How many of you think there was a World Wide Flood? please vote.

corvus_corax · Jul 22, 2007

AuraTwilight said:
Anyway, I agree. If the flood isn't true, how can ANY of the Bible be true? Simple answer: It isn't.

Allow me the indulgence of quoting you with bold emphasis (all mine)

AuraTwilight said:
Anyway, I agree. If the flood isn't true, how can ANY of the Bible be true? Simple answer: It isn't.

This, of course, is nothing more than a false dichotomy. You are succumbing to the Creationist type of argument - e.g. "If one single part of evolutionary theory is proven wrong, then the entire theory is wrong".
You, my fellow forumite, have "missed the middle"
Are you actually willing to state that ALL parts of the bible are wrong?
Quite frankly, you are wrong, and in the gravest error of opening up a false dichotomy, which (of course) is something that usually fundamentalists (of any stripe- christian, muslim, jewish and/or atheist) are guilty of.

Move beyond your black and white statements of falsehood and take a few moments to learn what you are speaking of

karzma · Jul 22, 2007

the bible is right. the flood did happen. i explained how it happened, with science, on page 2

oh yeah, and the earth was created in 6 days too.

Baggins · Jul 22, 2007

karzma said:
the bible is right. the flood did happen. i explained how it happened, with science, on page 2

oh yeah, and the earth was created in 6 days too.

Could you point me to the layer within the geological record that you suggest is the layer laid down by this global flood?

I'd expect a layer that is present worldwide and has the same look worldwide.

Help me out I can't find it.

Baggins · Jul 22, 2007

I think I may have been Poe'd or Trolled here.

FishFace · Jul 22, 2007

Baggins said:
I think I may have been Poe'd or Trolled here.

I thought so, but then I read a bit about Nibiru on WP and... well, it's possibly serious.

Baggins · Jul 22, 2007

FishFace said:
I thought so, but then I read a bit about Nibiru on WP and... well, it's possibly serious.

If only they'd use smilies

AuraTwilight · Jul 22, 2007

This, of course, is nothing more than a false dichotomy. You are succumbing to the Creationist type of argument - e.g. "If one single part of evolutionary theory is proven wrong, then the entire theory is wrong".
You, my fellow forumite, have "missed the middle"
Are you actually willing to state that ALL parts of the bible are wrong?
Quite frankly, you are wrong, and in the gravest error of opening up a false dichotomy, which (of course) is something that usually fundamentalists (of any stripe- christian, muslim, jewish and/or atheist) are guilty of.

Move beyond your black and white statements of falsehood and take a few moments to learn what you are speaking of

Except that unlike the Theory of Evolution, the Bible is claiming to be 100% true and the Word of God. If any of it is wrong, how can we trust a single word of it?

FishFace · Jul 22, 2007

AuraTwilight said:
Except that unlike the Theory of Evolution, the Bible is claiming to be 100% true and the Word of God. If any of it is wrong, how can we trust a single word of it?

Easy: you apply standard historical critical techniques to it. We can say that Jesus probably existed, although not necessarily, because to establish the existence of a person doesn't usually require much evidence. (Although due to circumstances, it's a bit different in this case, it's not so different.) Likewise, the Bible is clearly an account of the beliefs of people in ancient times, even if those beliefs do not correspond to reality.
But for more outlandish things like floods and miracles, we can't take the Bible at face value. The crucial thing is, in real life, if someone tells us that they have a cousin called Mark, we'll likely believe them. If they tell us that they just saw someone rise from the dead, we probably wouldn't - there's precisely the same amount of evidence in each case, but "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Chalnoth · Jul 22, 2007

karzma said:
Yes, I believe in a worldwide flood. It was caused when the planet Nibiru travelled so close to Terra during its orbit that the gravity of Nibiru caused the water on Terra to move slightly towards Nibiru. This effect was like the moons effect on our oceans and seas which cause the high and low tides; however the high tide effect that Nibiru's gravity had on Terra was so high that the oceans were actually rising above the continents; and as Terra spinned on its axis this meant that the water would have washed over all the land mass of Terra multiple times over multiple days until Nibiru moved far enough away on its orbit to the point where it was no longer close enough for its gravity to have such an effect on Terra's water.

This was a once in a universes lifetime event. The calculations show that even in billions of years of future orbitations of Terra and Nibiru, Nibiru will never pass close enough to Terra to cause this to happen again.

Tell me. Why would you believe this? There is no evidence whatsoever of this ever having occurred, even though there most certainly would be geological evidence of such a disastrous event.

five · Jul 22, 2007

The only global flood I support is the great Jello flood of 1697. From it rose my personal Lord and Savior, Bill Cosby.

five · Jul 22, 2007

I should add that it's actually the year 310....I just said 1697 because not many people are into CoC.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Jul 23, 2007

FishFace said:
I thought so, but then I read a bit about Nibiru on WP and... well, it's possibly serious.

Serious or not Nibiru is quite thoroughly debunked on the Bad Astonomy website. Poe's law is a natural consequence of the fact that it seems to be impossible to come up with a scenario so absurd that you can't get at least some people to believe in it.

notto · Jul 23, 2007

anffyddwyr said:
Only one creationists????

Why are you surprised? Christian != Creationist.

Did you expect everybody here to be a creationist? Why would you be under such a demonstratively false conclusion?

Maybe you jumped the gun a bit in your conclusion?

AV1611VET · Jul 23, 2007

I voted yes.

Yggdrasil · Jul 23, 2007

AV1611VET said:
I voted yes.

Despite there being zero evidence of one? Sounds good to me.

AV1611VET · Jul 23, 2007

Yggdrasil said:
Despite there being zero evidence of one?

Keep looking.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Jul 23, 2007

AV1611VET said:
Keep looking.

The problem for the "flood believers" is that not only is there no evidence for a global flood, but there is massive evidence from biology, geology, paleontology and archeology showing that such an event could not have occured and the more science "keeps looking" the more evidence it finds against such a flood.

Jet Black · Jul 23, 2007

AV1611VET said:
Keep looking.

we did, and found loads of evidence that could not have formed in a flood. The idea of a global flood was falsified over a hundred years ago.

Loudmouth · Jul 23, 2007

AV1611VET said:
Keep looking.

The only way for creationism to survive is if you convince christians to stop looking at a very young age.

FishFace · Jul 23, 2007

AV1611VET said:
Keep looking.

In other news, the scientific community has embraced a new theory that the moon is made, not of cheese or rock, but of marshmallow. When asked for evidence for this surprising change of heart, a scientist working at the observatory where the theory was first worked out, he said, "Keep looking - we're sure it's true!"

How many of you think there was a World Wide Flood? please vote.

Do you think there was a World Wide Flood?

Yes there was.

No there was not.

I don't know.

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Contributor

Raptor Jesus

Raptor Jesus

Contributor

Legend

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Contributor

Jet Black

Guest

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency