Impreccable proof for the Biblical Flood

Hespera · Mar 7, 2011

DrkSdBls said:
This post makes me call Poe..... Or Troll.

There is something off. The misspeleed first word of the post, and the offer to "prove" something that cannot be proven, with info that is new to all of us but the poster.... those things are signs.

AV1611VET · Mar 7, 2011

DrkSdBls said:
This post makes me call Poe..... Or Troll.

You rang?

Oh, wait -- sorry -- you said Poe or Troll.

My bad.

rjc34 · Mar 7, 2011

AV1611VET said:
You rang?

Oh, wait -- sorry -- you said Poe or Troll.

My bad.

I wish you were just a fabulously overdone poe...

By the way, I am curious as to what goes on in the number fun subforum? Do you post all those numbers yourself? Or do you have a bot to do it?

chris4243 · Mar 7, 2011

Hespera said:
There is something off. The misspeleed first word of the post, and the offer to "prove" something that cannot be proven, with info that is new to all of us but the poster.... those things are signs.

Haha. Skitt's law!

AV1611VET · Mar 7, 2011

rjc34 said:
By the way, I am curious as to what goes on in the number fun subforum? Do you post all those numbers yourself? Or do you have a bot to do it?

Read the first five posts in this thread: 1

Then read post #13.

Let me know what you conclude, please.

(Note also those who applaud what I did, and compare it to you guys, who ridicule it.)

Hespera · Mar 7, 2011

chris4243 said:
Haha. Skitt's law!

Cool one, I had not heard of that law before.

I trust that you did in fact see that the myspelllinng was deliberate.

But then, earlier today I thought someone was doing a parody of creationism and it turned out she was (embarrassingly) serious. So i guess ya never know.

Now, as for the substance of my post,you do see how you look when you pack quite so much foolishness into the title of your first post?

Anyway, like i said earlier, you might save yourself a lot of vexation going at your project a different way, and look into the things that falsify the flood story. They are many and varied, and not necessarily hard at all to understand.

Split Rock · Mar 7, 2011

AV1611VET said:
Read the first five posts in this thread: 1

Then read post #13.

Let me know what you conclude, please.

(Note also those who applaud what I did, and compare it to you guys, who ridicule it.)

Hmmm... How about the admission from you later in the very same thread:

"It's easy when you get the keyboard shortcuts down to a science --- "

Admitting to using science!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AV1611VET · Mar 7, 2011

Split Rock said:
Hmmm... How about the admission from you later in the very same thread:

"It's easy when you get the keyboard shortcuts down to a science --- "

Admitting to using science!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Exial · Mar 7, 2011

chris4243 said:
Prove me wrong, I dare you!

I have no interested in proving you wrong. I already know you are wrong. The biblical flood has already been falsified.

Research1 · Mar 7, 2011

chris4243 said:
Hi, this is my first post here, and I joined because I believe I have some impeccable proof for the Biblical Flood as described in Genesis 7.

By summing geneaologies we know almost exactly when the flood happened:

The Masoretic, Septuagint and Samaritan manuscripts all give different dates. Though most agree the flood occured in the 3rd millenium BC. In my opinion your 2304 BC figure is too low, i put the flood around 2900BC - which fits the Sumerian Kings List.

Also the flood was only local. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever it was global, and whats even worse is the chronology. Stonehenge, the egyptian Pyramids etc were all created before 2304BC - yet they still stand. No flood destroyed them. So this means one of two things:

1. The flood was local.
2. The flood (if global) had to have predated the 3rd millenium BC by many thousands of years (to account for all the archeological finds around the world which date from as early as 8, 000 BC i.e the wall at Jericho).

Research1 · Mar 7, 2011

chris4243 said:
The data has to exist. What I want to know is whether anyone gathered it, and whether anyone analyzed it to check the prediction I made. If not, someone should.

The data does not exist for a global flood in 2304 BC. If you want to believe the flood was global then you have to put it back before all the oldest archeological findings i.e buildings, monuments etc.

A few examples: Tell Qarame (10, 700 BC), Gobekli Tepe (9, 000 BC), wall at Jericho (8, 000 BC).

The flood if it was global would have destroyed these sites and constructions, but evidently it didn't. So this means if you want to believe it was global, you have to put the date back before 11, 000 BC.

Blayz · Mar 7, 2011

chris4243 said:
And slander

Slander is spoken word, written word is libel

Well pardon me if I don't take your word for it, PhD or no.
en. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Paternal_mtDNA_transmission
jhered. oxfordjournals. org/ content/ 81 /1/ 66. short

I was wrong. Excellent. Thanks for the info, I apologise for making an incorrect blanket statement.

rjc34 · Mar 7, 2011

AV1611VET said:
Read the first five posts in this thread: 1

Then read post #13.

Let me know what you conclude, please.

(Note also those who applaud what I did, and compare it to you guys, who ridicule it.)

I conclude that you wasted a huge amount of time doing what amount to... essentially nothing other than a slightly bigger epeen. Although I guess time doesn't matter when you're just waiting to go to heaven.

AV1611VET · Mar 7, 2011

rjc34 said:
By the way, I am curious as to what goes on in the number fun subforum? Do you post all those numbers yourself? Or do you have a bot to do it?

AV1611VET said:

Read the first five posts in this thread: 1

Then read post #13.

Let me know what you conclude, please.

(Note also those who applaud what I did, and compare it to you guys, who ridicule it.)

rjc34 said:

I conclude that you wasted a huge amount of time doing what amount to... essentially nothing other than a slightly bigger epeen. Although I guess time doesn't matter when you're just waiting to go to heaven.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I'll go ahead and assume I've satisfied your curiosity then.

Phred · Mar 7, 2011

chris4243 said:
for aquatic species, no bottleneck.

Except most freshwater creatures cannot survive in salt water and most salt water creatures cannot survive in fresh water. The mixing of the two as would be required in a global scenario (excluding the fact that the energy expended would certainly boil the planet) would kill most aquatic species of both kinds. Thus there would be a HUGE genetic bottleneck for aquatic species.

AV1611VET · Mar 8, 2011

Phred said:
Except most freshwater creatures cannot survive in salt water and most salt water creatures cannot survive in fresh water. The mixing of the two as would be required in a global scenario (excluding the fact that the energy expended would certainly boil the planet) would kill most aquatic species of both kinds. Thus there would be a HUGE genetic bottleneck for aquatic species.

Nothing God couldn't handle, folks.

super animator · Mar 8, 2011

AV1611VET said:
Nothing God couldn't handle, folks.

Prove it that he did it.

super animator · Mar 8, 2011

FYI rjc34 , faith and delution are not the same thing. They have different definitions, similar yes, but different.

AV1611VET · Mar 8, 2011

super animator said:
Prove it that he did it.

That's simple to do.

No other entity had the power to do what God did when it came to the Flood.

God, for instance, is omnipresent; Satan, on the other hand, must walk the earth [to seek whom he may devour].

Some say this is what Halloween is for; so Satan can have time to rest while his minions take over for awhile.

Nathan Poe · Mar 8, 2011

AV1611VET said:
Read the first five posts in this thread: 1

Then read post #13.

Let me know what you conclude, please.

(Note also those who applaud what I did, and compare it to you guys, who ridicule it.)

I used to think that your number threads were the most pointlessly pathetic thing I'd ever seen on this forum.

Now I disagree -- cheering them on is.

And the sad thing is, you expect us to do likewise.

Impreccable proof for the Biblical Flood

Junior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Advocate of Truth

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Junior Member

Conflation of Blathers

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Active Member

Polygenist Old Earth Creationist

Polygenist Old Earth Creationist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Junior Mint

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Dreamer

Dreamer

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency