The Great Flood

[Bungy]

if you ask a creationist to explain it they become trapped and say the oceans were fresh water 4,400 years ago and have gradually became salty which is funny because they don't except evolution.

the more knowledge a person gains about science the less unanswered questions he has about life and truth. Sadly kids in school aren't taught enough about evolution and science in general.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes true, although even though science answers a lot of questions, the essence of science also encourages one to continue to question a lot, so you don't lose the wonder. Science is wonderful, but its not a miracle.

[Daystar]

Oh yeah and Daystar, you say we can't argue properly with scripture, but at least my argument regarding scripture is very simple and a very strong and direct argument: You can't use scripture as an argument from God! Valid evidence please!

Your argument on the Bible is uninformed and irrelevant. You only have one point and that is that you don’t want to believe it so you refuse the evidence.

---

Here is an interesting fact regarding the so called great flood of the bible as narrated in Genesis.

Genesis 7:20
20Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
Does anyone in here know how much a cubit is?A cubit is around 20.3 inches.This is what 15 cubits add up to in feet=
25.375ft. That is hardly enough water to cover the mountains and engulf the entire earth.Once again I rest my case.The bible is nothing more than a book of myths and folklore.

It is generally thought that there was a time when the oceans were smaller and the coninents were larger than they are now. That is why the river channels extend far out under the the oceans. Scientists believe that mountains in the past were much lower than they are now and some of them have been pushed up from under the seas. There is ten times as much water by volume in the ocean as there is land above sea level. If you dumped all that land into the sea the water would cover the entire earth 1 and 1/2 miles deep.

After the flood waters and before the raising of mountains and lowering of the seabeds and buildup of polar ice caps there was more than enough water to cover all the tall mountains.

It is possible that the reason for the drop in the life span of humans could have been from the protection of the canopy of water around the earth from harmful radiation and increase in cosmic radiation which is genetically harmful to man. Any change in radiation would also have altered the rate of formation of radioactive carbon-14 to the extent as to invalidate all radiocarbon dates prior to the Flood.

Not to mention that the effect of these billions of tons of water would cause tremendous changes to the earth's surface. Since the crust is relatively thin, about 20 miles (30 km), and 100 miles (160 km) thick stretched over a plastic mass thousands of kilometers in diameter, there would have been a great shifting in the crust, thrusting new mountains upward and like I said above, raising new ones while the shallow sea basins deepened there would be new shoreines established resulting in about 70% of the surface to be covered with water.

The water pressures were estimated to be equal to 2 tons per square inch which would be sufficient to fossilize fauna and flora rather quickly.

[Tiberius]

Oh yeah and Daystar, you say we can't argue properly with scripture, but at least my argument regarding scripture is very simple and a very strong and direct argument: You can't use scripture as an argument from God! Valid evidence please!

Your argument on the Bible is uninformed and irrelevant. You only have one point and that is that you don’t want to believe it so you refuse the evidence.

It isn't irrelevant. Just because someone writes a book and claims God did it doesn't prove anything about their claim. If someone showed me evidence that God really did exist, I would believe. All anybody shows however is scripture from a book that has been proved scientifically and historically inaccurate.

[Edwardo Piet]

Your argument on the Bible is uninformed and irrelevant. You only have one point and that is that you don’t want to believe it so you refuse the evidence.

---

No its not because I don't want to believe it. I'd be fine if a God existed since he doesn't appear to be doing anything if he exists anyway.
Its because I care about truth. And being ignorant of big truths and believing big untruths is delusional. And scripture is not valid evidence. It is unscientific and illogical. Like I have said before, could I use just any fictional book to prove anything supernatural? Could I use the gospel of the FSM to prove the FSM? I think not.
Could I use 'back to the future' to 100% prove time travel?
Could I use Lord of the Rings to prove Hobbits, Elves, Orcs, cave trolls, giant spiders 'the ring', wizards and Golem, etc?
The way you appear to dodge it is you interpret some bits of scripture metaphorically and other bits literally. But how do you know what bits are meant to be interpreted metaphorically and what bits are meant to be interpreted literally?
You could also make all the unreasonable bits in 'Back to the Future' and 'The Lord of the Rings' more metaphorical and then the more reasonable and natural bits more literal, could you not? Therefore making the whole ideas seem less unreasonable. Just as you are doing with scripture.
So I don't think its about scripture, because surely the only way you could really think you know when to interpret the bible metaphorically and when to interpret it literally is that you think God is guiding you or something. That is the argument from personal experience not scripture.
So it looks like your argument from scripture is actually been guided by your argument from personal experience, and the personal experience of other believers, perhaps?
So I think perhaps the deeper issue for you is the argument from personal experience, not from scripture.
Have I missed? Have I made a direct hit? Or have I glanced? Am I right at all here Daystar?

[Daystar]

EVF, you say you are interested in truth and yet you dismiss the Bible without ever having even read it. It is impossible for you to be scientific and logical about something you know absolutely nothing about. You can't review or even offer any real discussion about The Lord Of The Rings if you haven't read it and more importantly - studied it closely.

As far as how to interpret the Bible as either metaphorically or literally - that is a complaint I have heard from a few atheists and I don't understand what could be difficult about it.

Revelation 20:14 - And death and Hades were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire.

Revelation 21:8 - But as for the cowards and those without faith and those who are disgusting in their filth and murderers and fornicators and those practicing spiritism and idolaters and all the liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur. This means the second death.

Here the Bible uses fire as a symbol of everlasting punishment, the Bible tells you what it means when it points out that it is the second death. Now if you read these scriptures without careful study of the overall harmony in the scripture, especially if you have been taught the pagan hellfire doctrine by false religion you might think it is a symbol of hell. And you might miss the fact that the Bible points out that some will die twice. There is a resurrection of the righteous once, for they have had the opportunity to get to know Jehovah God and to approve of his Kingdom and King, Christ Jesus. They want to be a part of it and live accordingly.

However, there are also those who haven't had the opportunity to do so. Primitive peoples all over the world, for example etc. They are not righteous but they haven't had the chance to be, to know if they want to live forever in paradise on earth. They will be given a 1000 year or so period of time to get to know their position and if they choose not to be a part of that they will die a second death. This one is final as fire represents total destruction in the Bible.

How do I know how to interpret either metaphorical or literal? Well it is usually obvious if you know a little about the Bible, and then you can investigate further when in doubt. Once you get to know it it is pretty easy.

[Edwardo Piet]

I have read enough of the bible to know what its like. I know that its unscientific and therefore the claims it makes are invalid.
You haven't read the gospel of the FSM have you? Does that mean that - going by what you are saying to me - you can't dismiss it as highly improbable that God is a Flying Spaghetti Monster until you have read it all? Its unscientific like the bible. You should like it.
So basically you're using your own personal experience to judge scripture, is that what you're saying? You are using the argument from personal experience to interpret the argument from scripture? Is that correct?
Oh and of course as I have said, the burden of proof is on you, not me. And I don't think the 'evidence' you are giving is evidence of God's existence or the truth of the bible. Because its unscientific. And highly improbable.
What has science done? And what has the bible done? Think about it.

[Daystar]

It isn't irrelevant. Just because someone writes a book and claims God did it doesn't prove anything about their claim. If someone showed me evidence that God really did exist, I would believe. All anybody shows however is scripture from a book that has been proved scientifically and historically inaccurate.

It is irrelevant because a critical position for or against the Bible from someone who doesn't know anything about it has no value in making a proper decision. It is only opinion.

Lets say you asked me what I though of Dawson's latest book and I stood up on a soapbox and ranted about it for a half hour about how stupid it was and then in closing said: "If I had read it I am sure that would be the case. Total nonsense!" Are you going to say to yourself that guy sure knows what he is talking about - glad I didn't buy that book?

The fucking Flying Linguini Master or whatever the hell it is knows more than you blokes about the Bible or you would have said SOMETHING by now other than your opinion.

It isn't that I question your right to state your opinion, no matter how disinterested or uninformed you are about it or that you need to in some way explain your reasoning or position with me, but I gotta say - when you keep preaching on that soapbox someone is going to come along and tell you how it is. It is just a big waste of time to try and convert or convince someone of something they just don't even want to fairly evaluate. That is all I am saying.

Now I am just as ignorant about science as you are the Bible but at least I offer something more than baseless opinion and ignorance at my defense and I am more than willing to listen and learn from someone like all of you that know more than I do. I will question it and I may not accept it but at least I will have learned something.

I have seen surprisingly little of that here. It is like you all keep crying; "Evidence! Evidence!" but when anyone says something you have already dismissed for no aparent reason you cover your ears and say; "Blah! Blah! Blah!" until they stop talking and then smugly congratulate each other on not buying into what might have been said that you know nothing about anymore than you did before.

Safe. Lazy. Unscientific, if I may be so bold sir. Now you did have a good response to my Mutations thread but since then I have seen nothing.

[Edwardo Piet]

It isn't irrelevant. Just because someone writes a book and claims God did it doesn't prove anything about their claim. If someone showed me evidence that God really did exist, I would believe. All anybody shows however is scripture from a book that has been proved scientifically and historically inaccurate.

It is irrelevant because a critical position for or against the Bible from someone who doesn't know anything about it has no value in making a proper decision. It is only opinion.

Lets say you asked me what I though of Dawson's latest book and I stood up on a soapbox and ranted about it for a half hour about how stupid it was and then in closing said: "If I had read it I am sure that would be the case. Total nonsense!" Are you going to say to yourself that guy sure knows what he is talking about - glad I didn't buy that book?

The fucking Flying Linguini Master or whatever the hell it is knows more than you blokes about the Bible or you would have said SOMETHING by now other than your opinion.

It isn't that I question your right to state your opinion, no matter how disinterested or uninformed you are about it or that you need to in some way explain your reasoning or position with me, but I gotta say - when you keep preaching on that soapbox someone is going to come along and tell you how it is. It is just a big waste of time to try and convert or convince someone of something they just don't even want to fairly evaluate. That is all I am saying.

Now I am just as ignorant about science as you are the Bible but at least I offer something more than baseless opinion and ignorance at my defense and I am more than willing to listen and learn from someone like all of you that know more than I do. I will question it and I may not accept it but at least I will have learned something.

I have seen surprisingly little of that here.

Have YOU read The God Delusion?
And also, if and when I read the whole of the bible, I doubt my own personal arguments directed to it would change your mind much. Rather than what I know of it through TGD.
At the moment I consider it a waste of time. Perhaps you would consider reading the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster a waste of time for much the same reasons?

[Tiberius]

The point is Daystar, that none of us want to be educated on the Bible, because whatever you say will be rejected by the countless other believers since they have interpreted it differently. We do know about the Bible. I have in fact read the Bible (I used to be a Christian...wow!), so don't claim that we know nothing about it. What we know is different from what you know because we were taught differently, and now we read the Bible with a critical mind (every book deserves criticism).

So instead of all these pointless lessons which nobody is interested in, why don't you stick to arguing why we should believe the Bible?