The Bible is simply people's over-active imaginations which started in the creation of the world and a wwflood which never happened as anyone with half a brain can verify through science which finds NO EVIDENCE of a wwflood which would easily be found.
From there the next person came along and added to the information the last one was given until we ended up with a really rediculous fantasy called Jesus who in his super-powers defeated death so the world would become saved. LOL.
Originally posted by WWindmillPLEASE can you help me to give me a scientific source that support this statment:
The Bible is simply people's over-active imaginations which started in the creation of the world and a wwflood which never happened as anyone with half a brain can verify through science which finds NO EVIDENCE of a wwflood which would easily be found.
From there the next person came along and added to the information the last one was given until we en ...[text shortened]... ntasy called Jesus who in his super-powers defeated death so the world would become saved. LOL.
"a wwflood which never happened as anyone with half a brain can verify through science which finds NO EVIDENCE of a wwflood which would easily be found."
I'm not defending the wwflood, I just want to know where did you get your information from as you speak with about science, and when we talk about science we should give references.
There is the water as given by xanthosnz. All known water would cover an imaginary flat earth to a depth of 20something meters.. making it an impossibility. Where did it all go!?
There is the inability to carry all the known species of life in such a small vessel and a genetically impossibility for them to evolve in a few thousand years.
How would the fish survive? What about plants?
Evidence of major flooding has been established from a long time ago yet NO EVIDENCE of a wwflood has ever been recorded.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
The Bible isn't intended to be a literal history and those who treat is as such should be taken for the fools they are. Rather, the Old Testament is writing from Hebrew oral teachings and it's intended to be one group of people's spiritual awakening.
As for the flood, there are a good many ancient sources of flood stories. The oldest I've found is a Sumerian account of a flood. The interesting part of the Noah story lies in the more intimate interaction of Noah with God, which you won't find in accounts from other cultures. Any of the flood stories tell you more about how the culture sees themselves and isn't meant to be history. If you want to treat it as such then you can be the fool, too.
Why isn't anyone answer my question? I now try for the third time:
So, if some christians say that the great flooding really was there, and other christians says that the great flooding wasn't there, then they cannot possibly believe the same thing, they cannot possibly be of the same religoin.
Either *was* it there, or it *wasn't* there, not both in the same time. This is another paradox of christianity.
Exactly the same paradox that some christian fear god as he actually is evil, others see him as a god of love. Do they believe in the same god, do the have the same religion?
This is a real paradox for me. They are all united in the same belief, yet they don't believe the same way. This is not a detail, this is fundamental stuff...
i was not around to see dino,s or other beasts that sience says lived but accept it, the same with the flood, tho global warming on a massive scale could have been, even my country england was joined to europe and then the waters came. and we now have north sea and the english channel, if you had live in the time with thier knowledge it would have looked like a world flood.
Originally posted by WWindmillYou sound like a ignorant little punk parading around like an intellectual powerhouse.
The Bible is simply people's over-active imaginations which started in the creation of the world and a wwflood which never happened as anyone with half a brain can verify through science which finds NO EVIDENCE of a wwflood which would easily be found.
From there the next person came along and added to the information the last one was given until we en ...[text shortened]... ntasy called Jesus who in his super-powers defeated death so the world would become saved. LOL.
Originally posted by FabianFnasthere are simply different sects of christianity. there is the stupid sect who believe the flood happened exactly like the bible said and there are those with common sense and the ability of reasoning.
Why isn't anyone answer my question? I now try for the third time:
So, if some christians say that the great flooding really was there, and other christians says that the great flooding wasn't there, then they cannot possibly believe the same thing, they cannot possibly be of the same religoin.
Either *was* it there, or it *wasn't* there, not both in ...[text shortened]... ief, yet they don't believe the same way. This is not a detail, this is fundamental stuff...
"god must love stupid people, coz he made so many"
Originally posted by ZahlanziOf course everyone seems to think that the 'stupid people' are everyone except themselves. Of course you abandon your reasoning ability when it comes to your own beliefs.
there are simply different sects of christianity. there is the stupid sect who believe the flood happened exactly like the bible said and there are those with common sense and the ability of reasoning.
"god must love stupid people, coz he made so many"
There really is no difference between someone who believes that the world was inundated by a global flood (via a miracle) and someone who believes that a person died and rose again three days later (via a miracle). Both go against all experience and scientific findings and nearly everyone who believes them does not think that either events followed the generally known laws of physics.
I personally don't think that either group of people is generally stupid (though stupid people are not uncommon as you rightly point out).
I simply think that all humans are quite capable of suspending reason in certain areas of their lives. I further think that people like you who wont admit that you are doing so, are being dishonest.
Originally posted by ahosyneySo does that mean that you think that blind faith in a religious book is a more trustworthy source of scientific information than reasoning in a human brain?
I don't know if you brain a trusted source of scientific information, but thank you any way!!