Noah's Flood...

[ReneDescartes]

It is also tiresome to hear allt he time that we have to prove the bible to be wrong .Fact is you want to bible to be right YOU need to prove it ,or at least give convincing evidence .
If for example I tell you I am Gods spokesman on this planet ,it would be up to me to prove it ,right ? Not the opposite of course because that by nature of logics is impossible .
It seems whoever opposes you and your believes is allways summarly dismissed without any scientific arguments,remember the dodo ,the issue about mathematics,Einstein,evolution,etc.You allways hide behind the bible pretending it supercedes science .Prove it ,we allready gave enough evidence it is full of holes ,immoral ,contradicting itself ,etc.

[tj]

It seems whoever opposes you and your believes is allways summarly dismissed without any scientific arguments,remember the dodo ,the issue about mathematics,Einstein,evolution,etc.You allways hide behind the bible pretending it supercedes science .Prove it ,we allready gave enough evidence it is full of holes ,immoral ,contradicting itself ,etc.

There is a name for this. Whether he is cognizant of it or not (and I suspect that he is not), Arch is a presuppositionalist.

[Minimalist]

Does that mean "asshole" in English?

[Leona Conner]

tj: agreed. After all why is the Bible considered to be the truth? Because it says it is. PERIOD What more can you say. Guess that's why Arch goes around in circles all the time.

[Guest]

It is also tiresome to hear allt he time that we have to prove the bible to be wrong

well you (general uasage of the word) are the one saying it is wrong yet your side never sees to come up with anything other than declatory statements, opinions supported by no evidence, a dissmissive attitude because of bias and prejudice.

so i figure it is your turn to present your side in a manner that is conducive to proper scrutiny by those who disagree with your position.

If for example I tell you I am Gods spokesman on this planet ,it would be up to me to prove it ,right ? Not the opposite of course because that by nature of logics is impossible .

for that to take place that spokesman would have to follow the criteria set out in the bible by God himself. anyone cansay they speak for God but not everyone does. i am just a simple believer who believes the Bible and Jesus Christ.

You allways hide behind the bible pretending it supercedes science

i have laid out many quotes that render science to merely a tool and shown the fallibility of science because of all the influences that take place in that field. science cannot be the ultimate definer of life because it is too error prone and mistake filled. look at how many times the theoryof evolution has changed, one can't trust a field that keeps changing what it believes.

just one more thing Arch sothe flood happened because there are stories allover the world about it

no, i am not saying that, what i am looking for is a properly presented argument from your side that defends your position credibly without undermining yourself with all the extra garbage that comes long with your side's dissent.

Now just going back to Einstein for a second .His statement was made about the cosmologic constant

i wasn't worried about if he was right or wrong,i was looking at the attitude that comes with your scientific perspective. scientists have this arrogance about them that if they can't figure it out, or explain it then it can't be done. well i laugh at that because it shows so many limitations on the part of the scientists, who don't realize how limited they are because of the restrictions they have placed upon themselves.

The desert came first ,then the camel .Evolution teaches that organisms adapt to varying environment

at least you gave an answer. i will disagree for now pending further study.

It seems whoever opposes you and your believes is allways summarly dismissed without any scientific arguments

i presaent evidence but it is always dismissed off-hand even when i use non-religious sources so don't give me that crap. if you have to believe in a ice age don't mock me for holding an alternative viewpoint especially when the evidence backs me up more than it does you.

ryan, pitman, schoch, hapgood, all non-religious researchers have found in different parts of the world the evidence to support a global flood. you say the black sea was a local one but you cannot prove it was. you can only say it was so because you want it to be so.

when you start linking the pieces together like a jigsaw puzzle, then you see the whole picture but when you try to manipulate the evidence to fit your beliefs then you error.

Arch is a presuppositionalist.

i may start with the Bible but you start with evolution and the ice ages so actually you are accusing me of what you are also doing. with one minor difference; you don't want the bible to be true so you try tofit the evidence any way you can so you can avoid doing what the Bible asks.

[Minimalist]

well you (general uasage of the word) are the one saying it is wrong yet your side never sees to come up with anything other than declatory statements, opinions supported by no evidence, a dissmissive attitude because of bias and prejudice.

Horseshit.


Archaeology has disposed of your mythology but you, in your religious zeal, cannot accept anything which is not god-based.

This is your problem....not science's.

[tj]

Arch is a presuppositionalist.

i may start with the Bible but you start with evolution and the ice ages so actually you are accusing me of what you are also doing. with one minor difference; you don't want the bible to be true so you try tofit the evidence any way you can so you can avoid doing what the Bible asks.

I go where the evidence leads whether I like where it leads or not.

[Guest]

Horseshit.

case in point

I go where the evidence leads whether I like where it leads or not.

depends upon the interpretation and C.S.I. las vegas' policy doesn't cut it for following the evidence solely, one can lose perspective and interpret wrongly. sometimes evidence seemingly points inthe wrong direction or a leap to a conclusion mis-applies the evidence etc.

one needs to look for the truth.

[Minimalist]

The bible is still horseshit....whether you like it or not.

[Guest]

The bible is still horseshit....whether you like it or not

why don't you do as i ask instead of always playing your favorite mantra. you have done nothing to defend your position so you are theone who looks foolish not me. at least i have researched and found evidence.

all you can do is sit there and make colorful proclamations...real intelligent

[Minimalist]

As the title of the CURRENT BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY thread states, I have given you example after example where CURRENT SCIENCE has blown your stupid bible out of the water.

You choose not to accept it. You hide behind magic and superstition but cannot produce any archaeological evidence to support the nonsense which has been foisted on mankind for 2,500 years.

Your god has made little imprint on history if he cannot produce a piece of pottery to back up his claims of 'omnipotence.'

There is no point in dignifying your claims of gods and demons. You believe it because it is easier than growing up.

Your choice.

[Guest]

I have given you example after example where CURRENT SCIENCE has blown your stupid bible out of the water.

you have given me one man's opinion as to what happened, and i wouldn't count it as evidence as i have countered with other quotes that open up the soft under belly of people like finkelstein and dever.

You choose not to accept it

i choose not to acdcept it as it isn't true, what you present are opinions from those who have no belief so they have no motivation to find the truth.

Your god has made little imprint on history if he cannot produce a piece of pottery to back up his claims of 'omnipotence

so pottery is now elevated to the pedestal divinity now even though its classification is solely left to opinion...hahaha

There is no point in dignifying your claims of gods and demons. You believe it because it is easier than growing up

i stick with the Bible because it is true and i have found evidence to back it up but the Bible requires faith and if you do not want to do that then yo are left in the dark chasing your tale.

the evidence is there, the choice is yours

***again i challenged non-biblical adherents to concisely plasce their argument (along with other requirements) and what do they do---they attack instead of presenting...what does that tell you---they have nothing to offer.***

[Minimalist]

You insist on the fiction that somehow poor little Izzy Finkelstein is on a one-man crusade to demolish all your comfy little fables. He is not. He is recapping the work of a generation of Israeli archaeologists who have seen through the OT horseshit and found that it is all a pack of lies.

You try to kill the messenger when your problem is that you just don't want to hear the facts.

Now, either produce some facts to back up your fairy tales or concede the point that you believe it because you want to believe it....not because it makes any sense.

[Guest]

He is recapping the work of a generation of Israeli archaeologists who have seen through the OT horseshit and found that it is all a pack of lies.

that is their problem and if you can't see why they write the way they do, then that is your problem.

Now, either produce some facts to back up your fairy tales or concede the point that you believe it because you want to believe it....not because it makes any sense.

sorry but i have laid out the challenge first so what you are telling me is that , just like the intelligent design thread, you have nothing to offer in your defense, which means you have nothing.

so strike three you are out...

[Essan]

ryan, pitman, schoch, hapgood, all non-religious researchers have found in different parts of the world the evidence to support a global flood. you say the black sea was a local one but you cannot prove it was. you can only say it was so because you want it to be so.

You don't think it's odd that the only places where there is evidence of a 'global flood' is in low lying coastal regions?

Areas which would have been exposed as dry land if - as all geological evidence suggests - there was an ice age followed by a gradual meltdown.

You're not the least suspicious that the geological explanation matches all the evidence whilst the Biblical one is full of massive gaping holes?

Guess that's faith for you. You can believe you can swim right up to the moment you jump into the lake and drown.