The flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-01-2011, 07:44 PM
RE: The flood
Quote:The problem is that since they are atheists their opinions are biased. An atheist must believe that the story of the flood is false regardless of the evidence.

Without any other of your fallacious statements, I would have lost all respect for you with just those two sentences. This is such a heignous statement, and let me explain why, because in the world of thinking, we explain our statements thoroughly.

1. Why are you even on this site if you believe the second sentence?
2. This God story is false BECAUSE of evidence, not regardless of it (how about your respond with a secular source to prove me wrong?)
3. What are Atheists biased towards? Atheism is a non-theistic belief, you are biased BECAUSE of your theistic belief. Atheism has no inherent bias, because it has no inherent beliefs. This is what we call a logical statement.
4. The statement "an atheist must believe" proves that you are extremely misinformed on what an atheist is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2011, 08:18 PM
RE: The flood
Would you set out to prove a story in the Koran or the Vedas is true? No. Why? Because you are biased against that story, or because you recognize that the burden of proof to prove the story is on those who do believe and support it. Also because you understand that the scientific method does not support beginning with a conclusion and then seeking out ways to support the conclusion. When the only way the Hindu or Muslim can use facts to support his story is to torture those facts as you have tortured these facts to support the flood myth, you will see why we reject the evidence as being supportive of anything.

Muhammad didn't fly to Jerusalem on a winged horse, the Goddess Kali is not reincarnated in the form of a little girl with superfluous appendages, and there has never been a flood that covered the earth as a result of forty days and nights of rain.

BTW, the highest point on the planet is Everest which is 8848 meters above sea level. The bible says it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. Thus it had to rain 221 meters per 24 hour period for 40 days nonstop in order to completely submerge the planet. That's nearly ten meters of rain per hour, or one meter every six minutes, or about 16 and a half centimeters of water per minute or over 25 millimeters per second.

That's not a rainfall. That's just a constant deluge of water dropped on every single inch of the planet every second for over a month.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2011, 08:06 AM
RE: The flood
theophilus Wrote:It is possible to make assumptions about past events by assuming that the processes we see now were exactly the same in the past, but it can't tell us whether or not there was some kind of divine intervention that would interrupt those processes.
theophilus Wrote:We have no way of knowing what conditions were like before the flood. It is possible that their wasn't any difference between the water in the ocean and that in other bodies.
theophilus Wrote:This shows that before the flood the topography of the earth was entirely different from what it is today. It was much flatter so that the water now found in the oceans covered the earth completely. The flood ended when the continents that exist now rose above the rest of the earth's surface. The waters didn't have to cover Mt. Everest because it didn't exist then.

All of these rebuttals of yours are based on the bible. There are more too(such as solving the meat problems), but most are based on the bible. You have to understand, we do not share that common ground. Quoting the bible means nothing to a group of atheists, and it simply wont until you demonstrate the bible is true. So, just as a quick exercise, I want to see if you can defend the flood without using the bible as evidence.

I'm not even particularly interested in trying to disprove the flood to you. I just want you to see that through a non-Christian perspective, the flood seems unlikely/impossible.

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2011, 10:39 AM
RE: The flood
(06-01-2011 12:33 PM)ThinkingNorseman Wrote:  Perfect you say. hmm.. wouldn't perfect perfect people in context be the kind of people who would not disobey him in the first place? If they were perfect the fall of Adam could not possibly have happened, could it?
Apparently God's concept of perfection is different from yours. He created people who had free will and could choose whether or not to obey or disobey him.

(06-01-2011 07:44 PM)TheKetola Wrote:  What are Atheists biased towards? Atheism is a non-theistic belief, you are biased BECAUSE of your theistic belief. Atheism has no inherent bias, because it has no inherent beliefs.
It is the belief that there is no God. Bias is something that is inherent in human nature. We have a tendency to reject anything which contradicts what we already believe. Atheists aren't exempt from this tendency.

(07-01-2011 08:06 AM)ashley.hunt60 Wrote:  Quoting the bible means nothing to a group of atheists, and it simply wont until you demonstrate the bible is true. So, just as a quick exercise, I want to see if you can defend the flood without using the bible as evidence.
Evidence for the flood is found in the fossil record.
Quote:The conventional explanation of the fossil order is progressive evolutionary changes over long periods of time. But this explanation runs into a huge challenge. Evolution predicts that new groups of creatures would have arisen in a specific order. But if you compare the order that these creatures first appear in the actual fossil record, as opposed to their theoretical first appearance in the predictions, then over 95% of the fossil record’s “order” can best be described as random.

As the Flood waters rose, they buried organisms in the order that they were encountered. This means the major groups found in the fossil record appear according to where they lived, not when they lived.On the other hand, if these organisms were buried by the Flood waters, the order of first appearance should be either random, due to the sorting effects of the Flood, or reflect the order of ecological burial. In other words, as the Flood waters rose, they would tend to bury organisms in the order that they were encountered, so the major groups should appear in the fossil record according to where they lived, and not when they lived. This is exactly what we find, including this fossil record within the Grand Canyon—Grand Staircase.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...sil-record

Most scientists who study fossils begin with the belief that the flood never took place to they don't even consider it as a possible explanation.

The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of God.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2011, 10:50 AM
RE: The flood
Quote:Evidence for the flood is found in the fossil record.

No, it's not. That's nonsense. The various fossils show up in varying different layers of rock, showing different eras and epochs. There are literally millions of years or sediment build up between these epochs, which means that there are millions of years difference between when these different plants and animals lived and died.

As for why most scientists don't consider the flood a possible explanation, it's because there is absolutely no evidence in the geological record to support the idea that it ever happened. Science deals with evidence, not fantasy.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2011, 05:18 PM
RE: The flood
(07-01-2011 10:39 AM)theophilus Wrote:  Evidence for the flood is found in the fossil record.

You obviously don't know what evidence is. This statement gaurantees that your credibility within any science or serious religious study is absolute zero. It is impossible to be more wrong than that statement.

When I find myself in times of trouble, Richard Dawkins comes to me, speaking words of reason, now I see, now I see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2011, 05:26 PM
RE: The flood
Although I think discussion with you isn't going anywhere, I'd still like to see your response to this one thing, so I'll repost it just to remind you.
________
me Wrote:
you Wrote:Psalm 104:6-9.

Psalms are songs made by people. You claim that the topography of the earth was very different before than after 'the flood' and defend that claim with a part of a psalm. In one or two psalms it is said that the earth is established and unmovable, so do you agree that the earth is fixed?
________

Correct me when I'm wrong.
Accept me or go to hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2011, 11:15 PM
RE: The flood
(07-01-2011 10:39 AM)theophilus Wrote:  Evidence for the flood is found in the fossil record.

[Image: Webcomic_xkcd_-_Wikipedian_protester.png]

My reason for being is to serve as a cat cushion. That is good enough for me. Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2011, 04:09 AM
RE: The flood
SIGH* I think this discussion is pointless, when someone throws irrational arguments the whole conversation becomes irrational, in my opinion we should let him be and continue with our lives because this isn't going anywhere. Peace.

"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world.”
-Georgia Harkness.

"La fe es patrimonio de los pendejos. (Faith is patrimony of the dumbfucks)."
-Diego Rivera
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2011, 08:23 AM
RE: The flood
Yeah, I feel that a dog chasing his tail is being more productive than us right now. I think this guy might be a troll. That, or incredibly delusional/brainwashed.

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: