Literal belief in the flood story

[RobbyPants]

Not an answer to my question.

Yes it is. your magical third option is that God magically made it/waited so that there were no babies so no babies were killed, thus absolving your god from having killed babies.

I admitted that it is a possible third option. I'll agree it was an either or fallacy if you admit your third option is one you're making up with no evidence to paint a prettier picture.

That argument hasn't been made in this thread. Deflection is not an answer nor an argument.

It's as much of an answer as your "I never understood X" thing was, either. The point is, you accept your apologetics based on not understanding another's point of view. You don't question the morality of your god and choose to blame "the wicked".

I'm merely doing the same to illustrate the futility.

You now have a perfect example in Jesus Christ to follow and a clear call for repentance, will you repent of your sins and place your faith and trust in Jesus Christ?

No. There's no evidence he's real. It's also a non sequitur. Jesus wasn't mentioned in the flood story.

You have a right to believe whatever you want about the past, my point is simply that you have not come to this belief logically.

...and you didn't come to yours logically.

The difference here is I don't believe the hypothetical analogy I set up. You either do believe that demographics were different (so God wouldn't kill babies), or you don't believe that, and you're just submitting it as a hypothetical to be pedantic.

The point is, that's how you sound when you posit a "maybe it was really this way even though I don't have any reason to believe it" argument.

Go back to post #66 where this quote was taken from. The context of the quote is not about the righteousness Noah but about there being no biblical support that there were no children at the time of the flood but rather that the bible says the contrary (that there were children at the time of the flood). I'm asking for biblical support for that statement.

I never said the Bible said there were children. You said that Noah had no children, and that is all the Bible said. I said that you're both drawing from a tiny sample size and that Noah was already explicitly stated to be different than the rest of the population.

The point is: you are making the assertion there were no children to absolve your god. It is reasonable to assume there were children because that's the normal state of being for human populations. The flood story didn't mention gravity, the sun rising in the east, or that people needed to breath oxygen and couldn't breath under water. Why aren't you arguing against those things?

You're just making believe to make your story easier to swallow.

---

You call what I say as a scientific flood, I'll ask again, define a scientific flood if you can?
I never said that the waters carved out oceans or pushed up mountains,

You saying that all that mythology could have been explained by science. You then go and start spouting a bunch of pseudoscience and poorly understood facts to explain it away. And before you complain that I accepted the story as true in the OP and am now complaining it's false: I accepted it as true for sake of argument given that God would have had to have used [something] to get the flood to happen as described and for there to be no evidence of it now.

You did say the water carved out the oceans, because you asserted that all the water is still here, and that the oceans are now deeper. You asked why Everest would have been that tall back then. If not the flood, did something else push it up? What? Give evidence, please.

As for the time line you need to study the story and do research into the Hebrew language, I mean how blind does one have to be to ignore all facts of the story.

Day X = no where for the dove to land. Day X + 7 = dove finds a leaf. None of the rest of the passages matter for the time line.

What about ancient Hebrew language changes this? Site the reasons for your assertion.