• 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.

Impreccable proof for the Biblical Flood

Hespera

Junior Member
Dec 16, 2008
7,237
201
usa
✟8,860.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
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.
 
Upvote 0

rjc34

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2011
1,382
16
✟1,769.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Others
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?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,999
52,622
Guam
✟5,143,339.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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.)
 
Upvote 0

Hespera

Junior Member
Dec 16, 2008
7,237
201
usa
✟8,860.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
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.
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :(
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,999
52,622
Guam
✟5,143,339.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :(
;)
 
Upvote 0

Research1

Polygenist Old Earth Creationist
Feb 14, 2011
314
2
England
✟476.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
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).
 
Upvote 0

Research1

Polygenist Old Earth Creationist
Feb 14, 2011
314
2
England
✟476.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
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.
 
Upvote 0

Blayz

Well-Known Member
Aug 1, 2007
3,367
231
60
Singapore
✟4,827.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Upvote 0

rjc34

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2011
1,382
16
✟1,769.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Others
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.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,999
52,622
Guam
✟5,143,339.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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.)
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.
I'll go ahead and assume I've satisfied your curiosity then.
 
Upvote 0

Phred

Junior Mint
Aug 12, 2003
5,373
998
✟22,717.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
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.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,999
52,622
Guam
✟5,143,339.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,999
52,622
Guam
✟5,143,339.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
51
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
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.
 
Upvote 0