Was there really a world-wide flood ?

www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1993/2/2noah93.html (http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1993/2/2noah93.html)

I think we can say with reasonable certainity that there was not.

quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:

I think we can say with reasonable certainity that there was not.

Define what you mean by reasonable certainty. There is plenty of proof out there of a cataclismic flood. It is just that most people don't want to see it because it gives some credibility to xians. I say "some" credibility because the flood is simply one story that most anicent religions share. Proof, for instance, is all around us. We know that there are pockets of water under the earth which we call underground springs. Suppose at one time, several thousand years ago, there was some type of earth shift causing the earth's plates to split and shoot water out of these "springs". Hence, this is why we have our oceans. If you have some, if any, knowledge of the earth and its plates you would know that there is satellite imagery that shows that the rifts between the tectonic plates of the earth lying relatively in the center of each of our oceans where there are great rifts and deep undersea gullies at depths of several miles. Also noting where the mountain ranges of the world are located, the previous theory makes perfect sense. Take the Rockies and the Andes for example. The world's longest mountain range streching from Alaska to the tip of South America along the coast of the world's largest and deepest ocean would give great evidence that the mountains would have "squished" themselves upward with enough force from water and tectonic movement. If one were also to look at a map of the Southern Hemisphere, one would see that South America almost FITS into Africa!! This would make sense, considering if one looks at the Mid-Atlantic rift, one can see that the rift curves as though that is where those two continent had been connected at one time. Hope I cleared this mess up.

[This message has been edited by Crowley'sAprentice (edited 08-02-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Crowley'sAprentice:

Define what you mean by reasonable certainty. ...............

.......Hope I cleared this mess up.

[This message has been edited by Crowley'sAprentice (edited 08-02-2004).]



Crowley'sAprentice, did you even bother to read through the link I posted ?

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:



Crowley'sAprentice, did you even bother to read through the link I posted ?



Yes I did actually.

"To say that much of it came from "the fountains of the great deep" is



no answer at all, because it shows an incredible ignorance of the mechanics of springs. (HELLO? THESE AREN'T JUST SPRINGS IN THE SENSE THAT THEY TRICKLE WATER; WE ARE DEALING WITH A CASE SCENARIO IN WHICH THERE WOULD NEED TO BE ENOUGH WATER IN WHICH TO FLOOD THE WHOLE EARTH. HE IS TAKING IT FROM THE WRONG PERSPECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.)



When water flowing in underground rivers encounters fissures in the rock beds encasing them, some of the water rises to the surface to form springs. The pressure of the underground river, however, is what pushes the water up. The spring water could not keep rising indefinitely unless the water in the main channel was replenished to maintain a pressure level that would keep the spring flowing. Once the underground channel had fallen below the level necessary to maintain that pressure, the spring would "dry up." So this again brings us back to the problem of where all of the flood water came from. Just to say that much of it came from "the fountains of the great deep" is too simplistic to provide a satisfactory answer."

Too simplistic? Not quite. I think whoever it was that wrote that article is underrating the minds of the people back in those days. Guys like him still wonder how the hell the Egyptians were able to build the things they did and why we can't duplicate their mathmatical procedure. People thousands of years ago may be "primative" to today's standards, but they were much smarter than us if they knew the things they did about the earth and geometry and arcitecture. And his little "scientific" explanation of how springs of water are formed almost side steps the issue. An earthquake or some other tectonic movement could have very easily split the earth to unveil the springs without god even entering into the picture. The man is a very poor scientist if he can't come up with better reasons for things he thinks may have happened.

quote:Originally posted by Crowley'sAprentice:

Proof, for instance, is all around us. We know that there are pockets of water under the earth which we call underground springs. Suppose at one time, several thousand years ago, there was some type of earth shift causing the earth's plates to split and shoot water out of these "springs".

The moment you say "suppose ...." that ceases to be proof. You don't prove something with "suppose..."

For example: "Suppose some aliens from outer space came to earth and started dumping buckets of water."

That's not proof, that's a theory. A theory not supported by evidence, much like yours.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

The moment you say "suppose ...." that ceases to be proof. You don't prove something with "suppose..."

For example: "Suppose some aliens from outer space came to earth and started dumping buckets of water."

That's not proof, that's a theory. A theory not supported by evidence, much like yours.



I did say it was a theory, however, the thing that separates a good, possible theory from a dull, unlikely one is reasonablity. And yes, there is evidence; all around us. If there is evidence disproving a flood, with the exception of that dipshit scientist from the link, than show me the evidence.

You also said it was proof or at least implied it...

Anyways, you can refute evidence, provided there is some evidence in the first place... something your theory lacks, at least here. Anyone can say "there's evidence all around us"... that doesn't mean its true.

Examples of refuting so called evidence:

http://www.rpi.edu/web/News/press_releases/2002/noahsark.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1993/2/2noah93.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr02.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html

There is some evidence for a large flood thousands of years ago. It was nowhere close to global. Until recently most people never went more that a few miles from thier village. Any big flood could cover one person's whole world.

All of the evidecne for the flood I have seen only prove that alot of places were underwater at one time. but no there is no proof it was the same time.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You also said it was proof or at least implied it...

Anyways, you can refute evidence, provided there is some evidence in the first place... something your theory lacks, at least here. Anyone can say "there's evidence all around us"... that doesn't mean its true.

Examples of refuting so called evidence:

http://www.rpi.edu/web/News/press_releases/2002/noahsark.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1993/2/2noah93.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr02.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html

This scientist proves things the exact way you say I do.



"For the Noah's Ark Hypothesis to be correct, one has to speculate that there was no flowing of water between the Black Sea and the Marmara Sea before the speculated great deluge," says Abrajano. "We have found this to be incorrect."



Ok. So this scientist refutes the possibility of a flood simply by saying "We have found this to be incorrect." If the scientist thinks that recently discovered mud, which could quite frankly have come from anywhere, in a presently MOVING channel of water that the scientist claims to be over 10,000 years old, somehow proves that there was no flood. He is almost less conclusive than I was. I will say, I am no scientist and I'm not providing any links to any kind of propaganda webpage in order to get my point across. I am using merely what I hope most people have learned in their junior high geography classes on tectonic plates and such to explain my theory.

quote:Originally posted by Crowley'sAprentice:

Ok. So this scientist refutes the possibility of a flood simply by saying "We have found this to be incorrect." If the scientist thinks that recently discovered mud, which could quite frankly have come from anywhere, in a presently MOVING channel of water that the scientist claims to be over 10,000 years old, somehow proves that there was no flood. He is almost less conclusive than I was. I will say, I am no scientist and I'm not providing any links to any kind of propaganda webpage in order to get my point across. I am using merely what I hope most people have learned in their junior high geography classes on tectonic plates and such to explain my theory.



You've got to be kidding. Of course the scientist said that, because that's a press release! He isn't going to show the press the evidence he has uncovered, because it wont sell papers!

Moreover, the mud can't "come from anywhere" since it has sediments from the area, and has been dated to more than 10,000 years ago.

Hell, if it "came from somewhere else" that would mean even more interactions with other seas! That's the problem! For the flood theory to be correct, no interaction should have taken place at that time...

But still, your theory doesn't work. You forget:

1. To be able to reach Mt. Everest the amount of water would be humongous.

2. If all the water under the ground is used, the ground would collapse under the enormous pressure of millions of tons of water that is now in the surface

The crust would have nothing to support that weight since the water that once occupied a space beneath it, and thus supported it, is now gone.

3. There is no sign of any rapid contraction in the tectonic plates that would suggest a flood.

4. Water that resulted in these hypothetical springs would end up back beneath again when it reached caves.

5. The bible says it took 150 days for the water level to go back down. Which is no reasonable given the above. The water would go back down the orifices created by any hypothetical springs, or via already present caves.

There is NO evidence of a world wide flood in the geologic column.

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/geologiccolumn.htm



....The W. H. Hunt Trust Estate Larson #1 will in Section 10 Township 148 N Range 101 W was drilled to 15,064 feet deep. This well was drilled just west of the outcrop of the Golden Valley formation and begins in the Tertiary Fort Union Formation. The various horizons described above were encountered at the following depths (Fm=formation; Grp=Group; Lm=Limestone):

Tertiary Ft. Union Fm ..........................100 feet

Cretaceous Greenhorn Fm ................4910 feet

Cretaceous Mowry Fm...................... 5370 feet

Cretaceous Inyan Kara Fm................5790 feet

Jurassic Rierdon Fm...........................6690 feet

Triassic Spearfish Fm.........................7325 feet

Permian Opeche Fm............................7740 feet

Pennsylvanian Amsden Fm.................7990 feet

Pennsylvanian Tyler Fm......................8245 feet

Mississippian Otter Fm.......................8440 feet

Mississippian Kibbey Lm....................8780 feet

Mississippian Charles Fm...................8945 feet

Mississippian Mission Canyon Fm.....9775 feet

Mississippian Lodgepole Fm.............10255 feet

Devonian Bakken Fm........................11085 feet

Devonian Birdbear Fm.......................11340 feet

Devonian Duperow Fm.......................11422 feet

Devonian Souris River Fm.................11832 feet

Devonian Dawson Bay Fm.................12089 feet

Devonian Prairie Fm...........................12180 feet

Devonian Winnipegosis Grp...............12310 feet

Silurian Interlake Fm..........................12539 feet

Ordovician Stonewall Fm....................13250 feet

Ordovician Red River Dolomite.........13630 feet

Ordovician Winnipeg Grp...................14210 feet

Ordovician Black Island Fm...............14355 feet

Cambrian Deadwood Fm.....................14445 feet

Precambrian....................................... ..14945 feet

Conclusions

What does all this mean? First, as I have noted before, the concept quite prevalent among some Christians that the geologic column does not exist is quite wrong. Morris and Parker (Morris and Parker, 1987, p. 163) write:

"Now, the geologic column is an idea, not an actual series of rock layers. Nowhere do we find the complete sequence."

They are wrong. You just saw the whole column piled up in one place where one oil well can drill through it. Not only that, the entire geologic column is found in 26 other basins around the world, piled up in proper order. These basins are:

The Ghadames Basin in Libya

The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco

The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia

The Oman Interior Basin in Oman

The Western Desert Basin in Egypt

The Adana Basin in Turkey

The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey

The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria

The Carpathian Basin in Poland

The Baltic Basin in the USSR

The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR

The Farah Basin in Afghanistan

The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan

The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran

The Manhai-Subei Basin in China

The Jiuxi Basin China

The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China

The Tarim Basin China

The Szechwan Basin China

The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska

The Williston Basin in North Dakota

The Tampico Embayment Mexico

The Bogata Basin Colombia

(Robertson Group, 1989)

to be honest i didn't read the link, and i breifly browsed the responses. but to get away from the scientific arguments going on, lets look at it from a historical context.

you have the story of Noah, also many other local groups have recorded stories today dating from the same time, that speak of the same kind of flood. The reason it seems so ridiculous is that we don't see a way that a flood could cover the entire world, however think about what these people saw. The entire world was everythign around them, they had no true scope on the size of the earth. So if a great flood had covered their region, it would seem as if it covered the entire world. So the jews, and a few other local groups wrote stories of this flood (etymology) and portrayed it as the entire world.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You've got to be kidding. Of course the scientist said that, because that's a press release! He isn't going to show the press the evidence he has uncovered, because it wont sell papers!

Moreover, the mud can't "come from anywhere" since it has sediments from the area, and has been dated to more than 10,000 years ago.

Hell, if it "came from somewhere else" that would mean even more interactions with other seas! That's the problem! For the flood theory to be correct, no interaction should have taken place at that time...

But still, your theory doesn't work. You forget:

1. To be able to reach Mt. Everest the amount of water would be humongous.

2. If all the water under the ground is used, the ground would collapse under the enormous pressure of millions of tons of water that is now in the surface

The crust would have nothing to support that weight since the water that once occupied a space beneath it, and thus supported it, is now gone.

3. There is no sign of any rapid contraction in the tectonic plates that would suggest a flood.

4. Water that resulted in these hypothetical springs would end up back beneath again when it reached caves.

5. The bible says it took 150 days for the water level to go back down. Which is no reasonable given the above. The water would go back down the orifices created by any hypothetical springs, or via already present caves.

I did NOT say that the scientist didn't say that. I am saying what he said was inconclusive. And if you read my theory, you would see that Mt. Everest would just begin to be growing as the seas split. As the crack grows larger and the water deeper, the rocky coastal areas would begin to crumple upwards due to the pressure of the splitting ground and the rising waters, thus forming the mountains we have on many coasts around the world. And yes, I know the Hymalayans are not right on the coast but the Indian mainland is one huge floodplain which would allow water to easily affect land farther inland. And as far as the mud goes, what I was saying was that if they just found the mud a few years ago in a body of MOVING water, how can they prove that the mud they found in that area was orignally from that area? And the water is the reason we have such caves today such as Mammoth Cave. After the flood, the water either seeped into the ground, forming the wells we have today, or ran off into the rift forming our present day oceans, or seeped into the ground and into the caves where water had carved holes. Why do caves usually have a stream in them for run off water now? How do you explain the Grand Canyon? Please don't tell me you think it was a little tiny stream millons of years ago and now its a huge, mile wide, mile deep canyon. Anything of the sort is purely absurd. Who says the crust didn't collapse in places as a result of a flood? Many scientists today say that the land on earth looked nothing like it does today and that the land on earth may have very well been all one continent. And of course there is no sign of contraction in the plates to prove that it there was a flood; they didn't have seismographs and lasers back in the day to measure such things. What we can see though from present-day geography is that in the bottom of the oceans there appear to be large cracks and fault lines. This is proof enough to say that something like a flood could have happened.

quote:what I was saying was that if they just found the mud a few years ago in a body of MOVING water, how can they prove that the mud they found in that area was orignally from that area?

That's the point, IT ISN'T originally from that area. Soils differ in sediments, and alkaline concentrations. They can therefore know from where that soil came from. That mud, proves that the Black Sea and the Mediterranean have interacted for years.

For someone preaching about basic geology, you have little knowledge of how to differentiate soils.

quote:Why do caves usually have a stream in them for run off water now? How do you explain the Grand Canyon? Please don't tell me you think it was a little tiny stream millons of years ago and now its a huge, mile wide, mile deep canyon

It WAS a river! The Grand Canyon was shaped by the Colorado River. Once again, for someone preaching basic geology, you know surprisingly little http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Who says the crust didn't collapse in places as a result of a flood? Many scientists today say that the land on earth looked nothing like it does today and that the land on earth may have very well been all one continent.

Great then bring evidence... what? You have none? Boy, that's a shocker!

Moreover, it's not just "some" areas collapsing. The crust would collapse under the enormous pressure of millions of tons of water. At soon as it collapses, where the hell do you think the water goes? The same place you say it was coming from!

quote: What we can see though from present-day geography is that in the bottom of the oceans there appear to be large cracks and fault lines. This is proof enough to say that something like a flood could have happened.



No... that's proof of tectonics movements. Normal tectonic movements explains those chasms, and rifts; therefore it is not proof of the colossal tectonic contractions needed for your ridiculous theory.

--

Once again, you bring absolutely no evidence. Just a mediocre theory, which has as much evidence backing it, as a theory of aliens creating a flood... none.

You also ignored truckfixr's evidence of the geologic column. There is no evidence of 'Noah's Flood' anywhere in it.

You also ignored the bible saying it took 150 days for it to go back down, which makes absolutely no sense, since the water would go back down the same supposed "springs" that would form...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

The moment you say "suppose ...." that ceases to be proof. You don't prove something with "suppose..."

For example: "Suppose some aliens from outer space came to earth and started dumping buckets of water."

That's not proof, that's a theory. A theory not supported by evidence, much like yours.

Hmmm...sounds a bit like EVOLUTION, doesn't it ?

It's still a theory for a reason.

(Apologies to the thread creator...I just went off subject, slightly)

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You've got to be kidding. Of course the scientist said that, because that's a press release! He isn't going to show the press the evidence he has uncovered, because it wont sell papers!

*WHEW* ! Good thing it was merely a press release instead of an actual venue for the presentation of truth, or else his credibility would be shot !

How lucky for HIM.

quote:Originally posted by aTribeCalledSean:

to be honest i didn't read the link, and i breifly browsed the responses. but to get away from the scientific arguments going on, lets look at it from a historical context.

you have the story of Noah, also many other local groups have recorded stories today dating from the same time, that speak of the same kind of flood. The reason it seems so ridiculous is that we don't see a way that a flood could cover the entire world, however think about what these people saw. The entire world was everythign around them, they had no true scope on the size of the earth. So if a great flood had covered their region, it would seem as if it covered the entire world. So the jews, and a few other local groups wrote stories of this flood (etymology) and portrayed it as the entire world.

But the writer's of the Bible were not, for the most part, historians; in any way, shape, or form.

Most of what is written was inspired by God via the Holy Spirit.

God said that He opened the heavens (different from Heaven) and flooded the earth, not just the limited perception of the "world" as seen through the eyes of man.

That is to be taken in a literal sense.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Hmmm...sounds a bit like EVOLUTION, doesn't it ?

It's still a theory for a reason.

(Apologies to the thread creator...I just went off subject, slightly)

And may I ask what sort of explanation comes as more factual than a theory?

Evolution is a theory, yes, with massive amounts of evidence supporting it. The idea that Noah's flood occured is a hypothesis, and one that can be tested and falsified, and has been falsified.

Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

But the writer's of the Bible were not, for the most part, historians; in any way, shape, or form.

The first part of your post I agree with completly!



Most of what is written was inspired by God via the Holy Spirit.

This is the point in your post where I begin to disagree with you.Although this is the belief held by Christians, there is no physical evidence to support the assertion that the bible was written through Devine Inspiration.This belief is based on hope, not on evidence.



God said that He opened the heavens (different from Heaven) and flooded the earth, not just the limited perception of the "world" as seen through the eyes of man.

That is to be taken in a literal sense.

There is no evidence of a world wide flood. There are evidences that localized flooding occured in the region in question.To accept the flood story literally is to disregard all intelligent reasoning.

Noah's flood is a good story.Not a true historical event.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Hmmm...sounds a bit like EVOLUTION, doesn't it ?

It's still a theory for a reason.

(Apologies to the thread creator...I just went off subject, slightly)



Yes, and that's why I never denied evolution was a theory. The difference being, the theory of evolution has evidence supporting it. His doesn't.

Moreover, I was challenging his use of "proof". 'Supposing' something isn't proof. That was my point.

quote:*WHEW* ! Good thing it was merely a press release instead of an actual venue for the presentation of truth, or else his credibility would be shot !

How lucky for HIM.





Do you even have a point? I never said it wasn't the truth. I said it was ridiculous to claim he didn't present any evidence in a press release. Press releases aren't peer-reviewed journals...

quote:Originally posted by Optimus Prime:

And may I ask what sort of explanation comes as more factual than a theory?

Evolution is a theory, yes, with massive amounts of evidence supporting it. The idea that Noah's flood occured is a hypothesis, and one that can be tested and falsified, and has been falsified.

Falsified by YOUR definition.

The "theory" (scientific) that it never happened is no more solid than the "theory" (Biblical) that it did.

The massive amounts of evidence supporting evolution are all guesses, at best, since NO ONE truly knows how the universe works.

To say it is truth, though it has not been fully proven, is no better than saying God is real, because we have felt Him.

Evolution has been falsified, by your own science, as well. Who to believe ? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

The first part of your post I agree with completly!

This is the point in your post where I begin to disagree with you.Although this is the belief held by Christians, there is no physical evidence to support the assertion that the bible was written through Devine Inspiration.This belief is based on hope, not on evidence.

There is no evidence of a world wide flood. There are evidences that localized flooding occured in the region in question. To accept the flood story literally is to disregard all intelligent reasoning.

Noah's flood is a good story.Not a true historical event.



The physical evidence to support the divinity of the Bible is held within the pages. Those that seek to refute the perfection of the Bible have failed. It was either being misread, or not read entirely, and I have illustrated this point on many occasions.

From beginning to end, there are no historical flaws, and many of the prophecies have been fulfilled. Once again, I urge you to READ IT, before assuming it could not possibly be true.

Based on it's perfection, we are convinced that it is the word of a living God.

Another proof, for ME at least, is that I have felt Him. But I cannot prove that, nor explain it, so I won't.

There IS evidence of a worldwide flood. To ignore these evidences is folly.

I suppose I will be challenged to provide proof now...unfortunately, much of the documentation I possess on the subject does not come to me in digital format. Books...honest to goodness books. By Christians, and non-Christians alike.

I will attempt to dredge up something online.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Falsified by YOUR definition.

The "theory" (scientific) that it never happened is no more solid than the "theory" (Biblical) that it did

What do you mean by "theory" (biblical)? That the bible says it happened?

quote:

The massive amounts of evidence supporting evolution are all guesses, at best, since NO ONE truly knows how the universe works.

They are either guesses or evidence. They can't be both. Evolution has evidence, not "guesses".

quote:

To say it is truth, though it has not been fully proven, is no better than saying God is real, because we have felt Him.

There's a difference. Evolution has evidence, evidence that can be demostrated and reproduced. The claim that god exists has no evidence.

quote:

Evolution has been falsified, by your own science, as well. Who to believe ? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Really? Show us please!

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The physical evidence to support the divinity of the Bible is held within the pages. Those that seek to refute the perfection of the Bible have failed. It was either being misread, or not read entirely, and I have illustrated this point on many occasions.

From beginning to end, there are no historical flaws, and many of the prophecies have been fulfilled. Once again, I urge you to READ IT, before assuming it could not possibly be true.

Lets assume there are no flaws in the bible, which there are.

How does that prove a god? How is that evidence of the existence of a god? There are plenty books without flaws. Does that mean they are also inspired by a god? That one must worship them also?

Something being with out scientific or historical errors is not evidence for the existence of a god, its evidence for the existence of research and good writing.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Lets assume there are no flaws in the bible, which there are.

How does that prove a god? How is that evidence of the existence of a god? There are plenty books without flaws. Does that mean they are also inspired by a god? That one must worship them also?

Something being with out scientific or historical errors is not evidence for the existence of a god, its evidence for the existence of research and good writing.



Please name the flaws in the Bible (the most common ones have been corrected here on Totse.com already, so please try and come up with something original). I will do my best to explain them.

The Bible says that there is a God. And that He created everything. If the Bible had flaws in it, then this would only serve to prove one of two things: that God does not know what He is doing, or that He doesn't exist at all.

Man could NEVER write a perfect book. It is not possible.

Only a divinely inspired book could be written in perfection by men.

I don't worship the Bible. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) Please, I ask of the other Christians on this forum, WHO WORSHIPS THE BIBLE ?!

The perfection of the teachings, history, and prophecies contained within it's pages is enough evidence that it was divinely inspired, and therefor a creation of God.

What did the writer's of the Bible have (physically) to research ? Some of the author's weren't even literate ! Do you KNOW who wrote the Bible ?

This book was not just written in a few years. It was written by over 40 authors, in different regions, that did not know each other. Some of them didn't even live at the same time. Can you even fathom the complexities and impossibilities of writing a book that is congruant, given these hurdles ? And for it to come out as perfectly written ?

Once again, you give man FAR too much credit. We can accomplish incredible, amazing feats, but this....I don't think so !

As a side note, there is no proof that will satsify your thirst, Rust. You simply don't want to know. You have convinced yourself that there is no God, and are therefor not open to any viable proof that may be presented.

Some of the questions you are asking have been answered, MANY TIMES, with great sufficiency. You have either not read them, or choose to ignore them.

quote:

What do you mean by "theory" (biblical)? That the bible says it happened?

According to YOU, the Bible is not true. It is just a fairy tale. Under that assumption, one could deduce that the fairy tale of evolution is no more reasonable than the fairy tale of the Bible, to include the flood.

quote:They are either guesses or evidence. They can't be both. Evolution has evidence, not "guesses".

Evolutionist's 'evidences' have no more proved that evolution is TRULY the way we all began (it's still a theory), than the Bible proves that God is the creator of the universe.

So, I don't see how one is more believable than the other.

quote:There's a difference. Evolution has evidence, evidence that can be demostrated and reproduced. The claim that god exists has no evidence.

Evolution (science) has evidence that continues to change. It is modified to accomodate the idea that there is no God. It is imperfect, in that what is considered to be fact, will (ten years from now) become obsolete.

Macro-evolution CANNOT be reproduced, and it has never been witnessed. Please call your buddy DM to assist you in trying to prove this, once again. The tests he provided didn't hold water.

The 'claim' that God exists is proved by the Spirit, and by the Bible. I am sorry (truly...if you experienced Him in spirit, your doubts would be quelled.) that it is beyond your scope of intelligence or perception to understand that.

quote:Really? Show us please!

I have. It is my obligation to repeat myself tenfold to accomodate those that refuse to listen ?

I don't have time for that.

If someone else asks, that I am SURE was not present to review the post, then I will indeed repeat myself.

Unlike you, Rust, I put MUCH effort into backing up my claims with evidence, references, and irrefutable data.

It takes time, and a lot of energy. Some of us DO have lives outside of Totse, as XTREEM was so kind to point out to you.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 08-06-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Please name the flaws in the Bible (the most common ones have been corrected here on Totse.com already, so please try and come up with something original). I will do my best to explain them.



The Bible says pi is 3.

The laungauge used in the first part of Genisis sugest that God did not take a active roll in the creation life on Earth He created it along with heaven but when it came to animals and plants he just let Them happen. To me this sounds like evolution or the work of a sub contractor. By sub contractor I mean another God. As far as life goe the bible says that all God created was man, woman and some livestock.

As for the existance of more that one God outside the trinity, God himself says something to the affect of "worship no other gods before me". Who else could you worship if He, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all fare game. There are more parts of the Bible where God is either refering to himself in the Plural or talking to someone else who is not mentioned.

Why then, do Christians say that there is only one God and that evolution is something some people just made up? Either they should pick one, evolution or polytheism or admit that Moses was a lousy writer or God is bad at exsplaning things and you should take Genisis with a grain of salt.



[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 08-06-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Please name the flaws in the Bible (the most common ones have been corrected here on Totse.com already, so please try and come up with something original). I will do my best to explain them.

I already did, in your own thread which you chose to ignore:

"Chronicles 4:2

2 Also he made a molten sea of ten cubitsfrom brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

You can't make a circle with a 10 cubit diameter and 30 cubit circumference.

quote:Man could NEVER write a perfect book. It is not possible.





Why? Because you say so? Share your argument with us, a blanket statement wont do.

quote: don't worship the Bible. Please, I ask of the other Christians on this forum, WHO WORSHIPS THE BIBLE ?!



It's a choice of words. Worship, admire, care for, revere... choose any of the words and substitute it into what I said. It would mean the same thing, since I'm not criticizing you for believing in it.

quote:The perfection of the teachings, history, and prophecies contained within it's pages is enough evidence that it was divinely inspired, and therefor a creation of God.

Once again, perfection can be seen in any book. Scientific/logical perfection can be done with research; therefore easily reproducible, thus not evidence. Any other "perfection" is subjective, therefore, not evidence either.

quote:

What did the writer's of the Bible have (physically) to research ? Some of the author's weren't even literate ! Do you KNOW who wrote the Bible ?



I was merely stating that it being "perfect" ( a subjective analysis) is not proof of a god. I could write a book that contains no scientific or historical error and that would not be proof of a god; it would be proof of research. I did not claim the authors the of the bible did research...

quote:As a side note, there is no proof that will satsify your thirst, Rust. You simply don't want to know. You have convinced yourself that there is no God, and are therefor not open to any viable proof that may be presented.





Classic. You present no evidence, and justify your lack of evidence by ASSUMING 'I wont accept it'...

---

quote:According to YOU, the Bible is not true. It is just a fairy tale. Under that assumption, one could deduce that the fairy tale of evolution is no more reasonable than the fairy tale of the Bible, to include the flood.

No. Like I said, evolution has evidence, the bible doesn't.

quote:Evolutionist's 'evidences' have no more proved that evolution is TRULY the way we all began (it's still a theory), than the Bible proves that God is the creator of the universe.

So, I don't see how one is more believable than the other.



Once again, you ignore the fact that the theory of evolution has evidence supporting it. There is no evidence supporting the existence of a god.

Also, the fact that its a "theory" is not a dismissive adjective. It serves only to shed a positive light on the scientific community. It being a "Theory" does not mean it is not true. For example, the theory of general relativity.

quote:Evolution (science) has evidence that continues to change. It is modified to accomodate the idea that there is no God. It is imperfect, in that what is considered to be fact, will (ten years from now) become obsolete.

The theory changes or evidence that was thought to be correct, is refuted. And? That in no way speaks badly of the theory. It speaks positively of the scientific community. It adjusts itself to facts. It does not adhere blindly to a belief ignoring facts...

quote:Macro-evolution CANNOT be reproduced, and it has never been witnessed. Please call your buddy DM to assist you in trying to prove this, once again. The tests he provided didn't hold water.

I said evidence of it can be reproduced, not Macroevolution itself. The evidence was provided, and if I remember correctly you chose to ignore it. You did not address it. Maybe you should refute it before you open your mouth and make the outrageous claim that it 'did not hold water'.

quote:

The 'claim' that God exists is proved by the Spirit, and by the Bible. I am sorry (truly...if you experienced Him in spirit, your doubts would be quelled.) that it is beyond your scope of intelligence or perception to understand that

The bible and this intangible 'spirit' is as much "proof" as a Science Fiction novel is of a murderous alien race, creators of the universe, that live on the Plant GERTHOT-5...

quote:I have. It is my obligation to repeat myself tenfold to accomodate those that refuse to listen ?

I don't have time for that.

If someone else asks, that I am SURE was not present to review the post, then I will indeed repeat myself.

Unlike you, Rust, I put MUCH effort into backing up my claims with evidence, references, and irrefutable data.

It takes time, and a lot of energy. Some of us DO have lives outside of Totse, as XTREEM was so kind to point out to you



Sorry but that is your task. If you're going to make a claim, it is your responsibility to substantiate it. If you don't have enough energy, fine, but I'm not at fault for that. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

Furthermore, I in all honesty, have not seen you prove anything of the sort. I have seen you totally ignore evidence in a thread dealing with this very thing, which cements my beliefs that you have nothing.

P.S. Could you please show me where I have 'not backed my claims with evidence'? You know, to justify this claim: "Unlike you, Rust, I put MUCH effort into backing up my claims with evidence"

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-06-2004).]

Evolution (science) has evidence that continues to change. It is modified to accomodate the idea that there is no God. It is imperfect, in that what is considered to be fact, will (ten years from now) become obsolete.

The evidence does not change, only the conclusion. When the theory of evolution first began there was rather little evidence to support it; all we had was the theory of natural selection, and a few fossils that appeared to link some species together. All that allowed us to conclude was that different species were around at different times. Now though, with a much greater spectrum of fossils, soil samples, knowledge about our Earth, the theory has changed to support the evidence.

That's how science works...the evidence is flawless; where flaws can arise is in the conclusions produced by evidence, but with no contrary evidence to current evolutionary theory and plenty to support it, it seems a viable, in fact, the most viable conclusion. Creationism isn't even a theory; it has been effectively falsified, and the only ones who refuse to acknowledge that it is not true are those who are rather ignorant in the sciences, or are too afraid to let their old beliefs go in favor of solidified facts.

Macro-evolution CANNOT be reproduced, and it has never been witnessed. Please call your buddy DM to assist you in trying to prove this, once again. The tests he provided didn't hold water.

I will admit that macro-evolution cannot be 'reproduced' in the typical sense of the word. The reproduction we can observe in macro-evolution is it occuring around us. New species have shown up in the last century, species that did not exist before. The taxonomical charts are splitting as time goes by...macro-evolution isn't "reproduced"...it never quit happening, it's still being produced.

The 'claim' that God exists is proved by the Spirit, and by the Bible. I am sorry (truly...if you experienced Him in spirit, your doubts would be quelled.) that it is beyond your scope of intelligence or perception to understand that.

I understand that the Bible's perfection would be necessary, along with the soul's existence, for the Christian God to even be a worthwhile though, though when it comes to the spirit, it cannot be tested, proven, or falsified; it is purely a notion with no evidence to support its existence...much like telekinesis...a cool concept and all, but lacks the slightest bit of evidence.

Also, the Bible is proof of nothing other than human's having developed written languages and their affinity for passing on legends. The claim that it is perfect is pure bullshit. There are many historical errors in it, contradictory viewpoints in the 4 gospels, and major grammatical problems in the ORIGINAL texts. Now, if divine inspiration would mean a perfect book, then it is also disproven.