Holes in the Plot: The Flood of Genesis

Ok hows this, bias science web sites that support evolution will not be accepted by me. If you want me to consider evolution, I will only do so when you show me your proof provided by fundamentalist Christians.

simply amazing, You will not accept a viewpoint which forsakes everything except what we have learned through hundreds of years of discovery and you will only place your trust in that which has looked away for all those hundred of years...

do you not see the folly in this? Whatever the "path" is it can only be found with your eyes open

and yet in the same breath just ignore evidence that should be considered

If you want me to consider evolution, I will only do so when you show me your proof provided by fundamentalist Christians.

You missed my whole point. I was useing the standard of one who agrees with evolution. The person I was responding to did not want to consider the evidence presented, because the one's who presented it were Christians. And I will say, there is strong evidence that rejects evolution,
yet it is the believers in evolution who are looking the other way from that evidence.
That's what I find amazing.

Ok hows this, bias science web sites that support evolution will not be accepted by me. If you want me to consider evolution, I will only do so when you show me your proof provided by fundamentalist Christians.
The fact is, the site provided here has actual pictures above and below the water line. Also, if your intrested Dr. Moller is another one you might consider, because he did a study of the same area. Even producing a movie on the topic. The fact is, some of your science buddies I have no doubt have heard of this site, yet none of them are rushing there. Believers in evolution for years have turned a deaf ear to (any) evidence that might prove them wrong. What is amazing to me, is how you talk about logic, and yet in the same breath just ignore evidence that should be considered, and then you just write it off to bias christian sources. You are doing just what every other believer in evolution is doing. You just ignore the evidence.

You missed my whole point. I was useing the standard of one who agrees with evolution. The person I was responding to did not want to consider the evidence presented, because the one's who presented it were Christians. And I will say, there is strong evidence that rejects evolution,
yet it is the believers in evolution who are looking the other way from that evidence.
That's what I find amazing.

If you want your theories to be considered as science, then they have to go through the standard scientific avenues. Peer review, being torn to shreds for any sliver of evidence that would deem your theory false, etc. etc. etc... just like all other scientific theories... including evolution.

You are quick to point out the evidence against evolution. I don't deny that there are questions we have no answers to currently. That's why we still call it a "theory". We sift through every bit of information, finding what fits properly and inserting it. If a particular part of our theories do not work, then they are discarded.

You want your beliefs to be scientific LAW without going through any of the hoops to get there. You believe that your faith is infallible, and want it to be accepted without question. Sorry, a 2,000 year old book about magic trees, people rising from the dead, and global floods just doesn't fit into the realm of science. However, you say that because of things such as pictures of dinosaurs (By the by... the way they depicted a dino standing isn't physically possible. Heck, ol Rexie couldn't stand the way we generally thought. Did you know that raptors had feathers? Neat tidbits there), your beliefs are automatically proven and all other evidence needs to be shelved.

It doesn't work that way. If you think the Bible can stand up to scientific review, then by all means put a stamp on it and submit it!

Otherwise keep your faith out of our laboratories and books.

simply amazing, You will not accept a viewpoint which forsakes everything except what we have learned through hundreds of years of discovery and you will only place your trust in that which has looked away for all those hundred of years...

do you not see the folly in this? Whatever the "path" is it can only be found with your eyes open

i don't reject your source because it is from christains, i rejected it because it isn't a scientific source.....i will accept proof from christain scientists!

You may have noticed I have stopped debating Mr.Campbell and The Sword of God. Their beliefs are repugnant to most thinking people including Christians and Muslims. They are a waste of time for others and sadly, for themselves.

A good debate however can be had with others who believe in creation by an intelligent being but eschew the nonsense of a young world. Here are some conclusions:

- Young world = nonsense.
- Biblical prophecies = nonsense.
- Koran prophecies = nonsense.
- Bible & Koran as historical documents of their time = okay.
- Man & dinosaurs lived together = nonsense.
- The flood = did happen at the end of ice age 10000 years ago.
- Noah & Ark = myth similar to Gilgamesh (Sumerian) and Manu (Indian) flood myths. So similar that it could even shake a Campbell awake if he choose to educate himself and read something other than his scriptures.
- The Creationist argument that DNS is a language and so has its origins in an intelligent being = something that is worthy of investigation. The evolutionists cannot simply dismiss that. Now I have worked through it and side with the scientists but nevertheless, there is room for debate.
- The Creationist argument for Intelligent Design by eliminating chance through small probabilities = again, a good argument that needs to be properly refuted by the evolutionists.

So where are we then? We can either waste our time with the stupidites associated with a Campbell and a Sword of God (same difference) or we can do some serious work and focus on the intelligent arguments from both sides. The whole purpose here is to educate ourselves. That ain't going to happen in the to&fro with the fundamentalists.

If you were really honest with yourself, you might want to ask if there really is any evidence out there that would support Campbell's claim. You know, like the claim that dinosaurs were around just a few thousand years ago instead of 70 million years. Of course, you would have to be really interested in that answer, in order to ask that question in the first place.

Mr.Campbell, I have no interest to debate you. You bore me. Your beliefs are tedious and I can only take so much. There are better people than I who have decimated your belief system to smithereens and I leave it to the rest to read that very public record.

Regarding being honest with myself, I am. More so than you can ever be. Let me prove it.

I am a believer in evolution. However, I voraciously read INTELLIGENT creation-centric literature and then go and challenge my scientist friends to respond or be proven wrong. There is a creationist argument that DNA is a language and as such of intelligent origin. I am wrestling with that right now. Similarly there is a creation-centric book The Design Inference - eliminating chance through small probabilities by WILLIAM A DEMBSKI.

Do I cast that book aside? No. Because I am HONEST WITH MYSELF, I FREAKING READ THAT BOOK COVER TO COVER TO ASSESS AN OPPOSING ARGUMENT. Which is more Sir, than you have ever done or will do. So, you tell me who is being honest with oneself.

I am willing to take an intelligent argument, study it , even accept it if it makes sense. However, I will no longer deal with your kindergarten level thinking.

You are 57. Still time to grow up.

Well you have spoken like a true Evolutionest. When your confronted with facts, attack the person who gave them, and then run. This is just the kind of approach I have encountered by others of like minds. And this approach extends to the science community as well. Attack and run. And why not? Thats your best defense anyway. When ever evidence comes in that refutes Evolution all you guys know how to do, is deny, deny, and deny.

I'm not talking about questions you don't have answers for, I'm talking about evidence you refuse to consider. That's what I'm talking about. Evidence you refuse to sift through, evidence you reject out of hand because it does not agree with your theory.

Well perhaps you will consider the Red Sea crossing site. A study and a documentary has been done on the topic by Dr. Lennart Moller of the Karolinska Institute of Stockholm, Sweden.

Exodus - Parting of the Red Sea - gulf of Aqaba

*I* am willing to consider ANYTHING (except the Scientologists). I'll say right now that yes, perhaps there is a big guy out there playing a game of Sims that is our universe. Could very well be possible.

However, given things at face value, science wins. They've been right with quite a bit, ya know. They've been right with a lot of things that you guys particularly didn't like. The whole "Earth is not at the center of the Universe" was a big one back in it's time. I think people died over that, not entirely sure.

They were right with physics. They've been right with relativity. Electronics they hit spot on. Modern medicine, things we take for granted all day (the Internet), all due to advances in science. So yes, I side with the labcoats.

But now... now that science is taking apart the human body... us, you get all upset. Why? Why are you against science NOW. You've got no problem with anything science has given us or says... except this.

You're afraid they may be right.

Now, science has been wrong. Even Albert Einstein was wrong once or twice. Science admits it's wrong and moves on. But you have to PROVE science is wrong on it's home turf. If you can do that, we will concede your argument.

Even Inca ruins have been found to contain metal braces, and they were braces to support Inca stone walls. The fact is there were many things that existed back then that few consider even today.

And yet when one shows a no believer physical evidence that supports the Biblical account of the Children of Israel crossing the Red Sea, and the remains of pharoahs coral incrusted army, then they say, "this is not evidence".

Who's doing the COP OUT now. Also, God does not have to work within our physical laws. So trying to make one conform to your physical limitations is not a COP OUT.

Try asking the pharoah about God having to work within the physical laws the next time you see him.

Actually, the Incan walls were so tightly fitted that they had no reason for bracing. Incan Metallurgy did indeed include a knowledge of bronze and copper, but these metals were used in art, stone cutting tools, or military applications (very rarely) such as arrowheads and spear heads. Even then we are speaking of the 13th century CE, not 26th century BCE. Then there is the thought that bronze (especially that of the EB III period) is a brittle metal, easily snapped or sheared by the forces exerted on a large wooden ship being tossed on a stormy sea! Since the Iron Age (Iron IA period) didn?t start until 1200 BCE at the earliest, the story in Genesis (God?s holy word) makes no mention of metal at all and since bronze wouldn?t suffice, it is doubtful that the Ark would have had such bracing.
Then there is the flood itself, considering that Genesis describes the flood as ?fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered? and further considering that the highest mountain in the world (even back then) is over 29,000 feet high; the world would have to have it?s surface buried under 5.45 miles of water. That is a lot of water to come from the atmosphere or even from under the surface (fountains of the deep). If you subscribed to the Creationist ?Vapor Canopy? theory, the canopy of water vapor needed to support the Genesis story would have to extend from the surface to 40 km up. The pressure created by this much vapor would flatten all life on the planet and raise the temperature by several hundred degrees Farenheit. A vapor canopy 40 km thick would admit little if any light to the surface, making photosynthesis extremely difficult if not impossible. But even if you could account for the water, the heat energy released by the fountains of the deep and the water needed for 40 days and 40 nights (that?s 6 inches a minute and for every gram of water vapor converted to liquid water, 10 calories of heat is released) would raise the planetary surface temperature to around 2000 degrees farenheit! Can you spell baked Noah and company? I doubt if ?Gopher wood? was very fire retardant! Since a calorie is approximately .004 BTU and one 1 inch of rain over 1 square acre will contain 857,250,000 grams of liquid water, and 6 inches of rain was falling per minute 12,858,750,000 BTUs would be released each minute, per square acre, 24 hours a day for 40 days, just from the rainfall alone. With a universally overcast sky, the large majority of the heat would be held at the surface and not dissipated into space (you can see this today even, a cloudy night will be warmer than a clear night). Now adding the magmaic heat that would accompany the fountains of the deep, once again largely held to the surface, the planetary surface would quickly become overheated with any rain forming being instantly returned to vapor form?hence it could not have rained 40 days and 40 nights! Once again the mythology of the Bronze Age tumbles before science!


We have had this discussion before - http://www.conflictingviews.com/t1366-7/



Who says that God does not work within our physical laws? There is not one verifiable example of God acting outside the physical laws of this universe. Until you can submit a verifiable example, you are only stating your personal opinion.


Since there is NO Egyptian record of a pharaoh actually drowning, much less drowning as a result of chasing a bunch of runaway slaves, I doubt if it would be very profitable to even look for ?the pharaoh? . :patriot: