Noah's Flood and Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (from Pangea to Today) (Short Version)

Scary_Turtle

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2015
Messages
1,470

People seem to conveniently ignore all the verses saying "don't be an idiot and look for a date"..... and they keep looking for dates.

There is proof enough of a first coming, the problem is people don't have the faith to believe any of it. All proof requires faith to believe be it scientific, historical or religious.

All the bible does is state signs that "the end is near so be ready", it also says "don't panic and make a fool out of yourself" or "calm down you idiot" in various places.

There is a possibility that the world will end this century but that does not necessarily mean it will physically end... "world" also has figurative interpretations, many past "worlds" have already ended in the historic record.

I highly doubt any kind of human civilization can survive for 100,000 years nvm a few billion.
Proof does not require faith unless you have redefined faith to mean something it doesn't to fit your agenda. Evaluating facts and drawing a conclusion to form proof is not faith, faith is strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

Nope there is a 50/50 Jesus even existed and why should anyone believe the bible when it is so obviously flawed.

So now it may end but may not and if it doesn't we keep waiting for it to end so you cant be wrong. Now if it does end then its definitely God and if it doesn't "physically end" maybe morally or we become a past world (as you claim) then you can claim God again.

All of that is fact less rubbish swirling around in your head and is an unfalsifiable claim.

"I highly doubt any kind of human civilization can survive for 100,000 years nvm a few billion." finally something we can agree on but we have in one form or another been doing it for 4.5 billion years already so there is a chance.
 

rambo919

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
7,911
Proof does not require faith unless you have redefined faith to mean something it doesn't to fit your agenda. Evaluating facts and drawing a conclusion to form proof is not faith, faith is strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
You are the one that has redifined faith, faith in a religion is religious A faith, faith in "science X" is "scientific faith" etc.

Nope there is a 50/50 Jesus even existed and why should anyone believe the bible when it is so obviously flawed.
Too many extra-biblical writers of the time and shortly after confirmed his existence, try again.

So now it may end but may not and if it doesn't we keep waiting for it to end so you cant be wrong. Now if it does end then its definitely God and if it doesn't "physically end" maybe morally or we become a past world (as you claim) then you can claim God again.

All of that is fact less rubbish swirling around in your head and is an unfalsifiable claim.
Whether you are able to falisify a claim or not does nothing to alter how true or false it is..... it just highlights the limits of your abilities.

"I highly doubt any kind of human civilization can survive for 100,000 years nvm a few billion." finally something we can agree on but we have in one form or another been doing it for 4.5 billion years already so there is a chance.
And I highly doubt humanity having existed for more than 10,000 years. Patterns of advancement simply don't allow for longer unless there were previous global civilizational extinction events.
 

rambo919

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
7,911
That's a load of BS
Nope, no one actually automatically believes anything, all beliefs require a measure of faith. People are not automatons that's a fantasy, the weight of evidence is also subjective many times.
 

rambo919

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
7,911
It's definitely possible to be around 100 000 + years, it all depends on the rate of change of over time and what you're defining a "period" as.
I have noticed that the further into the past people date things the more exponentially large the figures become..... rather conveniently so. Not really different from past cultures inventing god king rulers of millennial empires.
 

Scary_Turtle

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2015
Messages
1,470
You are the one that has redifined faith, faith in a religion is religious A faith, faith in "science X" is "scientific faith" etc.
I have never come across anyone as dishonest as you. You are using faith in the wrong context to try and make faith ok when you know faith is not a reliable way to truth. Faith does not rely on facts so it is pointless.

Too many extra-biblical writers of the time and shortly after confirmed his existence, try again.
The ones who most historians say were altered after the fact....

Whether you are able to falisify a claim or not does nothing to alter how true or false it is..... it just highlights the limits of your abilities.
You see in order for something to become fact it has to be falsified the claims you are making stay claims while it is unfalsifiable.

And I highly doubt humanity having existed for more than 10,000 years. Patterns of advancement simply don't allow for longer unless there were previous global civilizational extinction events.
That's why I said in one way or another, then you trying to push the flood on me.... its a myth .... and yes humans have been around a lot longer the 10 000 years.

I would love to know how someone can look past all the facts of life to believe the things you do, it must have been a wild ride.
 

rambo919

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
7,911
I have never come across anyone as dishonest as you. You are using faith in the wrong context to try and make faith ok when you know faith is not a reliable way to truth. Faith does not rely on facts so it is pointless.
You are the one being either dishonest or ignorant. You have artificially constrained faith by expanding a fraction of the meaning to the whole.

The ones who most historians say were altered after the fact....
Yes, it's a giant conspiracy where the texts of both greek and roman authors were altered all over the world.

You see in order for something to become fact it has to be falsified the claims you are making stay claims while it is unfalsifiable.
Nonsense, whether something is a fact or not is independant of whether someone has even discovered it..... fact is not subject to observance.

That's why I said in one way or another, then you trying to push the flood on me.... its a myth .... and yes humans have been around a lot longer the 10 000 years.
No, that's actually without a flood. There is no evidence to suggest that human civilization is older, backward developmental extrapolation gives a general limit. The so called neanderthals are actually easily just either very old or mutated humans.... the theory that they were a wholly separate species or that they even existed separately from other humans is sheer speculation. It's like saying redheads are a separate species even though they are interspersed, this is obviously true because a few dead redheads were discovered a few times.

With or without a great flood the limit is the limit, exept that it's not currently possible to determaine anything more impressive than a vague one.

I would love to know how someone can look past all the facts of life to believe the things you do, it must have been a wild ride.
Looking at the way you do it..... I see nothing wild about it.
 

Scary_Turtle

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2015
Messages
1,470
You are the one being either dishonest or ignorant. You have artificially constrained faith by expanding a fraction of the meaning to the whole.
I have faith the chair will hold me up based on the fact that I have sat in the chair 1000 times and not fallen and the way you are using it to liken fact less faith (God) to fact based faith. That is dishonest and you know you are doing it.
Yes, it's a giant conspiracy where the texts of both greek and roman authors were altered all over the world.
This isn't new and historians from both sides agree with this .... https://medium.com/@eriknmanning/did-early-christian-scribes-really-completely-fake-the-josephus-testimonium-27dd2566aba1

Nonsense, whether something is a fact or not is independant of whether someone has even discovered it..... fact is not subject to observance.
if something is unfalsifiable you can never prove it is fact even if its true. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Unfalsifiability


No, that's actually without a flood. There is no evidence to suggest that human civilization is older, backward developmental extrapolation gives a general limit. The so called neanderthals are actually easily just either very old or mutated humans.... the theory that they were a wholly separate species or that they even existed separately from other humans is sheer speculation. It's like saying redheads are a separate species even though they are interspersed, this is obviously true because a few dead redheads were discovered a few times.

With or without a great flood the limit is the limit, exept that it's not currently possible to determaine anything more impressive than a vague one.
Love seeing the way you (incorrectly) see the world more of this please it hilarious. Redheads and neanderthals = subspecies :laugh: :ROFL: that made my day.

Here's where the Bible stole the great flood story from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utnapishtim just 2000 years before the noah story. The animals, rainbows and number of people the bible just changed from 12 days to 40 days. ;)

Boom!!!! the bold part is 100% so if there is no evidence to support something "vague" which stance should you take believe it 100% or not believe it at all. I chose not at all you chose believe it 100% that is the faith which is as reliable at getting to truth as flipping a coin.

Looking at the way you do it..... I see nothing wild about it.
Thats cute "NO YOU" :X3:
 

rambo919

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
7,911
I have faith the chair will hold me up based on the fact that I have sat in the chair 1000 times and not fallen and the way you are using it to liken fact less faith (God) to fact based faith. That is dishonest and you know you are doing it.
Both kinds of faith are equally faith..... both have the same requirements for belief. You are the dishonest one in that you try to elevate the one above the other in a way that is irrational.

He was a Jew, and the idea that it was all fake is one of the oldest conspiracy theories..... this is essentially potentially fake news.

if something is unfalsifiable you can never prove it is fact even if its true. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Unfalsifiability
So? It does nothing to either prove or disprove anything..... by definition.


Love seeing the way you (incorrectly) see the world more of this please it hilarious. Redheads and neanderthals = subspecies :laugh: :ROFL: that made my day.
The way of reasoning is exactly the same fundamentally.

Here's where the Bible stole the great flood story from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utnapishtim just 2000 years before the noah story. The animals, rainbows and number of people the bible just changed from 12 days to 40 days. ;)
Earliest written record does not atomatically mean earliest account. Not everyone relied on written records the way we do today and most of the earliest records both before and after the oldest did not survive.

Boom!!!! the bold part is 100% so if there is no evidence to support something "vague" which stance should you take believe it 100% or not believe it at all. I chose not at all you chose believe it 100% that is the faith which is as reliable at getting to truth as flipping a coin.
And yet you clearly believe so many things that either have not been empirically proven or are not empirically provable so you chose to believe theoretically possible models instead. You accept proof that is unfalsifiable, are you that blind or a wilful hypocrite?

When I say not at all you say 100% even though that clearly is not the case. When I say close to 100% you say not at all. Note I have never said 100% and been dogmatic about it, that's something you do. Also I require a lot stronger evidence for anything to be 100%.... you grab hold of any and everything that seems to support your position and ridicule anything that does not.... rather religious that.

Thats cute "NO YOU" :X3:
Your lack of self awareness must be purposeful.
 

rustypup

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2016
Messages
465
Wowsers. Theists sure spend a lot of energy and time trying to prop up their fantasy world.

The day they can satisfactorily explain why their magical sky-beard has such a boner for killing kids will be an interesting one.
 

Scary_Turtle

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2015
Messages
1,470
Both kinds of faith are equally faith..... both have the same requirements for belief. You are the dishonest one in that you try to elevate the one above the other in a way that is irrational.
Ok what position cant I take on faith?
With faith I can believe that goblins lick my toe nails as soon as fall asleep and when I wake up they are gone.
You cant do that with facts.

Thats the difference and why you are being dishonest.
He was a Jew, and the idea that it was all fake is one of the oldest conspiracy theories..... this is essentially potentially fake news.
ok fine all historians are wrong....

So? It does nothing to either prove or disprove anything..... by definition.
yip if something is unfalsifiable it cant be fact like my toe licking goblins

The way of reasoning is exactly the same fundamentally.
No but it is pointless to correct you.

Earliest written record does not atomatically mean earliest account. Not everyone relied on written records the way we do today and most of the earliest records both before and after the oldest did not survive.
Yeah the bible passed down for 40 years orally after Jesus's death before Mathew (which isn't his real name) wrote it but we only have a source from 250 years later ........ and everything is correct :unsure:

And yet you clearly believe so many things that either have not been empirically proven or are not empirically provable so you chose to believe theoretically possible models instead. You accept proof that is unfalsifiable, are you that blind or a wilful hypocrite?
You don't know or wont accept the difference between a hypothesis and a theory or you wouldn't be saying that.

When I say not at all you say 100% even though that clearly is not the case. When I say close to 100% you say not at all. Note I have never said 100% and been dogmatic about it, that's something you do. Also I require a lot stronger evidence for anything to be 100%.... you grab hold of any and everything that seems to support your position and ridicule anything that does not.... rather religious that.

Your lack of self awareness must be purposeful.
lol you have literally thrown out all actual evidence to try and prove the flood. I will happily believe things if there is actual proof not something that is made up pseudo science.

I have been religious I know your stand point better then you do and have read the Bible the problem is when you look at the bible critically it doesn't fit in with the world/universe we live in. The Bold part is hilarious everything you have brought up has been debunked for hundreds of years (I don't need to hold onto anything) and have been beaten to death by the religious so it is really easy to ridicule I don't even have to google but its easier to show you the facts on a legitimate site.

Then some Ad Hominem I have told you calling me names isn't going to anything but I know you get a kick out of it....... "rather religious that" as you say ;)
 

rambo919

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
7,911
Ok what position cant I take on faith?
With faith I can believe that goblins lick my toe nails as soon as fall asleep and when I wake up they are gone.
You cant do that with facts.

Thats the difference and why you are being dishonest.

ok fine all historians are wrong....


yip if something is unfalsifiable it cant be fact like my toe licking goblins


No but it is pointless to correct you.


Yeah the bible passed down for 40 years orally after Jesus's death before Mathew (which isn't his real name) wrote it but we only have a source from 250 years later ........ and everything is correct :unsure:


You don't know or wont accept the difference between a hypothesis and a theory or you wouldn't be saying that.


lol you have literally thrown out all actual evidence to try and prove the flood. I will happily believe things if there is actual proof not something that is made up pseudo science.

I have been religious I know your stand point better then you do and have read the Bible the problem is when you look at the bible critically it doesn't fit in with the world/universe we live in. The Bold part is hilarious everything you have brought up has been debunked for hundreds of years (I don't need to hold onto anything) and have been beaten to death by the religious so it is really easy to ridicule I don't even have to google but its easier to show you the facts on a legitimate site.

Then some Ad Hominem I have told you calling me names isn't going to anything but I know you get a kick out of it....... "rather religious that" as you say ;)
You are ridiculous, dripping with intolerant contempt, there is no point attempting to take anything you say seriously. Half the time I don't even know whether you actually believe anything you say. Yes you find it easy to ridicule because you display the sense of humour of a child.

I have given no ad hominem's or other insults to anyone today.... if you actually see any then it only proves that either your imagination has run off with your sense or you have a ridiculously fragile ego.... but then again you probably think this is also an insult.
 

Polymathic

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
16,684
What I don't understand is the 2nd coming of Jesus wasn't he unmarried, did not have any premarital affairs and did not commit sins like masturbation. The question is how did the have his first coming?
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
23,752
Thank you for proving your troll status with this btw
Sorry dude, but it is not trolling when you have folks like you spewing insults and nonsense all over the place. It's your nonsensical answers, to legitimate questions, that are entertaining.
 
Top