Moderator: Moderators
For debate:pax wrote: Noah did not take a lab and a terrier and a wolf and a fox and a coyote aboard the Ark. He took a pair of canines, male and female, and from them come all the different groups of canines that you see today.
Lighten up, mate; it's only a story!Devious wrote:There is absolutely no evidence for a worldwide flood and plenty of evidence that one has never occurred. Even if there is a god, it would have to have left some evidence of a worldwide flood that we could see in Antarctic ice, coral reefs, stalactites and stalagmites, distribution of species around the planet, organization of fossils into layers, lake varves etc etc. None of these things shows any evidence of a worldwide flood so it didn't happen - unless you have a malicious and capricious god which went around cleaning up after the flood so no evidence of it remained and faking the evidence for no flood.
Yes, it most probably is ...but it seems the majority of Christians don't agree that it's only a story and so continue to teach it as being factual.Jax Agnesson wrote:Lighten up, mate; it's only a story!Devious wrote:There is absolutely no evidence for a worldwide flood and plenty of evidence that one has never occurred. Even if there is a god, it would have to have left some evidence of a worldwide flood that we could see in Antarctic ice, coral reefs, stalactites and stalagmites, distribution of species around the planet, organization of fossils into layers, lake varves etc etc. None of these things shows any evidence of a worldwide flood so it didn't happen - unless you have a malicious and capricious god which went around cleaning up after the flood so no evidence of it remained and faking the evidence for no flood.
Not according to most of my family, and a lot of my Christian friends. It's crazy to me that some of the stuff in the bible is still even relevantJax Agnesson wrote:Lighten up, mate; it's only a story!Devious wrote:There is absolutely no evidence for a worldwide flood and plenty of evidence that one has never occurred. Even if there is a god, it would have to have left some evidence of a worldwide flood that we could see in Antarctic ice, coral reefs, stalactites and stalagmites, distribution of species around the planet, organization of fossils into layers, lake varves etc etc. None of these things shows any evidence of a worldwide flood so it didn't happen - unless you have a malicious and capricious god which went around cleaning up after the flood so no evidence of it remained and faking the evidence for no flood.
[/quote]Not to mention that most if not all fresh water and salt water life forms would be wiped out when the mixture of the two changed both the salinity and ph balance of both aquatic ecosystems.
[/quote]Yes, it most probably is ...but it seems the majority of Christians don't agree that it's only a story and so continue to teach it as being factual.
Mine too. I come from a family of fundamentalist Southern Baptists, and many of my friends from (undergrad) college are fundamentalist Christians. They take everything in the Bible literally -- the six-day creation, the global Flood, the tower of Babel, the Exodus, the miracles of Jesus, the end times -- everything. It can be frustrating at times . . . why believe stuff like that without extraordinary evidence?Devious wrote: Not according to most of my family, and a lot of my Christian friends. It's crazy to me that some of the stuff in the bible is still even relevant
I'm light tho.
When it comes to fundamentalists I find that a lot of them believe that if the bible isn't entirely fact that then there's no reason to believe any of it is. That's probably why a lot of them deny anything that contradicts the bible even if it's supported by empirical evidence or even basic logic. Anything to keep the dream alive, right?Mine too. I come from a family of fundamentalist Southern Baptists, and many of my friends from (undergrad) college are fundamentalist Christians. They take everything in the Bible literally -- the six-day creation, the global Flood, the tower of Babel, the Exodus, the miracles of Jesus, the end times -- everything. It can be frustrating at times . . . why believe stuff like that without extraordinary evidence?
From one perspective, I think the fundamentalists are more consistent than the re-interpreters. If Scripture is the word of God, it can't be wrong, can it?OpiatefortheMasses wrote:When it comes to fundamentalists I find that a lot of them believe that if the bible isn't entirely fact that then there's no reason to believe any of it is. That's probably why a lot of them deny anything that contradicts the bible even if it's supported by empirical evidence or even basic logic. Anything to keep the dream alive, right?Mine too. I come from a family of fundamentalist Southern Baptists, and many of my friends from (undergrad) college are fundamentalist Christians. They take everything in the Bible literally -- the six-day creation, the global Flood, the tower of Babel, the Exodus, the miracles of Jesus, the end times -- everything. It can be frustrating at times . . . why believe stuff like that without extraordinary evidence?
Hell, given how many times the bible was transcribed, translated and edited throughout the course of it's existence even the fundamentalists might not be following the correct "word of god". Maybe it's time for a newer testament?From one perspective, I think the fundamentalists are more consistent than the re-interpreters. If Scripture is the word of God, it can't be wrong, can it?
If an omnipotent and omniscient deity intended to communicate something unambiguous, to all of us, in bronze-age times, today, and in maybe 3000 years from now, He wouldn't have written something incomprehensible, or something open to so many interpretations it might mean whatever the reader wants it to mean, would he?
Either of the above kinds of message would constitutte a failure to communicate, which is inconsistent with omnipotence.. So, either the Scripture means what it says directly, or else the deity never intended to communicate clearly with us in the first place.
