Atheist Desire to Disprove God

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's between a scientist's hypothesis and a documented occurrence fighting over the evidence that is there.
But more importantly, there is evidence. A lot of it.

There is? What is it?

Tell you what: because there's so much evidence, how about you just tell us about the one piece that you consider the strongest evidence for a global flood.

BTW - when do you think this flood occurred? I don't need an exact date, just a ballpark: billions of years ago? Millions? Thousands? Hundreds? Since you talked about it wiping out human civilizations, I take it you're talking about something that occurred thousands of years ago, right?

 

[RitalinO.D.]

There is? What is it?

Tell you what: because there's so much evidence, how about you just tell us about the one piece that you consider the strongest evidence for a global flood.

BTW - when do you think this flood occurred? I don't need an exact date, just a ballpark: billions of years ago? Millions? Thousands? Hundreds? Since you talked about it wiping out human civilizations, I take it you're talking about something that occurred thousands of years ago, right?

opcorn:

 

[McBell]

But more importantly, there is evidence. A lot of it.

One would think if there was truly all this evidence you claim exists, that you would have presented something by now.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's between a scientist's hypothesis and a documented occurrence fighting over the evidence that is there.
But more importantly, there is evidence. A lot of it.

I've already asked you twice to provide it.

What is this evidence?

 

[RitalinO.D.]

I've already asked you twice to provide it.

What is this evidence?

Same ol' song & dance. Outlandish claims with no verifiability on their part.

 

[waitasec]

I've already asked you twice to provide it.

What is this evidence?

don't you know? it's right there in front of you...
the evidence is Sum1sGruj claim...

i mean really, can't you just take his word for it?
:sarcastic

 

[PhAA]

don't you know? it's right there in front of you...
the evidence is Sum1sGruj claim...

i mean really, can't you just take his word for it?
:sarcastic

So if I say that I am the son of Obama, then it's true?

 

[waitasec]

So if I say that I am the son of Obama, then it's true?

well yeah...

 

[Satsujin]

I think sum1gruj's "evidence" was posted in post #752 although that seems to focus more on historical floods than a Great Flood. Plenty of mention of other Great Flood mythologies though.

 

[waitasec]

So now all of a sudden it's possible to naturally occur? But not too long ago the consensus was that it would be impossible for that much water to come about.

The great Flood: the Babylonian story

Each one is speaking of the same exact event. Coincidence?

let me get this straight, the account of the babylonian flood was the same as noahs flood...well if noahs flood claims every human perished (other than his family), then it's not an accurate account...
or am i missing something?

 

[PhAA]

well yeah...

LOL You're welcome in the White House.

let me get this straight, the account of the babylonian flood was the same as noahs flood...well if noahs flood claims every human perished (other than his family), then it's not an accurate account...
or am i missing something?

Okay now I get your point in your previous post. I also read that but yeah, it doesn't perfectly fit with the Noah great flood.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

There is? What is it?

Tell you what: because there's so much evidence, how about you just tell us about the one piece that you consider the strongest evidence for a global flood.

BTW - when do you think this flood occurred? I don't need an exact date, just a ballpark: billions of years ago? Millions? Thousands? Hundreds? Since you talked about it wiping out human civilizations, I take it you're talking about something that occurred thousands of years ago, right?

Ahhh yea. This is gonna be good...!!!

 

[Orias]

Okay now I get your point in your previous post. I also read that but yeah, it doesn't perfectly fit with the Noah great flood.

Not to mention the genetic impossibility of "Noah's flood".

Same goes with "Adam and Eve".

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Okay now I get your point in your previous post. I also read that but yeah, it doesn't perfectly fit with the Noah great flood.

Because things get misconstrued over time. You can see the evidence of that looking at now.

As for the genetic impossibility, I don't see how it is impossible, unless you believe the far-fetched ideas of evolutionists. Many aquatic animals would've survived, and the species on Noah's ship would have evolved, split, and multiplied over the next 4000-5000 years.
Like I said before, science makes it's own hypothesis without considering the evident history and accounts.
For all you know, the fossils we find could simply just be organisms Noah couldn't account for.
There is much to consider before just offing these things for science. I find it disturbing the amount of faith you trust you put into theory. You have no right to call religious people ignorant.

 

[McBell]

Because things get misconstrued over time. You can see the evidence of that looking at now.

As for the genetic impossibility, I don't see how it is impossible, unless you believe the far-fetched ideas of evolutionists. Many aquatic animals would've survived, and the species on Noah's ship would have evolved, split, and multiplied over the next 4000-5000 years.
Like I said before, science makes it's own hypothesis without considering the evident history and accounts.
For all you know, the fossils we find could simply just be organisms Noah couldn't account for.
There is much to consider before just offing these things for science. I find it disturbing the amount of faith you trust you put into theory. You have no right to call religious people ignorant.

How many of each "species" did Noah have on the ark?
For example, how many tigers?
How many lions?
How many Cougars?
How many leopards?

What did these meat eating species eat?

 

[PolyHedral]

Because things get misconstrued over time. You can see the evidence of that looking at now.

As for the genetic impossibility, I don't see how it is impossible, unless you believe the far-fetched ideas of evolutionists. Many aquatic animals would've survived...

90% of all of them would have died when the salinity of whatever they were living in was thrown out of whack.

Also, you don't get new species of macroscopic animals in 5000 years. Evolution is too slow for that.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Many aquatic animals would've survived, and the species on Noah's ship would have evolved, split, and multiplied over the next 4000-5000 years.

This was the funniest part of an otherwise complete fail response.

Sorry man, I hate to be critical of you, but your responses reek of ignorance in even the most basic tenants of science.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

This was the funniest part of an otherwise complete fail response.

Sorry man, I hate to be critical of you, but your responses reek of ignorance in even the most basic tenants of science.

Really, because because they fit perfectly into base rationality, which is more than the assumptions you all are throwing in.
Is it illogical to think that a lot of the fossils we found were simply different species to begin with? Because thinking otherwise shows a great ignorance on your part.
If one dug up the remains of a dog, one could theorize that it is the ancestor of a wolf many generations ago.
But no, let's just patch the idea with obsolete dating techniques just to show that it may be possible. May- being a long stretch to fit in their hypothesis.

For people that are so in love with logic, it's comical to see how theory and fact runs synonymous.

If there was a flood, than logically there had to be some sort of divine influence to bring the water level above mountains. Therefore, any other argument regarding the animals on Noah's ship are obsolete.
But it can sit perfectly well that Noah went fishing for food. The rain would have accounted for clean water.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Really, because because they fit perfectly into base rationality, which is more than the assumptions you all are throwing in.
Is it illogical to think that a lot of the fossils we found were simply different species to begin with? Because thinking otherwise shows a great ignorance on your part.
If one dug up the remains of a dog, one could theorize that it is the ancestor of a wolf many generations ago.

Unless you found fossils of wolves around at the same time as dogs. Which you would.

But no, let's just patch the idea with obsolete dating techniques just to show that it may be possible. May- being a long stretch to fit in their hypothesis.

In what ways are dating techniques "obsolete"? Do you know anything about carbon dating?

For people that are so in love with logic, it's comical to see how theory and fact runs synonymous.

Care to provide a single fact that runs contrary to the theory, then?

If there was a flood, than logically there had to be some sort of divine influence to bring the water level above mountains. Therefore, any other argument regarding the animals on Noah's ship are obsolete.
But it can sit perfectly well that Noah went fishing for food. The rain would have accounted for clean water.

You have yet to demonstrate that a global flood ever occurred. This is the fourth, and last, time I will ask: What evidence is there of a global flood?

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Really, because because they fit perfectly into base rationality, which is more than the assumptions you all are throwing in.
Is it illogical to think that a lot of the fossils we found were simply different species to begin with? Because thinking otherwise shows a great ignorance on your part.
If one dug up the remains of a dog, one could theorize that it is the ancestor of a wolf many generations ago.
But no, let's just patch the idea with obsolete dating techniques just to show that it may be possible. May- being a long stretch to fit in their hypothesis.

For people that are so in love with logic, it's comical to see how theory and fact runs synonymous.

If there was a flood, than logically there had to be some sort of divine influence to bring the water level above mountains. Therefore, any other argument regarding the animals on Noah's ship are obsolete.
But it can sit perfectly well that Noah went fishing for food. The rain would have accounted for clean water.

Like I said. Ignorance to even the most basic tenants of science.

You still haven't explained how for one, Noah even built the Ark, fed and watered the animals, kept the animals from eating each other, disposed of the waste, kept aquatic animals alive (ocean dwelling creatures surviving fresh water, and vice versa) assuming that these creatures were left in the water, and not brought onboard the Ark. Would not a global flood mix all the fresh and salt water into a mixture of the two?

These questions cannot be answered by anyone, in anything that remotely resembles logic. And claiming divine intervention for every instance is nothing less than laughable.

Sorry, but the proponents of Noah's great flood have a long and arduous trip ahead of them proving this event true.