Summations Only

quote:

---

You guys and girls are the ones that are obsessed with evolution vs creation. Do you want creationists to come here and have friendly debate and discussion or is this a creationist rehabilitation centre?

---

Creationism is a scientific premise with no alternatives ever put forward. It should not be seen as only representing theologies. In fact I know of no theologies which say anything about the universe's emergence other than Genesis - I know of no statement in Genesis' creation chapter which is not scientific - anyone has one?

quote:

---

problems like the Tower of Babel story and language.

---

The issue here is, did language begin with one or many all over the place; did they happen simultainiously or subsequentially? What is the evidence for either?

Either that - or the only correct issues are raised by me. This can be seen in a recent science thread by the monitors asking me not to post there after I challenged that the universe is finite: as if I made an unscientific statement. In fact I put them on the line with a scientific check mate. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You have yet to demonstrate that Genesis is science.

---

The universe had a 'BEGINNING' [Genesis].

quote:

---

Why do you think the age estimates range from several thousand years ago to the Cambrian (500+ million years ago) and everywhere in between? It's a moving goalpost precisely so it can't be disproved

---

The first recorded proof the universe and the earth are billions of years old is in Genesis - even before the notion of 'billions' was yet known by humanity.How many years account for seperation of light and darkness; day and night; water and land? These actions are listed in Genesis before the advent of life occured and before the Hebrew calendar was given.A lie by omission is - surprise, surprise - a lie.

quote:

---

If we have this estimated date, we can look for evidence of this flood
whether it was global or regional.

---

Dated historical archives mention the flood, evidencing it occured.

quote:

---

If we have a region, we can examine this region to see if a regional flood would be plausible for that area.

---

The region is around Mount Ararat, a land mark mentioned for the first time, with aerial view location accuracy.

The universe being finite is evidenced by today's foremost science and scientists - before the term science was yet introduced. Of note none have given any alternatives to its veracity - and this includes yourself, nor have you made any factors of its negation.

quote:

---

You have said this repeatedly.

​

I'm calling bullshit. Show me where your book even puts Ararat in some specific continent, Joe

---

Mount Ararat is mentioned as being in today's Middle-east by virtue of aligning this mount in the region of places like Ninveh [Babylon], Canaan [Israel] and Mizraim [Egypt]. It does not get better proven of specific continents. Such ancient aerial mapology is unseen anywhere else. Bullshit - but whose?

quote:

---

Genesis Chapter 10
1 Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth; and unto them were sons born after the flood. 2 The sons of Japheth: Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras. 3 And the sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah. 4 And the sons of Javan: Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim. 5 Of these were the isles of the nations divided in their lands, every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations. 6 And the sons of Ham: Cush, and Mizraim, and Put, and Canaan. 7 And the sons of Cush: Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabteca; and the sons of Raamah: Sheba, and Dedan. 8 And Cush begot Nimrod; he began to be a mighty one in the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; wherefore it is said: 'Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD.' 10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. 11 Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and Rehoboth-ir, and Calah, 12 and Resen between Nineveh and Calah--the same is the great city.

---

The flood has not been proven with hard copy such as relics, however, that it is ancient is attested by writings from other ancient nations in the same vicinity. We have no proof of Adam either, however it remains the oldest recorded name as 5772 years old - this gives it a measure of credibility which stands until disproven by an earlier recorded name. The same applies to the first recorded king being Nimrod - asking to disprove this is not a call to prove a negative - it is a call to disprove a positive.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

So you would place the flood at perhaps a thousand years or so after 5772 years ago?

​

Now we're getting somewhere.

​

Next, is the flood local, regional, or global?

---

That answer I am not sure about, but I can say it is ancient. The bible period ended 2,200 years ago [Christianity and Islam being replacement theologies which posit previous, ancient writings], so all history before this date is ancient history. The flood, according to the correct reading of the texts and its factual evidences of such, as well as the evidenced negation of global flood, describes a regional flood only.

quote:

---

The information you have provided is also quote mined. The full quote is -

​

Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

​

This loses any scientific credibility as soon as a supernatural being is introduced.

---

You mean as with Einstein - its not what he says but what he maybe is?

quote:

---

I dealt with your claim here Message 17. In that thread I supplied several earlier texts from other religions that mention the beginning. Using your logic, they are also science. And so are the following -

​

"a long time ago in a galaxy far far away"

​

Star Wars is science because there are some galaxies far away.

---

That quote is scientific in galaxies being far awayl star wars is not. The verse in Genesis is wholly scientific; it says the galaxies and the earth had a beginning. To boot it is the first recording which not only makes that statement, but also the first time such a thought was made. You cannot show a similar item even 1500 years after that date.

quote:

---

You do know that water runs downhill dont you? Was the flood 100 km around this area? 1000 km maybe? How big was this regional flood? Did it reach as far north east as Sevan Lake or as far South East as Lake Van?

---

Mount Ararat is introduced for the first time, in its correct geographical location; the surrounding names of ancient countries also listed confirms the applicable region. But I won't indulge you in nonsense questions just because you find it unacceptable that Genesis, what you and many others like to refer to as myth and fable, is in fact correct as no other writings is. You should be clapping hands at Genesis instead of ignoringits bounty of stats and frog leaping to nonesense.

quote:

---

This thread is 'Evidence for a recent flood'.

---

Correct historical icons and contemporary nations, and cross reportings from independent nations, is scientific evidence. No one has doubted the flood; only its size is questioned.

All of archeology, a faculty of science, makes its findings in accordance with the applicable period. Usually, one single cross reference or indicator is accepted as proof. A geneology with authentic names, a listing of ancient nations which are no more but known to be authentic, a reference from another independent nation, a diarised calendar - this is big time proof. Otherwise you can demand proof that stars are bigger than golf balls too - and I could not satisfy you.We know that there is zero proof of the Gospels for example - but it is accepted by more than 50% of humanity. Compare it with Genesis and what have you got? With the Noah story, we are talking about a period when writings, perhaps also language, never existed accept for a most meagre form. The debate about a regional or global flood cannot be misconstrued as a debate of a flood's veracity here. The proof of Abraham is monotheism and a geneaology listing, along with critical icons of its period.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The flood as described in the bible never happened.

---

This refers only to the flood size. You agree it is a factual flood by default by questioning its dating as well.