• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Deluge

David Henson said:
Yours is, as far as I am aware, one of a few thoughtful posts.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, you've been asked a number of good questions, which you prefer to dismiss as "smart-aleck comments about carbon dating".

Try reading the posts without dismissing them, and answer the questions.
 
David Henson said:
EXCELLENT!...(snip)... That Xmas star is Satan trying to kill Jesus as an infant . . . that how stupid modern day Christianity is.
Click to expand...



I don't think you could have summed it up any better than that. Thanks for the good Friday chuckle just when I thought this thread had bled itself of all possible further humor.
 
Sun Countess said:
I may agree that modern day Christianity is stupid, but your particular bible interpretations aren't any less stupid than those that are generally preached/accepted by other christians.

It must really suck to live in a world where you can ignore all the reality around you in favor of believing that all of this visible world is unimportant in the grand scheme of some invisible supernatural battle between good and evil. Where you're constantly wondering whether something is really the sign of satan or god, having to interpret and reinterpret an ancient book, and search for obscure word origins that just might make something mean something else if you twist and squeeze it precisely. Your whole purpose for living is tied into some weird fantasy realm that you've stitched together from the strings of ancient myth and the whole cloth of your own imagination.
Click to expand...

Nominated.
 
I have a question related to the OP.


If an oil company were interviewing a geologist to help them search for potential new sources of oil, and that geologist identified himself as someone who believed a worldwide deluge occurred approximately 5,000 years ago, how do you think it would affect his chances of being hired? If it would have an effect, why do you think it would?
 
David Henson said:
I'm going to try a different method than I have ever tried. I'm going to open a thread on the flood by simply asking anyone who cares to to ask me whatever they want to ask me about the flood. This could potentially save a great deal of time.
Click to expand...

Now I'm going to go back through the thread and answer all the questions I have or haven't answered and address all the posts I have or haven't addressed.
 
Cavemonster said:
David, you'll find that most skeptics here have read the Bible and have already arrived at conclusions about it. We're mostly not interested in broad discussions about fictional event, entities and objects.
Click to expand...

What evidence do you have that the Bible flood was a fictional event? I ask specifically that because the flood doesn't really consider fictional objects and since it is specifically a post inquiring about the global flood in isn't necessary to consider fictional entities.

Cavemonster said:
Look around the forum a bit, "Ask me questions about God/Aliens/Bigfoot/Psychics" threads don't generate the kind of discussion you're looking for.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

Cavemonster said:
The format that generates the most thoughtful, robust response is as follows:

I believe X to be true, here is my evidence from multiple credible sources.

Then, respond to criticism with more appropriate evidence from credible sources.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree.

Cavemonster said:
That's the only way that most of this forum, myself included, will take a discussion of THE FLOOD seriously.
Click to expand...

I believe that there is no possible way you and most of this forum will take a discussion of the flood seriously because you already have uninformed preconceived notions that are not dependent upon anything remotely resembling appropriate evidence because "credible sources" are the dogmatic propositions from science that confirms your preconceived notions. If, and I mean if, science has anything at all to say about it. If I am wrong show me the evidence that science has accumulated regarding the Biblical deluge.
 
Last edited:
David Henson said:
Up to 15 cubits (22 ft / 6.5 m) of water overwhelmed them. (Genesis 7:20)

It was a global deluge.
Click to expand...
Do you think that the mountains, etc, flattened themselves out in order to get under the water, or is the fifteen cubits measured at the shallowest part of the flood (i.e., above the tallest mountains)?
 
Sledge said:
If we accept that god is infinite, and that he created sufficient water to cover the surface of the Earth even to the tops of mountains...

... would you like some toast?
Click to expand...

God being infinite is not particularly relevant. Does science support the possiblity of there being a time in earth's history when the earth was flater with mountians that were not as tall?

"Where the mountains of the world now tower to dizzy heights, oceans and plains once, millions of years ago, stretched out in flat monotony. .*.*. The movements of the continental plates cause the land both to rear up to heights where only the hardiest of animals and plants can survive and, at the other extreme, to plunge and lie in hidden splendor deep beneath the surface of the sea." - The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p.*19.

No toast, thank you.
 
Madalch said:
Do you think that the mountains, etc, flattened themselves out in order to get under the water, or is the fifteen cubits measured at the shallowest part of the flood (i.e., above the tallest mountains)?
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that it is scientifically impossible? If so, evidence?

"Where the mountains of the world now tower to dizzy heights, oceans and plains once, millions of years ago, stretched out in flat monotony. . . . The movements of the continental plates cause the land both to rear up to heights where only the hardiest of animals and plants can survive and, at the other extreme, to plunge and lie in hidden splendor deep beneath the surface of the sea." - The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p. 19.

"The average depth of all the seas has been estimated at 3,790 metres (12,430*feet), a figure considerably larger than that of the average elevation of the land above the sea level, which is 840 metres (2,760*feet). If the average depth is multiplied by its respective surface area, the volume of the World Ocean is 11 times the volume of the land above sea level." - The New Encyclopædia Britannica 1987, Vol.*25, p.*124.
 
David,
If this is what you were looking for, a thread where you make bald assertions and ignore the evidence presented, then I guess you're welcome to it.
 
paximperium said:
20ft? Huge swaths of the world would still be above water.
Click to expand...

Of the present world or the one that existed before the flood?

"Where the mountains of the world now tower to dizzy heights, oceans and plains once, millions of years ago, stretched out in flat monotony. . . . The movements of the continental plates cause the land both to rear up to heights where only the hardiest of animals and plants can survive and, at the other extreme, to plunge and lie in hidden splendor deep beneath the surface of the sea." - The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p. 19.

"The average depth of all the seas has been estimated at 3,790 metres (12,430 feet), a figure considerably larger than that of the average elevation of the land above the sea level, which is 840 metres (2,760 feet). If the average depth is multiplied by its respective surface area, the volume of the World Ocean is 11 times the volume of the land above sea level." - The New Encyclopædia Britannica 1987, Vol. 25, p. 124.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom