Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course, you will outright discount ICR, so I realize you will not believe this. You'll dodge it.
The fact is, Noah's flood happened well before the 17th Century flood you refer to.
'Seems to'. Yes, I'll remain skeptical. You claim we provide 'biased' websites, and then direct us to a Creationist site as though it's unbiased? Please. If you can provide a non-Christian website that supports those claims, you might get our attention.
By the way, Chinese characters are not linguistic, but ideographic and phonetic. I'll provide a site that discusses the use of the character in reference to an 'ark':
The Chinese character for boat (chuan 2) consists of the boat radical on the left and a phonetic element on the right. The phonetic element has two parts. The upper part is a primitive ideograph for "divide," though it looks the same as the character for "eight." The lower part is the pictograph for "mouth." However, these two elements have only phonetic significance (Wright 1996; Wright n.d.).
The "vessel" on the left side of the glyph is a pictograph of a dugout canoe, nothing like an ark.
According to the Bible, Noah's ark carried very many more than eight mouths.
No flood myths from China include an ark with eight passengers.
Of course, you will outright discount ICR, so I realize you will not believe this. You'll dodge it.
The fact is, Noah's flood happened well before the 17th Century flood you refer to.
I have read not only many articles on their website but also books published by them and other creationists. Ignoring the flood stories for a moment, I have a degree in Physical Geography with a minor in Geology. The Creationists explanations of the physical evidence for a global flood are laughable and illogical as well as basically dishonest. I assume that you in turn have read up in the geologists books that show the evidence against a global flood and show the dishonesty or lack of understanding of geology by Creationists. If you have not read up on geology and the evidence lacking on a global flood as much as I have over the years on the Creationists claims then it is you that are bias but then again you have made these accusations of close mindedNess or unwillingness to research the other side against us with no indication that you read anything that doesn't agree with you. I have also in the past spent time reading the anti evolution websites and fact finding by reading the original papers that they purporting are referring to and for the most part I doubt that they read more than the abstract.
I am not sure why you are attempting to be as rude and arrogant as possible in an attempt to continue a discussion. There are also other websites that try to match local flood stories with Noah and other websites that dispute them. By reading both sides and using my education and understanding of a subject I can decide for myself which sites are most likely to be accurate and which are more likely to be honest.
And if you bothered reading my post I stated that the NW flood postdated both Noah and Jesus meaning that it occurred afterwards but it has been cited by pro flood sites as yet another piece of evidence for supporting the Bible. The fact is that this flood cannot support Noah's flood and that was the point, not all flood stories have the same origin for waters or the same time period.
I have read not only many articles on their website but also books published by them and other creationists. Ignoring the flood stories for a moment, I have a degree in Physical Geography with a minor in Geology. The Creationists explanations of the physical evidence for a global flood are laughable and illogical as well as basically dishonest. I assume that you in turn have read up in the geologists books that show the evidence against a global flood and show the dishonesty or lack of understanding of geology by Creationists. If you have not read up on geology and the evidence lacking on a global flood as much as I have over the years on the Creationists claims then it is you that are bias but then again you have made these accusations of close mindedNess or unwillingness to research the other side against us with no indication that you read anything that doesn't agree with you. I have also in the past spent time reading the anti evolution websites and fact finding by reading the original papers that they purporting are referring to and for the most part I doubt that they read more than the abstract.
I am not sure why you are attempting to be as rude and arrogant as possible in an attempt to continue a discussion. There are also other websites that try to match local flood stories with Noah and other websites that dispute them. By reading both sides and using my education and understanding of a subject I can decide for myself which sites are most likely to be accurate and which are more likely to be honest.
Rude? Don't mean to be. Realist? Yes. I see an incredible amount of that on this forum in the short time I've been here. I have zero evidence to believe anyone will take anything that a Christian says or posts seriously.
Quote:
And if you bothered reading my post I stated that the NW flood postdated both Noah and Jesus meaning that it occurred afterwards but it has been cited by pro flood sites as yet another piece of evidence for supporting the Bible. The fact is that this flood cannot support Noah's flood and that was the point, not all flood stories have the same origin for waters or the same time period.
I wasn't sure what you were saying by that, to be honest. But my point was that I believe Noah's flood was the flood that a lot of different cultures base their legends off of.
Of course, you will outright discount ICR, so I realize you will not believe this. You'll dodge it.
The fact is, Noah's flood happened well before the 17th Century flood you refer to.
OK I read the article. The writer admitting he was not an expert in Chinese writing and then brought up a story about on unnamed Chinese youth who became a convert to Jesus based on this writers in trepidation of the origin of a few words. Not the least bit scientific or scholarly and no I am not willing to accept the idea of a Chinese version of Genesis based on what was written on that page. But then I am no expert in Chinese writing so how can I judge if he is right or wrong. You might want to look at some of Barry Fells books to see how a person unfamiliar with languages or symbols from other and usually extinct cultures makes large errors based on seeing what they wish to see. It is the weakness in the presentation that leads me not to gleefully accept this article not my being an atheist. If you think that this page was convincing then we probably have a huge gap in what we can accept as evidence. The geology of my area does more to convince me there was no flood than a poorly documented Web article. Until the flood supporters can get me over what I have seen in half of a continent of observations and years of study I doubt an article that may or may not be accurate will do so.
How is this dodging your post? Do you have evidence that this conversion occurred or that the only or most plausible explanation for the characters is the one provided by the writer?
Rude? Don't mean to be. Realist? Yes. I see an incredible amount of that on this forum in the short time I've been here. I have zero evidence to believe anyone will take anything that a Christian says or posts seriously.
I wasn't sure what you were saying by that, to be honest. But my point was that I believe Noah's flood was the flood that a lot of different cultures base their legends off of.
And my point is that the flood stories have different origins for the flood water and probably different time frames based on various types of evidence. I accept that you believe the flood story but that does not mean that I must accept every one of your pieces of evidence on your say so, especially when many have been shown to be false.
And yes you come off as rude as you are demeaning anyone who does not immediately accept what you claim on face value and will discuss it rather than just saying yes. There are atheists on this forum who are often rude and some who are sometimes rude. There are Fundamentalists on this forum who are often rude and some who are sometimes rude. I see it both and if you do not then perhaps confirmation bias is taking place. There are also fundamentalist who are not only never nice but think that we are all liars. Myself I think I would rather have a discussion than either a forum where nothing can be refuted or that consists Stickley of name calling. Some if the rudeness taking place is from the same people repeating their same arguments with each otjer.
Next time you tell me that I will either not read or not accept a site you have linked to I will not read it. If you want me to read a site then just ask me to look at it without giving me your opinion of what I am going to think about it.
Gee, when I have heard atheists and skeptics talk positively about any pastor? Umm pretty much never. Anyone who speaks out for Christ and the Bible gets attacked. The Bible even says this will happen. After all, darkness hates the light.
There is plenty of proof to support the Bible. I don't need a time machine. Jesus believed in the Noah account. I know that Jesus is real. That's good enough for me.
This website lists them all. I find it kinda hard to believe that it is just a concidence that out of all the potential disasters, all these civiliations would have a story involving a global flood. Why not destruction by volcano or earthquake? Nope, it's usually involves an angry god who decides to destroy the world by flood.
And you prove ZERO proof to back up such a claim. But I'm not surprised.
What about the civilizations that were around at the time of the supposed flood that show a continuous, ongoing culture? Just going to ignore them I guess? Jeff, I would respond more to you, but it looks like Rafius has already buried you, so I will leave it at that.
Well, I will respond to one thing you posted, which is the fact that atheists and skeptics don't speak well of any pastors or Bible believers. See, this is where you get yourself in trouble by painting with a brush that is far too broad. I have nothing but utmost respect for a slew of believers and pastors. I have both in my family, for instance. My husband and I have also met Jimmy Carter (since you mentioned him below), and spent almost an hour eating and talking to him and his wife, and found him to be an outstanding man. Someone with better character would be hard to find. 92 years old and still building houses for people in need.... Makes you wonder why so many able bodied Christians don't do the same, doesn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
Did you even read the first paragraph. Here, I'll post it for you...
The stories below are flood stories from the world's folklore. I have included stories here if (1) they are stories; (2) they are folklore, not historical accounts or fiction by a known author; and (3) they involve a flood. In most borderline cases, I included the story here anyway. For example, one story (Hopi) tells of a flood which was avoided and never occurred. (my emphasis)
You do realise what is meant by 'folklore', 'fiction' and 'non-historical accounts' do you? And do you even realise (probably not because you didn't bother to read the accounts) that some of those stories pre-date your Bible yet have exactly the same stories as that found in the Bible. The only difference is the name of the god involved. A clear indication that Noah's global flood is just a re-hash of pre-existing mythology.
Gee, when I have heard atheists and skeptics talk positively about any pastor? Umm pretty much never. Anyone who speaks out for Christ and the Bible gets attacked. The Bible even says this will happen. After all, darkness hates the light.
There is plenty of proof to support the Bible. I don't need a time machine. Jesus believed in the Noah account. I know that Jesus is real. That's good enough for me.
This website lists them all. I find it kinda hard to believe that it is just a concidence that out of all the potential disasters, all these civiliations would have a story involving a global flood. Why not destruction by volcano or earthquake? Nope, it's usually involves an angry god who decides to destroy the world by flood.
And you prove ZERO proof to back up such a claim. But I'm not surprised.
Jeff
More primitive societies were little affected by earthquakes due to the lack of structures in their society. Volcanos are rare on the landscape, unless one lives in a few spots on this planet. Same with tornadoes or avalanches however living near water was almost universal as water is so essential to our lives. The stories in the list you linked are very different from one another, one was the sea flooding the land, so of like the Boxing Day Tsunami. Others had only animals living at the time. The ones from the west had Coyote as an important aspect but he is missing from all those folklore from regions that are not in his territory.
I find it interesting that the existence of flood stories is proposed as a proof for Genesis in the Bible being true and yet from the scattering of all people by God, the Tower of Babel, the displacement from their original lands and the very nature of your God are all forgotten but that a natural disaster involving water was remembered. Why not the building of the Tower of Babel or the entire Genesis story and the existence of your God as all those would have been a larger part of these people's lives than Noah's flood?
And where are the flood stories from people's not near oceans lakes, rivers or glaciers?
In my life I have now been subjected to being evacuated three times due to threat of flood, zero times for volcanoes or earthquakes. In my community we are taking measures to guard against future floods but zero for other natural disasters as the only one likely to ever occur would be a tornado as the last occurred here in 1918. And a glacier left about 12000 years ago but three major floods in the last 22 years.
So many ways these "Christians" could have invested their $100 million, which would actually relieve the suffering of their fellow man. Isn't the main teaching of their Christ to love your neighbor and do good to those that are in need? But instead they spent the money on an overpriced pointless display and a gigantic parking lot. That thing does not even have any artistic value. And then they wonder why people worldwide consider Americans to be overindulged, fat hedonists.
Exactly. Regardless of one's feeling about specific religions, or religion in general, this worthless "ark-park" is an embarrassment. It is just a spit in the face to everyone who doesn't sign up to the literal-bible extremism, as well as every other religion out there; worse, this utter waste was funded with tax payer money, which is a gross violation of everything this nation represents.
Finally, the "ark-park" itself is a prime example of false religion - the very type of wasteful grandstanding that Jesus campaigned against - since it's nothing but a waste of money that accomplishes nothing. Kentucky has some of the poorest counties in the nation through coal country; the money wasted on this worthless park should have been spent helping them in true Christian style. But doing that wouldn't spit in the face of non-believers, and that's what this "ark-park" is all about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
