A little more about evolution by the experts.

[Hollie]

Of course, it does such as evidence for the global flood.

There is no evidence.

 

[james bond]

I'm surprised you never heard of Ram Bam. Science and Medieval Philosophy: Maimonides | My Jewish Learning

What am I supposed to take away from your link?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

As you’ve been told about 20 trillion times, there is only one God. But thank you for showing, yet again, that you don’t care about sincere discussion, just trolling. How sad and pitiful.

Says you. How is it that you were divided this information?

 

[surada]

View attachment 623652

I don't understand why rational people say it's either or... Science or Genesis. They are not in competition at all.

Of course, it does such as evidence for the global flood.

There is zero evidence for a global flood. There's ample evidence for a huge flood of the Euphrates river basin. Even the Bible uses the word Erets. That doesn't mean whole earth. Maybe the Jews are smarter than we are. Do you think all humanity came from incestuous relationships?

 

[Woodznutz]

There is no evidence.

The biblical flood wouldn't leave the evidence that science says doesn't exist. So they are correct.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The biblical flood wouldn't leave the evidence that science says doesn't exist. So they are correct.

The problem with your nonsense...

You rely on magic. So you disqualify yourself from any rational argument or use of the concept of evidence.

So you are left with nothing but magical declarations and "because I say so".

No different than the crazy guy on the park bench who insists his house plants talk to him.

 

[surada]

What am I supposed to take away from your link?

Science supercedes religious myth and teaching narratives. These are morality tales teaching redemption and explaining God's relationship with man. There's an important message in the stories but it's not history.

 

[surada]

The biblical flood wouldn't leave the evidence that science says doesn't exist. So they are correct.

There is flood evidence. Core samples have been taken all over the middle east, but there's no world wide flood sediment.

 

[james bond]

There is zero evidence for a global flood.

Tut. Tut. It's in the Bible and we see science backs up the Bible.

 

[surada]

Tut. Tut. It's in the Bible and we see science backs up the Bible.

Not by geologists. Maybe by creationists. .

 

[buttercup]

Nothing supernatural about calculus. I took Calc III and could do mathematical proofs. Not so with the gods.

And yes, not understanding certain things makes absolutist claims about certain things meaningless.

Way to miss the point. Again, not being able to fully understand something doesn’t make said thing untrue. It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about something natural or supernatural. You keep showing that for you it’s about us proving something to you. I’m not trying to prove the trinity to you, I was merely saying that according to Christianity there is one God.

Your second sentence is absurd, there are many things people don’t fully understand yet understand enough to know it is true, it exists. It’s not meaningless to talk about those things.

Your problem is that you are extremely limited in your entire perspective of… well, everything. You’re so stuck on materialism that you don’t understand that there is more than one way of gaining knowledge. Science and scientific experiments is one way of knowing things. It’s not the only way. There are a number of things that are outside the realm of science. But that doesn’t mean they cannot be known. But now I’m getting into a topic that probably deserves a thread of its own.

 

[surada]

The biblical flood wouldn't leave the evidence that science says doesn't exist. So they are correct.

A flood with no flood sediment?

 

[Woodznutz]

A flood with no flood sediment?

Even violent local floods don't leave uniform flood evidence. Why would a large gentle flood?

 

[Hollie]

The biblical flood wouldn't leave the evidence that science says doesn't exist. So they are correct.

Massive rains result in massive floods which leave evidence.

 

[Woodznutz]

Massive rains result in massive floods which leave evidence.

Rainfall runs downhill. The flood came uphill. So there's that.

 

[surada]

Even violent local floods don't leave uniform flood evidence. Why would a large gentle flood?

They leave a footprint. Have you ever seen a core sample? Tens of thousands have been taken in the middle east. There's whole ruined cities that have never been flooded.

 

[Hollie]

Way to miss the point. Again, not being able to fully understand something doesn’t make said thing untrue. It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about something natural or supernatural. You keep showing that for you it’s about us proving something to you. I’m not trying to prove the trinity to you, I was merely saying that according to Christianity there is one God.

Your second sentence is absurd, there are many things people don’t fully understand yet understand enough to know it is true, it exists. It’s not meaningless to talk about those things.

Your problem is that you are extremely limited in your entire perspective of… well, everything. You’re so stuck on materialism that you don’t understand that there is more than one way of gaining knowledge. Science and scientific experiments is one way of knowing things. It’s not the only way. There are a number of things that are outside the realm of science. But that doesn’t mean they cannot be known. But now I’m getting into a topic that probably deserves a thread of its own.

Way to sidestep the point. Again, not being able to understand something makes your absolutist claims about gods meaningless. Making absolutist claims about the 'reality' of supernatural entities is meaningless. I have never once required you to prove anything. If you have a supportable argument for gods, you should present that argument. See, it's really simple, I'm not requiring proof. I'm simply requiring you to present an argument that doesn't presume I must accept your ''... because I say so'' admonishments.

At what point does the nonsensical claim, "things people don’t fully understand yet understand enough to know it is true'', become mere pablum? Would you trust your life to a doctor who held that attitude? ''Hey'', said your doctor. '' I don't understand internal medicine but I understand enough about your not feeling well to understand an operation is needed''.

Your problem is that you're gullible, impressionable and never bothered to critically examine the propaganda you were told was true. So, tell us what things ''are outside the realm of science''. Tell us about spirit realms. Share the knowledge why your gods are extant to the exclusion of other, more ancient gods. When you can share that knowledge in a way that would verify that you, in some way, attain supremacy over the Dayaks, then you'd have an argument. But it's all gainsay

You falsely and dishonestly write with 100% certainty and 0% facts about gods in the hope of making some connection to an argument. Early people invented icons, representations of animals, objects found in nature, etc. to explain phenomenon they didn't understand. Most of humanity has moved away from that.

 

[Hollie]

Rainfall runs downhill. The flood came uphill. So there's that.

So, 40 days and nights of rain fell uphill?

 

[Woodznutz]

So, 40 days and nights of rain fell uphill?

It was carried uphill by the flood (it came down later when the flood receded). A little technical detail fer ya.

 

[Hollie]

It was carried uphill by the flood (it came down later when the flood receded). A little technical detail fer ya.

So the rain fell uphill, pushing the floodwaters up?

The stuff you learn on the interwebs, eh?