We are not fooled by such contrived arguments as these. It is you who commits error. You must start from the fact that the flood occurred and work backwards. Only arguments that lead to this inevitable conclusion are logical and anything else is simply misinterpretation and fallacy.

The mind of a fundamentalist is invincible to logic. They are willing to kill for their position. No assault of logic can compare to that.

Columbus
The Messenger

Originally posted by Columbus
The mind of a fundamentalist is invincible to logic. They are willing to kill for their position. No assault of logic can compare to that.

yes, sadly there are those indoctrinated from such and early age and to the point that they are unwilling to see logic and blindly accept anything their religion tells them as irrefutable fact.

Allright, so you say that some guy, scientist or whatever said that about 8 individuals and the starting time ect... that should be just as much of a "theory" to you as the ark, why not read the Bible and do some more rescearch on the otherside before you go setting your mind on one thing. Try the New international version of the Bible, it should be simple for you to understand.

when you decide
write back.

To also add one thing
Logic can also be a religion to some people, or I guess what you are reffering to logic as.
I look at logic just fine. I see the difference in theory and I carefully consider which makes more sense. I dont believe you have ever taken the time to look into religion? # it, dont even do that. Look into Christianity, other wise, explain to me where the universe came from, and then, tell me how we got to here. I emplor you too. Because you know what, without a higher power running the show, nothing can happnen.

Did these figures account for the Black Death ? Wars ? and famine ?. Another thing worth noting would be infant deaths being very high and the actual growth of a population being extremely slow.

Originally posted by mazzroth
Did these figures account for the Black Death ? Wars ? and famine ?. Another thing worth noting would be infant deaths being very high and the actual growth of a population being extremely slow.

i honestly have no idea what the figures account, this wasn't supposed to be the most in depth analysis, mainly because it doesn't take much to demolish such a silly story

As I posted in another thread somewhere, I have a fossil of a sea urchin on my desk at work that I chipped off of a big bolder in New Mexico years ago with a rock hammer. Not only is that area of New Mexico a couple of hundred miles from the Gulf, but I found this at an elevation of just under two miles above sea level.

I’ve never had a problem with the account of the flood, and that fossil sure doesn’t change my belief. I also have a whole (both halves still joined) fossilized sea shell I found in Texas and some shark teeth found in central Alabama.

There have been many stories of great floods told by many societies. I do believe there was a worldwide flood, but there is no way the only life that survived was on an ark. I doubt it even covered all land on earth.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by secret titan]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
yes, sadly there are those indoctrinated from such and early age and to the point that they are unwilling to see logic and blindly accept anything their religion tells them as irrefutable fact.

I was never brought up as anything.
I only remember going to church twice when I was a kid. Once for a wedding and once for a funeral.
I was taught evolution in school.
It made sense to me at the time, but it left some big questions in my mind.
As I have grown older I have come to realize that evolution is absurd.
It is nothing more then the fairy tale of the princess kissing the frog plus millions of years.

Madness you must understand, no matter what you think about the Bible, it is the oldest, and by default the best, 'history' book that we have.
There is no denying that the 'people' and places named in the Bible exist or existed.
Is the Bible 100% actual fact?
Thats up to the individual to choose.
Does it contain atleast some facts?
Yes, without a doubt.

Whether the flood happend or not, I dont know.
But neither do you, or anyone else.

Im inclined to believe it did happen though.

[edit on 22-3-2007 by 11Bravo]

Originally posted by AdamSpeaks123
I dont believe you have ever taken the time to look into religion? # it, dont even do that. Look into Christianity, other wise, explain to me where the universe came from, and then, tell me how we got to here. I emplor you too. Because you know what, without a higher power running the show, nothing can happnen.

Where the universe came from, and how we got here? We can't explain that just yet, but we're working on it. We've got some good ideas and some sort of working models, but we don't have all of the data yet and some of the numbers don't really line up. Still, it's a work in progress.

Originally posted by FlaBama
As I posted in another thread somewhere, I have a fossil of a sea urchin on my desk at work that I chipped off of a big bolder in New Mexico years ago with a rock hammer. Not only is that area of New Mexico a couple of hundred miles from the Gulf, but I found this at an elevation of just under two miles above sea level.

I’ve never had a problem with the account of the flood, and that fossil sure doesn’t change my belief. I also have a whole (both halves still joined) fossilized sea shell I found in Texas and some shark teeth found in central Alabama.

Tectonic shifts move a lot of ground huge distances. They've found fossils of sea creatures on Mt. Everest. How did they get there? Simple: Mt. Everest wasn't always a mountain. The same is true with your finds.

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Madness you must understand, no matter what you think about the Bible, it is the oldest, and by default the best, 'history' book that we have.

Writings exist that predate most of the bible by extreme lengths of time. The bible as a historic text pales in comparison to these documents. This as a fact is widely known.

[edit on 22/3/2007 by Thousand]

Originally posted by Thousand

Writings exist that predate most of the bible by extreme lengths of time. The bible as a historic text pales in comparison to these documents. This as a fact is widely known.

Pales in comparison to what? A few fragments? Some Heiroglyphs?
Most of which were incorperated into the Bible?
What compilation comes close to containing the amount of historical accuracies as the Bible?

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Pales in comparison to what? A few fragments? Some Heiroglyphs?
Most of which were incorperated into the Bible?
What compilation comes close to containing the amount of historical accuracies as the Bible?

You're kidding me, right? The oldest pieces of biblical text date from at oldest roughly 150 BCE. The Roman Kingdom was founded almost 600 years earlier than that, and the Greeks were around almost 600 years before that. Without even touching on the Macedonians, Egyptians, and Sumerians, that's already predating the bible by ten centuries. And we know an awful lot about Greek history...I'll give you one guess as to how.

[edit on 23/3/2007 by Thousand]

Not to forget the Eatern Civilizations, India, China etc. All of them have text that predates the bible by many centuries!

Show me a history book, one that is older than the Bible, or shut up.
Dont refer me to the epic of gilgamesh, thats a story.
Dont tell me the necronomican is a history book, because it isnt.

I said the Bible was the oldest history book that we have and you clowns jump right up and say there are older texts.
I didnt say the Bible was the oldest text, I said it is the oldest 'history' book that we have.

Read, research, rethink.
You two are so quick to defend your beliefs that you totally ignore what I wrote.

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Dont refer me to the epic of gilgamesh, thats a story.

Why is the Epic of Gilgamesh a story, but the Old Testament (which also contains a flood story) a history book?

Gilgamesh is considered to have been a real king, and many of the things in the epic are historically accurate.

Originally posted by whiterabbit

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Dont refer me to the epic of gilgamesh, thats a story.

Why is the Epic of Gilgamesh a story, but the Old Testament (which also contains a flood story) a history book?

Gilgamesh is considered to have been a real king, and many of the things in the epic are historically accurate.

Another ignoramus chimes in.
Its the BIBLE that is a history book, not the O.T. and the epic of gilgamesh is nothing more than an earlier version of the great flood.
Does it contain some historical accuracies? Of course, if it didnt then who would tell it? Who would listen to it? Who cares if it didnt happen to our king in our land? THATS why gilgamesh incorporated the great flood into HISstory.

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Another ignoramus chimes in.

Firstly, if you can't respond without this sort of nonsense--please don't bother. I've gotten more than my share of it lately.

Its the BIBLE that is a history book, not the O.T.

Why does the distinction matter? Last time I checked, the Old Testament comprised more than half of the Bible.

and the epic of gilgamesh is nothing more than an earlier version of the great flood.

Again then:

Why is the Epic of Gilgamesh's flood story a mere "story", but the Bible's flood story is "history"?

Both contain contain a fantastical tale as well as historical accuracies.

Let's not forget how many times the bible has been changed to agree with the current beliefs. If it was a true history book it wouldn't change. You can't change history!

Originally posted by 11Bravo
Show me a history book, one that is older than the Bible, or shut up.

You are funny

I said the Bible was the oldest history book that we have and you clowns jump right up and say there are older texts.
I didnt say the Bible was the oldest text, I said it is the oldest 'history' book that we have.

Firstly, if you have the audacity to call the Bible a 'History Book' then these ancient texts have as much, if not more, of a claim to that title. These texts contain several historical accurecies, such as celestial events etc that have been verified by modern scientists. None of these cultures consider their sacred writings to be anything other than HISTORY. And as it is the bible is full of inconsistencies, giving two DIFFERENT versions of the same event etc. How can it be historically accurate?? What makes a Christian's claim more valid than the claims of these other cultures?? And as for the NT, hell i know people here on ATS that put up a very convincing and sound argument against the very existance of a historical Jesus!

Read, research, rethink.

Sound advice. I suggest you follow it.

You two are so quick to defend your beliefs that you totally ignore what I wrote.

You do not KNOW me or my beliefs. So i would appreciate it if you were less presumptuous and kept your thoughts on others to yourself. Frankly i do not care what you think of me, but i detest people who try and label me, and you have the gall to do it over the net, from the 2 lines that i wrote!