Noah's Flood...

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 8:21 am

archaeologist wrote:
It can't be objective because he doesn't grasp the science behind the theory of evolution that well.
wish i had a dollar for everytime an evolutionist said that when their fallacies were exposed. what a joke.

And it isn't just fossils, evolution is happening today and we have seen new species develop
evolution is not happening today and never did happen

As with Hitler, who thought he was a Christian
to the unsophisticated mind it may seem to others that he was a christian but he was not, neither in word or deed. and for the past actions of those who already died, nothing i can do about it if you let the actions 0f others determine your choices then you are in a world of hurt.

The last I heard, Roman Catholics were Christian
catholics are not christian

you all try and find an excuse for not believing and justify your position but that is a dangerous game you are playing.

As a matter of fact, Hitler sounds like every evangelical Christian I've ever talked to.
there is so much you don't know...it is sad.

Arch is obviously ignorant of Protestant atrocities during the Reformation.
no i am not and i hate it when people make assumptions about me.

Anyone want to get back on topic?
the only way to talk about religion is when you have faith. if you don't have it then you will miss out. science is very limited and when scientists limit their data to what science can prove then they are out of luck and come to the wrong conclusions.

saying science doesn't prove it doesn't mean it didn't happen, saying it is a myth doesn't negate the fact that it happened, i could go on but why? you refuse the evidence you already have, attributing them to an ice age, to evolution to whatever theory fits your acceptance level.

until you fator in all mitigating influences you won't have a clue and you can pontificate from now and until doomsday your point of view but it doesn't change the reality.

you are now without excuse, noah's flood happened just as the Biblical account has said and what evidence i have provided demonstrates that fact. if there are contradictory theories to the biblical account then i would suggest 'you consider the source', a non-believer is not going to support the Biblical account nor will their research be honest enough to consider the option.

so you just want to hear what you want to hear, that is fine with me i have done what i needed to do and present one side of the issue.

Don't take that condescending tone with us you arrogant asshole. You act as though we are all ignorant children and I for one will not stand for it. We are all intelligent, educated people and we don't need you looking down at us or pitying us. We have the balls to think for ourselves and not blindly follow what the preacher says. Your attitude is insulting and it's what has continually pissed me off. I still say you're an idiot who is so sure that his faith is the only way that you have closed your mind to anything else. You're wasting your time here. So am I, for that matter.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:38 am

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 1:16 pm

Comments anyone?

The Ojibwe Indians of Minnesota have a flood myth and it is a fairly safe bet that they never faced a cyclonic storm.

The near universality of the Flood Myth leads me to believe that "something happened" although it was the result of natural cataclysm and not some pissed-off deity.

As everyone knows I generally have no use for bible-thumper web sites, however, all rules have exceptions and this one

http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html

has a very interesting chart which compares elements of the Flood Myth from various cultures. Interestingly, they note that fewer than half have some sort of divine anger being the spark for the disaster.

Even more interestingly, (and this is my observation, not their's) While Flood Myths seem to be scattered around the world they all seem to be centered in the northern hemisphere.

I have to look into that a bit more. But the Ice Age hit the northern hemisphere harder than the southern.

Leona Conner · Post by **Leona Conner** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:20 pm

[quote]Even more interestingly, (and this is my observation, not their's) While Flood Myths seem to be scattered around the world they all seem to be centered in the northern hemisphere.

I have to look into that a bit more. But the Ice Age hit the northern hemisphere harder than the southern.[/quote]

I've thought quite a lot about melting glaciers. If they really were a mile thick, that would make a hell of a lot of water when it melts. Of course it would rise rather then fall as rain. If you find any good sites on this, please let me know.

I need to get my mind of Arch's sillyass statement about Catholics not being Christian. He really pissed me off with that. He could take Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson and any dozen evangelists he wants, role them together and they still won't hold a candle to one little lady named Mother Theresa.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:24 pm

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 6:19 pm

ignoring the previous few coments i do have one more thing to point out---

taken fromthe book; Noah: a righteous man in a wicked age by dr. bruce a. mcdowell pg. 75---

"Of the five categoriesof animals mentioned in creation, four of them entered the ark: wild animals, livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and everything with wings. the creatures of the sea did not go into the ark, because they could survive in the water the extent of the flood was indicated by the fact that birds too were taken into the ark to be preserved. if the flood were simply a localized event, they wuld be able to fly to dry land."

it is a point i hadn't thought of and reinforces the idea, if the flood was local then noah would only have to move, not build an ark, not preach and many of those to be destroyed could simply follow noah's trail to safety. it was a global flood no matter how you look at it.

when you limit yourself to strictly scientific evidence, you miss out on all the other factors that play a part in the event.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 6:53 pm

Um....

http://www.tenth.org/index.php?id=111

Ph.D. American University of Biblical Studies (GA), 1999

I'm sure he's a totally unbiased source.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 6:54 pm

when you limit yourself to strictly scientific evidence, you miss out on all the other factors that play a part in the event.

Thanks, but I'll take science and leave the magic to you.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 8:30 pm

I'm sure he's a totally unbiased source.

he is as unbiased as an evolutionary scientist would be talking about his theory.

but that is really the crux of the issue. you only accept certain sources which slants the playing field. not only is it wrong but it is hypocritical. it is like me telling you to prove the evolutionary theory using only evangelical, fundamentalist sources and omitting any reference to science.

when you want a level playing field, let me know.

as for the roman catholic comment, there is only one way to salvation and that way is laid out by God and if it is not followed then that person is not a christian.

as for the gilgamesh epic,i would not be assuming the biblical account came from it. there are reasons for that but it would take too much to get in to.
a good life is not a requirement for then Christ would not have to come and die for our sins.

as for frank's outburst, it is ignored as he may be interjecting his own perception of my attitude and not my true attitude when i write here.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 8:50 pm

I'm not the least bit interested in your silly superstitions about heaven, hell or being saved. You can deal with that nonsense by yourself.

As far as trotting out some fellow bible thumper as an expert on archaeology, evolution, geology or climatology you are on exceedingly thin ice. This pious jackass has a vested interest in continuing to sell 'salvation' to the gullible and repeating over and over that the bible is the word of god may impress you but it sure as hell doesn't mean jack shit to me.

I think Frank nailed your personality flaws quite well.

I am totally confident that the bible plagiarized not only Gilgamesh from Sumeria but other tales as well....not the least of which Moses floating down the Nile just as Osiris had.

And Catholics, and I was one until I reached the age of reason, are just as fucked up as any other christians.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 4:22 am

As far as trotting out some fellow bible thumper as an expert on archaeology, evolution, geology or climatology you are on exceedingly thin ice. This pious jackass has a vested interest in continuing to sell 'salvation' to the gullible and repeating over and over that the bible is the word of god may impress you but it sure as hell doesn't mean jack shit to me.

this charge goes right back at you when you trot out your unbelieving archaeologists, scientists etc.

I think Frank nailed your personality flaws quite well.

no, he actually did yours and his as you continually have a closed mind, and are only willing to accept discoveries and conclusions from the 'accepted' list. i at least explore non-religious works to get more evidence which is far more than what you do.

I am totally confident that the bible plagiarized not only Gilgamesh from Sumeria but other tales as well....not the least of which Moses floating down the Nile just as Osiris had.

it is your choice but it is common for sinners to place sin on that which does not sin. you are nothing but a close-minded hypocrite who only wants to hear the words he wants and is not willingly to open to the truth.

that is why i am trying to bow out of these conversations for you have nothing to present or discuss unless it fits what you have already accepted. well

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 4:45 am

archaeologist wrote:
I'm glad to be of help, if a little bemused and amused that a topic on a failed theory went on so long without anyone pointing out there was no Black Sea FLood!
i will beg to differ with that statement. the only explanation then is the Biblical account.

This used to be a worthy discussion. The above quote is exactly where this thread was destroyed. I think that there ought to be some sort of requirement about off topic stupidity being posted.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 8:20 am

archaeologist wrote:
As far as trotting out some fellow bible thumper as an expert on archaeology, evolution, geology or climatology you are on exceedingly thin ice. This pious jackass has a vested interest in continuing to sell 'salvation' to the gullible and repeating over and over that the bible is the word of god may impress you but it sure as hell doesn't mean jack shit to me.
this charge goes right back at you when you trot out your unbelieving archaeologists, scientists etc.

I think Frank nailed your personality flaws quite well.
no, he actually did yours and his as you continually have a closed mind, and are only willing to accept discoveries and conclusions from the 'accepted' list. i at least explore non-religious works to get more evidence which is far more than what you do.

I am totally confident that the bible plagiarized not only Gilgamesh from Sumeria but other tales as well....not the least of which Moses floating down the Nile just as Osiris had.
it is your choice but it is common for sinners to place sin on that which does not sin. you are nothing but a close-minded hypocrite who only wants to hear the words he wants and is not willingly to open to the truth.

that is why i am trying to bow out of these conversations for you have nothing to present or discuss unless it fits what you have already accepted. well

I stand by my previous statements about you, arch. If someone talked down to me in person the way you do here I'd kick his ass.

Leona Conner · Post by **Leona Conner** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:56 am

[quote]it is your choice but it is common for sinners to place sin on that which does not sin. you are nothing but a close-minded hypocrite who only wants to hear the words he wants and is not willingly to open to the truth. [/quote]

First, WE ARE NOT SINNERS. Okay, I will concede that we are "non-believers" in a bunch of extremely old myths. But how do you know that we are sinners? You don't know if we're out there commiting sins. Sure, okay sometimes I do think about doing something wrong, but because I am a mature adult who knows right from wrong, I abstain. You also have no business calling us close-minded hyprocrites, when we are perfectly willing to look at your side, if you would only give us something to look at other than the same old crap. I think you're the one that's close-minded because all you can give us is stuff from writers from the religious right with a preconceived point to prove.

[quote]that is why i am trying to bow out of these conversations for you have nothing to present or discuss unless it fits what you have already accepted.[/quote]

Does that not also apply to you? Next time you pick up your Bible you need to turn to Romans 2:1-3.

I thoroughly agree with Frank, you are a condescending arrogant asshole. Please feel free to leave our group at any time.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:58 am

OH, I'm a sinner and proud of it!

Anything not to be associated with these Jesus Freak fools.