No, it doesn’t call into question the flood story. That wording presumes there was a flood, and there’s no reason to presume that. The current evidence is overwhelmingly against the flood: there’s no population bottleneck, there’s no sedimentary and fossil evidence, there’s no evidence for where the water came from and where it went, there’s no evidence of every extant civilization being wiped out by a huge flood at the same time. What you do have is flood myths from many cultures, some of which are broadly similar but for which there’s no indication of a common source.
I’m probably not alone in wanting to approach just about everything with an open mind. I’m guessing I will never get a response because GEEPERS does not actually want anyone to have an open mind, he is simply using an excuse to drag out another argument endlessly by claiming that he hasn’t been given a fair hearing, but I might yet be proven wrong.
The importance of having an open mind cannot be overstated. But having an open mind does not mean that you entertain every possible concept every time you debate. At some point, it is fair, reasonable and necessary to come to some conclusions and to accept a few basic premises.
Of course, I’m preaching to the choir while being ignored by the heckler in the front row.
Is that the new measuring stick for evidence? I need a backup reference for support? After all, apparently testimony from a man’s doctor with MRI scans wasn’t good enough in a previous thread.
Wait a second. Weren’t you arguing a few posts ago that similarities in different folk stories was evidence FOR the flood? Now you’re saying that the only evidence that counts is witnessing something with your own eyes.
It seems to me that you have different standards for evidence depending on whether it agrees with your position or not. If it seems like it supports the flood, any scrap of evidence counts, no matter how tenuous. However, if it contradicts the flood, strong evidence can be rejected out of hand because “you didn’t personally witness it”.
This is why atheists find it so frustrating to argue with theists. Instead of trying to draw conclusions from the evidence at hand, theists always seem to be working to try to shoehorn the evidence into whatever supernatural tradition they happen to believe in.
It’s awfully surprising there aren’t any independent news stories about this (hint: it probably didn’t happen). Still, one cite is better than zero. Where’s your evidence for the global flood again?
Glurge from a religious website is not evidence of anything than a desire to raise money through donations. Damn right I want something more than what little you have provided. Are you honestly trying to tell us that something as miraculous as a heart growing whole overnight happened, and the only place we can found out about it is this Christian glurge site? It wasn’t on the evening news? It wasn’t in the local or national newspapers? It wasn’t written up in any medical journals?
IT isn’t evidence of anything, except maybe one’s gullibility. What you have provided is nothing more than a fundraising story. Do better.
edited to add: I’m not asking for “Christian evidence”-they ain’t no such thing. I’m asking for real evidence that isn’t embarrassing shallow and weak.
This is a separate debate from the Noah story. We can move to ambiguous realm and discuss the relevance of internal observations, and I’m sure others will, but this does nothing to support whether or not the flood occurred. Couldn’t it be the case that God is an active participant in your life, but that at the same time a folklore myth managed to find its way into the set of oral traditions, histories and parables that make up the bible? God gave humans a brain and eyes to see the world. Keeping them closed is no way to go about life.
So if I present a miracle reported in the national news, you might actually give it consideration??? At least you are not falling back on the argument that this is just natural human behavior.
Yet I have no doubt that you accept without question any scientific finding that goes against the Bible. Are you an expert in geology? Where did you get your degree?
The problem with “miracles” is that they are, by definition, events that defy natural law (parting the sea, turning water into wine, or whatever). Random “miracle” cases are going to be isolated incidents where nobody else can confirm, verify, or reproduce the results. It’s the same as if you told me you had an out of body experience.
There’s simply no way for me to verify what you saw other than your say-so, and that isn’t science. Furthermore, we have plenty of other explanations that could account for such “miracle” stories (or even out of body experiences) that are more plausible and more likely (and in many cases, reproducible in the lab).
All you’re doing is clinging onto any piece of “evidence” that supports your view, no matter how weak it is, instead of assessing whether or not it’s more likely to be a sham/lie/scam/misinterpretation/etc. But then when lots of evidence is given to you that shows the more likely explanation for things, you ignore it and find any little reason to discount it because it contradicts you.
THAT is the definition of close-mindedness. You’re holding onto a belief no matter how hard the evidence overwhelms it.
You know an awful lot about what people would to hypothetically. Do you realize that doesn’t count for anything? Post some cites for your arguments instead of saying that you don’t have to because you bet people wouldn’t listen.