And not all views are correct either. One has a book written by God (which I know you do not accept) the other is assumtions based on interpretations, that could very well be inacurate.
Upvote
0
-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
the flood
- Thread starter Brotha Ballew
- Start date
Mechanical Bliss
Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
And yours has been proven to be incorrect.Alessandro said:
Prove it.
Unless you can demonstrate that they are wrong, there is no reason to accept them as wrong especially given such strong supporting evidence. "What if..." scenarios like "what if scientists are wrong" does not serve as evidence.
However, there is evidence that falsifies your view. No matter what happens, that will never change.
Upvote
0
Not necessarily either MB, dont forget that Noah and his family lived before the flood, so they had such knowledge.
Upvote
0
You missed the point. Ill try to explain it better, probably my last post for awhile, since you seem to have disproved your original claim that you can prove the flood using the same scientific evidence that disproved it, since I doubt "god did it" was part of that evidence. 
.
A simple version.
-Chinese People are writting down chinese history.
Flood
-Everyone is dead.
-no more chinese history writters.
-Chinese history should stop.
Noahs decendants spread
-Noahs decendants are not chinese.
-Noahs decendants can not write down chinese history that matches perfectly with chinese history.
A gap forms from after chinese historians died and Noahs historians started.
No Gap is Found In chinese History, or in any other civilization out there.
.A simple version.
-Chinese People are writting down chinese history.
Flood
-Everyone is dead.
-no more chinese history writters.
-Chinese history should stop.
Noahs decendants spread
-Noahs decendants are not chinese.
-Noahs decendants can not write down chinese history that matches perfectly with chinese history.
A gap forms from after chinese historians died and Noahs historians started.
No Gap is Found In chinese History, or in any other civilization out there.
Alessandro said:
Upvote
0
Mechanical Bliss
Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
There is no break between written records and human artifacts produced before and after the time when this flood supposedly occurred. Your position fails in this regard as well.Alessandro said:
Upvote
0
Arikay, let us look at from this way, how do you know that the Chinese came before the flood, they very well have came after the flood, hense no dramatic gap.
I am, I am looking at the same thing with what I believe it is, whether you see it as viable or not is not the problem.
I am, I am looking at the same thing with what I believe it is, whether you see it as viable or not is not the problem.
Upvote
0
Mechanical Bliss
Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
So you have to push back the flood date to before young earth creationists think the earth was created.Alessandro said:
For the third time:
If the flood occurred ~4000-~4500 years ago, then there MUST be a gap because civilizations existed in China prior to that time period. We have written documents that substantiate this. There is no gap during this period. Your claim has an implicit prediction that there MUST be a gap (unless of course you shift the date of the flood around). The prediction is false.
Upvote
0
MB, again, just to show that there could be different views of the same thing, how can there be a gap when a new begginning took place? One was taking place, suddnely flood came, destroying all the traces of the old one, leaving the new one alone starting at a fast rate becasue of the previously acquired knowledge.
Upvote
0
Mechanical Bliss
Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
This means that the flood occurred before young earth creationists claim the earth was created. Furthermore, civilizations wouldn't start rapidly if there were so few people on earth. Apparently people must have been breeding like rabbits (and organisms evolving at a rapid rate).Alessandro said:
You are making unsubstantiated "what if..." statements, not providing evidence.
For the fouth time: since Chinise civilizations pre-date the supposed date of the flood, and since there is no break in the record of this culture--not to mention any record of a flooding event as depicted in your religious text--the gap that MUST occur did not. Your prediction fails.
Now before you continue moving the goalposts around: when did the flood occur? If it occurred somewhere in the ballpark of 4000-4500 years before present, we have records of civilizations existing at this time uninterrupted by such an event and your claim is false from an archaeological standpoint (not to mention a geologic one). If it occurred at a different time from classical YECism, then indicate it. It's time for you to stop dancing around all of this already.
Upvote
0
Nothing fails, these are all views, relax. Records of such civilisations existing is derived how? And how accurate is it? Earth dating methods by evolution as an example already do not go with what the Bible says, whats makes the dating of civilisations any different?
Upvote
0
1)Um, how are things dated by Evolution?
2) You do realize that there are still some that dont believe a round earth goes with the bible either, this is science, not theology.
3) Do you have anything more to your claims that unsubstantiated "what ifs" and "god did its"?
Edit: Carefull attacking dating systems, besides the fact that you would need to provide How the dating systems got messed up (so far you have yet to provide a How for anything, except evoking deity) you also are endangering the bible as things such as the dead sea scrolls have been accepted as true and non fruads by dating them.
2) You do realize that there are still some that dont believe a round earth goes with the bible either, this is science, not theology.
3) Do you have anything more to your claims that unsubstantiated "what ifs" and "god did its"?
Edit: Carefull attacking dating systems, besides the fact that you would need to provide How the dating systems got messed up (so far you have yet to provide a How for anything, except evoking deity) you also are endangering the bible as things such as the dead sea scrolls have been accepted as true and non fruads by dating them.
Upvote
0
Mechanical Bliss
Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
Not all views are equal. Your view has zero evidence and evidence that demonstrates it to be false.Alessandro said:
Some architecture still stands today. Writing and other artifacts are discovered by archaeologists.
Very accurate, I'd say unless you are going to claim that people's eyesight is actually a satanic deception.
Then your interpretation of the Bible MUST be wrong. The radiometric dating methods are demonstrably reliable and there is no basis to throw them out. There is no such thing as "dating methods by evolution." Evolution and the validity of radiometric dating are independent. "The Bible says so" is not a valid reason here. Archaeologists use radiometric dating but they also use dendochronology (tree ring dating) for more recent dates as well, which is evidently incredibly accurate as well.
So since you avoided the question here it is yet again: when did the flood happen in years before present?
Upvote
0
We will have to do this another time, I have some things I need to attend to. Hold your thoughts though.
Upvote
0
Mechanical Bliss
Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
Don't bother coming back to do this another time if you're going to pull the same stunt you did today. Unless you have something substansive to add or unless you are actually going to address what people write, there's no reason to click on the reply button. Approximately ten pages later and you have not offered any explanation of the facts. You have repeated, as predicted, your same silly mantra that you are automatically infallibly right "because the Bible says so." Put up evidence, or simply don't bother with the same nonsense again.Alessandro said:
Upvote
0
My last thought is,
around 131 posts later, we have yet to see you substantiate your original claim. Unless, later, you can provide us with a substantiation of the claim that the same evidence that disproves the flood actually proves it, I will assume that your claim is false, as your only arguments for your claim (thus far) are unsubstatiated "what ifs" and "god did it" and those are not good enough to back up your claim.
around 131 posts later, we have yet to see you substantiate your original claim. Unless, later, you can provide us with a substantiation of the claim that the same evidence that disproves the flood actually proves it, I will assume that your claim is false, as your only arguments for your claim (thus far) are unsubstatiated "what ifs" and "god did it" and those are not good enough to back up your claim.
Upvote
0
Mechanical Bliss
Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
Right, it doesn't change the fact that your claim that the global flood happened is false.
Upvote
0
Chinese
Egyptian
Sumerian
Indus Valley
All of these cultures have very well documented cultures before the proposed time of the flood. Cultures that existed in the same form AFTER the proposed flood date. Same language, religions, art, architecture, dress, craft making, etc. If the flood happened when YEC's indicate, then it would not just be a matter of proving how this happened in a single culture (which is already impossible), but how this happened in ALL these cultures.
The only option for YEC's is to push back the flood date (as some have). But this means NOT taking the literal plain meaning of the text as true, but allowing extra-biblical evidence (history and archealogy in this case) to influence how you interpret Scripture.
Once you do this, the ultimate question arises: if you are going to do this with regard to the date of the flood, why would you not do it for the proposition of whether the flood was global at all. If you allow extra-biblical evidence to inform your interpretive process (choosing interpretation A over interpretation B because, all else being equal, why not go with the one that fits the evidence), you should be willing to do this with all the evidence that argues against a global flood. Or a young earth, for that matter.
Egyptian
Sumerian
Indus Valley
All of these cultures have very well documented cultures before the proposed time of the flood. Cultures that existed in the same form AFTER the proposed flood date. Same language, religions, art, architecture, dress, craft making, etc. If the flood happened when YEC's indicate, then it would not just be a matter of proving how this happened in a single culture (which is already impossible), but how this happened in ALL these cultures.
The only option for YEC's is to push back the flood date (as some have). But this means NOT taking the literal plain meaning of the text as true, but allowing extra-biblical evidence (history and archealogy in this case) to influence how you interpret Scripture.
Once you do this, the ultimate question arises: if you are going to do this with regard to the date of the flood, why would you not do it for the proposition of whether the flood was global at all. If you allow extra-biblical evidence to inform your interpretive process (choosing interpretation A over interpretation B because, all else being equal, why not go with the one that fits the evidence), you should be willing to do this with all the evidence that argues against a global flood. Or a young earth, for that matter.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
