The thread is about history, specifically the flood history and the idea that a world-wide flood destroying most of mankind is a common story in most cultures. I asked how we know the Bible story is the true account seeing as all the others are different from it...some are so significantly different as to be almost unrecognizable.
From that point the only one to try and answer was SoSick. Her answer was basically that she assumes the Bible is right, which is really inadequate to a non-believer, but it at least provided her point of view.
I suggest using firefox, or some other browser with a tab feature when summarizing a thread. Doing so would help avoid so many mistakes. Relying on memory, well...
SoSick's post #253842 seems to be the one you're talking about. She says one should view the stories as a phylogeny, and you equate this with "assuming the Bible is right". For once you seem to see things fairly well. I think most of us agree that the phylogeny view does lead to the Bible, although it's not exactly accurate to call conclusions 'assumptions'.
Your direct response in #253855
There's evidence of a world wide flood? Is it in a form other than written or spoken "history"?
Those Mammoths could have died in local floods. I look forward to your linking us to that web page you found.
You say it doesn't matter which flood story I decide to choose. Are you saying that if I choose one that it would necessarily lead me to the Bible story? How would that work? What do you have that tells you the Noah story is the true version and all these others are variations. Why couldn't the Noah story be a variation on the flood story from China or India or even Norway?
The very first sentence asks for evidence
other than written or spoken "history". Yet your summary acts like Bex just wandered from the topic
Bex just provided videos and accounts of evidence for floods, and evidence of marine life on mountains, which may support a massive flood but doesn't clear up which story is the true one. I gave an explanation for why the marine life could be on the mountaintop and you came up with that monstrosity of an assertion which claimed that continental drift was first thought up by a creationist weatherman with no training in geology. When called on it, you crawled into your "stay on topic" mode. How convenient.
You entirely omit to mention that in post #253857 Bex addresses your question about which account is accurate.
Another series of posts follows. SoSick & Bex continue to supply more & more of the evidence
you requested (in a form other than written or spoken "history").
I provided evidence that other civilizations trace their ancestry back to Noah's descendants.
Bex provided more fossil evidence, and some very interesting items from her book, which leave little room for doubt. Well, basically no room at all. I'll grant that you have leeway to hope the book's fiction, or Bex is making it up - that's about it.
Your post #254202 Does not explain much of anything. It's a jumbled attempt to claim that mountain building occurs and AIG doesn't know this.
I point out that the jumble makes no sense, and you try to change the subject.
Since you want to stay on topic, then provide some evidence that your flood story is more likely to be true than, for example, the Iroquois flood story.
You yourself, in this very post (long long ago, but take a look - it's still there) equated the phylogenic view of flood stories with accepting the Bible. Don't bother trying to convince us otherwise. The truth has slipped out & it's too late to edit.
You requested evidence and a good deal of evidence has been delivered. If you don't want to discuss it, I'll wait for LindaLou to show up with some talkdeceptions "refutations". Or maybe I'll go fetch a few myself. Ridiculing lies can be fun.
