For instance, how am I to take you atheists seriously when you post something like this after I ask for PROOF, yes, that's right, MPC, proof and what does SPIN give me? An unsubstantiated statement such as this:
"There was no universal flood 5000 years ago. Archaeology has frequently proved this claim inaccurate."
How do you expect me to take you Atheists seriously? If this were a court of law and a man was on trial because someone just said he murdered someone and in court the accusor was asked: ''What proof do you have that my client killed so and so?" And the accusor said: Well I heard it from someone who was told it from someone who was told it from someone.
And the judge said: Well that's all we need for proof! Hang him high!
I'm sure you atheists would say that's O.K. especially if it were you who were wrongly accused!
44 comments
Actually, calling upon Archeological evidence is the equivilent of expert forensic testimony, while Biblical passages, by their ancient *and* anonymous nature would be the equivilent of hearsay.
There are thousands of books and research papers written on the subject. If you want proof go and read some of them. If they're not good enough for you study archeology so you can go out in the field and see the evidence first hand. You cannot seriously expect someone on a forum to do your dirty work for you and play the teacher. A few links here and there is the best you are going to get, but that is a poor substitute for a proper education.
Ok, do you know what evidence is, to begin with?, how do you dare to say that you don´t take atheist seriously if you´re not meant to be taken so?. Archaeology is a science that has analysed, tested, watched, done all sort of experiments and has drawn a conclusion. In a trial, following your analogy, they would show the evidence, not just speak and that´s all. That statement is substantiated, by works. Something like God created the world in six days or snakes speak is not substantiated, and not just by archaeology, but by common sense.
While it may be second hand (in a way), we're relying on the authority of many thousands of people studying not only archaeology, but also geology, anthropology, and numerous other fields. I can talk with those scientists if I had a mind. I can't talk to your god (and no, prayer and vague "feelings" don't count).
"There was an universal flood 5000 years ago. The Bible has, one time, stated that this claim is accurate."
Except that we can actually produce this proof. There are plenty of sources we can present to anybody who wants them. All you have is one dusty old book, and vague claims about how you need to have faith that God exists. So, you lose.
Oh yeah, totally agreed on this one. God, I hate unsubstantiated statements like "The sky is blue", "Gravity exists", "The earth is round".
It might have been good for the anti-flood post to contain a couple of source citations, however, Tony doesn't really seem to care about sources since he's willing to believe the ancient fairy tale in the Bible with no supporting evidence.
There was no universal flood 5000 years ago. Archaeology has frequently proved this claim inaccurate your theory first" rhetorical game is over. It's the creationists' turn to provide their proof.
Oh, sorry, sit down, TonyN. First we're going to spend a couple of years on geology, then a couple on archeology. That should give you the rudiments, and then we can start talking proofs.
How do you expect me to take you Fundies seriously? If this were a court of law and a man was on trial because someone just said he murdered someone and in court the accusor was asked: ''What proof do you have that my client killed so and so?" And the accusor said: Well his fingerprints are on the gun and the bullet in the body matches the gun.
Actually his analogy is totally off the mark. The correct analogy is: Believing in the global flood is like a murder trial without a body, a murder weapon, a witness, blood or even a supposed victim. The prosecution having nothing but an anonymous note saying: He did it!
Actually the proseccuter would bring pyshical evidence proving the said person was a murder.
Now, where is your evidence saying the othe person is a liar.
Tony should proof that I don't have a dragon in my garage. Also:
"And the accusor[sic] said: Well I heard it from someone who was told it from someone who was told it from someone" who heard it from God.
You wouldn't doubt God, would you?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
