Evidence of the flood

That was years ago.

The Bible is infallible. Therefore, anybody who claims to believe the Bible is infallible.

This frames the whole controversy over God lying versus mans recording of scripture. jar seems to always claim that God lied and the serpent told the truth, which in my mind is arguably blasphemous. Many obvious questions arise between Biblical Literalists and scholarly (secular) literalists over this.The first question would be whether God exists apart from being a character in a story. Faith and I believe that he does. jar is a Creedal Christian who reads the stories as written, with a bit of Jewish Chutspah from his upbringing as an Episcopal student taught to always question everything and to separate belief from fact and reality. Ringo claims to be an atheist with no axes to grind, Assuming that GOD does in fact exist, the next question would be Gods relationship with human critters throughout History. In a topic titled Evidence Of The Flood the initial premise was that Harvey the Hawk was a bit of evidence of probable interaction and cooperation of animals and humans. Reality suggests that it would be quite a chore to gather up two of every animal from all corners of the planet...unless they plodded, crawled, and flew down to the middle east to get on the boat! The argument can be made that a supernatural God can do anything he wants in any way that He chooses, but the response would be "well then why a flood"? Sounds a bit unnecessary and simplistic for an omnipotent Creator. And why punish the animals for human rebellion and self-will? Which again brings up the question as to Who actually said it and what it meant. This is where faith and I differ...I'm not as liberal as jar nor as conservative as Faith. I can acknowledge the arguments that humans wrote the Bible...but I would likely believe that God inspired it. My jury is still out on how to reconcile apparent contradictions---such as jars point that God lied, according to the stories. Some say God cannot lie, for what He says is always truth and what possible need would God have for lying?Also, I challenge the accusation that Faith is blaspheming the Holy Ghost. If common sense were truly common, everyone would see the reasoning. The fact that they don't is not because they are against religion...it is because they have been trained to read and interpret evidence. I'm not sure why you see it a different way unless you assume that the Flood MUST have happened and then try and construct evidence which supports it.

I think you are missing the point. I believe that jar is making use of a strawman argument as a rhetorical tool to make a point.The point is that IF YEC is correct, then it is necessry for God to be a liar. Jar goes further in saying that if the universe is also the work of God, it disagrees with the Bible, so which do you believe? One of the two must be fallacious.In effect, YEC belief CAUSES God to be a liar. It is a logical conclusion.Consequently, it is possible to judge Faith (and other militant adherents to YEC) as blasphemous.The only way out of this is to deny the evidence provided in the works of God.Frankly, I don't think jar cares a hoot about whether God is a liar or not. The point is that YECs have some explaining to do.ABE: On the other hand, I think that the earth may be a bit tricky, but I do not think that it lies. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

"The only way out of this is to deny the evidence provided in the works of God."We've already seen this. Faith calls some of what appears to be evidence an illusion.

Getting no reply from Faith to Message 868 -- more evidence that she just ignores posts that refute her arguments.Well here's more ... it was even on Fox News:

quote:

---

Scientists discover 60 ancient shipwrecks in the Black Sea

​

In early 2015, a team of scientists from the United Kingdom, Bulgaria, Sweden, the United States and Greece set off to investigate the effects of climate change and the impact of sea level changes in the Black Sea since the end of the Earth’s last glacial cycle 12,000 years ago.

​

What they discovered by chance during their studies was more than they could have ever imagined: 60 shipwrecks dating back 2,500 years, including artifacts from the Byzantine Era, the Middle Ages and the Ottoman Empire.

​

​

This week, after nearly three years at sea, the scientists who participated in the Black Sea Maritime Archaeology Project docked their research vessel in the port of Burgas, Bulgaria, and displayed dramatic 3-D printed replicas of those shipwrecks, which represent more than a thousand years of maritime history.

---

quote:

---

Ghostly graveyard of 60 perfectly preserved ancient shipwrecks is found by climate scientists at the bottom of the Black Sea

​

Dozens of perfectly preserved ancient shipwrecks have been found at the bottom of the Black Sea.

​

​

A total of 60 wrecks were discovered dating back as far as 2,500 years, including galleys from the Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman empires.

​

Scientists stumbled upon the graveyard while using underwater robots to survey the effects of climate change along the Bulgarian coast.

​

Because the Black Sea contains almost no light or oxygen, little life can survive, meaning the wrecks are in excellent condition.

​

Researchers say their discovery is 'truly unrivalled'. Many of the ships have features that are only known from drawings or written description but never seen until now.

​

Carvings in the wood of some ships have remained intact for centuries, while well-preserved rope was found aboard one 2,000-year-old Roman vessel.

​

​

The researchers had discovered over 40 wrecks across two previous expeditions, but during their latest trip, which returned this month, they uncovered more than 20 new sites, including a 2,000-year-old Roman galley (pictured)

---

Of particular interest for Faith is the levels of silty sediment on and around the ships, which are in various degrees of being buried ... without rotting and without being flattened.Compare this to the Green River varves gradually covering corpses on the bottom. These ships are much bigger than the annual deposition of sediment could cover, even 2000 years of annual deposits have not covered them yet, but they are still preserved in good condition ... by the anoxic conditions at the bottom of the black sea.But they have certainly been buried enough to cover a fish corpse.This should put "paid" to her erroneous conclusion that fat fish proved the layers weren't annual and her further leap of faith conclusion that it meant radiometric dating was wrong.This evidence is "proof positive" that organic material can last on the bottom under anoxic conditions for thousands of years, gradually become buried by the slow rain of small particles over millennia, and preserved for future discovery. It is said that he who laughs last laughs best.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : dbEdited by RAZD, : .

"If it is undetectable, then it didn't happen."I wonder what the meaning of such a statement is. Can you detect life on an exoplanet? Since you cannot, should we assume that no life exists on any of them?

I think Rrhain would probably draw a distinction between the meaning of undetectable he intended and that was discernible from context (not detectable by any means ever), and the meaning of undetectable you’re using (not detectable by us at the current time).Percy

NoNukes responds to me:

quote:

---

I wonder what the meaning of such a statement is. Can you detect life on an exoplanet? Since you cannot, should we assume that no life exists on any of them?

---

As Percy pointed out, you are engaging in deliberate obfuscation and disingenuousness. I was very specific about what I meant by "undetectable." Let's try it again since it seems you didn't read my post before you responded: I've highlighted some relevant portions. Perhaps you'll notice them this time. What do you think they mean?

It may be true.
However, it is very very easy to ask question about what the Bible says. And it is usually quite difficult to give a reasonable answer. Do you want to try one?

First of all, I want to make it clear that I was being ironic. I was citing the beliefs of our member Faith (who is as crazy as a sack of bedbugs), not my own. If you mean it's difficult to twist the Bible into saying what you want it to say, I agree. It's not that difficult if you accept what it DOES say. By all means, let's discuss the Bible - but not in this thread. This is a science thread; the Bible carries no weight here.We do have a whole section for Bible discussions. Feel free to contribute to a thread over there or start a new thread.

the Bible says during the global flood, it rains continuously for 40 days and 40 nights. the Bible also says plants are made before the sun is made. I guess you DO have a lot hard science questions to ask. Right? It is so easy to ridicule what said in the Bible, isn't it?

It isn't about ridiculing the Bible. It's about reading the Bible honestly and with respect for what it is. If it's wrong about something, it's wrong - but we still need to accept what it actually says, not try to twist it into making sense.But as I said, this is not the thread for Bible discussion.

You do need a good sense of logic to tell which argument is a twist, or a possible interpretation to scriptures of any religion.