There is scientific proof that a worldwide flood never happened. If there had been a worldwide flood, the flood waters would have deposited sediments over the land everywhere, and we'd see that layer of sediment in the rock strata. The stratum isn't there, so we know there wasn't a worldwide flood.
-
Features
*Warning: May contain nuts, Christians and/or both
- Thread starter 1ICrying
- Start date
There is scientific proof that a worldwide flood never happened. If there had been a worldwide flood, the flood waters would have deposited sediments over the land everywhere, and we'd see that layer of sediment in the rock strata. The stratum isn't there, so we know there wasn't a worldwide flood.
Wyatt's partner, Fasold, apparently did go against him, but in the end, seemed to come back around.
This is from Wikipedia:
In April 1997 during his testimony in an Australian court case Fasold repudiated his belief in the Ark, and stated that he regarded the claim as "absolute BS".
Ark researchers such as David Allen Deal and Robert Michelson,
and Australian friend and biographer June Dawes reported that before his 1998 death Fasold again claimed the Durupınar site to be the location of the ark. Dawes wrote:
He [Fasold] kept repeating that no matter what the experts said, there was too much going for the [Durupınar] site for it to be dismissed. He remained convinced it was the fossilized remains of Noah's Ark.
This is from Wikipedia:
In April 1997 during his testimony in an Australian court case Fasold repudiated his belief in the Ark, and stated that he regarded the claim as "absolute BS".
Ark researchers such as David Allen Deal and Robert Michelson,
and Australian friend and biographer June Dawes reported that before his 1998 death Fasold again claimed the Durupınar site to be the location of the ark. Dawes wrote:
He [Fasold] kept repeating that no matter what the experts said, there was too much going for the [Durupınar] site for it to be dismissed. He remained convinced it was the fossilized remains of Noah's Ark.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
So, rather than any evidence for the Ark, the Ark story, a global Flood, you offer one person's account of another person agreeing with another person that the Ark was real.
Uh .....huh. if we were big on uncorroborated stories, we'd accept The Books at face value.
However, there's not only no evidence for th e Flood, there's evidence against it. Cultures established with written records that never noticed they were wiped out and rebuilt. No genetic record of species being reduced to two or eight or fourteen pairs.
So, this is a weird argument from ignorance you have. "Maybe you. Just don't know i'm right...yet...'
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
If I'm the smartest person in my graduating class it doesn't matter our grades or class standing. All that is unimportant because that information does not matter compared to what I know and believe.
BTW I really am a billionaire, just can't find all my dough or know how I came to have it. But I know I have billions.
See how easy that was?
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
But anyone who isn't convinced, and doesn't accept it, is doomed to Hell.
So why does that NOT make Jesus an asshole?
I mean, i teach. I am an instructor for a govt. contractor, and i taught at a military school, and i raised three kids. If there is something important to get across to my students, or clients, or trainees, or kids, if they do not recieve the important fact, i have failed.
Nit every fact is critical. But some really, really are. Like how to not get a girl pregnant, or how to avoid a nuclear weapon security violation.
I am not omnipotent, but if they are not grasping tge idea, i keep trying different ways to convey it.
And it is my responsibility. I cannot just appoint a classroom pope as my rep to translate my requirements so that they are understood by all.
So, if Jesus knows some of us are unconvinced by anonymous scribblings about uncorroborated events we did not witness, what is he doing to help get his point across? I gotta say, sending a rep like tax-cheat-Hovind or Banana-man or fossil-ark-Wyatt is not going to convince anyone who wasn't already convinced.
Let’s explore what you mean by “gave” here.
Where’s Jesus now. Presumably with his Dad/clone/self, ja? So he wasn’t “gave” in any sense of the word. So this verse is rather meaningless tripe, right?
And why “believes” ?
Really. What possible reason could there be for “belief” to be the most important factor? I have never understood that strange fetish. To be honest, the only people I have ever seen who make “belief” their top measure - are con-men. No one else does this ever. Con-men and religionists.
Not people who are good getting eternal life. Not infants or idiots. Not the innocent. Not the helpers. But those who “believe.” It just doesn’t make any sense. Except for con-men.
So, about that. At what point during creation, do you guess, was it that god decided human sacrifice was going to be the only way he’d forgive humans for being human? Just curious for your thoughts on this. I never did understand why the human sacrifice rule made sense to anyone who thought their god was a “loving” god. I mean, I get why you think it; because you’re not thinking, and you have all these stories you tell about why it’s “loving” to demand human sacrifices. Which is really creepy, right? But anyway, at what point in history do you think your god decided to make that rule? Because he made ALL the rules, right? So when did he make that one? Before or after he made the humans whose every future deed he already knew before he made them?
Condemned. For not being convinced of its existence. Condemned! “Already.” Doesn’t really sound like there’s any going back, eh? Or do you claim that people get UN-condemned if they later believe? Seems like a pretty thin reading of the text. It’s not that it’s cruel and abhorrent. Well it is, but that’s not its biggest problem. Really, it’s more that it is simply incoherent.. The god condemns you for not having enough evidence to be convinced? That’s just, whaaaaaat? Why!
Let’s explore that. “Save” people from what? His own acts? His own condemnation and punishment in eternal hellfire?
I think I’ve heard this line of reasoning before. It went something like this, “it’s her own fault I broke her jaw - she wouldn’t shut up.”
Nope, it ain’t. You already been told about people WHO SOUGHT IT and could not find any reason to find the story true. They tried, but the story was just too stupid.
What’s his problem, then? Busy today? Not powerful enough to do it?
except it says ridiculously stupid things. That’s his message? Don’t wear cloth made from two different fibers? Have slaves, but only beat them in certain ways? Rape your wife’s maid if you want extra children?
Of course it predicts that. ~squints~ All the best con men say that. Charlie Manson said that. David Koresh. Marshall Applewhite. That’s your standard? Were you born yesterday?
Your testimony is no different at all from Marshall Applewhite’s. It’s the opinion of one human. Hopefully we won’t find you and 38 of your friends dead one day because “testimony” was convincing to you.
Two thoughts on that.
1) Have at it. We enjoy a discussion, even if it’s a repeat of something we’ve hear 1000 times before. We enjoy talking with humans. And,
2) What, you didn’t have the humility to think you might learn something from us and maybe deconvert?
Better idea: don’t build a fire.
You know less than you think you do. Keep listening and learning, grasshopper.
You’re welcome.
By not talking to us.
That’s so weird.
southernhybrid
Contributor
I agree with what Rhea posted. How in the world are you able to believe that a loving, just, god would only reward those who are able to be convinced of his existence, and then ask for repentance? Meanwhile, the most loving people of good character are condemned to eternal torture. You find this so called god loving and just? Seriously?
What about all the other gods who promise they are the right ones? What about the fact that the concept of the blood sacrifice is very common in many religions? Why was the blood sacrifice of Jesus more important than that in other religions. And, to be honest, I don't understand the obsession with the blood sacrifice.
If I were able to believe in a god, she would be a god that didn't have such a big ego as the Judeo-Christian god, who seems to put far too much emphasis on beliefs and far too little on character. It was in fact, the cognitive dissonance that I suffered for years during my childhood, that lead me to consider that my childhood indoctrination might just be based on some made up stuff from a very ancient time, when people didn't have the understanding of science and reality that we have today.
The idea of a literal flood is just cray cray. How did Noah gather every species into one boat? How did he feed all those animals and who cleaned up all that shit? Forty days worth of food and animal shit is a lot to deal with on one boat, with just one family to do all of that work. How in the world did Noah get those polar bears down to the mideast, as an example of the ludicrous nature of such a belief? After the flood, Noah sees a bird perching on the limb of a high tree. How did the birds survive while the entire world was under water? And, how did Noah keep those animals from fighting each other? Plus forty days of rain would never cover the entire earth. It's such an obvious fairy tale that it's embarrassing to think that some intelligent people are able to take it literally. I supposed I can see how primitive people could think that a local flood covered the entire world, since their concept of the world was very limited and their understanding of the number of animal species was entirely unknown. But I don't understand how anyone in the modern world can take this old myth literally.
What about all the other gods who promise they are the right ones? What about the fact that the concept of the blood sacrifice is very common in many religions? Why was the blood sacrifice of Jesus more important than that in other religions. And, to be honest, I don't understand the obsession with the blood sacrifice.
If I were able to believe in a god, she would be a god that didn't have such a big ego as the Judeo-Christian god, who seems to put far too much emphasis on beliefs and far too little on character. It was in fact, the cognitive dissonance that I suffered for years during my childhood, that lead me to consider that my childhood indoctrination might just be based on some made up stuff from a very ancient time, when people didn't have the understanding of science and reality that we have today.
The idea of a literal flood is just cray cray. How did Noah gather every species into one boat? How did he feed all those animals and who cleaned up all that shit? Forty days worth of food and animal shit is a lot to deal with on one boat, with just one family to do all of that work. How in the world did Noah get those polar bears down to the mideast, as an example of the ludicrous nature of such a belief? After the flood, Noah sees a bird perching on the limb of a high tree. How did the birds survive while the entire world was under water? And, how did Noah keep those animals from fighting each other? Plus forty days of rain would never cover the entire earth. It's such an obvious fairy tale that it's embarrassing to think that some intelligent people are able to take it literally. I supposed I can see how primitive people could think that a local flood covered the entire world, since their concept of the world was very limited and their understanding of the number of animal species was entirely unknown. But I don't understand how anyone in the modern world can take this old myth literally.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
People say they believe lots of dumb religious things but never live by those statements. Everything is god's plan, god's will, so whatever happens, whatever you do is the god's plan. So do whatever you want, it's what a god wants too. If the god didn't want it you wouldn't be doing it. If the god didn't want it that other person wouldn't be doing it. Nice and convenient.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Not really. There is evidence of catastrophic local floods but certainly not a world covered in water.
The Pacific Northwest is known to have floods attributed to breaking of an ice dam in Montana. I believe. There is evidence that past earthquakes have caused massive tsunamis in Puget Sound. Nothing anywhere indicated a global flood.
Noah was plagiarized from the earlier Gilgamesh epic.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Would you like to buy a map to King Solomon's gold mine? Or perhaps buried Inca gold? People do pursue these.I watched a show on the Lost Dutchman Gold Mine. There is a family that has pursued it for generations. A miner in the southwest in the late 19th century claimed to have node a fantastic gold strike and passed on a few clues before he died. There were nurders over the search and alleged maps which were never clear enough for an exact location.
Technical the Ark as described and dimensioned loaded with animals would not have survived any weather. It would have cracked in the middle in rough waters. It has happened in modern timers with steel ships.
Old Noah may have had a watery adventure but not a global flood.
In ancient tines our current Midwest flooding would be seen as the 'world' being flooded.
After the last Indian Ocean tsunami an islnd resident was interviewed. He said there was an old island cultural story about god periodical wiping the world clean with a flood. And if you see water receding form the shore run to high ground.
The myth appears to be about periodic tsunamis caused by earthquakes.
The Ark is a myth that fails on several levels.
Oh, honey. Do you know how many times Christians have claimed someone “recanted their ~whatever not christ-ey position~ on their deathbed”?
They make this stuff up ALL THE TIME to try to add credibility to their stories. But really, it is lies, proven by other relatives, proven by writings, proven by wills. And yet these “liars for christ” simply love their “but in the end he came around” stories. (Well, libel, really, right?)
Christian pass around all these, “oh you wouldn’t believe this story of faith!” Tales, and when you look them up and find out they aren’t true and you ask the Christian, “hey, this isn’t true, why do you pass this around,” and they say (I shit you not, they always say this,) “but it could be true and it feels beautiful, that’s why I repeat it.”
So. Yah.
Testimony.
You have no proof that “fasold came around”. He probably did not. And who cares what one person said. What’s the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE and why do you people not care at all about it?
There is PROOF that the flood never happened. Physical proof. From multiple disciplines. The consilience is irrefutable. A global flood would leave evidence. There is none. A global flood would require a known volume of water. There is not enough. It CAN’T happen.
Now that you know this, and we could give you a fabulous amount of detail! do you just keep on saying something and ignore the evidence shown to you? Do you really? LALALALALALA? What kind of brain did your god give you if you decide to not see the physical evidence. One wonders...
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 45,986
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
That's nice. Of course, this isn't roulette, where truth is based on chance.
The trouble isn't we haven't found evidence for a global flood. We have found substantial evidence against a massive global flood event.
Worldtraveller
Veteran Member
"Some here say no".
Dude, it is scientifically impossible. That's a lot different than "some here say no". It's this kind of prevaricating and dodging that gives all you witnessing for your beliefs such a bad name and makes those of us with even an inkling of scientific knowledge even more skeptical.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
The maximum change in sea levels over the last ice age was 417 feet. But according to the Noah fable sea levels rose 725 feet everyday for almost six weeks.
No rational and intelligent human adult would ever believe such stupidity or consider such stupidity remotely possible that is contained in the Noah Fable.
No rational and intelligent human adult would ever believe such stupidity or consider such stupidity remotely possible that is contained in the Noah Fable.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
The flood story is symbolic of a god who creates life on Earth then destroys it all because he is unhappy with it.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
But the magic alien didn't destroy it all.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
Symbolic? Thats pretty much the plot. What symbolism is there?
God maketh man.
Man's manners sucketh.
God repents the act of Creating the little dickheads. And they're all dickheads.
God smashes His studio, knocking the table over and stomping on the dickheads.
God looks at the destruction, sighs, takes a few hits ofsacrifice smoke. Realizes Man was just created to be dickheads. Waste of a whole fucking year.
Hey Gang,
Here are my thoughts after a quick read through of the latest:
1) As to why God doesn't reveal himself more evidently - so as say, to provide less death and such. As a human, we can't fully know the mind of God, but we can assume that, being God, and us being only human, his wants and needs out weigh ours. Imagine a child building sand castles, including little sand people, out of the sand, and then later smashing them into dust. From the point of the sand (it's okay Rhea, I know Sand has no point of view), a) we can't even comprehend anything other above and beyond sand (unless we believe) and b) it may be the end of us, but to the happiness of the little child (God in this analogy), the reaction of the sand is ultimately not important. What is amazing is that God has decided to save any of us. And to those who are saved, knowing that is surely only by this graciousness, our love and happiness and appreciation will be, and is, through the roof.
For those who have decided to accept the fate of being smashed back to the sand (death), so be it. You don't seem to care. I scarcely care, but I'm giving it a feint go, and God, being so awesome, is open to let more in. And, as pointed out, it doesn't even matter how much of a lowlife you/we/i are or have been, God just requires this one little thing. That you believe that his son died on the cross and rose again.
John 3:16 New International Version (NIV)
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
We'll keep reminding you until we are blue in the face, because that is the new requirement, and being nice, we want you to enjoy the big party also. In the end though, we're not going to mourn those who didn't make it, anymore than we mourn the sperm who didn't make it to the egg.
It seems that God is revealing more to us as time goes - proving more of what the Bible says is true. Maybe we are not yet at the Ark part. But maybe that 'rock formation' is the Ark. Maybe not. Stay tuned as science and archaeology reveal more.
In the meantime, as the Red Letter Christians do, you can believe what Jesus said and not worry so much about the rest. As mentioned before, God himself has let it slip out of the bag that the Bible may have been tampered with - so we (Christians) don't necessarily have to view the Bible as fully infallible. We also have see that some of the stories may be more symbolic in nature. Was there a real Garden of Eden with the snake and all that. Maybe. Or maybe God chose to include that story in the Bible for other purposes - such as to illustrate a greater truth.
Bottom line - I'll always believe. Most of you sceptics here probably never will, and we'll just have to wait and see how the cookie does in fact crumble. I can tell you that I feel a lot wiser being on the side that even has a chance.
We are all on the search for happiness in this world, and as a Christian I can tell you that I am at the top end of ecstatic bliss, knowing and believing that the Kingdom of Heaven awaits, in all it's glorious perfection. I believe, therefore I feel it, and am truly happy, now, and having aligned myself with the most powerful God in this universe, that of the Bible, I feel invincible, and full of endless potential, now.
What have you aligned yourself with? "Reality, facts and death. But a noble death. A death, and life, where you can hang my head high knowing that you did not believe in any fairy tales. Still, you are living a life where you believe that death awaits. Those children and friends that you love, the ones (who half are secretly Christian by the way) who love you. It won't matter a jot after your last breath.
So, while you're alive, you should be attempting every thing that you can do get past the death part. Christianity is the WAY. You just need to Believe that part above about Jesus. Not a thing more. Don't have to go to church, don't have to be a great person, just one little simple thing. But you can't, because you're just too smart. Do you see how you really aren't that smart at all?
You're welcome.
1I
Here are my thoughts after a quick read through of the latest:
1) As to why God doesn't reveal himself more evidently - so as say, to provide less death and such. As a human, we can't fully know the mind of God, but we can assume that, being God, and us being only human, his wants and needs out weigh ours. Imagine a child building sand castles, including little sand people, out of the sand, and then later smashing them into dust. From the point of the sand (it's okay Rhea, I know Sand has no point of view), a) we can't even comprehend anything other above and beyond sand (unless we believe) and b) it may be the end of us, but to the happiness of the little child (God in this analogy), the reaction of the sand is ultimately not important. What is amazing is that God has decided to save any of us. And to those who are saved, knowing that is surely only by this graciousness, our love and happiness and appreciation will be, and is, through the roof.
For those who have decided to accept the fate of being smashed back to the sand (death), so be it. You don't seem to care. I scarcely care, but I'm giving it a feint go, and God, being so awesome, is open to let more in. And, as pointed out, it doesn't even matter how much of a lowlife you/we/i are or have been, God just requires this one little thing. That you believe that his son died on the cross and rose again.
John 3:16 New International Version (NIV)
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
We'll keep reminding you until we are blue in the face, because that is the new requirement, and being nice, we want you to enjoy the big party also. In the end though, we're not going to mourn those who didn't make it, anymore than we mourn the sperm who didn't make it to the egg.
It seems that God is revealing more to us as time goes - proving more of what the Bible says is true. Maybe we are not yet at the Ark part. But maybe that 'rock formation' is the Ark. Maybe not. Stay tuned as science and archaeology reveal more.
In the meantime, as the Red Letter Christians do, you can believe what Jesus said and not worry so much about the rest. As mentioned before, God himself has let it slip out of the bag that the Bible may have been tampered with - so we (Christians) don't necessarily have to view the Bible as fully infallible. We also have see that some of the stories may be more symbolic in nature. Was there a real Garden of Eden with the snake and all that. Maybe. Or maybe God chose to include that story in the Bible for other purposes - such as to illustrate a greater truth.
Bottom line - I'll always believe. Most of you sceptics here probably never will, and we'll just have to wait and see how the cookie does in fact crumble. I can tell you that I feel a lot wiser being on the side that even has a chance.
We are all on the search for happiness in this world, and as a Christian I can tell you that I am at the top end of ecstatic bliss, knowing and believing that the Kingdom of Heaven awaits, in all it's glorious perfection. I believe, therefore I feel it, and am truly happy, now, and having aligned myself with the most powerful God in this universe, that of the Bible, I feel invincible, and full of endless potential, now.
What have you aligned yourself with? "Reality, facts and death. But a noble death. A death, and life, where you can hang my head high knowing that you did not believe in any fairy tales. Still, you are living a life where you believe that death awaits. Those children and friends that you love, the ones (who half are secretly Christian by the way) who love you. It won't matter a jot after your last breath.
So, while you're alive, you should be attempting every thing that you can do get past the death part. Christianity is the WAY. You just need to Believe that part above about Jesus. Not a thing more. Don't have to go to church, don't have to be a great person, just one little simple thing. But you can't, because you're just too smart. Do you see how you really aren't that smart at all?
You're welcome.
1I
Last edited:
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
We cannot comprehend unless we believe?
Fuck you and the arrogant condescension you rode in on. I can comorhend a god, gods, all sorts of immortal POV's and divine bullshit. I just don't accept your fairy tales as describing tyhe reality we share.
You cannot simultaneously claim
that you know your god WANTS us all in his heaven because you know he loves us,
and
that he may have reasons to just let us languish in ignorance he could easily dispel, and which he has dispelled for others before in y,our favorite book.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 35,742
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Creating a sentient entity, even one that's not as clever as you are, in no way gives you the moral right to destroy it as you see fit.
If you disagree, try using that defence in court after you murder your two year old - "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I fully admit to drowning little Sammy, but in my defence, it was I who created him; He was far less wise than me; And he ignored my instructions on how he was to behave. It is therefore clear that you must acquit".
Hint: If you don't like prison food, you might want to choose to do this in a jurisdiction with the death penalty. Because you won't be eating anything else for the rest of your life.
The God you describe is a genocidal monster who makes Pol Pot look like an amateur; And the argument you use to defend his purported actions, and the metaphor you use in an attempt to justify such actions, don't bear a moment's scrutiny.
This hideous attempt at a justification for mass murder might have impressed people at a time when owning other people as property was considered a routine and unremarkable part of life; But nobody today can claim that the creator of a sentient life has the right to kill that sentience on a whim, without revealing that their moral compass is not just broken, but twisted beyond recognition.
This is your morality on religion - twisted evil shit that lets you celebrate mass murder on the grounds that owning people is perfectly acceptable, as long as you are a wise and well informed owner who knows better than his victims.
Fuck that.
If you disagree, try using that defence in court after you murder your two year old - "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I fully admit to drowning little Sammy, but in my defence, it was I who created him; He was far less wise than me; And he ignored my instructions on how he was to behave. It is therefore clear that you must acquit".
Hint: If you don't like prison food, you might want to choose to do this in a jurisdiction with the death penalty. Because you won't be eating anything else for the rest of your life.
The God you describe is a genocidal monster who makes Pol Pot look like an amateur; And the argument you use to defend his purported actions, and the metaphor you use in an attempt to justify such actions, don't bear a moment's scrutiny.
This hideous attempt at a justification for mass murder might have impressed people at a time when owning other people as property was considered a routine and unremarkable part of life; But nobody today can claim that the creator of a sentient life has the right to kill that sentience on a whim, without revealing that their moral compass is not just broken, but twisted beyond recognition.
This is your morality on religion - twisted evil shit that lets you celebrate mass murder on the grounds that owning people is perfectly acceptable, as long as you are a wise and well informed owner who knows better than his victims.
Fuck that.