Does a GLOBAL FLOOD truly seem like the BEST explanation for seashells on mountains?

[rikerjoe]

I have two. [...]
The average life expectancy which has never exceeded 80 years, and is usually much less.

Really? I guess you only have one then, since life expectancy is more than 80 years in 31 countries! The top one is 89.68 years! (Monaco)

 

[createdtoworship]

Thankfuly Habakkuk didn't have to fill his car up with petroleum. Or power his computer with coal-generated electricity.

Times were simpler then. Everyone took a hike. All the time.

thats kinda funny


hiking...

BTW nuclear energy is way more efficient.

(just make your nuke facility bomb proof, literally)

(like sandiego's)

but that is beside the point,

funny post,

 

[Lucy Stulz]

thats kinda funny


hiking...

BTW nuclear energy is way more efficient.

(just make your nuke facility bomb proof, literally)

(like sandiego's)

but that is beside the point,

funny post,

Sadly even nukes require geology!

 

[TheBear]

According to the storyline, Noah's FLOOD killed everyone on the planet except for the few on the Ark. If that's true, then how do you account for cultures and peoples writing about a great flood, unless they were writing about a local flood?

How do you explain that???

I did not understand your comment,

can you expand?

thanks

Just what I suspected. Either you have real low reading comprehension skills, (which would be direct reflection of your intelligence), or, you're intentionally lying. Which is it?

 

[createdtoworship]

Just what I suspected. Either you have real low reading comprehension skills, (which would be direct reflection of your intelligence), or, you're intentionally lying. Which is it?

OOOOOOOHHHHHH

I get it now.

Not that I am slow, but I just didn't understand that your premise is mainly that if the flood killed off everyone, there would be no one left to tell the story!

Now that was not a lie. (I wish you would stop saying that, or one of these posts will end up in a point on your record).

Anyway,

let me turn the tables a bit.

My whole argument lies in the fact that the telephone game line of reasoning regarding story telling is in effect here. Mainly that the story always gets wrong by the end of the game. In this case it's no different. The original and oldest account of the flood is in fact the ancient hebrew one. All others are dated later, and as a result show they are offshoots of the Biblical story. You have to remember the Old Testament was around thousands of years before canonization of the Bible. It is highly likely that on of the children of noah carried the story wherever they settled, and this story got passed on, and passed on.

In fact I have a very interesting article to show here:

Travels of Noah into Europe

I have downloaded the pdf from online, however the Book is so old you can't read it, so I included a translation above.

Again I have not read through the material, just sent from a friend of a friend.

But if you like more info on the flood accounts, we can look into similiarities and differences.

Also how did you like that ancient chinese language telling of the flood? An Ark and other stuff?

 

[TheBear]

OOOOOOOHHHHHH

I get it now.

I don't think you do.

Not that I am slow,

LOL!!! I've watched one of your videos.

My whole argument lies in the fact that the telephone game line of reasoning regarding story telling is in effect here.

No. Your initial premise was FLOOD confirmation stories. Now that I pointed out the glaring flaw of such an argument, you morph your position.

That's dishonest! That's lying.

 

[USincognito]

Natural selection will never produce in a being anything injurious to itself

[n a being? I thought it was populations that evolved, not individuals. To the point where individual have to be sacrificed for the benefit of the population or the community.

You need to go back and edit that quote of me because it looks like you're quoting me instead of Darwin.

That's awesome. You realize that Darwin was familiar with extinctions, right?

Natural selection will never produce in a being anything injurious to itself, for natural selection acts solely by and for the good of each. No organ will be formed, as Paley has remarked, for the purpose of causing pain or for doing an injury to its possessor. If a fair balance be struck between the good and evil caused by each part, each will be found on the whole advantageous. After the lapse of time, under changing conditions of life, if any part comes to be injurious, it will be modified; or if it be not so, the being will become extinct, as myriads have become extinct.​

Darwin - Origin



Where Genesis 1 or 2 does it mention 6 different extinctions? Where does it mention the Cambrian Explosion? Was it Gen. 1:20 where it describes the 5th day and life in the seas and the air? It can't be because there were no fish, much less whales in the Cambrian and birds wouldn't evolve for another 400 million years.

 

[USincognito]

No, you don't. You don't even know why that happened. Your investigation into that has been as shallow as any of your attempt to understand science.

He has been provided a link to the Rogers Commission Report several times. The fact that he continues troll C&E and mention science/scientists in conjunction with his perverse grave dancing on the brave Challenger dead, tells us he didn't read it.

 

[AV1611VET]

He has been provided a link to the Rogers Commission Report several times. The fact that he continues troll C&E and mention science/scientists in conjunction with his perverse grave dancing on the brave Challenger dead, tells us he didn't read it.

Kinda like saying the Bible is wrong without having read It, isn't it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Kinda like saying the Bible is wrong without having read It, isn't it?

Except that most people who claim the Bible is wrong have actually read it.

 

[rikerjoe]

Except that most people who claim the Bible is wrong have actually read it.

 

[USincognito]

Kinda like saying the Bible is wrong without having read It, isn't it?

The fact that AV didn't respond with "I did read it" is yet another indicator that he hasn't and has no intention on doing so.

 

[Joshua0]

Except that most people who claim the Bible is wrong have actually read it.

Not really, they usually spend five or ten minutes on skeptics and scoffers dot com and they think that makes them an expert. The enemy has come to steal, kill and destroy. He is the father of lies and he is able to teach lies to those that are deceived. "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." John 10:10

 

[Mr Strawberry]

The fact that AV didn't respond with "I did read it" is yet another indicator that he hasn't and has no intention on doing so.

If he has made a conscious decision to make himself look a fool over and over again, even when told how to correct the fault, there isn't much anyone can do about it.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Not really, they usually spend five or ten minutes on skeptics and scoffers dot com and they think that makes them an expert. The enemy has come to steal, kill and destroy. He is the father of lies and he is able to teach lies to those that are deceived. "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." John 10:10

Is this literal or metaphorical killing, stealing and destroying?

 

[USincognito]

If he has made a conscious decision to make himself look a fool over and over again, even when told how to correct the fault, there isn't much anyone can do about it.

Some of us have decided to take a proactive approach.

This message is hidden because AV1611VET is on your ignore list.

I wish others would do the same.

 

[Tomk80]

Some of us have decided to take a proactive approach.

This message is hidden because AV1611VET is on your ignore list.

I wish others would do the same.

Indeed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except that most people who claim the Bible is wrong have actually read it.

So? what's your point?

Was that meant to negate mine?

 

[AV1611VET]

The fact that AV didn't respond with "I did read it" is yet another indicator that he hasn't and has no intention on doing so.

I didn't read it, and I have no intention of doing so.

It was probably written from a scientific standpoint ... meaning scientists are vindicating scientists.

Romans 2:15b ... and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

 

[AV1611VET]

Not really, they usually spend five or ten minutes on skeptics and scoffers dot com and they think that makes them an expert. The enemy has come to steal, kill and destroy. He is the father of lies and he is able to teach lies to those that are deceived. "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." John 10:10

In addition, even if they did read it, I believe this parable applies ...

Mark 4:

3 Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow:
4 And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up.
5 And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth:
6 But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.
7 And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit.
8 And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred.
9 And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.