Do you believe their was a worldwide flood?

Yes, it says so in the Bible.

 

That's much better. Thank you. There's nothing worse than being tarred with the same brush.

Col

 

I guess I'm the only atheist crazy enough to even bother coming into this thread. It is startling the number of people who have posted that exact phrase, as if the bible doesn't need questioning. As if everything the bible says must be taken literally. As if the reader has a clue what the bible even means, let alone which bits to take meaning from. As if the reader has any method of knowing the true nature of the bible.

For instance the Bible says: "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you."

and

"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years."

and then it even says things like:
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment." (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

Yet Christians talk about family values as if having multiple sex slaves and a nonn-slave wife is a BAD thing. I don't know which bible they read to get that impression, and I don't know how they can read this bible and presume to know that when god said "Water covered the "erets""

Erets meaning: from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land):--X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X natins, way, + wilderness, world.

So the flood story could just have reasonably been about god flooding the 'Whole country"

<sarcasm>
But no, lets assume that it means the whole world. That is so much more sensible... And easier to defend to. What with all of the evidence for it </sarcasm>

 

I'll have you know I was an atheist for over 30 years. I know where you are coming from.

Col

 

I'm willing to believe you didn't think about it for that long

Its a shame that the religions get converts simply because they seek to convert people.

 

I had no idea about God and did not want to know either because of the hypocrisy shown by millions who did things in HIS name.

No one sought to convert me as much as I don't seek to convert anyone else. All someone did was present me with some information for me to look into it myself. Which I did exactly that. I made my own decision to server and worship God without any influence required. Mind you, that was after much research and analysis of the information presented. A lot of wide reading was needed and done.

For near on 30 years I did not want to believe in a God that let the world's people treat each other in the most disgusting ways possible. I thought that way because I simply did not know. There are millions if not billions of people out there today that think the same way as I did. I can sympathise with them. People who have done things in God's name will be held accountable if they have not done so already.

Col

 

Funny, i've been thinking about it and investigating it and reading about it and participating in it since I was a small child.

I still wonder why you even believe in God. What is it that makes you think God exists?

 

The organization can not possibly operate with God's help no matter which way you look at it. You could only believe that if you looked into it yourself. I could not possibly tell or show you.

But, I could point you in the right direction to look.

Col

 

And I guess telling you that this is just a ridiculously large assumption on your behalf isn't going to even dent your resolve is it?

How do you even quantify the idea that something can't happen without Gods help?

Maybe the Pyramids are proof that Ra existed...I mean, there is simply no way humans could make the pyramids without a Gods help. I couldn't possibly show you that fact, but if you wanted to look into it, i'm sure you would find that its true. Humans can't make pyramids, therefore, Ra existed.

I'm sure this logic could be applied to prove at least 10 more Gods exist if we really wanted to try.

 

I have said it before and I'll say it again. Just because we have not seen it happen does not mean it is impossible. You can only assume it is impossible that humans did not or could not build a pyramid. You can only measure the possibility of it with the information you have at hand. You and many other people were not there at the time is was built and you do not know the full details of how it was built.

Logic is exactly that...Logic...According to the way you look at things logically. There are many words that defines certain things but in some regards does not mean if many things point toward something being blue...then it it is impossible for it not to be blue.

I can't say for sure if the pyramids were built by man, God or a herd of goats. There is insufficient evidence to declare how they were built as a fact.

Surely, you would agree with this logical expression?

Col

 

Aegist - one of the difficulties with your statement -

is that you still wouldn't accept this oopart (out of place artifacts)

Because you believe in evolution your belief would require you to conclude that for any given oopart that either

- 1) its a fraud
- 2) its must be the result of an un-understood process - like layer flipping etc - what they say when fossils turn up in the wrong place
- 3) it is ignore

There are huge numbers of ooparts. But like most things that contradict certain agendas those in power will hide the truth if it is inconvenient - i.e. check the alternative histories of the peopling of New Zealand - very inconvenient for those currently earning billions off 'land claims'.

In fact even if the ark was found in the the mountains of ararat - most evolutionist would write it off as a creationist fraud.

As this thread was originally started on a world wide flood rather than a creationist evolution debate I wanted to re-look ageist at the question of is there enough water.

The Bible does say that even the highest mountains were covered - I've already suggested that at 29,000 ft (Everest's height) there is probably not enough water on the planet to produce that kind of flooding. So I suggested that the mountains were not as high back then.

Also that the sea trenches were not as deep - the planet is 70% water so there is plenty of water

- if all the ice caps melted sea level would rise at least 70 meters.

But there are several more factors to consider
- the amount of water stored as ground water - huge, massive,
- the amount of water stored as perma frost - most of northern Russia - more huge massive quantities
- the effects of thermal expansion
- water vapor (yes very small percentage - yet still enough to add another 2.5 meters in flood water height)

If the mountains were not so high and the oceans not 10,000 meters plus deep in places there is more than enough water to flood the entire planet.

The Bible says the fountains of the deep were broken up - this does not sound like something localized.

 

I have to agree with this author.

 

As for Noah collecting animals - Genesis 6:20 - .... and they will come to you ....
He didn't have to round them up - the God who kept the Loins mouths closed for Daniel is the same God who has control of the animals.

 

The Bible is constant in its theme the Flood was a Global changing event. I am more happy for you not to believe in the flood at all and disbelieve the Bible rather than to twist it.

 

Genesis 7:23 says that every living thing on earth was wiped out. And the water covered the earth for 150 days. Clearly, this was not a regional flood.

 

More questions about where it all that water is. Obviously some of this water is shot back up - i.e. Geysers in New Zealand, Natural Springs, etc, but not all.

Agiest - I know you argue totally against a world wide flood - but as Earth should be called water (70% surface area) - isn't this possible - theoretically? Even evolutionists propose a large meteor hitting the planet causing Tsunami's of a mega proportion! Let alone what the shock wave would do to ground water.

Go to central Australia and you can come across water that literally shoots meters out of the ground.

 

Agiest you state all that water is a problem for flood theorist - the bigger problem for evolutionist is what happened those Gases - if you listen/read evolutionist the early planet gases was very different - in fact you almost need a toxic soup to get the primordial soup - WHERE IS ALL THAT GAS?

Why do we now have the perfect combination of N, O2 and CO2? The problem is the changing in the percentages of Gas would kill evolution in its tracks!!! I not sure who needs the greater faith here ageist.

 

worldwide flood in an instant, that would be impossible. but the continously rising of the sea level, possible because of global warming.

 

I think the whole issue of the flood is a testing point of our faith to show us the lowliness of our being. We're by far to incompetent to scientifically proof or disproof the arguements, pro and contra.

 

More food for thought - evidence of catastrophic change!