A Bunch of Reasons Why I Question Noah's Flood Story:

[Dan From Smithville]

The OP made several dozen statements, some of which have been refuted clearly elsewhere. I'll reply to him.

None of those statements have been refuted anywhere to my knowledge. Maybe in the Niagra Falls area. I'll have to check with Bender on that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I can think of simple, reasonable alternatives to the questions you've posed, however, let's start with you don't ever want to accept on plausible explanation for any anti-Christian question you raise. You have an agenda.

Why don't you start with the simple, reasonable alternatives you think of and mention all the time, but never post.

 

[YoursTrue]

@nPeace --

Your response is expected; a simple hand-wave of contradictory evidence with simple, pat explanations or open-ended, answerable, questions in a failed attempt to cram reality into the fantasy. An utter dismissal of reality as a whole in order to ardently and fervently cling to ideologies that are patently and absorbedly false. Demonstrates not only a dismissal of, what is nearly, the entirety of our scientific knowledge (ranging from biology to geology to plate tectonics to meteorology), but an absolute non-understanding (or non-acceptance) of the same.

Your tenacity is admirable and with these differences in views aside, I'm quite certain that you are probably a decent person who would be welcome to my home for dinner. But you can not defend the indefensible -- and Noah's Tale is indefensible.



All sources, reliable or otherwise, need to be questioned.

So do yours.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So do yours.

It is going on in 19 pages so far.

 

[Brickjectivity]

That depends upon when the God magic ended. To continually increase diversity would take God magic for many many generations. Also it would be an example of God lying by covering up the evidence of his evil deed.

In fact all of the arguments are void if one believes in an all powerful and lying God. If God cannot lie that places other limits on him as well.

Noted. All I'm saying is that if any of the arguments is seen as weak then that will distract, making the strong and simple arguments less obvious. The real struggle is not even to appear disingenuous, because the moment someone assumes you are just being sloppy or even dishonest then they stop listening and only want to talk down to you, to help you and maybe for other reasons like to win an argument. Nobody likes losing arguments.

EDIT: I see that you addressed the lack of a universal population bottleneck, but that is what the not enough genetic diversity argument is.

True but not stated as such.

 

[Yerda]

What is ridiculous is that you don't understand that it's a STORY.

By that you mean it isn't intended to be literally true or false?

You can see that the first responder to the OP is arguing that the story historically accurate, yes?

 

[leroy]

Because they are sorted by age as predicted by evolution theory.

The “sorting” was known long before evolution was proposed. Everybody knew that there were no rabbits in the Cambrian long before evolution. If there where rabbits in the Cambrian you would have simply moved the evolution of mammals a few hundredth million years earlier.

If fossils are the result of a "flood", then we should be able to find mammals along pre-cambrian organisms for example. But we don't.

Well we don’t find gorillas and humans together in the fossil record, even though we know that both are contemporaneous, …. This proves that the order in the fossil record has nothing to do with ages

mammals and birds woudl have been the last ones to die in a global flood, this is why we usually find them at the "top".

A single flood layer with an unsorted mix of organisms.

Why? The level of the water was slowly rising for months and tides went up and down all the time. Many ammilals (birds mammals etc) could have run away for months while other animals where being buried.

Animals are not expected to die at the same time in a global flood

Stacked layers representing earth's history and events, with each layer holding only those fossils of organisms that were around in that time.

again, we know that gorillas where around 100,000 years ago and we dont find any fossils,

ie: no rabbits in pre-cambrian layers

Aja and how do you identify “precambric layers”?............





That which matches the evolutionary history narrative.[/QUOTE]

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

20 Arguments for God's existence:

https://enduringword.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/20-Arguments-for-the-Existence-of-God.pdf

1Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God1. The Argument from Change [An Aspect of the Cosmological Argument]•The universe is filled with changing things; as far as we know, the entire universe is changing. •All change needs an outside force to actualize it.•Therefore, there is some force outside (in addition to) the universe, some real being transcendent to the universe. This being we call “God.”
2. The Argument from Efficient Causality [An Aspect of the Cosmological Argument]•All things that exist are the result of some cause.•There must be something uncaused, something on which all things that need an efficient cause of being are dependent. This being we call “God.”•The idea that something can be caused by nothing is absurd.
3. The Argument from Time andContingency•The universe is filled with things that do not need to exist; their existence is not necessary.•There must be something in the universe which mustexist; some absolute necessary being. This necessary being we call “God.”
4. The Argument from Degrees of Perfection•The existence of degrees of perfection means that there is a perfect ideal.•The concept of a perfect ideal applies not only to material things and properties, but also to being.•There exists an absolutely Perfect Being, whom we call “God.”
5. The Argument from Design [Teleological Argument]•The universe displays a staggering amount of design.•This design is the result of either chance or intelligence.•Chance is a completely inadequate explanation for design; therefore it must be designed by a Supreme Intelligence. This Supreme Intelligence we call “God.”
6. The Kalam Argument; the Argument from Eternity•If the universe never began, then it always was.•If the universe always was, then it is infinitely old.•If it is infinitely old, then aninfinite amount of time must have elapsed before the present time.•The idea of an infinite amount of time having a completion is irrational; therefore the universe is not infinitely old, had a beginning, and the “Beginner” we call “God.”2
7. The Argument from Contingency [An Aspect of the Cosmological Argument]•If something exists, there must exist things upon which the existence of that thing depends.•The universe exists; therefore there must exist something upon which the universe depends.•That which the universe depends upon cannot be withinthe universe, or be bounded by space and time.•That being that transcends space and time, upon which the universe depends, is the being we call “God.”
8. The Argument from the World as an Interacting Whole•The universe is a dynamic, ordered system of many active, interacting parts.•The active nature of each part is defined by its relation to the other parts.•The system as a whole cannot explain its own existence; it needs a planner and a cause outside the system. This planner and causer of the system we call “God.”
9. The Argument of Miracles•A miracle is an event whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.•There are numerous well documented miracles.•Therefore, there are numerous events whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God. Therefore, there must be a God.
10. The Argument from Consciousness•We experience the universe as something can be understood, at least in part.•Therefore, the universe is graspable by intelligence.•This universe that can be understood and the intelligence by which we understand it are either the products of a transcendent intelligence, or the product of chance.•Since chance is a completely inadequate explanation, the best explanation is a transcendent intelligence. This transcendent intelligence we call “God.”
11. The Argument from Truth•Our limited minds can discover some truth about eternal being.•Truth properly resides in a mind; but our minds are not eternal.•Therefore, there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside. This eternal mind we call “God.”
12. The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God (Rene Descartes)•We have ideas of many things; these ideas come either from ourselves or from outside of ourselves.•One of these ideas is the idea of God.•This idea of God could not have come from ourselves, because we know that we are limited and imperfect, and no effect can be great than the cause.3•Only God has the qualities of God; therefore God must be the cause of the concept of God, and therefore God exists.
13. The Ontological Argument (Anselm)•It is a greater thing for something to exist in the mind andin reality, more than just in the mind alone.•“God” means “the ultimate” –that than which a greater cannot be thought.•Suppose that God exists in the mind, but not in reality. Then a greater than God couldbe thought; namely, a being that has all the qualities of our thought of God plusreal existence.•But, this is impossible, because God is “theultimate” –that than which a greater cannot be thought.•Therefore, God exists in both the mind andin reality.
14. The Moral Argument•Real moral obligation is a fact. We are really, truly, objectively obligated to do both good and evil.•The atheistic world view is incompatible with the idea of a true moral obligation.•Therefore, there must be a God who establishes moral obligations.
15. The Argument from Conscience•It is good to obey one’s conscience; our conscience has moral authority.•There are possiblesources of this moral authority: nature (less than me), the individual (me), society (equal to me), and God (greater than me).•Only God is an adequate explanation for the moral authority of conscience.
16. The Argument from Desire•Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds with some real object that can satisfy that desire. •There exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, and no creature can satisfy; we desire the eternal and the transcendent. •Therefore, there must exist somethingthat is greater than time, earth, and all creatures, which can satisfy this desire.•This something is what we call “God” and relationship with God.
17. The Argument from Aesthetic Experience•There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach.•Therefore there must be a God.
18. The Argument from Religious Experience•Many people of different eras and of widely different cultures claim to have had an experience of the “divine.”•It is inconceivable that so many people could have been so utterly wrong about the natureand content of their own experience.4•Therefore, there exists a “divine” reality which many people of different eras and of widely different cultures have experienced.
19. The Common Consent Argument•Belief in God is common to almost all people of every era.•Either the vast majority of people have been wrong about this most profound element of their lives or they have not.•It is more plausible to believe they have been right than it is to believe they have been wrong. Therefore it is more plausible to believe that God exists.
20. Pascal’s Wager•Logical reasoning can not finally settle the matter of the existence of God. There is some evidence on both sides of the issue.•If reason itself cannot decide the matter, then we must decide somehow, and we “wager” what we cannot absolutely prove. You must place a bet on either the existence of God or on His non-existence.•If you place your bet on God, you lose nothing even if it turns out that God does not exist.•If you place your bet on God’s non-existence, you lose everything if it turns out that God does exist.•Therefore it is reasonable and logical to believe that God exists, even despite the abscence of absolute evidence.

Every single one of these is fallacious.

Here's a fun exercise... pick the one argument of this list that you consider the BEST and MOST CONVINCING and present it in a new thread.
And I'm sure plenty of people will contribute and explain to you in exquisite detail how it is fallacious.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And yet Jesus did away with it.

No he did not.
There's not a single passage in the bible, not a single verse, that says "slavery is bad" or equivalent.
Not. A. Single. One.

Different laws for different levels of civilization.

There is no context where any of these things can be considered moral or ethical.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Too much to deal with. I don't like getting 9 replies when I get back from grocery shopping.

By all means, take your time. The post isn't going anywhere.
But I can read between the lines though, so I'm not expecting you to properly address the actual points I raised.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Whatever...

Yes, yes.... "whatever".

Science competes to bring human capability and religions compete to bring human will power. A good one of either of them allows the other effect too.

Random vague comment seems designed to avoid actually addressing the points raised.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I made no statement of agreeing with the arguments I was just answering the question, and many smart people believe a few of those.

And once again, you engage in the fallacy of argument ad populum and argument from authority.

I already explained to you on several occasions how what people believe and who those people are, does NOTHING to the credibility of what is being believed.

X believing Y is only evidence that X believes Y. Not that Y is accurate / true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The “sorting” was known long before evolution was proposed.

So?

Everybody knew that there were no rabbits in the Cambrian long before evolution. If there where rabbits in the Cambrian you would have simply moved the evolution of mammals a few hundredth million years earlier.

Assuming that all other facts remain the same, that would not have worked.
If tomorrow you find a rabbit fossil in a pre-cambrian strata, evolution will not be able to explain that.
And it's extremely naive of you to think that evolutionary biologists could then "just" move the evolution of mammals back a couple 100 million years. The whole thing would come crumbling down in that case.

Well we don’t find gorillas and humans together in the fossil record, even though we know that both are contemporaneous,

We find them in the same layers. ie, time periods.
When I say "together", I don't mean physically next to eachother. I mean contemporary with eachother.

Sorry, I made the mistake of assuming you would be intellectually honest and educated enough to realize that.

…. This proves that the order in the fossil record has nothing to do with ages

No.

mammals and birds woudl have been the last ones to die in a global flood, this is why we usually find them at the "top".

//facepalm

Did Ken Ham tell you that?

Why?

Because that's what happens with floods.

The level of the water was slowly rising for months and tides went up and down all the time. Many ammilals (birds mammals etc) could have run away for months while other animals where being buried.

Only in your imagination. This is just fantasy. You have zero evidence of this. In fact, all the evidence points to such physically impossible flood never having occured.

Animals are not expected to die at the same time in a global flood

In geological timescales, within a year is pretty much at the same time. Within a decade is pretty much at the same time.

again, we know that gorillas where around 100,000 years ago and we dont find any fossils,

Gorilla fossil suggests split from humans as far back as 10 million years ago (phys.org)

Do you also know why it is very hard to find fossils of gorilla's and alike?
Could it perhaps have something to do with their habitat and the fact that in that habitat, it is extremely hard to get fossilized?
Fossilization is already rare in environments that are perfect for fossilization to unfold. Imagine how rare it is in environments where it is hard for that process to unfold.

Aja and how do you identify “precambric layers”?............

"I" didn't. Geologists did. Go and tell geologists that you know better then them.
You are free to publish papers to overturn their work.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Every single one of these is fallacious.

Here's a fun exercise... pick the one argument of this list that you consider the BEST and MOST CONVINCING and present it in a new thread.
And I'm sure plenty of people will contribute and explain to you in exquisite detail how it is fallacious.

But some smart people have their own reasons which might use one of these themes.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Trust has to start somewhere.

No crap Sherlock.

In the Book of Mormon, there was a character who claimed to know that God couldn't lie.

 

[robocop (actually)]

No he did not.
There's not a single passage in the bible, not a single verse, that says "slavery is bad" or equivalent.
Not. A. Single. One.



There is no context where any of these things can be considered moral or ethical.

Show me Bible-supported slavery in the New Testament.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Yes, yes.... "whatever".



Random vague comment seems designed to avoid actually addressing the points raised.

It's a very important comment:

"Science competes to bring human capability and religions compete to bring human will power. A good one of either of them allows the other effect too."

 

[robocop (actually)]

And once again, you engage in the fallacy of argument ad populum and argument from authority.

I already explained to you on several occasions how what people believe and who those people are, does NOTHING to the credibility of what is being believed.

X believing Y is only evidence that X believes Y. Not that Y is accurate / true.

Then it should come as no surprise to you that I don't believe some of your assertions.

 

[PureX]

By that you mean it isn't intended to be literally true or false?

By that I mean that it's purpose is not to present the reader with actual historical events, of people, but rather to present the reader with a literal representation of some universal ideal.

You can see that the first responder to the OP is arguing that the story historically accurate, yes?

It's an irrelevant argument either way. That is my point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No crap Sherlock.

In the Book of Mormon, there was a character who claimed to know that God couldn't lie.

Yeah, that is about as fictional as Harry Potter.