Noah's Flood...

[Guest]

I asked a question about the Ryan and Pitman thesis, and now that's not ok with you either?

[Minimalist]

Rather presumptuous of her to automatically treat the Biblical account of Noah's Flood as pure baloney, wouldn't you say?

Spot on, if you ask me!

But she's a lady and more likely to use 'baloney' than my preferred term: Bullshit.

[Guest]

If it's pure baloney, then why did she use it in her title?

[Minimalist]

If it's pure baloney, then why did she use it in her title?

Because that was the name of Ryan and Pittman's book?

[Guest]

Daybrown is an intelligent woman

hahaha...she said nothing but gibberish but you accept it as scientific...ha.

Arch agreed to let this thread die several weeks ago. It was properly sinking to the bottom but Arch recently revived it - to cause trouble, as is his nature

i did say that and i did let it go but i revived it for a reason other than to start trouble. i wasn't the one who invited the trolls in who hijacked it nor did i condone the hijacking.

But she's a lady

that is questionable. the problem with science is that it cannot allow any document, theory or account into its playground because it makes those on the scientific side look foolish when they are shown that the theories they present lead all astray.

there really is no proof for an ice age, but that is the name it is given because secular researchers do not want to lend credence to the Biblical record and no matter how far fetched their thinking goes they are adamet (sp) about not supporting the Bible.

for whatever reason, a lifetime of work thrown out the window is one that has been bandied about, they do their level best to concoct some story (neanderthals is another good example) to explain what they cannot explain.

though they try to make science the ulitmate authority, they take great distress when that thrust is thwarted by the reality that science, any science, is too limited to provide them with the answers they seek. thus they hide behind restrictions, personal attacks, omissions, fanciful conjectures, and so on, to justify their unbelief and unwillingness to be fair, honest, accurate and open-minded.

[Guest]

p.s. i should point out that before i posted on this thread, this topic was dead. despite beagle's claims to the 'intelligence' of daybrown and her purpose, he and all the others were not contributing to this site or making it a vibrant thread.

if you notice all the 'dead' threads on this board, the majority of them died because there is nothing to talk about as speculation, so loved by many, can only go so far.

you will notice that unless the Bible is thrown in, and i can do it to just about any thread, interest wanes because there is not enough evidence to substantiate a long term discussion on those topics.

if you want proof---the mayans claiom in the popul vul that their ancestors came from the east across the sea. i can agree with that because of what Genesis says about the dispersal at Babel. the knowledge of the people was not changed only the language thus, while i like schoch's thinking about the date of the sphynx his theory of a previous pyramid building sopciety does not hold up in light of what Genesis says, the ancestors of the Mayans had their previous experience at Babel to draw upon when they started construction of their pyramids.

see the Bible is drawn into the discussion and is a credible as any other theory.

science and those who support it do not recognize that they can't get anywhere unless they include the Bible and religious texts. that is why this thread went no where because Ryan and Pitmann just led everyone back down the wrong trail to an accepted theory (sans proof of said theory) and people lost interest.