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

[_subgenius]

i addressed the date in my original posting of this article, and noted that the chronology is not a point of fact with this discussion.

No, you didn't at all. The date is in fact very important here to Noah's flood. How you miss this must be shear stupidly or extreme religious bias.

Yes, i sure did, next time read for comprehension
...but nevertheless...
explain how the date is suddenly so important? I mean who is claiming that the date is significant to revealing that the flood story is true?
and more importantly provide a scripture reference for this "date" you claim is so important.

otherwise your feeble attempt to suddenly make the "date" the issue just reveals that you need a new stone to hop over to because the creek of truth is rising over your rocks of denial.

[_subgenius]

So, if it is a chronological issue with you (and not a feasibility issue) then please, provide the scripture reference that notes the date of the flood. If the Bible has a statement about the chronological location of the flood then we can surely argue the position of chronology.
But, if not...then you will have to simply pick up the goal post, again, and move them elsewhere.

The Church teaches (and includes in its Bible chronology) that it took place in 2,300 bc. You know this. The question is, do you believe it?

First explain how my agreement or disagreement with any date for the flood validates or invalidates the actual occurrence of the flood?

[_Drifting]

So, if it is a chronological issue with you (and not a feasibility issue) then please, provide the scripture reference that notes the date of the flood. If the Bible has a statement about the chronological location of the flood then we can surely argue the position of chronology.
But, if not...then you will have to simply pick up the goal post, again, and move them elsewhere.

The Church teaches (and includes in its Bible chronology) that it took place in 2,300 bc. You know this. The question is, do you believe it?

First explain how my agreement or disagreement with any date for the flood validates or invalidates the actual occurrence of the flood?

You can't disagree with the date the Church teaches, it's doctrine.
So you need to articulate your theory on the likelihood of a global flood in context of that time frame. Good luck.

[_subgenius]

You can't disagree with the date the Church teaches, it's doctrine.

prove it

[_Drifting]

You can't disagree with the date the Church teaches, it's doctrine.

prove it

Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle...

[_Themis]

Yes, i sure did, next time read for comprehension

you certainly did not, but nevertheless

explain how the date is suddenly so important? I mean who is claiming that the date is significant to revealing that the flood story is true?

You were the one who linked to an article that had nothing to do with the biblical Noah's flood story. An article dealing with a time period a very long time before humans were on the earth. It has nothing to do with the possibility of a global flood during Noah's time, not to mention it was never about a flood.

and more importantly provide a scripture reference for this "date" you claim is so important.

I said go any where from 4-10 k years ago, which I think fits within just about everyone who believes in a global Flood for Noah.You can go back as far as modern humans have been roaming the planet.

otherwise your feeble attempt to suddenly make the "date" the issue just reveals that you need a new stone to hop over to because the creek of truth is rising over your rocks of denial.

The date of your claimed Global flood is a big part of the issue and cannot be removed.

[_SteelHead]

Sub,
I am not moving the goalposts, you are. A flood during the time frame as presented in the Bible is completely different than saying the world was flooded 600 million years ago. And while I have never seen a credible study suggested a global inudation I have seen iceball earth studies where it is projected that the planet was fairly well frozen.

There is simply not enough water on this rock to have flooded it in the last 5k years, or in the last 500K. Or at any point where there was a mountain exceeding 20K feet.

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercyclegwstorage.html
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleatmosphere.html

[_subgenius]

It has nothing to do with the possibility of a global flood during Noah's time

a perfect example of moving the goal posts...now, you carefully add the qualifier of "during Noah's time"

[_subgenius]

Sub,
I am not moving the goalposts, you are. A flood during the time frame as presented in the Bible is completely different than saying the world was flooded 600 million years ago. And while I have never seen a credible study suggested a global inudation I have seen iceball earth studies where it is projected that the planet was fairly well frozen.

There is simply not enough water on this rock to have flooded it in the last 5k years, or in the last 500K. Or at any point where there was a mountain exceeding 20K feet.

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercyclegwstorage.html
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleatmosphere.html

now we see you suddenly needing to add the "qualifier" (a.k.a.. moving the goalpost)

Please, provide the "time frame as presented in the Bible" for the flood. (emphasis mine)

[_subgenius]

There is simply not enough water on this rock to have flooded it in the last 5k years, or in the last 500K. Or at any point where there was a mountain exceeding 20K feet.l

by the way..you can not actually prove this assumption. (Heck, you can not even prove that anything existed 500k years ago)

If you are going to use the same paradigm that assumes the geography of 500k years ago to prove the geography of 500k years ago then you have a severe circular logic issue....or you must concede that using a paradigm to prove itself is acceptable and therefore the Bible may be used to prove itself.