Dat Noah Flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-05-2015, 10:02 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(21-05-2015 09:59 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-05-2015 09:49 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  If there were no mass extinctions in the record, that would say something against the Flood. There are either one from a Flood or multiple extinctions. Again, we're interpreting data differently.

You are misinterpreting by ignoring the geologic data.
There is no combination of evidence that suggests an extinction event caused by a flood.

I've already cited on such combination, the sudden ascendancy of literature/documents, language families, agronomy, tool making, etc. circa when we all know the Bible says the Flood occurred.

But we know you don't give me credence and don't give credence to creationist papers and websites that give 10 or 15 or more such combinations.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2015, 10:05 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(21-05-2015 10:07 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  
(21-05-2015 09:52 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  1. I don't need it to be true, but I think you might.

2. What do you think I take as an allegory with such detail in the Bible? "I'm going to have you and your family build a ship because I'm going to judge man for sin and preserve your family. Get on that boat or die." You are using the phrase "admittedly taken as allegory or myth" but you must be thinking of yourself or some other Christian, perhaps.

Thanks.

I need it to be true? Is there something really wrong with you? I am not the one trying to refute all science on dating, ice sheets, ship building, canyon formation, genetics, population growth...etc, you dishonest assjack.

And yes I am speaking in the general sense, where some stories are viewed as not exact and literal historic accounts. You do believe evolution to be true from what you have stated here before - so how can the creation of man and woman follow the biblical account if evolution explains our coming to be as we are now?

And back to the flood, answer the question of why does it have to be true? You could concede it as an unlikely event as noted in the OT story and go on as a believer in christ - can't you? Why the need for the events to be factual?

Sometimes it's hard to converse with you because you are very black and white. For example, was it hard to conceive that I believe in Evolution and that Eve was also created from Adam?

When I say "the Flood needs to be true for you" I am suggesting that it sounds as if you would not be willing to trust Jesus for salvation unless some of the "big" events in the Bible can be demonstrated to be consistent with modern science.

Jesus made statements about the end times including "Just as in Noah's time, X and Y will occur in the future..." and that would be one obvious link for me that Noah is a real person in history and that the facts of Genesis are one guarantor for the NT and vice versa.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2015, 11:19 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(22-05-2015 10:05 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(21-05-2015 10:07 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  I need it to be true? Is there something really wrong with you? I am not the one trying to refute all science on dating, ice sheets, ship building, canyon formation, genetics, population growth...etc, you dishonest assjack.

And yes I am speaking in the general sense, where some stories are viewed as not exact and literal historic accounts. You do believe evolution to be true from what you have stated here before - so how can the creation of man and woman follow the biblical account if evolution explains our coming to be as we are now?

And back to the flood, answer the question of why does it have to be true? You could concede it as an unlikely event as noted in the OT story and go on as a believer in christ - can't you? Why the need for the events to be factual?

Sometimes it's hard to converse with you because you are very black and white. For example, was it hard to conceive that I believe in Evolution and that Eve was also created from Adam?

When I say "the Flood needs to be true for you" I am suggesting that it sounds as if you would not be willing to trust Jesus for salvation unless some of the "big" events in the Bible can be demonstrated to be consistent with modern science.

Jesus made statements about the end times including "Just as in Noah's time, X and Y will occur in the future..." and that would be one obvious link for me that Noah is a real person in history and that the facts of Genesis are one guarantor for the NT and vice versa.

1. When it comes to some of these topics, yes it is quite black and white. It would be a lie to claim evolution to be true and also that a woman is created magically from a man's rib. You need as much "grey" areas as you can get to keep your fantasy world intact - not me.

2. I am not looking for salvation you presumptuous dolt - only facts.

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Timber1025's post
22-05-2015, 11:35 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(22-05-2015 10:05 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Jesus made statements about the end times including "Just as in Noah's time, X and Y will occur in the future..." and that would be one obvious link for me that Noah is a real person in history and that the facts of Genesis are one guarantor for the NT and vice versa.

So what? This proves nothing unless you presuppose that (1) Jesus really existed, (2) he really said that, and (3) he really was the all-knowing son of God, who couldn't possibly be wrong about anything. Absent any proof of any of those three things, we can only say that 40-50 years after Jesus died, someone who probably never met him wrote a story in which Jesus references a common scripture that Jews in general "believed" -- and so would Jesus, being a good Jew. None of this proves that Noah was a real person or that the flood really happened. It's just one story referencing another. So what?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
22-05-2015, 06:36 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(22-05-2015 10:02 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(21-05-2015 09:59 AM)Chas Wrote:  You are misinterpreting by ignoring the geologic data.
There is no combination of evidence that suggests an extinction event caused by a flood.

I've already cited on such combination, the sudden ascendancy of literature/documents, language families, agronomy, tool making, etc. circa when we all know the Bible says the Flood occurred.

But we know you don't give me credence and don't give credence to creationist papers and websites that give 10 or 15 or more such combinations.

An ancient text can be interpreted to give an approximate time for an event for which there is no evidence. Right - so convincing. Dodgy

No, you have no credibility with me because you have not presented anything credible.
Your confirmation bias is blindingly obvious to everyone but you.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
26-05-2015, 02:14 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(22-05-2015 11:19 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  
(22-05-2015 10:05 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Sometimes it's hard to converse with you because you are very black and white. For example, was it hard to conceive that I believe in Evolution and that Eve was also created from Adam?

When I say "the Flood needs to be true for you" I am suggesting that it sounds as if you would not be willing to trust Jesus for salvation unless some of the "big" events in the Bible can be demonstrated to be consistent with modern science.

Jesus made statements about the end times including "Just as in Noah's time, X and Y will occur in the future..." and that would be one obvious link for me that Noah is a real person in history and that the facts of Genesis are one guarantor for the NT and vice versa.

1. When it comes to some of these topics, yes it is quite black and white. It would be a lie to claim evolution to be true and also that a woman is created magically from a man's rib. You need as much "grey" areas as you can get to keep your fantasy world intact - not me.

2. I am not looking for salvation you presumptuous dolt - only facts.

If you say so. I believe God intervenes at times in the natural world, and this is called "super-natural" or "above the usual, natural". As soon as you prove naturalism to me, we can abandon the Adam and Eve line of thinking...

...I'm sorry to hear you are looking only for facts that don't lead to the Bible, Jesus and salvation. That seems a little narrow-minded to my way of thinking.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2015, 02:16 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(22-05-2015 11:35 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(22-05-2015 10:05 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Jesus made statements about the end times including "Just as in Noah's time, X and Y will occur in the future..." and that would be one obvious link for me that Noah is a real person in history and that the facts of Genesis are one guarantor for the NT and vice versa.

So what? This proves nothing unless you presuppose that (1) Jesus really existed, (2) he really said that, and (3) he really was the all-knowing son of God, who couldn't possibly be wrong about anything. Absent any proof of any of those three things, we can only say that 40-50 years after Jesus died, someone who probably never met him wrote a story in which Jesus references a common scripture that Jews in general "believed" -- and so would Jesus, being a good Jew. None of this proves that Noah was a real person or that the flood really happened. It's just one story referencing another. So what?

The hypothetical method (to falsify a possibly falsifiable claim) would need to presuppose certain things, yes. Some of the greatest apologists of the past several centuries were skeptics/atheists who employed that method on the Bible in an attempt to falsify its claims. You presuppose many things, as do many people, I'm sure.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2015, 02:17 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(22-05-2015 06:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-05-2015 10:02 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I've already cited on such combination, the sudden ascendancy of literature/documents, language families, agronomy, tool making, etc. circa when we all know the Bible says the Flood occurred.

But we know you don't give me credence and don't give credence to creationist papers and websites that give 10 or 15 or more such combinations.

An ancient text can be interpreted to give an approximate time for an event for which there is no evidence. Right - so convincing. Dodgy

No, you have no credibility with me because you have not presented anything credible.
Your confirmation bias is blindingly obvious to everyone but you.

You are a skillful logician and pundit, however, Chas, you are completely saying the reverse of my point above.

Better would be "An ancient text states a time for the formation of modern documents, society, agronomy, etc., etc. which are verifiable as history. Pre-history loses all these threads of society quickly..."

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2015, 02:39 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(26-05-2015 02:16 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(22-05-2015 11:35 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  So what? This proves nothing unless you presuppose that (1) Jesus really existed, (2) he really said that, and (3) he really was the all-knowing son of God, who couldn't possibly be wrong about anything. Absent any proof of any of those three things, we can only say that 40-50 years after Jesus died, someone who probably never met him wrote a story in which Jesus references a common scripture that Jews in general "believed" -- and so would Jesus, being a good Jew. None of this proves that Noah was a real person or that the flood really happened. It's just one story referencing another. So what?

The hypothetical method (to falsify a possibly falsifiable claim) would need to presuppose certain things, yes. Some of the greatest apologists of the past several centuries were skeptics/atheists who employed that method on the Bible in an attempt to falsify its claims. You presuppose many things, as do many people, I'm sure.

I presuppose reasonable things, such as the reliability of logic and my senses (while realizing that my senses can sometimes be deceptive). That is entirely different from presupposing that because a character in a story mentions a character from another story, the older character must have really existed and the story in which he appears must be literally true. That is only reasonable with the help of several additional dubious presuppositions. The whole thing is a house of cards. Noah is no more likely to have existed in real life than Captain Ahab. And if Jesus existed, he is highly unlikely to have been anything like the characters portrayed in the Gospels (yes, I said characters, plural -- because the Jesus of John's gospel is a different character than the Jesus of the other three gospels).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2015, 03:04 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(26-05-2015 02:14 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I believe God intervenes at times in the natural world, and this is called "super-natural" or "above the usual, natural". As soon as you prove naturalism to me, we can abandon the Adam and Eve line of thinking...

...I'm sorry to hear you are looking only for facts that don't lead to the Bible, Jesus and salvation. That seems a little narrow-minded to my way of thinking.

So you "believe" god intervenes at times - who friggin' cares what you believe. Let me guess, he only intervenes at those times you need him or cannot explain something. Prove naturalism you say, this from some idiot that believes in the adam and freaking eve children's tale - grow up!

I don't discriminate between facts I come across moron, as they will lead to the coreect and supported conclusion. Show me a fact that supports the need for salvation, or a woman created from my rib - go ahead i am waiting.

You are exhausting man. Were you strung out on drugs or molested or something? You cling to ridiculous claims too much to be a sane person with no serious skeletons in his closet.

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Timber1025's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: