The Flood

[Haggis_McMutton]

McMutton,

If we approach trying to figure out what occured in the past while falsely assuming that a random distribution of dust particles came together into a spheroid called earth over billions of years, what is going to happen whether you claim I'm rejecting science or not? Do you claim I'm rejecting something that does not rest on that having occured?

How about I theorize and you tell me what's wrong with one or more theory? What should be seen that is not seen if gem filled earth was instantly created out of non-matter less than 7,000 years ago and less than 4,500 years ago there was an earthwide flood leading to a layer of fossil filled sedimentary rock on earth's surface?

Want me to poke at a theory? Did particles evolve into atoms and atoms into molecules and molecules into worlds and stars and galaxies and inorganic compounds evolve into living materials and living materials evolve into more and more complex plants and animals and finally into humans who can now intelligently control future evolution without there being a decrease of entropy in the Universe?

Want to discuss whether or not Him flooding earth and killing life on it as a result would have been an immoral thing for Him to do? How many non-nephil humans were on earth when the flood started if the flood actually occured and started at some point? Earth was filled with extreme violence and famine perhaps. What if the flood actually helped prevent early human extinction and there were souls who had died that were crying out and desiring judgement? How about go here and look for links and get back to me?

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 9#p2659419

You seem to be mildly annoyed, and you aren't littering your sentences with "perhaps" and such anymore, maybe you aren't a troll after all.

I'm not sure what you're saying in the first paragraph. Are you saying science may rely on a false assumption? If it is what you're saying it falls within my second point:

Yep, gem filled earth, Russel's teapot, the matrix, whatever. They could all be true, however with our current technology we cannot test them, we have no evidence to lead towards them and with our current knowledge it seems far more likely that they are not true.
As i said, nothing outside of systems we created is knowable with 100% certainty. If you want to, you can just stop there. "We can't know for sure so i don't take a stance." Or you can take a stance on the best evidence we have at this moment, which is what everyone does in their day to day matters, however some people seem to stop doing that very thing when it comes to more abstract matters
Based on our current evidence would you take a stance on the question of whether the stars are massive gaseous bodies, or whether they are holes in the sky?
Would you take a stance on whether a mythical monster has been living at the bottom of Loch Ness for hundreds of years, or whether a number of hoaxes and people's desire to believe has led to that myth?
And would you take a stance on whether whole established bodies of science that people have attempted to refute too many times to count without success, are mostly correct, or whether our best minds are hopelessly wrong and you can prove that with a few pictures and some essays on a online risk forum?

Entropy, really? The universe is a big place, you really think a bit of organic goo remodeling itself in an unremarkable corner of an unremarkable galaxy screws entropy over?

And sorry, but no i don't actually want to discuss semantics about the conditions in which our supposed creator destroyed virtually all life. I mean I'm only human and i never had to scrap > 99.99% of a program, that must be some really bad design. He might want to read some books on good design practices, shit like that shouldn't happen.

[Lionz]

McMutton,

Whether or not I was saying that comes down to definition maybe, but should we assume it's true OR untrue that a random distribution of dust particles came together into a spheroid called earth over billions of years? Should we assume it is and even make adamant claims to children based on that?

You call on the matrix in attacking an idea that He instantly created a gem filled earth out of nothing maybe, but consider Bode's law and ask yourself what's more logical about a random distribution of dust particles coming together into a spheroid called earth over billions of years maybe... perhaps someone being told something is true from childhood can help them see things in opposition to that something as illogical and you should keep that in mind in answering.

http://www.plainscreation.org/Scientifi ... Orbits.php

Maybe there is a star that is not simply a gaseous body and there is one or more dinosaur type creature living in Loch Ness for all I know. What do I know and what should be assumed?

You refer to organic goo and a corner of a galaxy in addressing the third section or whatever maybe, but did I simply refer to a corner of a galaxy? Do you hold that all of that happened and hold that all of that happened without there being an increase in entropy in the Universe?

I've been accused of repeating stuff perhaps, but you did not tell me what should be seen that is not seen a if gem filled earth was instantly created out of non-matter less than 7,000 years ago and less than 4,500 years ago there was an earthwide flood leading to a layer of fossil filled sedimentary rock on earth's surface maybe.

Free will has pros and cons and has helped lead to rebellion and violence and the flood perhaps, but who wants to live in a Universe without love?

[Lionz]

And would you take a stance on whether whole established bodies of science that people have attempted to refute too many times to count without success, are mostly correct, or whether our best minds are hopelessly wrong and you can prove that with a few pictures and some essays on a online risk forum?

What are you really asking with this? What's not resting on an assumption that earth is the product of a random distribution of dust particles coming together over billions of years? There are giant and complex towers resting on unsound foundations in the first place maybe. I'm misquoting in here for all I know maybe.

[PLAYER57832]

And would you take a stance on whether whole established bodies of science that people have attempted to refute too many times to count without success, are mostly correct, or whether our best minds are hopelessly wrong and you can prove that with a few pictures and some essays on a online risk forum?

What are you really asking with this? What's not resting on an assumption that earth is the product of a random distribution of dust particles coming together over billions of years?

Evolution, theories of individual lines of descent as shown by fossils, Plate techtonics, how geologists believe (or, in some cases truly know how) earth forms were created.

There are giant and complex towers resting on unsound foundations in the first place maybe. I'm misquoting in here for all I know maybe.

As I and others have patiently explained (only to be ignored repeatedly), while some ideas are "bottom up", mostly those are things humans have constructed. Alegebra, for example, depends on understanding mathematics. A house that is built depends on a foundation.

Science very often works in reverse. We are not building anything, we are trying to understand. We see first what is obvious and then dig deeper (in geology, paleontology, literally "dig deeper") to get more complex answers.

Your whole idea that Evolution is in any way, shape or formed to this idea you have of random dust particles coming together is just plain wrong. IN fact, the earth and all we see could have been created by random dust particles or it might have been created through a more controlled process -- either with or without God. The answer, right now, lies outside of science. Evolution is not even depended on a single biologic origin, despite what you seem to believe. Scientist have thought they eventually might find a single origin source, but that is just speculation.

The proof of more recent evolution, however, is not outside of science and is very solid, unlike anything to do with initial origins. That mamals came from a predecessor to modern fish is pretty well established, for example. As is that birds seem to have arose from dinosaurs.

[Lionz]

There might be both similarities that are the result of shared ancestry and similarities that are the result of design by a common Designer, but who claims evolution does not occur? I might not buy that mammals came from a predecessor to modern fish or buy that birds rose from dinosaurs, but you're free to bring up specific fossils for discussion and try to convince people of stuff perhaps.

[PLAYER57832]

There might be both similarities that are the result of shared ancestry and similarities that are the result of design by a common Designer, but who claims evolution does not occur?

You deny or show you just don't understand most of what scientists consider to be evolutionary theory.

I might not buy that mammals came from a predecessor to modern fish or buy that birds rose from dinosaurs, but you're free to bring up specific fossils for discussion and try to convince people of stuff perhaps.

Already did.. you ignored it.

[Woodruff]

Woodruff,
Where am I lying? Maybe I'm a technical person, but does A equal B and is either something that is my personal statement?
A. We should not have as many fossils as we do.
B. So there should not be many fossils, right?
Note... neither includes a claim of me in here or in anywhere else depending on definition at least maybe... I might post quite a bit of images with words that are not my own... maybe we should weigh evidence for ourselves and I know little to nothing.

1) You stated that none of your images said that, which was a lie.
2) You can't possibly lie about anything else BECAUSE YOU DON'T SAY ANYTHING ELSE. You blabber on and on and take zero credit for anything you say. You do this intentionally, so that you don't have to stand up to any criticism while pretending that you do it "to avoid lying".

Your entire presence on this site is such a lie that I don't know how you don't burst into flame just from existing. Satan, if he exists, must count you among his most favorite people.

[King Doctor]

Satan, if he exists, must count you among his most favorite people.

This is a highly offensive thing to say.


You must be a very desperate troll indeed if you are willing to stoop that low in order to attempt to provoke a reaction.

[Woodruff]

And sorry, but no i don't actually want to discuss semantics about the conditions in which our supposed creator destroyed virtually all life. I mean I'm only human and i never had to scrap > 99.99% of a program, that must be some really bad design. He might want to read some books on good design practices, shit like that shouldn't happen.

Free will has pros and cons and has helped lead to rebellion and violence and the flood perhaps, but who wants to live in a Universe without love?

1) God created us with free will, apparently believing himself that was a good idea.
2) God destroyed the world by flood because people were following their own free will and so he decided that was a bad idea.
3) God allowed a minutely few of those people who least followed their own free will to survive and further the human race which still does clearly follow their own free will.

Sounds like pretty crappy design practices to me, too. God doesn't seem to have thought through what he wants very well.

[Woodruff]

Satan, if he exists, must count you among his most favorite people.

This is a highly offensive thing to say.
You must be a very desperate troll indeed if you are willing to stoop that low in order to attempt to provoke a reaction.

Sure, troll. It is well-documented that Satan prefers people with those characteristics.

[King Doctor]

Sure, troll. It is well-documented that Satan prefers people with those characteristics.

(1) Alleging falsehoods about a person, then attempting to insult their religious convictions on the back of those accusations is a very childish and offensive thing to do. You know that. Your disingenuous attempts to wriggle out of it are fooling nobody.

(2) Attempting to turn this around on me and Lionz, accusing us of being the trolls, is clearly not going to work when you are the only person in this thread spoiling for a fight and hurling religious epithets.

[Woodruff]

Sure, troll. It is well-documented that Satan prefers people with those characteristics.

(1) Alleging falsehoods about a person, then attempting to insult their religious convictions on the back of those accusations is a very childish and offensive thing to do. You know that. Your disingenuous attempts to wriggle out of it are fooling nobody.

(2) Attempting to turn this around on me and Lionz, accusing us of being the trolls, is clearly not going to work when you are the only person in this thread spoiling for a fight and hurling religious epithets.

You're not very good at the passive aggressiveness thing either. Is there anything you're good at?

[AAFitz]

Sure, troll. It is well-documented that Satan prefers people with those characteristics.

(1) Alleging falsehoods about a person, then attempting to insult their religious convictions on the back of those accusations is a very childish and offensive thing to do. You know that. Your disingenuous attempts to wriggle out of it are fooling nobody.

(2) Attempting to turn this around on me and Lionz, accusing us of being the trolls, is clearly not going to work when you are the only person in this thread spoiling for a fight and hurling religious epithets.

You're not very good at the passive aggressiveness thing either. Is there anything you're good at?

Oh, sorry. I thought someone was looking for me.

[notyou2]

Molehills?

[2dimes]

And sorry, but no i don't actually want to discuss semantics about the conditions in which our supposed creator destroyed virtually all life. I mean I'm only human and i never had to scrap > 99.99% of a program, that must be some really bad design. He might want to read some books on good design practices, shit like that shouldn't happen.

Free will has pros and cons and has helped lead to rebellion and violence and the flood perhaps, but who wants to live in a Universe without love?

1) God created us with free will, apparently believing himself that was a good idea.
2) God destroyed the world by flood because people were following their own free will and so he decided that was a bad idea.
3) God allowed a minutely few of those people who least followed their own free will to survive and further the human race which still does clearly follow their own free will.

Sounds like pretty crappy design practices to me, too. God doesn't seem to have thought through what he wants very well.

The world didn't get destroyed by flood. Unless you're talking about some other time when the ark had to come to this planet.

How can allowing us to choose to turn away from his ways because of awesome hookers be bad? It's no different than the fact that you could live on a diet of potato crisps and beer. Everyone knows this is a bad idea but some dude did it.

To blame God when people make bad choices is just like blaming the person's earthly parents. Sure it would be better if you as a father taught your kids how to make good decisions. At some point in life you won't be there to direct them, they need to make those decisions. If your son or daughter becomes a killer, it's probably not your fault. In some cases it might be influenced by bad parenting but that person still has the ability to make the final choice on every action.

Think about it, you have the choice to decide how you act and what you do next, no matter what happens. Maybe I'm wrong and you don't. I know I do.

[Woodruff]

And sorry, but no i don't actually want to discuss semantics about the conditions in which our supposed creator destroyed virtually all life. I mean I'm only human and i never had to scrap > 99.99% of a program, that must be some really bad design. He might want to read some books on good design practices, shit like that shouldn't happen.

Free will has pros and cons and has helped lead to rebellion and violence and the flood perhaps, but who wants to live in a Universe without love?

1) God created us with free will, apparently believing himself that was a good idea.
2) God destroyed the world by flood because people were following their own free will and so he decided that was a bad idea.
3) God allowed a minutely few of those people who least followed their own free will to survive and further the human race which still does clearly follow their own free will.

Sounds like pretty crappy design practices to me, too. God doesn't seem to have thought through what he wants very well.

The world didn't get destroyed by flood. Unless you're talking about some other time when the ark had to come to this planet.

How can allowing us to choose to turn away from his ways because of awesome hookers be bad? It's no different than the fact that you could live on a diet of potato crisps and beer. Everyone knows this is a bad idea but some dude did it.

To blame God when people make bad choices is just like blaming the person's earthly parents. Sure it would be better if you as a father taught your kids how to make good decisions. At some point in life you won't be there to direct them, they need to make those decisions. If your son or daughter becomes a killer, it's probably not your fault. In some cases it might be influenced by bad parenting but that person still has the ability to make the final choice on every action.

Think about it, you have the choice to decide how you act and what you do next, no matter what happens. Maybe I'm wrong and you don't. I know I do.

You seem to have me confused with someone else here.

[2dimes]

The servers you mean? I just clicked the quote box there and responded to what was written.

[2dimes]

Sounds like pretty crappy design practices to me, too. God doesn't seem to have thought through what he wants very well.

He wanted kids, he made some, he hopes they turn out semi ok and love him. If they don't he'll disown them and forget they exist. If they do he'll love them back forever.

[Nola_Lifer]

Well, what happened if there was more the one flood. I mean Katrina that hit the Gulf Coast was pretty worth noting, but there was other Hurricanes that caused floods. Just recently there was a flood in Tennessee and last summer floods in England. There were more floods last month that where a river over flowed and killed some campers. All having local impact, so maybe there wasn't one huge flood but many different ones that affected different cultures and communities at that time. Most of these civilizations didn't have a time device or writing to say x happened at y time, so there is no doubt in my mind that floods did happen and that there are many cities that are found off the coast of places such as Cuba and Japan. I mean even the civilization was destroyed by a Tsunami caused by the volcano that is dormant on the Greek isle of Santorini, could this not be interpreted as a flood? Forget about a vengeful god and all that good bullshit and thing about the balancing power that nature just is.

[Woodruff]

Sounds like pretty crappy design practices to me, too. God doesn't seem to have thought through what he wants very well.

He wanted kids, he made some, he hopes they turn out semi ok and love him. If they don't he'll disown them and forget they exist. If they do he'll love them back forever.

In your world, "disown" means "death by drowning"? Or perhaps something less evil, like "burning in hell forever".

The servers you mean? I just clicked the quote box there and responded to what was written.

And in quite a nonsequitorial fashion, I might add.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Whether or not I was saying that comes down to definition maybe, but should we assume it's true OR untrue that a random distribution of dust particles came together into a spheroid called earth over billions of years? Should we assume it is and even make adamant claims to children based on that?

I'm still not sure what you're saying with the random distribution of dust particles thing. Are you asking me if between the competing theories:
1. The earth formed over billions of years due to different universal forces from some kind of matter in a more or less random way.
2. The earth was created as is by a supernatural being who we have no objective reason to believe exists.
We should choose to consider 1 true? Well, yes we should, positing the existence of a supernatural being to help explain things makes as much sense as me positing the existence of a Super-god, who creates a god for every universe. And if to the best of our knowledge we consider it true, then yes e should teach it to kids.

You call on the matrix in attacking an idea that He instantly created a gem filled earth out of nothing maybe, but consider Bode's law and ask yourself what's more logical about a random distribution of dust particles coming together into a spheroid called earth over billions of years maybe... perhaps someone being told something is true from childhood can help them see things in opposition to that something as illogical and you should keep that in mind in answering.

http://www.plainscreation.org/Scientifi ... Orbits.php

So you're basically making a weak version of the rare earth/goldilocks zone argument here? If you want to go that way, i suggest you go the distance and claim that the fundamental constants of the universe seem to be suited to creating complexity, that at least is a decent argument(though obviously not nearly enough "proof" to posit the existence of a supernatural creator).
Look, i could analyze that Bode's law thing(even the creationist website you linked says it doesn't really hold, and one of the bodies is "not really a planet"), but let's assume it did hold. Actually let's say it holds perfectly(not with 5% error). What does that mean? It means that we have 10 numbers, and we managed to find a formula that generates those numbers.(a=0.4 + 0.3*2^m, for m in [0,infinity]). Now, you think this is enough to posit the existence of a supernatural creator? Really? What amazes me most about these discussions is how rigorous some people are in debating every little detail and apparent small inconsistency in scientific theory and yet how willing they are to posit the existence of a magical being beyond our comprehension to solve every little problem.
Even if something happened that completely shattered modern science, or even if we realize that the earth is the only place in the whole universe suitable for life, it still wouldn't matter one little bit for the debate about god, because those observations say nothing about god. Positing the existence of god is basically giving up, it's saying i don't know how this happened, but i don't want to keep looking so i'll say a being beyond my comprehension made it so.

Maybe there is a star that is not simply a gaseous body and there is one or more dinosaur type creature living in Loch Ness for all I know. What do I know and what should be assumed?

So you are saying you don't take a stance on whether the stars are holes in the sky and on whether there are dinosaurs in Loch Ness? Hmm let's go on: The earth is flat. All diseases are caused by curses. All world leaders are actually LizardMen in disguise. I am actually the only being in existence and all of you are a figment of my imagination. The world was created last Tuesday by a blue frog who demands you sacrifice skittles to it regularly, you get the idea. Yes any of them *could* be true. Will you know seriously consider them? When you get sick will you go and try to get the curse removed, if you ever go to Australia will you worry about being to close to the world's edge? Will you consider why a blue frog might do with all those skittles? And will you ponder the moral implications if everything you know being a figment of my imagination? If you aren't doing all of those things, then you are taking a stand on those issues. You are admitting that you cannot know for sure whether they are true, but based on what evidence you have you are believing and acting as if they were false. The same as everybody else.

You refer to organic goo and a corner of a galaxy in addressing the third section or whatever maybe, but did I simply refer to a corner of a galaxy? Do you hold that all of that happened and hold that all of that happened without there being an increase in entropy in the Universe?

Well the part about life from non-life all the way up to humans does refer about a corner of the galaxy and goo.
As for the part about atoms and molecules. I really don't know enough about how those were formed to give you a definite answer on this one. As i understand it, and i might be wrong, if at time 0 all the universe was concentrated into a single point(as in it's density was basically infinite), then entropy would also be basically infinite. So yeah, i guess it's decreasing.
However, as i said before, even if it wasn't, it hardly makes sense to say :"Aha, i've found a small inconsistency in the current scientific model, therefore god did it"

I've been accused of repeating stuff perhaps, but you did not tell me what should be seen that is not seen a if gem filled earth was instantly created out of non-matter less than 7,000 years ago and less than 4,500 years ago there was an earthwide flood leading to a layer of fossil filled sedimentary rock on earth's surface maybe.

This was my whole point with the matrix. What should be seen that is not seen if the earth is actually a illusion made to keep our minds at ease. Nothing, but we have no reason to believe that to be true, so we fall back on the simplest explanation, that we aren't in the matrix, and weren't created 7000 years ago with an earth that seems to be much older.

Free will has pros and cons and has helped lead to rebellion and violence and the flood perhaps, but who wants to live in a Universe without love?

Woodruff answered this pretty well already, I'll just add that free will and and omniscient creator don't mix all that well.

One other thing, did you read this:

The fact that nothing anyone says is 100% sure to be true is one that is inherent to our communication system and even our perception of the universe. If someone asks you: "Are you sure you didn't forget the keys". And you answer: "Yes, I'm sure" instead of "Well, to the best of my recollection i did take them, and i have just now checked to see if they're in my pocket and i felt something that i can, from previous experience, ascertain, with some degree of certainty, feels like my keys do, but we can only perceive our own subjective reality, so maybe", it wouldn't really be considered lying, would it? In short, it's redundant to put "maybe" after every sentence, we already know you don't have objective insight into the inner working of the universe.

Do you disagree?

[King Doctor]

You're not very good at the passive aggressiveness thing either. Is there anything you're good at?

Yet another weak attempt to make me get defensive and to engage in a flame-war with you.


Again, not going to work troll. You will need to find some new ideas.

[PLAYER57832]

Well, what happened if there was more the one flood. mean Katrina that hit the Gulf Coast was pretty worth noting, but there was other Hurricanes that caused floods. Just recently there was a flood in Tennessee and last summer floods in England. There were more floods last month that where a river over flowed and killed some campers. All having local impact, so maybe there wasn't one huge flood but many different ones that affected different cultures and communities at that time. Most of these civilizations didn't have a time device or writing to say x happened at y time, so there is no doubt in my mind that floods did happen and that there are many cities that are found off the coast of places such as Cuba and Japan. I mean even the civilization was destroyed by a Tsunami caused by the volcano that is dormant on the Greek isle of Santorini, could this not be interpreted as a flood? Forget about a vengeful god and all that good bullshit and thing about the balancing power that nature just is.

Of course there was more than one flood. Not even young earthers deny this! The Nile flooded many times throughout history.
The question of the Bible is one very, very, very big flood that destroyed virtually all life.

Biblically, there are only a few possibilities:
1. That the flood covered all of Earth and killed all life, except that on the Earth, and it happened recently. This is the position of most young earthers. Often a date of 5,000-6,000 years is given. That assertion (the recent date) is disproven by science.

2. There was a flood that covered all of Earth and killed virtually all life (some say aquatic life might have been excepted, some say not). There is no true verifiable evidence of this yet known, is some evidence that might seem to contradict that, but nothing truly certain. The flood might have happened, but just not have left evidence we have yet discovered. Personally, i feel that if this is the case, it probably happened much, much earlier than most people currently think. (and that would mean that human life is older than has been previously thought as well). Maybe evidence of this will someday be found.

3.There was a flood that killed all life known to the recorders of the Bible. This might well be true. There is actually archeological evidence of such an event. This would not be a lie, because the recorders of the Bible would not have known of other life.. and well, even if God tried to say it, it might not have been something the people were really capable of understanding. Again, it could have happened much earlier than is thought, even by archeologists. If so, evidence might be found.

4.The flood was an allegorical story, not literally true. This is what many modern Christians and Jews believe. (the flood is not specifically mentioned in the K'ran, though many Muslims do follow the Judeo-Christian believe in this).

[PLAYER57832]

The fact that nothing anyone says is 100% sure to be true is one that is inherent to our communication system and even our perception of the universe. If someone asks you: "Are you sure you didn't forget the keys". And you answer: "Yes, I'm sure" instead of "Well, to the best of my recollection i did take them, and i have just now checked to see if they're in my pocket and i felt something that i can, from previous experience, ascertain, with some degree of certainty, feels like my keys do, but we can only perceive our own subjective reality, so maybe", it wouldn't really be considered lying, would it? In short, it's redundant to put "maybe" after every sentence, we already know you don't have objective insight into the inner working of the universe.

True. However, when you post picture after picture referring to, say, a 5,000 year flood, as for an explanation of how this could reconcile with various other things, etc. and then simply come back with "did I really say the flood was 5,000 years old?"... or "did I really say there was a worldwide flood", while this might not technically be lie, it is deception.

Putting information forward and then saying "oh, gee... that was not what I really think", is not a way to avoid "lying", it is a way to convince people you mean nothing you say, are not engaged in honest debate, are basically just toying with people.

[Lionz]

Player,

What suggests to you that I just don't understand something considered to be evolutionary theory?

Recombination during meiosis selects from existing alleles and gives different combinations of them in offspring? And there are sometimes RNA transcription errors that lead to mutations that are beneficial in terms of surviving and passing on genes? And natural selection leads to there being beneficial mutations passed on over time? What does that say about how many seperate family trees there are even if that occurs? There might be both similarities that are the result of shared ancestry and similarities that are the result of design by a common Designer.

Where have you brought up a fossil for discussion that I ignored and did not address? There's one or more cc forum search function and an example should not be too hard to find if there is one maybe.

There is evidence that earth was covered by a flood perhaps, but perhaps evidence for one individual is not necessarily evidence for another.

You've confused words of someone else with words of me again maybe. You quote words of Haggis as if they're words of mine perhaps. And you've also thrown in more casual quotes with things I've never said as if I've said them maybe.

Woodruff,

Does A = B regardless of whether or not I said an image did not say something?

And do you define angels and nephilim as people? Either way... if earth was filled with extreme violence and there were departed souls begging for judgement just prior to the flood, who can righteously blame Him if He caused the flood? What if reincarnation even occurs and there are individuals who were killed from the flood that have lived peaceful lives on earth since?

Nola,

There very much has been more than one flood on earth perhaps, but what can we do to explain Genesis 7:19-24 and Genesis 9:11-17 if there was not an earthwide flood?

http://yahushua.net/scriptures/gen7.htm
http://yahushua.net/scriptures/gen9.htm

Also, there's been an analysis of 600 or so individual flood traditions that revealed widespread concurrence on essential points including prior corruption of mankind and a flood warning unheeded by masses and a survival vessel and the preservation of up to eight people with representative animal life and sending forth of a bird to determine suitability of reemerging land and significance in the rainbow and descent from a mountain and re-population of the earth from a single group of survivors and Noah has even been called Nu-u in Hawaii and Nuh in Sudan and Nu-Wah in China and Noa in the Amazon region and Noe in Phrygia and Noh and Hiagnoh among the Hottentons perhaps.





Note: Both contain things found on the net and neither contains a word of my own depending on definition at least maybe

Haggis,

There are objective reasons to believe in Him and I wasn't asking you if you should choose to consider 2 true between 1 and 2 maybe. Want me to refer to some evidence for Him?

Do you theorize that there were 40 plus writers spread across hundreds of years who all made up 65 plus works that back eachother up? And that they all decided to claim things that were not true without collaborating with one another in order to ironically or not support religion that's opposed to lying? And were there followers of Him who had mass hallucinations of seeing Him perform miracles and of seeing Him resurrected who were later being martyred because of their faith?

What's the rare earth/goldilocks zone argument?

I might be able to prove little to nothing, but if the planets don't match that of a chance random process of cosmic evolution as predicted by the nebular hypothesis and instead appear to be following a formulated pattern... is that not at least evidence against the nubular hypothesis and evidence in support of the heavens being intelligently laid out? Now what actually suggests earth is the product of a random distribution of dust particles coming together over billions of years?

Perhaps we very much should weigh evidence and take stands on things and I came across wrong, but maybe we should be careful about what we adamantly claim as true.

Is A a more simple explanation than B? : )

A) He doesn't exist and everything's the product of random natural processes starting back billions of years ago and entropy has somehow increased in the Universe overall despite particles evolving into atoms and atoms into molecules and molecules into worlds and stars and galaxies and inorganic compounds evolving into living materials and living materials evolving into more and more complex plants and animals and into humans who can now intelligently control future evolution and the planets just happen to appear to be following a formulated pattern and entropy somehow increased on earth without something on earth capable on converting sunlight into usable energy and life naturally came from non-life once and only once on earth and all creatures stem from that and there are plants that carry on with the help of insect pollination that somehow existed before pollinating insects and light sensitive photon recepting forerunning pigments happened to appear in a general area where noses and mouths and ears would later branch from and there were unisex individuals with male organs and female organs who somehow later mysteriously evolved offspring with only one or the other and dozens of writers throughout history wrote blatant lies to back up religion that's against lying and there's prophecies in Hebrew scripture that coincidentally got fulfilled and there were followers of Him who became martyrs after mass hallucinations of seeing Him perform miracles and of seeing Him resurrected?

B) He does exist and He created the heavens and the earth and life without requiring billions of years to do it and entropy truly is increasing and the planets appear to follow a formulated pattern because He laid them out in a certain way and there are some creatures not physically related to one another who share similar features because they have a common Designer and He created plants that carry on with pollination and pollinating insects within a few days or so of eachother and He designed creatures to have eyes and mouths and noses and ears pretty close to on another and He designed penises and vaginas for eachother and there have been dozens of writers throughout history who wrote actual true things backing up religion that's against lying and there's prophecies in Hebrew scripture that actually got fulfilled and there are followers of Him who became martyrs after actually having seen Him perform miracles and resurrected?

If earth was filled with extreme violence and there were departed souls begging for judgement just prior to the flood, who can righteously blame Him if He caused earth to be flooded? And what if reincarnation even occurs and there are individuals who were killed from the flood that have lived peaceful lives on earth since?

Maybe answering that about the keys or whatever would not be lying depending on definition at least and you make one or more good point, but what if someone asks me if I'm sure I was born in 1983? : )