If Noah's flood was a legend why should anyone trust Jesus?

[6days]

You walk up to the mountain, see the faces, say "Huh. Those carvings look like the faces of humans. That probably means humans carved them."

Yes....of course! Its easy to recognize design and purpose. There are patterns of evidence. Logic tells us that things which appear designed...and contain coded information quite likely were created.*

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes....of course! Its easy to recognize design and purpose.

Neither of which had anything to do with what I said. Are you really so desperate that you're now resorting to the lame tactic of attempting to impose your talking points onto other people's posts?

Logic tells us that things which appear designed...and contain coded information quite likely were created.*

Thanks for restating your religious beliefs, yet again.

And speaking of "yet again", let's note "yet again" that you still refuse to answer the question: How do you propose we test God?

 

[6days]

Not really. See, Stripe and 6days have been grousing about science operating according to methodological naturalism, which means "God did that" isn't an acceptable answer in science. They both also acknowledge that scientific answers must be testable. IOW, Stripe and 6days are arguing that God should be an acceptable scientific answer.

That isn't really true Jose. Once again you misrepresent. *You have heard me say it often..... evolutionism and creationism are beliefs about the past... not science. We can use science to help us discover the past.... but science itself is the search for knowlege and truth ...using the scientific method. *An atheist and a Biblical creationist geneticist can work side by side in the lab without inserting beliefs about origins into their work.*

That leads to the obvious question I've been asking, and they refuse to answer: How do you test God?

And you have been answered. Look for evidence of design. Look to see if the evidence is consistent with His Word. Be willing to acknowlege that things which appear designed, might be designed. Be willing to follow evidence even if it leads where you dont want to go....to our Creator.

 

[Jose Fly]

That isn't really true Jose. Once again you misrepresent. *You have heard me say it often..... evolutionism and creationism are beliefs about the past... not science. We can use science to help us discover the past.... but science itself is the search for knowlege and truth ...using the scientific method. *An atheist and a Biblical creationist geneticist can work side by side in the lab without inserting beliefs about origins into their work.*

You're not making sense at all 6days.

Are you now agreeing that "God did that" is not an acceptable answer in science?

Look for evidence of design.

Like what?

Look to see if the evidence is consistent with His Word.

What, the Book of Mormon? The Quran?

Be willing to acknowlege that things which appear designed, might be designed.

How do you propose we differentiate between things that are designed and things that aren't?

Be willing to follow evidence even if it leads where you dont want to go....to our Creator.

Unlike Answers in Genesis, who say they absolutely will not follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Also, why did you post all these ways in which you claim we can test God, if just above you agree that creationism is a belief and not a science? If you agree that it's not science, why bother worrying about God being testable? Just like the last couple of days, you're contradicting yourself.

 

[Wick Stick]

Does anybody really doubt that the account of Noah's flood was based on a real flood? It seems all that is really up for debate is the scale of that flood.

Jarrod

 

[6days]

Does anybody really doubt that the account of Noah's flood was based on a real flood? It seems all that is really up for debate is the scale of that flood.

Jarrod

Back to topic
Yes..... i think even atheists admit our whole world has been submetged. They just won't admit it was all at the same time.

 

[Jose Fly]

evolutionism and creationism are beliefs about the past... not science.

Stripe seems to be under the impression that creationism is scientific. Your above statement would mean you think he's wrong.

That's a pretty significant disagreement, isn't it? :think:

 

[6days]

That isn't really true Jose. Once again you misrepresent. You have heard me say it often..... evolutionism and creationism are beliefs about the past... not science. We can use science to help us discover the past.... but science itself is the search for knowlege and truth ...using the scientific method. *An atheist and a Biblical creationist geneticist can work side by side in the lab without inserting beliefs about origins into their work.

You're not making sense at all 6days.*

Are you now agreeing that "God did that" is not an acceptable answer in science?

God did it is an acceptable answer in origins or historical science.( re beliefs about the past) *Scientists don't use God did it as an answer in operational/ empetical science. However, emperical scence can, and has lead scientists to the Creator.

Look for evidence of design.

Like what?

It seems like you thought you had a brilliant 'gotcha' question and you are frustrated because it has been answered.*

Quote=JoseFly]

Look to see if the evidence is consistent with His Word.

What, the Book of Mormon? The Quran?[/quote]

Since they all disagree with each other there are two possibilities. None may be correct... or one may be correct.*

Quote=JoseFly]

Be willing to acknowlege that things which appear designed, might be designed.

How do you propose we differentiate between things that are designed and things that aren't?[/quote]
You answered this yourself. You said look for evidence of design. ( You said the Rushmore faces appear like humam faces). Design that contains coded info like a carving is evidence of a creator.*

Be willing to follow evidence even if it leads where you dont want to go....to our Creator.

Unlike Answers in Genesis, who say they absolutely will*not*follow the evidence wherever it leads.

They wisely hold God's Word as their source of absolute truth. This has put them on the correct side of science often in things like vestigial organs, design of eye, junk DNA, homonid fossils etc etc. AIG has a bias as do you and everyone else. Evolutionists like to give the impression that they are a blank slate..... hmmm... some do seem that way but with a definite biased belief system .

 

[6days]

Stripe seems to be under the impression that creationism is scientific. Your above statement would mean you think he's wrong.

That's a pretty significant disagreement, isn't it? :think:

Haha... you seem obsessed with what Stripe thinks. You can get him to clarify if you want but i think we mostly agree. Biblical creation is supported by science.

 

[Jonahdog]

Haha... you seem obsessed with what Stripe thinks. You can get him to clarify if you want but i think we mostly agree. Biblical creation is supported by science.

Uh, no it is not.

 

[Stripe]

Does anybody really doubt that the account of Noah's flood was based on a real flood? It seems all that is really up for debate is the scale of that flood.Jarrod

Nope. The scale is not up for debate.

 

[Jose Fly]

God did it is an acceptable answer in origins or historical science.( re beliefs about the past)

Um......what? First you say creationism is a belief about the past and not science, but here you say beliefs about the past are science.

Can you make up your mind please?

Scientists don't use God did it as an answer in operational/ empetical science.

Why not?

It seems like you thought you had a brilliant 'gotcha' question and you are frustrated because it has been answered.

??????? You said we should look for "evidence of design" as a means to test God. So I'm asking what is "evidence of design". Can you answer, or was "evidence of design" just an empty platitude?

Since they all disagree with each other there are two possibilities. None may be correct... or one may be correct.*

So how do we tell?

You answered this yourself. You said look for evidence of design.

First, I never said that at all. I even went out of my way to say that's not what I was saying. Why are you resorting to such dishonesty?

Second, until you can say what "evidence of design" is, you've not given anything but empty rhetoric.

( You said the Rushmore faces appear like humam faces)

??????? So "looks like a human face" = "designed"? Does that mean everything that doesn't look like a human face isn't "designed"?

Design that contains coded info like a carving is evidence of a creator.

Um......what? How are rock carvings "coded info"?

They wisely hold God's Word as their source of absolute truth.

But by your own criterion, they are overtly anti-science.

This has put them on the correct side of science often in things like vestigial organs, design of eye, junk DNA, homonid fossils etc etc.

And by the same token, they've been on the wrong side of the age of the universe, the age of the earth, the global flood.....IOW, by the same process (science) that allows you to claim the above has been established, the entire construct of young-earth creationism has been proven wrong.

AIG has a bias as do you and everyone else. Evolutionists like to give the impression that they are a blank slate..... hmmm... some do seem that way but with a definite biased belief system .

Empty assertion. Things don't become so just because you say so 6days.

Haha... you seem obsessed with what Stripe thinks. You can get him to clarify if you want but i think we mostly agree. Biblical creation is supported by science.

You said creationism isn't science. Stripe seems to think it is. That's much more significant of a disagreement than the details of creationism. You're saying it's not even science in the first place.

 

[commonsense]

Does anybody really doubt that the account of Noah's flood was based on a real flood? It seems all that is really up for debate is the scale of that flood.

Jarrod

Actually the account of Noah's flood was based on earlier Sumerian and Babylonian myth stories of a great flood. Where did these stories come from? Perhaps a cross-cultural appealing theme of punishment and reward. Divine justice

 

[Jonahdog]

Nope. The scale is not up for debate.

Correct, since there is no evidence that supports a world wide flood 4000+/-years ago except as might be required by Genesis goggles.

 

[6days]

Correct, since there is no evidence that supports a world wide flood 4000+/-years ago ...

Yes!!
There is mountains of evidence...on every continent.

 

[6days]

*Actually the account of Noah's flood was based on earlier Sumerian and Babylonian myth stories of a great flood. Where did these stories come from?

Once upon a time, an unsinkable ship set out for America with over 3000 passengers. This ship at 800 feet long was the largest *ship on the saea, and by far the most modern. *Regrettably, the ship did not have enough lifeboats for all the passengers. But the shortage of light boats was not really a concern since this ship was unsinkable. Tragically*the ship sank in the Noth Atlantic,off the coast of Newfoundland with many many lives lost, after the ship hit an iceberg.


The name of the ship was the Titan.... correct, it was not the Titanic. The Titan was in a fictional book, 'The Futility' written 14 years before the Titanic. So by your logic, the Titanic was not real but a story based on a previous story? Its often easy to pick out similarities between stories when you ignore the differences.*



.

 

[Jonahdog]

Yes!!
There is mountains of evidence...on every continent.

No, there is not, unless of course your fearful theology requires you to believe that or your deity will send you to hell.

 

[6days]

There is mountains of evidence...on every continent.

No, there is not...

EVIDENCE...1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

MOUNTAIN...1.a natural elevation of the earth's surface rising more or less abruptly to a summit, and attaining an altitude greater than that of a hill, usually greater than 2000 feet

CONTINENT...1. one of the main landmasses of the globe, usually reckoned as seven in number (Europe, Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Australia, and Antarctica).

 

[Wick Stick]

Actually the account of Noah's flood was based on earlier Sumerian and Babylonian myth stories of a great flood. Where did these stories come from? Perhaps a cross-cultural appealing theme of punishment and reward. Divine justice

I guess you're referring to the Enuma Elish, and the story of Ziusudra of Shuruppak from the Sumerian kings list. It's actually unlikely that the Biblical account inherits from either of those texts, or from any other Babylonian or Sumerian source..

It can be demonstrated textually that the Biblical account has common origins with the flood stories of the Vedas and Puranas, and that both stories draw their origins from ancient Urartu (modern day Turkey and Armenia). The Biblical story originates from the base of Mount Ararat and the area around Lake Van, far north of Babylon in the Caucusus.

The Babylonian and Sumerian stories originate from the south, and are perhaps based on the flood cycles of the (now non-existent) swamps of Sumeria, the changes they experienced to their coastline, and the flooding of Dilmun.

Jarrod

 

[Jonahdog]

EVIDENCE...1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

MOUNTAIN...1.a natural elevation of the earth's surface rising more or less abruptly to a summit, and attaining an altitude greater than that of a hill, usually greater than 2000 feet

CONTINENT...1. one of the main landmasses of the globe, usually reckoned as seven in number (Europe, Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Australia, and Antarctica).

OH my 6, you are correct, there are mountains on every continent. But to use this post to claim there are mountains of evidence of every continent of your theology is just a non sequitur.

But your need to support your fearful theology is obvious.