"The Whole Silly Flood Story"

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Show me a history book, one that is older than the Bible, or shut up.

Do you know the difference between Primary and Secondary evidence? They teach it in like Year 9 History you know.

Primary evidence is conceived AT THE TIME IT IS HAPPENING.

The bible is Secondary evidence at best as it was written WELL after the fact. That isn't even taking into account that Constantine rewrote the whole thing in 300AD.

I am not even going to entertain your idea that the bible is the oldest history book known to man, that is just absolutely the single most ridiculous thing I have heard in quite some time. Take the blinders off mate and stop being brainwashed.

reply to post by Kryties

The bible is not a history book.

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by Columbus
The mind of a fundamentalist is invincible to logic. They are willing to kill for their position. No assault of logic can compare to that.
Columbus
The Messenger

Prove it. No, really, prove your assertion that any Christian fundamentalist, any time, has ever killed for his/her position. (I know Jewish ones have, and possibly Muslims as well, but no Christian fundamentalist has ever killed for their 'position'.
So don't be a paranoid nitwit!

/me pops some corn in anticipation of an exposition by example on the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Originally posted by Vicky32
Prove it. No, really, prove your assertion that any Christian fundamentalist, any time, has ever killed for his/her position. (I know Jewish ones have, and possibly Muslims as well, but no Christian fundamentalist has ever killed for their 'position'.
So don't be a paranoid nitwit!

You mean like the one in Oklahoma that walked into a church to gun down an abortion doctor who was attending Sunday services? Like that one?

And don't call people nitwits. It's not nice.

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by Columbus


The mind of a fundamentalist is invincible to logic. They are willing to kill for their position. No assault of logic can compare to that.

Columbus
The Messenger

Prove it. No, really, prove your assertion that any Christian fundamentalist, any time, has ever killed for his/her position. (I know Jewish ones have, and possibly Muslims as well, but no Christian fundamentalist has ever killed for their 'position'.
So don't be a paranoid nitwit!

Just goes to show that you apparently don't even know Christianity all that well

1) Look up the National Liberation front of Tripura: They're one of the 10 most active terrorist groups in the world and their goal is to forcefully convert people to Christianity (mostly in India).

The state government reports that the Baptist Church of Tripura supplies arms and gives financial support to the NLFT. The Church is also reported to encourage the NLFT to murder Hindus, particularly infants.

2) Ever heard of Northern Ireland?? And you're still claiming Christianity isn't responsible for violence...for real??

3) "Iron Guard", a Christian group in Romania was responsible for political assassinations.

4) In Uganda, the Lord's Resistance Army is responsible for "massacres, abductions, mutilation, torture, rape, porters and sex slaves"...but they're not violent, right?

5) In the US, look up the following organizations and how they are responsible for murders: Army of God, Christian Identity, Christian Patriot, Lamb of Christ...and Concerned Christians who have been deported from Israel after they found out they wanted to attack Jerusalem. And let's not forget the idiots who killed those abortion doctors because of their silly blind faith...

And before you say "they're not real Christians"...the same goes for Muslim terrorism!!! Of course most of them aren't, but some are, just like there's some Christian terrorists and murderers.

PS: Forgot to mention...ever heard of the Crusades? Last I checked that was a period in history where Christian fundamentalists slaughtered thousands of people

reply to post by Vicky32


PREDICTION:
No true Scotsman fallacy imminent.

One off, quite quick, obvious answer: Europe's age of religious wars. Of course, there's a hell of a lot more.

I'm going to further reinforce what MrXYZ said:

You do realize that there's a Wikipedia entry for "Christian Terrorism", right?

*ahem*

Northern Ireland

Then there's India:

The National Socialist Council of Nagaland, The National Liberation front of Tripura

Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army

Oh, and abortion clinic bombers.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Ok, where is the evidence of the massive amount of tectonic shift needed for these equations to work? I've actually worked out the numbers on this, I suggest you try it yourself.

I mean, you do realize that I've gone over this incredibly stupid argument before in this same thread, right? I'm not saying those providing it are stupid, I'm saying the argument is stupid. Smart people say some stupid things.

You do realize that this argument, which I'm emphasizing is incredibly stupid requires insane amounts of geologic activity for us to get out from under a flood, right?

Where's the evidence for the massive geologic shifts required by this lunacy?

Yes, I'm preempting you.

As for your bucket example, it's an insanely infantile explanation. Why? Well, we're dealing with extremes of 29,000 feet high at the tallest (Everest) and 36,000 feet deep at the deepest (Mariana Trench). Hell, the average depth of the Atlantic ocean is 11,000 feet!

Your example is stupid. Yes, I'm saying it's stupid. Why? Because it isn't about water redistribution. Over the course of a year you couldn't maintain a global flood without a hydrosphere, and for a hydrosphere you would need insane geologic activity of which we have absolutely no evidence.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


The water would wind up back in equilibrium quite violently and quickly via water redistribution. It wouldn't last a year.

And that still doesn't answer the lack of genetic evidence, the lack of geologic evidence, etc. Even if the story were plausible (it isn't), it would still not prove that it happened.

Every aboriginal culture throughout the world has a tradition of a flood engulfing the world.

Can you cite scientific sources contradicting the flood story?

Originally posted by BeenieWeenie
Every aboriginal culture throughout the world has a tradition of a flood engulfing the world.

Can you cite scientific sources contradicting the flood story?

Bass-ackwards approach to science. It's up to you to provide sources that every aboriginal culture has a tradition of a global flood. Especially given that there are no global aboriginal cultures. Then you need to show that all of them aren't just localized events, allegorical descriptions, and that they all took place at the same time. I'll be anxiously awaiting your dissertation.

Visual evidence for Noah’s Flood

.....

Originally posted by BeenieWeenie
Every aboriginal culture throughout the world has a tradition of a flood engulfing the world.

Can you cite scientific sources contradicting the flood story?

Those cultures didn't even know how big the world was...it's only logical that they were describing LOCAL floods. How on earth can you say there was a global flood is beyond me! There's no objective evidence hinting at it, and it's pretty clear that even the subjective evidence (remains, writings, etc.) is only talking about local floods given that those people had no clue about the size of the earth. They also didn't all live at the same time, so it's not as if according to remains they're all talking about a flood that happened at the same exact time

Originally posted by BeenieWeenie
Every aboriginal culture throughout the world has a tradition of a flood engulfing the world.

Can you cite scientific sources contradicting the flood story?

How big was their world?

I have read a scientific account of what some scientists believe is the location the bible is referring to. It was a large canyon type area. But hardly the entire world.

Originally posted by BeenieWeenie
Visual evidence for Noah’s Flood

.....

Again, they are picking specific landmarks that weren't even formed all at the same time. This isn't evidence of a global flood, it's evidence of LOCAL floods

reply to post by BeenieWeenie


As has been previously mentioned, you're doing these backwards.

Also, I've heard this claim so many times, yet all of the flood myths I'm aware of are large yet local floods, not global ones.

Other thing, even if every culture had a global flood myth, it wouldn't mean a global flood happened. It would be a case of "Witness local flood, tell mythically proportioned version."

Originally posted by iterationzero

You mean like the one in Oklahoma that walked into a church to gun down an abortion doctor who was attending Sunday services? Like that one?

And don't call people nitwits. It's not nice.

I apologise for calling people nitwits, as you say, it's not nice.
The whole point is that the man you mention, who gunned down the abortion doctor, was not defending any Christian position. He was acting out his own mental health issues! So, I am still correct.
There's nothing Christian about killing. (That's why the abortion doctor himself doesn't count - he was merrily killing babies and that's not Christian. Before someone screams 'no true Scotsman' at me, it's true.
Christians are specifically told that they must not kill. Therefore, a Christian who does so, is going against Christian rules.
He may call himself a Christian, just as I can call myself Princess Di. Just as my insisting I am the late Diana Spencer doesn't make me her, it doesn't make the actions of a Christian murderer, Christian actions.

Originally posted by Vicky32

The whole point is that the man you mention, who gunned down the abortion doctor, was not defending any Christian position.

Dream On.

The Christian Right promotes extremism - - - - when one of their own acts on it - - - - then want to deny he is one of their own?????????

Not a chance.

Originally posted by MrXYZ



And before you say "they're not real Christians"...the same goes for Muslim terrorism!!! Of course most of them aren't, but some are, just like there's some Christian terrorists and murderers.

PS: Forgot to mention...ever heard of the Crusades? Last I checked that was a period in history where Christian fundamentalists slaughtered thousands of people

Of course they're not real Christians! And the roar of "No True Scotsman" arises already, and I counter, as I did to the previous man, that as Christians are forbidden to kill, period as you Americans say, then these groups are not true Christians. It's obvious really...
The point is, that these groups kill not to 'defend their position' but for political reasons. So, I am still correct. It's pretty bizarre of you to call the 'Lords Resistance Army' a Christian group!
That's like my claiming that Timothy McVeigh's actions are typical of all Americans everywhere at all times and in all places, or better, lumping Scientologists in with Catholics. There's no connection whatsoever, other than attacks from the South Park cartoon, and neither Scientologists nor Catholics would thank you!

reply to post by Vicky32

The whole point is that the man you mention, who gunned down the abortion doctor, was not defending any Christian position.

You might wanna read up on that murder case

Roeder had considered themselves members of the Army of God

LINK

He even co-authored stuff for the Army of God manual condemning abortion!! So saying he wasn't defending a Christian position is WRONG.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


There were many Arcs and those who were told to flee to the mountains and survived on mountaintops. The Bible speaks of one of many.

see these individual posts.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...