• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Biblical, Historical, and Scientific Truth of the FLOOD --- And Proof it has been FOUND! (1 Viewer)

Also please watch the following Documentary regarding the finding of Noah's Ark:
 
Please see the following documentary:

2807 BC a three mile wide meteor struck the South Indian Ocean making a crater eighteen miles wide and putting all that water into the atmosphere.

Everybody wished they had an ark, and by the lines in the atmosphere it was obvious what happened. So they made epic stories and the ark is a common pastime across the cosmos.

Israel came from Jericho, who was living in the hills when clever priests from India, who knew of the Lord's coming, preached to them.
 
While I have no doubt that a great flood, or floods, occurred in the past and made use of as the basis of mythological stories in many early societies, this video simply displays how such myths were, and even now continue to evolve in their retelling.
Any idea of how much food and water a single elephant consumes daily? Yes, it was all magic done by a supernatural being.
 
It’s funny that Creationists have to point to YouTube videos because they can’t point to peer reviewed scientific journals.
I recently posted an article which largely refutes the Noah's Ark/Flood myth based on science (and math) with some scientific citations. Creationists only seem capable of pointing to dogma. But nothing empirical or scientific to support their positions.
 
This is not a documentary.
So it as a
I recently posted an article which largely refutes the Noah's Ark/Flood myth based on science (and math) with some scientific citations. Creationists only seem capable of pointing to dogma. But nothing empirical or scientific to support their positions.
Evolution has a Bible, it's titled On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. And Richard Dawkins is its High Priest
 
So it as a

Evolution has a Bible, it's titled On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. And Richard Dawkins is its High Priest
The word you're looking for is "science."
 
So it as a

Evolution has a Bible, it's titled On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. And Richard Dawkins is its High Priest

Yeah, that false to the point where I have to wonder if you are either so woefully ignorant to not have an opinion worthy of any kind of consideration or if you are deliberately lying.

Modern evolutionary theory has basically nothing to do with Darwin and much of On the Origins of Species has been disproven by evolutionary scientists. Darwin got TONS of stuff wrong. The modern Theory of Evolution is based on genetics, not Darwin.

And now if you repeat this false claim, we’ll know your deliberately lying and not ignorant.
 
It’s funny that Creationists have to point to YouTube videos because they can’t point to peer reviewed scientific journals.
Creationists are building a wealth of evidence to construct a WORLDVIEW that can compete with the Evolutionist's Worldview. It simply takes time, and Evolutionists have been fabricating theirs for approximately 200 years. Creationism only got a kickstart in the early 1960's with John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris's book regarding the FLOOD.
 
Creationists are building a wealth of evidence to construct a WORLDVIEW that can compete with the Evolutionist's Worldview. It simply takes time, and Evolutionists have been fabricating theirs for approximately 200 years. Creationism only got a kickstart in the early 1960's with John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris's book regarding the FLOOD.

To be clear, what scientific evidence for evolution is “fabricated”?

Also, if you have proof major scientific studies are fabricated, why have you not approached the Nobel Committee and gotten your million dollars?
 
Ten of the top Scientific Facts discovered in the Bible first:
 
There is zero "scientific truth" to the biblical flood, and in case you are curious there is no truth to the age of the builder either.
 
Creationists are building a wealth of evidence to construct a WORLDVIEW that can compete with the Evolutionist's Worldview. It simply takes time, and Evolutionists have been fabricating theirs for approximately 200 years. Creationism only got a kickstart in the early 1960's with John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris's book regarding the FLOOD.
The claims from Whitcomb and Morris have been refuted .

 
Yeah, that false to the point where I have to wonder if you are either so woefully ignorant to not have an opinion worthy of any kind of consideration or if you are deliberately lying.

Modern evolutionary theory has basically nothing to do with Darwin and much of On the Origins of Species has been disproven by evolutionary scientists. Darwin got TONS of stuff wrong. The modern Theory of Evolution is based on genetics, not Darwin.

And now if you repeat this false claim, we’ll know your deliberately lying and not ignorant.
I would say Darwin got the ball rolling :)
 
I would say Darwin got the ball rolling :)
Actually, Darwin was quite late to the dance. Geologists have been studying the dynamics of things like sedimentation, erosion, fossilization and such, long before Origin of Species was a gleam in Darwin's eyes. There are a myriad of earth and planetary sciences the study of which attested to an old Earth well before Darwin's zoology did. How long does it take for gemstones to form naturally?

What Darwin DID do was put a bug up the bible thumpers asses by concluding that we must have all evolved from earlier primate species. Nothing drives a stake through the heart of Genesis like the science that shows that "Adam and Eve" must have had there own parents, and whose parents had their parents . . . and so on and so on back into time. The evidence that mankind descended from proto-humans is more terrifying to "believers" than any arguments about how limestone is formed.

But as we learn from the study of planetary sciences, to a "new Earth" cultists, Darwin is actually the least of their problems.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom