I don't see where anyone is questioning the potential devastation that can be caused by a flood.

here are a few sites with sources who explore and discover AS A LIVING, and some of their theories as well,,,,

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2003-07-16-black-sea-site_x.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2000/sep/14/internationalnews.archaeology


mind you, as I have said millions of times before...

in this internet age there are thousands of resources on both sides of just about any issue


the same is true of this topic in science, there are some in the field who interpret 'evidence' in support of a flood and there are some in the field who interpret 'evidence' in contrast to the flood


but in reality, not having YET proven something is not the same as having DISPROVED it,,,and the professionals continue to search,,,,,

Oh damn, what was thinking. I forgot my "truth" points. Here it is.

You can deny that you made the claim of a wordlwide flood, but the TRUTH is obvious that you did.

Deflections and dishonesty does not make you right. Address the points or I'll do my victory dance.

I really do love watching the backpedaling tactics though, I guess it not the nicest thing, but oh well.


It's obvious how much you PP, but why the obsession?

Are you going to talk about PP all the time?

When will you learn that PP is smarter and much wiser than you can ever comprehend?

While PP is cool and calm at all times, sometimes PP feels sick about the obsession with PP.

I hope my "proof" points convinces you I'm right, I can only hope so...

I finished with you when you wrote:



The sound that you don't hear is the cessation of me beating my head against a brick wall.

Your coup de gras worked.

A not even logical fallacy: assuming that there was a flood.

Logical Fallacy: Ad Hominem Abusive.

I make no denial of this. On the contrary that's the only way that the biblical story can make any sense.

You're the one who is apparently in denial.

As the story goes, Noah was instructed on how to build an ARK for the purpose of saving the animal kingdom from the flood.

So if you're trying to argue for a local flood, you're argument is moot because that's clearly not what the story was about.

If you're going to try to support biblical stories, you need to try to support them, not change them.

Anybody can host a site on the Internet. Just because people create websites full of bogus information doesn't make it true.

As far as "science" goes, there are no serious debates between scientists. Just look at any so-called "scientist" who is attempting to argue that science can be used to support the biblical fables and you'll find that these so-called scientists also have religious agendas.

No serious secular scientist is even remotely considering these things because the evidence against them is iron clad.

You need to basically lie and misrepresent information to pretend to make a case that science supports these ancient myths. And unfortunately this is precisely what religious fanatics do. They outright lie and misrepresent truth.

As sad as it is the truth is that they will lie in a heartbeat to support their religious fanaticism.

I didn't change them, prove otherwise.

I've proven via the original Hebrew text and a supporting verse in Psalms that a worldwide flood is not true.

If you're going to misrepresent the Biblical stories, make sure that your fallacious claims cannot be refuted...

I win, you lose by default of no support for your claim.

I predict you cannot provide evidence of the flood being worldwide.

This isn't actually a prediction, because I know I'm right, Gwendolyn told me my coup de gras worked.

Gee, you really like PP in your face, huh?

continuing to give examples of my point,,,,,,

believe the sources that support what we believe

isnt that the whole reason this debate thread can exist?


seems like 'evidence' that this is a HUMAN tendency, not a religious one,,

I don't need to. It's the basis of the story. A local flood would not have required the building of an ark to save the animal kingdom.

I'm sorry if this is beyond your ability to comprehend. I feel confident that most people can indeed comprehend this extremely simple concept. So continue to whine and cry if you must. I really don't care. The story speaks for itself.

I've proven you wrong, and you think I can't comprehend?

I've provided evidence while you make hollow claims.

Sorry, but it's not me who's whining and crying...

Well, these "debate threads" are typically just layman arguing about things they know little about.

In regard to your last statement: "seems like 'evidence' that this is a HUMAN tendency, not a religious one"

Not really.

Fortunately for us, the most productive people our society have accepted the scientific method of inquiry. That is to look at evidence and accept where the evidence leads without any preconceived idea of where they think it should lead.

This is what brings us modern medicine and technology.

Religious people work exactly backwards. They have a conclusion that they want to be true, and they try to find 'evidence' to support their conclusions, whilst simultaneously ignoring the overwhelming evidence against their conclusions.

So is this kind of religious thinking a "human" tendency?

Yes, it certainly does appear to be the way that the masses think.

It's fortunate for us that everyone isn't blinded by that kind of thinking. For if they were we'd still be living in the dark ages and we'd have no science or technology.

And that's the problem, isn't it? A Christian suggests that life on earth was designed and it's laughable. An Atheist suggests that life on earth was designed and they win a Nobel. The "scientists" have closed their minds to possibilities, because of religious bigotry.

Really? So every single species in the Middle East also lives in other places on the planet? How about the Rock Hyrax, which only lives in the Middle East? If there were a cataclysmic flood in the Middle East, couldn't the Rock Hyrax be wiped out? I'm sure there are dozens, if not hundreds of species that would be lost in a localized flood of significant size. Turtles, frogs, toads and other reptiles and amphibians often have very small ranges.

The words in the Bible don't make it clear if the flood was global or "world-wide", with "world" meaning all inhabited lands. The flood only had to destroy humanity, the poor animals were innocent bystanders.

I'm sorry if this is beyond your ability to comprehend. I feel confident that most people can indeed comprehend this extremely simple concept. So continue to whine and cry if you must. I really don't care. The story speaks for itself.

Humanity didn't start in the Middle East bro

Summerian Civilization did but that was after the supposed flood

That's immaterial. Pick any area in the world, there are native species that would be lost completely in a large scale flood.

so can you explain how the SCIENTIFIC method has provided 'ironclad' evidence the flood didnt happen?

as I understand it, they have yet to be able to refute it happened, they just have come up with other theories of other events that happened

because I posted the research of a few sources who did use pretty well accepted methods as well to come up with POSSIBLE flood scenarios

and they were questioned as not the 'most productive' people


do you see what Im saying,, one persons source of 'evidence' even with research by professional researchers and scientists can be either accepted or excused as the rantings of 'less productive' or 'less logical' or 'less scientific'(pick your adjective here)


thats the same thing that religious people do , is it not,, my source is more reliable than your source, even if the sources main expertise is very similar?

If you think the Ark is real man by all mean go to that Turkey Mtn and prove it I say BS no one man built an Arc and saved everything even in One major region bro
no way no how

I personally have no more inclination to go to Turkey to prove the Ark was real than I do to go to the moon and prove it can be done

believe what we believe

I happen to believe the accounts of both the Ark and the MOON landing