Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,520 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 327,327
Pageviews Today: 468,668Threads Today: 152Posts Today: 2,740
04:21 AM


Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Back to Thread
REPORT COPYRIGHT VIOLATION IN REPLY
Message Subject Besides the Bible's account, {Genesis Chapter 6-9}- What evidence do we see on the earth to confirm there was a global flood?
Poster Handle Anonymous Coward
Post Content
Here are the asshat arguments when it comes to bible and "Proving" anything:

They: The Bible are dum. Its not the true! You cant proof it because it didn't happen, so there!

Us: Well, actually there is a great deal of evidence to show that it did.

They: Pfffft! You dont got syences!

Us: Actually, according to Dr. Such-And-Such of the University of Something You've Heard Of, we have actual science.

They: Well, I dont like yer guys, they're stupid dummy-heads because you don't got syiences, only I have scyeinces!

Us: So, Our Scientists don't count, but yours do? This is your thesis?

They: Huh? Thee-sus?

Us: See, you can't have it both ways. You can't demand a scientist with proof then say he/she is not good enough when we give it to you. If Science is your requirement, and I give you Science, you have no choice but to concede that, at the very least, there may be information out there that you haven't been exposed to, or has been kept from you, or that you willfully ignore because you do not wish to change your own conclusions.

They: Yer dum, I'm going back to my bong and my George Carlin cassettes.
 Quoting: Lada D


I think you're missing the point. It's very easy to gather information from a handful of people and come to a conclusion based on that alone.
It's not a coincidence that this opinion in the minority. There isn't a global science conspiracy against a great flood. The facts against a global flood are so evident it is scary. To deny that based on just that handful of scientists is ignorant. The only people with a real agenda, are the ones with a religious perspective. I thought that was obvious.

I would rather look at all of the evidence presented and only then come to a conclusion. Not simply take what a few people say, and have that point to the truth of something. It's lazy, and it is not the way to come to a conclusion. if all you needed for proof of something was a band of scientists going against the grain, then you'd have a lot of unrespected theories out there that you'd have to believe in, based on the fact that they have a conclusion. I'm impressed you don't see how funny that is.
I'll go with the abundance of data supporting something before I go with the few people that support what I 'want' to believe in. That's the smarter way to do things. And yes, I'm pretty sure of that.
 
Please verify you're human:




Reason for copyright violation: