quote:

---

quote:

---

I think characterizing the story as a lie is arrogant and nasty. It implies the people spreading it know it's untrue.

---

It is most certainly appropriate to characterize the story as a lie because of the overwhelming evidence against any possibility of it actually being true. Claiming ignorance isn't sufficient defense when it comes to spreading lies. You can't just say whatever you want and expect it to not be questioned when the facts (or lack thereof) don't add up.

---

A lie is a statement made with intent to deceive. Agrad characterized it as that. Then bailed and said people believe it in earnest.

If it's just a morality tale it's not a lie anyway.

And post under your real name. The sock creation trick here is lame.

quote:

---

You receive a far undue amount of patience by those on this board considering your constant derails. Aggrad is hardly being arrogant or nasty. Just stop

---

Saying someone's religious belief is a lie is nasty.

And quit creating socks.

quote:

---

ie means they're trying to deceive. See how arrogant and nasty you are?

---

I already explained what I believe and that I explicitly don't think that it's a willful deception. You are simply desperate to complain about something. No one is being more arrogant and nasty than you right now.

quote:

---

You're so dismissive.

---

Do you think such a claim requires something other than dismissal? You yourself don't believe it true.

quote:

---

Unwillingness to confront the truth, etc. Relax.

---

I'm perfectly relaxed. These are the facts as I see them. The truth about the flood is as best I can tell incredibly obvious and based on the responses I consider it an appropriate description. How would you describe someone who believes in spite of such overwhelming evidence (and not just ignorant, confronted with the facts)? Would you consider them willing to confront truth?

quote:

---

quote:

---

ie means they're trying to deceive. See how arrogant and nasty you are?

---

I already explained what I believe and that I explicitly don't think that it's a willful deception. You are simply desperate to complain about something. No one is being more arrogant and nasty than you right now.

quote:

---

You're so dismissive.

---

Do you think such a claim requires something other than dismissal? You yourself don't believe it true.

Unwillingness to confront the truth, etc. Relax.
I'm perfectly relaxed. These are the facts as I see them. The truth about the flood is as best I can tell incredibly obvious and based on the responses I consider it an appropriate description. How would you describe someone who believes in spite of such overwhelming evidence (and not just ignorant, confronted with the facts)? Would you consider them willing to confront truth?

---

I don't think I'd bother to describe them at all. Why do you feel compelled to?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Saying someone's religious belief is a lie is nasty.

---

If you can't handle your religious of philosophical beliefs being called untrue this place isn't for you. You have to have pitifully thin skin for that to really be really bothering you. And all of us have our religious beliefs called untrue/lies/false here, without exception. You just feel like complaining because you see these threads as picking on people like your family when it's nothing of the sort.

---

It's one thing to disagree. Accusing people you just said believed this in earnest to be believing in and spreading lies is another.

quote:

---

I don't think I'd bother to describe them at all.

---

That wasn't the question. You took issue with how I described them. How would you describe them? Why wouldn't you describe that phenomena?

quote:

---

Why do you feel compelled to?

---

In order to make it painfully clear what I think they are doing so as to stop your incessant mischaracterization of what I'm saying.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

No physical evidence - just faith. No evidence God hid the flood - Noah and his family saw it.

---

So God created the universe but can't leave a little physical evidence of a global flood?

---

Interesting that you asked what physical evidence supports my belief and I said none. Your conclusion (hidden in your predictable "So [insert mindless conclusion]?" question) is no physical evidence exists at all.

---

This kind of summed up the thread. Martin says it's faith. Sapper presses about evidence. Martin says it's faith. Sapper says so you admit there's no evidence. Martin says right.

Then we have a gotcha moment.

This is basically the end of it. Or should be. Further discussion is just talking past each other.

There's little point at this point in the debate to discuss truths and lies.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I don't think I'd bother to describe them at all.

---

That wasn't the question. You took issue with how I described them. How would you describe them? Why wouldn't you describe that phenomena?

quote:

---

Why do you feel compelled to?

---

In order to make it painfully clear what I think they are doing so as to stop your incessant mischaracterization of what I'm saying.

---

Why is it important to you to do that? The primary believer in the literal truth here said it's just faith.

And to answer the first question: at some point, I don't. If we're both arguing in the same realm, maybe. But this is about faith and evidence. You're not having the same argument.

quote:

---

This is basically the end of it. Or should be. Further discussion is just talking past each other.

---

Maybe for those two, but many others chimed in. A few even tried (briefly) claiming the evidence could be reconciled, these claims were addressed.

quote:

---

Why is it important to you to do that? The primary believer in the literal truth here said it's just faith.

---

He's just one of several if you read the thread (as there were some local flood types also). And if it's pure faith than evidence doesn't come into play. Others actually tried talking about evidence.

quote:

---

And to answer the first question: at some point, I don't.

---

You keep dodging. You took issue with what I said, I said nothing untrue. You wont even offer a description of it yourself so I'm not sure what your problem was.

quote:

---

If we're both arguing in the same realm, maybe. But this is about faith and evidence. You're not having the same argument.

---

I'm very much talking about faith and evidence. And several of the posters brought up "literal" (local flood) theories they thought reconcilable with evidence.

If I believe I'm arguing facts with someone arguing faith I say so and let it go. That simple. They're two different things.

These are really peculiar threads.

quote:

---

My sense is that there is no amount of history, archeology, or geology that could ever be marshalled to change the literalist's mind.

---

There is not. And further debate in an attempt to serves little purpose other than to create a lot of hostility.

Muslims also believe in the flood.

http://media.clarionproject.org/files/09-2014/isis-isil-islamic-state-magazine-Issue-2-the-flood.pdf

quote:

---

Here's why I think it matters.

There are a lot of people out there of faith that believe this stuff. They don't think much about it. It's probably not critical to their faith really. And they'd see that if they though about it.

But I don't really see a point in it. My family, for example, believes a lot a don't believe. I used to sort of argue the points. But I could see it made good people I loved feel bad. So I stopped.

I suppose here we should all have thicker skin. And I think we mostly do. But remember when you're out there as truth monitor that the people that believe these things are mainly good, harmless people. They're not hurting you. And what they believe isn't your business.

If you're keeping it strictly here...so much the better.

---

I highly doubt the non-believers on this board are bringing up how untrue the flood story is to their Christian co-workers or family and friends who just want to believe and don't want to have their beliefs challenged. I know I don't. We are on an R&P board discussing such things with people who have acknowledged by coming here, they are looking to have or read debate / discussion.

quote:

---

You've successfully resolved absolutely none of the conflict between the bible and reality.

---

A conflict only arises when one lacks proper understanding.

The flood is not that hard to believe considering the miracle of life.

also

You know we live on a rock that is spinning around a rock that is on fire !

Do you believe this is where birds come from?

quote:

---

quote:

---

You've successfully resolved absolutely none of the conflict between the bible and reality.

---

A conflict only arises when one lacks proper understanding.

---

Very often it appears to me that people move from a global flood to a local one because evidence doesn't support a global flood. You've managed to move it to a local flood then add a new claim which no evidence supports. That being the claim that all humans were still in this narrow geographic region where this flood occurred. At the same time however all other animals live outside this geographic region.

You haven't reconciled the flood with any evidence at all. You've created several new hoops that aren't supported by evidence.

One thing has tons of evidence supporting it. The other has tons of evidence that doesn't support it

quote:

---

If I believe I'm arguing facts with someone arguing faith I say so and let it go. That simple. They're two different things.

These are really peculiar threads.

---

Perhaps this would be a thread to let go. It's been quite some time since anybody has been able to tell what you're even arguing about.

Avian Dinosaurs already existed by the late Cretaceous. T-Rex is a cousin of birds, not a direct ancestor. And, by the way, he was covered in feathers. As were most theropod Dinosaurs (and possibly non-theropod Dinos). See, we have a fossil record with animals like Microraptor and Archeoptryx. We have fossil evidence that allows cladistic analysis that proves birds evolved from non-avian Dinosaurs. We have NOTHING for the flood described in the Bible. A big, fat ZERO for evidence. So please don't even start comparing Paleontological evidence to a Bronze Age fantasy.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If I believe I'm arguing facts with someone arguing faith I say so and let it go. That simple. They're two different things.

These are really peculiar threads.

---

Perhaps this would be a thread to let go. It's been quite some time since anybody has been able to tell what you're even arguing about.

---

Lying again.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Here's why I think it matters.

There are a lot of people out there of faith that believe this stuff. They don't think much about it. It's probably not critical to their faith really. And they'd see that if they though about it.

But I don't really see a point in it. My family, for example, believes a lot a don't believe. I used to sort of argue the points. But I could see it made good people I loved feel bad. So I stopped.

I suppose here we should all have thicker skin. And I think we mostly do. But remember when you're out there as truth monitor that the people that believe these things are mainly good, harmless people. They're not hurting you. And what they believe isn't your business.

If you're keeping it strictly here...so much the better.

---

I highly doubt the non-believers on this board are bringing up how untrue the flood story is to their Christian co-workers or family and friends who just want to believe and don't want to have their beliefs challenged. I know I don't. We are on an R&P board discussing such things with people who have acknowledged by coming here, they are looking to have or read debate / discussion.

---

I don't highly doubt it at all.

Plenty of evidence of the great flood, you can google it yourself but it really doesn't matter, folks are going to chose what they believe in.

The point I was trying to make is miracles are all around you, think about it. How perfect everything must be for us to be here and then realize how fragile life really is. How ridiculous is the great flood compared to
an insect's egg transformation from a caterpillar to a butterfly?

Free will to chose is one of God's most precious gifts and in this current time, it is my believe that all answers
are coming sooner than later. Best get ready.

Which of the board's unbelievers do you suspect engage in such behavior, if you don't doubt it?

I believe a cataclysmic event like a comet impact could have caused a massive flood in our human's history. There's plenty of evidence of cataclysmic floods (shorelines, water erosion) that you can find here in the US alone. Look up some prominent archeologists researching the idea of Catastrophism and see their work.

So yeah, I believe it could've happened. Not sure about the details of the countless ancient flood stories you read about but the fact that so many of these stories exist makes me think there's some merit to them.

can you link to something you consider credible evidence?

quote:

---

Which of the board's unbelievers do you suspect engage in such behavior, if you don't doubt it?

---

Vast majority if not all of them. Including you.

When you're this smart and in possession of the truth, you don't keep it quiet. And I've heard too many discussions off board to believe it doesn't happen.

If agrad regards it as his duty to stop the spread of lies with truth it's unclear why that duty ends here.

It is not that complicated, life is rather simple.

it's just that all existing evidence is to the contrary of a flood like described in the Bible.

it's not surprising that many civilizations have a flood story. The first cities were built up around water because of the abundance of resources available.if you live by water long enough you will likely experience some sort of flood.

quote:

---

I believe a cataclysmic event like a comet impact could have caused a massive flood in our human's history. There's plenty of evidence of cataclysmic floods (shorelines, water erosion) that you can find here in the US alone. Look up some prominent archeologists researching the idea of Catastrophism and see their work.

So yeah, I believe it could've happened. Not sure about the details of the countless ancient flood stories you read about but the fact that so many of these stories exist makes me think there's some merit to them.

---

Catastrophism is a term used by Georges Cuvier at the dawn of the 19th century. It's not used today. Furthermore, it refers to extinction level events in general. There is no extinction level event in the last 5,000 years. There is no comet impact that wiped out the planet in the last 65 million years. And still no evidence of a global flood. I want to see the geological evidence that proves a global flood.

do you notice and recognize miracles?