can anyone watch the devastation of hurricanes and tsunamis and doubt the power of a flood to OBLIVIATE life and its resources? even if its ONE area or ONE country or ONE city,,and imagine the aftermath if rain continued for days after,,,,


shrugs

I did refute your point.

Any argument that tries to claim that the biblical story of a flood was of just a local flood fails, because there would have been no need to build an ark to save the animal kingdom in the event of a local flood.

Like all the other "bible thumpers" you try to claim that I don't know the biblical stories.

Sorry but that doesn't work here. The only thing that needs to be acknowledged about the biblical story of the Great Flood in this case is the building of the ARK to save the animal kingdom.

If you want to claim that I have that all wrong, by my guest. But I doubt that you're going to impress very many people with that one.

Gwendolyn, please do me a favor and assume that I know everything because god told me what I know.

"you can't argue with people who know everything..."

Logical Fallacy: Ignoring a Common Cause

You assume that the Hebrews stole from previous cultures, when both groups of beliefs could originate from the same event.

Logical Fallacy: Begging the Question

You assume that the events in the Bible couldn't have happened and conclude that the story was stolen, instead of simply repeated in different cultures. (See "Ignoring a common Cause" above)

A not even logical fallacy: assuming that there was a flood.

PP wrote:

You can deny that you made the claim of a wordlwide flood, but the TRUTH is obvious that you did

here are a few sites with sources who explore and discover AS A LIVING, and some of their theories as well,,,,

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2003-07-16-black-sea-site_x.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2000/sep/14/internationalnews.archaeology


mind you, as I have said millions of times before...

in this internet age there are thousands of resources on both sides of just about any issue


the same is true of this topic in science, there are some in the field who interpret 'evidence' in support of a flood and there are some in the field who interpret 'evidence' in contrast to the flood


but in reality, not having YET proven something is not the same as having DISPROVED it,,,and the professionals continue to search,,,,,

A cad wrote:
So if you're trying to argue for a local flood, you're argument is moot because that's clearly not what the story was about.

If you're going to try to support biblical stories, you need to try to support them, not change them.

Anybody can host a site on the Internet. Just because people create websites full of bogus information doesn't make it true.

As far as "science" goes, there are no serious debates between scientists. Just look at any so-called "scientist" who is attempting to argue that science can be used to support the biblical fables and you'll find that these so-called scientists also have religious agendas.

No serious secular scientist is even remotely considering these things because the evidence against them is iron clad.

You need to basically lie and misrepresent information to pretend to make a case that science supports these ancient myths. And unfortunately this is precisely what religious fanatics do. They outright lie and misrepresent truth.

As sad as it is the truth is that they will lie in a heartbeat to support their religious fanaticism.

I predict you cannot provide evidence of the flood being worldwide.

I don't need to. It's the basis of the story. A local flood would not have required the building of an ark to save the animal kingdom.

I'm sorry if this is beyond your ability to comprehend. I feel confident that most people can indeed comprehend this extremely simple concept. So continue to whine and cry if you must. I really don't care. The story speaks for itself.

continuing to give examples of my point,,,,,,

believe the sources that support what we believe

isnt that the whole reason this debate thread can exist?


seems like 'evidence' that this is a HUMAN tendency, not a religious one,,

As far as "science" goes, there are no serious debates between scientists. Just look at any so-called "scientist" who is attempting to argue that science can be used to support the biblical fables and you'll find that these so-called scientists also have religious agendas.

I don't need to. It's the basis of the story. A local flood would not have required the building of an ark to save the animal kingdom.

I'm sorry if this is beyond your ability to comprehend. I feel confident that most people can indeed comprehend this extremely simple concept. So continue to whine and cry if you must. I really don't care. The story speaks for itself.

Really? So every single species in the Middle East also lives in other places on the planet? How about the Rock Hyrax, which only lives in the Middle East? If there were a cataclysmic flood in the Middle East, couldn't the Rock Hyrax be wiped out? I'm sure there are dozens, if not hundreds of species that would be lost in a localized flood of significant size. Turtles, frogs, toads and other reptiles and amphibians often have very small ranges.

The words in the Bible don't make it clear if the flood was global or "world-wide", with "world" meaning all inhabited lands. The flood only had to destroy humanity, the poor animals were innocent bystanders.

I'm sorry if this is beyond your ability to comprehend. I feel confident that most people can indeed comprehend this extremely simple concept. So continue to whine and cry if you must. I really don't care. The story speaks for itself.

Humanity didn't start in the Middle East bro

Summerian Civilization did but that was after the supposed flood

Well, these "debate threads" are typically just layman arguing about things they know little about.

In regard to your last statement: "seems like 'evidence' that this is a HUMAN tendency, not a religious one"

Not really.

Fortunately for us, the most productive people our society have accepted the scientific method of inquiry. That is to look at evidence and accept where the evidence leads without any preconceived idea of where they think it should lead.

This is what brings us modern medicine and technology.

Religious people work exactly backwards. They have a conclusion that they want to be true, and they try to find 'evidence' to support their conclusions, whilst simultaneously ignoring the overwhelming evidence against their conclusions.

So is this kind of religious thinking a "human" tendency?

Yes, it certainly does appear to be the way that the masses think.

It's fortunate for us that everyone isn't blinded by that kind of thinking. For if they were we'd still be living in the dark ages and we'd have no science or technology.

If you think the Ark is real man by all mean go to that Turkey Mtn and prove it I say BS no one man built an Arc and saved everything even in One major region bro
no way no how