The mountains of scientific evidence supporting Noah's Flood are getting pretty high. Some folks are of the mind to wait until science completely proves something before believing anything in the Holy Bible. I'll do the opposite and believe every word of the Holy Bible, regardless of what scientists say.
42 comments
"The mountains of scientific evidence supporting Noah's Flood are getting pretty high."
Fundie to English translation: "Some spurious sources have asserted that they have an iota of evidence supporting the biblical flood story, though no credible persons seem to have actual SEEN this evidence."
"Some folks are of the mind to wait until science completely proves something before believing anything in the Holy Bible."
Fundie to English translation: "Some people are smart in that they wait for credible evidence before they believe such specious sources as the Bible."
"I'll do the opposite and believe every word of the Holy Bible, regardless of what scientists say."
Fundie to English translation: "I'm an idiot. I'll believe any piece of crap assertion as long as it doesn't contradict my favorite fairy tales."
If you're not going to care about the evidence, then why open by saying how much evidence there is?
The amount of evidence for the stories told in the Bible has not changed. It's still basically just the Bible and nothing more. Reading those stories (assuming you do actually read them, and I know better than to assume that) twice doesn't make the evidence twice as strong.
And one day God will say "I gave you a huge brain so you could help yourself. Instead, you wasted your life following some stupid book because you thought I wrote it. Did I tell you I wrote it? Of course not. Some equally stupid human told you I wrote it and you were dumb enough to believe them. I'm sending you to Hell with the rest of the morons who whined and pestered me with prayers instead of working things out for themselves."
I'll do the opposite and believe every word of the Holy Bible, regardless of what scientists say.
Hmmm. O-kayyyy....
Science has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that if you jump off a cliff, you will fall.
Then you don't need any of those mountain-high mounds of evidence, do you?
I like how fundies try to have it both ways: science is bullshit and you only need the Bible, but ALSO, all of this fallible, bullshit, unreliable scientific evidence verifies the Bible anyway, so there!
So... because there's a mountain of scientific evidence allegedly supporting your delusion, you're going to believe the Bible regardless of what science says. Yup, makes sense.
All right, this is for all you newbie liars out there: Keeping your lies consistent can be difficult if you have to use them extensively, but there is no justification for contradicting it within three sentences.
"The mountains of scientific evidence supporting Noah's Flood are getting pretty high."
But fortunately the flood of evidence for an old Earth doth cover your mountains to a depth 'of fifteen cubits'.
And that's if we only count the last 40 days (and nights) output!
Well ACTUALLY. . . Some evidence is present that there was a period between 12,000 and 5,000 BC where there were a number of large and sometimes catastrophic floods which occurred all over the world, but nothing of Biblical proportions. Also, the fact that several ancient cultures (on both sides of the Atlantic) have their own deluge stories would lend some to think that SOMETHING happened but they all could be referring to one of these; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_%28prehistoric%29 and not the global flood depicted in the Bible.
I don't understand why fundies latch onto the Bible and feverently believe every word in it, and yet reject every other book in the world, some of which might have told them actual FACTS...why?? Maybe there's only room in their brains for one book at a time.
"Stupid evos believe everything they read...but the Bible is inerrant!"
The only mountain of scientific evidence supporting Noah's Flood is about an inch high (i.e. the thickness of a Bible).
Science never proves anything, it presents evidence in favor of something and, if it adds up, it becomes a Theory. "Facts" and "proof" are imprecise and un-scientific concepts.
> "Facts" and "proof" are imprecise and un-scientific concepts.
Then what's 2+2=4, if not a proven fact?
"The mountains of scientific evidence supporting Noah's Flood are getting pretty high."
Their getting smaller as most flood evidence of the past has been thoughally debunked and often (Wyatt) proven to be fraudulent claims. Primitive sea-lifeforms on the mountain as those have no modern higher forms you claim existed when the flood occured, they do however support continental drift and upheaval.
The early history of Archeology had most of them out looking for evidence of the flood, some even claiming some but eventually replaced over time with those who proved it's not there. No world wide flood ever occured. paleontology backs it up. Of course, you think that's a conspiracy group too.
"getting pretty high"
No shit.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.