Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
CF has rules against questioning a person's Christian-ness, so I'm forbidden from saying such things...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.
Hmm. Very interesting point.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.
You know, I can relate to this, seeing that the purpose of the flood itself was to erase.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).
As someone who has been a scientist for more than 40 years the only reponse I can have to this assertion isSo, 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?
CF has rules against questioning a person's Christian-ness, so I'm forbidden from saying such things...
I keep telling you guys it was a talking serpent.talking snake
The only thing Donald duck has in common with Balaam's donkey is that they were both intelligently designed.donkey book vs talking duck book.
Evidence of floods is world-wide. Evidence for The Flood is nonexistent.Flood evidence is worldwide.
How did this happen?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.
There is a conflict, in that science has found zero evidence for the biblical flood, and scads of evidence against it.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.
So what exactly would that model look like?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).
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)Hopefully, that will never happen.
Since reality changes with every new discovery, our interpretations of the Bible would have to change as well.
Wasn't the Grand Canyon considered scientific evidence of the Flood at one time?There is a conflict, in that science has found zero evidence for the biblical flood, and scads of evidence against it.
Yes -- and that is the main reason I refuse to subordinate the Bible to science.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.
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:There is a conflict, in that science has found zero evidence for the biblical flood, and scads of evidence against it.
Not to my knowledge. Reference?Wasn't the Grand Canyon considered scientific evidence of the Flood at one time?
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.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).
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.Yes -- and that is the main reason I refuse to subordinate the Bible to science.
I suppose it was considered scientific evidence as far as creationists were concerned but as you know that means less than nothing.Wasn't the Grand Canyon considered scientific evidence of the Flood at one time?
Er ... Mormons, JWs and Muslims are creationists.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?
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.Er ... Mormons, JWs and Muslims are creationists.
Your visa got you here, eh?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.
Consol, either stay on topic or get out of this thread.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?
You mean scientific evidence, right?There is certainly no evidence for this mythical miracle,
But it did leave masses of evidence all over the human bodies that were in the fire.but you wouldn't expect it to leave masses of evidence all over the earth
They all had intact skin, intact hair, intact clothing, and they smelt like they had just come out of the shower.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.
Not if the stories are true. They are.However, using one mythical story in the Bible to try justify another might be considered circular reasoning at best.
Wasn't the Grand Canyon considered scientific evidence of the Flood at one time?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?