Who to believe , Ham or Ross?

Wow - Mike starts a topic about himself! How unlikely is that!

Well you try and pass the bible off as fact - what's the difference?

Every element is true? We never had a creationist explain how Noah and the rest weren't burnt to death during the flood.What don't you pop over to one of the multiple threads we have on the subject and show us how it is done.

quote:

---

What, some scientistic presupposition suggests that such a flood would have burnt everything up and we're supposed to take seriously what is obviously just another unprovable untestable unfalsifiable unreplicable evo wild guess, and this one not even an intelligent one?

---

em..no..basic physics tells us that the flood described in the bible would have flashfried everything on the planet. Before you start with the namecalling -you may want to search the site and see how poorly previous creationists fared when trying to overcome the basic physics involved in this one....Unless the flood didn't occur as stated in the bible?Did the flood happen just as it states in the bible?

Can't say I'm surprised - most creationists don't want to tackle such a fundemental problem. There is no real room for fudge and it's a fantastic problem for revealing the confused and frankly nonsense efforts of the creation movement in performing science.The last one who tried, ended up in a terrible mess trying to give the earth a cold solid gold (or it could have be crystal) core in an attempt to get a creationist model to work. I think the effort drove them mad in the end.

Lots of waffle in there - who mentioned weather reports?The subject seems to make you angry for some reason - try and stay calm.Let's try and make this simple for you to follow - we can break it down into chuck.Does the Bible mention how long the "flood" lasted?Yes/No. If so how long does the flood last?

quote:

---

I guess 3000 year track record of its having been taken as true.history isn't evidence in these parts, huh?

---

Well...no. what makes you think it's been considered literally true for 3000 years?Your understanding of what is actually "history" seems poor. If we give you a section out of the bible - can you tell us what independent historical evidence there is for such an event?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 29-Mar-2005 04:28 PM

I'm starting to think that you really don't get it:look at this quote:

quote:

---

I guess it's too much to ask that anyone be literate enough around here to KNOW that it's been taken as true history by great Bible teachers all the way back

---

You really don't see the problem with offering this as "evidence"?

But Faith it's a sliding scale.If I say "my name is Charles" - is it really important to investigate that fact?What if I said that I run a four minute mile?what if I said that I could fly?The bible makes extraordinary claims - we can't even find proof for many of the "ordinary" things in there!

I'll leave him thanks*.* well the christian godhead at least, I've not examined the other 3000 or so God that we have on the planet. One of those may be the real deal.

I see - so you are saying the Koran is true. Odd postion for you to take ....

your answers are half-rant and half "you should believe nuff said".Who do in the bible do you feel has the most historical evidence that they actually existed?I'm not asking for a quote from the bible - what record of the time or source(s) proves this person existed?This message has been edited by General Krull, 31-Mar-2005 12:46 AM

I love how actually been asked to provide a shred of evidence those people existed is seen as "nagging, niggling, nitpicking".I can't understand what your purpose is at this site - most of your answers either dodge the question or dismiss them out of hand.I hope your purpose is not preach and "testify", that's just a pain in the arse.