Evidence of the flood

How about listing the name of a single scientist who thought the world was flat. Are you aware that it was known that the earth was spherical, and that its diameter was measured by Eratosthenes in about 200 BC, a time well before the invention of the scientific method?Scientists have been wrong. But this particular claim is garbage.

The idea that this falcon is evidence of the flood is no more or less stupid than any of the other arguments for the Flood I have seen here.But has anyone considered that this bird may not be completely wild? Folks train these particular birds as pets, and I am sure that some of them escape and don't feel the desire to come back home.Percy has set a low bar for discussion of this subject. If the discussion becomes serious, he will move the discussion to an appropriate thread. Is anyone here capable of making a serious argument that this bird is evidence for the Flood or can we just continue to just laugh at creationists the way we do anywhere except on EvC?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That is because you are looking at it wrong. The countless animals that did not jump into a taxi remind us of what a miracle Noah's story about the animals arriving two by two is. The one bird that jumped into a taxi is evidence of the flood.uh, no wait. The argument is stupid.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

If they were not using the scientific method, then their results do not impugn science which requires that method.You are proving the point that being an authority without using the scientific method gives bad results. "Authorities on all things Technical" does not equal scientist.Now, what was the name of that scientist who thought the world was flat?

1) That is not a random arrangement.
2) It happened before the Flood not during according to the account.

Jesus did encourage Thomas, who was otherwise unconvinced, to use objective evidence. However, Jesus also indicated that believing without the evidence was preferable.Which is beside the point. Someone insisting first that they believe God deliberately did not provide evidence, then later insisting that there is evidence, might well be a bit confused.

You quoted some of what Jesus said. It was clear that part of what Jesus said served as an admonishment to Thomas.

This thread is not about whether God exists, which yes, is beyond the realm of science, but about whether the Flood, which few here seem to suggest is about the non-physical, happened. Unless the Flood itself is not an empirical, evidence leaving quantity, then I think your question, while interesting, is not really germane to the topic.Did God Create the universe? may well be a question unanswerable by scientific means. But the questions of whether the Sun and Moon were created on day four, and whether there was ever a canopy of water above the dome of the sky are certainly questions that science may have some input into. Apparently, the scientific answer to those questions is no.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Jesus talked about faith enough, that your interpretation can readily be seen as unlikely. Jesus did not make his remark out of thin air. Doubting Thomas came in second here.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I am sure she does feel that way. But acknowledging that does not excuse the lying about her posting history, the insults, the expressions of hatred, and then leaving in a huff. Most of us here are equally committed to our positions as is Faith.Regardless of the truth, there is no way that Faith's posts are anywhere near an argument, let alone proof for her position. Telling people they would believe what she believes is they would "think harder", or if they weren't Marxists is pretty insulting.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Not if the interaction is magical and undetectable. If God is magically inserting a spirit into each human at say, conception, and the spirit is immaterial, then such insertion would not be detectable. Since I don't accept your first premise, I am not led to your conclusion. The existence of God is not provable or disprovable by philosophy or science.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I disagree. Honesty does not mean just faithfully presenting one's position. I believe Fatih actually crosses some lines where she is not telling the truth. Whether or not that is knowingly, or with failing to understand the implications of what she says is another question. I'm sorry, but this kind of dismissal is not honest if done knowingly. Faith goes further and says that such things are illusion.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Many of the stories in Genesis are not witnessed. Nobody witnessed creation, there is no claim that Noah or his entourage wrote the description of the flood, and in fact, the account includes things that Noah surely did not witness. By tradition, Moses wrote the Torah, but even Moses did not witness the events in Genesis.A cash register receipt is some evidence that your items passed by the cashier, but the Bible is evidence that someone told a story about an event. The vetting process (canonization) is evidence that the stories were found inspiration and believed.The evidence in the Bible is Hebrews 11 style "evidence" and not evidence in any conventional sense. Sometimes...

Ringo, I understand that you like to keep an argument going, but I have to label this attempt at fairly ridiculous. If you actually believe that Jesus was not only elevating Doubting Thomas, but denigrating the others for their faith, you are welcome to hold that belief. But I find your position an incredible stretch that I am not going to entertain further.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Right, so why are you citing this animal instead of those. The complaint you are given is that this animal is not showing signs of behaving like the animals in the Noahic flood because those animals actually showed up well in pairs, sometimes in larger groups of pairs, before there was any flood. Here we have one bird showing up by itself because he was flooded out.