We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Archeological evidence for the flood: real or no?
| 36 | 5368 |
I believe that the flood did happen if anyone has an objection to this, please feel free to question.
- 36 Replies
"And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God."
Of course, taken from Avorne's link (and the Bible, too). Anyway, this passage defies the Christian idea that God is always constant - that He transcends time, as he creates Man, regrets his decision at one moment, but does not regret it the next.
And also the OP shows a strain of The Galileo Gambit
They made fun of Galileo, and he was right.
They make fun of me, therefore I am right.
Some scientists are religious. Granted, 90% of them aren't (And yes, that's a real statistic. To be fair it may have changed since I last researched), but the ones who are probably use their intelligence to twist facts and then show the world.
...Uh. No offense?
Some scientists are religious. Granted, 90% of them aren't (And yes, that's a real statistic. To be fair it may have changed since I last researched), but the ones who are probably use their intelligence to twist facts and then show the world.
If they are truly religious, then they truly believe it, then it requires no "twisting of facts."
...Uh. No offense?
Don't anticipate criticism, and don't shy away from it. Criticism is good - it's what this forum is all about.
If they are truly religious, then they truly believe it, then it requires no "twisting of facts."
There are many who do, they often end up becoming discredited then complaining how they are being silenced by the establishment. You'll find this quite a bit with scientists advocating creationism.
Intellect is inverse to religiousness
Atheism is linked to IQ
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." ~Seneca the Younger
Pangea was what? 250 million years ago? Noah's ark according to creationists was roughly 4000 years ago. How does your arguement even make remote sense?
What?? why on earth are you mixing the two together? Million is not a term here. (the flood was about 3500 B.C.)
Intellect is inverse to religiousness
Atheism is linked to IQ
In some cases, true, but I know lots of very smart people who do beleive in God. I do it myself, and I would not call myself.. not clever/smart. OK, I know I look as if I'm saying all this awesome stuff about me and so on... but I wouldn't have such high grades if I wasn't smart.
In some cases, true, but I know lots of very smart people who do beleive in God. I do it myself, and I would not call myself.. not clever/smart. OK, I know I look as if I'm saying all this awesome stuff about me and so on... but I wouldn't have such high grades if I wasn't smart.
Your sample size is small and being in highscool, your grades doesn't accurately gauge your intelligence no matter much much potential you show. Additionally, I presume that a lack of information due to not completing your education and getting 'intellectual' degrees hampers youre decision making. You're sample size is also most likely not spread out well enough and is subject to bias. If you wish to attack the studies, I suggest that you either prove them and their methods invalid or conduct your own wide unbiased survey. Personal experience doesn't count as evidence for anything.
What?? why on earth are you mixing the two together? Million is not a term here. (the flood was about 3500 B.C.)
The biblical timeline would place the Noachian flood about that time, yes. However we know that the river valley civilizations of this time were alive and well both before and after this 'global flood'. Furthermore if there were a global flood we would have evidence in the geological column, which we do not, and we would also have traced our DNA to show a dramatic dwindling in the human, and indeed in all animal populations. Unfortunately for those who would like to believe so, we do not find anything which is congruent with the Biblical flood.
One question, most scientists agree that there was a global flood on Mars, yet Mars presently has no surface water. The Earth, however, which is covered in water never had a global flood. Anyone else see the irony?
This isn't really an argument, but I am trying to point out something that people will see as reasoning.
I am a little bothered by the "Out with faith" part of this community, that seem to take any chance they get to discredit any- and everyone who have the smallest trace of faith in them.
One was the "you pwnd them believers"-comment on the first page, others are the comment above about intelligence, which I don't believe actually have anything to do in this debate, however related to the topic you might believe it to be.
Please keep that out of here for the sake of a proper debate.
I have always thought of the great flood as something quite limited and local. Mostly because that entire branch of religion is quite young and also quite limited. I does make sense to me that it was just that. Noah's world was flooded, Noah collected two of the animals in his world (penguins not included), and went on sailing on his boat, which would not actually have had to be that big. Obviously it would not have made the greatest impact on the entire world, but where he lived, it was quite devastating.
And thus God hi5'd him, and told him to please ignore all the other people still alive, because they were not his people anyway.
This seem to be plausible to the story and the evidence that both Avorne's evidence show, and what Walker is mentioning (if you kindly ignore the hi5 part with God, of course).
I'll just leave this here. Please go check the description provided in the bottom bar under the video.
Noah's Global Flood Did Not Happen CASE CLOSED
I have always thought of the great flood as something quite limited and local. Mostly because that entire branch of religion is quite young and also quite limited. I does make sense to me that it was just that. Noah's world was flooded, Noah collected two of the animals in his world (penguins not included), and went on sailing on his boat, which would not actually have had to be that big. Obviously it would not have made the greatest impact on the entire world, but where he lived, it was quite devastating.
And thus God hi5'd him, and told him to please ignore all the other people still alive, because they were not his people anyway.
This seem to be plausible to the story and the evidence that both Avorne's evidence show, and what Walker is mentioning (if you kindly ignore the hi5 part with God, of course).
Sure it's possible there was a real localized flood the story was based on, but that isn't the claim here.
Also this might be something to consider even before saying this much.
Flood Stories from Around the World
The issue with that, Cenere, is that the Bible does not say it was a local flood, but a world wide one and that only Noah and his family and the animals on the ark survived. If this is not an accurate story then we must admit that the Bible is imperfect and should not be taken literally.
For me, though, I have to take everything based on the truth value I can apply to it, and since I cannot find any truth in the areas of the Bible which can be tested by science, then I must look at all of the book as though it were metaphor, beginning with "In the beginning God..."
Since we don't have an objective way to determine which parts of it are metaphor, which are falsehoods, and which are factually accurate then we must remain skeptical of the truth of any of it, especially because we cannot verify much of it, and the parts which we can have time and again proven false. So, either the Bible is false, or it is simply a fanciful and exaggerated story. Either way it is illogical to take any of it literally or assert it as fact or truth.
If the Bible can't be accurate or even consistent about something as simple as a flood, or who REALLY killed Goliath (if that ever actually happened) then how can one trust it to be accurate about the existence of deities and what (if anything) those deities want from us?
You must be logged in to post a reply!