• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Noah's Flood versus Reality[W:366]

Re: Noah's Flood versus Reality

fmw said:
Let me recommend Asimov's Guide to the Bible. The late popular science fiction writer was also a scientist and a very entertaining science writer. In the book he makes the assumption that the things that are described in the bible actually happened and then goes on to explain how it might have been possible using modern science. It is very entertaining. If I remember correctly, he suggested that the great flood could have been caused by an asteroid hitting the Red Sea. He calculated how big it would have to be to flood the area all the way to Mount Ararat in the chapter. That certainly wouldn't explain marine fossils in the Andes. We know the mountains uplifted from what was a sea bed a long time ago. So the "flood" would certainly predate the mountain formation.
Click to expand...

Which, of course, also predates humans. There isn't any possible myth that can come from such an event because nobody could have observed it. Regardless, it doesn't match what was said in the Bible, which is patently absurd.
 
Re: Noah's Flood versus Reality

Logicman said:
Nope, the problem is in your thinking that there's problems.
Click to expand...

It does not seem that you can support that sentence with either evidence or logic. Would you care to try?
 
Re: Noah's Flood versus Reality

RAMOSS said:
It does not seem that you can support that sentence with either evidence or logic. Would you care to try?
Click to expand...

He doesn't know what either evidence or logic is, so no, he won't.
 
Re: Noah's Flood versus Reality

RAMOSS said:
It does not seem that you can support that sentence with either evidence or logic.
Click to expand...

It would be a waste of time and effort to try to instill in you Biblical truths. You've demonstrated you're immune from them. And Cephus as well.
 
Re: Noah's Flood versus Reality

Logicman said:
That's right, so spare me any more of that folly.
Click to expand...
Yeah, confrontation with own logical fallacy ain't something that everyone can handle well. Never mind, denial will save you pain.
 
Re: Noah's Flood versus Reality

Chagos said:
Yeah, confrontation with own logical fallacy ain't something that everyone can handle well. Never mind, denial will save you pain.
Click to expand...

You mean it's working for you and that's how you know?
 
Re: Noah's Flood versus Reality

Has logicman sorted out the problem of insisting that the whale fossils found in Egypt were 34 million years old and could not have been involved in the Flood?
 
Re: Noah's Flood versus Reality

Gimmesometruth said:
Has logicman sorted out the problem of insisting that the whale fossils found in Egypt were 34 million years old and could not have been involved in the Flood?
Click to expand...

I have no clue about the criteria used for the dating of the fossils or whether those fossils were deposited or uncovered by a later flood or what. And neither do you.

And like I said, I'll take the word of God - Jesus Christ - who rose from the dead, rather than what you believe.
 
Re: Noah's Flood versus Reality

Logicman said:
I have no clue about the criteria used for the dating of the fossils or whether those fossils were deposited or uncovered by a later flood or what. And neither do you.

And like I said, I'll take the word of God - Jesus Christ - who rose from the dead, rather than what you believe.
Click to expand...
You brought up the article from your conservative website, you used the information from the article to bolster an argument for the flood....then you denied you brought up the article.....and now you question the science of dating fossils. This is a perfect example of why folks who want to argue using the brble should stick to the brble and not begin to use science to back up the brble....because science does not support fairy tales and other irrational fictions. At the very least you could have done just a modicum of research into those particular whales.......oh snap....what am I saying....nevermind.
 
Re: Noah's Flood versus Reality

Gimmesometruth said:
You brought up the article from your conservative website, you used the information from the article to bolster an argument for the flood....then you denied you brought up the article.....and now you question the science of dating fossils. This is a perfect example of why folks who want to argue using the brble should stick to the brble and not begin to use science to back up the brble....because science does not support fairy tales and other irrational fictions. At the very least you could have done just a modicum of research into those particular whales.......oh snap....what am I saying....nevermind.
Click to expand...

I've already addressed this in post # 338. Take it or leave it.

And whenever you want to try to back up a claim that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a fairy tale, then go for it. LOL.
 
Re: Noah's Flood versus Reality

Logicman said:
I've already addressed this in post # 338. Take it or leave it.

And whenever you want to try to back up a claim that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a fairy tale, then go for it. LOL.
Click to expand...
The argument has been completely about the whales YOU brought up, if you now concede that the whales are much older than homo sapiens, ergo they could not have been caught in the Flood....well then we are done. But if you want to still argue that the method of dating the whales is inaccurate, by all means, bring forth your evidence. Again, don't distract by going off on tangents, stick to your original argument.
 
Re: Noah's Flood versus Reality

Logicman said:
or whether those fossils were deposited or uncovered by a later flood or what. And neither do you.
Click to expand...
By a "later flood"? Are you going to argue that THE FLOOD occurred prior to 34 million years ago? And then those whales died in a different time, after THE FLOOD?
 
Re: Noah's Flood versus Reality

Gimmesometruth said:
By a "later flood"? Are you going to argue that THE FLOOD occurred prior to 34 million years ago? And then those whales died in a different time, after THE FLOOD?
Click to expand...

"THE" flood or "a' flood or many floods? Sorry, I don't have the answers on all those. And neither do you.

But what I do have is a God-inspired historical record, arguably by Moses, of Noah's Flood. And it's confirmed by Jesus Christ, who was resurrected from the dead.
 
Last edited:
Re: Noah's Flood versus Reality

Logicman said:
Sorry, I don't have the answers on all that. And neither do you.
Click to expand...
The point is, you don't have any logic in your timelines, you have zero answers on when THE FLOOD happened, but you sure thought that bringing up 34 million old whales proves the flood happened....If you don't want to talk about your whales.....protip...don't bring em up.
 
Re: Noah's Flood versus Reality

Gimmesometruth said:
The point is, you don't have any logic in your timelines, you have zero answers on when THE FLOOD happened, but you sure thought that bringing up 34 million old whales proves the flood happened....If you don't want to talk about your whales.....protip...don't bring em up.
Click to expand...

See my previous post. I don't have anything more for you on the whales or when exactly Noah's flood occurred, or if there were others in the area.
 
Last edited:
Re: Noah's Flood versus Reality

Logicman said:
You're not going to be swayed by any amount of evidence that challenges your unscholarly biases.
Click to expand...

How long did it take you to think of that comeback? I hope not very long. But you have zero evidence and pointing to obscure religious books isnt evidence.

Your response was nothing but a attempt to attack me, thats it. It wasnt a argument it was fluff. And at that it seems to have been designed to make yourself feel better and thats about it.
 
Re: Noah's Flood versus Reality

Logicman said:
Looks like you've never really studied the Harmony of the Gospels.

Complete Harmony of the Gospels

By the way, ALL FOUR GOSPELS confirm the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus, as do various epistles.
Click to expand...

Since any purported gospel that did not confirm the crucifixion, death and resurrection would not have been accepted as a gospel, it's not compelling that the four accepted tend to agree (though they do conflict).
The Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Nicodemus, the Questions of Bartholomew, and The Resurrection of Jesus Christ According to Bartholomew are non-canonical gospels that tell yet more versions of the Resurrection.

Regadless.....that there exist explanations that resolve apparent contradictions does not mean that those explanations are correct.
 
Re: Noah's Flood versus Reality

Logicman said:
It would be a waste of time and effort to try to instill in you Biblical truths. You've demonstrated you're immune from them. And Cephus as well.
Click to expand...

Other than 'you don't understand', I see you coherently show that you do have 'Truth'. It's always an excuse not to actually provide evidence or even reason.
 
Re: Noah's Flood versus Reality

pinqy said:
Since any purported gospel that did not confirm the crucifixion, death and resurrection would not have been accepted as a gospel, it's not compelling that the four accepted tend to agree (though they do conflict).
Click to expand...

That assumes there ever was a first-century 'gospel' that didn't have the resurrection. That's never been found or heard of. In addition, the earliest mention of the resurrection wasn't from a gospel, but from a Pauline epistle. Finally, all four traditional gospels confirm the resurrection.

pinqy said:
The Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Nicodemus, the Questions of Bartholomew, and The Resurrection of Jesus Christ According to Bartholomew are non-canonical gospels that tell yet more versions of the Resurrection.
Click to expand...

If I recall, none of those are from any of the apostles (they're pseudepigraphia), nor are they first century.

pinqy said:
Regadless.....that there exist explanations that resolve apparent contradictions does not mean that those explanations are correct.
Click to expand...

Regarding the Biblical Gospels, there are no 'contradictions' that argue against the resurrection, just the timing of who was at the empty tomb and when, or things of that nature, and even those have legitimate and logical explanations.
 
Re: Noah's Flood versus Reality

RAMOSS said:
Other than 'you don't understand', I see you coherently show that you do have 'Truth'. It's always an excuse not to actually provide evidence or even reason.
Click to expand...

Tsk tsk...look who's talking.

You won't even answer a question about whether or not you believe in God, much less provide any evidence to back up such a belief one way or the other. You just love to bash whoever does believe. Tacky.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom