Posted on 06/23/2008 3:05:46 PM PDT by betty boop
What’s that? Can’t find it?
What date do you propose? And what is your justification?
Yes, and Gerrit Smith in our area, John Brown? I don’t know if he was Christian.
Your correspondent should search the Scriptures for himself.
The Bible doesn’t state one. There’s no justification for any of the dates.
But if you’re looking for a Flood in the wrong time frame, of course, you’re not going to find it. That doesn’t mean it didn’t ever happen, though. It just means that it didn’t happen when you’re looking.
But if you’re looking for a Flood in the wrong time frame, of course, you’re not going to find it. That doesn’t mean it didn’t ever happen, though. It just means that it didn’t happen when you’re looking.
Nice work if you can get it. Be just as vague as you need in your claims so that they can't be checked.
That reminds me of a line from another of my favorite science fiction writers:
It does not pay a prophet to be too specific.L. Sprague de Camp
Let's summarize. Geologists gave up looking for the flood in geological strata in the early 1800s. Archaeologists and sedimentologists, two professions which have developed since then, have never found evidence of the global flood in the soils. No matter what time period you look its not there. The global flood is a local tribal myth.
You can play games with the dates all you want, and keep shifting the goalposts. But you at some point will have to face the evidence; there was no global flood.
LOL. Indeed.
The Bible doesn’t state any dates for the flood and somehow you metmom are shifting the goal posts by pointing that out.
pm
The only game playing with dates is by those who want to lock the Flood into a certain time of their choosing so they can “scientifically” deny it and then make the Bible out to be a lie.
The further back the Flood goes in time, the less evidence there will be for it as it gets lost. By locking the time in recently at a point at which people know there’s no evidence for the Flood, it’s far easier to discredit the whole thing.
It’s also incredibly intellectually dishonest.
Besides, as I’ve been told.... lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. There’ve been many things that the Bible was criticized as being historically inaccurate about that archeological evidence has demonstrated to be true.
As far as the evidence of the Flood, it’s a matter of opinion as to whether the evidence is reliable or not. I wouldn’t expect anyone who has already decided that the Bible is not true to accept as reliable evidence that proves that it is. Anyone who so wants to deny the truth of Scripture will find some way of explaining away the most obvious evidence in the world.
The most obvious evidence in the world? For the flood?
Then point it out to us.
The oceans have risen a couple hundred feet since the recent ice age, and have not receded.
Ever hear of the ice age?
Sea levels have risen some 400 feet since the end of the last ice age. Lots of areas were above water when there were two to three miles of ice stacked up on the northern parts of the US and other high latitude regions.
And there is no scientific evidence for a global flood. That's a tribal myth.
You don’t? Your relentless cherry picking throws this denial into disrepute. You’re a Johnny One-Note. You have one arrow in your quiver: Christians bad! bad! bad! On rare occasion you vary the storyline from ‘Christian’ to ‘religions’ in a bid to acquire a little credibility, so you must be aware, however dimly, that your behavior gives away your game. But, your brief departures from that One-Note do you no good, because you can’t escape your obsessive-compulsive behavior being noticed by everyone on this thread.
”I merely point out that claiming one nation or one religion has a monopoly on virtue and moral purity is nonsence. [sic]”
I don’t know who it is that claims that. Yet, you feel compelled to falsely attribute such a stance to me in order to promote your argument. Although you claim (a reasonable claim) that no religion or nation can declare a monopoly on virtue or moral purity, yet your storyline solo seems to propose that religion (especially Christianity in America) has a monopoly on evil and moral impurity. So, the one is possible, but the other is not? Your argument is so transparent that a five-year-old could see through it, yet you continue to pursue your storyline with an intensity that could bend light.
”I am aware that the United States is way ahead of average in guaranteeing human rights, and is a leader in history . . .”
. . . buuuuut . . .
”. . . but that leadership has little to do with religion.”
Not my experience. But it’s become obvious by now that over our lifetimes our experiences have varied markedly, one from the other.
”White churches in the South did not lead the march.”
There were no other white churches in America save those in the south? Why do you qualify your last statement, confining it to white churches in the South, when you lead off with the very sweeping statement that religion has little to do with American leadership?
Humans and proto humans were supposed to have been hunter/gatherers during all known ice ages. Why then is anybody finding cities beneath the waves if the rise in ocean levels which buried them was brought about by meltoff following ice ages?
So, if the ocean levels have risen post flood, then most of the evidence in the way of sediment would be under the ocean, on the ocean floor.
If the areas we are living on were that high at that time, the of course there would be a dearth of evidence. Archaeologists would be digging in the wrong places. And then they claim the Bible is wrong because they didn’t find evidence for a flood.
How convenient. Dig where there’s not likely to be much or any evidence of a flood and then claim that that’s proof that it never happened.
Because those are the ones I know first hand, and they are the ones that shouted racism from the pulpit. As for Northern churches, well it's always easy to see the mote in other people's eyes.
Now that Jim Crow is gone for the law, Northern cities seem (to me) to have a bigger race problem than Southern cities.
Good. Then the next time the atheists claim moral superiority over Christians, then we can refer back to your statement.
I’d say any group claiming moral superiority over other groups is ignorant and bigoted.
Now I went to a Quaker college and find Quakers to be genuinely nonviolent and genuinely helpful in lots of ways, but as individuals and as a group, they have failings.
As for atheists, I will only say that I bet they are more likely to make good scientists than people who sign a pledge that all scientific findings must agree with a literal reading of the Bible.
Like Dawkins, for example?
Or maybe Einstein who actually added a fudge factor, called the *cosmological constant* to his calculations to make them the equations fit the theory instead of altering the theory to fit the data? And who didn't do anything about it until hard data provided by Hubble FORCED him to recant?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.