Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[THEWULFMAN]

Look man, Danzig said.
I'm just sayin

Am I too young to get this reference, too new of a member of SWGO to get the running gag, or just stupid?

[haasd0gg]

[THEWULFMAN]

Ah. Option A, I was too young to get the reference.

Lol the lighting in this video. Looks like his bookcase is in his pool room. Which is a horrible idea.

[Darth Crater]

No it's not improved because your changing the historical portion. Again the Bible is not to blame for the actions of misguided humans. Stop shifting the blame from humans to God to suit your argument.

You're not understanding my actual point at all. Fine, I'll choose one of 31,102 other examples. Genesis 1:16. Instead of "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.", say "God made a great light to govern the day and a lesser light to reflect the greater and govern the night. He also made the stars." More scientifically accurate, and thus better. How about: "The Earth formed from rock moving around a burning star, and the moon moves around the Earth in turn, reflecting the Sun. They move by the same force that causes objects to fall. The stars are as the sun, but vastly farther away." That's even more accurate, far more useful, and contains no concepts that ancient humans couldn't have understood.

Here's another idea. Those two bits that conflict on the story of Judas? Rewrite both of them so that they tell what you think the true story is. Fewer conflicting passages, and thus better. Humans edited the Bible all the time while creating it. Why is it suddenly wrong to do it now?

Your wrong, that facts are not open to interpretation, but the conclusion you draw from it is. Your proof says there was not enough water but the bible says

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened

According to Donald Patten in - The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch

With the sudden opening of the ‘springs of the watery deep’ and “the floodgates of the heavens,” untold billions of tons of water deluged the earth. This may have caused tremendous changes in earth’s surface. The earth’s crust is relatively thin (estimated at between 30 km [20 mi] and 160 km [100 mi] thick), stretched over a rather plastic mass thousands of kilometers in diameter. Hence, under the added weight of the water, there was likely a great shifting in the crust. In time new mountains evidently were thrust upward, old mountains rose to new heights, shallow sea basins were deepened, and new shorelines were established, with the result that now about 70 percent of the surface is covered with water. This shifting in the earth’s crust may account for many geologic phenomena, such as the raising of old coastlines to new heights. It has been estimated by some that water pressures alone were equal to “2 tons per square inch,” sufficient to fossilize fauna and flora quickly.

It is this scientific theory that allow me to include the flood in my beliefs. You might conclude to dismiss it as wrong or inaccurate but that's your conclusion. Your proof is based on the earth as it appears now, but you don't know what the landscape was more then 4000 years ago that would be conjecture. This means the conclusion you base on evidence is up for interpretation.

Wulf already covered this, but - there is interpretation, and then there's utter stupidity. We know the Earth hasn't done anything like what you describe within the timeframe you claim. It would leave countless signs that are not there. There's no worldwide sediment layer filled with remains of the animals of this era. Freshwater fish and plants didn't die off at that time. Tree rings, which can indicate climate changes, don't do so here. The ice caps have been demonstrated to be over 700,000 years old, so the water can't come from there (not that there'd be enough), and there is no "floodgate of the heavens" or "springs of the watery deep". None of the world's civilizations were wiped out by a flood. This is just what I've come up with in the past couple minutes, and you still haven't addressed most of the rebuttals already made, and those responses you have made have uniformly been fallacious (as with this "interpretation" nonsense). What you're doing is saying "Oh, I'm allowed to interpret two plus two as five!". You can do it, sure, but you're going against the facts.

Now, back to something I actually want to discuss...

I guess I partially base my evidence of souls existing on things that have only happened to me and thus I can't prove.

If you see a rainbow and no one else does, and no pictures were taken, how do you prove you saw a rainbow? That's the best analogy I can think of.

Yeah, that's subjective experience. I can't really fault you for it (we should question our subjective experiences, but it's pretty much impossible to do so). Still, it's no use for me.

I believe in God and Christ because despite how immeasurably flawed it is, the bible was trying to tell us something. I mentioned earlier that I pretty much only believe a couple things from the bible as fasts. God exists and his son is Jesus. I believe in God and Christ because my mom does and her experiences, and I trust her(but not blindly). I believe in God and Christ because I don't see how everything is this particular universe was entirely chance. Specifically there are certain things that can't be explained and will never be explained. What caused the big bang? Why does this universe even exist? Where did all this er come from? Other universes? Why do things follow such strict laws of physics? Is this the only universe? I doubt it.

Yes, there are still a lot of unanswered questions. Personally, I'm alright with leaving them unanswered until we have some proper evidence. I don't have your subjective experience, though. I do have my own pet theories - for example, multiple universes. However, I recognize that there's no evidence for that aside from it fitting nicely with superposition, no real way to test it, and I'm not sure what use it would actually be.

However - why did you choose Christianity in particular? Why does the Bible have something to say, but not the Quran, or Buddhist wisdom? Why, when you think the Christian doctrine is wrong with regards to recent (in a universal sense) history, do you think its particular deity was involved in ancient history?

Beyond the creation of the universe, I'm more than willing to believe the creation of our Earth and its life was all chance. I'm of the belief that life is abundant in the universe. Earth isn't unique. This has no base in facts or evidence, it's a belief. I'm hoping I live long enough to see life discovered elsewhere than Earth. We're getting closer all the time. On a related note, I freaking love the Kepler.

Yeah, I figure that with the universe that big, there's probably somewhere out there that has, had, or will have life. It'll probably take us a long time to find any, and (if they're intelligent) even longer to actually meet them. We might not even understand what life we do find - there's no reason everything has to work by RNA/DNA, cells, carbon, etc as they do on Earth.

By the way - any flaws you can find in that bit on my beliefs from before? Narg managed to find one, which I've corrected, but another opinion would be nice.

[THEWULFMAN]

However - why did you choose Christianity in particular? Why does the Bible have something to say, but not the Quran, or Buddhist wisdom? Why, when you think the Christian doctrine is wrong with regards to recent (in a universal sense) history, do you think its particular deity was involved in ancient history?

I'll be honest, I don't know much about the Muslims or Buddhists. I know the former isn't entirely filled with lunatics who want to bomb us all like some idiots think, and I know the latter involves a lot of peace and reincarnation. That's about it.

I'm a Christian because I was raised as one, loosely. My parents basically nudged me in the direction but let me choose if I wanted to be a Christian or not. I've studied Christianity and all its sub-groups, I've studied Judaism a little, and I've studied Scientology. The latter I studied for a laugh, oh and boy did I.

I was taught that there's only one God, and I don't have subjective proof that there isn't so I'm inclined to believe that.

By the way - any flaws you can find in that bit on my beliefs from before? Narg managed to find one, which I've corrected, but another opinion would be nice.

Not really. It's hard to find flaws in atheistic logic since it relies on facts alone. I do my best not to have flaws in my logic while retaining my faith. I think I do a pretty good job if I do say so myself.

Oh and thanks for bringing up tree rings, I totally forgot those. We have trees older than when The Flood is supposed to have taken place. There's no way any non-marine plant life would have survived 40 days under salt water, including trees.

[11_Panama_]

Everytime I see Danzig, all I think is about him getting his bell rung on that past video posted.

Also, if I may add, I caught a line from Wulfi's last post about the Great Flood. Something about "how trees survived in salt water" and one about "Moses"..lol..AKA "Noah" and how "Moses" gathered two of every animal as an immposibilty...the answer is simple....HE'S FREAKING GOD.....HE CAN DO ANYTHING....H'E'S GOD. Surely God helped Noah just as He gave him the dimensions of the Ark.


Oh, I caught a show on TV a long time ago...I can't remember the network, but a scientist was talking about the Grand Canyon and said that only a great flood could have carved that landscape...no way that ice from the last Ice Age could of done that by itself....only a great rush of water could do that. The ice melting wouldn't have such a great volume of water to carve the canyons so deep.


*I'm just having fun at your expense Wulfi...don't get mad.

[Col. Hstar]

@Wulf

Is it my point of view that Sol rises and sets each day on the Equator, every day of the year? Or is there some other way to interpret the big glowy thing rising up 365 days a year.

Depends, are you asking how it works of how it came to be? The question ers as much as the answer. Please compare apples to apples.

It's not my point of view. It's fact. There's a massive difference. You didn't address half of what I had to say. Fine, you came up with a bullcrap excuse for why humans didn't end up inbred idiots and/or extinct, you haven't explained where all the surviving animals got their food. I'm including humans under the animals category. We have to eat too. Don't' you dare tell me we could go long periods of time without food because we were so much better back then(hint, that's not possible due to our biology). That claim will cause me to abandon all hope for you coming to the correct understanding.

Even if we weren't inbred deformed idiots, we still had to eat. Eat one of your two cows? You doomed cows to extinction. Where did they even get all the food needed to sustain the animals for those 40 days? That's never explained. Hay and stuff for the herbivores sure, but what about the carnivores?

Is it so hard to believe that they stored more then 40 days and 40 nights worth of food with them on the ark? Also as another point Genesis 7:2 States the with some animals they took 7 on of each type. You act like there should have been a you-tube video or something of the flood when it happened

Don't get mad at me for not accepting your "facts". Don't get mad at me because I state my beliefs in a forum where we should be allowed to do so. I said a long time ago that i was never going to come around to your understanding. Your not going to have every single detail of the flood given to you. As far as how, Panama hit right on the point, and the Bible states as well that "with God, all things are possible". I sincerely hope that you can accept that not everyone is going to believe what you do.

@Crater

You're not understanding my actual point at all. Fine, I'll choose one of 31,102 other examples. Genesis 1:16. Instead of "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.", say "God made a great light to govern the day and a lesser light to reflect the greater and govern the night. He also made the stars." More scientifically accurate, and thus better. How about: "The Earth formed from rock moving around a burning star, and the moon moves around the Earth in turn, reflecting the Sun. They move by the same force that causes objects to fall. The stars are as the sun, but vastly farther away." That's even more accurate, far more useful, and contains no concepts that ancient humans couldn't have understood.

Here's another idea. Those two bits that conflict on the story of Judas? Rewrite both of them so that they tell what you think the true story is. Fewer conflicting passages, and thus better. Humans edited the Bible all the time while creating it. Why is it suddenly wrong to do it now?

You're free to make your own translation, just be sure to stay true to the original writings.

Wulf already covered this, but - there is interpretation, and then there's utter stupidity. We know the Earth hasn't done anything like what you describe within the timeframe you claim. It would leave countless signs that are not there. There's no worldwide sediment layer filled with remains of the animals of this era. Freshwater fish and plants didn't die off at that time. Tree rings, which can indicate climate changes, don't do so here. The ice caps have been demonstrated to be over 700,000 years old, so the water can't come from there (not that there'd be enough), and there is no "floodgate of the heavens" or "springs of the watery deep". None of the world's civilizations were wiped out by a flood. This is just what I've come up with in the past couple minutes, and you still haven't addressed most of the rebuttals already made, and those responses you have made have uniformly been fallacious (as with this "interpretation" nonsense). What you're doing is saying "Oh, I'm allowed to interpret two plus two as five!". You can do it, sure, but you're going against the facts

Yes there is also utter stupidity. I think that believing that we all just came about purely by chance is utterly stupid. I feel that claiming there is no God just because you can't see him is equally stupid.

Now, back to something I actually want to discuss...

If you don't want to discuss it anymore then simply stop...

[THEWULFMAN]

If that's how Panama and the Colonel want to do it, I'm out. I won't debate with someone when they pull the "god can do anything" card.

I'll answer any questions you have Crater, but that's it.

[11_Panama_]

If that's how Panama and the Colonel want to do it, I'm out. I won't debate with someone when they pull the "god can do anything" card.

I'll answer any questions you have Crater, but that's it.

Sorry Wulfi, but it's true...to me and millions (if not billions) of other people. We believe He created us, so we belive that He can do the impossible. And I said this before....why is there no evidence of God?....because that's the way He wants it. He wants us to be "Faithful". Perhaps we will know after we shed this shell we call a body.

[THEWULFMAN]

He wants us to be "Faithful".

Then he/she/it shouldn't have allowed us to develop past the dark ages.