"The Whole Silly Flood Story"

The Histories of Herodotus, for one. I'll let you google it. And don't tell me to shut up. I'm trying to deny your ignorance here while you're attempting to pave over me with it.



The Epic of Gilgamesh is just as much a historic document as the bible is. To discount that is to completely throw away your credibility in any argument that should follow. The Necronomicon isn't even a real book, why would anyone attempt to use it as a record of ancient history?

You name drop to make it look like you've done your homework, but you haven't. Next you'll be saying the Qur'an is "just a story", even though both sit at roughly the same historically accurate level. I'm fairly certain I know where this will lead.



It's not. And your referral to us as "clowns" is both totally disrespectful and a clear conveyance that your position on this matter was solidified before you even typed a word in reply. We jump up and say older documents exist because of their relevance to history being greater than the bible's, even if they are only fragments.



I doesn't matter. The bible isn't the oldest historic text and it's not the oldest 'history' book that exists. I didn't mention explicitly that I was referring only to fragments either, but you made that jump rather well on your own making you just as guilty as I am.



You're quick to spout a happy little slogan in your belief that it will absolve you of all accountability for your own ignorance by attempting to shunt it onto us, but I'll tell you now that it doesn't work and you're still wrong.



They're not beliefs, they're fact. I'm sorry, but these documents exist. You made a hell of a blanket statement, I corrected you, you fought back, and I've found and exploited the holes in your argument once more.

In your next reply, which I'm sure will come, try to argue from an intellectual standpoint rather than an emotional one, which is what you're doing now. "Read, research, rethink", as you say.

well, that's good
children can't even begin to grasp what they truely believe



if you really buy the whole anti-evolution frog prince argument, then you have a sad misunderstanding of evolution



the bible isn't a history book, it's a religious text
and it isn't even the oldest one we have. there are many sumerian historical accounts that predate it, there are records from china that predate it.



well, it would be impossible to write any document without having some facts



no, i know
the geologists know as well. there isn't a single fact supporting the flood myth(s if you want to get technical)



go with your gut all you want, i'll trust my reason

one last thing i'd like to add. nearly every single mythos has a flood story, there's a reason for that. look into the works of joseph campbell.

The flood was real and there is ample evidence to support it. God may have created more people after the flood in order to repopulate the earth. Adam and Eve were the first He created. It doesnt say they were the only and last.

are you talking a flood accounting for the exact biblical story?
with every animal within walking distance of noah's house

and what evidence?



....
now isn't that convenient?

Like madness said, there is no evidence of a worldwide flood. Indeed, such a geological event is impossible - not to mention the logistics of how the animals supposedly spread out afterwards to repopulate the planet, and let's not even talk about inbreeding.

In terms of the created humans, it doesn't say they were the only and last, true. But it also doesn't say he made more, which is just as telling. I'd like to think that the creation of additional humans from nothing would at least garner a footnote somewhere.

As an aside: it's been almost two weeks without a response, 11Bravo. Normally I don't poke around in threads like this too terribly long, but as a clown who can't shut up, I'm kind of curious to see what your answers to our arguments are. Are you still out there?