A question about the flood myth, baraminology, and Pangaea

[Drich]

nuuupe
Your moving the goal posts old sport, that intelectual dishonesty.
I added quote tags to the actual arguement I addressed in the above copy, and I will provide them here again:
Do you see it? The proof of noah's ark and validation of the bible has been taken off the table. You made the statement If you believed in "X" and I taught "X" you would not believe what I taught, the only reason stated was because "You are an ass hole." to go back on what I quoted and change the parameters of the discussion is a dishonesty.


but again BCB (Big cry baby) You specifically stated then even if you already believed what i believed you would not believe anything I said. which means your measure of truth is based on the 'feelings' you have for the individual providing the narrative.

LOL... wow.  Typical, the only way to get around the argument is to construct a huge transparent strawman.  That's deliciously weak.

Reiterating for my own enjoyment.  I was commenting on YOUR Christianity, meaning the authenticity of your Christian born-again experience given the evidence of your rampant assholery, not on the historicity of your claims.  The historicity is beside the point, hence the statement that even if I believed in bible-based Christianity, I wouldn't believe in yours. 

Spin that you fuckwad.

Call me crybaby some more.  I laugh.  You lose.

It's actually BCB/BIG Cry baby, you avatar really helps lock in that visual. So if we are both agreed then I will lock that name in for you, and maybe it will catch on since you are so accepting of it.. Kinda like Minnie, Ca-rots and what'evs..

As far as you main point, so long as you are willing you admit you moved from this statement:
"Even if I believed in bible-based Christianity, I wouldn't believe in yours, because you're an asshole."
to this one:

I was commenting on YOUR Christianity, meaning the authenticity of your Christian born-again experience given the evidence of your rampant assholery, not on the historicity of your claims.

Then I could simply point out that Jesus Himself was considered an asshole as well. So much so it literally Got him killed the worst way possible back then. Why? was it because he was an asshole for the sake of being mean? No. he was deemed an asshole because the life he lived and taught was in stark contrast to the 'bible believers' of his day. You see, they like you were so wrapped up in their own self righteousness they were no longer able to see and recognize the righteousness of God. Their hearts were beyond cold and completely callous to God, so their experience in religion was about worshiping the method of worship, rather than God. When Christ entered the scene the contrast His life brought, by living the will of the Father threatened the life the pharisees wanted to live. (worshiping the method of worship/like blindly behaving a certain way because that what worshipers are supposed to look like) Now know, at no point did Jesus care or concerned Himself with how the Ass-"holiness" he brought to the self righteous was perceived.

So then why should I care how this effects the self righteous, If I bring the same message and same teaching style? In other words; if I bring the same message Christ brings and teach it the way he teaches it, then would it not elicit the same response by the self righteous?

Do you see what I did their?

I baited you using Christ's very own same teaching style, The same style he used with the rich young ruler. (the RCB/Rich cry baby) asked what it would take for him/RCB to enter heaven. Christ set fourth a standard, and waited till the RCB committed himself by boasting about being able to keep that standard since he was a child, before Christ showed him how and why he fell short. then Christ laid out what his life should have been, which put eternal life well beyond his/RCB's grasp. which was to sell all he owned and give it away. then went the RCB left Christ made one final example from RCB Failure.

I totally got what you said from the start, and I saw you were heavy with your own self righteousness (how else is one able to discern truth by being able to identify that only assholes can't have it?) So I made you(BCB) commit yourself so you could not back out, (like Christ baited RCB)

Then when you were completely committed by your own pride and arrogance, I in this very post laid out biblical examples of "Ass- Holy-ness" (get it? ass HOLY) in that Jesus was beyond Holy and still considered an ass, by people like you. Then i used you own statements and material to show you how and why your assessment fails, and how your assessment compares with that of the pharisees. In otherwords you are an atheist version of a pharisee. You don't believe in God but if you did his followers would have to act and behave in a way suitable to you before you could acknowledgment them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

So sorry sport but that is not how Christianity works. According to Christ Himself He and He alone is the one who determines who is and who is not a Christian. The title and names, ranks or positions we award ourselves or others give us, have absolutely no bearing on our salvation status or who we are in the body of believers.

So like me or hate me all you want BCB. Because in the end your assessment and a handful of use toilet paper will end up in the same place.

[Angrboda]

Oh God, now Drich is comparing himself to Jesus.

[Drich]

Think salmonella. Let say you spill raw chicken juice in an open silverware drawer, and you get it on everything except the silverware that's in the dishwasher. Do you:

a)put the clean silver from the dishwasher into the drawer with the contaminated stuff hoping that the raw chicken juice won't make everyone sick.

b) throw absolutely everything out and buy everything new?

c)sterilize (wash with water and soap) everything in the drawer being careful not to contaiminate the clean silver you still have?

Or if you need to go back to your garden, you select a herbicide that targets the specific weed, or if it is really bad you get a general purpose herbicide that will kill everything except your select foliage. which again is similar to what God had done.

Truthfully we will never fully understand the evil this world was full of in this life. Humanity was not the only thing God was trying to get rid of. their was a stain brought on by sin that touched just about everything alive in one way or another. It all had to be sterilized.

But according to your religion, nothing was sterilised. Original Sin is allegedly still with us. It's the central selling point of this Jesus thing. And to hear some of your team's mouthpieces, the world is at least as sin-ridden as it was in Noah's day, if not worse. The flood achieved just as much as the evidence it left.

Here's the thing...
The doctrine of "Original Sin"... Not ever mentioned once in the bible ever. Matter of Paul teaches the oppsite, in that what happened in the garden did not 'stain all of humanity with sin.' It made is aware of it, and therefore when we are able to full comprehend sin, then we are then made to account for our own sin. It's kinda the NT model that the 'sins of the Father are not Passed down to the son."

All of that aside what was sterilized at the flood put Made made in the Image of God at the top of the food chain, or rather in control and in charge of this world.

[Drich]

Oh God, now Drich is comparing himself to Jesus.

How else can one walk in his foot steps unless one actively tries to do act and teach what He did? comparison is the only tool we can use to determine how close or far we are from that path.

[Drich]

However, I had to jump in here... when I worked at the KDHE, the Environment department (mine) shared a floor with the Geology department. Literally every geologist working there whom I met was a Christian, complete with office bibles, pins on lapels, and the various desktop debris that lets them announce their faith to the world. They were among the most religious bunches I met in a science field. All of them knew as much about evolution as I do; in fact, geologists had the timeline and nature of evolutionary history figured out before biologists did.

As for the "flash flood", do a little math, Drich. We'll say that only Mt. Ararat was covered, as a lowball figure, since the story doesn't mention Everest. Mount Ararat is 16,854 feet tall. It rained, according to the story, for 40 days and 40 nights. That's 40 x 24 = 960 hours of rain.

In order for the floodwaters to have covered the mountain in that time, it would have had to rain 17.55 inches of rain per hour that entire time. No flash flood? The heaviest sustained rainfall on record is Tropical Cyclone Denise, at 71" in a 24-hour period, or 2.95 inches per hour, back in 1966.

Even if you say that half the waters were from "the deep", you're still talking 8.775 inches per hour, nonstop, for almost a month and a half, day and night.

No flash flood? Really?

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_we...cords#Rain

I think I've figured out why the flood gets Christians worked up into such a tizzy. It's because it's one of their few claims that's actually 100% falsifiable (and guess what: it turns out to be false). We can actually evaluate their claims and prove them wrong, and saying "but I just have faith" makes them look even more crazy. I imagine this is why most Christians I know in person either say that this story didn't actually happen, or they are much quicker to invoke magic, instead of trying to keep this story all within the realm of science.

Really?!?!?

Because you all came hard with science just one or two pages back, and now for some reason have abandoned it for name calling...

Hmmmm I wonder why that is? I wonder WHO amongst the wolves used the great and powerful science against the said wolves to silence ALL Of them and reduce them to little more than wimpering and name calling now...

Or did you personally skip over that part/went selectively blind to post what you just did?

You people are beyond delusional. You literally are what you claim Christians to be!

[Old Baby]

That's some truly mind-blowing rationale, Drich. I used to think that I was a fundamentalist believer, but your degree of self-delusion is beyond anything that I could have ever justified. I've read and studied the gospels many times, and I never interpreted them as giving me license to be a douchebag, or I should say Drich-bag, because I wouldn't want to do douchebags a disservice. What this underscores for me is the predictable dishonesty of faith-based people. Since you're not grounded in any sense of material reality to hold you accountable, you can use your holy scriptures to create this elaborate make-believe world that conveniently centers around you and caters to your sickness.

Also, don't even suggest that I abandoned some kind of scientific attack for name calling. I started with name calling. I'm not a scientist, and I doubt you are either. No one is going to be impressed with how skillfully you can parrot Ken Ham. This is not a serious discussion for anyone but you. Also, you're a fuckhole.

[Chas]

I just wonder how many animals survived at an altitude of 29000 feet, the flood waters covered the highest mountain apparently.
I bet Noah was freezing the poor old fellow. All that work creating all that lovely scenery wasted on a temper tantrum.

It would not be an altitude of 29,000 feet - it would be sea level.

[Crossless2.0]

That's some truly mind-blowing rationale, Drich.  I used to think that I was a fundamentalist believer, but your degree of self-delusion is beyond anything that I could have ever justified.  I've read and studied the gospels many times, and I never interpreted them as giving me license to be a douchebag, or I should say Drich-bag, because I wouldn't want to do douchebags a disservice.  What this underscores for me is the predictable dishonesty of faith-based people.  Since you're not grounded in any sense of material reality to hold you accountable, you can use your holy scriptures to create this elaborate make-believe world that conveniently centers around you and caters to your sickness.  

Also, don't even suggest that I abandoned some kind of scientific attack for name calling.  I started with name calling.  I'm not a scientist, and I doubt you are either.  No one is going to be impressed with how skillfully you can parrot Ken Ham.  This is not a serious discussion for anyone but you.  Also, you're a fuckhole.

In fairness to Drich, he's not a YEC so the Ken Ham thing completely misses the mark.

[Old Baby]

That's some truly mind-blowing rationale, Drich.  I used to think that I was a fundamentalist believer, but your degree of self-delusion is beyond anything that I could have ever justified.  I've read and studied the gospels many times, and I never interpreted them as giving me license to be a douchebag, or I should say Drich-bag, because I wouldn't want to do douchebags a disservice.  What this underscores for me is the predictable dishonesty of faith-based people.  Since you're not grounded in any sense of material reality to hold you accountable, you can use your holy scriptures to create this elaborate make-believe world that conveniently centers around you and caters to your sickness.  

Also, don't even suggest that I abandoned some kind of scientific attack for name calling.  I started with name calling.  I'm not a scientist, and I doubt you are either.  No one is going to be impressed with how skillfully you can parrot Ken Ham.  This is not a serious discussion for anyone but you.  Also, you're a fuckhole.

In fairness to Drich, he's not a YEC so the Ken Ham thing completely misses the mark.

That's fine.  I admit that I'm not caught up on Drich's scholarly writings.  Substitute "Ken Ham" for "creationist of some fucking kind".

[Crossless2.0]

Fair enough. His "scholarly writings" reveal a bird far stranger than Ham.