I guess 'proof' is a subjective term

a handful of people actually 'witnessing' the moon landing(not the take off, but the LANDING)

a handful who have uncovered a structure they claim to be the ark


we all believe what we believe, and we validate those things that validate us,,,, no biggy,,just life

Yes, you dismissed it very well. That's why the superficial comeback. It's actually an acknowledgment that your insights cannot be refuted.

You stated that those who believe in Noah's Flood are illogical. That's a Ad Hominem Abusive. You didn't make any arguments to support your assertion that Noah's flood never happened, you merely claimed that those who believe are illogical.

I can stand a lot, but what I can't stand is someone who refuses to own their own words.

As you say, I said that "those" who don't believe in the flood are illogical: for my words to be an ad hominem "attack," I would have said, "YOU are stupid for believing in the flood."

As for me not giving evidence contrary to the flood, I wrote quite a bit about the flood myths in other posts. If you didn't bother to read them, I sure the heck am not going to take the time to go through it again.

However, the idea that a man built an ark, put every animal in existence on the boat, then the firmaments opened and it rained for 40 days, flooding the entire earth is not logical.

As someone else stated and as I stated, there is NO fossil record that such a flood ever happened. I already went into the scientific, not mythical, reasons for why there are fossils on top of mountains.

I've noticed that a lot.

Someone will make a claim about what's in the Bible. I'll prove to them that's they're incorrect or that their claim is absent.

Then they give one of 2 responses:
1. "I didn't say that, the Bible did" (Really? A book spoke to them?) denial

2. "It doesn't matter" (only because they can't prove their case) deflection or obfuscation

To use words like "silly", "assinine", "delusional", "illogical" and "unwise", just to name a few, shows your character, not anyone else's... (I'd love to see these words used in a court of law. After the opening statement, they'd all be stricken)


Those who use them are plain STUPID and MEAN!!! *





















* I never claim to be smart or nice, just honest

It's laughably illogical to reject an all-powerful God, because you believe he couldn't accomplish something. Noah had 100 years to build the Ark, a hard working man couldn't build the Ark in 100 years? An all-powerful God couldn't round up a bunch of animals? The God who used a small amount of bread and fish to feed a huge crowd couldn't do the same thing with food for animals?



Have you heard of "Catastrophic Plate Tectonics"? It's the theory that movement of the tectonic plates could accelerate due to lubrication from molten rock. Have you heard of "sea floor spreading"? It's the theory that the sea floor can spread and deepen. I believe the fossils are on top of certain mountains, because the plates moved extremely fast into their current positions, while the flood waters were on the earth. Maybe I'm wrong, very likely I am. I'm just a silly human. But that would explain the fossils on the mountain tops.

I agree with Gwendolyn. Here statement was a logical statement and wasn't Ad Hominem at all.

This is such a typical tactic. When solid points are made that cannot be refuted people just try to change the focus and pretend that the conversation is becoming personal insults.

The fact is that a world wide flood caused by rain in 40 days that Noah and his family could have survived is indeed illogical on so many levels it's not even funny.

Just the event itself is utterly illogical. The event could not have been caused by any "natural process". Of course, it wasn't supposed to be, it was supposed to be caused by God. The excess water would have had to come from somewhere other than the earth. And it would have also had to have been drained back off the earth after the flood. All of this having taken place with 40 days or so.

That's an illogical event to be sure.

There are so many illogical things associated with this event as well. Like what would have happened to all the fresh water species of fish and aquatic life. Anyone who keeps aquariums will tell you that you can't just toss fresh water fish into salt water and expect them to survive for 40 days.

But that's exactly what would have happened if the oceans were mixed in with all the rivers and lakes. Which would have had to have happened in a worldwide flood.

You could argue that rainwater is fresh water and since the flood was caused by rain the saltwater of the oceans would have been diluted into freshwater. But in that case then all the saltwater fishes would have died. So there is no logical resolution to the problem. Therefore the whole idea is illogical.

Beside when the water finally receded how would the fresh water fish end up back in lakes and streams, and the saltwater fish end up back in the oceans?

You could say that "God took care of all those details via his miracles". However, miracles are indeed illogical so that really doesn't help with the original point.

Plus there is no geological record of any such flood, which would stick out like a sore thumb in the geological record had it ever occurred. Plus the Human Genome project has put together a picture of the entire development of humanity from early cave man times up until today. That DNA record in fossil bones would have also had to have been disrupted between cave man days and the present time, but no such disruption is seen, on the contrary the picture is precisely what would be expected without any major disruptions.

So it truly is illogical to believe in a worldwide flood during the period of mankind's presence on earth.

Thus we end up with religious people starting to confess that it may indeed have been a local flood. But then there would be no need for an Ark to save the animal kingdom. Plus a local flood would leave open the question of whether all humans were killed in the flood, or just one local area?

In other words the whole story falls apart. Because every thought of every human was supposed to be evil, etc.

The story is illogical. That's just a fact.

So rather than being offended by that you should just confess that, yes, a believe in a Zeus-like God is already illogical.

After all, since when are these religions supposed to be "logical"?

If you want to talk about things being illogical, I would personally say that it's extremely illogical for a supposedly all-wise and all-powerful God to have to have his son butchered on a pole in order to forgive mankind their sins.

To me, that's about as illogical as things can be. A supposedly all-wise, all-powerful God should have been able to come up with a better solution to this problem, IMHO.

I mean, if infinite wisdom and power means that problems can't be solved any better than this, then that's a pretty LIMITED infinity if you ask me. And that's a logical contradiction right there.

The thing I find interesting is that you offer no proof (Via websites) to back up your claims. I have in the past but you tell us you never go to them anyhow so I see no point in taking the time to research the facts.

You start off my saying that the fish would have died. So your saying that there's enough salt in one body of water to cover the entire planet? Enough to kill off all of the freshwater fish? Every single one? Who's to say they din't have fish on the ark? We keep fish today. I'm sure they had things to keep them in then.

Now you ask how all the saltwater fishes got back to saltwater and the freshwater fishes got back to freshwater.

If we look at this from a scientific perspective one could argue that the fish who could survive in the freshwater lived and the one's that could not, died. Same way with the saltwater. I believe they call it natural selection. It's an evolutionary process.
We can still see it today.

I've put out proof's earlier in the thread about sedementary rock,and fossils found on mountain tops. But that's ignored. So I see no point in making the case for logic if you refuse to see or even research the logic. Not to mention offering proof of any kind to back up your statement.

Now I see a repeat phrase in your post's about God being zeus like. Zeus and Jesus are two different beings from two different stories.
Zeus had offspring. That being other god's and goddesses. Jesus makes no other god's. Zeus lived on earth. God lives outside our universe. Zeus came to earth now and again to seduce human females. God does no such thing. (Except on one occasion and that needed no seduction) Please get your facts straight.

The last thing you put here that I can react to is the cross. This is God's law. Before this one had to kill a lamb and sacrifice it to atone for sins.

King Solomon did something like 1000 of these when he became king. In response God made him the wisest man who ever lived.

The fact that Jesus died for sin happened so that there would be no need for lambs and blood. Jesus is was and always will be perfect. Making him the ultimate sacrifice. So there is no more need for the blood sacrifice. Only repentance. Do that and your good to go. At least until the next time you sin.
Now because God in his infinite wisdom choose to make things the way they are, that in no way means he's limited. God is outside the universe. Outside space and time. God is in no way limited. Just because he choose to put down rules about sacrifice that does not make him limited. That is simply the way he choose to confront sin.
The wages of sin is death. Would you rather everyone who sin's dies? Of course not. So Jesus dies so that his people may live. It's the love man! And he dint stay dead he rose again. So your thinking this is wrong is illogical by itself.

Why I could turn your statement around and call you illogical and ignorant of the very thing you argue against.
Do yourself a favor and put down the science book, get educated on God and the bible so you can make intelligent statements about it.
The first thing you have to realize is that God is outside the universe. He is in no way part of it. That's why science cannot prove or disprove he exists.

another hindsight thought


could I or you or anyone else ever truly claim to know the feelings that exist between any two people? How could someone ELSE ever convince me that my parents did or did not care for me?

I think , when it comes to emotions, we usually come to our conclusion from personal experience as opposed to third party information.


So , does God care?

Yes. My personal experiences has shown me he cares about me. I cant fathom that I would be the only one he cares about which leads me to believe he cares in general, but I cant convince anyone ELSE whether he cares about THEM,,,they have to come to that conclusion(or not) on their own.


to quote miles,,,,,,Peace

Well said! I think they have to have some faith as well to accept that there is a God. Without faith you have nothing.

Even evolution needs faith to believe. More so than other religions such as Christianity as a matter of fact.

I don't need any proof for my views because I'm not attempting to prove anything. That's your misunderstanding.

I merely offer knowledge of truth. There will be those who can see it, and there will be those who cannot. It doesn't matter to me. I just put it out there as food for thought. Take it or leave it.

The Christians are the people who are obsessed with "proofs" because they are determined to try to convince everyone that the Bible is the "word of God", and they are hard-up to try to 'prove' their claims. But in truth, they have no proof to offer.

In fact, there is no need to disprove the claims of the Christians because they have no proof of their claims in the first place.

As to your arguments for how you think fish might have survived a world wide flood, I'm truly not interested in your views. I've been a keeper of fish for most of my life. I'm vividly aware of just how sensitive they are to these things. So I have first-hand experience with it so I don't need anyone to offer me their guesses.



You could try, but it would be a futile approach.



I'm am educated on the Bible and this is precisely why I know that it's baloney.

It's the greatest Christian falsehood to believe that just because the biblical God supposedly existed outside of the universe this places the legitimacy of the fables beyond the reach of science.

That's simply untrue.

The biblical fables claim that mankind's fall from grace is what brought death, disease and imperfections in to the world. There are even places where it claims that this event is what caused plants to grow thorns.

Well, today we know that these fables are false in that claim. So even if some supposed "God" exists outside of the universe where he is supposedly untouchable by science, it still leaves the fact that the fables themselves are false.

The fables accuse the Egyptians and Canaanites of "rejecting God", but simultaneously these same fables recognize that both of those cultures were indeed attempting to worship "God". In fact, the Canaanites evidently took their worship of "God" so seriously that they were sacrificing their own children in hopes of appeasing the God.

Sure, the authors of the biblical fables accuse these cultures of worshiping "false gods". But that's where they made their fatal error and exposed themselves to be doing nothing more than creating man-made myths.

You see, these cultures could not have possibly used their FREE WILL CHOICE, to reject the creator of this universe, whilst simultaneously continuing to worship what they believed to be the creator of this universe.

So the authors of these fables shot themselves in the foot on this one.

You can't have people using FREE WILL CHOICE to reject the creator of the universe whilst simultaneously still under the belief that they are attempting to appease the creator of the universe.

And that flies in the face that these cultures were FREELY CHOOSING to reject "God".

And please notice here that this has nothing at all to do with science. These stories cut their own throat. They are clearly false and have no merit at all.

So they have proven themselves to be false. Why would I need to point to any websites on the Internet as "proof" of something so obvious?

You just read it here, there's no need to go anywhere else. This is not a mere 'opinion', this is a crystal clear fact that's written right into the biblical stories. Just read the stories and you'll see.

You can't have people who have supposedly rejected "God" worshiping 'false gods', because that clearly shows that they have not rejected "God" at all. On the contrary, they are clearly trying hard to worship "God".

If they were CONFUSED about who "God" is then that can only be "God's" fault. You can't have people who have purposefully rejected their true creator going around worshiping make-believe creators. That's just utterly absurd.

So the whole fable fails on it's own. It doesn't need science to prove that it's false. It's clearly just the accusations of one culture attempting to pretend that the "Gods" of other cultures are 'false gods', but that doesn't fly.

You can't have knowingly and willfully rejected God via your FREE WILL CHOICE and still be attempting to worship God (even if you have the idea of God wrong, that doesn't change the fact that you are clearly trying to worship God, rather than reject God)

So the fables are necessarily false man-made religious finger-pointing.

And that shouldn't be the least bit surprising because that what people did in those days and particularly in the Mediterranean region. It was a common practice for every culture to accuse the other cultures of worshiping "false gods".

But that very accusation holds no merit.

So there's nothing to disprove. The fables are simply false.

You don't need to look anything up on the Internet, you should be able to figure this one out on your own.

That's your opinion.

Spider you have a little something I call confirmation Bias

and I still can't believe you have read all types od science and still believe the bible word for word

have you ever seen these miracles ???

an illusionist once said given enough preparation he could recreate every single illusion or so called miracle in the bible, walking on water turning water to wine for example

You're finally catching on.

Yes, it most certainly is my opinion based on pure logic and rational thinking. In my opinion it's an obviously and blatant falsehood to be accusing people who are clearly worshiping a God of rejecting God. That's a crystal clear oxymoron, IMHO.

Yep, that is indeed my opinion. Absolutely.

And it truly doesn't matter to me who recognizes the truth of this observation. As far as I'm concerned its truth value does not depend on other people's opinions.

If I drop a heavy weight on my foot and it hurts, and you voice an opinion that I shouldn't feel a thing, you opinion would be utterly meaningless to me. My experience trumps your opinion.

The same is true in this case. I can clearly see that to accuse people who are attempting to worship a God of rejecting God is an oxymoron. I don't need any further proof. There's nothing you could possible say that would change the truth of the situation.

The obvious truth is the obvious truth. And that's my opinion.

Well, not only that, but truly all we have is hearsay rumors that they ever occurred in the first place. So we really have no need to 'explain' them beyond the very simple explanation that they were probably either overzealous exaggerations, or utterly fabricated myths.

I personally hold out the very sincere and heartfelt notion that if some supreme being had a message of this grand importance to convey to all of humanity he would not have left it up to hearsay rumors.

At the very least Jesus should have been writing this stuff down in his own handwriting. Moreover, if he truly was divine, his writings should make Shakespeare's works look like kindergarten babble.

When a human read the words written by God they should just stand in awe at what they have just read. They shouldn't be arguing with each other over what it means, or whether or not they even believe it to be from a divine source.

The Jews instantly rejected the rumors that Jesus was the messiah. They weren't impressed with that theory in the least. Jesus didn't even become king, he couldn't have been the messiah. The Christians hold that Jesus will BE KING when he returns.

That's a truly belated fulfillment of prophecy. How can it be said that Jesus fulfilled prophecy if even the Christians confess that he hasn't yet fulfilled it?

This is a prophecy that supposedly will be fulfilled when Jesus returns.

So it doesn't even qualify as the fulfillment of prophesy. It's just a hope that maybe someday in the future the prophesy might eventually be fulfilled. Talk about a FAITH-BASED religion. It doesn't get any more faith-based than that.

God is not a god of rejecting God. He asks that we reject OTHER god's.

It's an issue of jealousy. God is jealous when people worship OTHER god's. Any god who is not THE God is one the follower of Jesus should reject.

So you see there is no oxymoron here. Just a misunderstanding on you're part.

I agree that the entire fable is based on this oxymoron.

The fallacy is that there can be no "other gods" if there is only one true God. This is the mentally that came from Greek Mythology where there were many gods. It's obviously just an extension of that same sort of mindset. The Hebrews were simply trying to reject the notion of "other gods" in favor of their "one true God".

But that's the oxymoron right there.

These entire fables are based on nothing more than one culture trying to claim superiority in terms of religious fables.

Evidently they convinced you.

But I see through them like a plate glass window.

The very idea of a "jealous god" when there are supposedly no other "gods" to be jealous of is an oxymoron.

So the whole thing was a farce from the very start.

The fact that you understand is good enough for me.

Now the belief that you think there is no God...is your belief. It may or may not be true. And just because you say it does not make it so.

Well considering that is not my belief, nor have I have even remotely suggested that it is, I suppose there isn't much sense in attempting to converse with you any further.

Have a great day!