CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Have floods ever occurred? Are some men named Noah? Is it possible that a man named Noah sailed a boat during a flood? What is so unreasonable that it couldn't have happened?
You don't believe in animals or is it that you don't believe animals can be carried aboard a boat?
What if Noah had just gathered up as many animals as he could before the flood waters came and the writers exaggerated the story a tad bit? Say he had a flock of sheep, a dog, some cows, etc. and he took them with him on his ark.
I don't believe in animals. Never seen one, never will ;)
Nah, the size of the ship is listed in Genesis, but the traditional version says that he had two of every kind of animal aboard the ship. If it was local animals, then that makes a little more sense... But if the flood was global, as many claim it was, then he would have had to save more animals than could fit on his boat.
How big would have been ones' world in the era that the big flood occurred? Wouldn't the flood be of global proportion if all that you knew was destroyed?
That's the thing, the writers of Genesis could have unknowingly been referring to only a small part of the world, but most modern Christians don't believe that it was just a portion of the world. They think it was the entire thing.
If you believe that it was local, then I don't disagree. I disagree with most literal interpretations of the Bible anyways.
Wasn't that portion of the Bible a story that God told to the writer? So, the "author" of the story wouldn't be able to call local the whole world because He is God and knows the whole world.
But the bible doesnt talk about a local flood it says it was a global one. If you wander away from the very clear "word of god" its the equivalent of making shit up.
That depends on how you interpret the bible. Some scholars understand ancient rhetoric. The world, in the literary context of the bible, is understood to be a localized flooded in some interpretations. Although many still go for the hard diction found in the bible (which is pretty much just reading it as it appears).
Edit: Forgive me, I meant to click the "clarify" button. This isn't a dispute to your argument. I only wished to add some clarity since I don't disagree with you.
I believe it because there is there is evidence that the flood happened. For example, archaeologists have dug up fish fossils on mountain tops. Fish normally are in rivers, creeks, lakes, and the ocean.
I've already explained this to you before. I swear you don't listen to a word I say. Here is what I said before.
"Mountains are formed by the plates in the earth's crust pushing together, causing the land to rise where they collide. So, land that was once under the ocean rises up and forms a mountain. That's why fish fossils are there. In addition to that, many rivers and streams are from snow melt on mountains. Those streams run all the way down the mountain. Fish are more than capable of swimming upstream into the mountains. I hike in the mountains all the time and there are lots of fish in the streams and lakes up there." Here's a quick animation of how mountains are formed.
It's also possible a dragon scooped it out of the ocean and flew it up there, but just because something is possible doesn't mean it is likely. There is lots of evidence showing there was no global flood, such as ice cores, sediment layers, sea floor cores, etc.
Dragons have nothing to do with the topic. So leave them out of it. We are talking about Noahs Ark. There is lots of evidence that shows there was a global flood. Go to answeringenesis.org and you will see that Ken Ham and his scientists will have evidence for you.
I've been to AnswersInGenesis many times and it's a bunch of nonsense. If you actually had a genuine interest in learning about it I would spend the time showing why each of Ken's arguments for the flood are faulty, but you've made it abundantly clear from our past debates that you're not actually interested in facts or real debate. You always just slink off into the shadows and don't reply in nearly every debate I've had with you, so I'm not going to waste my time.
I've been to AnswersInGenesis many times and it's a bunch of nonsense.
Of course, you think it's nonsense because you don't want to admit that the Bible, God, and Creation is true. You rather go with the world view that evolution is true and that you can live a life without believing in a God because that totally makes a lot more sense than believing in a God who provided a way for you to believe in Him.
You always just slink off into the shadows and don't reply in nearly every debate I've had with you, so I'm not going to waste my time.
I do it because I realize people like you no matter how much I debate with won't get it. So it's mostly wasting my time arguing with people like you who don't want to see things the way I do it. Also a lot of your arguments are really long and it would take 2-3 hours just to dispute you argument and it would just be going on and on and I can't take 2-3 hours out of my day just to write a response because I know in reality it's waste of time with people like who don't understand. For example, the "Is Atheism a religion" debate that you disputed me with a wall of text. Don't even bother writing a huge block of text to me refuting my points because I'm not going to write back.
You rather go with the world view that evolution is true
I go where the evidence leads. You haven't even looked at the evidence and have admitted you don't even understand evolution, yet you continue to bash it time and time again.
I do it because I realize people like you no matter how much I debate with won't get it.
I've been on this site for over a year and I can think of a single instance where you actually debated someone with real facts or evidence. Maybe if you actually provided some your arguments would be more persuasive.
So it's mostly wasting my time arguing with people like you who don't want to see things the way I do it.
So you only want to debate with people who see things the way you do. I hate to break it to you, but debate sites are for debating people who don't see things they way you do.
Also a lot of your arguments are really long and it would take 2-3 hours just to dispute you argument...
A lot of them have been short too but you don't respond to those either, so you're just making excuses.
...I know in reality it's waste of time with people like who don't understand.
The thing is I do understand. I used to be just like you. The difference is I looked at both sides with an open mind and went where the evidence led instead of following blindly and burying my head in the sand when I heard something I didn't like.
For example, the "Is Atheism a religion" debate that you disputed me with a wall of text.
And that is exactly why you don't understand things like evolution or why your religion is so flawed, because it requires reading more than a few sentences. My response in that debate wasn't even a page long and all I did is spend a few sentences addressing each of the points you made. There is no way I could have addressed all your points without it being long.
Don't even bother writing a huge block of text to me refuting my points because I'm not going to write back.
I don't care if you write back. There is a reason why no one on this site takes you seriously, you don't debate, you just state your opinion with nothing to back it up, then when people challenge you on it you run away.
Just stop it mate. Srom's a sucky debater who isn't interested in learning. I don't really understand why he bothers participating in the non-joke debates.
I go where the evidence leads. You haven't even looked at the evidence and have admitted you don't even understand evolution, yet you continue to bash it time and time again.
I bash it because it's not true.
I've been on this site for over a year and I can think of a single instance where you actually debated someone with real facts or evidence. Maybe if you actually provided some your arguments would be more persuasive.
I've actually have used evidence before ,but I forgot when I debate with other people who I've gave people evidence. They say the typical statement that people like you, like to say: "That's not evidence." One instance of me using evidence is this.. And yet you and others claim, I don't even use any evidence at all and just blab my own freaking opinion.
A lot of them have been short too but you don't respond to those either, so you're just making excuses.
Just like the excuses you and everyone else make when I point out to why the Bible and God is true. And you and others go along proving that my point is "supposedly" not true or you just don't want to admit that it's true.
And that is exactly why you don't understand things like evolution or why your religion is so flawed, because it requires reading more than a few sentences. My response in that debate wasn't even a page long and all I did is spend a few sentences addressing each of the points you made. There is no way I could have addressed all your points without it being long.
My religion isn't flawed. I've read many books on how to defend the faith in certain circumstances. And I've even read books comparing Christianity to other religions.
I don't care if you write back. There is a reason why no one on this site takes you seriously, you don't debate, you just state your opinion with nothing to back it up, then when people challenge you on it you run away.
Ohh so I guess people think I'm trolling because people don't see me seriously. I have lots of things to back it up but I don't use it because I realize that I'm only wasting my time with people. Sometimes I run away from when people challenge is me, is I don't know how to respond to them. So how am I suppose to respond to something that I have no clue how to answer in the first place when some people demand an answer from me?
Just like the excuses you and everyone else make when I point out to why the Bible and God is true.
I've never seen you (or anyone) provide any strong evidence that the Bible is true. You usually just say something like, "it's true because I know it is." That isn't very helpful, you know?
My religion isn't flawed. I've read many books on how to defend the faith in certain circumstances.
Chapter One: How to stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalala, I'm not listening!"
I have lots of things to back it up but I don't use it because I realize that I'm only wasting my time with people.
How would you know? You've never used that stuff to back up your arguments.
I've read things from AnswersInGenesis. I even looked at sites where even scientists even admit that evolution isn't true and they back it up.
I've never seen you (or anyone) provide any strong evidence that the Bible is true. You usually just say something like, "it's true because I know it is." That isn't very helpful, you know?
That's what everyone says. And if you would have read my argument against LittleMisfit and I know you didn't. , I actually did provide a hyperlink on when I used evidence about how the Bible is true and that's only a part of why it isn't true.
Chapter One: How to stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalala, I'm not listening!"
How would you know what the books are saying when you haven't read them yourself? You're only making an assumption.
How would you know? You've never used that stuff to back up your arguments.
I actually have in the past before you joined this site and I was in middle school. It didn't really work. And if it didn't work in the past what is the point of bringing it up right now when the reaction of what you and others are going to say is the same freaking thing.
Are you so insecure of your religion that you can't bear to read anything that doesn't affirm it? If not, the Skeptics Annotated Bible is a good place to start.
I even looked at sites where even scientists even admit that evolution isn't true and they back it up.
Okay, then can you provide me with some links?
That's what everyone says. And if you would have read my argument against LittleMisfit and I know you didn't.
I read a little bit of it. Should I have read the whole thing?
I actually did provide a hyperlink on when I used evidence about how the Bible is true and that's only a part of why it isn't true.
I'll take a look.
How would you know what the books are saying when you haven't read them yourself?
Books on how to defend the Christian faith aren't something I'm interested in. Did I guess right, though?
You're only making an assumption.
Kind of like this? ---> "And if you would have read my argument against LittleMisfit and I know you didn't."
I actually have in the past before you joined this site and I was in middle school.
So, are you telling me that you were a more thorough debater when you were in middle school?
It didn't really work. And if it didn't work in the past what is the point of bringing it up right now when the reaction of what you and others are going to say is the same freaking thing.
Have you ever thought that maybe the information you provide just isn't convincing?
That will take some time but I'll back to you when I have it.
I read a little bit of it. Should I have read the whole thing?
Uh yeah you should have.
Books on how to defend the Christian faith aren't something I'm interested in. Did I guess right, though?
No you didn't guess right.
So, are you telling me that you were a more thorough debater when you were in middle school?
No, I was a sloppy debator and more of a jerk too.
Have you ever thought that maybe the information you provide just isn't convincing?
No because I've read a lot of convincing books that strengthened my faith. Whenever you or others say something against it. To me it's just an excuse for you guys to not believe in Christ. And there is no excuse for you to not believe in Christ.
There is. It's the Christian's job to prove to us that God exists. If we're not convinced, it's not our fault.
You don't understand. I just quoted the Bible because it says that there is no excuse to not believe in God because God laid out the foundations of the world and displayed His visible and invisible quantities.
That will take some time but I'll back to you when I have it.
Alright.
Uh yeah you should have.
Why?
No you didn't guess right.
Lol darn!
No because I've read a lot of convincing books that strengthened my faith.
Which books?
Whenever you or others say something against it. To me it's just an excuse for you guys to not believe in Christ.
I like Jesus... But do I think that he was divine? No. I also enjoy the Bible, and agree with a lot of the messages within it, but I do not believe that it is the literal word of God.
And there is no excuse for you to not believe in Christ.
No excuse for me not to believe in Jesus' divinity? There are plenty.
So that you and others don't have to say the usual statements that you all like to say "You don't ever give any evidence to back up your claim."
Which books?
I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist, The Case for Christ, The Case for Jesus, Answers Book 1,2,3,4, Bible Answer Man book, and 301 Proofs, and Prophecies: Proving that God exists.
No excuse for me not to believe in Jesus' divinity? There are plenty
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Romans 1:20
There you have it. So you have no excuse for not believing in Jesus as your Lord and Savior.
So that you and others don't have to say the usual statements that you all like to say "You don't ever give any evidence to back up your claim."
Look, I don't care what you believe... But the reasons you give for believing in those things are kind of lame. You claim that your interpretation of the Bible is true, and other religions, as well as the theory of evolution, are false. That can be offensive to some people. Not to me, but I do find it kind of silly to claim that something is true when you have no idea if it is or not. The same could be said for the people who claim that your beliefs are false.
My goal would be to get you to realize that and open up your mind to different ideas. Having faith is not clinging to an idea. It is letting go and accepting things as they are. You may one day wake up and find that you spent your entire life clinging to an idea that was actually holding you back.
I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist, The Case for Christ, The Case for Jesus, Answers Book 1,2,3,4, Bible Answer Man book, and 301 Proofs, and Prophecies: Proving that God exists.
And how many books have you read from the opposite side?
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Romans 1:20
A Bible verse is hardly convincing evidence for me to believe that Jesus was who you claim he is. I personally read the Bible from a different viewpoint than you. One that I personally believe is more true, and better for leading a spiritual life. I think a literal interpretation is holding most Christians back from seeing the big picture.
There you have it. So you have no excuse for not believing in Jesus as your Lord and Savior.
Do you really think that will convince a non-Christian?
Look, I don't care what you believe... But the reasons you give for believing in those things are kind of lame. You claim that your interpretation of the Bible is true, and other religions, as well as the theory of evolution, are false. That can be offensive to some people. Not to me, but I do find it kind of silly to claim that something is true when you have no idea if it is or not. The same could be said for the people who claim that your beliefs are false.
Its not my fault it's offensive. I'm just following what Jesus taught and that is that Jesus is the only way to get to Heaven. If people get offended then so they get offended. A lot of people are going to be offended by what Jesus taught because they don't want to hear about it nor want to talk about it.
My goal would be to get you to realize that and open up your mind to different ideas. Having faith is not clinging to an idea. It is letting go and accepting things as they are. You may one day wake up and find that you spent your entire life clinging to an idea that was actually holding you back.
You're goal isn't going to happen to me. On the other hand, I have a different goal to approach. One that was said 2,000 years ago. To preach the Gospel to everyone and to make disciples.
And how many books have you read from the opposite side?
I've never really read one till the end because a lot of them start out as full of crap.
A Bible verse is hardly convincing evidence for me to believe that Jesus was who you claim he is. I personally read the Bible from a different viewpoint than you. One that I personally believe is more true, and better for leading a spiritual life. I think a literal interpretation is holding most Christians back from seeing the big picture.
Well that's not my fault if you don't think it's convincing ether. After all Jesus is the one that converts people and I'm just the one planting the seeds. There is evidence out there to prove that Jesus is divine and if you don't think it's evidence then it's your loss.
Its not my fault it's offensive. I'm just following what Jesus taught and that is that Jesus is the only way to get to Heaven.
Some people have never even heard of Jesus... So, do they go to hell?
If people get offended then so they get offended. A lot of people are going to be offended by what Jesus taught because they don't want to hear about it nor want to talk about it.
That's because a lot of people have realized that your (and others) interpretation of the Bible may not actually be accurate.
You're goal isn't going to happen to me.
That's disappointing.
On the other hand, I have a different goal to approach. One that was said 2,000 years ago. To preach the Gospel to everyone and to make disciples.
Right, and I have a feeling that what you are preaching is wrong. That is not to say that the Bible is wrong... Just that your interpretation may be.
I've never really read one till the end because a lot of them start out as full of crap.
Like?
Well that's not my fault if you don't think it's convincing ether. After all Jesus is the one that converts people and I'm just the one planting the seeds.
I think Jesus intended for people to plant flower seeds, and what you are trying to plant is more along the lines of a weed.
There is evidence out there to prove that Jesus is divine and if you don't think it's evidence then it's your loss.
Some people have never even heard of Jesus... So, do they go to hell?
That's impossible. People don't go to hell because they never heard of Jesus.
That's because a lot of people have realized that your (and others) interpretation of the Bible may not actually be accurate.
I'm going only along with God's interpretation not my own. If you think mine isn't accurate then you're really say that God's Word isn't accurate.
That's disappointing.
You shouldn't be disappointed because you know I'm going to refuse the offer that you or anybody else is going to offer. Why bother even trying for the most part?
Right, and I have a feeling that what you are preaching is wrong. That is not to say that the Bible is wrong... Just that your interpretation may be.
It's not wrong. It's right and therefore I'm still going to be following it till the day I die. If you're saying my preaching is wrong then you're saying that God is wrong because all we are doing is restating what was said 2,000 years ago.
I think Jesus intended for people to plant flower seeds, and what you are trying to plant is more along the lines of a weed.
You don't really understand. It's to plant spiritual seeds, so that maybe the person will think about it, and then they will be convicted of their sins and believe Jesus is the Savior of the world.
Show me the evidence.
Why should I show you evidence when you and everybody else is going to say the same thing that goes likes this, "That isn't evidence", or make some kind of stupid excuse to not believe that Jesus is our Lord and Savior. I'm not going to throw my pearls to pigs.
Like?
I've read a little bit of The God Delusion and I immediately regret even reading for the most part and I had to return it because my parents didn't want me reading it and they told me to read a book refuting the authors points.
That's impossible. People don't go to hell because they never heard of Jesus.
What is impossible? People never having heard of Jesus, or them going to hell because they have never heard of Jesus?
I'm going only along with God's interpretation not my own.
You're going along another person's interpretation of another person's interpretation of another person's interpretation.
If you think mine isn't accurate then you're really say that God's Word isn't accurate.
That's not true, because it could be the false interpretation that leads people to believe that it is the word of God.
You shouldn't be disappointed because you know I'm going to refuse the offer that you or anybody else is going to offer.
Yeah, I know... And that is disappointing.
Why bother even trying for the most part?
Good question.
It's not wrong. It's right and therefore I'm still going to be following it till the day I die.
How do you know it is not wrong?
If you're saying my preaching is wrong then you're saying that God is wrong because all we are doing is restating what was said 2,000 years ago.
I realize what you are restating, but I think that you may be restating it without understanding it the way it was meant to be understood.
You don't really understand. It's to plant spiritual seeds, so that maybe the person will think about it, and then they will be convicted of their sins and believe Jesus is the Savior of the world.
You didn't understand my metaphor, which pretty much sums up why I think you are misinterpreting the Bible. I understand the seeds are spiritual... I'm just saying that the ones you are "planting" are not... At least not in the sense they were intended to be.
Why should I show you evidence when you and everybody else is going to say the same thing that goes likes this, "That isn't evidence", or make some kind of stupid excuse to not believe that Jesus is our Lord and Savior.
Dude, you are becoming the king of stupid excuses, so don't even go there. What you find to be convincing evidence, others do not.
I would love to debate religion and the Bible with you, but you are too closed minded for it to be enjoyable. I don't claim that the Bible is false (at least most of it), but rather that your interpretation is wrong. I do not know that for a fact, which would be a good reason for us to share our opinions without claiming that the other person is wrong. If you want to have that discussion, then lets have it! But don't shoot something down without even giving it any thought. You may be wrong, and you should accept that.
I'm not going to throw my pearls to pigs.
That kind of contradicts your supposed quest to convert people, doesn't it?
I've read a little bit of The God Delusion and I immediately regret even reading for the most part and I had to return it because my parents didn't want me reading it and they told me to read a book refuting the authors points.
I'm not a fan of Richard Dawkins, and I never have (and probably never will) read any of his books. It's kind of silly that your parents told you to return it and read a book refuting his point, though. It's like they were afraid you would lose faith.
I would recommend reading some of Alan Watts books. He was a British philosopher, and a former Christian pastor who switched over to Buddhism. He claimed that he wasn't a Buddhist, though. He just enjoyed that way of explaining our existence, but was able to explain it in terms of other religions as well. He wasn't an atheist, and he actually helped strengthen my spirituality. Here are some links to a few short videos on his lectures. I must warn you, though... The guy as an awesome voice, which along with the background music, makes a pretty inspiring video lol:
I know how he is. I still like trying to convince him to be more open minded every now and then, though. Boy, that would be one hell of an achievement, wouldn't it?
How can you know it's not true when you don't even understand it? How would you feel if I told you I know the Bible is not true but I've never even read it? Would you take my opinion on it seriously? Of course not, so why should anyone take your opinion of evolution seriously when you've flat out admitted you don't understand it?
One instance of me using evidence is this..
You complain about me writing walls of text, yet the one example of "evidence" you show me is a copied and pasted wall of gish gallop.
My religion isn't flawed. I've read many books on how to defend the faith in certain circumstances.
How many books have you read the talk about the flaws in Christianity?
I have lots of things to back it up but I don't use it because I realize that I'm only wasting my time with people.
You know how some people on CD are known for certain catch phrases. That one is yours. I've heard you use it many times but you know as well as I do it's just an excuse.
Sometimes I run away from when people challenge is me, is I don't know how to respond to them. So how am I suppose to respond to something that I have no clue how to answer in the first place when some people demand an answer from me?
"I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer. There is no shame an admitting you don't know the answer, but when you don't respond at all it makes it look like you know you are wrong but don't want to admit it.
How can you know it's not true when you don't even understand it? How would you feel if I told you I know the Bible is not true but I've never even read it? Would you take my opinion on it seriously? Of course not, so why should anyone take your opinion of evolution seriously when you've flat out admitted you don't understand it?
I understand a little bit, but people say that I am confused with what I was taught about it supposedly.
You complain about me writing walls of text, yet the one example of "evidence" you show me is a copied and pasted wall of gish gallop.
Did you even take a look at the evidence I even gave you?
How many books have you read the talk about the flaws in Christianity?
I have a couple and some of them, I could easily refute and I also felt like I shouldn't be reading theses books anyway.
You know how some people on CD are known for certain catch phrases. That one is yours. I've heard you use it many times but you know as well as I do it's just an excuse.
And you and everyone else have a certain catchphrase as well when it comes to answering something when I show you evidence and you know as well as I do that it's just an excuse.
I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer. There is no shame an admitting you don't know the answer, but when you don't respond at all it makes it look like you know you are wrong but don't want to admit it.
I don't want to say I don't know because to me that will make feel like a coward if I didn't know about that. So instead I don't answer and even if I don't answer doesn't mean that I admit that I'm wrong with what I was debating about.
I also felt like I shouldn't be reading theses books anyway.
For fuck's sake, Srom; a requirement of being well informed is to read both of the opposing sides in any issue or problem (it doesn't even pertain to just religion); any issue, abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action. The whole point, at least if you want to debate it, is to be well versed on not only the side you support, but also the side you oppose, so you can understand WHY people oppose whatever issue you want to argue.
It's not just an elective option; it's a fucking prerequisite to debating. DO IT, SROM!!!
In fact, how about this Srom: For every book you read with an atheistic perspective, I will read a book with a Christian perspective (I will even allow you to suggest them). If you don't know where to start, I can give you a ton of books in PDF form.
I understand a little bit, but people say that I am confused with what I was taught about it supposedly.
Then maybe you shouldn't be so sure that you are right if you don't fully understand the subject. You don't have to abandon your faith to believe in evolution. Many Christians believe evolution was guided by god. 99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution. The Discovery Institute tried to come up with a list of scientists that reject evolution and they failed miserably.
Did you even take a look at the evidence I even gave you?
Yes, I read it twice, once when you originally posted it and again when you linked to it in this debate. Were you expecting me to offer counter arguments to each of those points or something? I thought you were just using it as an example that you sometimes provide evidence.
I have a couple and some of them, I could easily refute
Just out of curiosity, which ones do you have?
I also felt like I shouldn't be reading theses books anyway.
That is exactly why atheists have a problem with religion. It teaches people to feel guilty about asking questions. It teaches you to only look at one side of the story and shelter yourself from opposing views. If you only look at stuff that is pro-Christianity of course you're going to be pro-Christian, just like if you were to only look at pro-Muslim sources you would be pro-Muslim. The proper way to determine the truth of something is to look at all of the evidence, not just the evidence for it.
And you and everyone else have a certain catchphrase as well when it comes to answering something when I show you evidence and you know as well as I do that it's just an excuse.
Okay, what's my catch phrase?
I don't want to say I don't know because to me that will make feel like a coward if I didn't know about that.
I don't see how not knowing something makes you a coward in any way. No one knows everything. I have a lot more respect for someone who admits they don't know than someone who pretends that they do.
even if I don't answer doesn't mean that I admit that I'm wrong with what I was debating about.
It may not, but it certainly gives that impression. You need to get over this fear of being wrong about things. There is no reason to be ashamed of being wrong about something. Admitting you're wrong is the same as admitting you're wiser today than you were yesterday.
It has every reason to believe that fossils were there. Just think about it. Fish normally swim in water and when the flood waters died down and they went on to mountains. And you're using the typical saying that everyone uses and that is "that doesn't count as evidence" and you're also making an excuse as well.
Then how come we've never found, say, a rodent, a reptile, or a bird in the Pre-Cambrian layer? How come we've never found ANY large mammals outside of the Cenozoic? How come we've never found a titanosaurid in the Triassic? How come we've never found a tyrannosaurid in the Jurassic? How come we've never found ANY fossils of humans mixed with dinosaurs?
Why is it we can see the evolutionary history of the horse in perfect order? We've never found an Hyracotherium in the same layer as a Eohippus. Same goes for whales.
Actually, we find many examples of fossils out of order. We have found things that are living today that have no trace of existence except from the rock layers millions of years ago. Likewise, we have things out of order all over the place. Evolutionists ignore this, to be honest. You should do some research about this. You can always explain it away, saying, "Oh, evolution isn't wrong, we just have new information! Lets just correct our theory a bit." This is fine, sure. But, its begging the question, since it happens all the time.
Actually, we find many examples of fossils out of order. We have found things that are living today that have no trace of existence except from the rock layers millions of years ago.
You mean like bats and pterosaurs? Yeah, I'll admit to that, but you also have to take into account the fact that it is incredibly unlikely an animal will fossilize in the first place, and that erosion and other natural phenomena could destroy the fossils.
Likewise, we have things out of order all over the place.
The fossil record isn't straight line. Tectonic movements and other natural phenomena distort the rock layers; which is why we date fossils depending on the rock type and layer, not depth at which they were found.
You mean like bats and pterosaurs? Yeah, I'll admit to that, but you also have to take into account the fact that it is incredibly unlikely an animal will fossilize in the first place, and that erosion and other natural phenomena could destroy the fossils.
I'm talking about multiple examples of this. It happens regularly. It happens quite regularly to aquatic animals that are at the bottom of the sea.. which actually helps to prove a great flood, since they would have been at the bottom layers, being already at the bottom of the waters.
The fossil record isn't straight line. Tectonic movements and other natural phenomena distort the rock layers; which is why we date fossils depending on the rock type and layer, not depth at which they were found.
Thats always the cop out. You find one layer above another layer, which should have been in the opposite order, so you say, "geology!" Its all begging the question. Can you not see that? Science is assuming for naturalism, which is all fine and dandy; thats what the field is and does. But when you assume for naturalism past the point of the natural, then you have a problem.
It happens quite regularly to aquatic animals that are at the bottom of the sea.. which actually helps to prove a great flood, since they would have been at the bottom layers, being already at the bottom of the waters.
Yeah, and I already explained the problem with this.
But when you assume for naturalism past the point of the natural, then you have a problem.
Not really, because geological phenomena happen all the time, and I see no reason as to why it doesn't apply here.
Yeah, and I already explained the problem with this.
You can explain away every problem. Thats the point.
Not really, because geological phenomena happen all the time, and I see no reason as to why it doesn't apply here.
You're begging the question still. You can always explain away something. But how many explaining aways does it take to make you realize that the naturalistic theory is false?
You're begging the question still. You can always explain away something. But how many explaining aways does it take to make you realize that the naturalistic theory is false?
It fits perfectly within naturalistic theory. Not only that, bot the effect these phenomena have has been observed countless times.
Unless you can come with a reason as to why my explanation is invalid, I'll consider it perfectly so.
While on the topic of "explaining away", don't YEC's do it as well, and with little to no evidence to support it? They always say God solved the "lack of genetic variety" problem by just adding more genetic variety, despite the lack of supporting evidence from Scripture.
It fits perfectly within naturalistic theory. Not only that, bot the effect these phenomena have has been observed countless times. / Unless you can come with a reason as to why my explanation is invalid, I'll consider it perfectly so.
People can always come up with explanations for the world. Thats what science is supposed to do. But thats begging the question, as I said. Science presupposes naturalism, but if supernaturalism is true, then at some point science will be looking past reality. What this means with Christianity is that evolutionists look past the creation of the world, trying still to understand the world before its creation. Thats begging the question, if you cannot see that. That being said, every argument has to have its primitives. But science already understands that primitive, and takes it for granted. So,if you cannot tell, the argument for proof for either side is irrelevant. The presuppositions are what matter. The primitives need to be changed. This is why I don't really debate evolution any more: its pointless, since both sides are right, under their presuppositions. But primitives cannot simply be proven or disproven, by definition. So, this comes down to desire, because it has nothing to do with intellect: would you rather believe in a world that is godless, or one that has a god in some way shape or form?
While on the topic of "explaining away", don't YEC's do it as well, and with little to no evidence to support it? They always say God solved the "lack of genetic variety" problem by just adding more genetic variety, despite the lack of supporting evidence from Scripture.
No one's denying evolution. Young Earth Creationists deny the extent to which it had a role on the planet. In fact, we claim that evolution works a lot faster than what evolutionists claim. The only reason evolutionists claim such long lengths of time is because that is what is needed for mass genetic change. But the changing of the genetic information of varieties within certain static groupings, there is fast genetic change! Thats why we have such a great number of dog breeds and cats breeds. None of the information that we have contradicts creationism. In fact, 2 Peter 3 prophesies evolution, or at least the denial of the flood for a naturalistic explanation for the world:
This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, 2 that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, 3 knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 4 They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, 6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. 7 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
So, not only do we scientific backing, but we have prophesies backing us up.
So, this comes down to desire, because it has nothing to do with intellect: would you rather believe in a world that is godless, or one that has a god in some way shape or form?
Not really. It's more about which information you've been exposed to. We (we being atheists/agnostics/"evolutionists") usually pick our world views based on the ones we find the most convincing. Although, you do make a good point.
Yeah it could be because of the flood but it much more likely to be because fish swam up the mountain in streams and/or that fish died when the mountain was on the seabed before it rose up to form a mountain.
Because there are logical explanations for fish fossils being there, them being there isn't evidence for the flood as they could just be there due to the rational explanations that they got there by swimming up streams or that they died before the land become a mountain and was still on the seabed.
Yeah but their is no reason to believe that it was because of the flood and not just that fish died on the land when it was under the sea before it became a mountain.
Ask a ship builder. It was the perfect boat. It would take a 90 degree wave to flip it over and then it would most likely roll right side up. Some scientist tested this with a scale model in a tidal pool. It was reported on tv a few years back.
I was talking about events in history where massive flooding occur and only a select few managed to survive. It is possible that the flood were so massive, it became a legend.
Seriously? Is that your replacement for logic? How did God drown a fish? The grand canyon was made by a stream slowly wearing away rock. Any other examples?
Seriously? Is that your replacement for logic? How did God drown a fish? The grand canyon was made by a stream slowly wearing away rock. Any other examples?
Yes, but not literally as stated. Sure, some animals may have been put on board (like a dog or cat), but 2 of EVERY animal?
That must explain why Mosquitoes... and parasites of other kinds.
Also, if it was only Noah's family and the possible best friend that was on the boat, then shouldn't the repopulated world be full of drooling, inbred morons? We wouldn't have made it to the Roman Republic.
Animals are adept with detecting natural disasters, so I think flooding is a detectable disaster for them. I doubt carrying them around would even be necessary unless they were domesticated or endangered at the time.
Also, it's possible that the previous Ice Age thawed out and the rising water levels took down some civilized areas (Atlantis maybe? Meh. Speculation is something I adore. Sue me) and killed a lot of people/plants/animals.
We've also got myths of bigass deluges just about everywhere.
Clearly, something happened. Noah was around when it did happen and somebody recorded it later. He wasn't the only survivor though, but he was one of the many survivors including Manu, Deucalion and Pyrrha, etc.
Was the time that Atlantis (continent) went down. Perhaps Noah/Utnapishtim and the others were among those who escaped? If the amount of survivors was so slim, and they got separated while the rest of their lands got pimp-slapped by tidal waves, whatever pre-flood tech they had could have been lost. That could explain Noah's ability to build an ark with a design not practically used again after the flood. (Last I checked the Egyptians/Romans/Greeks didn't have any massive arks.)
Hey. I myself find this idea highly sketchy. I just love speculating and putting pieces together using any and every resource that I can, scientific or religious. Feel free to discuss this with me and help me build up this hypothesis or give me counter-evidence, but I believe that the "Noah's Ark" event did happen, just not in the literal context. There could be so much more to it than we imagined. It excites me to know that, and I just had to share.
Not as generally believed, no. Is it possible that a very impressive flood served as the basis for the myth? Yeah. But that is about as far as it goes. Global flooding, all the animals, etc etc, a reasonably educated adult in the modern era should be able to realize how ludicrous it all is.
No... the story of Noah and his Ark was simply foreshadowing for the third testament when Larry and his Rocket-ship have to collect two of every animal on Earth, load them onto his Rocket-ship and blast off to Mars before God throws a giant meteor at Earth to end all life.... again.
so if that flood wiped all the animals except for those magically saved by noah...did it also wipe out all of the humans that werent on the boat?...so that would make us all ancestors of noah/family....correct?
god bless noah....and all the stupid fucks on the other side of this debate
Actually, if the flood was global and reached the highest mountain, most of sea life would have been killed off. Mixing of fresh and salt water would doom most freshwater species. Less light and change in water pressure would have forced the fish to move upwards, starving all of those who survived by scrounging on seabeds. And the whales and dolphins? At that altitude, they wouldn't have enough air pressure to survive. Not that that would matter, since all of the cold at that altitude would have probably frozen over the surface of the globe.
Don't you think if the Whole world flooded 3,000 years ago everything would be a lot different than it is know. Think about it. Millions would have died. Technology would have been destroyed. And Civilization would have fell.
It did. I don't know how many died but I know how many lived 8.
It was more than 3000 years ago it was between 2300 BC and 2500 BC. So over 4000 years ago. The whole face of the earth changed. We now have valley's and mountains that did not exist before the flood.
Actually we know civilizations existed between that period e.g. the Indus valley civilization and if it happened then they would have been destroyed by it but we know they weren't and survived for centuries after so it couldn't have happened then.
