How Much of the Bible is Based in History

[JoeB131]

We are all entitled to our own beliefs.
And you do support abortion if you pay taxes. Removing a penis from her body would be more responsible than removing a life. Let her find her way to a store and buy a contraceptive.

I support a woman's right to choose. If you don't like abortion, don't have one.

 

[DriftingSand]

Lot's of evidence FOR a global flood is available for anyone seeking the truth of the matter. Read the writings of John Woomorappe for some very compelling evidence: John Woodmorappe - CreationWiki the encyclopedia of creation science

Also, the Institute for Creation Research has a line up of well-educated scientists who present much information concerning the literal flood of Noah: The Institute for Creation Research

The global flood certainly did take place just as described in the Bible.

 

[JoeB131]

Lot's of evidence FOR a global flood is available for anyone seeking the truth of the matter. Read the writings of John Woomorappe for some very compelling evidence: John Woodmorappe - CreationWiki the encyclopedia of creation science

Also, the Institute for Creation Research has a line up of well-educated scientists who present much information concerning the literal flood of Noah: The Institute for Creation Research

The global flood certainly did take place just as described in the Bible.

Yup, yup, yup, Billy-Bob. Some creationist website said so.

Top Ten Reasons Noah 8217 s Flood is Mythology The Sensuous Curmudgeon

 

[DriftingSand]

Lot's of evidence FOR a global flood is available for anyone seeking the truth of the matter. Read the writings of John Woomorappe for some very compelling evidence: John Woodmorappe - CreationWiki the encyclopedia of creation science

Also, the Institute for Creation Research has a line up of well-educated scientists who present much information concerning the literal flood of Noah: The Institute for Creation Research

The global flood certainly did take place just as described in the Bible.

Yup, yup, yup, Billy-Bob. Some creationist website said so.

Top Ten Reasons Noah 8217 s Flood is Mythology The Sensuous Curmudgeon

Let me guess ... you swept all the good, scientific evidence under the rug.

 

[JoeB131]

Let me guess ... you swept all the good, scientific evidence under the rug.

No, there is no good scientific evidence for the Flood Mythology.

Just a few simple ones.

1) If all today's animals descended from animals on the Ark, how is it that animals are geographically isolated? For instance, how did the Marsupials all get to Australia?

2) How did plants survive the Great Flood? Besides the fact they'd have drowned after being underwater for a year, the soil would be full of salt when the waters receded?

3) Where did all that water come from, and where did it go after the flood?

4) How did the predators survive after the flood? With only a limited number of prey animals, they'd have exhausted the food supply pretty quickly.

5) How did the fresh waters become fresh again? Why didn't all the fresh water fish die off when the salt water mixed with the fresh?

6) If the waters were deep enough to cover mountains, how did the passengers on the Ark survive the thin and cold air one normally finds at that altitude?

I mean, I could go on and on.

But here's my big problem with the Ark Story. A God who drowns babies because he doesn't like the way people have turned out isn't worthy of anyone's worship.

 

[Hollie]

Lot's of evidence FOR a global flood is available for anyone seeking the truth of the matter. Read the writings of John Woomorappe for some very compelling evidence: John Woodmorappe - CreationWiki the encyclopedia of creation science

Also, the Institute for Creation Research has a line up of well-educated scientists who present much information concerning the literal flood of Noah: The Institute for Creation Research

The global flood certainly did take place just as described in the Bible.

The problem you zealots have with linking to charlatans such as those at the ICR is that Charlatans have a predefined need to press their agenda vs. proposing a supportable framework of peer reviewed data.

The physical data points to your Ark tales as nothing more than imaginative fables, completely unsupported by facts.

A solution for your problem of having a predefined conclusion that fits your fundamentalist religious belief is to require the charlatans at the ICR to submit their works to the Journal Nature or some other publication wherein the data can be peer-reviewed for accuracy and repeatability.

We both know they won't. Doesn't that suggest a certain amount of dishonesty and lack of integrity on their part?


"The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1-11 is the actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronologic problems thereby entailed. [Henry M. Morris, Remarkable Birth, p. 82. Quoted in Kenneth R. Miller, "Scientific Creationism versus Evolution" Science and Creationism, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 56. (italics added)]


Anyway, because the facts of science terrify you...

Problems with a Global Flood 2nd edition

 

[JoeB131]

Lot's of evidence FOR a global flood is available for anyone seeking the truth of the matter. Read the writings of John Woomorappe for some very compelling evidence: John Woodmorappe - CreationWiki the encyclopedia of creation science

Also, the Institute for Creation Research has a line up of well-educated scientists who present much information concerning the literal flood of Noah: The Institute for Creation Research

The global flood certainly did take place just as described in the Bible.

The problem you zealots have with linking to charlatans such as those at the ICR is that Charlatans have a predefined need to press their agenda vs. proposing a supportable framework of peer reviewed data.

The physical data points to your Ark tales as nothing more than imaginative fables, completely unsupported by facts.

A solution for your problem of having a predefined conclusion that fits your fundamentalist religious belief is to require the charlatans at the ICR to submit their works to the Journal Nature or some other publication wherein the data can be peer-reviewed for accuracy and repeatability.

We both know they won't. Doesn't that suggest a certain amount of dishonesty and lack of integrity on their part?


"The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1-11 is the actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronologic problems thereby entailed. [Henry M. Morris, Remarkable Birth, p. 82. Quoted in Kenneth R. Miller, "Scientific Creationism versus Evolution" Science and Creationism, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 56. (italics added)]


Anyway, because the facts of science terrify you...

Problems with a Global Flood 2nd edition

^^^^ That.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The great Flood was real. It happened in New Orleans in 2005. I was there. However, everything in the Bible about it was totally myth, along with about 95% of everything else mentioned therein.