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.
Here are Christian Geologists.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=RpUyb1ETyCC0pnIgjvoOjQ&bvm=bv.65788261,d.aWc
Well that was disappointing. And you are wrong. You can address my points, you just can't refute them and have chosen instead to retreat to AV's stance of "Evidence can take a hike". Except AV is honest about it whereas you are trying to give the impression that your position fits the evidence in some way.
Here's the way it works: if your model doesn't fit the evidence, then your model is wrong. If you're going to ignore the evidence, don't pretend you're interested in having a real discussion. I'll repost my last post here in case you want to reconsider and actually try to defend your model. Or, as I said, you should just say that the evidence can take a hike like AV does very explicitly and stop pretending you care about the evidence fitting your model.
The first 'evidence' is the story itself (bible scholars generally agree that it is presented as an actual event). There are no human survivors save the those on the ark. You are speculating outside of the bounds of the story. All of my speculations are safely within the bounds of the story.
That could be because there was no flood, had there been they would have found the witness marks by now.Noah's flood was inconsequential in regard to the earth's geology.
That could be because there was no flood, had there been they would have found the witness marks by now.
A world wide flood that was around for a year, who are you trying to kid?Four thousand or more years is a long time for such faint evidence to be preserved.
Four thousand or more years is a long time for such faint evidence to be preserved.
they have found evidence that the Mediterranean sea has dried up at least twice.
(I can't post links but look it up)
Not really. We know about far more ancient floods.
A million year old flood will leave more evidence than a one year flood will.
The first 'evidence' is the story itself (bible scholars generally agree that it is presented as an actual event). There are no human survivors save the those on the ark. You are speculating outside of the bounds of the story. All of my speculations are safely within the bounds of the story.
The first 'evidence' is the story itself (bible scholars generally agree that it is presented as an actual event). There are no human survivors save the those on the ark. You are speculating outside of the bounds of the story. All of my speculations are safely within the bounds of the story.
I think you mean "biblical historians" generally agree it was an actual event.
Which historians would those be and what substantiation did they use to meet the historical method to determine whether it was likely something happened in the past?
You are ignoring the evidence that humans can survive extended periods at sea with little to no supplies or preparation. That isn't speculation, that is objective fact. You are trying to claim that your extrabiblical speculations are justified but it is unreasonable to suggest that in the entire world there were ships already stocked and supplied. That's an obvious double standard. Feel free to explain why my assumption is unreasonable. Just repeating that the bible says only eight survived is insufficient.
You have also failed to supply evidence that corpses would poison the air, poison the rain and prevent fishing or that they would cluster around all the other ships in the world but not the Ark.
The Flood as you envision it is not consistent with all of humanity being wiped out. You have offered no rebuttal to this beyond your repeating that the bible says everyone died so everyone must have died. Your model is inconsistent with evidence and reason. So again, why not just say it: Evidence can take a hike.
How do you figure?
Not really. We know about far more ancient floods.
The flood didn't last a million years, but you will twist whatever you're told to keep yourself believing, good luck.A million year old flood will leave more evidence than a one year flood will.
I think you mean "biblical historians" generally agree it was an actual event.
Which historians would those be and what substantiation did they use to meet the historical method to determine whether it was likely something happened in the past?
No, I mean what I said: Bible scholars generally agree that the story is presented literally/literarily as an actual event, whether or not they believe it actually happened.
The flood didn't last a million years, but you will twist whatever you're told to keep yourself believing, good luck.
Methinks you're trying to lure me into a 'spitting' contest.
No, I'm trying to get you to address the points I've made:
You are ignoring the evidence that humans can survive extended periods at sea with little to no supplies or preparation. That isn't speculation, that is objective fact. You are trying to claim that your extrabiblical speculations are justified but it is unreasonable to suggest that in the entire world there were ships already stocked and supplied. That's an obvious double standard. Feel free to explain why my assumption is unreasonable. Just repeating that the bible says only eight survived is insufficient.
You have also failed to supply evidence that corpses would poison the air, poison the rain and prevent fishing or that they would cluster around all the other ships in the world but not the Ark.
No, I mean what I said: Bible scholars generally agree that the story is presented literally/literarily as an actual event, whether or not they believe it actually happened.
Do you know the difference between scholars and historians? Do you understand how historians follow the historical method to determine what likely happened in the past? Do you know what type of evidence historians require, to establish something likely happened in the past?
Do you have a name of a legit biblical historian, who claims the flood was a real event as depicted in the bible and the verified this as true by using the historical method? If you do, it is likely an evangelical Christian historian, that decided to utilize the historical method in a loose fashion, but I would love to see those names.
I'm not here to be a ray of sunshine I'm here countering ridiculous arguments.
Is he a believer in fables? is he deluded in thinking he has all the answers?
Do you think you get through to believers? if you think you do then you will be the first.
If religious people could be reasoned with there would be no religious people. (I don't know who said that but it's true)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?