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

[robocop (actually)]

You are still misunderstanding.

You don’t find the physical evidence from the Bible itself, you’d look for them in the strata of rocks during that supposed period from various sites; you’d look for them at archaeological sites that existed at that time.

Ur, Uruk (Erech), Kish, Nineveh, Susa (in Elam), Aleppo, Damascus, Tell es-Sultan (Jericho), Abydos, Nekken (Hierakonpolis), Edfu, Pylos (Greece), Argos, Knossos (Crete), Harappa & Mohenjo-daro (both in Pakistan, major cities of the Indus Valley Civilization), Huaricanga (Peru), etc, they are all cities that existed throughout the Early Bronze Age, from 3100 to 2000 BCE.

If Genesis did hypothetically happen then archaeologists would find consistent signs of destruction from flood in every ancient cities that I have mentioned, pointing to single date. There are no such evidence, because there were no single global flood covering all these places.

If you say God can hide evidence, then you are basically calling your own god a liar, and what scholars in mythology commonly referred to as the Trickster.

How can God can consider the embodiment of Truth, if actually go about deceiving people?

Once again, I'm not sure it was a flood.

And if God is doing such a big thing, He might as well cover it up because if everyone knew He existed and rebelled against Him that would not please Him.

For instance,

if it says there was rain on the earth, that could just be symbolic of death. A lot of the five Books of Moses are symbolic anyway!

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are countless examples where “evolution” predicts that such animal evolved in such date, and then we find fossils that contradict that prediction………………and no body seems to be making a big deal.

For example supposedly gorillas where suppose to “appear” 6M years ago, but then we found a 10Myo fossil and scientists simply said “hey maybe gorillas evolved before previously thought”)

https://phys.org/news/2016-02-gorilla-fossil-humans-million-years.html

my point is that evolution doesn’t make any impressive predictions (feel free to correct me) feel free to provide a prediction that you think is good enough (comparable to predictions made by other scientific theories)………………..(we are talking about the fossil record, please do not share predictions that have nothing to to with the fossil record.)

Wow! So much so wrong. Let's just go over the highlights. We know that man and chimp separated an estimated six to eight million years ago:


Frequently Asked Questions | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program.

We have also known for some time that our common ancestor with gorillas separated before that. So how is there any contradiction at all with that 10 million year date?

That looks like a correct and therefore impressive prediction to me.

The point that I made is that not finding a specific fossil in a specific era, doesn’t mean that the animal was not alive back then…………… so ether agree with this point or refute it (please do not add words that are not related to this particular point)

Yes, we know that. But there are reasonable limits. That is why a Precambrian bunny rabbit would always refute evolution. Also there are other predictions besides just the timing of fossils. The theory also tells us that there would not be a failure of phylogeny. For example you will not find a feathered mammal

Sure some exceptions are expected, but usually we find slow / marine / dumb animals at the bottom and fast, land / intelligent animals at the top…………… sure there are some exceptions (which are expected) but we definitely and controversially have this trend.

No, that is not the case at all. We find basal examples, many of them extinct at the bottom. We do not find anything advanced at the bottom that still should have died and been buried right away. You don't get much slower than a sloth. Nor are they all that bright. But you find all of them on top of the much more intelligent and rapid predators of the Cretaceous such as T-Rex or velociraptor. The sloth should be way down at the bottom in your model.

Yes but dating the ashes is done very rarely, layers are typically dated by the fossils, any layer with rabbits would by default be dated within the last few million years.

If there is any contradiction “fossil dating” (and common sense) will always trump radiometric dating.

Yes, it is usually faster to date a strata by the fossils because we have already dated all sorts of layers around the world and always found certain fossils to occupy only certain time zones. One could always date strata again, but after a while one is just beating a dead horse. It is far more rapid in the field to date by fossils. The work has already been done. Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[Jose Fly]

Thank you. You have no idea how your words apply to you, I am sure.

So getting back to the topic, when someone cites Paul as writing about the flood as if it was a real event, and then says something like "So Paul was either telling the truth or lying", the first thing that comes to my mind is that there's at least one other possibility......namely, that Paul was just wrong. He wasn't lying, because he truly believed what he wrote (IOW, he didn't write something even though he knew it wasn't true).

So that gives three possibilities: truth-teller, liar, or mistaken.

And even within "mistaken" there are lots of sub-possibilities, some of which I covered earlier (e.g., maybe Paul misunderstood the Hebrew flood story due to differences in cultures).

So at least on this subject, only one of us is limiting ourselves to a binary choice, and it ain't me.

 

[robocop (actually)]

You are still misunderstanding.

You don’t find the physical evidence from the Bible itself, you’d look for them in the strata of rocks during that supposed period from various sites; you’d look for them at archaeological sites that existed at that time.

Ur, Uruk (Erech), Kish, Nineveh, Susa (in Elam), Aleppo, Damascus, Tell es-Sultan (Jericho), Abydos, Nekken (Hierakonpolis), Edfu, Pylos (Greece), Argos, Knossos (Crete), Harappa & Mohenjo-daro (both in Pakistan, major cities of the Indus Valley Civilization), Huaricanga (Peru), etc, they are all cities that existed throughout the Early Bronze Age, from 3100 to 2000 BCE.

If Genesis did hypothetically happen then archaeologists would find consistent signs of destruction from flood in every ancient cities that I have mentioned, pointing to single date. There are no such evidence, because there were no single global flood covering all these places.

If you say God can hide evidence, then you are basically calling your own god a liar, and what scholars in mythology commonly referred to as the Trickster.

How can God can consider the embodiment of Truth, if actually go about deceiving people?

For instance, when it says the rain fell for 40 days and nights, that could mean there was general life destructive for that time, and when the waters took 150 days, that could mean it wasn't safe for another 150 days.

 

[F1fan]

I could take what someone says, and interpret it, however I want. I could take any document and do the same.
The person that spoke the words know what they said, and what they meant. Other reasonable people will understand and know too.
The same is true of any document.
Today, people break codes.

You're interpreting an ancient book literally, and in a way that even Jews don't interpret it, and it's their book. And these stories were written in an era that embellishment was common. So how do you justify your approach?

The thing about this is, 10 people can argue between themselves what Jack said, or meant. Jack will correct that, if he wishes.
The same is true with any person.

Sure, since Jack is an actual person that all involved can hear and understand it can be resolved.

If God is the author of the Bible, people will know what God said, and meant - one way or the other... in his own time, according to the Bible. Ezekiel 38:23

Yes. one or two of those persons may be correct.

Well then it looks like you'd better product this God so it can tell us who's correct. Thus far this God behaves as if it doesn't exist outside of human imagination.

 

[F1fan]

if you believe that all findings of scientists are true, then I have to ask you, 1) why are they found to be not true, so often,

I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly but many experiments in science fail to meet the minimum standard. This usually means there were variables that they could not account for, and have to rework the way the test is conducted. Or if it fails miserably then it was a bad hypothesis. What does this tell us? That scientists are honorable. We don't see Creationists do honorable work.

and 2) why do scientists debate these findings so often.

What you might be asking about is how findings can affect the overall scenario of data. For example the history of hominids and human ancestors gets adjusted sometimes when a new fossil specimen is discovered. This is how the process allows our understanding to become more accurate. Debate on what findings means is part of this process of understanding.

I said before, I accept science - the one that doesn't require me to believe what other scientists disagree with, and fight about. The one that other scientists don't say does not pass the test of the scientific method.
I don't accept hypotheses - ideas - as science.
You evidently do.

You don't understand science. You don't even know what a hypothesis is. You could have taken 30 seconds to look it up before you embarrassed yourself.

Scientist know more than I do, in their field of study, just as a Motor Mechanic knows more than I do, in their field of study.
Does that mean I should believe everything that scientist tells me, or a Motor Mechanic?
No. They can be wrong. do you disagree.

You are rejecting the experts in science when they present work that shows no global flood was possible. That's why you fail at this debate.

I think I know more than you, or any scientist, about many things, but time will tell if i am wrong, or not.

Whatever that might be is has nothing to do with anything relevant to this debate.

 

[gnostic]

Once again, I'm not sure it was a flood.

And if God is doing such a big thing, He might as well cover it up because if everyone knew He existed and rebelled against Him that would not please Him.

For instance,

if it says there was rain on the earth, that could just be symbolic of death. A lot of the five Books of Moses are symbolic anyway!

If the flood was symbolic, then such a flood never happened, then why God even bother to cover anything up that has never occurred?

Do you not see how illogical your excuses are?

 

[F1fan]

Once again, I'm not sure it was a flood.

And if God is doing such a big thing, He might as well cover it up because if everyone knew He existed and rebelled against Him that would not please Him.

Funny how so many of the people God created end up pissed off at him. Maybe they knew something. Mob bosses are known to wack those who know too much.

For instance,

if it says there was rain on the earth, that could just be symbolic of death. A lot of the five Books of Moses are symbolic anyway!

Symbolism is the best way to interpret it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Are you serious?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And if I truly thought what I said was true, I'm not a "liar" am I? I'm merely "mistaken".


Or they were simply wrong....something that happens with people every minute of every day.

Have you ever said something that turned out to be wrong?

Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! Call on me. Can I answer that last one?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I guess you're just locked in to black/white thinking and limiting yourself to only two possibilities, even when other possibilities are presented.

It must be a deeply ingrained trait for you.


Actually, it's the opposite of that.


Why would a Muslim be mistaken about Muhammed visiting heaven, but you not be?


Well, it's obvious that you are certainly limited that way. Fortunately, not everyone else is similarly limited.


You are certainly an interesting person to interact with.

Yeah, interesting. That is the word I always reach for in such times.

 

[gnostic]

Once again, I'm not sure it was a flood.

And if God is doing such a big thing, He might as well cover it up because if everyone knew He existed and rebelled against Him that would not please Him.

For instance,

if it says there was rain on the earth, that could just be symbolic of death. A lot of the five Books of Moses are symbolic anyway!

If the flood was symbolic, then such a flood never happened, then why God even bother to cover anything up that never occurred?

Do you not see how illogical your claim about god hiding evidence of already nonexistent flood, don’t you?

 

[robocop (actually)]

If the flood was symbolic, then such a flood never happened, then why God even bother to cover anything up that has never occurred?

Do you not see how illogical your excuses are?

"For instance, when it says the rain fell for 40 days and nights, that could mean there was general life destructive for that time, and when the waters took 150 days, that could mean it wasn't safe for another 150 days."

 

[robocop (actually)]

Funny how so many of the people God created end up pissed off at him. Maybe they knew something. Mob bosses are known to wack those who know too much.

Symbolism is the best way to interpret it.

Exactly what you just said. Why reveal Himself when it will make some people even more ticked off? God doesn't want disobeyers and a knowing disobeyer is even worse. Looking out for others too as per how much they know.

 

[gnostic]

I said before, I accept science - the one that doesn't require me to believe what other scientists disagree with, and fight about. The one that other scientists don't say does not pass the test of the scientific method.
I don't accept hypotheses - ideas - as science.
You evidently do.

Sorry, but I think you are the one who is in need for education, because you don’t understand the process that are involved as to what is science and what isn’t science, because from what I quoted in your post you don’t understand the process.

Of course, you wouldn’t accept a hypothesis being true by default and without testing the hypothesis.

But you need to understand what a hypothesis is, first.

A hypothesis is not merely just any “idea” that pop into people’s head.

The “ideas” as you called them, are usually based on preliminary observations of the phenomena. A scientist would try to understand the observations of physical phenomena, by asking the WHAT & HOW questions, for instances:

• WHAT is it?
• HOW does it work?
• If the scientist to provide adequate proposed answers to these 2 vital questions, other questions may follow, like -
  • WHAT applications does this phenomena may have?
  • HOW can I make it work or HOW do I implement this application?

These questions are followed by the proposed explanations - known as the EXPLANATORY MODEL.

If the scientist worked in physics-related field, you may supplement the “explanatory model” with the LOGICAL MODEL or the MATHEMATICAL MODEL. The logical or mathematical model, is usually come in the form of mathematical statements, often expressed as equations, formulas, numbers, variables, and constants or metrics. Physics equations are what scientists called proofs.

Once scientist have formulated both explanatory model and mathematical model, he would then follow these with a 3rd model in a hypothesis - the PREDICTIVE MODEL.

The predictive model is just as vital to science, and they are based on the 2 models that I have already explained to you. Predictive modeling is required, because you need to test the hypothesis.

The predictions are used as a limiting factors, the boundary of what is required for the hypothesis to be TRUE or FALSE.

So if the evidence or experiments meet the requirements of your predictions, then the hypothesis is probable and likely true.

But if the evidence and experiments don’t meet the requirements of your predictions, then the hypothesis is improbable and likely false.

So the hypothesis is a proposed model that needed to be tested first, before any decision can be made if it true or false.

So no, nPeace. A hypothesis isn’t just a idea. There are lot more to hypothesis than just an idea.

A hypothesis required explanations, required maths (especially for physics related fields) and it required predictions. And on top of these requirements, it required testing.

Testings involved any form of observations, like evidence discovery and evidence gathering, performing experiments, compiling the essential data from these evidence and test results from experiments.

Without testing, ideas don’t even qualify to being called a “hypothesis”.

If the hypothesis is successful then a scientist can take the next steps, by presenting the hypothesis along with the tested data before PEER REVIEW.

If it is successful, then a scientist shouldn’t even bother with Peer Review.

A hypothesis that passed both Scientific Method and Peer Review have the chance of turning a hypothesis into scientific theory. A scientific theory is well tested explanations/predictions and is considered to be science.

A hypothesis only has a POTENTIAL of being science, only if it has pass requirements of both Scientific Method and Peer Review.

I said "potential", because even if you succeed with meeting the requirements, your hypothesis may fall because another scientist may have a better tested alternative hypothesis with more successful modelling than yours.

 

[night912]

- Land plants would have been under water for a full year, causing their death and extinction. Thus, exiting the Ark, the herbivores would have been bereft of all food, causing their extinction as well.

Seeds remain in the earth for years until their death when the produce a plant. Noah did not leave the ark before vegetation started to spring... according to the Biblical account.

making assumptions that the world of Noah's day was the same as today, twists the Noah's account, and so you are creating a story to fit your assumptions.

No! No! No! No! nPeace disagrees with YOU.

 

[leroy]

Sure it does. It not only predicts the sort of specimens and their traits we should find (such as Darwin's prediction about finding human ancestors in Africa), it also predicts what we shouldn't find, such as fish with insect antennae, birds with leaves, crabs with mammalian hair, etc.

If there where insects with teeth in the Fossil record, this would simply imply that teeth evolved before the insects diverged from vertebrates .


Evolution would have accommodated to this data . This prediction is not that impressive.

 

[leroy]

Wow! So much so wrong. Let's just go over the highlights. We know that man and chimp separated an estimated six to eight million years ago:


Frequently Asked Questions | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program.

We have also known for some time that our common ancestor with gorillas separated before that. So how is there any contradiction at all with that 10 million year date?

That looks like a correct and therefore impressive prediction to me.]

Based on molecular clocks evolutionist predicted that gorillas appeared 8M years ago , but then we found a 10Myo gorilla in the fossil record . .....but nobody makes a. Big deal, scientist simply say hey "maybe gorillas evolved earlier"

Source.
We used to believe, based on genetic information, DNA studies and molecular studies, that the splits between chimpanzees and the human line on one side and the gorilla line on the other side … happened around eight million years ago," said paleontologist Berhane Asfaw, who helped unearth the fossil. "But based on this new information, the split had to happen before 10 million years ago. It means that information has to be adjusted in every textbook."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.672443





.

The theory also tells us that there would not be a failure of phylogeny. For example you will not find a feathered mammal

If there where feathered mammals in the fossil record, you would simply say that feathers evolved before birds and mammals diverged.

A good and valuable scientific prediction ha to be specific and has to flow naturally and inescapable from the theory. For example eistein predicted exactly how clocks should be affected if you move at such speed. .....you don't have anything remotely analogous with evolution (talking about the fossil record)



.

You don't get much slower than a sloth. Nor are they all that bright. But you find all of them on top of the much more intelligent and rapid predators of the Cretaceous such as T-Rex or velociraptor. The sloth should be way down at the bottom in your model.

1 as I told you before some exceptions are expected ...the point is that we do se a trend ....

-marine animals are usually found at the bottom, flying animals at the top.

-intelligent animals at the top, unintelligent at the bottom.

-animals that instinctively run away from disasters at the top, animals that don't have this instinct at the bottom.

We do see this trend and you know it.




2 is not about speed it's about ability to scape from a flood (speed is just one of many important variables) , sloths can climb trees and they instinctively run away from naturally disasters , (t-rex probably didn't had this abilities )

3 modern sloths are slow, but perhaps they had ancestors that where faster

Yes, it is usually faster to date a strata by the fossils because we have already dated all sorts of layers around the world and always found certain fossils to occupy only certain time zones. One could always date strata again, but after a while one is just beating a dead horse. It is far more rapid in the field to date by fossils. The work has already been done. Why is this so hard to understand?

My point is that if one finds a fossil graveyard with rabbits, then by default it would not be precambic layers .....scientist would not date the rock to see if it's Precambrian, and any radiometric dating that concludes that the fossils are billions of years old would be dropped (scientist would assume contamination or something else)

Do you grant this point ?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If there where insects with teeth in the Fossil record, this would simply imply that teeth evolved before the insects diverged from vertebrates .


Evolution would have accommodated to this data . This prediction is not that impressive.

That this is your dismissive response is not that impressive. What is revealed here about your knowledge of these things is even less impressive. Insects did not diverge from vertebrates and could not have given that they are invertebrates.

 

[gnostic]

If there where insects with teeth in the Fossil record, this would simply imply that teeth evolved before the insects diverged from vertebrates .

That this is your dismissive response is not that impressive. What is revealed here about your knowledge of these things is even less impressive. Insects did not diverge from vertebrates and could not have given that they are invertebrates.

Not only that, Dan.

Leroy doesn’t know that invertebrates didn’t diverge from vertebrates; it is the other way around.

That one sentence of his, showed how little he know about Evolution and biology in general.