Originally posted by ZahlanziFrom a biological standpoint, the flood story obviously makes no sense at all. The distribution of various species on various land masses etc is a key point in favor of evolution.
😀
read my edit, did the kangaroos miraculously grew wings and flew to australia? lots of miracles, happy times.
Also one must ask how the fresh water fish and all the plant life survived the flood - there is no mention of Noahs aquarium in the ark.
But as I said, if the flood was a miracle, as it would have to be, what would stop God from doing just about anything including magically distributing the animals, recreating plants and fresh water fish etc etc.
Of course one is left wondering why the whole ark nonsense -God could quite easily have:
1. Placed a magical glass covering over everyone he wanted to save and just flash flooded the rest.
2. Simply zapped all the bad people with lightening from heaven.
3. Rendered all the bad peoples parents infertile so as not to have them born in the first place (the most humane solution).
But one must keep in mind that none of this is any more fantastical than belief in a person rising from the dead or any of the other miracles that more than half the worlds people believe in.
To claim belief in the supernatural (as most religions do) is essentially a claim that the universe does not always follow the laws of the universe - a rather odd and almost self contradictory claim - and one that has not once ever been scientifically identified.
2 edits
Originally posted by josephwOkay. I will do this, but first you will have to define what standard of proof would be sufficient
Prove that the story of Noah isn't true. If you can, then I will suspend my belief in God.
to get you to disbelieve the story. If you have a genuine standard, then I can prove it. If your
standard is something like, 'All scientists from all time periods have to agree on all the facts,'
then your standard is too warped for me (or anyone) to engage it.
Keep in mind that you were the one who once said 'If I want to believe that there are no errors
in the bible, then I will,' (Thread 71971, p. 9) so I'm not going to strive to prove something false
when you will admit of no standard of critical review.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesiowow you looked up his previous posts?
Okay. I will do this, but first you will have to define what standard of proof would be sufficient
to get you to disbelieve the story. If you have a genuine standard, then I can prove it. If your
standard is something like, 'All scientists from all time periods have to agree on all the facts,'
then your standard is too warped for me (or anyone) to enga ...[text shortened]... to prove something false
when you will admit of no standard of critical review.
Nemesio
Originally posted by David CMaybe, maybe not, but pi would = 3 (says so in the Bible).
Suspend your belief in God...just for a moment. What difference would it make?
I don't necessarily mean to you personally (although, feel free to answer along those lines if you are so inclined), but I mean in the everyday observation of the reality that surrounds us. Would 2+2 still = 4?
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe distribution of various species on various lands doesn't mean a thing that evolution is right, because it can also be used to say the global flood was real too. As for the fresh water fish, who said the oceans were salty? or as salty as they are now? The world would have changed dramatically because of the flood, and we have no way of knowing how the world looked before the flood. And true, God could have easily killed the other people in the ways you described and in many other ways. But he did it in a way that would mark the world and leave evidence of a global catastrophe. Zapping people with lightning wouldn't have left any evidence would it?
From a biological standpoint, the flood story obviously makes no sense at all. The distribution of various species on various land masses etc is a key point in favor of evolution.
Also one must ask how the fresh water fish and all the plant life survived the flood - there is no mention of Noahs aquarium in the ark.
But as I said, if the flood was a mira ...[text shortened]... almost self contradictory claim - and one that has not once ever been scientifically identified.
Originally posted by NemesioI would like to hear your proof that you have. And no I am not going to say that all scientists from all time periods have to agree on the same facts and all that extreme stuff. Even if you do prove to me that the global flood didn't happen, I won't change my belief in God. But I am curious as to what info you have against the flood. 🙂 So whenever ur ready to give it, I am here to recieve it. Also, your proof has to be correct, or atleast needs to have backup, not JUST ideas, although they could count too.
Okay. I will do this, but first you will have to define what standard of proof would be sufficient
to get you to disbelieve the story. If you have a genuine standard, then I can prove it. If your
standard is something like, 'All scientists from all time periods have to agree on all the facts,'
then your standard is too warped for me (or anyone) to enga ...[text shortened]... to prove something false
when you will admit of no standard of critical review.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Zahlanziwhy would u want to think the jews exxagerated it? they didn't. and yes they could have, neone can exxagerate nething they choose. but why are u hitting the global flood from that point? its a very weak argument.
isn't it more reasonable to assume that there was a not so grand flood(not the epic kill all flood) and the jews exaggerated it? or even more logical, that they took an ancient sumerian legend and adapted it?
Btw, the grand canyon was not made by the flood. it really wasn't.
the grand canyon really wasn't made by evolution either. it didnt take millions and millions of years to form by the colorado river. a canyon like that can happen very quickly.
Originally posted by thorvoBy what standard would you consider something 'disproven?' I could give all the proof in the
I would like to hear your proof that you have. And no I am not going to say that all scientists from all time periods have to agree on the same facts and all that extreme stuff. Even if you do prove to me that the global flood didn't happen, I won't change my belief in God. But I am curious as to what info you have against the flood. 🙂 So whenever ur ready t ...[text shortened]... to be correct, or atleast needs to have backup, not JUST ideas, although they could count too.
world and you could simply retort, 'Yeah, well, maybe, but I don't believe it.' What will a 'correct
proof' entail? What is 'backup?' Until I have a measure of judgment from you (and especially
from JosephW), I'm not going to waste time doing it, since I can't know if your mind is
fundamentally unchangeable.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziI remembered this particular post because I had engaged in a very concerted effort to help him
wow you looked up his previous posts?
understand that not only is the KJV not the best translation available, but utilized less desirable
manuscripts that were hitherto undiscovered. His contention was that a particular translation
(that is, the KJV) necessarily was the best (English) translation for all times and that the
Biblical scholarship that had transpired in the nearly four hundred years was irrelevant, and
demonstrated with his post that no matter what I said, no matter what proof to the contrary I
could offer, he would never change his mind.
I find this to be an intellectually offensive hermeneutic (and I said so) and since his proclivity
is towards such an viewpoint, I'm not going to invest any great effort to demonstrate that a
world-wide flood as described in the Bible is a mythological story which has a particular moral
of interest to its (proto-)Jewish readers.
Nemesio
Originally posted by thorvoI would seriously doubt that Nemesio would ever suggest that you change your belief in God based on something not being true in the Bible. There is this misconception that if you question something in the Bible it somehow makes you a "weaker" Christian or there is a discussion of a "slippery slope" where "well, if you don't believe that, what's to prevent you from believing anything in the Bible?" comes into play.
I would like to hear your proof that you have. And no I am not going to say that all scientists from all time periods have to agree on the same facts and all that extreme stuff. Even if you do prove to me that the global flood didn't happen, I won't change my belief in God. But I am curious as to what info you have against the flood. 🙂 So whenever ur ready t ...[text shortened]... to be correct, or atleast needs to have backup, not JUST ideas, although they could count too.
Originally posted by kirksey957Let me further clarify. I do not equate historicity (whether something actually transpired) with
I would seriously doubt that Nemesio would ever suggest that you change your belief in God based on something not being true in the Bible. There is this misconception that if you question something in the Bible it somehow makes you a "weaker" Christian or there is a discussion of a "slippery slope" where "well, if you don't believe that, what's to prevent you from believing anything in the Bible?" comes into play.
meaning. That the flood never happened does not imply that the story is without meaning, or
whether I don't treasure it as a valuable addition to the Bible. Indeed, I think the fact that it
didn't happen to be a richer mine than if it did, since I think it is a more meaningful story as an
indication of early Jewish belief than it is as a reflection of God's character.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesiobackup would be sources of ur info, also making sure the info you have comes from reliable sources, that its something not just invented but has evidence in favor of it. atleast something good so that I know you are getting this from somewhere and not just inventing it up. And how exactly am I supposed to give you a standard of whether something is proven or not? all I am asking is to see your proof, out of curiosity and interest. What's the big deal whether I think your proof is good enough for me or not? Sure, I might debate it, but isn't that the whole point of discussing topics? And it isn't a waste of time for you to share your proof. I am sure many would like to hear it.
By what standard would you consider something 'disproven?' I could give all the proof in the
world and you could simply retort, 'Yeah, well, maybe, but I don't believe it.' What will a 'correct
proof' entail? What is 'backup?' Until I have a measure of judgment from you (and especially
from JosephW), I'm not going to waste time doing it, since I can't know if your mind is
fundamentally unchangeable.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI didn't quite understand what you were saying there. Could you please reword it? thanks
Let me further clarify. I do not equate historicity (whether something actually transpired) with
meaning. That the flood never happened does not imply that the story is without meaning, or
whether I don't treasure it as a valuable addition to the Bible. Indeed, I think the fact that it
didn't happen to be a richer mine than if it did, since I th ...[text shortened]...
indication of early Jewish belief than it is as a reflection of God's character.
Nemesio