|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Does The Flood Add up? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
boolean Inactive Member |
quote: HA! Good point =) This thread seems to be very quite from the Creationist side. Anyone care to have a swipe at some of the posts so far?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Posit Inactive Member |
Here's one rather glaring example where a Biblical quote seems to contradict the assumption immediately preceding it.
From http://www.carm.org/questions/noahsark.htm
(text made bold by me)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
boolean Inactive Member |
HAHA! So it's true. We have underwater Aborigines in Australia ^_^
I also like how that quote says the water was covering "all the high mountains under the entire heavens", and then in the next passage Genesis 7:20 it says
quote: Man, we must have had some small hills back then
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
First the request.
When you are replying to a message, please use the reply button at the bottom right of the message to which you are replying. That causes an email to be sent to the person to whom you are replying (if requested), and it links up the messages so that you can see to which message you are replying. Now the comment:
I think part of the reason this thread is not getting much activity is because the thread title is quite broad.
The reason there is not much activity, is that the creationists are choosing to not respond to the arguments in this particular thread. By the way, there is a peek, also at the bottom right. If you use it, you can see what I typed to produce that quote box.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LudoRephaim Member (Idle past 5111 days) Posts: 651 From: Jareth's labyrinth Joined: |
Hello
I responded to some of the arguments, but these new ones just seem mostly odd. I guess they where replying to me or something? Dont know for sure. I guess I didn't get any major counters becuase I am not young earth creationist or something LOL. BTW: Still trying to figure out the quote system. I'll get to it soon though. Peace. "The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LudoRephaim Member (Idle past 5111 days) Posts: 651 From: Jareth's labyrinth Joined: |
{quote}First the Request{/quote}
I think I got how da quotes work! This message has been edited by LudoRephaim, 03-21-2006 10:28 PM "The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sinamatic Member (Idle past 4172 days) Posts: 67 From: Traverse City, MI usa Joined: |
First of all if you can accept that God is capable of creating the universe and life itself, why is the story of the ark so impossible? Is turning water into wine any less of a miracle? How about rising from the dead? Gods ways are his own but if you really want to understand you have to first believe then look for answers. If God was proven to exist everyone would believe in him. How could you reward the faithful then?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rgb Inactive Member |
Brokenpride
quote:Because 'goddunit' leads to no progress whatsoever. The thread starter are just calling the flood supporters on some unexplained details.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4138 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
if you want to claim that the flood accured using science and history you have to answer these hard questions, invokeing god doesn't fly with people who do not believe in bible stories
if we have to believe in god to investigate whats the point in investigating anything?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
boolean Inactive Member |
quote: God creating the universe and Noah making the ark are two completely different matters. And is the ark impossible? According to the evidence put forth this in this thread, YES
quote:1) In some ways, it could be a miracle, as long as you can prove it happened outside the reason 'because the bible said so' 2) I can do this at home as a party trick quote:1) yes, it is a miracle, as long as you can prove it happened outside the reason 'because the bible said so' quote: Well since you HAVE found him, then you must have answers, at least according to your theory. Care to debunk the evidence put forth in this thread then?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
First of all if you can accept that God is capable of creating the universe and life itself, why is the story of the ark so impossible? The story isn't impossible, it's imaginable. But all of the evidence falsifies a world-wide flood at any time during the last 600,000 years at the very least.
Is turning water into wine any less of a miracle? How about rising from the dead? Immaterial. We have no evidence that either of those incidents did not happen. We do have evidence that the flood didn't.
If God was proven to exist everyone would believe in him. How could you reward the faithful then? And there is the heart of why so many Christians don't understand Christianity. Only a Bling-Bling Pimp Daddy of a god would want to reward the faithful. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sinamatic Member (Idle past 4172 days) Posts: 67 From: Traverse City, MI usa Joined: |
jar writes: Immaterial. We have no evidence that either of those incidents did not happen. We do have evidence that the flood didn't. Yes we do, all scientific laws and reasoning says it's impossible. You are proving my point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sinamatic Member (Idle past 4172 days) Posts: 67 From: Traverse City, MI usa Joined: |
ell since you HAVE found him, then you must have answers, at least according to your theory. Care to debunk the evidence put forth in this thread then?
not really...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You brought up two specific incidents, turning water into wine and rising from the dead.
Yes, by all scientific knowledge today we can say that we know no way that either could happen. BUT.. we have no proof that neither happened. The Flood is entirely different. It's like Young Earth, the Conquest of Canaan, The Exodus, Joshua at Jerico. In each of those there is POSITIVE and overwhelming evidence that they did NOT happen. There is always the possibility that the two incidents happened, that there is some explanation we do not yet understand. But the Flood, nope. It simply didn't happen and the only way one can assert that it did is by wilfully ignoring all of the evidence. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
boolean Inactive Member |
--Boolean Well since you HAVE found him, then you must have answers, at least according to your theory. Care to debunk the evidence put forth in this thread then? --Brokenpride not really... You mean you can't, or you don’t want to? If you can't explain it, why is that? If you don't want to explain, I suggest not posting in this thread unless you have something to contribute, lest it wander off topic. ---- So, back on topic - I looked up some information on how long Aborigines are to have lived in Australia, and even at the most conservative widely-accepted timeline found that the first arrival to Australia is between 40,000 - 50,000 years ago, with the average falling around near 30,000 years. Even assuming they got the facts wrong, and we divide that number in two, they were still most defiantly alive at the time of the flood. We can even assume that they were so horribly off the mark, that we divide that number in half again, giving us 7500 years, defiantly still around at the time of the flood. The most important early sites in Australia are:Nauwalabila (55,000 - 60,000 years old) Malakanunja (45,000 - 61,000 years old) Devil's Lair (45,000 years old) Lake Mungo (61,000 or 40,000 years old) Lake Mungo is the only site which has come under suggestions that the date may not be accurate; it is suggested that it should be 40,000 years old, not 61,000 years old. Hardly anywhere the suggestion that all sites would have to be a mere 4000 years old. So how do flood supporters account for this? I asked a Christian friend of mine today how he could account for the Aborigines living at the same time as the flood, and in fact before God was even supposed to have created man (but that’s another thread for another day), and he replied ”well we can’t be sure they were alive more than 4000 years ago’. I told him that these dates were achieved using Thermoluminescence, which despite only being around 15% accurate for a single sample, can be used as definite means to get an idea within a few thousand years of a date with enough samples. So far, even under the heaviest of criticism, the dates of the Aborigines migration to Australia lands absolutely no where near 4000 years. At this point he said “yeah look, I have no idea”.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024