Why I don't believe the story of the Great Flood...

[_Quasimodo]

Science is a tool. In the wrong hands and for the wrong motives, theories have been developed that say they can prove Creation without God. The Bible is a trail of history that ties together the promise of God. Truth is there for the study and scientific research.

Science's only motive is to discover truth. If there are any researchers with questionable motives (such as your 'Christian' scientists) they are quickly discovered and negated by peer review (something you should look up while having your milk and cookies).

Science has no need to prove or disprove any creation story. It only tries to find a truthful answer.

The Bible is not a trail of history. Only a collection of old stories. The promise of God is only a myth of the people that created the old stories.

As I said before, it's absolutely your prerogative as to which mythology you choose to believe. You may find that defending that belief in a logical way is a little difficult.

[_subgenius]

Seriously, pick up a copy of Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs, and Steel and read it. There's really no sense in continuing the conversation until you do.

i love this type of appeal to authority...its my favorite of the logical fallacies...but wait let me try
Perhaps you need to READ THIS because there is really no sense in continuing until you do.

[_Drifting]

Seriously, pick up a copy of Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs, and Steel and read it. There's really no sense in continuing the conversation until you do.

i love this type of appeal to authority...its my favorite of the logical fallacies...but wait let me try
Perhaps you need to READ THIS because there is really no sense in continuing until you do.

Before continuing can we establish which century you believe the flood took place in?

[_subgenius]

Science's only motive is to discover truth.

really? who is this science and does he also have opportunity and means?

If there are any researchers with questionable motives (such as your 'Christian' scientists) they are quickly discovered and negated by peer review (something you should look up while having your milk and cookies).

wow, you really throw "peer review" around as if it is infallible...and weird how you think the scriptures have not been peer-reviewed for say...a couple of thousand years...but hey, i am still looking for how science has a "motive"..

Science has no need to prove or disprove any creation story. It only tries to find a truthful answer.

a truthful answer to a predisposed question? funny how most of successful science finds things it never looks for....but what do you mean "truthful"? you mean truth as science designates what truth means (ie successful peer review = truth)...yes, i am aware of that type of system. when you define what is true it becomes easier...kinda like how 1+1=2...of course it does!

The Bible is not a trail of history. Only a collection of old stories. The promise of God is only a myth of the people that created the old stories.

CFR, please....otherwise concede your speculation

As I said before, it's absolutely your prerogative as to which mythology you choose to believe. You may find that defending that belief in a logical way is a little difficult.

if it is defended logically then how will you understand it?
and what do you mean "absolutely"?

[_subgenius]

Before continuing can we establish which century you believe the flood took place in?

the century i believe is not germane at, or to, this point....but i am comfortable with whatever the scriptures note on that matter.

and you don't fool me...you can't actually continue otherwise
if you have an issue with the date, just present it...laying in the bushes with such an obvious agenda just demeans your position.

[_Drifting]

Before continuing can we establish which century you believe the flood took place in?

the century i believe is not germane at, or to, this point....but i am comfortable with whatever the scriptures note on that matter.

and you don't fool me...you can't actually continue otherwise
if you have an issue with the date, just present it...laying in the bushes with such an obvious agenda just demeans your position.

The scriptures, as denoted by LDS official teaching, sets the date at around 2,300 bc. You comfortable with believing a global flood took place around that date?

[_Quasimodo]

really? who is this science and does he also have opportunity and means?

Silly question. You may look up 'science' in any dictionary.

wow, you really throw "peer review" around as if it is infallible...and weird how you think the scriptures have not been peer-reviewed for say...a couple of thousand years...but hey, i am still looking for how science has a "motive"..

What 'peers' of Biblical authors did the reviews? You should probably look up 'peer review', as well.

a truthful answer to a predisposed question? funny how most of successful science finds things it never looks for....but what do you mean "truthful"? you mean truth as science designates what truth means (ie successful peer review = truth)...yes, i am aware of that type of system. when you define what is true it becomes easier...kinda like how 1+1=2...of course it does!

I can understand why you may be having a little trouble understanding the meaning of 'truth'.

CFR, please....otherwise concede your speculation

There is no reason to believe it's anything other than stories. I think it's up to you to prove it's validity if you believe it.

if it is defended logically then how will you understand it?
and what do you mean "absolutely"?

Kind of a snide remark, even for you. Absolutely:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/absolutely

[_LittleNipper]

Science is a tool. In the wrong hands and for the wrong motives, theories have been developed that say they can prove Creation without God. The Bible is a trail of history that ties together the promise of God. Truth is there for the study and scientific research.

Science's only motive is to discover truth. If there are any researchers with questionable motives (such as your 'Christian' scientists) they are quickly discovered and negated by peer review (something you should look up while having your milk and cookies).

Science has no need to prove or disprove any creation story. It only tries to find a truthful answer.

The Bible is not a trail of history. Only a collection of old stories. The promise of God is only a myth of the people that created the old stories.

As I said before, it's absolutely your prerogative as to which mythology you choose to believe. You may find that defending that belief in a logical way is a little difficult.

Science is but a tool. Tools do not think or have motive. Scientists do think and do have motives. They do what they do for both money and pleasure and noteriety. People do not enjoy being made fun of. And so many scientists travel the very same roads that their colleagues travel --------- its safe for one's career. They look for a secular answer that seems to work and stick with it --- it isn't called a mutual admiration society for nothing. A myth does not keep a promise. The Hebrew , Jew, Israelite still exists to this very day and will continue to survive. The nations that curse Israel will receive the curse and the nations that bless the Jew will be blessed. I do not believe in coincidence. But I bet you do accept that myth...

[_Sethbag]

Seriously, pick up a copy of Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs, and Steel and read it. There's really no sense in continuing the conversation until you do.

i love this type of appeal to authority...its my favorite of the logical fallacies...but wait let me try
Perhaps you need to READ THIS because there is really no sense in continuing until you do.

I've read every one of the LDS scriptures several times each, excepting the Old Testament, which I have only read cover to cover one time.

So, have you ordered your copy of Guns, Germs, and Steel yet?

[_Dr. Shades]

Those who disagree with Sethbag might think he sounds like a broken record, but I must echo him. Once I finally got around to reading Guns, Germs, and Steel, I can say with confidence that it really is required reading in advance of any and all discussion of the historicity of the Old Testament.