The Flood (2)

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Keep looking.

It won't help you if we do. The more we look the more evidence we find that the flood of Noah, if it ever happened, could not have been global and that the earth has a history going back billions of years.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Keep looking.

Why? Should I keep looking for evidence of Atlantis, too?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why? Should I keep looking for evidence of Atlantis, too?

Whichever would be easier.

The boys at S.E.T.I. pwn you Internet scientists and your no-evidence-means-I-wont-look back to the Stonehenge.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Keep looking.

Good thing we do. Else we'd still be stuck in the dark ages and you'd have to find another pastime.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Whichever would be easier.

The boys at S.E.T.I. pwn you Internet scientists and your no-evidence-means-I-wont-look back to the Stonehenge.

Not quite. We've looked for the evidence for the Flood, found evidence against the Flood. We looked again, found even more evidence against the Flood. We could look yet again, but somehow I think we know what we're going to find...

At least SETI has actual scientific grounds justifying its search. Right now, the Flood is so unlikely that I'd rather look for Thor's Hammer.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not quite. We've looked for the evidence for the Flood, found evidence against the Flood.

How do you find evidence against the Flood?

On the one hand, you guys say you have found evidence against the Flood, but on the other hand, you guys ask question after question about it.

You can't have it both ways -- either you understand what the Flood was, or you don't; and believe me, I suspect you guys have no idea what it was.

It was more than just water -- much more.

If by 'evidence against', you mean that the Ark could not have been seaworthy, could not have held all those animals, etc., then I submit that that is a poor excuse for saying the Flood didn't occur as documented.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Keep looking.

It's your myth -- start looking.

 

[Hespera]

It won't help you if we do. The more we look the more evidence we find that the flood of Noah, if it ever happened, could not have been global and that the earth has a history going back billions of years.

Right. "keep looking" from the guy who has specifically said there is nothing to find because, 'god cleaned it up".

And who says the xtra water went to neptune to scare off wayward angels.

 

[Nathan Poe]

How do you find evidence against the Flood?

On the one hand, you guys say you have found evidence against the Flood, but on the other hand, you guys ask question after question about it.

because it takes a special kind of person -- think magical combination of stubborn, ignorant, and proud -- to handwave away such evidence.

The "Flood" itself is incidental -- the people who do exist are more interesting to study than the flood that didn't. So, we want to learn more about the people.

You can't have it both ways -- either you understand what the Flood was, or you don't; and believe me, I suspect you guys have no idea what it was.

Either an etiological myth or the desperate act of an incompetent, deceitful, sociopathic, and cowardly "supreme" being -- take your pick.

It was more than just water -- much more.

It would have to be -- otherwise, more fundies such as yourself would miss the point.

If by 'evidence against', you mean that the Ark could not have been seaworthy, could not have held all those animals, etc., then I submit that that is a poor excuse for saying the Flood didn't occur as documented.

Because God can do absolutely anything -- and of course, he has nothing better to do than prove you right at all times.

yes, yes, AV -- heard it all before.

Now run along and play.

 

[AV1611VET]

Right. "keep looking" from the guy who has specifically said there is nothing to find because, 'god cleaned it up".

And who says the xtra water went to neptune to scare off wayward angels.

You guys are the ones who say there should be evidence for this-and-that; so get out there and hunt for it.

We say there's [little or] no evidence; so which one of us is right?

Think about it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How do you find evidence against the Flood?

By looking for evidence, finding an absence, and citing that absence as evidence of absence. By looking at the civilisations that were conspicuisly unperterbed by a global flood - Damascus, the Nile, the whole of Asia, all show continuous habitation despite an alleged global flood. That counts as rather strong evidence against any Global Flood.

On the one hand, you guys say you have found evidence against the Flood, but on the other hand, you guys ask question after question about it.

Indeed. Why not? If nothing else, its fun to see those who believe in it flounder in the weight of contradictory evidence. Besides, this is the Creation & Evolution forum, and as part of the standard Creationist mythos, the Flood is allowed to be discussed here.

You can't have it both ways -- either you understand what the Flood was, or you don't; and believe me, I suspect you guys have no idea what it was.

Who says we don't understand it?

It was more than just water -- much more.

If by 'evidence against', you mean that the Ark could not have been seaworthy, could not have held all those animals, etc., then I submit that that is a poor excuse for saying the Flood didn't occur as documented.

Since I don't, your submission is moot.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can't have it both ways -- either you understand what the Flood was, or you don't; and believe me, I suspect you guys have no idea what it was.

Either an etiological myth or the desperate act of an incompetent, deceitful, sociopathic, and cowardly "supreme" being -- take your pick.

QED

 

[AV1611VET]

Who says we don't understand it?

You did -- in the 2nd and 3rd sentences of your post; not to mention Nathan's response.

 

[Delphiki]

I'll concede that any event of S.E.T.I. actually finding what they are looking for is highly improbable, considering the limitations of distance, C, and the reliance on some alien race already knowing we're here and beaming a signal directly at us.

However, this isn't an analogue to a search for the Christian God. Why?

Because we're told that God can be easily found by reading the bible, and sincerely accepting Christ -- which many people have tried to no avail. We're given a few key steps needed which are supposed to be easy (as long as God is just and forgiving), yet every attempt proves to be impossible to anyone with the capability of sound reason.

S.E.T.I., on the other hand is a search derived from it's own means, and works off at least some empirical knowledge of communications and astronomy.

While both searched are highly improbable to succeed, at least the search that S.E.T.I. performed is shown to actually have the possibility of producing results, even if it never has. We use radio communications every day. We're even still in contact with Voyager I (currently passing through the limits of our heliopause), the most distant known thing in the universe that broadcasts and receives signals - so that shows we can communicate with stuff that's pretty far out.. Yet, I've put my hands together in the past and have never had anyone answer me.

tl,dr; S.E.T.I. is at least based on principals that are shown and proven to work, despite having never found anything. Praying and searching for God is not.

 

[Cabal]

On the one hand, you guys say you have found evidence against the Flood, but on the other hand, you guys ask question after question about it.

Welcome to the Socratic method, child.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

How do you find evidence against the Flood?

On the one hand, you guys say you have found evidence against the Flood, but on the other hand, you guys ask question after question about it.

You can't have it both ways -- either you understand what the Flood was, or you don't; and believe me, I suspect you guys have no idea what it was.

It was more than just water -- much more.

If by 'evidence against', you mean that the Ark could not have been seaworthy, could not have held all those animals, etc., then I submit that that is a poor excuse for saying the Flood didn't occur as documented.

Just to be clear, I've never asked you a question regarding "the flood." And just to be clear, I'm quite certain I know more about "the flood" than you.

 

[Nathan Poe]

QED

You're confused, AV -- "QED" is not Latin for "My bluff has been called; I fold."

Try again, junior.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You did -- in the 2nd and 3rd sentences of your post; not to mention Nathan's response.

Fact is, AV -- if you tried to "explain" it, you'd run the risk of being corrected by someone more knowledgable then yourself.

I've yet to meet a literalist with that kind of confidence.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You did -- in the 2nd and 3rd sentences of your post; not to mention Nathan's response.

"By looking at the civilisations that were conspicuisly unperterbed by a global flood - Damascus, the Nile, the whole of Asia, all show continuous habitation despite an alleged global flood. That counts as rather strong evidence against any Global Flood."

Why do those sentences demonstrate a misunderstand of the Flood? The only part we really care about is the large amount of water flooding the entire Earth - an event that is somehow left not a shred of evidence. Do you deny that the Flood involved a flood?

 

[AV1611VET]

Just to be clear, I've never asked you a question regarding "the flood." And just to be clear, I'm quite certain I know more about "the flood" than you.

Just to be clear, you don't constitute "you guys".

You're not a one-man show.