Evidence for a global flood

[Wiccan_Child]

I think it's just his way of saying "Voices in my head tell me to do things and I obey them because they scare me."

He should probably go to a psychiatric ward, or something. Get those voices checked out.

CF has rules against questioning a person's Christian-ness, so I'm forbidden from saying such things...

 

[Doveaman]

Flood evidence is worldwide. Problems is that Noah's flood was just the latest of many large ones and it's evidence is mixed and jumbled with past flood evidence.

Hmm. Very interesting point.

I also think that science has to develop better models to study flood evidence (so far as I know there is no flood model that is concerned with the removal of all flood evidence by that very flood itself).

You know, I can relate to this, seeing that the purpose of the flood itself was to erase.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

So, let me see if I have this straight. Your contention is that people become scientists in order to gain power? Exactly what power is it you think they are gaining?

As someone who has been a scientist for more than 40 years the only reponse I can have to this assertion is

 

[VehementiDominus]

CF has rules against questioning a person's Christian-ness, so I'm forbidden from saying such things...

Oh, don't worry, I'm not saying he's not a Christian.

I understand he believes the voices in his head are really God and the Devil.

My point is, that anyone with strange voices in their head "influencing" them should probably get help.

 

[Doveaman]

talking snake

I keep telling you guys it was a talking serpent.

donkey book vs talking duck book.

The only thing Donald duck has in common with Balaam's donkey is that they were both intelligently designed.

 

[Orogeny]

Flood evidence is worldwide.

Evidence of floods is world-wide. Evidence for The Flood is nonexistent.

Problems is that Noah's flood was just the latest of many large ones and it's evidence is mixed and jumbled with past flood evidence.

How did this happen?

I don't see how it can be sorted out in any meaningful way. I also don't believe that the story of the flood has been accurately translated or interpreted. And as I don't believe there is a real conflict with science concerning evidence I think the story must be examined more carefully.

There is a conflict, in that science has found zero evidence for the biblical flood, and scads of evidence against it.

I also think that science has to develop better models to study flood evidence (so far as I know there is no flood model that is concerned with the removal of all flood evidence by that very flood itself).

So what exactly would that model look like?

1. There is no evidence for the flood.
2. Therefore, the flood happened.
3. ???
4. Profit!

Of course, you wouldn't be a supporter of this model since you said flood evidence is worldwide, so why would you want a model that contradicts that evidence?

 

[Nostromo]

Hopefully, that will never happen.

Since reality changes with every new discovery, our interpretations of the Bible would have to change as well.

Surely you understand that it's our view of reality that changes with each discovery, that we see it in a way we thithertofore didn't. (I've waited a while to put that in a sentence)

So what if your interpretation would have to change? This is exactly what Nathan is getting at when he says you deify your Bible. Isn't it painfully obvious to you that however clear you think your writing is, someone else could misinterpret it? That's just how language is, your thoughts cannot always be perfectly transcribed into the words of a particular language, and those words cannot always be perfectly translated back into the original idea in the mind of someone else. Something is lost along the way because you cannot exactly know their mind.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is a conflict, in that science has found zero evidence for the biblical flood, and scads of evidence against it.

Wasn't the Grand Canyon considered scientific evidence of the Flood at one time?

 

[AV1611VET]

Surely you understand that it's our view of reality that changes with each discovery, that we see it in a way we thithertofore didn't.

Yes -- and that is the main reason I refuse to subordinate the Bible to science.

 

[Doveaman]

There is a conflict, in that science has found zero evidence for the biblical flood, and scads of evidence against it.

This reminds me of Daniel's three friends when science found zero evidence for them being in the biblical fire, and scads of evidence against it:

"Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego came out of the fire, and the satraps, prefects, governors and royal advisers crowded around them. They saw that the fire had not harmed their bodies, nor was a hair of their heads singed; their robes were not scorched, and there was no smell of fire on them." (Dan 3:26-27).

 

[Orogeny]

Wasn't the Grand Canyon considered scientific evidence of the Flood at one time?

Not to my knowledge. Reference?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

This reminds me of Daniel's three friends when science found zero evidence for them being in the biblical fire, and scads of evidence against it:

"Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego came out of the fire, and the satraps, prefects, governors and royal advisers crowded around them. They saw that the fire had not harmed their bodies, nor was a hair of their heads singed; their robes were not scorched, and there was no smell of fire on them." (Dan 3:26-27).

There is certainly no evidence for this mythical miracle, but you wouldn't expect it to leave masses of evidence all over the earth and unlike the global flood there is no evidence against it other than the fact that people wouldn't be expected to be unaffected by such a fire. However, using one mythical story in the Bible to try justify another might be considered circular reasoning at best.

 

[Nostromo]

Yes -- and that is the main reason I refuse to subordinate the Bible to science.

Reality was the way it was before we knew about it. Matter was made of atoms before anyone considered it, and the rocks were very old before anyone tested them. You seem to think that the only thing we can know is that the Bible is true and that we can know that absolutely, ignoring that we observe and learn about it in the same way we do anything else except with less critical thinking.

 

[visa]

Wasn't the Grand Canyon considered scientific evidence of the Flood at one time?

I suppose it was considered scientific evidence as far as creationists were concerned but as you know that means less than nothing.

AV1611VET I think you already know that you and some of your fellow creationists frustrate the **** out of some of the people here with your refusal to see the bible for what it is, a collection of stories that have as much truth in it as does the Wizard of Oz, you also know the reason why people other than creationists are here, even Mormons, Scientology, JW's and Muslims get less attention than creationists, do you ever find that disturbing?

Other Americans must obviously think creationists are dangerous, what do you think? we know it's not because creationists are right, their beliefs don't even make sense, is it because Americans see creationists as a danger to children? are creationists dragging the educational standards of the US down the toilet? are creationists doing it out of spite? you do realise that creationists are playing right into the politicians hands by acting like idiots, politicians just love stupid people because they are much easier to control, what does it take to rally the Republicans? the flag, the church and the military, shout loud about all three and you will get elected, they forget the policies and just concentrate on the base emotions.

Only American Republicans could elect someone like George Bush and only American Republicans could feel good that they had, I suppose he was smarter than all the other Republicans, the world woke up when George bush was elected because they could see how dangerous the American people could really be, and I don't mean dangerous in a positive way, I mean it in a negative way, American Christianity is downright dangerous, fanatically dangerous.

 

[AV1611VET]

you also know the reason why people other than creationists are here, even Mormons, Scientology, JW's and Muslims get less attention than creationists, do you ever find that disturbing?

Er ... Mormons, JWs and Muslims are creationists.

 

[visa]

Er ... Mormons, JWs and Muslims are creationists.

I can finally see why Americans arm themselves to the teeth, if I couldn't get out of America I would build myself a fortress because I would be surrounded by nuts.

Would you say that America was Gods country?

 

[AV1611VET]

I can finally see why Americans arm themselves to the teeth, if I couldn't get out of America I would build myself a fortress because I would be surrounded by nuts.

Your visa got you here, eh?

But for the record, you would be free to leave.

 

[Orogeny]

I can finally see why Americans arm themselves to the teeth, if I couldn't get out of America I would build myself a fortress because I would be surrounded by nuts.

Would you say that America was Gods country?

Consol, either stay on topic or get out of this thread.

 

[Doveaman]

There is certainly no evidence for this mythical miracle,

You mean scientific evidence, right?

but you wouldn't expect it to leave masses of evidence all over the earth

But it did leave masses of evidence all over the human bodies that were in the fire.

and unlike the global flood there is no evidence against it other than the fact that people wouldn't be expected to be unaffected by such a fire.

They all had intact skin, intact hair, intact clothing, and they smelt like they had just come out of the shower.

I would consider all this to be evidence against the Babylonian fire.

However, using one mythical story in the Bible to try justify another might be considered circular reasoning at best.

Not if the stories are true. They are.

 

[AV1611VET]

BUMPED FOR OROGENY:
​

Wasn't the Grand Canyon considered scientific evidence of the Flood at one time?