After years of study I give the award to Noah’s Ark.
I have witnessed theologians and atheists debate this for quite some time.
Usually, the atheists resort to logical fallacies, laughing and saying things like “Do you really believe this?” It’s really juvenile actually.
While intelligient theologians are much better at the debate, presenting fossil evidence, and evidence from ancient sumerian texts, as well as global cultures, such as asia, indian, and mayan, over 500 cultures telling similar flood stories. They even provide geometric stability analysis for the boat.
While atheists just resort to logical fallacies and weak ad hominem attacks, repeating “it cannot be true, it cannot be true” without providing any real evidence other than childish ad homs.
At the moment, I have to give the award to theologians at this time. Sorry atheists, but your arguments are weak, and you just can’t debate worth a damn.
There is some history that supports a flood in the middle East, which would have included the known world of the Sumerians and others who told of the event. The sinking of an island off the coast of Greece (Sometimes considered to be Atlantis) would have caused the flood.
As for the watchers (angels or aliens), they appear to be doing a poor job of supervising human activities.
Are you into eugenics?
The Great Flood has been in historical records of 500 civilizations (including aztec and asian) all across the globe. It was not merely a small flood in the middle east.
I believe in DNA upgrades, in a non-violent way, by walking into machines and pressing a button, to become as gods.
As an atheist I don’t have to prove god exists, believers do.
Actually, I don’t have to prove anything. God doesn’t exist.
How would you “prove” this? You can’t. You cannot prove a negative.
For example, I say that, there are green creatures the size of maine walking
the earth. You say I haven’t seen proof of this. Please feel free to show us, prove
to us, that there are green creatures the size of maine walking the earth.
The burden of proof lies with me to prove that there are green creatures the
size of maine walking the earth. As there are no such things, I cannot prove it.
I cannot show any type of proof that there are green creatures the size of maine walking
the earth. I have failed in showing proof of such a thing. Whereas a non believer in
this idea of green creatures the size of maine walking the earth don’t have to show
proof because their argument is there is no such thing and there wasn’t. You cannot show
proof of a negative. Prove to me that green creatures the size of maine walking the earth.
You can’t. Show me a god. that is a negative and thus the burden of proof is on the believer,
to show us some evidence that god exists. I don’t have to show anything because I maintain
it doesn’t exist and you cannot prove a negative.
you claim that atheist have failed in their arguments while theologians have succeeded and
yet when I make an argument, you send me to a video. Really, that is your great argument
against atheist, a video. I should have known. The more a person claims that the other side cannot
argue against a position, the less likely that person can actually make an argument themselves.
NOAH’S ARK LOST THE DEBATE because if you need a video to prove your point, you have lost.
There is no fossil evidence… if a flood to the extent of what is said to have happened, happened… there would be fossils overlaying other fossils. Which we do not find at all. We never find fossils on top of other fossils in the ground. Also, a ship that big would have broke down. It was built by farmers while the Titanic was built by experienced engineers and ship workers, and it still went down. These points that I have brought up, the arguments against them are logical fallacies due to the fact that they do not even contain a shred of logic at all. I mean really, farmers? building a grand ship of which was that big, then gathering one of every animal? How does that sound logical, even in the tiniest bit.
I would like to see your evidence of the Sumerians, Mayans and what not stating that there was a flood or pointing towards it.
I mean sure a normal flood could have happened, they happen even now… But the entire world? and then a ark built by farmers that way. Also in the sense of them seeing a prophecy of a flood or some sort in order to know to build a ship, then get 2 of every animal… no.
That’s a logical fallacy, sir. That video supplies 3 hours of content. It’s an educational journey. Someone who doesn’t know the basics of the video, it would be like debating with someone who didn’t graduate highschool. Don’t have time for that.
If you watch the video and still don’t believe, that’s on you. But at least we can have a debate. You can’t go on here and tell me that telling someone to learn the required material is losing the debate. It’s no contest, like having a debate about physics with someone who never took a physics class.
It’s like trying to argue about Star Wars when you never even bothered to watch the movie Star Wars, and telling me I lose the debate when I told you go and watch the movie. It’s like bashing religious concepts when you don’t even know the concepts. Kind of like darkmatter2525 or Richard Dawkins. Theyr entertaining to watch but their view of religious concepts are very childlike, like 2nd grade level. They can’t even bash the religion properly because they haven’t learned the deeper concepts.
It’s the product of hard work and men. Real strong, muscular men - something modern’s don’t know about.
You well know that the modern man cannot be compared to ancient men. This you and I can agree on. The ancient man often walked 30 miles a day in the desert. The ancient man had larger brain capacity. Even recently, Abe Lincoln walked 18 miles everyday. The ancient man had a larger brain and work capacity. He built a large wooden boat in 80 years. It’s not that impressive of a feat. They only took 2 of every major species. Not that many species. Not that impressive of a feat.
Saying the boat would fall apart due to random chance…that’s conjecture.
Also they did find fossils of the a broken ark-like boat on some mountain somewhere.
Fossils would not be piled up why would they? The waters would scatter the animals randomly.
There is evidence that floods happened in various parts of the world. There is no evidence that the entire world was flooded.
That ancient men had a larger brain capacity than current men goes against evolution. We have evolved into predominantly left brain thinking, which has allowed us to split the atom and splice the gene.
Doesnt matter if it goes against evolution. Do you understand science? You don’t chuck out science because it doesnt fit a theory you like.
The facts show Neanderthals had larger brains than humans. This is fact.
From there you can make up theories. My theory is that DNA degrades over time, which is supported by evidence showing the devolution of the homo sapiens. Each year people are getting dumber. Ancient specimens had larger brains. These are facts.
My theory to explain the dissapearance of Neanderthal, the superior lifeform, was that they were either wiped out in a flood, or genocided by the homo sapiens, and the remanding Neanderthal’s DNA merged and mated with the sapiens and Neanderthal DNA slowly degraded and disappeared into the sapien pool. All three assertions are supported by the bible, take it or leave it.
The tool making gene was present in ancients, only they did not have the sheltering and store of knowledge to use it to create modern inventions. Had they had more knowledge and sheltering, they would have made greater inventions than moderns today. Creating bombs is a violent endeavour, and Neanderthals larger brains made them less violent, and more susceptible to dishonest, violent sapiens.
The whale has a larger brain than humans but may or may not be as intelligent because whales have much different brain biology than humans.
A neanderthal could breed with sapiens which means the brain biology is similar which means it has a larger brain of sapiens but of the same basic structure which means it was more intelligient than the sapiens. The sapiens was a liar and hyperviolent which could give it a combat advantage over the Neanderthal. Thus smaller, more violent and dishonest, intellectually inferior sapien brains are more prevelant today. Larger brains also require greater maintenance and food supply. However with sheltering, this is no longer a problem. Through DNA modification the larger more capable brains can once again be restored, and food and maintenance of the brains will be no problem.
Otherwise other animals larger than us would be technically smarter than us, more advanced and capable of making tools and infrastructures like we can.
A lot more brain power goes to using their bodily functions than we do, also their senses. They were shorter but thicker/stronger. Also a lot of power went to their vision as well.
I believe I already explained this to you. Whales and elephants have radically different biologies than humans. Their brains are not structured the same, and have less neurons.
This would not apply to sapiens and neanderthal. Sapien is a descendant of neanderthal, with identical brain biology. Since the biology is the same, this means the larger brain of the Neanderthal was more intelligent.
The articles in the links present wild theories with no basis in reality. Why would a shorter lifeform require more brain resources to body control? That makes no sense. The human eye has a fixed resolution. Why would Neanderthal eye control require 40 percent more resources for it, when Sapiens is already using the max amount of resources for it already?
Except it wasn’t… I thought I already explained to you that more of their brain power went into their body usage and sense usage…
Besides, am I supposed to just take your word for it? That isn’t how science works. That’s like saying Octopus can’t be smart because they don’t have a brain… and octopus have been tested and the results show that they are pretty intelligent.
