DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Bucky Ball]

---

Then it could not possibly have wiped out everyone except Noah and his family. Your desperation is showing.

Then maybe it was more global of a flood.  I wasn't there so I didn't see it.

Uh huh. How utterly pathetic.

[Astreja]

Then maybe it was more global of a flood.  I wasn't there so I didn't see it.

If you're a Biblical literalist, an analysis of the Noachide flood makes it into an absurd, improbable event.

Rain would have to fall at the rate of 30 feet per hour for 40 days in order to reach the top of the highest mountain, which is five miles above sea level.  Imagine a fire hose, hitting wooden decks that are only sealed with pitch, for 960 hours straight.  It would not take long to breach the hull, flood the entire ship, and kill everyone on board.

Perhaps you should take a less literal approach to scripture.

[Whateverist]

Well, since we're talking about debated origins. Are there any flat earthers present?

Flat Earth theory is ridiculous.

Coming from someone who believes people and every other animal were poofed into existence from nothing by magic, that is really saying a lot.

---

Then maybe it was more global of a flood.  I wasn't there so I didn't see it.

NOBODY WAS THERE TO SEE IT. However, it is a good example of your loving god's work.



Why the tiger cubs gotta die?

Hey, if God cannot take a mulligan, who can?  I mean, he writes the rules, correct?

[OakTree500]

Then maybe it was more global of a flood.  I wasn't there so I didn't see it.

If you're a Biblical literalist, an analysis of the Noachide flood makes it into an absurd, improbable event.

Rain would have to fall at the rate of 30 feet per hour for 40 days in order to reach the top of the highest mountain, which is five miles above sea level.  Imagine a fire hose, hitting wooden decks that are only sealed with pitch, for 960 hours straight.  It would not take long to breach the hull, flood the entire ship, and kill everyone on board.

Perhaps you should take a less literal approach to scripture.

Astreja, I've never thought of it in this way before

I mean, I know the flood is bullshit on the idea of "the entire world flooded" but to really breakdown why it would pretty much fail, from a construction basis, is another level of logic I hadn't entertained 

[CDF47]

Then maybe it was more global of a flood.  I wasn't there so I didn't see it.

That's part of the issue: There wasn't a global flood, and you don't need to have been there. We have evidence to prove it, or in this case "lack there of" because various studies from around world do not show flooding on the scale that the bible indicates.

As the OT itself is full of stories from various over localized religions gathered into one, it is more likely the story was taken from something along the lines of "There was a local flood, and people survived in a boat" and then greatly exaggerated to "THERE WAS A FLOOD OVER THE ENTIRE WORLD". Which even then, if you think of what those of the time thought "The world" was, it wasn't the literal entire planet earth, as we of course know now.

I understand your point and your line of thinking but if it was a more localized flood it must have been a huge flood.  The Bible doesn't specifically state the entire world was flooded at the time so it could have been more localized.  It may have been over dramatized that everything on Earth was destroyed.

[Anomalocaris]

If you're a Biblical literalist, an analysis of the Noachide flood makes it into an absurd, improbable event.

Rain would have to fall at the rate of 30 feet per hour for 40 days in order to reach the top of the highest mountain, which is five miles above sea level.  Imagine a fire hose, hitting wooden decks that are only sealed with pitch, for 960 hours straight.  It would not take long to breach the hull, flood the entire ship, and kill everyone on board.

Perhaps you should take a less literal approach to scripture.

Astreja, I've never thought of it in this way before

I mean, I know the flood is bullshit on the idea of "the entire world flooded" but to really breakdown why it would pretty much fail, from a construction basis, is another level of logic I hadn't entertained 

Biblical literalist would say mountains were but molehills and oceans basins were merely shallow depressions that got wet before the noachean flood, thus a continuous drizzle for 40 days would be enough to make everything uniformly wet. Afterwards mountains rose and ocean Basin sank.

For those willing to believe bullshit, it is always possible to come up with more bullshit to justify previous bullshit.

[CDF47]

Then maybe it was more global of a flood.  I wasn't there so I didn't see it.

If you're a Biblical literalist, an analysis of the Noachide flood makes it into an absurd, improbable event.

Rain would have to fall at the rate of 30 feet per hour for 40 days in order to reach the top of the highest mountain, which is five miles above sea level.  Imagine a fire hose, hitting wooden decks that are only sealed with pitch, for 960 hours straight.  It would not take long to breach the hull, flood the entire ship, and kill everyone on board.

Perhaps you should take a less literal approach to scripture.

I believe the Bible in many circumstances is literally true.  Of course there are parables and stories built in and some books and verses on prophecy are highly symbolic but much of the Bible is not.

[Anomalocaris]

If you're a Biblical literalist, an analysis of the Noachide flood makes it into an absurd, improbable event.

Rain would have to fall at the rate of 30 feet per hour for 40 days in order to reach the top of the highest mountain, which is five miles above sea level.  Imagine a fire hose, hitting wooden decks that are only sealed with pitch, for 960 hours straight.  It would not take long to breach the hull, flood the entire ship, and kill everyone on board.

Perhaps you should take a less literal approach to scripture.

I believe the Bible in many circumstances is literally true.  Of course there are parables and stories built in and some books and verses on prophecy are highly symbolic but much of the Bible is not.

You belief is not evidence, and is based on no credible evidence.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If you're a Biblical literalist, an analysis of the Noachide flood makes it into an absurd, improbable event.

Rain would have to fall at the rate of 30 feet per hour for 40 days in order to reach the top of the highest mountain, which is five miles above sea level.  Imagine a fire hose, hitting wooden decks that are only sealed with pitch, for 960 hours straight.  It would not take long to breach the hull, flood the entire ship, and kill everyone on board.

Perhaps you should take a less literal approach to scripture.

I believe the Bible in many circumstances is literally true.  Of course there are parables and stories built in and some books and verses on prophecy are highly symbolic but much of the Bible is not.

So you admit you're a cafeteria christian.

[Astreja]

I believe the Bible in many circumstances is literally true.

Not many circumstances. I'll grant that it's accurate about Egypt existing, and Babylon existing, and Jerusalem existing, but we don't need gods to tell us that. On the whole the Bible is more wrong than right.