Do you believe that the flood actually happened

[Stormygale]

The whole story of the flood is crazy anyway. The bible states something to the effect that it rained and water was coming up from the ground. Not possible. Can you imagine how much rain it would take to flood a planet. The polar ice caps would have had to had melted, to give this story any merit at all, and then, how did they just freeze back and all the water was suddenly down to sealevel again. It makes NO sense.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I imagining you saying that with a Churchill accent and ending with "This is our finest hour!" Oh the drama!

I have no doubt that believing in, and applauding, the biocide in the face of science requires a constantly honed imagination. But imagination alone cannot explain how one can simultaneously insist that humanity deserves nothing other than the miserable lot doled out by a vicious and vindictive God, while complaining about being "villified".

 

[painted wolf]

I'm still wondering where he fit all those animals... three species of elephants!
Kangaroos and Polar Bears... Not to mention all those that went extinct between Noah and today.
Living species numbers:
4,629 species of Mammals (with more being found: 2 new species just this year)
5,699 species of Amphibians (who can't stand salt water)
10,000 species of Birds (who can't fly all the time)
8,163 species of Reptiles (majority of wich are terrestrial)

don't eaven get into the plants species numbers that would need to be held. They couldn't survive a year in salty water and still germinate.

Must have been a darn big boat.

wa:do

*edit* almost forgot... got the numbers thanks to this page: http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.cfm?action=select_variable&theme=7

 

[Scuba Pete]

Dear Spinkles...

most of your post was merely restating your previous posts (or the posts of others) with very few new insights. Rather than go around the mulberry bush yet again, let me focus on this statement:

Notice that, as it does so, fewer and fewer people take the flood story seriously.

Do you have support for this contention? I would like to point out that the number of Christians that exist today probably outnumber the entire human population of the earth during the first century. Such rash contentions from such a learned man! Perhaps there are other holes in your arguments as well?

 

[Scuba Pete]

I have no doubt that believing in, and applauding, the biocide in the face of science requires a constantly honed imagination. But imagination alone cannot explain how one can simultaneously insist that humanity deserves nothing other than the miserable lot doled out by a vicious and vindictive God, while complaining about being "villified".

Deut,

You are indeed the "King" of the strawman fallacy. Hail King Deut!

 

[Scuba Pete]

Painted Wolf...

I guess it had to be sorta kinda like the "Targus". A little bit bigger on the inside than it was on the outside. I think God could do whatever he wanted to do.

But the epic of the flood was not written down to satisfy our curiosity about the flood itself. No, the record exists for an entirely different reason. God made his point and made it well. Re-read it again and see if you can devine it. Please share!

 

[Pah]

Dear Spinkles...

most of your post was merely restating your previous posts (or the posts of others) with very few new insights. Rather than go around the mulberry bush yet again, let me focus on this statement:

Do you have support for this contention? I would like to point out that the number of Christians that exist today probably outnumber the entire human population of the earth during the first century. Such rash contentions from such a learned man! Perhaps there are other holes in your arguments as well?

I would like to point out that it is the proportion of Christians that believe the myths of the Bible which are decreasing. I think Barna would bear that out. I see no "hole" in his argument, only a limited understanding of it.

 

[Scuba Pete]

But Pah...

that's NOT what the man said, now is it?

Are you going to extend such a level of understanding to Spinks, and not to God?

Even when we consider "percentages" it is only a supposition. That is unless you can garner facts about who believed and when. These are the very things you fault the Bible for, but you see fit to accept it here. Pray, tell us "why".

 

[Mr Spinkles]

From: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

"The proportion of the [American] population that can be classified as Christian has declined from 86% in 1990 to 77% in 2001." ARIS Study

The shift away from Christianity and other organized religions:

The United States appears to be going through an unprecedented change in religious practices. Large numbers of American adults are disaffiliating themselves from Christianity and from other organized religions. Since World War II, this process had been observed in other countries, like the U.K., other European countries, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.

I stand by what I said...as society matures, fewer people believe in stories about rain coming up from the ground and two of every animal living on a boat for a year. (It's a good thing Noah had the sense to pick a queen as one of the two African bees he brought along!) :biglaugh:

Do you have support for this contention? ...Such rash contentions from such a learned man!

You say "rash contentions" so easily, as if you've forgotten entirely the contents of the thousands-of-years-old myth that you are defending.

But facts and logic ultimately make no difference--I don't need any support for my contentions. I'm not so arrogant as to pretend that I am wise enough to understand or support my beliefs....all I know is that my beliefs are true. See? My beliefs are infallible, just like yours.

 

[Pah]

But Pah...

that's NOT what the man said, now is it?

Are you going to extend such a level of understanding to Spinks, and not to God?

Even when we consider "percentages" it is only a supposition. That is unless you can garner facts about who believed and when. These are the very things you fault the Bible for, but you see fit to accept it here. Pray, tell us "why".

Let's see, literalness is chosen in posts but not in the scriptures? As Scott is prone to say - :tsk:

I think Spinks put the notion to rest that it was a supposition for the decline and confirmed my thoughts about what he said despite your condescending attitude. :tsk:

 

[painted wolf]

I guess it had to be sorta kinda like the "Targus"

I think you mean TARDIS (not being rude its spelled in all caps.)

however the dimentions of the Ark are given quite distinctly. No mention of multidimentional ships or shrink rays

Would it be so bad if the story of Noah and the Ark was metaphore rather than literal history?

wa:do

 

[Scuba Pete]

Condescending?

No, I just want a level playing field.

Now you are changing from numbers to percentage. You would not dare give the scriptures such leeway. I would still contend that %77 of 2001's numbers are still GREATER than %86 of 1990's census. So, instead of standing behind the numbers, you would rather change the way you state it just to "win". No apology proferred for the mis-speak either.

So yes, it's a RASH statement. You did not research the numbers until I called you on it, and still they are found wanting.

Do I really care? No, but it shows that you are employing a double standard. As long as you are cool with the double standard then go for it. I stand by my statement that your "study" of the scriptures is nothing more than an effort to twist what has been written to justify your own disbeliefs.

Now Spinks, go back and read my first posts in this thread. Don'tcha think that you are over reading what I am saying once again???

 

[Scuba Pete]

PW,

well at least I got the "Tar" part of it right! At least you got the point I was trying to make.

God can take your level best effort and just "make it work". That's why he works through flawed people. If Moses could have made an ark that could have held all of the animals (seven each of the clean animals) then he wouldn't have needed God. Who fed them? What happened to the animal "by-products". You say it's not humanly possible for this to happen, to which I say "well, duh!" What about miraculous did you not understand?

Did it happen that way? I don't know, I wasn't there. Was it a total flood of the whole globe? It seems to indicate as such, but I don't know as I wasn't there. I can't tell if it was 15 cubits above ALL of the mountains, or a particular range, or what. It doesn't mention China or North America so I really don't know. Does my faith in God pivot on my acceptance of the Biblical account of the flood? No, that's the OT and I have no idea how much God let the man telling the story embellish it. I did mention that he works through flawed people, and that the Bible never claims to be perfect.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Now you are changing from numbers to percentage. You would not dare give the scriptures such leeway. I would still contend that %77 of 2001's numbers are still GREATER than %86 of 1990's census.

Ohhh I see what you're saying. Okay, sure, if you don't account for the increase in population, you're right: there are more people who believe in the literal interpretation of the flood story today than there were a decade ago. When you account for the increase in population, however, the number has decreased. My fault for mis-speaking.

So, instead of standing behind the numbers, you would rather change the way you state it just to "win". No apology proferred for the mis-speak either.

I apologize for not apologizing.

So yes, it's a RASH statement. You did not research the numbers until I called you on it, and still they are found wanting.

Actually NetDoc I don't have to do research for my opinions. My opinions may not be very well supported by the facts; heck, they might even be totally irrational. But I don't pretend to fully comprehend the mystery of my opinions. You can put your faith in "the numbers" if you want, but I put my faith in my opinions. My opinions are infallible just like yours, remember.

Now Spinks, go back and read my first posts in this thread. Don'tcha think that you are over reading what I am saying once again???

Maybe a little. I should be more careful in the future.

 

[Scuba Pete]

No Mr Spinkles... the number has INCREASED. The proportion may have possibly decreased, but the NUMBER has indeed increased.

But then you base your "beliefs" on fact, or least I have always assumed this to be so. So if your facts are "off", then are your beliefs also flawed?

I, on the other hand, base my beliefs on God's love for me. Quite esoteric and completely unassailable.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I've changed my mind....I'm going to reply to your last post after all. :bonk:

No Mr Spinkles... the number has INCREASED. The proportion may have possibly decreased, but the NUMBER has indeed increased.

Yes, I conceded this point already.

But then you base your "beliefs" on fact, or least I have always assumed this to be so. So if your facts are "off", then are your beliefs also flawed?

Is this a rhetorical question? :sarcastic

The topic of the thread is the flood story. If you want to talk more about the NUMBERs and whether or not they have INCREASED, I suggest you start a seperate thread.

I, on the other hand, base my beliefs on God's love for me.

And upon what do you base that beleif? Lots of people think their beliefs come from up on high....many of them also think that deferring to these beliefs when they conflict with the facts constitutes humility.

 

[Scuba Pete]

The entire point was that you were being given more lattitude than what God is given.

You can start a thread about why/where I base my belief on God's love as well.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The entire point was that you were being given more lattitude than what God is given.

And the entire point of that was to show....what? That a supernatural flood followed by a supernatural cleaning is not that far fetched?

Seems more like a diversionary tactic to me.

 

[Scuba Pete]

It was not intended as a red herring argument. I have no need for that.

It was to show that there are two different standards for "burden of proof", or more accurately, in regards to "burden of accuracy".

On the one hand we have a text that has been translated (at least once) from a dead language and is now being studied by modern peoples through the filter of time, and it is being held to the strictest of possible meanings (no benefit of the doubt).

On the other hand we have a modern writer, writing in the language of the land, with a glaring error, and we are expected to gloss this over with a "you know what I meant" caveat.

I just don't get it.

 

[Hope]

Here's some interesting tidbits for anyone willing to take another look at evidence for a literal global flood:

www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/yellowstone.asp

www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/paleosols.asp

www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i3/pipes.asp

www.icr.org/newsletters/impact/impactapr04.html

Yes, they are creationist sites, but contain compelling evidences not to be dismissed....
___________________________