Discussing Atheism and atheistic beliefs

[Hazard]

Again, it's hard for someone that believes in creation and someone that doesn't to have this discussion when they're starting from two different ends of the field. For example, someone that doesn't believe God created the earth might say, look at this mountain, we can run test on its rock that shows it to be Xmillion years old. But if God created the earth, if he created the mountain and rock, it would already shows signs of measurable age from day one. It wouldn't start as a pebble and grow into a mountain. In the story of creation, even Adam is created as a full grown man. The point - if creating isn't real, we can't use the this rock or this item test to be Xyrs old as a means of invalidating the theory of creation.

That's why I don't debate this stuff. I just made a couple comments and wanted to be on my way. I've really no interest in the creation or god debate.

[JEVIII]

Who said the flood was a thousand years ago?? Clearly that is not the case. More like 4,359 years ago.

[Hazard]

Who said the flood was a thousand years ago?? Clearly that is not the case. More like 4,359 years ago.

I read you're post as "a thousand years ago" instead of "thousands of years"

Even still..... "Methuselah" is or was over 4800 years old

[Hazard]

I'm going to bow out of the rest of this. If another giant flood occurs - ill have my phone handy to post up that you were right.

[JEVIII]

...Even still..... "Methuselah" is or was over 4800 years old

Sorry I am still learning... where did you read that?

[Hazard]

Sorry I am still learning... where did you read that?

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wil...ees/methuselah

[Metalject]

Just info for the sake of info:

By the biblical calendar, the flood would have been approximately 4,400 yrs ago. The worlds oldest tree is approximately 5,000 yrs old, give or take a few hundred years. If that's the case and there was a flood, then that would mean the tree sprouted up right after the flood or was one of the few trees that survived the flood, the latter seeming very unlikely if there was a flood since that tree would have been very tiny at that point.

Methuselah was 969 yrs old according to the bible.

Do any of these things matter in terms of man ever existing when dinosaurs lived? No, I don't see how they do, just fun to talk about IMO.

[Hazard]

Just info for the sake of info:

By the biblical calendar, the flood would have been approximately 4,400 yrs ago. The worlds oldest tree is approximately 5,000 yrs old, give or take a few hundred years. If that's the case and there was a flood, then that would mean the tree sprouted up right after the flood or was one of the few trees that survived the flood, the latter seeming very unlikely if there was a flood since that tree would have been very tiny at that point.

Methuselah was 969 yrs old according to the bible.

Do any of these things matter in terms of man ever existing when dinosaurs lived? No, I don't see how they do, just fun to talk about IMO.

But methuselah in the bible refers to a person and not a tree. He would have been Adams great great great great grandson or something to that effect.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...528/Methuselah

[Times Roman]

Okay so carbon dating sucks..... It's inaccurate. Take your pick.....

- Amino acid racemization
- Continental drift
- Corals
- Dendrochronology
- Ice layers
- Fission Track dating
- Erosion

If testing showed the earth was even within the vicinity of 10,000 years - I'd be open for discussion but its not even close. So god formed the earth and then waited 1.4 billion years to create man.

We've now mapped the human genome. We're seeing evolution take place in front of our eyes. We're watching our broken genes rebuild and repair. I'm sorry but the science outweighs religion..... I just can't get on board with it.

there is yet another way we can measure time that is fairly accurate.

and Darwin would be semi proud.

there is a certain time table for genetic mutation. not all mutations provide beneficial results resulting in better DNA yield. On the one hand, mutations are inherently random. Yet on the other hand, they are predictable. Some only occur in the egg which are predictable, and others after the birthing process, as a result of cosmic rays actually changing a single DNA strand or a dna sequence. We know, more or less the number of cells in the human body, and the probability of a cosmic ray effecting change at the genetic level. Although cosmic rays effecting change are quite rare, we do have trillions of cells, and over a long enough period of time, it becomes inevitable. And just say 99% of these mutations do NOT promote a benefit, maybe 1% does, and get's passed on to the next generation. This process is not only knowable, but calculable. In fact, we can calculate the amount of time, more or less, it takes, when comparing DNA sequencing, the amount of time it would take to go from a pre mutative state to a post mutative state. So we can trace back modern DNA, back in time, and calculate how long it would take, to go from a sample taken from a core, let's say, or a mammoth that has been frozen for 20,000 years, to a present day specimen. The rates of mutation along these lines is fairly predictable, and provable. Because of this, we can actually extrapolate over millions of years, back to dna we find that is still mapable, how old that particular sample is.

this line of analysis is called a mutation rate, and is used to measure how long ago two divergent species actually had a common ancestor.

The bottom line is, much of this goes well beyond the 20,000 years or so the bible claims the earth was created.

Mutation rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Times Roman]

Okay so carbon dating sucks..... It's inaccurate. Take your pick.....

- Amino acid racemization
- Continental drift
- Corals
- Dendrochronology
- Ice layers
- Fission Track dating
- Erosion

If testing showed the earth was even within the vicinity of 10,000 years - I'd be open for discussion but its not even close. So god formed the earth and then waited 1.4 billion years to create man.

We've now mapped the human genome. We're seeing evolution take place in front of our eyes. We're watching our broken genes rebuild and repair. I'm sorry but the science outweighs religion..... I just can't get on board with it.

But methuselah in the bible refers to a person and not a tree. He would have been Adams great great great great grandson or something to that effect.

Methuselah -- Encyclopedia Britannica

I always thought, well, I assumed that everyone just took it as a grain of salt that instead of years, it was months or something. shit, teeth barely last 100 years with a good dental program. imagine going the last 800 years of your life with no teeth. they didn't have a dental program. they didn't have fluoridated water. if you travel to the middle east, the teeth aren't doing so good.

you know, many elephants, when they die of old age, they die because they have worn their teeth to below the gum line and they can no longer chew.

so how do you go 800 years not being able to chew your food?

so maybe when you eat manna from heaven, you don't need to chew?

..........how does that work. the not being able to chew for 800 years part?

you think it's a silly point. but how long do you think you can live with no teeth back in those days?

[Times Roman]

or do we need to evoke a god to explain the not chewing thing for 800 years?

[Times Roman]

maybe god has a good dental plan for all old testament biblical figures?

[Metalject]

But methuselah in the bible refers to a person and not a tree. He would have been Adams great great great great grandson or something to that effect.

Methuselah -- Encyclopedia Britannica

I wasn't sure what the Methuselah part of the talk had to do with the tree either...thought I missed something. Anyway, Methuselah comes from the line of Seth, Adam's 3rd son. Seth being the genealogy that links to Noah to Abraham to David and then to Jesus. Why I remember this I don't know. Useless piece of trivia I guess.

[Metalject]

or do we need to evoke a god to explain the not chewing thing for 800 years?

There is explanation for this given. For now I'm headed to bed though. Should make for a fun yet meaningless tomorrow post

[Times Roman]

it would be interesting to hear an explanation that doesn't involve quoting scripture. Quoting scripture to validate other scripture is an intellectual dead end.

If you want to give a bona fide answer, can you do it without quoting scripture?

[JEVIII]

it would be interesting to hear an explanation that doesn't involve quoting scripture. Quoting scripture to validate other scripture is an intellectual dead end.

If you want to give a bona fide answer, can you do it without quoting scripture?

That's an interesting approach. Will you play by the same rules? Any system of thought you wish to embrace and believe (Darwin, Humanism et. al.) their writings cannot be used to support your position. Imagine if all academia took that position. No paper would be able to quote a previous paper according to the rules you have set forth. Where is the real intellectual dead end?

[JEVIII]

I always thought, well, I assumed that everyone just took it as a grain of salt that instead of years, it was months or something. shit, teeth barely last 100 years with a good dental program. imagine going the last 800 years of your life with no teeth. they didn't have a dental program. they didn't have fluoridated water. if you travel to the middle east, the teeth aren't doing so good.

you know, many elephants, when they die of old age, they die because they have worn their teeth to below the gum line and they can no longer chew.

so how do you go 800 years not being able to chew your food?

so maybe when you eat manna from heaven, you don't need to chew?

..........how does that work. the not being able to chew for 800 years part?

you think it's a silly point. but how long do you think you can live with no teeth back in those days?

Nevertheless...

Extrabiblical evidence to support the long life spans of the people in Genesis is found in the Sumerian King List. This list mentions a flood and gives the length of the reigns of kings before and after a flood. There are many striking parallels between the Sumerian King List and Genesis, such as a flood event, numerical parallels between the pre-Flood biblical patriarchs and the antediluvial kings, and a substantial decrease in life span of people following the flood. One author on this subject concludes, “It is highly unlikely that the biblical account was derived from the Sumerian in view of the differences of the two accounts, and the obvious superiority of the Genesis record both in numerical precision, realism, completion, and moral and spiritual qualities.” It is more likely that the Sumerian King List was composed using Genesis for numerical information. Obviously, the Book of Genesis would only be used if the person writing the list believed it to be a true historical account containing accurate information.

[JEVIII]

Furthermore...

A mutation is any change in the sequence of DNA. All known mutations cause a loss of information. The rate at which all types of mutations occur per generation has been suggested to be greater than 1,000. We inherit mutations from our parents and also develop mutations of our own; subsequently, we pass a proportion of those on to our children. So it is conceivable in the many generations between Adam and Moses that a large number of mutations would have been present in any given individual.

Genetic bottlenecks (or population bottlenecks) occur when significant proportions of the population dies or proportions become isolated. Such a bottleneck occurred at the time of Noah’s flood when the human population was reduced to eight people (Genesis 6–9). Other smaller bottlenecks occurred following the Tower of Babel dispersion (Genesis 11). These events would have resulted in a major reduction of genetic variety.

For every gene there are two or more versions called alleles. This is analogous to the color red (gene) but different shades of red—light and dark (alleles). It is possible for “good” (unmutated) alleles to mask or hide “bad” (mutated) alleles. However, in a smaller population with less allelic variation, this becomes more difficult to accomplish, and thus mutated alleles have a greater effect.

Although Noah lived 950 years, his father, Lamech, lived only 777 years (granted we do not know if he died from old age). In addition, we do not know how long Noah’s wife lived, but Noah’s son Shem only lived 600 years. Considering that the longest recorded life span of someone born after the Flood was Eber at 464 years, it would appear that both mutations and genetic bottlenecks had severe effects on aging and life span.

[Metalject]

it would be interesting to hear an explanation that doesn't involve quoting scripture. Quoting scripture to validate other scripture is an intellectual dead end.

If you want to give a bona fide answer, can you do it without quoting scripture?

The theory is in many ways what JEVIII mentioned above. If you take the first man who ever lived and all humans came from that man, this man would have within him the DNA and genetic code that exist in all men. As time goes by and people become larger in number, the code more or less weakens. However, as time goes by, humans become stronger in terms of immunity to certain things, partially due to genetic defenses and largely due to medical advances.

You also have to take into account environmental factors. If the earth is new, there's less pollution, there's also possibly not as many yet existing viruses as well as a genetically stronger man. I know some would say we have evolved to become stronger in the past few thousand years, I disagree. We haven't become stronger, we've simply learned about what causes us to become sick and advanced medicine, that's all.

And yes, there is scripture reference to this, which I understand you asked to skip over and I understand why. It would be meaningless to you since it holds no value to you. I get that. But something holding no value to someone doesn't mean it holds no value or truth. For example, I find some of the beliefs in this thread to be insane, not comical in a laughable sense but confusing in a way that seems to imply "I choose to ignore what I don't like." And I would say both christians and atheist or any religious or belief group is guilty of this to at least some degree. People tend to be very protective of their belief system almost to the point of insanity.

Here's an example of what I'm referring to - You can present any scientific thought or proposed fact held by an atheist scientist. I can take the same thought or supposed fact and counter it with a christian scientist. Both will often make very valid points, both will often hold strong evidence that supports their claims. Yet, people will not accept anything the christian scientist says because the foundation of his belief is in God and believers won't accept anything the other scientist says because his is not. That creates a massive unfixable problem.

[thisAngelBites]

I have to marvel at the juxtaposition between taking extreme pains to discredit the corroboration of evidence produced by several reproducible, unfalsified scientific methods, but then the wholesale belief of a book thrown together by a bunch of people that supports evil, slavery, hatred and all sorts of nastiness (which then requires a whole different sort of contortion to explain away) and is self-contradictory to boot (and not to mention ripped off from pagans like the Sumerians, which objection was already reasonably anticipated).

[thisAngelBites]

And hey, Jevii, in case you are unaware, it's a form of dishonesty to cut and paste arguments that
someone else used their own grey matter to devise and to pass it off as your own thinking without giving credit - that's called plagiarism, and you have done quite a lot of it. A quick google shows the websites where the things you have posted already exist word-for-word, written several years ago. If you mean to just be a mouthpiece for someone else's thinking you should give them credit for it - it's really the arguably moral thing to do.

[Metalject]

I have to marvel at the juxtaposition between taking extreme pains to discredit the corroboration of evidence produced by several reproducible, unfalsified scientific methods, but then the wholesale belief of a book thrown together by a bunch of people that supports evil, slavery, hatred and all sorts of nastiness (which then requires a whole different sort of contortion to explain away) and is self-contradictory to boot (and not to mention ripped off from pagans like the Sumerians, which objection was already reasonably anticipated).

I don't consider myself an expert on the bible or any other religious book. I have read the bible a few times over - belief or not aside I think it's a pretty fascinating book. That said, while I've heard others say the bible supports slavery I do not know how some reach this conclusion. In the new testament, slavers are put into the same category as murderers. The book of 1st Timothy is pretty harsh on slavers. Of course someone might then point to the old testament, but there's a problem with that too. In Exodus (I think, might be Leviticus) it says any man who takes another man and sells him should be put to death. Hard to say that's a support of slavery. But it also goes on to explain how one should treat his slave should he have one, but in Hebrew in this instance the word translates to what we'd view as an indentured servant, someone who had a debt he was unable to pay any other way. But kidnaping and selling another man's freedom, I can't think of one place in the bible where this is supported.

As for supporting evil and hatred as you mentioned, I'm not sure what you're referring to specifically, but it would also be dependent on your definition of hatred and evil, at least to an extent. And just to clarify, I'm not picking a fight. I'm always curious to know how or why people thing certain ways about certain things. It's enjoyable to talk about, at least it is to me.

[thisAngelBites]

Do you speak ancient Hebrew? Maybe you can explain why so many versions of the bible were translated by people who chose to use the word slave. It seems the abrahamic god should have tried to motivate some more meticulous translaters.

Of course, we know how this is going to go - none of the translations are going to be accurate, and it's going to take a lot of contortion by a lot people to rewrite that book so that it says what we think is acceptable, instead of what people have though it has said for many years. So whichever of the many unflattering verses from the bible I would post (and we all know we are spolit by choice as far as that goes), you (or someone) are/is going to write back and give me some exegetical, translational, fault of cultural misunderstanding reason why it isn't what it appears. But then the question remains why so many people still attach so much importance to that book, in its violent (original) form, when the alleged meaning is so antithetical to what the apologists say it means. Maybe the bible is just a marketer's dream because it can be sold to anyone.

Btw, I've also read the bible, and I walked away thinking it was primitive stuff, by tribalistic people that believed in all the witchery, fairy tales and magic of childhood, fantastising of the omniscience and power of grown ups (all the more reason to do what one is told), only to fail to outgrow it all. In many ways to me it was like a psychology book more than anything.

[JEVIII]

And hey, Jevii, in case you are unaware, it's a form of dishonesty to cut and paste arguments that
someone else used their own grey matter to devise and to pass it off as your own thinking without giving credit - that's called plagiarism, and you have done quite a lot of it. A quick google shows the websites where the things you have posted already exist word-for-word, written several years ago. If you mean to just be a mouthpiece for someone else's thinking you should give them credit for it - it's really the arguably moral thing to do.

On plagiarism... this forum is not published material, hence I did not see the need to cite works. I never claimed to write any of my cut and paste material, and I would gladly of posted a link, but I can't (not enough posts). Sorry if you feel misled.

[JEVIII]

Do you speak ancient Hebrew? Maybe you can explain why so many versions of the bible were translated by people who chose to use the word slave. It seems the abrahamic god should have tried to motivate some more meticulous translaters.

Of course, we know how this is going to go - none of the translations are going to be accurate, and it's going to take a lot of contortion by a lot people to rewrite that book so that it says what we think is acceptable, instead of what people have though it has said for many years. So whichever of the many unflattering verses from the bible I would post (and we all know we are spolit by choice as far as that goes), you (or someone) are/is going to write back and give me some exegetical, translational, fault of cultural misunderstanding reason why it isn't what it appears. But then the question remains why so many people still attach so much importance to that book, in its violent (original) form, when the alleged meaning is so antithetical to what the apologists say it means. Maybe the bible is just a marketer's dream because it can be sold to anyone.

Btw, I've also read the bible, and I walked away thinking it was primitive stuff, by tribalistic people that believed in all the witchery, fairy tales and magic of childhood, fantastising of the omniscience and power of grown ups (all the more reason to do what one is told), only to fail to outgrow it all. In many ways to me it was like a psychology book more than anything.

Strange conclusions you reach for a book that has had a more positive influence on Western Civilization than any other text. Not to mention the very freedoms you enjoy were derived from Biblical and Jewish thought. You're like the dog that bites the hand that feeds it. Your conclusions are also short sighted since the Old Testament actually speaks against witchcraft and the like.

[Hazard]

Question.....

If there was a great flood.... And if it was around 4400 years ago..... How come there's no record?

The Egyptians documented a ton of stuff...... Theres no great flood mentioned in 2345bc

[JEVIII]

Question.....

If there was a great flood.... And if it was around 4400 years ago..... How come there's no record?

The Egyptians documented a ton of stuff...... Theres no great flood mentioned in 2345bc

Many countries have a flood legend. Legends are often formed from some real event. The following chart (which I did not create ) shows many of those traditions. In ancient Egypt, the Flood hero was Toth who survived the Deluge along with the Seven Sages.

[Hazard]

The chart is fine but where is a tangible piece of evidence there was a catastrophic flood. If it was a real event that took place..... There has to be some kind of evidence right? A global flood is a huge deal..... It's not just a tsunami

[Times Roman]

That's an interesting approach. Will you play by the same rules? Any system of thought you wish to embrace and believe (Darwin, Humanism et. al.) their writings cannot be used to support your position. Imagine if all academia took that position. No paper would be able to quote a previous paper according to the rules you have set forth. Where is the real intellectual dead end?

not all writings are the same mate, and you know it. Scripture is just someone recollection for the most part, handed down over generations, and finally written down. Huge probability of error and distortion.

Scientific papers are peer reviewed.

Scientific theory is testable and the results predictable over time. Predictable means you can perform the same experiment 100 times and get the same result. And it also means others can do the same test and come up with the same result too.

The process of scientific inquiry can become the foundation on which other knowledge is built. And this knowledge accumulates over time. Something that separates us from animals. Animals do NOT have the benefit of prior generations collective learning experience.

So if we were to talk quantum physics and I began to discuss Heizenbergs Uncertainty theorem, we can talk with a fairly high confidence (high 99.9%) Because the amount of uncertainty, one of which is Planc's constant, can be observed, verified, measured, and predicted with laser like precision. For me to discuss this, it would actually be appropriate in a rational discussion to refer back to other's scientific research as a basis for my discussion.


The problem with the emotion discussion with religion, is it pretends to be rational, cloaked in innuendo, parable, and other vague biblical references. Such as the rapture. At some unknowable time, under some unknowable conditions, certain unknowable individuals will "disappear" and leave some unknowable amount of the rest of us behind. And to support this line of reasoning, you are going to refer to scripture, that has been passed down from mouth to ear for hundreds of years, until someone with a modicum of education that knew how to write decides to write down this folklore from a vague and distant past with no way to fact check other than to rely on 7th generation memory which we all know is extremely flawed.

Does this pretty much sum up how you prepare to have a rational discussion on metaphysical lines?

.....just curious

[Times Roman]

Furthermore...

A mutation is any change in the sequence of DNA. All known mutations cause a loss of information. The rate at which all types of mutations occur per generation has been suggested to be greater than 1,000. We inherit mutations from our parents and also develop mutations of our own; subsequently, we pass a proportion of those on to our children. So it is conceivable in the many generations between Adam and Moses that a large number of mutations would have been present in any given individual.

Genetic bottlenecks (or population bottlenecks) occur when significant proportions of the population dies or proportions become isolated. Such a bottleneck occurred at the time of Noah’s flood when the human population was reduced to eight people (Genesis 6–9). Other smaller bottlenecks occurred following the Tower of Babel dispersion (Genesis 11). These events would have resulted in a major reduction of genetic variety.
For every gene there are two or more versions called alleles. This is analogous to the color red (gene) but different shades of red—light and dark (alleles). It is possible for “good” (unmutated) alleles to mask or hide “bad” (mutated) alleles. However, in a smaller population with less allelic variation, this becomes more difficult to accomplish, and thus mutated alleles have a greater effect.

Although Noah lived 950 years, his father, Lamech, lived only 777 years (granted we do not know if he died from old age). In addition, we do not know how long Noah’s wife lived, but Noah’s son Shem only lived 600 years. Considering that the longest recorded life span of someone born after the Flood was Eber at 464 years, it would appear that both mutations and genetic bottlenecks had severe effects on aging and life span.

OH, lookie here.... the bolded font is a rip off from this website

Do biblical literalists believe that inbreeding is the reason that, after the Ark, life expectancy dropped by 90%? - Quora

so if I want to debate, I can just put a quarter in the machine?

like I said earlier, if you do not have the intellectual horsepower yourself to debate, please remain silent. we don't like parrots around here, especially when they plagiarize others without giving them any credit.

So if I put my fist up your back and have you sit on my knee, I'm wondering what else I can force to come out of your mouth, because as far as I know, you have not yet uttered one original thought.

.............so Google Ninja, what other tricks you got up your sleeve?

[Times Roman]

Question.....

If there was a great flood.... And if it was around 4400 years ago..... How come there's no record?

The Egyptians documented a ton of stuff...... Theres no great flood mentioned in 2345bc

there is a record.

but the bible is wrong. it was not a planetary flood as described in the old testament, it was a regional flood. Shit, it might have even been caused by "Ancient Aliens"

[Metalject]

Do you speak ancient Hebrew? Maybe you can explain why so many versions of the bible were translated by people who chose to use the word slave. It seems the abrahamic god should have tried to motivate some more meticulous translaters.

Of course, we know how this is going to go - none of the translations are going to be accurate, and it's going to take a lot of contortion by a lot people to rewrite that book so that it says what we think is acceptable, instead of what people have though it has said for many years. So whichever of the many unflattering verses from the bible I would post (and we all know we are spolit by choice as far as that goes), you (or someone) are/is going to write back and give me some exegetical, translational, fault of cultural misunderstanding reason why it isn't what it appears. But then the question remains why so many people still attach so much importance to that book, in its violent (original) form, when the alleged meaning is so antithetical to what the apologists say it means. Maybe the bible is just a marketer's dream because it can be sold to anyone.

Btw, I've also read the bible, and I walked away thinking it was primitive stuff, by tribalistic people that believed in all the witchery, fairy tales and magic of childhood, fantastising of the omniscience and power of grown ups (all the more reason to do what one is told), only to fail to outgrow it all. In many ways to me it was like a psychology book more than anything.

No, I don't speak Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic. And while there are many words in all three that do not perfectly translate in English, you can look up the history of slavery in Israel to see what I was referring to. Owning or completely taking someones freedom was never allowed during the time period we're referring to. I'm not pulling that from the bible, it's simply recorded fact. If you include the time period of Jesus, that I'm uncertain what the standard was since Israel was under Roman rule at that time and was no longer an independent nation.

As far as the bibles translation, as far as I can tell the basic premise has never changed:
1. God created
2. From Abraham the Jewish race was born
3. Through David Israel became an Empire
4. Jesus was born
5. Jesus died, rose and offered salvation

That sums up the bible and that hasn't changed. Do we have all the original text, such as those written by Moses? Nope. Many of the oldest text do however still exist, from approximately 1000-500 BCE. I do understand that it's the in-between parts outside of the basic premise that many argue about, but in my opinion it's more often because people are looking for arguments since the bible is pretty simple and straightforward. That doesn't mean you have to believe anything it says, but it doesn't make it a complicated issue either.

As I've said, I enjoy talking about this sort of stuff. Although I am a christian I do have atheist friends and have been able to talk with them as well. There are times when it gets a little heated, nothing serious and only avoids serious because it's not my job to force them or anyone to think as I do. But I have known atheist who seem to get very frustrated, angry or even borderline hysterical if we talk about this kind of stuff, why I don't know, it's not like I'm doing anything to them. Your tone seems very frustrated (I could be wrong) but if it is I don't understand why.

[Times Roman]

Strange conclusions you reach for a book that has had a more positive influence on Western Civilization than any other text. Not to mention the very freedoms you enjoy were derived from Biblical and Jewish thought. You're like the dog that bites the hand that feeds it. Your conclusions are also short sighted since the Old Testament actually speaks against witchcraft and the like.

Actually, Angel is one of our more level headed members and I respect her intellect and knowledge. You, on the other hand, I'm not so sure about. your user id, which I thought was going to say 19 because of the silly plagiarizing stunt you've been pulling, so imagine my surprise when it said 46. See, at your age, you would think you would have enough worldly experience to know the consequences of plagiarism.

So we can debate til we are blue in the face, but we do NOT flame other members. And before you say I'm flaming you, you my friend, were the one plagiarizing, which is one of our deal breakers around here.

[Metalject]

The chart is fine but where is a tangible piece of evidence there was a catastrophic flood. If it was a real event that took place..... There has to be some kind of evidence right? A global flood is a huge deal..... It's not just a tsunami

If there were a global flood and everyone died, how would all of society have a record of it?

[Metalject]

there is a record.

but the bible is wrong. it was not a planetary flood as described in the old testament, it was a regional flood. Shit, it might have even been caused by "Ancient Aliens"

It was actually Al Gore that caused the great flood, I thought you'd know that. He went back in time (the internet he invented was originally a time machine) so that he could test some global warming theories. Unfortunately, his flux capacitor exploded at just the wrong time and he almost created another universe but he was able to hold in the reigns and limit it to a flood.

[Times Roman]

The theory is in many ways what JEVIII mentioned above. If you take the first man who ever lived and all humans came from that man, this man would have within him the DNA and genetic code that exist in all men. As time goes by and people become larger in number, the code more or less weakens. However, as time goes by, humans become stronger in terms of immunity to certain things, partially due to genetic defenses and largely due to medical advances.

You also have to take into account environmental factors. If the earth is new, there's less pollution, there's also possibly not as many yet existing viruses as well as a genetically stronger man. I know some would say we have evolved to become stronger in the past few thousand years, I disagree. We haven't become stronger, we've simply learned about what causes us to become sick and advanced medicine, that's all.

And yes, there is scripture reference to this, which I understand you asked to skip over and I understand why. It would be meaningless to you since it holds no value to you. I get that. But something holding no value to someone doesn't mean it holds no value or truth. For example, I find some of the beliefs in this thread to be insane, not comical in a laughable sense but confusing in a way that seems to imply "I choose to ignore what I don't like." And I would say both christians and atheist or any religious or belief group is guilty of this to at least some degree. People tend to be very protective of their belief system almost to the point of insanity.

Here's an example of what I'm referring to - You can present any scientific thought or proposed fact held by an atheist scientist. I can take the same thought or supposed fact and counter it with a christian scientist. Both will often make very valid points, both will often hold strong evidence that supports their claims. Yet, people will not accept anything the christian scientist says because the foundation of his belief is in God and believers won't accept anything the other scientist says because his is not. That creates a massive unfixable problem.

say what?

you mean like making a copy from a copy on a copy machine? the term is called replicative fade, and does not apply to DNA

but nice try

[Times Roman]

It was actually Al Gore that caused the great flood, I thought you'd know that. He went back in time (the internet he invented was originally a time machine) so that he could test some global warming theories. Unfortunately, his flux capacitor exploded at just the wrong time and he almost created another universe but he was able to hold in the reigns and limit it to a flood.

gotta love it!

so let's see, was the flood he created, was that before or after he invented the internet?

oh, that's silly, it was before.

but wait!

that would mean Al Gore is really thousands of years old. Maybe, could it be, is it possible, AL GORE is god!!!

[Hazard]

If there were a global flood and everyone died, how would all of society have a record of it?

Lol..... Made me laugh. Good point

Still tho..... There'd be some kind evidence no? When a giant chunk of ice broke off a cliff in Alaska and created a giant wave - it killed off all the trees below a certain elevation. 50 years later the tree are growing back but they are a lighter shade of green. You can see the evidence of what happened. It's still a very clear cut straight line.

It seems like everything that can be questioned has some sort of shady answer. There's not a stitch of proof. It's just all very hard to believe..... Guess that's why it's called faith

[Hazard]

gotta love it!

so let's see, was the flood he created, was that before or after he invented the internet?

oh, that's silly, it was before.

but wait!

that would mean Al Gore is really thousands of years old. Maybe, could it be, is it possible, AL GORE is god!!!

No.... He's Methuselahs cousin

[Times Roman]

some shit I ripped off from wiki:

(don't want any one to accuse me of plagiarism)

The geography of the Mesopotamian area was considerably changed by the filling of the Persian Gulf after sea waters rose following the last ice age. Global sea levels were about 120m lower around 18,000 BP and rose until 8,000 BP when they reached current levels, which are now an average 40m above the floor of the Gulf, which was a huge (800 km (500 mi) x 200 km (120 mi)) low-lying and fertile region in Mesopotamia, in which human habitation is thought to have been strong around the Gulf Oasis for 100,000 years. A sudden increase in settlements above the present water level is recorded at around 7,500 BP.[15][16]

Adrienne Mayor promoted the hypothesis that global flood stories were inspired by ancient observations of seashells and fish fossils in inland and mountain areas. The ancient Greeks, Egyptians, and Romans all documented the discovery of such remains in these locations; the Greeks hypothesized that Earth had been covered by water on several occasions, citing the seashells and fish fossils found on mountain tops as evidence of this history.[17]

Speculation regarding the Deucalion myth has also been introduced, whereby a large tsunami in the Mediterranean Sea, caused by the Thera eruption (with an approximate geological date of 1630–1600 BC), is the myth's historical basis. Although the tsunami hit the South Aegean Sea and Crete, it did not affect cities in the mainland of Greece, such as Mycenae, Athens, and Thebes, which continued to prosper, indicating that it had a local rather than a regionwide effect.[18]