves (or at the very least does not refute) biblical accounts

i find it remarkable how you can just ignore the most fundamental cornerstones of all these sciences and then use them to claim something like this.

according to archeology;
the earth is 4.5 billion years old
life existed for atleast 3 billion years
humans didn't walk with dinosoures
mountains, rivers and vallys aren't ceated in 1 day.

according to biology:
all animals ware not created at the same time
humans are not special, they are symply an evolved mammel
snakes lost their leggs because they burrowed underground, not because god punished them.

according to chemistry;
there is nothing special about life, its al chemical
god did not create life (abiogenesis)

Mathematics;
calculate this, howmuch vollume would 2 animals of every species occupy
calculate the volume that noachs arc could have at most.
I guarantee you, it would not fit.

according to anthropology;
anthropologists are studying things like the migration to australia which happond aproximatly 40 000 years ago. acoording to the bible the earth didn't even exist back then.

zoology;
cmon man EVOLUTION. try fitting that into genesis. ( by the way zoology is biology)

cosmology;
our univese would be 14 billion years old
our earth would not be created by god but by the formation of a sun
BIG BANG THEORY

you forgot phisics, do you want me to give some examples of that?

 

[Bereanz]

i find it remarkable how you can just ignore the most fundamental cornerstones of all these sciences and then use them to claim something like this.

according to archeology;
the earth is 4.5 billion years old
life existed for atleast 3 billion years
humans didn't walk with dinosoures
mountains, rivers and vallys aren't ceated in 1 day.

according to biology:
all animals ware not created at the same time
humans are not special, they are symply an evolved mammel
snakes lost their leggs because they burrowed underground, not because god punished them.

according to chemistry;
there is nothing special about life, its al chemical
god did not create life (abiogenesis)

Mathematics;
calculate this, howmuch vollume would 2 animals of every species occupy
calculate the volume that noachs arc could have at most.
I guarantee you, it would not fit.

according to anthropology;
anthropologists are studying things like the migration to australia which happond aproximatly 40 000 years ago. acoording to the bible the earth didn't even exist back then.

zoology;
cmon man EVOLUTION. try fitting that into genesis. ( by the way zoology is biology)

cosmology;
our univese would be 14 billion years old
our earth would not be created by god but by the formation of a sun
BIG BANG THEORY

you forgot phisics, do you want me to give some examples of that?

Yeah why not.

Theories (and thats all they are) as to the age of the universe are not conclusive. They are based on shonky reasoning as to how long it's taken light to travel form the nearest star to earth. There is nothing to disprove that light from the stars did not instantly appear when they where created. Also just because somthing "appears to be old", does not prove that it is old.

Mathematicaly speaking based on KNOWN and proven human popualation growth statistics, if man was on the earth for only ONE Million Years (not a billion or millions of years), there would not be enough space for human beings in the whole UNIVERSE let alone the whole earth. THATS A MATEHMATICAL AND SCIENTIFIC FACT, not a theory.

Come on man. LOL

 

[micrurus]

Yeah why not.

Theories (and thats all they are) as to the age of the universe are not conclusive. They are based on shonky reasoning as to how long it's taken light to travel form the nearest star to earth. There is nothing to disprove that light from the stars did not instantly appear when they where created. Also just because somthing "appears to be old", does not prove that it is old.

gravity is a theory

the second law of newton was not conclusivly proven until someware in the 1990 ( dont know the exact year)

by the way, you cant get better than a theory in science.

also, my math example was a fact.

and,
you are rejecting many of the basic cornerstones of these sciences, how can you use these sciences in an arguement when you don't even agknowledge the basics on which they are founded?

 

[micrurus]

Mathematicaly speaking based on KNOWN and proven human popualation growth statistics, if man was on the earth for only ONE Million Years (not a billion or millions of years), there would not be enough space for human beings in the whole UNIVERSE let alone the whole earth. THATS A MATEHMATICAL AND SCIENTIFIC FACT, not a theory.

Come on man. LOL

i would like to see a mathematical model like that.
I do not claim that humans existed for billions of years, LIFE did.

 

[painted wolf]

Yeah why not.

Theories (and thats all they are) as to the age of the universe are not conclusive. They are based on shonky reasoning as to how long it's taken light to travel form the nearest star to earth. There is nothing to disprove that light from the stars did not instantly appear when they where created. Also just because somthing "appears to be old", does not prove that it is old.

Careful with your logic here... unless you are ok with a deceitful or trickster god?

Why would God create a universe that appeared to be older than it really is? What purpose does that serve other than to confuse and trick people?

Surely God wouldn't lie to us by making things look older than they really are?

wa:do

 

[micrurus]

Careful with your logic here... unless you are ok with a deceitful or trickster god?

Why would God create a universe that appeared to be older than it really is? What purpose does that serve other than to confuse and trick people?

Surely God wouldn't lie to us by making things look older than they really are?

wa:do

so... when Dawkings lies, hes an intelectual terrorist but when god lies he has some noble agenda?

 

[dallas1125]

Theories may be the highest point in science but it does not mean they are right. All of us need to be careful here.

As for:

Mathematicaly speaking based on KNOWN and proven human popualation growth statistics, if man was on the earth for only ONE Million Years (not a billion or millions of years), there would not be enough space for human beings in the whole UNIVERSE let alone the whole earth. THATS A MATEHMATICAL AND SCIENTIFIC FACT, not a theory.

I find this intriguing. Before you guys dismiss this claim as false maybe the poster could provide some valid (Including Non-Biased) information on it. A peer reviewed scientific study would be best. If you cant provide a source it is an unsupported claim which has no value in a debate.

 

[RedOne77]

Mathematicaly speaking based on KNOWN and proven human popualation growth statistics, if man was on the earth for only ONE Million Years (not a billion or millions of years), there would not be enough space for human beings in the whole UNIVERSE let alone the whole earth. THATS A MATEHMATICAL AND SCIENTIFIC FACT, not a theory.

Come on man. LOL

Think very carefully here. Do you honestly believe that if humans lived for a million years that we would have so much volume that the universe couldn't hold us?

 

[micrurus]

Theories may be the highest point in science but it does not mean they are right. All of us need to be careful here.

As for:


I find this intriguing. Before you guys dismiss this claim as false maybe the poster could provide some valid (Including Non-Biased) information on it. A peer reviewed scientific study would be best. If you cant provide a source it is an unsupported claim which has no value in a debate.

I would really welcome the chance to review such a model.

 

[dallas1125]

Think very carefully here. Do you honestly believe that if humans lived for a million years that we would have so much volume that the universe couldn't hold us?

I doubt the universe, there is just no way. Anyone who understands how large the universe is will agree. Although he does have a point with us overflowing the earth, true or false? Possibly but until supported it is a useless claim.

 

[RedOne77]

I find this intriguing. Before you guys dismiss this claim as false maybe the poster could provide some valid (Including Non-Biased) information on it. A peer reviewed scientific study would be best. If you cant provide a source it is an unsupported claim which has no value in a debate.

For sake of argument I can accept that said model is correct mathematically. What those types of claims are based on is something like; human populations grow X% per year on average in the past 100 years. Now lets start with a population of 2, and see what it would be like if said trend continued for W amount of years. In this case a million years. Sure I can buy that the numbers are calculated correctly, but the application is way off.

You can do the same type of mathematical models and show that if bacteria have been around for a hundred years their mass would be greater than the Earth itself.

They intentionally ignore that ecosystems have a finite amount of resources, and populations cannot continue to grow indefinitely. Certainly they cannot posses more volume than the universe.

 

[outhouse]

Ah the universe, what YEC will never know and or understand


[youtube]17jymDn0W6U[/youtube]
YouTube - The Known Universe by AMNH