Global Flood explains Oil Deposits and Geological layers

originally posted by: Venkuish1
A date that refers to the alleged birth of the son of God is very far from being a historical event. There is no much evidence Jesus existed (I won't go far with the claims made about his magical properties and the claim he was the son of God).

There's corroborating accounts that are beyond just the Bible:

Tacitus (Annals, c. 116 CE): Briefly mentions the execution of "Chrestus" by Pontius Pilate, confirming the crucifixion

Suetonius (Lives of the Twelve Caesars, c. 121 CE): Mentions "Chrestus" in reference to riots instigated by a Jewish man named Chrestus in Rome

Pliny the Younger (Letters, c. 112 CE): Describes early Christians in Bithynia based on his interactions as governor, mentioning their worship of "Christus" but providing no information about Jesus himself.

Flavius Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, c. 93-94 CE): One mentions "James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ," and another describes the execution of "Jesus, a wise man" by Pilate.

Babylonian Talmud (compiled over centuries, final form c. 500 CE): Mentions a figure named "Yeshu ha-Nozri" in disparaging terms because the Jewish people still believe he was not the Messiah.

Nero's persecution of the early Christians is proof of the early parts of Christianity. No one would martyr for a made-up historical figure.

Then there's the entirety of the early church and their writings:

Clement of Rome
Ignatius
Polycarp
Justin Martyr
Irenaeus
Cyprian
Athanasius

Face it, Jesus was a historical fact. You may disbelieve he was the firstborn Son of God, but there is no doubt He was real.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

You want to see the 'intelligence' in the biological world by dismissing every scientific principle that exists and by ignoring science to convince yourself of your beliefs. There is still zero evidence for intelligent design.

I accept all empirical data for what it is, and it points towards intelligible cellular machinery. Even secular scientists call it "cellular machinery". Machinery is a clear indication of intelligence. Shut your eyes all you want, and believe it is unintelligent if you have to, but it is clearly designed for those with eyes to see.



^who looks at that and honestly thinks these aren't intelligent processes??? The life of a cell humbles the most state-of-the-art Amazon Facility or Ford Factory.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1
A date that refers to the alleged birth of the son of God is very far from being a historical event. There is no much evidence Jesus existed (I won't go far with the claims made about his magical properties and the claim he was the son of God).

There's corroborating accounts that are beyond just the Bible:

Tacitus (Annals, c. 116 CE): Briefly mentions the execution of "Chrestus" by Pontius Pilate, confirming the crucifixion

Suetonius (Lives of the Twelve Caesars, c. 121 CE): Mentions "Chrestus" in reference to riots instigated by a Jewish man named Chrestus in Rome

Pliny the Younger (Letters, c. 112 CE): Describes early Christians in Bithynia based on his interactions as governor, mentioning their worship of "Christus" but providing no information about Jesus himself.

Flavius Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, c. 93-94 CE): One mentions "James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ," and another describes the execution of "Jesus, a wise man" by Pilate.

Babylonian Talmud (compiled over centuries, final form c. 500 CE): Mentions a figure named "Yeshu ha-Nozri" in disparaging terms because the Jewish people still believe he was not the Messiah.

Nero's persecution of the early Christians is proof of the early parts of Christianity. No one would martyr for a made-up historical figure.

Then there's the entirety of the early church and their writings:

Clement of Rome
Ignatius
Polycarp
Justin Martyr
Irenaeus
Cyprian
Athanasius

Face it, Jesus was a historical fact. You may disbelieve he was the firstborn Son of God, but there is no doubt He was real.

And is this the Jesus Christ of the Bible?? Because the character in the New Testament has magical properties and there is no evidence this character every existed or that he was later on resurrected from the dead. The Chrestus character mentioned by some historians could be anyone and different people at the same time but not the character in the Bible.

ffrf.org...

I admire you are referencing Josephus who has written the following

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named for him are not extinct to this day."

But from my link

If this is the strongest and earliest extra-biblical evidence for the historical Jesus, then the scholarship is on the shakiest grounds. That passage from Josephus has been shown conclusively to be a forgery, and even conservative scholars admit it has been tampered with. But even were it historical, it dates from more than six decades after the supposed death of Jesus.

No much evidence exists Jesus was a historical person. Josephus is well known for his forgery and the with the exception of a few references to his name Jesus or Christus/Chrestus (mostly second hand history) it looks like this person is an invention to help the movement of Christianity.

You need to consider Apostole Paul who almost never really mentioned in his writings the Character of Jesus. Why is that?

You are referencing Taticus! Are you serious?

From the link I gave

Tacitus, another second-century Roman writer who alleged that Christ had been executed by sentence of Pontius Pilate, is likewise cited by Righi. Written some time after 117 C.E., Tacitus' claim is more of the same late, second-hand "history." There is no mention of "Jesus," only "the sect known as Christians" living in Rome being persecuted, and "their founder, one Christus." Tacitus claims no first-hand knowledge of Christianity.

It's you who needs to face it Jesus it's highly likely never existed and that the 'evidence' you present is nothing more than second abd third hand accounts or even forgeries.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1

You want to see the 'intelligence' in the biological world by dismissing every scientific principle that exists and by ignoring science to convince yourself of your beliefs. There is still zero evidence for intelligent design.

I accept all empirical data for what it is, and it points towards intelligible cellular machinery. Even secular scientists call it "cellular machinery". Machinery is a clear indication of intelligence. Shut your eyes all you want, and believe it is unintelligent if you have to, but it is clearly designed for those with eyes to see.

^who looks at that and honestly thinks these aren't intelligent processes??? The life of a cell humbles the most state-of-the-art Amazon Facility or Ford Factory.

You accept nothing and it has begun shown in the threads you have been participating you dismiss science in favour of the debunked ideas of creationism.

I don't really accept anything for which there is no evidence. That's what religionists do.

Do I really think 'who looks at that and honestly thinks these aren't intelligent processes' like you said. That's an argument from ignorance you keep repeating.

And the answer is no because there is not a shred of evidence there is an intelligent designer/creator.

Perhaps you need to go back and answer your question if we have evolved from monkeys then why monkeys haven't evolved yet to become humans? If you are able to answer this question then you will make a huge step forwards.

a reply to: Venkuish1

Lol go ahead and believe in your unintelligent theory. Let others believe as they want as well.

Date posted: Feb 4, 2024 years since the year of our Lord

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Goldfish7471
Where does Hilton Head Island, South Carolina get its water? In the answer to this you will find the answer to your question.

I'm thinking from the aquifer but that water doesn't just flow out and flood the planet.

It is fresh water that has to be pumped out.

No, that doesn't answer anything.

There are dozens of aquifers just in the US.
www.usgs.gov...

What if the internal temperature of the interior of the earth increased? There is your pump. Or a earth directed solar flare sustained.

a reply to: Goldfish7471

That would take quite some heating?

Like, impossibly so?

originally posted by: Goldfish7471

There are dozens of aquifers just in the US.
www.usgs.gov...

What if the internal temperature of the interior of the earth increased? There is your pump. Or a earth directed solar flare sustained.

Yeah exactly. this study found water at concentrations of around 40% in the mantle, as well as this study finding it beneath oceanic crusts. As expected, there is plenty of water beneath the surface of the earth to have flooded the earth. This water could have surfaced by some sort of temperature or pressure increase from below, just like was said in Genesis:

"On the seventeenth day of the second month of the six hundredth year of Noah's life, all the deep springs burst open." Genesis 7:11

originally posted by: cooperton
You are free to continue to think it is unintelligent I don't care.

My problem isn't with life developing unintelligently or some form of intelligence designing it.

My problem is that your arguments are weak and you think us not accepting them as proof is because of bias.

The real bias is in you thinking your arguments are solid, when most of the times they are just big "what ifs".

originally posted by: daskakik
My problem isn't with life developing unintelligently or some form of intelligence designing it.

My problem is that your arguments are weak and you think us not accepting them as proof is because of bias.

The real bias is in you thinking your arguments are solid, when most of the times they are just big "what ifs".

Or maybe the bias is you thinking they're not valid. Machinery is an indication of an intelligent designer, not unintelligent random chance. But as always, You can believe whatever you want.

originally posted by: cooperton
Or maybe the bias is you thinking they're not valid. Machinery is an indication of an intelligent designer, not unintelligent random chance. But as always, You can believe whatever you want.

This is exactly my point, I don't have a problem with you bringing actual proof.

You bring half-baked ideas. For example,

You: Earth's mantle is 40% water, (which isn't true just one place where a set of samples came from did they find that), there is enough water there to flood the earth.

US: OK, how did it flow out of the mantle to flood the earth?

You: What if....

That isn't bias on the part of people not accepting your theories, that is you thinking your half thought out ideas should be convincing to others because they have convinced you.

originally posted by: daskakik
This is exactly my point, I don't have a problem with you bringing actual proof.

You bring half-baked ideas. For example,

You: Earth's mantle is 40% water, (which isn't true just one place where a set of samples came from did they find that), there is enough water there to flood the earth.

US: OK, how did it flow out of the mantle to flood the earth?

You: What if....

That isn't bias on the part of people not accepting your theories, that is you thinking your half thought out ideas should be convincing to others because they have convinced you.

It's the same "what if's" that evolutionary theory uses. "what if adaptations could lead to organisms gradually becoming other organisms"?

Pressure is also a well known way to emerge a liquid out of a chamber. Whereas there's no well-known way for an organism to gradually become another organism.

originally posted by: cooperton
It's the same "what if's" that evolutionary theory uses. "what if adaptations could lead to organisms gradually becoming other organisms"?

Pressure is also a well known way to emerge a liquid out of a chamber. Whereas there's no well-known way for an organism to gradually become another organism.

But you have no evidence of a source of pressure that would displace that amount of water.

Even the existence of a being outside of spacetime makes the need for a flood unnecessary.

You have a preconceived idea that you try to shoehorn your observations of the world into and then act surprised when others point out all the shoehorning going on.

originally posted by: daskakik
But you have no evidence of a source of pressure that would displace that amount of water.

I know, I never said I did. But a pressure increase would allow it, among other factors that could elicit the water beneath the surface from rising.

You have a preconceived idea that you try to shoehorn your observations of the world into and then act surprised when others point out all the shoehorning going on.

Nah I followed the data and this is where it led me.

You guys on the other hand are following your faith in evolution, which is why you ignore appeals to intelligence. You remain dogmatically locked into the most unintelligent theory of all time - evolution.

originally posted by: cooperton
I know, I never said I did. But a pressure increase would allow it, among other factors that could elicit the water beneath the surface from rising.

But you are arguing that the flood did happen, not just that it could happen.

Nah I followed the data and this is where it led me.

Seems to me you sought out data to get here because this is where you wanted to be.

You guys on the other hand are following your faith in evolution, which is why you ignore appeals to intelligence. You remain dogmatically locked into the most unintelligent theory of all time - evolution.

You really don't recall what others have said. I'm not locked into evolution.

originally posted by: daskakik
But you are arguing that the flood did happen, not just that it could happen.

You all argue the same for evolution. You believe it happened, not just that it could happen.

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Venkuish1

Lol go ahead and believe in your unintelligent theory. Let others believe as they want as well.

Date posted: Feb 4, 2024 years since the year of our Lord

Just as I thought! You aren't offering anything other than belief and asking me and otherwise to go ages and believe in the unintelligent theory. But I be told you so many times that I am not a believer because I need at least some sort of good evidence to accept something.

There is no much evidence for the existence of Jesus just like I ve shown you. Josephus is known for his forgeries and most others are known for giving second and third hand accounts as they lived long after Jesus supposedly died and then ressurected. In other accounts Jesus isn't mentioned at all...(!)

The current date doesn't prove anything about the historical Jesus. It's just a random alleged event that has nothing to do with the real age of the planet which is close to 4.5 billion years.

It works have been better if we had another reference like the death of the great philosopher Socrates for example.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: daskakik
But you are arguing that the flood did happen, not just that it could happen.

You all argue the same for evolution. You believe it happened, not just that it could happen.

He doesn't believe in it...
It's a fact that you are unable to comprehend having been blinded by your religious faith. Everyone who reads science and understands the basics accepts evolution. Nobody has doubts expect the creationists and the science deniers.

originally posted by: cooperton
You all argue the same for evolution. You believe it happened, not just that it could happen.

I don't. I'm mostly in the simulation theory camp. I just think your bible centric arguments are weak.

I would also give the idea offered by Robert Monroe, that non material aliens terraformed and seeded earth to produce loosh, more creedence than the stories in the bible.

originally posted by: cooperton
Nah I followed the data and this is where it led me..

No .. you don't. If you 'followed the data and where it leads', then you would acknowledge that the Noahs Flood never happened. The data from Archaeologists, Egyptologists, Geologists, Volcanologists, Chemists, Chemical Engineers, Biologists, Oceanographers, Mechanical Engineers, Naval Engineers, Naval Architects, Botanists, Zoologists, Wildlife Biologists, and Mathematicians all says the global flood did not happen and that Noahs Ark is impossible. THAT is where the data leads.

originally posted by: cooperton
A date that refers to the historicity of a person isn't historical evidence of that person? You all are unbelievable lol.

The world didn't start counting years from Christs birth until 525AD. And it was done based on FAITH, not on any forensic evidence that Jesus existed. YOU are who is 'unbelievable'.

As a Christian I have to say that you are doing a good job of making us all look like idiots. You harm Christianity with your nonsense like Pangea breaking up after 2400BC and imaginary gardens on Noahs Ark that was full of insects. In fact, I'm starting to think that you are actually a militant atheist who is punking everyone pretending to be a strange version of 'christian' just to make us Christians look bad.