If God doesn't exist...

[Militants]

Consercvenses are when I hear on voices I hate God, Christ and Allah Akbar in forum . .

 

[Uncensored2008]

I've known many, many people who claim to be "Christians." They are NOT good people. They prove it all the time! Hypocrites who talk a big talk but FAIL at walking the walk.

Maybe the problem is that you're not a good person.

 

[Militants]

Jesus were only a profit. I care about my voices who are scarred when I am alone.

 

[Militants]

Christ are only a profit AHAHAHAHHHHHH.

 

[Militants]

Kim is suffering from CP injured Swedes ....

 

[forkup]

Actually, I agree that it's impossible to prove god doesn't exist in the end, since I don't think science will ever have ALL the answers. This is not a fault of the process of science in itself but simply a matter that some things happen or happened where it becomes impossible to gatter the necessary data to come to a meaningfull explanation or even theory in some cases. In those cases God is as good an explanation as any. Having said that in history religion has taken it upon itself to explain a whole aray of things. It has been proven wrong on all of them. It has had to retreat further and further into those areas I just specified. Now I have no problem with that. Since I, like you agree, that if both assertions are equally uproofable, I would be hypocritical of me to demean your theory (god). My problem with religion starts when it wants to give an alternative in fields where science has data and has proven stuff, because casting doubt there is promoting ignorance.

Hi forkup I'm going to backtrack to the first reply I see from you. Although we may not agree, I agree with how your presentation and content is consistent with your arguments. I think that is enough to reconcile between yours and others. We do not have to believe or see things the same to align on points of agreement and disagreement and communicate and work things out using our own respective systems.

1. first all of I see that you do not get or follow any of the traditional religious symbolism for how the past is described such as Adam and Eve and I presume Noah's Ark and genesis as this is too simplistic and you are going by historical and geographical steps of development.
fine, I see no need to use an "abstract" way of painting the story of humanity if you are into "realism". The same story can be told using allegory or using nonfiction journalism/science, and clearly you speak the latter.

2. given that you want the realist historic way of describing humanity's past and future,
what do you think of this idea of describing the stages of development of humanity as moving from "retributive justice" to "restorative justice."
Are you okay with describing the ups and downs, ins and outs, and generally dramatic human learning curve in terms of a "collective grief and recovery process" where humans go through denial numbness and rejection, anger and projection of blame expressed as war and violence, before going through bargaining and resolution to finally come to peace.

Do you believe this is cyclical and we will always repeat the same patterns.

Do you believe this is progressing to a critical point, where human knowledge will converge to some culimination and finally put all the answers together and solve the problems as a collaborative society of nations and tribes organizing and managing resources to serve the whole.

3. Even if we don't agree if humanity is going in circles, going downhill fast, or heading toward peace and justice and spiritual/social maturity,
can we at least agree there are both ways of interpreting the Bible and religion. It can tell the story of humanity as going to hell, or heading toward heavenly peace.

Are you okay with interpreting the Bible and religions as symbolising this higher process?

1. You are right, I do not follow the traditional religious symbolism. I think on that point I'll give a personal anecdote. I was raised Roman Catholic and had bible class weekly until age 17. I was a like now a pragmatist and altough I felt that Jesus as described in the NT was a person worthy of following I, as I grew older developed doubts as to his divinity. So one day I asked my teacher. If I think the lessons as described in the NT are to be aspired to and I believe in the historical but not the divine Jesus, am I still a Roman Catholic? His response was a blunt no. At that time I couldn't understand why if Jesus preaches love and understanding, why his club doesn't allow any dissent. Now I do get it of course, if you don't follow the dogma you are a danger to the institution wich is organised religion. My point being I do understand some of the symbolism, I don't however believe in God itself. Nore do I feel I particulary need to follow him in order to be a good person. Hope I make sense on this point here.
2/3.I think I can claim I pretty thorough historical sense and I agree that human behavior is cyclical, I don't however agree with how it's cyclical. In my opinion human behavior can be boiled down to a pack mentality. Humans in general spent they're time looking for social groups. Family,friends,region,country, language and religion are all expressions of that need. Ppl want to belong and ppl want their particular social group to be dominant. Historically they'll fight to achieve this. Over the millenia the cost of that struggle has grown ever higher, culminating in WWI and WWII and the invention of the atom bomb. We have come to a point in history where the price to achieve dominance has grown so high we can literrally destroy ourselves. Humanity as a race can't afford all out struggle for dominance, I am sorry to say though that I don't see the fact that we would kill ourself as a indefinet deterent. I have some hope the world will become a place were rationality reigns supreme but I'm not sure. Maybe religion can help achieve this but, and here I'll come back to my reason of replying to these post on the forum. Strict religious dogma needs to go, since I feel that claiming absolute truth in matters of faith is historicaly been a big reason for strife. Not to mention plain wrong lol.

 

[forkup]

Let me get this straight. I ask for a proof science backs the bible and as an answer you give me the fact that crops are suseptible to disease. And that that is a proof of original sin? Original sin is a biblical story, the fact that crops are suseptable to anything isn't a proof of anything.

If you're an atheist, there is no "proof." I even have a good personal anecdote for this.

You will get your proof after you die. It's either I'm right or you're right. Those are the only two outcomes as we agreed in this thread.

Now, back to the Bible and original sin. Many people believe it's the truth. I can't vouch for all that is inside, as I have not read it all, but science backs up the Bible. What evidence do you have that original sin is a story?.

Well, where do I start.
Original sin Presuposes Adam and Eve. First the obvious. Adam and Eve had 2 sons, nothing was ever mentioned of other siblings. Offspring of that kinda family relation is problematic, don't you think.
Tree of knowledge, talking snakes, forbidden fruit they sure sound like a story and not an actual event don't you agree.
Now the historical, if you read the history of the concept of original sin, it sounds like the concept was considered true by commitee, it wasn't directly ordained by god like you might think. Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now the scientific. The origins of man are well established both in time and geography. The process of this can be verified by using physics, chemistry, archeology, genetics, bioligy, geoligie and anthropoligie, at no point in this entire story fits a Garden Of Eden. If you want me to go into specifics regarding any of these verifications feel free to ask.
So a recap. Your theory presuposes some very tall tales to say the least. My theory is backed by basicly half of the known sciences and I'm pretty sure if experts really put their minds to it, they can tie it even closer.

Lol @ wikipedia. It's liberal/atheist-pedia. Better to read the source underneath and explain. Then I'll look at it. Even then, you can't compare that to the Bible. Maybe you do explain underneath.

At the time of Adam and Eve, God did not forbid inter-family marriage until much later when there were enough people to make intermarriage unnecessary (Leviticus 18:6-18). Today, the reason incest often results in genetic abnormalities is that two people of similar genetics, i.e., a brother and sister, have children together, there is a high risk of their "recessive" characteristics becoming dominant. When people from different families have children, it is highly unlikely that both parents will carry the same recessive traits. What has happened is the human genetic code has become increasingly “polluted” over the centuries. Genetic defects have been multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation. Adam and Eve did not have any genetic defects, and that enabled them and the first few generations of their descendants to have a far greater quality of health than we do now. Adam and Eve’s children had few, if any, genetic defects. Notice, too, that God created fully adult humans. All that He created were mature except for Baby Jesus who has a beginning of His own lol.

It's the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Since, it's from God, the tree would know if one or both had ate the forbidden fruit. It wasn't the fruit that was bad, but the disobedience to God since they were given free will.

The talking serpent wasn't strange to them because they did not know animals couldn't talk. It wasn't the snake actually talking, but Satan.

As for your origins, it lacks a lot of detail. How did the first life begin? We have amino acids in space, but they do not form protein. That only happens within a cell. I can demonstrate only amino acids form.


Even Christians have the questions you have. I thought the same way, being a Christian since 2012, but compared to evolution which is more likely?

.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin
This is a Christian source as stated in wikipedia please note the paragraph nature of original sin, explaining how it became accepted in modern Christianity.
Your reasoning why it's possible that Adam and Eve sired all offspring I'm not going to go into, for the simple reason that altough there will be holes in the theory I'm pretty sure, I am personally not well versed enough in the material to come up with an effective rebuttal. Honesty above all. In the end it doesn't matter since coming up with a theory how something is possible is not the same as proving it happened.
Saying it was a tree of knowledge and not really a serpent is neither here nore there because Satan is just as far out of observable nature as a talking serpent and I never have heard of a tree that actually has knowledge or the capacity to dispense morals.
Saying my origins story lacks alot of detail is like a defence attorney defending his client by saying 'The DA hasn't proven his case because he can't say what my client ate on tuesday'. The lack of all the data doesn't mean a conclusion can't be drawn. While it's true that the actual catalyst for going from amino acids to single cell organisms isn't understood exept some theories. Drawing as a conclussion 'So that means Adam and Eve are just as likely is not just stretching a couple of steps in evolution but actually a couple of bilions years of it. As to your Noah blib. The animal with the longest known lifespan is a clam wich has been reported it can get over the 500 mark. Saying Noah did it 2 times as long because of his diet is simply ridiculous and the fact that you try using it as an actual argument is frankly makes me question your sanity. I don't want to be mean, I truly don't. I'm willing to entertain the question of god on an equal footing in realms as the actual creating of the universe and even the start of the beginning of life on this planet. Since as I stated, science offers nothing but theories there itself. But the discussion has to be rational. Stating a person can get upwards of 900 years is definitly not rational.

Let's not use the word "proof." I thought we agreed that there won't be. Our worldviews are divergent. My take is which is more likely to have happened with the evidence. I'll try to explain the Bible as best I can, and you can explain evolution and science. Fair?

The tree of knowledge is what it was called and it did not dispense morals. The sin was disobedience against God (God doesn't need a tree to let him know). As far as I know, there was a serpent but it did not have the power to talk. That was Satan doing the talking.

Please explain your theories of how amino acids which were plentiful in space at the time formed protein. That's the million dollar question that has been asked for ages now.

As for ancient peoples long life, it is documented in history besides the Bible. And I didn't say it was strictly because of his diet. The universe was different at the time. What changed was after Noah's flood. You say it's not rational because you only believe the world was the way it is today in the past.

NOTE: I'll be glad to post a scientific paper on it, but Mudda's got to take his fartsmoke crack back.

I appreciate you entertaining that God "could" exist. To believe in God is more a spiritual outlook and experience.

1,I truly am intriged by your insistence that and I believe your assertion is genisis is the more likely scenario in creation. Ill give you a couple of examples why Genisis is impossible in science. Genisis puts the age of the earth at about 6000 years right? If I'm making falls claims please correct. I'm not an expert and I'm one of those ppl who doesn't mind being corrected.Geologic Time: Age of the Earth . This link points to the actual age of the earth and it clearly shows the actual age of the earth at over 4 billion. There's also a clear fossil record of the evolution from ape to man, you can only claim otherwise if you think that radioactive dating is somehow flawed. That in geoligy fossils can somehow switch layers, that genetic bottlenecks don't exist. That somehow science got the age of cave paintings horribly wrong. Noahs flood would only work if everything we know about erosion is wrong. If Noah somehow found a way to house, feed and shelter an untold number of animals on a boat for a year. (goes far beyond any known structural engineering to date btw). Not even mentioning your claim that ppl's lifespan goes beyond that of a clam with an extremely low metobolic rate. I can go on and on but I hope you catch my drift. If you feel you have strong evidence please give it like I said, I'm intriged.
2)https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130405064027.htm
this is a theory. Not mine. My theory is 'I don't know'. Like I said before, this is the place where god can go. This is a theory based on science but it's only an assumption. Just like a omnipotent being did it is an assumption. My money would be on science but that's neither here nore there. The rest of the process from single cell organism onwarths isn't an uncooberated assumption though. God has little room here in my book.

 

[ChrisL]

If you're an atheist, there is no "proof." I even have a good personal anecdote for this.

You will get your proof after you die. It's either I'm right or you're right. Those are the only two outcomes as we agreed in this thread.

Now, back to the Bible and original sin. Many people believe it's the truth. I can't vouch for all that is inside, as I have not read it all, but science backs up the Bible. What evidence do you have that original sin is a story?.

Well, where do I start.
Original sin Presuposes Adam and Eve. First the obvious. Adam and Eve had 2 sons, nothing was ever mentioned of other siblings. Offspring of that kinda family relation is problematic, don't you think.
Tree of knowledge, talking snakes, forbidden fruit they sure sound like a story and not an actual event don't you agree.
Now the historical, if you read the history of the concept of original sin, it sounds like the concept was considered true by commitee, it wasn't directly ordained by god like you might think. Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now the scientific. The origins of man are well established both in time and geography. The process of this can be verified by using physics, chemistry, archeology, genetics, bioligy, geoligie and anthropoligie, at no point in this entire story fits a Garden Of Eden. If you want me to go into specifics regarding any of these verifications feel free to ask.
So a recap. Your theory presuposes some very tall tales to say the least. My theory is backed by basicly half of the known sciences and I'm pretty sure if experts really put their minds to it, they can tie it even closer.

Lol @ wikipedia. It's liberal/atheist-pedia. Better to read the source underneath and explain. Then I'll look at it. Even then, you can't compare that to the Bible. Maybe you do explain underneath.

At the time of Adam and Eve, God did not forbid inter-family marriage until much later when there were enough people to make intermarriage unnecessary (Leviticus 18:6-18). Today, the reason incest often results in genetic abnormalities is that two people of similar genetics, i.e., a brother and sister, have children together, there is a high risk of their "recessive" characteristics becoming dominant. When people from different families have children, it is highly unlikely that both parents will carry the same recessive traits. What has happened is the human genetic code has become increasingly “polluted” over the centuries. Genetic defects have been multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation. Adam and Eve did not have any genetic defects, and that enabled them and the first few generations of their descendants to have a far greater quality of health than we do now. Adam and Eve’s children had few, if any, genetic defects. Notice, too, that God created fully adult humans. All that He created were mature except for Baby Jesus who has a beginning of His own lol.

It's the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Since, it's from God, the tree would know if one or both had ate the forbidden fruit. It wasn't the fruit that was bad, but the disobedience to God since they were given free will.

The talking serpent wasn't strange to them because they did not know animals couldn't talk. It wasn't the snake actually talking, but Satan.

As for your origins, it lacks a lot of detail. How did the first life begin? We have amino acids in space, but they do not form protein. That only happens within a cell. I can demonstrate only amino acids form.


Even Christians have the questions you have. I thought the same way, being a Christian since 2012, but compared to evolution which is more likely?

.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin
This is a Christian source as stated in wikipedia please note the paragraph nature of original sin, explaining how it became accepted in modern Christianity.
Your reasoning why it's possible that Adam and Eve sired all offspring I'm not going to go into, for the simple reason that altough there will be holes in the theory I'm pretty sure, I am personally not well versed enough in the material to come up with an effective rebuttal. Honesty above all. In the end it doesn't matter since coming up with a theory how something is possible is not the same as proving it happened.
Saying it was a tree of knowledge and not really a serpent is neither here nore there because Satan is just as far out of observable nature as a talking serpent and I never have heard of a tree that actually has knowledge or the capacity to dispense morals.
Saying my origins story lacks alot of detail is like a defence attorney defending his client by saying 'The DA hasn't proven his case because he can't say what my client ate on tuesday'. The lack of all the data doesn't mean a conclusion can't be drawn. While it's true that the actual catalyst for going from amino acids to single cell organisms isn't understood exept some theories. Drawing as a conclussion 'So that means Adam and Eve are just as likely is not just stretching a couple of steps in evolution but actually a couple of bilions years of it. As to your Noah blib. The animal with the longest known lifespan is a clam wich has been reported it can get over the 500 mark. Saying Noah did it 2 times as long because of his diet is simply ridiculous and the fact that you try using it as an actual argument is frankly makes me question your sanity. I don't want to be mean, I truly don't. I'm willing to entertain the question of god on an equal footing in realms as the actual creating of the universe and even the start of the beginning of life on this planet. Since as I stated, science offers nothing but theories there itself. But the discussion has to be rational. Stating a person can get upwards of 900 years is definitly not rational.

Let's not use the word "proof." I thought we agreed that there won't be. Our worldviews are divergent. My take is which is more likely to have happened with the evidence. I'll try to explain the Bible as best I can, and you can explain evolution and science. Fair?

The tree of knowledge is what it was called and it did not dispense morals. The sin was disobedience against God (God doesn't need a tree to let him know). As far as I know, there was a serpent but it did not have the power to talk. That was Satan doing the talking.

Please explain your theories of how amino acids which were plentiful in space at the time formed protein. That's the million dollar question that has been asked for ages now.

As for ancient peoples long life, it is documented in history besides the Bible. And I didn't say it was strictly because of his diet. The universe was different at the time. What changed was after Noah's flood. You say it's not rational because you only believe the world was the way it is today in the past.

NOTE: I'll be glad to post a scientific paper on it, but Mudda's got to take his fartsmoke crack back.

I appreciate you entertaining that God "could" exist. To believe in God is more a spiritual outlook and experience.

1,I truly am intriged by your insistence that and I believe your assertion is genisis is the more likely scenario in creation. Ill give you a couple of examples why Genisis is impossible in science. Genisis puts the age of the earth at about 6000 years right? If I'm making falls claims please correct. I'm not an expert and I'm one of those ppl who doesn't mind being corrected.Geologic Time: Age of the Earth . This link points to the actual age of the earth and it clearly shows the actual age of the earth at over 4 billion. There's also a clear fossil record of the evolution from ape to man, you can only claim otherwise if you think that radioactive dating is somehow flawed. That in geoligy fossils can somehow switch layers, that genetic bottlenecks don't exist. That somehow science got the age of cave paintings horribly wrong. Noahs flood would only work if everything we know about erosion is wrong. If Noah somehow found a way to house, feed and shelter an untold number of animals on a boat for a year. (goes far beyond any known structural engineering to date btw). Not even mentioning your claim that ppl's lifespan goes beyond that of a clam with an extremely low metobolic rate. I can go on and on but I hope you catch my drift. If you feel you have strong evidence please give it like I said, I'm intriged.
2)https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130405064027.htm
this is a theory. Not mine. My theory is 'I don't know'. Like I said before, this is the place where god can go. This is a theory based on science but it's only an assumption. Just like a omnipotent being did it is an assumption. My money would be on science but that's neither here nore there. The rest of the process from single cell organism onwarths isn't an uncooberated assumption though. God has little room here in my book.

Thanks be to GODS there are other sane people on this forum. Lol.

 

[xband]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...

Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?

*****CHUCKLE*****

This is the chicken or egg argument commonly debated in scientific circles on who or what created the Universe. Being an old chicken farmer it takes a chicken to lay the egg but it takes an egg to hatch the chicken with the chicken representing God and the egg representing that the Universe hatched out of nothingness. Mind boggling.

 

[emilynghiem]

There is a "gap" between science and religion because religion is just a bunch of fairy tales and stories, whereas science needs evidence of some kind to back up theories.

Dear ChrisL that's like trying to compare the arts with the sciences.
The arts are SUPPOSED to be symbolic representation. Duh!
Science is SUPPOSED to serve a different purpose and approach!

So if the SAME HUMAN BODY is depicted using science
that is DIFFERENT from someone depicting the human body
using ARTISTIC REPRESENTATION.

The human body is still what it is.
These two representations are both depicting the same body.

Same with how religions and science are ways of representing
patterns, cycles, relationships and stages of progress in the world.

The truth of what is going on, how the laws and processes work,
is still consistent regardless how this is depicted!

So for scientific contexts, people use that approach.
for teaching relationships and spiritual values/connections with people
that is where religions are used.

What is wrong with using each media in its respective context?

 

[emilynghiem]

Well, where do I start.
Original sin Presuposes Adam and Eve. First the obvious. Adam and Eve had 2 sons, nothing was ever mentioned of other siblings. Offspring of that kinda family relation is problematic, don't you think.
Tree of knowledge, talking snakes, forbidden fruit they sure sound like a story and not an actual event don't you agree.
Now the historical, if you read the history of the concept of original sin, it sounds like the concept was considered true by commitee, it wasn't directly ordained by god like you might think. Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now the scientific. The origins of man are well established both in time and geography. The process of this can be verified by using physics, chemistry, archeology, genetics, bioligy, geoligie and anthropoligie, at no point in this entire story fits a Garden Of Eden. If you want me to go into specifics regarding any of these verifications feel free to ask.
So a recap. Your theory presuposes some very tall tales to say the least. My theory is backed by basicly half of the known sciences and I'm pretty sure if experts really put their minds to it, they can tie it even closer.

Lol @ wikipedia. It's liberal/atheist-pedia. Better to read the source underneath and explain. Then I'll look at it. Even then, you can't compare that to the Bible. Maybe you do explain underneath.

At the time of Adam and Eve, God did not forbid inter-family marriage until much later when there were enough people to make intermarriage unnecessary (Leviticus 18:6-18). Today, the reason incest often results in genetic abnormalities is that two people of similar genetics, i.e., a brother and sister, have children together, there is a high risk of their "recessive" characteristics becoming dominant. When people from different families have children, it is highly unlikely that both parents will carry the same recessive traits. What has happened is the human genetic code has become increasingly “polluted” over the centuries. Genetic defects have been multiplied, amplified, and passed down from generation to generation. Adam and Eve did not have any genetic defects, and that enabled them and the first few generations of their descendants to have a far greater quality of health than we do now. Adam and Eve’s children had few, if any, genetic defects. Notice, too, that God created fully adult humans. All that He created were mature except for Baby Jesus who has a beginning of His own lol.

It's the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Since, it's from God, the tree would know if one or both had ate the forbidden fruit. It wasn't the fruit that was bad, but the disobedience to God since they were given free will.

The talking serpent wasn't strange to them because they did not know animals couldn't talk. It wasn't the snake actually talking, but Satan.

As for your origins, it lacks a lot of detail. How did the first life begin? We have amino acids in space, but they do not form protein. That only happens within a cell. I can demonstrate only amino acids form.


Even Christians have the questions you have. I thought the same way, being a Christian since 2012, but compared to evolution which is more likely?

.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin
This is a Christian source as stated in wikipedia please note the paragraph nature of original sin, explaining how it became accepted in modern Christianity.
Your reasoning why it's possible that Adam and Eve sired all offspring I'm not going to go into, for the simple reason that altough there will be holes in the theory I'm pretty sure, I am personally not well versed enough in the material to come up with an effective rebuttal. Honesty above all. In the end it doesn't matter since coming up with a theory how something is possible is not the same as proving it happened.
Saying it was a tree of knowledge and not really a serpent is neither here nore there because Satan is just as far out of observable nature as a talking serpent and I never have heard of a tree that actually has knowledge or the capacity to dispense morals.
Saying my origins story lacks alot of detail is like a defence attorney defending his client by saying 'The DA hasn't proven his case because he can't say what my client ate on tuesday'. The lack of all the data doesn't mean a conclusion can't be drawn. While it's true that the actual catalyst for going from amino acids to single cell organisms isn't understood exept some theories. Drawing as a conclussion 'So that means Adam and Eve are just as likely is not just stretching a couple of steps in evolution but actually a couple of bilions years of it. As to your Noah blib. The animal with the longest known lifespan is a clam wich has been reported it can get over the 500 mark. Saying Noah did it 2 times as long because of his diet is simply ridiculous and the fact that you try using it as an actual argument is frankly makes me question your sanity. I don't want to be mean, I truly don't. I'm willing to entertain the question of god on an equal footing in realms as the actual creating of the universe and even the start of the beginning of life on this planet. Since as I stated, science offers nothing but theories there itself. But the discussion has to be rational. Stating a person can get upwards of 900 years is definitly not rational.

Let's not use the word "proof." I thought we agreed that there won't be. Our worldviews are divergent. My take is which is more likely to have happened with the evidence. I'll try to explain the Bible as best I can, and you can explain evolution and science. Fair?

The tree of knowledge is what it was called and it did not dispense morals. The sin was disobedience against God (God doesn't need a tree to let him know). As far as I know, there was a serpent but it did not have the power to talk. That was Satan doing the talking.

Please explain your theories of how amino acids which were plentiful in space at the time formed protein. That's the million dollar question that has been asked for ages now.

As for ancient peoples long life, it is documented in history besides the Bible. And I didn't say it was strictly because of his diet. The universe was different at the time. What changed was after Noah's flood. You say it's not rational because you only believe the world was the way it is today in the past.

NOTE: I'll be glad to post a scientific paper on it, but Mudda's got to take his fartsmoke crack back.

I appreciate you entertaining that God "could" exist. To believe in God is more a spiritual outlook and experience.

1,I truly am intriged by your insistence that and I believe your assertion is genisis is the more likely scenario in creation. Ill give you a couple of examples why Genisis is impossible in science. Genisis puts the age of the earth at about 6000 years right? If I'm making falls claims please correct. I'm not an expert and I'm one of those ppl who doesn't mind being corrected.Geologic Time: Age of the Earth . This link points to the actual age of the earth and it clearly shows the actual age of the earth at over 4 billion. There's also a clear fossil record of the evolution from ape to man, you can only claim otherwise if you think that radioactive dating is somehow flawed. That in geoligy fossils can somehow switch layers, that genetic bottlenecks don't exist. That somehow science got the age of cave paintings horribly wrong. Noahs flood would only work if everything we know about erosion is wrong. If Noah somehow found a way to house, feed and shelter an untold number of animals on a boat for a year. (goes far beyond any known structural engineering to date btw). Not even mentioning your claim that ppl's lifespan goes beyond that of a clam with an extremely low metobolic rate. I can go on and on but I hope you catch my drift. If you feel you have strong evidence please give it like I said, I'm intriged.
2)https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130405064027.htm
this is a theory. Not mine. My theory is 'I don't know'. Like I said before, this is the place where god can go. This is a theory based on science but it's only an assumption. Just like a omnipotent being did it is an assumption. My money would be on science but that's neither here nore there. The rest of the process from single cell organism onwarths isn't an uncooberated assumption though. God has little room here in my book.

Thanks be to GODS there are other sane people on this forum. Lol.

Dear ChrisL we are all growing and evolving and expanding our understanding. Those who start with a religious background that rejects secularism may learn to include science as a helpful and necessary part; otherwise who were taught to reject religion as primitive mythology may learn the true message and meaning symbolized therein, and find that is so universally beneficial that the good in religions outweigh the bad.

We all start from our own corner of the world, and the rules we develop from experience, then grow to understand and include the experiences of others that are beyond ours.

So the evolution and sharing process is MUTUAL.

If you want other people's minds to open up and not stay stuck in the past, it is good to follow one's own standard, be open to change and not reject new ideas out of fear of defending one's own position instead of embracing and ADDING more knowledge from other sources and corroborating them.

All humanity is learning to piece our knowledge together,
to see the bigger picture of where life is heading, that none of us can contain on our own; it takes all of us collectively to capture as much knowledge and appreciation of the world as we can contain and amass.

 

[hobelim]

There is an impact crater on the bottom of the indian ocean under 11,000 feet of water that dates to the approximate time of the flood stories. Such an impact would have instantly vaporized billions of metric tons of water into the atmosphere causing a world wide deluge of unimaginable devastation from superstorms, torrential rain, tornados etc., that would have caused the destruction of all inland civilizations situated near rivers or streams not to mention the initial mega-tsunamis that would have swept away all coastal settlements in the immediate area..

Ice age melting does not explain how places where there ice age never affected like Africa, Australia, and the pacific islands etc., also have epic flood stories.

Its hardly surprising that such an event could have inspired ancient people to believe that there was a God of unimaginable power up there somewhere who was displeased with humanity yet somehow favored the traumatized survivors who began to do nutty things out of fear that they believed would appease this God to avoid his wrath.

The biblical flood would have coincided approximately with the Mayan civilization. There is no indication the Maya were flooded out of existence. There is nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico.

Whats so hard to believe that story tellers might have used hyperbole in attempt to convey the magnitude of destruction and a moral teaching to children? The Maya were not flooded out of existence but they have an epic flood story.

How could a melting glacier have inspired that? They adopted a Jewish fairy tale? How? As you said, "nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico."

Did he make a port of call to share the story with pygmies or the Ababua in the northern Congo?

Many people believed in tales of sea monsters that were brought by traders on ships.

If you have any evidence of the so called biblical flood, you're free to present it. Be sure to pass it on to the Maya.

The many tales of sea monsters turned out to be true. We call them whales. Do you think they were not real because they were called leviathan in the Bible?

Burckle Crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Note: the size of this crater is 25 time larger than meteor crater in AZ. Try to use your imagination in a rational way.

Whales are hardly the sea monsters depicted in renderings of the tales and fables presented by sea traders.

The so called biblical flood would have occurred approximately 4,000 years ago. Is there any data that can be submitted to support that?

Do you think that sea traders saw nothing? Sheesh. I'd like to see your renderings of a whale if you didn't know what one was. How would you even describe a whale without using the word whale if you only saw occasional surfacing or breaching from a distance?. Maps of the new world based on renderings of the tales and fables presented by explorers weren't very accurate either.. So what.

Is there any data to support the biblical flood that can be submitted? Submitted? lol.. Are you kidding me?

You posted a link to the hundreds of flood stories from around the world. Theres some data.

I have given the only possible cause for such a widely reported calamity.

Do you have any data to submit that would show how a melting glacier could have inspired flood stories in the congo, australia, or the deserts of south america?

Take your time....

 

[Hollie]

The biblical flood would have coincided approximately with the Mayan civilization. There is no indication the Maya were flooded out of existence. There is nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico.

Whats so hard to believe that story tellers might have used hyperbole in attempt to convey the magnitude of destruction and a moral teaching to children? The Maya were not flooded out of existence but they have an epic flood story.

How could a melting glacier have inspired that? They adopted a Jewish fairy tale? How? As you said, "nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico."

Did he make a port of call to share the story with pygmies or the Ababua in the northern Congo?

Many people believed in tales of sea monsters that were brought by traders on ships.

If you have any evidence of the so called biblical flood, you're free to present it. Be sure to pass it on to the Maya.

The many tales of sea monsters turned out to be true. We call them whales. Do you think they were not real because they were called leviathan in the Bible?

Burckle Crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Note: the size of this crater is 25 time larger than meteor crater in AZ. Try to use your imagination in a rational way.

Whales are hardly the sea monsters depicted in renderings of the tales and fables presented by sea traders.

The so called biblical flood would have occurred approximately 4,000 years ago. Is there any data that can be submitted to support that?

Do you think that sea traders saw nothing? Sheesh. Maps of the new world based on renderings of the tales and fables presented by explorers weren't very accurate either.. So what.

Is there any data to support the biblical flood that can be submitted? Submitted? lol.. Are you kidding me?

You posted a link to the hundreds of flood stories from around the world. Theres some data.

I have given the only possible cause for such a widely reported calamity.

Do you have any data to submit that would show how a melting glacier could have inspired flood stories in the congo, australia, or the deserts of south america?

Take your time....

Of course sea traders saw something. As it happens, stories, tales and fables tend to be revised and embellished with such retelling.

So your answer is no. There is no data to support a biblical flood.

Correct. There are flood tales from all over the world. Identify which of those are true and supply your evidence.

You have provided nothing but "...... because I say so" in connection with your unsupported claim of some calamity.

The end of the last ice age was more than just a melting glacier. You might want to do your homework on that.

Take your time.

 

[Mudda]

Further physical evidence of God. Ancient people had perfect teeth. They lived longer than us and were healthier. For example, God gave His chosen Noah 120 years to build an ark to his specs. It took Noah 100 years to build the ark. He was around 500 when God told him. Noah lived to 950 years, so he was still in his prime.

Yes, diet played a part, but they were healthier.

Ancient Romans had perfect teeth because their diets were low in one substance

Where's your proof that Noah lived until 950 years old? Got anything at all? Or just more fartsmoke?

I have a scientific paper, but what's the use telling a Mudda if you're going to call is fartsmoke. You have to take it back and not be rude, crude, and socially unacceptable.

But I take my martini shaken, not stirred!

In other words, you have nothing. Got it.

I boored talking with you. That's it my friend.

Ok, show me the scientific paper.

 

[hobelim]

Whats so hard to believe that story tellers might have used hyperbole in attempt to convey the magnitude of destruction and a moral teaching to children? The Maya were not flooded out of existence but they have an epic flood story.

How could a melting glacier have inspired that? They adopted a Jewish fairy tale? How? As you said, "nothing to indicate that Noah's pleasure cruise made a port of call in Mexico."

Did he make a port of call to share the story with pygmies or the Ababua in the northern Congo?

Many people believed in tales of sea monsters that were brought by traders on ships.

If you have any evidence of the so called biblical flood, you're free to present it. Be sure to pass it on to the Maya.

The many tales of sea monsters turned out to be true. We call them whales. Do you think they were not real because they were called leviathan in the Bible?

Burckle Crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Note: the size of this crater is 25 time larger than meteor crater in AZ. Try to use your imagination in a rational way.

Whales are hardly the sea monsters depicted in renderings of the tales and fables presented by sea traders.

The so called biblical flood would have occurred approximately 4,000 years ago. Is there any data that can be submitted to support that?

Do you think that sea traders saw nothing? Sheesh. Maps of the new world based on renderings of the tales and fables presented by explorers weren't very accurate either.. So what.

Is there any data to support the biblical flood that can be submitted? Submitted? lol.. Are you kidding me?

You posted a link to the hundreds of flood stories from around the world. Theres some data.

I have given the only possible cause for such a widely reported calamity.

Do you have any data to submit that would show how a melting glacier could have inspired flood stories in the congo, australia, or the deserts of south america?

Take your time....

Of course sea traders saw something. As it happens, stories, tales and fables tend to be revised and embellished with such retelling.

So your answer is no. There is no data to support a biblical flood.

Correct. There are flood tales from all over the world. Identify which of those are true and supply your evidence.

You have provided nothing but "...... because I say so" in connection with your unsupported claim of some calamity.

The end of the last ice age was more than just a melting glacier. You might want to do your homework on that.

Take your time.

Technically, the end of the ice age has not yet come. And there never was a glacier to melt in the Congo.

Just like the many tales of sea monsters turned out to be true, however embellished, tales of a devastating worldwide deluge that cause floods that dwarfed any seasonal flooding that they would have experienced yearly must be based on actual events, however embellished. It is not possible that the hundreds of flood myths from around the world was caused by the end of the last glacial period which took thousands of years and is still happening or was a common worldwide delusion of people who never even heard of Noah.

I have submitted a more rational cause for the story of Noah, a celestial impact on an ocean, that conforms to reality and what is known to be possible and known to have occurred periodically for millions of years and satisfies the many constraints presented by flood stories of ancient people from all over the world that slowly melting ice could never explain.

Any description of the destructive aftermath of an asteroid hitting an ocean, lets say the Atlantic ocean, wouldn't need to be embellished.

Do you think that such an event is not a reasonable explanation professor?

 

[Hollie]

Many people believed in tales of sea monsters that were brought by traders on ships.

If you have any evidence of the so called biblical flood, you're free to present it. Be sure to pass it on to the Maya.

The many tales of sea monsters turned out to be true. We call them whales. Do you think they were not real because they were called leviathan in the Bible?

Burckle Crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Note: the size of this crater is 25 time larger than meteor crater in AZ. Try to use your imagination in a rational way.

Whales are hardly the sea monsters depicted in renderings of the tales and fables presented by sea traders.

The so called biblical flood would have occurred approximately 4,000 years ago. Is there any data that can be submitted to support that?

Do you think that sea traders saw nothing? Sheesh. Maps of the new world based on renderings of the tales and fables presented by explorers weren't very accurate either.. So what.

Is there any data to support the biblical flood that can be submitted? Submitted? lol.. Are you kidding me?

You posted a link to the hundreds of flood stories from around the world. Theres some data.

I have given the only possible cause for such a widely reported calamity.

Do you have any data to submit that would show how a melting glacier could have inspired flood stories in the congo, australia, or the deserts of south america?

Take your time....

Of course sea traders saw something. As it happens, stories, tales and fables tend to be revised and embellished with such retelling.

So your answer is no. There is no data to support a biblical flood.

Correct. There are flood tales from all over the world. Identify which of those are true and supply your evidence.

You have provided nothing but "...... because I say so" in connection with your unsupported claim of some calamity.

The end of the last ice age was more than just a melting glacier. You might want to do your homework on that.

Take your time.

Technically, the end of the ice age has not yet come. And there never was a glacier to melt in the Congo.

Just like the many tales of sea monsters turned out to be true, however embellished, tales of a devastating worldwide deluge that cause floods that dwarfed any seasonal flooding that they would have experienced yearly must be based on actual events, however embellished. It is not possible that the hundreds of flood myths from around the world was caused by the end of the last glacial period which took thousands of years and is still happening or was a common worldwide delusion of people who never even heard of Noah.

I have submitted a more rational cause for the story of Noah, a celestial impact on an ocean, that conforms to reality and what is known to be possible and known to have occurred periodically for millions of years and satisfies the many constraints presented by flood stories of ancient people from all over the world that slowly melting ice could never explain.

Do you think that such an event is not a reasonable explanation professor?

Your "celestial impact" remains nothing more than "..... because I say so".

Otherwise:
Megafloods of the Ice Age

 

[hobelim]

The many tales of sea monsters turned out to be true. We call them whales. Do you think they were not real because they were called leviathan in the Bible?

Burckle Crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Note: the size of this crater is 25 time larger than meteor crater in AZ. Try to use your imagination in a rational way.

Whales are hardly the sea monsters depicted in renderings of the tales and fables presented by sea traders.

The so called biblical flood would have occurred approximately 4,000 years ago. Is there any data that can be submitted to support that?

Do you think that sea traders saw nothing? Sheesh. Maps of the new world based on renderings of the tales and fables presented by explorers weren't very accurate either.. So what.

Is there any data to support the biblical flood that can be submitted? Submitted? lol.. Are you kidding me?

You posted a link to the hundreds of flood stories from around the world. Theres some data.

I have given the only possible cause for such a widely reported calamity.

Do you have any data to submit that would show how a melting glacier could have inspired flood stories in the congo, australia, or the deserts of south america?

Take your time....

Of course sea traders saw something. As it happens, stories, tales and fables tend to be revised and embellished with such retelling.

So your answer is no. There is no data to support a biblical flood.

Correct. There are flood tales from all over the world. Identify which of those are true and supply your evidence.

You have provided nothing but "...... because I say so" in connection with your unsupported claim of some calamity.

The end of the last ice age was more than just a melting glacier. You might want to do your homework on that.

Take your time.

Technically, the end of the ice age has not yet come. And there never was a glacier to melt in the Congo.

Just like the many tales of sea monsters turned out to be true, however embellished, tales of a devastating worldwide deluge that cause floods that dwarfed any seasonal flooding that they would have experienced yearly must be based on actual events, however embellished. It is not possible that the hundreds of flood myths from around the world was caused by the end of the last glacial period which took thousands of years and is still happening or was a common worldwide delusion of people who never even heard of Noah.

I have submitted a more rational cause for the story of Noah, a celestial impact on an ocean, that conforms to reality and what is known to be possible and known to have occurred periodically for millions of years and satisfies the many constraints presented by flood stories of ancient people from all over the world that slowly melting ice could never explain.

Do you think that such an event is not a reasonable explanation professor?

Your "celestial impact" remains nothing more than "..... because I say so".

Otherwise:
Megafloods of the Ice Age

Mega floods of the ice age do not explain how people in central africa, australia, and desert regions that never saw ice have tales of a mind boggling destructive flood caused by torrential rain.

An asteroid instantly vaporizing billions of metric tons of water into the atmosphere does.

 

[Hollie]

Whales are hardly the sea monsters depicted in renderings of the tales and fables presented by sea traders.

The so called biblical flood would have occurred approximately 4,000 years ago. Is there any data that can be submitted to support that?

Do you think that sea traders saw nothing? Sheesh. Maps of the new world based on renderings of the tales and fables presented by explorers weren't very accurate either.. So what.

Is there any data to support the biblical flood that can be submitted? Submitted? lol.. Are you kidding me?

You posted a link to the hundreds of flood stories from around the world. Theres some data.

I have given the only possible cause for such a widely reported calamity.

Do you have any data to submit that would show how a melting glacier could have inspired flood stories in the congo, australia, or the deserts of south america?

Take your time....

Of course sea traders saw something. As it happens, stories, tales and fables tend to be revised and embellished with such retelling.

So your answer is no. There is no data to support a biblical flood.

Correct. There are flood tales from all over the world. Identify which of those are true and supply your evidence.

You have provided nothing but "...... because I say so" in connection with your unsupported claim of some calamity.

The end of the last ice age was more than just a melting glacier. You might want to do your homework on that.

Take your time.

Technically, the end of the ice age has not yet come. And there never was a glacier to melt in the Congo.

Just like the many tales of sea monsters turned out to be true, however embellished, tales of a devastating worldwide deluge that cause floods that dwarfed any seasonal flooding that they would have experienced yearly must be based on actual events, however embellished. It is not possible that the hundreds of flood myths from around the world was caused by the end of the last glacial period which took thousands of years and is still happening or was a common worldwide delusion of people who never even heard of Noah.

I have submitted a more rational cause for the story of Noah, a celestial impact on an ocean, that conforms to reality and what is known to be possible and known to have occurred periodically for millions of years and satisfies the many constraints presented by flood stories of ancient people from all over the world that slowly melting ice could never explain.

Do you think that such an event is not a reasonable explanation professor?

Your "celestial impact" remains nothing more than "..... because I say so".

Otherwise:
Megafloods of the Ice Age

Mega floods of the ice age do not explain how people in central africa, australia, and desert regions that never saw ice have tales of a mind boggling destructive flood caused by torrential rain.

"...... because I say so".

It's difficult to comment on claims you're unable to support.

 

[hobelim]

Do you think that sea traders saw nothing? Sheesh. Maps of the new world based on renderings of the tales and fables presented by explorers weren't very accurate either.. So what.

Is there any data to support the biblical flood that can be submitted? Submitted? lol.. Are you kidding me?

You posted a link to the hundreds of flood stories from around the world. Theres some data.

I have given the only possible cause for such a widely reported calamity.

Do you have any data to submit that would show how a melting glacier could have inspired flood stories in the congo, australia, or the deserts of south america?

Take your time....

Of course sea traders saw something. As it happens, stories, tales and fables tend to be revised and embellished with such retelling.

So your answer is no. There is no data to support a biblical flood.

Correct. There are flood tales from all over the world. Identify which of those are true and supply your evidence.

You have provided nothing but "...... because I say so" in connection with your unsupported claim of some calamity.

The end of the last ice age was more than just a melting glacier. You might want to do your homework on that.

Take your time.

Technically, the end of the ice age has not yet come. And there never was a glacier to melt in the Congo.

Just like the many tales of sea monsters turned out to be true, however embellished, tales of a devastating worldwide deluge that cause floods that dwarfed any seasonal flooding that they would have experienced yearly must be based on actual events, however embellished. It is not possible that the hundreds of flood myths from around the world was caused by the end of the last glacial period which took thousands of years and is still happening or was a common worldwide delusion of people who never even heard of Noah.

I have submitted a more rational cause for the story of Noah, a celestial impact on an ocean, that conforms to reality and what is known to be possible and known to have occurred periodically for millions of years and satisfies the many constraints presented by flood stories of ancient people from all over the world that slowly melting ice could never explain.

Do you think that such an event is not a reasonable explanation professor?

Your "celestial impact" remains nothing more than "..... because I say so".

Otherwise:
Megafloods of the Ice Age

Mega floods of the ice age do not explain how people in central africa, australia, and desert regions that never saw ice have tales of a mind boggling destructive flood caused by torrential rain.

"...... because I say so".

It's difficult to comment on claims you're unable to support.

I apologize if a reasonable hypothesis for the many flood myths from around the world was too much for you to bear.

 

[Hollie]

Of course sea traders saw something. As it happens, stories, tales and fables tend to be revised and embellished with such retelling.

So your answer is no. There is no data to support a biblical flood.

Correct. There are flood tales from all over the world. Identify which of those are true and supply your evidence.

You have provided nothing but "...... because I say so" in connection with your unsupported claim of some calamity.

The end of the last ice age was more than just a melting glacier. You might want to do your homework on that.

Take your time.

Technically, the end of the ice age has not yet come. And there never was a glacier to melt in the Congo.

Just like the many tales of sea monsters turned out to be true, however embellished, tales of a devastating worldwide deluge that cause floods that dwarfed any seasonal flooding that they would have experienced yearly must be based on actual events, however embellished. It is not possible that the hundreds of flood myths from around the world was caused by the end of the last glacial period which took thousands of years and is still happening or was a common worldwide delusion of people who never even heard of Noah.

I have submitted a more rational cause for the story of Noah, a celestial impact on an ocean, that conforms to reality and what is known to be possible and known to have occurred periodically for millions of years and satisfies the many constraints presented by flood stories of ancient people from all over the world that slowly melting ice could never explain.

Do you think that such an event is not a reasonable explanation professor?

Your "celestial impact" remains nothing more than "..... because I say so".

Otherwise:
Megafloods of the Ice Age

Mega floods of the ice age do not explain how people in central africa, australia, and desert regions that never saw ice have tales of a mind boggling destructive flood caused by torrential rain.

"...... because I say so".

It's difficult to comment on claims you're unable to support.

I apologize if a reasonable hypothesis for the many flood myths from around the world was too much for you to bear.

I think you will find that the continent of Australia was also affected by sea level rise at the end of the last ice age.

Pleistocene Ice Age


Your hypothesis is fine as far as it being a hypothesis. You just offer not a shred of evidence for it.