How about the fact that there is no proof of it ever happening? Or the fact that it's impossible for the entire world to become flooded?
You know what I will for a second put my bible aside, and tell you all where I'm really coming from.
But why should you expect other women to face the exact same problems that you did, though? I'm sorry that you went through that, honestly, I am. But is that really any reason to take human rights away from a group of people?
The fact that it's logically impossible for the entire world to flood is proof that it never happened, though. If something can't happen, then it wouldn't have happened in the past.
taking away right's ? where did that come in? no.
no, i don't want you to feel sorry for me, there's no reason, i count it joy who i used to be and who i am now.
You could start with the fact that it couldn't happen - no where for the water to come from and nowhere for it to go.
let me ask you this?
Do some research of your own, instead of just assuming. This has possible answers.
You really haven't done any research into the Biblical side of the story, have you...Oh really? Let's see some evidence for these numbers.
Perhaps you've been brainwashed by those who try to discredit God's Word. The evidence is the same for all. If you're an Anglican, as your faith icon says, then you should be able to explain why there is sin and death in this world. Here's a hint; why did Jesus die for us?
Do some research of your own, instead of just assuming. This has possible answers.[/quoted]
I've yet to see one that added up or didn't cause more problems that it solved
enough, yes
The evidence is there, and nobody outside certain religous groups denies it - that sounds plausibly close to brainwashing to me.
I'm not going to debate the evidence itself as:
a. there are whole forums for that already
b. nobody denies the evidence except religious groups, that in itself points towards it being a religious denial of evidence.
That's explained best through a story (or stories) because that's the best way to explain it. I certainly don't claim to be able to do it better than the myth/storytellers God inspired to write Genesis.
Plainly false. Evidence can be used in support of a single conclusion - no piece of evidence, when scientific methodology is applied to it, can support two contrary viewpoints against each other. Anyone who says that evidence is open to interpretation is grasping to try and take the other side of the argument down to their level (in other words, making it something less than science). The evidence is the same for all, and the conclusion should be the same for all, but unfortunately there are those out there who are willing to be dishonest for their religious convictions.
...and the evolutionary, billions of years explanations all add up and don't cause other problems? The facts are this; nobody knows exactly what happened. All we have is theories. YET, we do have the Words which God gave to us. They tell us that we are created, death entered this world because of man's sin, Noah's flood did happen, Jesus was sacrificed in place of us for our sins, and this sinful and decaying world will be renewed in the future. That is the main storyline of Christianity. If you pick and choose what you like from God's Word, then you are not only creating conflict with many of today's secular scientists, but also with the cornerstone of your religion.
What evidence are people denying???
True. Yet, you choose to participate in this argument. This entire thread was started as a troll thread anyway. We might as well run with it.
Again, what evidence is being denied? Perhaps you're referring to some of the groups who think that fossils were only placed there by God in order to trick people? I'm taking a wild guess that that only accounts for a very small minority of Christians. That idea is one the same level as the secular idea that there's a magical cloud in space that creates comets, that life was created from nothing in a big random explosion, etc.
When the original language is clear about the time it took for God to create the Earth, the circumstances about the flood, and then our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus makes references (direct references, in the case of the flood) to these things as being factual in the Gospels, then it is a hermeneutical error to pass these certain things off as myths. They must be true, or else you've completely compromised the integrity of the Bible, including the entire basis and purpose for the Gospel.
There is one glaring problem here; something in the past cannot have scientific method applied to it. You cannot test the past. You can only look at the current evidence and make a guess. You should know that.
I think it's an interesting topic.
Here, I'll explain it for you so that you hopefully won't make this mistake again. See, this is what we normally attribute to a lack of familiarity with scientific methodology. A layman, looking at the topic, might arrive at the same conclusion you did - we cannot test the past. Unfortunately, the layman is incorrect - we can test the past. We cannot test the past in the sense that you might be thinking of, in terms of throwing it into a laboratory and performing some controlled experiments on it, but that isn't a requirement of science. Science is predictive. When a theory is established, its purpose is to make predictions, whether they are about things that happen, things that will happen, or things that have already happened that have not yet been explored. This last bit is key. If a prediction is made and evidence is later turned up that validates that prediction, the theory becomes stronger. If a prediction is made and evidence is turned up that invalidates the prediction, the theory needs to be altered (or in the most damning of cases, discarded). So, for instance, someone studying whether or not the flood has occurred can test that prediction by saying "If a global flood had happened, we should find X," where X is a certain piece of evidence that a global flood had occurred.
Cydonia? It's a geographical region of Mars. My title, however, is a reference to the song "Knights of Cydonia" by Muse.BTW, you still haven't told us about 'Cydonia'.
Not in the same way, no.
We don't need to know exactly what happened - we do know an awful lot about what happened.
Very well supported theories that make accurate predictions.
Indeed
indeed
Um, no. They tell us a story about Noah and a flood - they do not tell us that it actually happened as written.
Indeed
I'm not picking and choosing. We agree it's all true, we just disagree about which bits are factual.
That hardly needs spelling out, and I'm not going to do so just to keep you entertained.
Run with it all you like - I'm choosing not to bother debating the particulars of the evidence - it's too boring.True. Yet, you choose to participate in this argument. This entire thread was started as a troll thread anyway. We might as well run with it.
The language is clear about the details - within the context of non-factual literary styles.
He makes direct references, but none of his references imply those stories are factual. They are compatible with the stories being factual, but they are also compatible with the stories being shared cultural stories in the nature of myth etc.
This is simply untrue.
