[In reference to cited articles offering scientific arguments against Biblical flood]
I also read the two bits about the flood. As I stated before, when a person draws a conclusion that directly contradicts the Bible account I do not believe that individual in that subject. Both of the articles had as their conclusion the idea that no universal flood existed, that it was a myth. God is no liar, thus their entire framework etc. is off base. I readly agree that if one doesn't believe in God or the Scriptures to begin with that this is not to them 'proof.' But it is enough for me.
30 comments
Given that, you cannot trust anything or anyone because for all you know, everything around you could be an elaborate lie designed by... say, satan. That, my furry fundie friend, is no way to live a mentally balanced life.
"I also read the two bits about the flood. As I stated before, when a person draws a conclusion that directly contradicts the Bible account I do not believe that individual in that subject."So, you're saying that when a PhD biologist claims that striped goats aren't bred by having their parents look at stiped stick while mating, you don't ever trust him/her on any question concerning biology ever again? Don't rust an astronomer who doesn't believe the stars are so tiny several can be held in your hand? You really are an idiot.
"Both of the articles had as their conclusion the idea that no universal flood existed, that it was a myth."
Good. That's a solidly supported, rational, reasonable conclusion.
"God is no liar, thus their entire framework etc. is off base."
First, your God and all gods, are not real.
Second, even if he was real, in II Thess. your Bible admits that God is a liar.
"I readly agree that if one doesn't believe in God or the Scriptures to begin with that this is not to them 'proof.'"
Good for you to realize that.
"But it is enough for me."
Well, that's not so good for you.
So, no matter what the evidence, if scientists' assertions disagree with the stories in your big book of ancient fairt tales, the scientists must be wrong? You really, really are an idiot.
Typical fundie, only gets his facts from people who completly agree with him, and ignores anything less then that.
Sheesh, I hope this dude has never eaten shellfish.
God is no liar, thus their entire framework etc. is off base. I read(i)ly agree that if one doesn't believe in God or the Scriptures to begin with that this is not to them 'proof.' believe in those scriptures . And he speaks of others having off-base frameworks!
I have a question. Is it possible that, while there wasn't a world-wide flood, that there was at one point a flooding of the known civilized world (ie, the Mediterranean and Middle East) about 5,000 years ago? Just about every mythology from cultures in that area has a flood story and I've heard stuff about buildings being found at the bottom of the black sea (of course, that stuff could be wrong).
"Is it possible that, while there wasn't a world-wide flood, that there was at one point a flooding of the known civilized world (ie, the Mediterranean and Middle East) about 5,000 years ago?"
Fundamentalist in a nutshell. However, you use the computers, the medicines and whatever science discovers. So, it´s enough for them to carry on not to believe in God.
@Hollio
And if one doesn't believe in observable reality then facts, observations and measurments are not "proof" But it is to me.
As I stated before, when a person draws a conclusion that directly contradicts the Bible account I do not believe that individual in that subject. image
Nutshell award, indeed.
Fundie, dumb, and stupid is no way to go through life, mdd344.
Sidenote: Was using both dumb and stupid redundant? Sure but I felt that good ol' mdd344 deserved it.
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.
