The Great Flood and Noah's Ark

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Haha when I saw the thread I thought to myself, "well there are some religious nuts on this forum, but surely no one stupid enough to believe in the Ark story". ATOT never fails to surprise me.

And from seeing the pictures of the theoretical size of the Ark from Red Squirrel's pictures, the thought of the stresses on that thing while floating in a turbulent, stormy ocean seems incredibly unrealistic. That would have required some damn good structural engineers to design and build out of nothing more than wood.
Hundreds of feet long, I bet that would have been fun when hitting a large swell without twisting apart or snapping in half.

 

[Tweak155]

Originally posted by: videogames101

Totally arbitrary claims of truth have no standing in any discussion.

Videogames is back!

I agree with you on this one.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: Tweak155

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: bsobel
I presume you've done the translation from the original texts and aren't basing this on the lossy english version you read in your hotel room right?

Youl would therefore have to assume that every Christian has translated the original text taking into account cultural influences to understand and follow their religion.

Don't be silly :laugh:

This isn't far from true.

There are quite a few scriptures that are ambiguous as far as translation is concerned.

Between religions and versions of the english translated bible, you will find minor differences.

EDIT:

This is true of the greek portion as well.

Blah blah blah, I know all that shit. Was making the point that the only people who go back and read the original text are hardcore zealots. The vast majority just assume the original text means the same thing.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Tweak155

Originally posted by: videogames101

Totally arbitrary claims of truth have no standing in any discussion.

Videogames is back!

I agree with you on this one.

Yeah, finally got back from my involuntary vacation for atot.

(Sorry I couldn't respond to our last discussion, see reason above)



On the topic of translation, things like the greek word for "young women" being mistranslated as "virgin" actually can cause quite a bit of confusion.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Haha when I saw the thread I thought to myself, "well there are some religious nuts on this forum, but surely no one stupid enough to believe in the Ark story". ATOT never fails to surprise me.

If you're not going to contribute to the conversation, step aside and keep quiet. We all know how much you like to troll religious threads and flamebait new anti-religion threads. All it does is show us all how insecure and childish you are about your own beliefs. Either approach these types of threads logically and STOP TROLLING or exit stage left.

 

[Tweak155]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Tweak155

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: bsobel
I presume you've done the translation from the original texts and aren't basing this on the lossy english version you read in your hotel room right?

Youl would therefore have to assume that every Christian has translated the original text taking into account cultural influences to understand and follow their religion.

Don't be silly :laugh:

This isn't far from true.

There are quite a few scriptures that are ambiguous as far as translation is concerned.

Between religions and versions of the english translated bible, you will find minor differences.

EDIT:

This is true of the greek portion as well.

Blah blah blah, I know all that shit. Was making the point that the only people who go back and read the original text are hardcore zealots. The vast majority just assume the original text means the same thing.

I would argue the vast majority just want something to cling on to and haven't made any real effort to claim it as true in the minimal sense. Drones so to speak.

If the ending sounds good, then lets believe it! (or any part)

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Tweak155

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Tweak155

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: bsobel
I presume you've done the translation from the original texts and aren't basing this on the lossy english version you read in your hotel room right?

Youl would therefore have to assume that every Christian has translated the original text taking into account cultural influences to understand and follow their religion.

Don't be silly :laugh:

This isn't far from true.

There are quite a few scriptures that are ambiguous as far as translation is concerned.

Between religions and versions of the english translated bible, you will find minor differences.

EDIT:

This is true of the greek portion as well.

Blah blah blah, I know all that shit. Was making the point that the only people who go back and read the original text are hardcore zealots. The vast majority just assume the original text means the same thing.

I would argue the vast majority just want something to cling on to and haven't made any real effort to claim it as true in the minimal sense. Drones so to speak.

If the ending sounds good, then lets believe it! (or any part)

They're only drones because they've been taught not to question. In act, the first words out of the devil's mouth in the bible is a question. Indoctrination in religion keeps people from questioning.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: Tweak155
I would argue the vast majority just want something to cling on to and haven't made any real effort to claim it as true in the minimal sense. Drones so to speak.

If the ending sounds good, then lets believe it! (or any part)

You're not arguing with me. You're agreeing with me and supporting my point.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Originally posted by: Nik

Scientific evidence is not a guess. Theory is based on evidence, not words on a page written thousands of years ago by human hands.

Science *IS* guessing, some is rather accurate, while some may be a bit off, but none is 100%. This is why science manuals change every year. They have to make corrections. The Bible has not changed since it was written. I'm talking THE Bible, not the one that Catholics decided to add to it. (which is strictly forbidden according to the last page of Revelation).

 

[Tweak155]

Originally posted by: videogames101
They're only drones because they've been taught not to question. In act, the first words out of the devil's mouth in the bible is a question. Indoctrination in religion keeps people from questioning.

It is a sad state. I was raised without any religion influence and didn't take any real course until a few years ago after I took time to look into it.

The other fact about the bible in current times are the interpretations of what is stated can range from A to Z. A lot of things in the bible that are attempted to be defined (by relating multiple scriptures) really just don't have a definition and are fabricated. Of course, that is my interpretation ironically .

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: Nik

Scientific evidence is not a guess. Theory is based on evidence, not words on a page written thousands of years ago by human hands.

Science *IS* guessing, some is rather accurate, while some may be a bit off, but none is 100%. This is why science manuals change every year. They have to make corrections. The Bible has not changed since it was written. I'm talking THE Bible, not the one that Catholics decided to add to it. (which is strictly forbidden according to the last page of Revelation).

Scientific evidence is not a guess. Theory extrapolating the what-and-why is a guess, but still based on evidence.

Learn to read, nubcake!

You can't disprove that water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. However, where they came from is theory.

You can't disprove that the Bible exists, but you cannot prove the contents to be irrefutable and infallable.

 

[Tweak155]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Tweak155
I would argue the vast majority just want something to cling on to and haven't made any real effort to claim it as true in the minimal sense. Drones so to speak.

If the ending sounds good, then lets believe it! (or any part)

You're not arguing with me. You're agreeing with me and supporting my point.

I guess I was aiming for root cause. Yes, I supported your statement and did not argue.

 

[Tweak155]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: Nik

Scientific evidence is not a guess. Theory is based on evidence, not words on a page written thousands of years ago by human hands.

Science *IS* guessing, some is rather accurate, while some may be a bit off, but none is 100%. This is why science manuals change every year. They have to make corrections. The Bible has not changed since it was written. I'm talking THE Bible, not the one that Catholics decided to add to it. (which is strictly forbidden according to the last page of Revelation).

Scientific evidence is not a guess. Theory extrapolating the what-and-why is a guess, but still based on evidence.

Learn to read, nubcake!

You can't disprove that water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. However, where they came from is theory.

You can't disprove that the Bible exists, but you cannot prove the contents to be irrefutable and infallable.

Science starts out as a guess and then is attempted to be proven true. *EDIT* Or proven false depending on how you look at it.

While I mostly agree with RedSquirrel, I disagree on the fact that none is 100% proven. Not sure if I'd use Nik's example but it gives you the idea.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: Crono
How old are the coastal towns? Older than 6,000 years? If you believe the bible at all, then the earth is not much older than 6,000 years.
If the pressure was 2,700 psi, and you have 5,000 years of time passing, than yes, most of the evidence would be gone or very hard to find. Mankind was not spread over the face of the earth at that time, but concentrated in the Africa/Middle East area. Given how vast the oceans are, even well preserved buildings would be very difficult to find. Even given a specific area, it's very difficult to find something even the size of a city.

Earth is only 6,000 years old?

Yet we have dinosaur fossils that date back 235 and 240 million years ago - Link

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Crono
How old are the coastal towns? Older than 6,000 years? If you believe the bible at all, then the earth is not much older than 6,000 years.
If the pressure was 2,700 psi, and you have 5,000 years of time passing, than yes, most of the evidence would be gone or very hard to find. Mankind was not spread over the face of the earth at that time, but concentrated in the Africa/Middle East area. Given how vast the oceans are, even well preserved buildings would be very difficult to find. Even given a specific area, it's very difficult to find something even the size of a city.

Earth is only 6,000 years old?

Yet we have dinosaur fossils that date back 235 and 240 million years ago - Link

Fast Forward and get beyond the next 500 posts:

Crono: how do you know it's that old
CaptCaveman: carbon dating
Crono: carbon dating is flawed
CaptCaveman: disprove it
Crono: yeah there was this one guy who took a leaf from a park and buried it in mud for a week and then carbon dated it and the machine said it was 100,000 years old
CaptCaveman: link it
Crono: I can't, but I believe it cuz I can has faiths


Next subject please.

 

[gorcorps]

I don't think it was a GLOBAL flood, but a massive flood that covered most of the area which could seem like the world for anybody involved. I watched something on Discovery that was talking about it and how certain parts of the bible, including the flood, have been proven geologically. They just weren't as big as let on in the bible.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: Nik

Scientific evidence is not a guess. Theory is based on evidence, not words on a page written thousands of years ago by human hands.

Science *IS* guessing, some is rather accurate, while some may be a bit off, but none is 100%. This is why science manuals change every year. They have to make corrections. The Bible has not changed since it was written. I'm talking THE Bible, not the one that Catholics decided to add to it. (which is strictly forbidden according to the last page of Revelation).

:laugh:

Another misinterpretation of the Bible.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: Nik

Scientific evidence is not a guess. Theory is based on evidence, not words on a page written thousands of years ago by human hands.

Science *IS* guessing, some is rather accurate, while some may be a bit off, but none is 100%. This is why science manuals change every year. They have to make corrections. The Bible has not changed since it was written. I'm talking THE Bible, not the one that Catholics decided to add to it. (which is strictly forbidden according to the last page of Revelation).

Yes, it wasn't changed, and is therefor terribly outdated and filled with dumb shit like slavery. It was made up then, still made up now. Science's explanations have evidence behind them, and it's their willingness to change positions that lets them discover the truth, starting out believing your position is flawless cannot yield truth.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: gorcorps
I don't think it was a GLOBAL flood, but a massive flood that covered most of the area which could seem like the world for anybody involved. I watched something on Discovery that was talking about it and how certain parts of the bible, including the flood, have been proven geologically. They just weren't as big as let on in the bible.

yeah I saw that too. They pretty much conclusively proved there was a flood. It is just that it was contained to a regional area. Still if that area was what you thought to be the world, then it could have seemed the world flooded.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: gorcorps
I don't think it was a GLOBAL flood, but a massive flood that covered most of the area which could seem like the world for anybody involved. I watched something on Discovery that was talking about it and how certain parts of the bible, including the flood, have been proven geologically. They just weren't as big as let on in the bible.

yeah I saw that too. They pretty much conclusively proved there was a flood. It is just that it was contained to a regional area. Still if that area was what you thought to be the world, then it could have seemed the world flooded.

large floods happen....?


big leap there guys....

 

[Tweak155]

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: Nik

Scientific evidence is not a guess. Theory is based on evidence, not words on a page written thousands of years ago by human hands.

Science *IS* guessing, some is rather accurate, while some may be a bit off, but none is 100%. This is why science manuals change every year. They have to make corrections. The Bible has not changed since it was written. I'm talking THE Bible, not the one that Catholics decided to add to it. (which is strictly forbidden according to the last page of Revelation).

Yes, it wasn't changed, and is therefor terribly outdated and filled with dumb shit like slavery. It was made up then, still made up now. Science's explanations have evidence behind them, and it's their willingness to change positions that lets them discover the truth, starting out believing your position is flawless cannot yield truth.

You are saying slavery doesn't exist anymore? Even if that were true (I couldn't tell you on a global level), we had slavery in this country up until not too long ago (relatively speaking)...

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: Tweak155

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: Nik

Scientific evidence is not a guess. Theory is based on evidence, not words on a page written thousands of years ago by human hands.

Science *IS* guessing, some is rather accurate, while some may be a bit off, but none is 100%. This is why science manuals change every year. They have to make corrections. The Bible has not changed since it was written. I'm talking THE Bible, not the one that Catholics decided to add to it. (which is strictly forbidden according to the last page of Revelation).

Yes, it wasn't changed, and is therefor terribly outdated and filled with dumb shit like slavery. It was made up then, still made up now. Science's explanations have evidence behind them, and it's their willingness to change positions that lets them discover the truth, starting out believing your position is flawless cannot yield truth.

You are saying slavery doesn't exist anymore? Even if that were true (I couldn't tell you on a global level), we had slavery in this country up until not too long ago (relatively speaking)...

Way to latch on to a terrible example of a good point and run away with it in the most low-brow short sighted moronic way possible.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Tweak155

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: Nik

Scientific evidence is not a guess. Theory is based on evidence, not words on a page written thousands of years ago by human hands.

Science *IS* guessing, some is rather accurate, while some may be a bit off, but none is 100%. This is why science manuals change every year. They have to make corrections. The Bible has not changed since it was written. I'm talking THE Bible, not the one that Catholics decided to add to it. (which is strictly forbidden according to the last page of Revelation).

Yes, it wasn't changed, and is therefor terribly outdated and filled with dumb shit like slavery. It was made up then, still made up now. Science's explanations have evidence behind them, and it's their willingness to change positions that lets them discover the truth, starting out believing your position is flawless cannot yield truth.

You are saying slavery doesn't exist anymore? Even if that were true (I couldn't tell you on a global level), we had slavery in this country up until not too long ago (relatively speaking)...

When did I say it didn't exist? I meant it condones it. (if not directly, certainly by omission)

 

[moshquerade]

oh good, another bashing other's beliefs thread. can't have too many of those. no siree!

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: videogames101
When did I say it didn't exist? I meant it condones it. (if not directly, certainly by omission)

This is a false statement.