Poll: Did the Biblical Flood really occur?

[Hagbard Celine]

I think that it did occur (naturally since this story is represented in some form in many of the cultures in and around central Asia and the Middle East) but I think it was much more local than the Bible describes. Also, there isn't any evidence in the global geological record of a worldwide flood. There's a theory that this actually occured in the area around the Black Sea and was due to a glacial dam that broke and released a massive amount of water into the surrounding areas. This also explains the brackish water table under the salt water on the Black Sea.

[darin]

Cannot answer - because NO answer lines up biblically.

[nevadamedic]

Cannot answer - because NO answer lines up biblically.

That's because the bible is wrong!

[Hagbard Celine]

Cannot answer - because NO answer lines up biblically.

Did it not rain for 40 days and 40 nights in the Bible version?

[darin]

Did it not rain for 40 days and 40 nights in the Bible version?

Indeed - but the flood lasted much longer...that is to say, it took a long time for the water to go down.

And it's not accurate to say there isn't any evidence of a world-wide flood. It'd be MORE accurate for you to say, "I don't believe any of the evidence suggesting a world-wide flood."

[Hagbard Celine]

Indeed - but the flood lasted much longer...that is to say, it took a long time for the water to go down.

And it's not accurate to say there isn't any evidence of a world-wide flood. It'd be MORE accurate for you to say, "I don't believe any of the evidence suggesting a world-wide flood."

If you're referring to the Grand Canyon drain hypothesis, you've gone off the deep end.

[nevadamedic]

If you're referring to the Grand Canyon drain hypothesis, you've gone off the deep end.

[darin]

If you're referring to the Grand Canyon drain hypothesis, you've gone off the deep end.

No, I'm saying two things:

First - You REALLY COULDN'T GIVE TWO RATS' ASSESS about seeing evidence supporting a world-wide flood as having happened.

Secondly - This thread is Merely a thinly-veiled attempt for ad hominem and baiting of believers of this board.

[OCA]

You ever do anything but pat others on the back for your thinly veiled liberal beliefs and start needless threads?

Also the clock is still ticking until string pulling time........a public apology will stop the clock.

[Hagbard Celine]

No, I'm saying two things:

First - You REALLY COULDN'T GIVE TWO RATS' ASSESS about seeing evidence supporting a world-wide flood as having happened.

Secondly - This thread is Merely a thinly-veiled attempt for ad hominem and baiting of believers of this board.

No it isn't, I just wanted to see where everyone here stood. And again I notice a lack of evidence to support your position. Where is all this evidence dmp? Is it secret evidence?

[darin]

No it isn't, I just wanted to see where everyone here stood. And again I notice a lack of evidence to support your position. Where is all this evidence dmp? Is it secret evidence?

Will you stop the Ad hominem and have an adult-level discussion?

[Hagbard Celine]

http://www.globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCcpt.html...

[Missileman]

Indeed - but the flood lasted much longer...that is to say, it took a long time for the water to go down.

And it's not accurate to say there isn't any evidence of a world-wide flood. It'd be MORE accurate for you to say, "I don't believe any of the evidence suggesting a world-wide flood."

It would be even more accurate to say that there isn't much, if any, credible evidence of a global flood. On the contrary, the existence of all of the other races, languages, alphabets, architecture, and religions is very strong evidence against the notion of a global flood and an ark.

[darin]

It would be even more accurate to say that there isn't much, if any, credible evidence of a global flood. On the contrary, the existence of all of the other races, languages, alphabets, architecture, and religions is very strong evidence against the notion of a global flood and an ark.

I think it's MOST accurate to say there is a good-amount of CREDIBLE evidence of a global flood.

(shrug) - the difference is, when you see evidence with which you disagree, you call it 'not credible'.

[glockmail]

No, I'm saying two things:

First - You REALLY COULDN'T GIVE TWO RATS' ASSESS about seeing evidence supporting a world-wide flood as having happened.

Secondly - This thread is Merely a thinly-veiled attempt for ad hominem and baiting of believers of this board.

I don't happen to think this attack on the OP writer's motives is fair. We've been talking about similar issues in other threads and this is simply a continuation. I'll give Hag the benefit of doubt that his stated reason lines up with his true motives.

I hate it when people assume my motives are something that they are not, and I'll defend anyone who's been civil even if I disagree with them most of the time.

BTW I voted "localized", as this is supported by the geological record, ancedotal evidence, and can be explained by reading the biblical text in its intended context.