Did the Flood Really Happen?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm an anarchist.

That being said, I actually am relatively unconcerned with the matter. I don't think that religion provides the order governing this society given how few people engage in religious services, read their Bibles, or are even really influenced by religious teachings. I would generally see the best way of maintaining a functioning society as still maintaining a system including punishment for wrong doing, but also just promoting basic moral norms in day-to-day living as well as mindfulness and some degree of orderliness, long-term thinking and perhaps even empathy.

Let's also look at it this way: we already have relatively godless nations in Northern Europe, but they are not known for amoral anarchy, but rather for socialized healthcare and general societal health. I am not worried at all about your concern, Mudboy. Heck, nobody actually ever believes they will go to hell, God always forgives their sins, so I hardly see the benefit of religion here.

Honestly, I would be interested in seeing any study which demonstrates a statistically significant quantitatively measurable difference in "moral behavior" between religious people and atheists.

To answer the poll question: the Flood didn't happen because the world is younger than that. The universe was created just over 40 years ago by programmers at Bell Labs.

I hadn't been reading through all the posts to notice what n4mwd's writings were. Among scientists who are creationists the terminology micro- and macro- has been basically ceased though, with only a few exceptions, since the evolutionists have stopped using such terminology too and instead use it as a rhetorical trap for creationists if the current jargon isn't utilized.

And who created the programmers and who created Bell Labs?


Yeah, practically that seems to be the issue, how the scientific community must be wrong, it has to be a conspiracy, Creationism at this point seems to resemble flat-earthers.


well, I would say that creationists tend to be stubborn, I mean, these people will still believe in such crap no matter what, who is happy to betray their own faith that easily? In that regard, they can claim I am weak and gullible as I renounced creationism.



Stop deceiving the innocent!!

Creationism is NOT science, period!

I'm not saying everything in the New Testament is real. Of course not. These texts have been gathered, fragmented, rewritten, edited, partially lost and translated during what, two millennia? Ii'm just.. uhm.. saying I don't doubt the basic concept. So.. yeah. Doesn't make much sense, I know.

Regarding sedimentary rock, it is basically mud that hardens into a rock - kind of like concrete. The majority of the Earth's crust is covered with it. If there was never a flood, such rocks should never be found in mountainous areas or in areas of high altitude, but they are.

While a global flood covering the earth may sound implausible, if you are equating it to filling your bathtub, then yes it is, but when you consider that it was a flash flood, things may be easier to swallow. For example, in the recent arkansas flash flood, they found a motorhome perched 40 feet in a tree. The water had to have been that high to float it up there. Yet, the day after, the water was at near normal levels. Something like ocean tides are concrete evidence that ocean levels can change drastically in just a few hours. The water doesn't magically disappear, it simply moves.

As far as myself being out of date with all the latest and greatest terminology, I confess that I am. I once believed that spontaneous evolution was how it all happened. That's what I was taught in school. But the theory has so many holes that it isn't funny. As soon as one preposterous subtheory falls apart, somebody comes out with a new one.

When I was in school, we were taught that life originated in some primordial goo that lightning hit and an amoeba hopped out. Later after that version was discredited, we were supposed to be the offspring of an alien science experiment called Directed Panspermia. That one didn't last too long. The last one I heard was something about cosmic pixie dust full of self-replicating proteins that somehow landed on this planet without getting burned up in the atmosphere that eventually figured out how to turn itself into a cell. They used to call that stuff Abiogenesis, but I have no clue what they call it now.

Then about 10 years ago I got ahold of a then modern biology book. It was talking about how great the discovery of piltdown man was and how it was the missing link. Piltdown man?? In a modern biology book with color pictures?? Piltdown man was accepted as a hoax almost a hundred years ago. Why is it that is still being presented as a fact to students? That's not much different from scientific fraud.

I am a software engineer and I suspect that some of you are as well. Knowing what I know about software, I was blown away when I had to study DNA for a medical degree I now have. DNA is nothing but a program - complete with subroutines and dead code. All programs must have programmers.

But anyhow, regarding the first cell. If I gave you an assignment and said go build me a mousetrap. You would probably go get some wood and metal wire and stuff and make a mousetrap. Building a mousetrap is relatively easy. Now go build me a mousetrap that has the ability to seek out raw materials and make other mousetraps who also have the same self replicating ability. Not only that, but such a self replicating mousetrap would still have to be able to catch mice. Suddenly a simple mousetrap isn't so simple. Neither is a living cell.

As far as all the comments about me being stupid, that is an old deceitful tactic that has been used for over 100 years. That is, if some else brings up a point, ridicule them. Sorry, but it wont work on me.

This proves you know nothing about plate tectonics.



Flash floods are very localized. How can water suddenly move several thousand kilometer inland to places hundreds of meters above sea level, all round the Earth at the same time? You may well believe an invisible fire breathing dragon did this.



The so call 'holes' are nothing compared with the claim that an invisible magic man produced all life forms form nowhere.



I am not aware when and where the primordial soup theory had been discarded.



What biology book??



The old analogue again. Even a computer can generate new codes for its own, and based on what you say DNA is just a program? Your ignorance.

Again, I am not a geologist, but the answer is plate tectonics.


Um... but you still don't have enough water to cover the entire surface of the earth. And high tide is a far cry from a global flood.


Same pathetic dodge that keet uses, the defense of your ignorance of vocabulary. Micro vs macro evolution is hardly a new concept, but in any case my issue was that you quite plainly failed to understand the ideas, independent of your ability to correctly use the terms.


Evolution does not deal with the origin of life, it deals with the diversification and proliferation of life. Some evolutionary biologists are also interested in the area of origins, but evolutionary biology has to have life to study.


Well, I have stated that you are ignorant of biology, which is not the same as being stupid and is a readily verifiable fact. I questioned your reading comprehension based on the fact that you obviously did not even understand the old, worn-out creationist arguments that you were trying to plagiarize. I mean, failing to understand your own sources is a pretty clear sign that there's something wrong. I really mainly brought it up because I have basically lost patience with this idiotic nonsense, and people who don't understand a field need to quit pretending that they are on an equal or greater level as the people who devote their lives to understanding actual science.

And honestly, at this point we can pretty clearly say that creationists are all some combination of profoundly stupid and/or incredibly misinformed. Creationism is a cognitive failure. There is nothing else to be said for a group of people who persist in believing things that go against all available empirical evidence.

But creationism's not science, it's magic...

Last edited by Mudboy on 28 Jun 2010, 12:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mudboy, clarify your pronouns. What is "it"?

Chuck Norris.

Are you saying we should believe what is appealing, independent of what evidence and reason tell us?

Then you'd need evolution a lot faster than biologists believe to be possible.


Magic is not part of any formulation of the theory of biological evolution that I have seen. If the reference to magic is only sarcasm and we add in your other remark: we can conclude that a proof of speciation would prove Genesis false to your satisfaction and would make you abandon your faith. I have been asked for that proof before:


Will you abandon Christianity, adopt Orwell's position, or try to refute these examples of speciation?

You are correct that literalistic Young Earth Creationism is not a an option unless you are willing to deny repeatable observation. However, I highly doubt you will obtain such an admission. Rather, I predict a shifting goalpost. Now that you have pointed to specific facts and said "Look, speciation!" n4mwd will either try to change the definition of species (ie "it's still a fly!") or, as YECs have done with me before, explicitly change the goalpost and demand an example of a new genus splitting off.

No. I think we need a better religion that teaches morality, and supports the search for truth, knowledge and wisdom.

I hope no one gets too offended, but my interpretation of old religions are:
Christianity is based on ancient paperback thriller novels.
Islam is based on the life of a crazy warlord.
Hinduism started off as idol worship, but now it is so old it is senile, and still trying to improve itself.
Buddhism is based on the life of a crazy monk.
Chinese religion is based on ancient self help books.

Gromit, why do you think speciation is what YEC's are opposed to?