Jump to content


Photo

If There Was A Worldwide Flood . . .


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
57 replies to this topic

#1 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 22 December 2008 - 06:07 PM

Wikipedia has the following paragraph in its entry under Ancient Egypt:

http://en.wikipedia....i/Ancient_egypt

Ancient Egypt was an ancient civilization in eastern North Africa, concentrated along the lower reaches of the Nile River in what is now the modern nation of Egypt. The civilization began around 3150 BC[1] with the political unification of Upper and Lower Egypt under the first pharaoh, and it developed over the next three millennia.[2] Its history occurred in a series of stable periods, known as kingdoms, separated by periods of relative instability known as Intermediate Periods. After the end of the last kingdom, known as the New Kingdom, the civilization of ancient Egypt entered a period of slow, steady decline, during which Egypt was conquered by a succession of foreign powers. The rule of the pharaohs officially ended in 31 BC when the early Roman Empire conquered Egypt and made it a province.[3]


Under Chinese Dynasties, the following chart can be found:

http://en.wikipedia....inese_dynasties

Chronology of dynasties
Dynasty                                                                                   Years
Three Sovereign Ones and the Five Emperors                     before 2070 BCE 

Xià Dynasty                                                                                 2100 BCE — 1600 BCE 


How would you go about reconciling your belief that approximately 4000 years ago the entire earth was flooded, and only a few human beings survived, with the fact that there is historical evidence for at least two thriving civilizations existing around 4000 years ago, civilizations that did not get completely wiped out, but continued to thrive for thousands of years?

#2 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 22 December 2008 - 06:16 PM

I don't know the current particulars on either one, but I do know one of the way they used to generate bogus dates on the Egyptians: they calculated all the kings reigning successively, when in reality a lot of them reigned at the same time because the empire was split.

Are they still using that trick, or have they been innovating?

#3 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 22 December 2008 - 06:20 PM

I don't know the current particulars on either one, but I do know one of the way they used to generate bogus dates on the Egyptians: they calculated all the kings reigning successively, when in reality a lot of them reigned at the same time because the empire was split.

Are they still using that trick, or have they been innovating?

View Post




Are historians being tricky just to foil belief in a worldwide flood? Or do they have other more sinister motives?

:P

#4 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 22 December 2008 - 06:29 PM

Are historians being tricky just to foil belief in a worldwide flood?  Or do they have other more sinister motives?

View Post

It's odd how you want to laugh off the concept of good and evil, except of course when some mean Christians chase off a young evo-babbler like Hazard, with the truth of all things, then that's fighting words. :P

I think what CTD pointed out is worth considering...you are open to possible avenues or do you just want to scoff?

Why don't you consider taking us seriously?

How can you say this about your fundamentalist relatives...

http://www.freeratio...795#post5704795

My family members are smart, successful, wonderful people. Yet they seem (to me) to have allowed themselves to be tricked into believing many irrational things.

...but then just laugh at what we offer as explanation without even taking the position with open-mindedness?

I'll personally admit that I'm over my head here but I'm sure Ikester or Fred have already discussed this so let's see if they join in. I'm sure this isn't some new topic. I'm going to learn some things right along with you on this thread, Sis.

#5 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 22 December 2008 - 06:37 PM

I'm happy to see you're still lurking at freeratio.org, Adam. Maybe you'll find the courage to join in on some discussions again.

Go ahead and check out all the stuff I've posted there recently. I don't ever say anything I wouldn't want you to read.

You make it sound like I'm going behind your back and chuckling with my pals over there. I'm well aware that it's a public forum. You're acting all hurt and defensive. I'm telling those guys the truth as I see it. I've always tried to be truthful with you as well.

#6 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 22 December 2008 - 06:43 PM

You make it sound like I'm going behind your back and chuckling with my pals over there.  I'm well aware that it's a public forum.  You're acting all hurt and defensive.  I'm telling those guys the truth as I see it.  I've always tried to be truthful with you as well.

View Post

I'm not making it sound like anything. I'm just using what I know about you to find your rhyme or reason. Let's not derail this thing six posts in. :P

#7 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 22 December 2008 - 06:55 PM

I'm not making it sound like anything. I'm just using what I know about you to find your rhyme or reason. Let's not derail this thing six posts in.  :P

View Post



I know, right? :P

I really don't feel like starting any more threads..... B)

#8 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 23 December 2008 - 03:09 AM

Are historians being tricky just to foil belief in a worldwide flood?  Or do they have other more sinister motives?

:o

View Post


It depends on what you want to be true. I used to be an editor for the wikipedia. I know how slanted it is towards a secular view as most of what I posted get deleted. Even though I provided references to the material. Basically, nothing positive about God or the Christian religion is allowed. And nothing negitive about evolution is allowed.

Now I can see the evo wiki or creation wiki doing this. It's would be expected. But for a wiki that is supposed to be neutral?

And that is why I no longer trust the wikipedia as a general source of information.

#9 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 23 December 2008 - 03:20 AM

I'm happy to see you're still lurking at freeratio.org, Adam.  Maybe you'll find the courage to join in on some discussions again. 

Go ahead and check out all the stuff I've posted there recently.  I don't ever say anything I wouldn't want you to read.

You make it sound like I'm going behind your back and chuckling with my pals over there.  I'm well aware that it's a public forum.  You're acting all hurt and defensive.  I'm telling those guys the truth as I see it.  I've always tried to be truthful with you as well.

View Post


You make it sound like I'm going behind your back and chuckling with my pals over there.  I'm well aware that it's a public forum.  You're acting all hurt and defensive.  I'm telling those guys the truth as I see it.  I've always tried to be truthful with you as well.


Would you guys like to go into a private section and hash this out?

We don't take on fights from other forums. If you are getting on each others nerves, and would like to stay on this forum, I suggest you put yourselves on each others ignore list until you cool off. This way you don't have to look at each others posts. Just click on the other persons name to go to their profile. Then click the link that has the word ignore. You do this for how ever long it takes to cool off, then un-ignore in your control panel. And all goes back to normal.

You guys decide what you want to do. I'm not refereeing a fight in open forum.

#10 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 23 December 2008 - 05:44 AM

You make it sound like I'm going behind your back and chuckling with my pals over there.  I'm well aware that it's a public forum.  You're acting all hurt and defensive.  I'm telling those guys the truth as I see it.  I've always tried to be truthful with you as well.


Would you guys like to go into a private section and hash this out?

We don't take on fights from other forums. If you are getting on each others nerves, and would like to stay on this forum, I suggest you put yourselves on each others ignore list until you cool off. This way you don't have to look at each others posts. Just click on the other persons name to go to their profile. Then click the link that has the word ignore. You do this for how ever long it takes to cool off, then un-ignore in your control panel. And all goes back to normal.

You guys decide what you want to do. I'm not refereeing a fight in open forum.

View Post



It's okay, Ikester. I think I speak for both Adam and myself when I say we apologize for getting into a personal argument on a public forum, but I think we nipped it in the bud ourselves.

As for putting each other on "ignore" - thanks for the tips, but we're big kids, and I think we can take it. Anyway, what fun would it be if we couldn't see what we were each posting on here? :o

#11 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 23 December 2008 - 05:53 AM

It depends on what you want to be true. I used to be an editor for the wikipedia. I know how slanted it is towards a secular view as most of what I posted get deleted. Even though I provided references to the material. Basically, nothing positive about God or the Christian religion is allowed. And nothing negitive about evolution is allowed.

Now I can see the evo wiki or creation wiki doing this. It's would be expected. But for a wiki that is supposed to be neutral?

And that is why I no longer trust the wikipedia as a general source of information.

View Post



Ikester, see, Wikipedia has this problem. If they let you put stuff on there as editor about your God and your belief system, they'd have to afford every Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist, Mormon, and New Age editor the same courtesy. You can see their dilemma, surely.

Now, about those dates . . . Adam777 and I were both hoping for some solid facts from you and Fred refuting the fact that some rather large cultures survived the worldwide catastrophe mentioned in the Bible.

#12 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 23 December 2008 - 01:18 PM

Ikester, see, Wikipedia has this problem.  If they let you put stuff on there as editor about your God and your belief system, they'd have to afford every Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist, Mormon, and New Age editor the same courtesy.  You can see their dilemma, surely.

Now, about those dates . . . Adam777 and I were both hoping for some solid facts from you and Fred refuting the fact that some rather large cultures survived the worldwide catastrophe mentioned in the Bible.

View Post


They have a page on YEC. And they had a bunch of WRONG stuff about the belief. And I could tell it was all written by a evolutionist who hates YEC. Now knowing this, what do you think was said? It would be like me writing the same type page about evolution. Understand?

Who better to write what YEC believes than someone who does believe YEC? But that was not allowed. I asked why, they gave a politician type answer (an excuse that did not even answer the question). And from the big argument that happened when I pointed out how bias they were because of how the evolution page was so wonderfully written. And the YEC page was so hateful like something from the EVO-wiki. One of the admins took on a personal hate for me. And from that time until now this person actually stalks me on the Internet.

Now does that sound like a professional run "neutral" wiki? No.

Like I said, from a evo wiki or a creation wiki I would expect that. And I was not trying to convey my own personal beliefs. I know what the regular YEC believes, and the whole page they had was wrong. How can you claim to be a wiki with mostly correct information and have a whole page written by someone who opposes it and expect the truth about the belief to be seen?

If they had allowed me to do the evo page, it would have been a balance since so much hate was written on the YEC page. Understand? But being neutral does not require such balance because each page should have been conveying facts about each and not personal opinions.

It's been almost 2 years so things might have changed on that page. But for the better or worse? I'd probably lean more towards the worse. One more thing, the person I butted heads with was also a admin for the evo wiki. So the slant was explainable. But not justifiable.

#13 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 23 December 2008 - 01:28 PM


Would you guys like to go into a private section and hash this out?

We don't take on fights from other forums. If you are getting on each others nerves, and would like to stay on this forum, I suggest you put yourselves on each others ignore list until you cool off. This way you don't have to look at each others posts. Just click on the other persons name to go to their profile. Then click the link that has the word ignore. You do this for how ever long it takes to cool off, then un-ignore in your control panel. And all goes back to normal.

You guys decide what you want to do. I'm not refereeing a fight in open forum.

View Post

It's okay, Ikester. I think I speak for both Adam and myself when I say we apologize for getting into a personal argument on a public forum, but I think we nipped it in the bud ourselves.

As for putting each other on "ignore" - thanks for the tips, but we're big kids, and I think we can take it. Anyway, what fun would it be if we couldn't see what we were each posting on here? :o

View Post


Ignore does not totally get rid of the persons posts. What it does it make it a link instead and you have to click on it to read the post. In this way if you come onto the forum in a bad mood, and really do not feel like dealing with reading a particular members posts. You don't have to because you won't see them unless you click on the link. Now it's not a new page that loads when you click on the link. The post is there is just hidden. So when you click it appears where it should be,

I have actually used this here and on other forums. Works quite well when you have someone who seems to just push your buttons on the days you don't want you buttons pushed. :D

#14 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 23 December 2008 - 02:43 PM

They have a page on YEC. And they had a bunch of WRONG stuff about the belief. And I could tell it was all written by a evolutionist who hates YEC. Now knowing this, what do you think was said? It would be like me writing the same type page about evolution. Understand?

Who better to write what YEC believes than someone who does believe YEC? But that was not allowed. I asked why, they gave a politician type answer (an excuse that did not even answer the question). And from the big argument that happened when I pointed out how bias they were because of how the evolution page was so wonderfully written. And the YEC page was so hateful like something from the EVO-wiki. One of the admins took on a personal hate for me. And from that time until now this person actually stalks me on the Internet.

Now does that sound like a professional run "neutral" wiki? No.

Like I said, from a evo wiki or a creation wiki I would expect that. And I was not trying to convey my own personal beliefs. I know what the regular YEC believes, and the whole page they had was wrong. How can you claim to be a wiki with mostly correct information and have a whole page written by someone who opposes it and expect the truth about the belief to be seen?

If they had allowed me to do the evo page, it would have been a balance since so much hate was written on the YEC page. Understand? But being neutral does not require such balance because each page should have been conveying facts about each and not personal opinions.

It's been almost 2 years so things might have changed on that page. But for the better or worse? I'd probably lean more towards the worse. One more thing, the person I butted heads with was also a admin for the evo wiki. So the slant was explainable. But not justifiable.

View Post



I can certainly see why you feel a bit persecuted, Ikester. It is always difficult to feel misunderstood. It would be interesting to start a new thread with quotes from the YEC page on Wikipedia that you feel are particularly bad distortions of the YEC stance, and write up some corrections, just for us here.

Of course, I understand if you're too busy, just thought I'd throw the idea out there.

#15 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 23 December 2008 - 02:51 PM

Hey Ikester,

Should we can this thread and start over? Maybe, change the title to: "When bad people happen to good threads?" :o

The question of dating is certainly not one that goes unaddressed. I'm familiar with what CTD stated about not understanding the reign and co-regencies of certain rulers and the divides in kingdoms but I would like to see if someone has access to why the Bible should be trusted over secular interpretations of archeology and other ancient sources.

Adam

#16 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 23 December 2008 - 02:53 PM

I can certainly see why you feel a bit persecuted, Ikester.  It is always difficult to feel misunderstood.  It would be interesting to start a new thread with quotes from the YEC page on Wikipedia that you feel are particularly bad distortions of the YEC stance, and write up some corrections, just for us here.

Of course, I understand if you're too busy, just thought I'd throw the idea out there.

View Post


That is a good idea. I'm actually on my way over there right now to check it out...

#17 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 23 December 2008 - 03:10 PM

Hey Ikester,

Should we can this thread and start over? Maybe, change the title to: "When bad people happen to good threads?" :o

The question of dating is certainly not one that goes unaddressed. I'm familiar with what CTD stated about not understanding the reign and co-regencies of certain rulers and the divides in kingdoms but I would like to see if someone has access to why the Bible should be trusted over secular interpretations of archeology and other ancient sources.

Adam

View Post


Yes, I have yet to see any concrete evidence from anyone that the dates quoted on wikipedia are wildly wrong. Or even a little bit wrong.

Saying "You can't believe anything those secular historians say" does not count as concrete evidence.

That just smacks of persecution complex to me. Not only are biological scientists, along with geologists, and paleontologists, in on a big secular conspiracy to mislead people down the primrose path to eternal damnation, now the HISTORIANS turn out to be in on the Big Deception as well! Where will it all end?

#18 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 23 December 2008 - 04:03 PM

Saying "You can't believe anything those secular historians say" does not count as concrete evidence.

View Post


In your eyes can Christians be good historians? Or is this something only secular Historians can do making the numbers skewed in your favor?

BTW, this discussion changes the criteria. If you're asking for concrete evidence in the scientific methodological sense. You aren't going to get it. You must understand validation over speculation.

If you'll only accept concrete then you can doubt all occurrences accept for those that happen in your life and proximity.

The bottom line is this:

If things like the Bible's unparalleled preservation, accuracy, and abundance of historically preserved copies means nothing to you then this conversation is useless because all you have to do is find one fringe scholar with one obscure reason for believing something contrary to the Bible and your relativism will take over from there and waste our time.

#19 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 23 December 2008 - 04:10 PM

On the other hand, if you say; "You know what, those Hebrews were very meticulous and the bible has no equal, what are we be asked to compare it to that is worthy to be considered a contrary contender?"

...we could then have a viable discussion on archeology and history. The Bible is a historical book, after all.

#20 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 23 December 2008 - 04:33 PM

In your eyes can Christians be good historians? Or is this something only secular Historians can do making the numbers skewed in your favor?

BTW, this discussion changes the criteria. If you're asking for concrete evidence in the scientific methodological sense. You aren't going to get it. You must understand validation over speculation.

If you'll only accept concrete then you can doubt all occurrences accept for those that happen in your life and proximity.

The bottom line is this:

If things like the Bible's unparalleled preservation, accuracy, and abundance of historically preserved copies means nothing to you then this conversation is useless because all you have to do is find one fringe scholar with one obscure reason for believing something contrary to the Bible and your relativism will take over from there and waste our time.

View Post


I don't think "fringe scholars" is an accurate term for scholars who have questioned the Bible. And I think there were quite a few more than just one.

I think Christians can be perfectly good historians, biologists, geologist, whatever. But they probably aren't True Christians in your eyes unless all their findings mesh smoothly with whatever mythology is in the Bible.

You're right, I don't find the fact that the Bible has survived for 2000 years to be all that impressive. Maybe because my universe has been around longer than yours.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users