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

[leroy]

//facepalm

Good job showing you have no clue what scientific prediction is all about.
It's not the equivalent of "prophecy" you know

A scientific prediction of a scientific theory / hypothesis, are things that naturally flow from the idea. It doesn't matter if those things were already known or not. Off course, I bet that it is, or sounds, more impressive if the prediction is about something that isn't already known, like when Darwin predicted the existance of a hereditary system which turned out to be DNA or when Einstein predicted the existence of black holes.

But that doesn't make things that are already known any less of a prediction when it naturally flows from a hypothesis or theory.
"if this and this, then that". ==> "that" is the prediction which naturally flows from the idea that includes "this and this". Regardless if "that" is already known or not.

(Responding to the red letters above)

Aja……..So from the theory of evolution it “flows” naturally that trilobites evolved 500M years ago and mammals 200M years ago?...............(you know that the answer is no)……

but fossilization is quite a rare process already in environments that provide ideal conditions to fossilize. So don't expect to many fossils in habitats where conditions are extremely unfavorable for fossilization to unfold. Like the habitat that gorilla's inhabit.

Then why are you insisting in “rabbits in the Cambrian”? according to you……fossilization is “rare” and therefore even if rabbits lived in the Cambrian it would have been unlikely that they left a fossil. …….agree?

In general terms, “not finding a fossil in a given “era” doesn’t prove that the animal wisent alive during that era………….agree?

It's hard to respond to nonsense.
So I just went with the good 'ol Hitch method: that which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence

But there is evidence that some animals (mammals birds etc.) are capable of escaping from floods floods much more efficiently than say snails. this is why we would expect to find snails “under” mammals in most of the cases (sure some exceptions are expected)

Unless creationists are claiming this flood occured gradually over a period of millions of years, this claimed MEGA MASSIVE DYING, the biggest one that would have happened in the history of the planet, would have occurred within a year. Let's say 10 years (the bible speaks of a lot less). In geological time, that's pretty much "at the same time".

-sure, so 1 day a pile of mud burried a snail (meanwhile mammals where running away from the flood)

- then withiin a few months tides whent up and down, and different ecosisytems from different parts of the world where dragged by the tides (forming each ecosystem a different layer)

- then a mammal finally died and was burried by an other pile of mud

therefore you end up with a mammal burried "above" a snail with many layers in between,..........(you dont need milliosn of years for that)

What hole?

You don’t find Young gorillas in the fossil record (young enough to coexist with humans)…………and you explain that hole with “fossilization is hard”

So why can’t YEC also use the fossilization is hard excuse to explain the lack of rabbits in the Cambrian or the lack of humans and dinosaurs together?

All fossils could disappear from the face of the earth, and evolution theory would be as strong as ever.
The genetic record, the distribution of species, comparative anatomy,...

Bla bla bla, interesting but irrelevant, the point is that the fossil record doesn’t support evolution , (nor disproves the flood) if you have other evidences for evolution good for you, but we are talking about the fossil record.

 

[nPeace]

People say the funniest things.
I'm typing this, and i can't even stop
Imagine someone who believes in a god telling someone who doesn't, that they can't change the mind of people who have already surrendered reason for fantasy.

 

[Yerda]

Ouch.
There are quite a lot of loonballs, people don't mind reading.
Isaiah - Isaiah 54:9
Ezekiel - Ezekiel 14:14
Luke the historian - Luke 3:36
Jesus the Christ - Matthew 24:37-39 ; Luke 17:26-30
Paul - Hebrews 11:7
Peter - 1 Peter 3:19, 20 Peter! You of all persons.


Can I ask... You don't believe the Bible, do you?
I don't really understand how a person can say they believe the Bible, and think that it contains information from a bunch of men who are all liars. I would throw away my Bible, to be honest, if I had that view.
Can you explain that concept to me please, if you believe the Bible? It boggles my mind.

Ok, first, loonballs is a harsh term - my apologies. Lots of creationists and literalists are far from stupid and usually nice enough people.

I don't 'believe' the Bible in much the way I don't 'believe' the Greek myths. Most of the stories make very little sense if I think about them literally. Adam and Eve, the fall, Noah and the flood, Abraham and his life, Moses and his life, Job, Jesus' death redeeming mankind etc etc.

I wouldn't throw it away because there is a lot worth taking in. Taking it literally seems like an obvious mistake to me, however.

 

[ecco]

Even if this argument is faulty you did not grasp it.

Why should anyone want to grasp a faulty argument?

Perhaps more important, why would you even post a faulty argument? Even more important, why would you cut and paste 20 "arguments" without first evaluating them for yourself.

Just because a David Guzik posted them on a religious apologetics websiite, doesn't absolve you from the responsibility of reading and understanding them before you paste them here.

 

[nPeace]

Ok, first, loonballs is a harsh term - my apologies. Lots of creationists and literalists are far from stupid and usually nice enough people.

I don't 'believe' the Bible in much the way I don't 'believe' the Greek myths. Most of the stories make very little sense if I think about them literally. Adam and Eve, the fall, Noah and the flood, Abraham and his life, Moses and his life, Job, Jesus' death redeeming mankind etc etc.

I wouldn't throw it away because there is a lot worth taking in. Taking it literally seems like an obvious mistake to me, however.

Do you agree that if they are just stories, then they are all made up?
If they are all made up, then those who spoke of them as being real, are liars. Is that correct?
We know that those who spoke of these events were real. True? For example, Jesus, Paul, Peter...
Also, Ezekiel and the Historian Luke, traces the Jewish genealogy to Noah - a forefather.

So if you are reading a book, whose writers and character claimed what you say is fiction, as fact, they are liars. Agreed?
Why would you want to have anything to do with a book written by, and about liars, is the question. That's what's puzzling.
The other thing is, they claimed to be God's servants, so that would make it worst, and especially since people teach their children and other people these things, and use those person as good examples.

May I ask, do you also think miracles are impossible, and angels are mythical?
Do you think Isaiah lied about the angel that defeated the Assyrian army?
This is a historical event, according to secular sources... minus what Isaiah records about the angel.
How do you decide what is to be considered a literal event?

Oh. Edit @Jaiket, no need to apologize for expressing what you think, even though it may seem harsh... Unless you wonder why you said it. I appreciate your honesty. I like honesty.
If you tell me what you think i want to hear, that's another story... I prefer not to hear.

 

[ecco]

Changing the levels of the sea, the post-Flood won’t drop back to the pre-Flood level when the water supposedly receded. Water don’t simply vanished if it did cover all the mountains, like the Everest.

Hence, another reason why the Genesis Flood is unrealistic.

What made the water disappear? GodDidIt.




ETA: Just saw this confirmation...

if God were to do such a great thing as flood the earth he could probably hide the evidence,

 

[Jose Fly]

Do you agree that if they are just stories, then they are all made up?
If they are all made up, then those who spoke of them as being real, are liars. Is that correct?

Or they're just wrong. Surely you don't think the Muslims who believe Muhammed visited heaven aren't "lying" when they speak of it as a real event? You just think they're mistaken, right?

 

[robocop (actually)]

Why should anyone want to grasp a faulty argument?

Perhaps more important, why would you even post a faulty argument? Even more important, why would you cut and paste 20 "arguments" without first evaluating them for yourself.

Just because a David Guzik posted them on a religious apologetics websiite, doesn't absolve you from the responsibility of reading and understanding them before you paste them here.

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.

Either humans can think of God, as a swan or not, or they can't. The fact that they can have the idea of God proves that it is a concept in the Universe.

 

[ecco]

Do you agree that if they are just stories, then they are all made up?
If they are all made up, then those who spoke of them as being real, are liars. Is that correct?

So if you are reading a book, whose writers and character claimed what you say is fiction, as fact, they are liars. Agreed?

No. That is not correct.
They are not lies if the people telling them believed them.

Some people write stories that are, to the best of their knowledge, based on fact. Some people write stories that are unquestionably fiction; Wizard of OZ. Some people write stories that are fiction but are based on plausible events; Hunt for Red October. Some people write stories that are based on their intentional hallucinogenic experiences. None of these people are liars. None of these people wrote with the intention to deceive.

Joseph Smith wrote and said a lot of things that are unquestionably false. Did he dream the events? Did he hallucinate the events? Or did he just outright lie? If he actually believed the events, he did not lie.


Now, back to your scriptures. The OT is a written rendition of many oral tales cobbled together. That can be plainly seen in all the contradictions in Genesis. Did the people who physically wrote down the stories lie or were they just writing what they had heard all their lives and firmly believed. When children are indoctrinated with stories of gods and angels from an early age, they come to believe that these things actually exist. When they write about them they are not lying.

When you quote things from the Bible I assume you believe them, so I don't consider you to be lying.

 

[nPeace]

Or they're just wrong. Surely you don't think the Muslims who believe Muhammed visited heaven aren't "lying" when they speak of it as a real event? You just think they're mistaken, right?

If I said that Muhammad visited heaven, as an allegory, to mean something else, No, I am not mistaken.
I deliberately told a story, which meant something else, and maybe people don't understand. That's possible.

Either I meant what i said, or I didn't.
If I stated something as a fact, because I don't know any better, then those who know better I think, should call me out, as a misguided nut and not try to make excuses for my ignorance, by claiming that I was speaking in code, and they have the ability to understand the code... imo

 

[ecco]

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.

Either humans can think of God, as a swan or not, or they can't. The fact that they can have the idea of God proves that it is a concept in the Universe.

So what? So gods are concepts. Psychic Snowflakes are also concepts.

Let's take one of the sentences...

Only God has the qualities of God; therefore God must be the cause of the concept of God, and therefore God exists.​

...and change a word or two...

Only Psychic Snowflakes have the qualities of Psychic Snowflakes; therefore Psychic Snowflakes must be the cause of the concept of Psychic Snowflakes, and therefore Psychic Snowflakes exist.​

Does the Psychic Snowflakes version make any sense to you? Does the Psychic Snowflakes version substantiate the existence of Psychic Snowflakes?

Why do you insist on exposing yourself by reposting any of the nonsensical list of twenty? Do I really need to destroy all of them? Have you gotten back to the author of your silliness and showed him how ridiculous the entries on the list actually are?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you beating a dead horse again?

Unfortunately we are merely replaying his errors all of the time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? There's a prophesy that says Israel will be a nation in 1948? Let's see that text.

And even if that text exists with that date, please show us how the nations of the world after WW2 weren't just trying to help the Jewish people after massive anti-Semitism in Europe and the USA.

By twisting and contorting and playing weird number games and making unwarranted assumptions they can get it to do so. Of course other sects have totally different interpretations of that book. It is just another example of a Nostradamus type of prophecy which is why it is a failed prophecy.

 

[robocop (actually)]

So what? So gods are concepts. Psychic Snowflakes are also concepts.

Let's take one of the sentences...

Only God has the qualities of God; therefore God must be the cause of the concept of God, and therefore God exists.​

...and change a word or two...

Only Psychic Snowflakes have the qualities of Psychic Snowflakes; therefore Psychic Snowflakes must be the cause of the concept of Psychic Snowflakes, and therefore Psychic Snowflakes exist.​

Does the Psychic Snowflakes version make any sense to you? Does the Psychic Snowflakes version substantiate the existence of Psychic Snowflakes?

Why do you insist on exposing yourself by reposting any of the nonsensical list of twenty? Do I really need to destroy all of them? Have you gotten back to the author of your silliness and showed him how ridiculous the entries on the list actually are?

The list of 20 was just to demonstrate that there were reasons some people believe in God.

If there is God then God can create Psychic Snowflakes. Therefore, psychic snowflakes are a subset of the concept of God. Same with the swan.

 

[Jose Fly]

If I said that Muhammad visited heaven, as an allegory, to mean something else, No, I am not mistaken.
I deliberately told a story, which meant something else, and maybe people don't understand. That's possible.

I'm talking about everyday Muslims who, if you ask them, will tell you that Muhammed did indeed visit heaven. Are they lying?

Either I meant what i said, or I didn't.
If I stated something as a fact, because I don't know any better, then those who know better I think, should call me out, as a misguided nut and not try to make excuses for my ignorance, by claiming that I was speaking in code, and they have the ability to understand the code... imo

I think that's pretty much what this thread is.

 

[ecco]

You are making an open-minded discussion conditional? Go away.

Not at all. You made a highly questionable assertion...

Some of the apologists include geologists, biologists, physicists, etc. and I wish you would discuss this from an open-minded perspective.

I am asking you to show that your assertion is something more than just blowing wind.

 

[nPeace]

I'm talking about everyday Muslims who, if you ask them, will tell you that Muhammed did indeed visit heaven. Are they lying?

Different scenario, and does not apply.
Also, why ask me about who is lying? Am I in the place of God?

I think that's pretty much what this thread is.

Okay.

 

[Jose Fly]

Different scenario, and does not apply.
Also, why ask me about who is lying? Am I in the place of God?

It's the same basic concept. When someone tells a story that they believe is true, if the story isn't really true that doesn't necessarily make them a liar. They could just be wrong.

 

[ecco]

There are quite a lot of loonballs, people don't mind reading.
...
Luke the historian - Luke 3:36

OK Let's look at that one...(Biblehub KJV)

The Genealogy of Jesus

23And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, <snip>
36Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, 37Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.​

Let's look carefully at the first sentence. The author, let's refer to him as Luke, supposes Jesus is the son of Joseph. Supposes! He is not stating knowledge, he is stating a supposition. It is, of course, an incorrect supposition.

Regarding the genealogy of Jesus, Joseph was not the Blood Father of Jesus. Jesus was not the Blood Son of Joseph. According to your own scripture, God impregnated Jesus' mother Mary. GOD! Not Joseph.

"Luke" is a pretty poor excuse for a historian.

@nPeace, did you not understand what is written in your scripture or did you assume others did not?

 

[nPeace]

It's the same basic concept. When someone tells a story that they believe is true, if the story isn't really true that doesn't necessarily make them a liar. They could just be wrong.

So Fly, You come home from the office, and tells your wife and 'kids' something that happened to you. None of what you said was true, you just thought it was.
Oh wait. Let me guess. You got hit over your head, and are suffering from temporary senility.... Or maybe you are senile.

Exactly. That the whole idea. The writers were all senile. They lost it.