The TRVE history of the Flood...

You have said many times that your belief in the bible is sacrosanct. You have said that where your interpretation of the bible differs from that of science, then the science is wrong.I assume you haven't changed that position?Assuming that to be the case, you are not looking at the evidence objectively. You can not. You have a pre-ordaned conclusion and you attempt to make everything fit that conclusion.Science does the opposite - it follows the evidence wherever it goes, even if it means trashing earlier, heart-felt beliefs. We know this to be true because those that trashed the young earth ideas hated their own conclusions.A professor of mine told me that 'where you stand determines what you are able to see.' Every so often you need to examine your global positioning.

The diference between us Faith, is that I am very willing to follow the evidence. I would be overjoyed to find evidence that destroyed extant science - no matter what it is. I'm a bit of an iconoclast, I enjoy disruptive change and new ideas. How fabulous it would be to find real evidence of a God. It would be the biggest thing to have happened to humanity ever. Why wouldn't anyone want to know that?You, on the other hand, tell us that your beliefs are absolutely correct; just can't be wrong. You can't therefore follow evidence, you are required by your beliefs to deny evidence that contradicts them. You simply can not accept counter-biblical ideas. That's a fact isn't it? You told us so yourself.

Davidjay, I really dont care - and I doubt anyone else here does either - what date you manufacture from you book of tales - it really doesn't matter. Just tell us the date of the flood as you see it and we can go on from there to show you that it didn't actually happen.You see this is quite easy for us, because there's no evidence for a global flood at any point in the earth's history, so just confirm your date and we can move on to evidence.

Yup, you're no expert. I trust scientists when they say that antibiotic resistance are examples of evolution because those very same scientists work to develop new antibiotics and cure us of disease. I take their word for it because I trust them. But the really cool thing about science is that you don't need to trust. If you doubt, you can research the thing yourself. You can read the peer reviewed papers discussing it all and you can even repeat all their work if you feel you really have to. In other words it's real. Wrong. What you've learnt to do is reject one aspect of science because it contraditicts a few myths in you book of stories that you've learnt to trust instead.

There's an unbridgeable chasm here.If someone can read the stories in the bible - making women from ribs, parting waters, talking snakes, giants, 600 year old men, arks etc - and not see them as mythology, but reject almost all evidence based science that can be demonstrated to be correct, there's no real point arguing. No headway can be made because the believer has alternative facts and an alternative life-model.When delusion reaches in so deep, it seems that nothing can change it. It shows how amazing the minds of those real christians were to come up with the revolutionary new ideas about how our world actually is. Particularly those that challenged the young earth ideas. It must have been tough for them mentally, socially and politically.

And you can't see the rather obvious problems with this?Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

1. You weren't there so how do you know? (Your own argument, not mine).
2. Do you know who wrote these books? Nope.
3. The documents were not written contemporaneosly
4. The documents were edited and and redacted 350 after the fact by a dictator and politician
5.Oh - you know the rest.Yet you invest them with so much significance that they overwhelm your ability to think independently and objectively. In fact they absolve you of the necessity of accepting reality altogether. Well whatever gets you through the night I guess.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Darwin became strongly influenced by the "slow occurring" geology as proposed by Lyell. He observed at his first stop of the Beagle on the Cape Verde Islands (January 16, 1832 to February 8,) sediments enclosed by lava flows and raised above the sea level, but with fossils similar to the shells in the sea nearby (implying no substantial change of the environment over time). He applied the principles formulated by Lyell and became convinced that the surface of earth changes over time only slowly and gradually, not as believed by many naturalists at the time by sudden catastrophic events, like the "biblical flood".

​

In a letter to his sisters Darwin confessed that he "literally could not sleep for thinking over my [geology]".

---

Ok, so all you have to do now is prove that the bible is true rather than just say it is. You have to demonstrate that your premise is correct BEFORE you can draw any conclusions from it.

Then give us a link to the post on this site where you proved it.

The last time you pressed a heavy hot iron on a wrinkled shirt, did it stay wrinkled?

And you have to explain why everything that left the ark didn't just die with a couple of weeks. The land was dead having been under water for a year.

I'm sorry CRR, I simply can't take this seriously - it's just too embarassing that an adult can think that the ark story in real. How is it that your critical capacities fail or actually fail to engage at all when it comes to bible stories?Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

CRR - I'm not reading anything from a creation 'science' source. Can you point to properly published source?

CRR - my mind is entirely open, but it's been educated too. Your links are to a discredited organisation that publishes an unreviewed pile of garbage on a website.This is a science forum, if there's useful information to be discussed it needs to come from a credible scientific source.It's also a forum rule that we discuss stuff here in our own words referring to proper references when we have to.Why not have a go at that?I refer you to the rest of my tag
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.