Noah's Flood...

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:12 pm

DougWeller wrote:
Minimalist wrote:
archaeologist wrote: i will beg to differ with that statement. the only explanation then is the Biblical account.

LOL. The least plausible rationale is what you hang your hat on?
It is ironic that he calls himself 'archaeologist' since he can never agree with real archaeologists as he is a Creationist.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:46 am

It is ironic that he calls himself 'archaeologist' since he can never agree with real archaeologists as he is a Creationist.

so a believer can't be a 'real' archaeologist? what a joke.

just because you may be professional doesn't mean you know what the truth is nor what the answers are. being a believer doesn't disqualify me from being real, i just pursue my beliefs just as you pursue yours.

unfortunately for you, you keep taking the wrong turns and ending up with nothing.

DougWeller · Post by **DougWeller** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:35 am

archaeologist wrote:
It is ironic that he calls himself 'archaeologist' since he can never agree with real archaeologists as he is a Creationist.
so a believer can't be a 'real' archaeologist? what a joke.

just because you may be professional doesn't mean you know what the truth is nor what the answers are. being a believer doesn't disqualify me from being real, i just pursue my beliefs just as you pursue yours.

unfortunately for you, you keep taking the wrong turns and ending up with nothing.

Yes, an archaeologist has to follow where the evidence goes. A Creationist ignores or reinterprets any evidence that disagrees with the bible.

Creationists know The Truth. Archaeologists try to find out more about the past by studying our material culture, but admit that they will never know the absolute truth. Science can never prove anything, it can only provide answers that best fit the evidence, and when new evidence comes along those answers may be discarded.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:34 pm

A Creationist ignores or reinterprets any evidence that disagrees with the bible.

you forget that with such an event as the flood and the length of intervening time between the event and modern times, such evidence discovered will be incomplete and point only to a local flood. there is going to be no way you will get any definitive discovery that will change any minds towards a global catastrophe.

thus you are left with faith or disbelief and i choose faith.

Science can never prove anything, it can only provide answers that best fit the evidence, and when new evidence comes along those answers may be discarded.

yet the restrictions placed upon science limits the data to begin with then when you throw in personal bias, personal beliefs, outside influences, i.e. museums, universities or thinkers who want a certain result despite peer review, it is difficult for scientists to determine the truth even after having their work disproved.

that new evidence, if analyzed incorrectly or interpretated in another way can also mislead and cause for the wrong conclusion to be reached.

i.e. it is said that einstein and newton disagree with their theories on gravity. now both cannot be right yet science refuses to decide which one it is. since both are held in high esteem, science avoids the issue. (i think i got that from the book The Final Solution)

so how can you trust those who work in the field of science? you can't because there are too many variables that are not considered or avoided. science is a tool but whenit is raised up tobe the final authority, its flaws are all too apparant.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:32 pm

so how can you trust those who work in the field of science?

Much more than bible-thumpers.

DougWeller · Post by **DougWeller** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:19 pm

archaeologist wrote:
A Creationist ignores or reinterprets any evidence that disagrees with the bible.
you forget that with such an event as the flood and the length of intervening time between the event and modern times, such evidence discovered will be incomplete and point only to a local flood. there is going to be no way you will get any definitive discovery that will change any minds towards a global catastrophe.

But that's not right.

Problems with a Global Flood
Second Edition by Mark Isaak
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Plenty of evidence that there was no global flood.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:55 pm

Arch will be around later to explain to you that god (a/k/a Magic) can do anything.

That's the kind of mentality you are up against.

Essan · Post by **Essan** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:53 am

The only evidence for a global flood is myth.

And the Mesopotamia Flood Myth specifically describes terrific winds and a storm surge, with waters receeding after a few days.

Hmmmm, was New Orleans hit by a global flood last September?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:08 am

But that's not right.

you use talk origins as your rebuttal link?? i am not really wanting to get into this again but suffice it to say that the autohr of that paper (?) is using logic that is limited to what he understands of the modern world.

read the book 'the flood' by dr. rehwinkel, it will give you the details that i can not go into in this limited space.

then your comments as to why my comments 'are not right' would be appreciated.

**minimalist is ignored

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:47 am

**minimalist is ignored

A sure sign of impending victory!

DougWeller · Post by **DougWeller** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:22 pm

archaeologist wrote:
But that's not right.
you use talk origins as your rebuttal link?? i am not really wanting to get into this again but suffice it to say that the autohr of that paper (?) is using logic that is limited to what he understands of the modern world.

read the book 'the flood' by dr. rehwinkel, it will give you the details that i can not go into in this limited space.

then your comments as to why my comments 'are not right' would be appreciated.

**minimalist is ignored

What would be the point of my reading a book half a century old, written before we even knew about plate tectonics? A guy who argues that Noah possessed a "mysterious oil" of supernutrative powers—one drop of which would sustain life -- in other words, who needs magic to make his case.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:41 pm

What would be the point of my reading a book half a century old, written before we even knew about plate tectonics

there you go. evidence is evidence no matter where it is found and if you ignore sources then you are not doing complete research. just because it is a half century old does it mean it is useless.

"Dr. Allen, professor of geology at the university of alberta, in speaking of the fossil beds along the red deer river, once made this observation in his classroom lecture: 'these reptiles. whose fossil remains are found in such great abundance along the red deer, seem to have been driven together by a common danger and to have perished in the same great catastrophe'" (pg. 234 the flood)

plus he is dealing with things that modern researchers write off for whatever reason including that it doesn't fit their theories or beliefs. researchers dismiss things because it does not fit into their thinking or it forces them to change it towards the Biblcal account.

how do you expect non-christians to be honest when it comes to Biblical accounts? there is a built in prejudice and bias which means that any evidence discovered or presented that detours from accepted opinion is ignored, denied, or is treated in the manner in which minimalist treats all evidence that supports the Biblical account.

it is easy to cast away evidence when some PHD constructs a theory that denies the possibility. especially in modern times. minimalist is a prime example of this and his adherence to finkelstein and dever.

or people lookat the surounding premise and decide that the whole work is bunk and not worth the time of day. hapgood's 'path to the pole' is a prime example of this. people look at his pole shift theory, laugh and throw the whole work away despite the fact that he has found evidence for a catastrophe in accordance to the Biblical account. i was told that you never throw the baby out with the bath water but many, many reasearchers do just that in these times.

it is very easy to dismiss evidence when one wants to avoid dealing with the possibility. i would like to believe that researchers are honest (not a personal jab at you doug) but i know better and have posted quotes to that affect. i even know that many religious people are dishonest in their work and it takes a lot of study to find the evidence, which i have done.

A sure sign of impending victory!

no,just ignoring a one note whine

DougWeller · Post by **DougWeller** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:34 pm

archaeologist wrote:
What would be the point of my reading a book half a century old, written before we even knew about plate tectonics
there you go. evidence is evidence no matter where it is found and if you ignore sources then you are not doing complete research. just because it is a half century old does it mean it is useless.

"Dr. Allen, professor of geology at the university of alberta, in speaking of the fossil beds along the red deer river, once made this observation in his classroom lecture: 'these reptiles. whose fossil remains are found in such great abundance along the red deer, seem to have been driven together by a common danger and to have perished in the same great catastrophe'" (pg. 234 the flood)

Ah, those will be the fossils that show evolution taking place. They didn't all die at the same time. I have no idea who Allen is but if he was writing that long ago his impressions wouldn't have been based on a modern understanding of geology, fossils, etc.

archaeologist wrote:
plus he is dealing with things that modern researchers write off for whatever reason including that it doesn't fit their theories or beliefs. researchers dismiss things because it does not fit into their thinking or it forces them to change it towards the Biblcal account.

how do you expect non-christians to be honest when it comes to Biblical accounts?
[SNIP]
it is very easy to dismiss evidence when one wants to avoid dealing with the possibility. i would like to believe that researchers are honest (not a personal jab at you doug) but i know better and have posted quotes to that affect. i even know that many religious people are dishonest in their work and it takes a lot of study to find the evidence, which i have done.

A sure sign of impending victory!
no,just ignoring a one note whine

Why shouldn't non-Christians be honest in dealing with Bible accounts? Why would they treat them any differently than other accounts from the same period? In fact, they are likely to be more objective.

Nice to see though that you agree that youcan be religious and dishonest.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:39 pm

including that it doesn't fit their theories or beliefs.

HOw about that they are fucking absurd?

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:28 pm

Ok so if it's written in a Spiderman comic book that god made the world in 6 days and then pissed on it for 40 days and 40 nights and then he created spiderman we should take it as gospel? Science advances! A book about science written as little as 20 years ago can have wrong assumptions in it. INTELLIGENT HUMANS learn and advance. Science is an ongoing process. We write it as we learn it. If you want to keep the level of intelligence and view that was prevalent 2000 years ago, be my guest. Just don't try to convince me of your stupid shit. You're a teacher? What do you teach? I'd hate to know I had to try to learn something from you. You idiot! Gah!