Let's go for a short hike around the forest.

[CrowCross]

You would if you could, but you cant - so you pretend you don't care about demonstrations.

if you say so.

False.

If it was that obvious, there'd be no need for faith.

Science support biblical faith.

 

[TeabagSalad]

Science support biblical faith.

No it does not. Science requires evidence, faith does not.

 

[CrowCross]

No it does not. Science requires evidence, faith does not.

Do you argue for the sake of arguing?
Do you not listen and learn from other people or MUST you have the only "correct" opinion?

Of course FAITH has no scientific evidence.
I con't prove scientifically Jesus rose from the dead. That is taken on faith in todays world. BUT at that time there were witnesses, a bunch of them that saw Jesus walking around after He rose from the dead.
At the same time I can't scientifically prove George Washington crossed the Delaware River....but there is a historic account that say's it happened. There is historical written evidence that supports Jesus rising from the dead as well as Washing crossing the Delaware River.

On the other hand there is historical written evidence that speaks of a world wide flood...and it's not just from the bible...and when we look at the record written in the historical geological column there is plenty of evidence that supports a world wide flood.

Now, if you choose not to believe it...then have at it.

 

[Gus Bovona]

. . . .
At the same time I can't scientifically prove George Washington crossed the Delaware River....but there is a historic account that say's it happened. There is historical written evidence that supports Jesus rising from the dead as well as Washing crossing the Delaware River.
. . . .

That is written like the evidence for the resurrection is equivalent to the evidence for Washing crossing the Delaware.

 

[Temujin]

Do you argue for the sake of arguing?
Do you not listen and learn from other people or MUST you have the only "correct" opinion?

Of course FAITH has no scientific evidence.
I con't prove scientifically Jesus rose from the dead. That is taken on faith in todays world. BUT at that time there were witnesses, a bunch of them that saw Jesus walking around after He rose from the dead.
At the same time I can't scientifically prove George Washington crossed the Delaware River....but there is a historic account that say's it happened. There is historical written evidence that supports Jesus rising from the dead as well as Washing crossing the Delaware River.

On the other hand there is historical written evidence that speaks of a world wide flood...and it's not just from the bible...and when we look at the record written in the historical geological column there is plenty of evidence that supports a world wide flood.

Now, if you choose not to believe it...then have at it.

There's no scientific evidence or historical evidence of any kind for a world wide flood. It's a complete fiction, unsupportable and unsupported. It is physically and scientifically impossible for such a flood to have taken place. It didn't happen. Faith that it did happen must be wilfully blind to science. Nothing in science can possibly support it.

 

[CrowCross]

That is written like the evidence for the resurrection is equivalent to the evidence for Washing crossing the Delaware.

I would imagine there is more evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.

 

[CrowCross]

There's no scientific evidence or historical evidence of any kind for a world wide flood. It's a complete fiction, unsupportable and unsupported. It is physically and scientifically impossible for such a flood to have taken place. It didn't happen. Faith that it did happen must be wilfully blind to science. Nothing in science can possibly support it.

You're entitled to have that false belief.

 

[Temujin]

You're entitled to have that false belief.

You are entitled to be ignorant of reality.

 

[CrowCross]

You are entitled to be ignorant of reality.

Reality is bigger than your 3D world.

 

[Gus Bovona]

I would imagine there is more evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.

Have you looked into the evidence for Washington crossing the Delaware? Without doing so, you couldn't say.

And, it's not just the quantity of evidence, but also the quality.

 

[rossum]

On the other hand there is historical written evidence that speaks of a world wide flood...and it's not just from the bible...

And that evidence comes from the Middle Easy only. We have no accounts of a flood covering Australia or America. Hence we might just have a very large flood in the Middle East. The evidence found in geology and biology shows that neither Australia or America were completely flooded at the time in question.

and when we look at the record written in the historical geological column there is plenty of evidence that supports a world wide flood.

No there is not. The evidence shows many local floods at different dates. For your worldwide flood, the evidence has to all be dated to the same year. Your YEC sources have not shown that all their geological evidence dates from the same year.

 

[rossum]

Reality is bigger than your 3D world.

Of course it is. The world has four macroscopic dimensions, and cosmologists are working on ideas with 11 or 13 dimensions, though the extra dimensions are quantum size, rather than macroscopic.

 

[CrowCross]

Have you looked into the evidence for Washington crossing the Delaware? Without doing so, you couldn't say.

And, it's not just the quantity of evidence, but also the quality.

I've been to Washington's crossing Pa......it looks like it happened. I've even seen a painting, ice in the water an all.

Are you trying to make a point?

 

[CrowCross]

And that evidence comes from the Middle Easy only. We have no accounts of a flood covering Australia or America.

Concerning America....you've been shown the layers of sandstone.

 

[CrowCross]

Of course it is. The world has four macroscopic dimensions, and cosmologists are working on ideas with 11 or 13 dimensions, though the extra dimensions are quantum size, rather than macroscopic.

As I said, it's bigger than their 3D world.

 

[Gus Bovona]

I've been to Washington's crossing Pa......it looks like it happened.

I hope I'm wrong, but that sounds like you're saying that because you've been to where Washington is claimed to have crossed the Delaware, that makes it seem to you that he really did. Please tell me I'm wrong.

I've even seen a painting, ice in the water an all.

'K.

Are you trying to make a point?

Yes. My point is that accepting the resurrection claim because we can say that Washington crossed the Delaware (given that they are both historical claims) is getting way out beyond your skis. Maybe there are sufficient reasons to accept that the resurrection happened, but Washington crossing the Delaware has only marginal relevance.

 

[CrowCross]

I hope I'm wrong, but that sounds like you're saying that because you've been to where Washington is claimed to have crossed the Delaware, that makes it seem to you that he really did. Please tell me I'm wrong.


'K.


Yes. My point is that accepting the resurrection claim because we can say that Washington crossed the Delaware (given that they are both historical claims) is getting way out beyond your skis. Maybe there are sufficient reasons to accept that the resurrection happened, but Washington crossing the Delaware has only marginal relevance.

We can read about both events in historical books. Why should I deny either event?

 

[Gus Bovona]

We can read about both events in historical books. Why should I deny either event?

Because not every event claimed to have happened in the past and which appears in a book, even one with events that have actually happened, has actually happened.

 

[rossum]

Concerning America....you've been shown the layers of sandstone.

And the date for those layers of sandstone is?

You need a date if sandstone, or limestone, can be evidence for the Genesis flood. If the rock is from the wrong year, then it is not evidence for Noah's flood, but for some other flood.

 

[CrowCross]

Because not every event claimed to have happened in the past and which appears in a book, even one with events that have actually happened, has actually happened.

The bible isn't just a book.

Now, you may present it as that...but that's your loss.