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

[F1fan]

Its not a criticism, all I am saying is that given that evolution is such a flexible theory that can accommodate to vast rage of potential data and discoveries, you can’t (or shouldn’t) show of the correct predictions

It is a criticism, and criticism from ignorance. Your post demonstrate a very poor understanding of even the basics of science. You had no idea what a hypothesis was as part of your criticism. This is bogus stuff creationists pick up on websites aimed to disinform believers. You're in no position to be critical of any of the work experts in science do. That you think you can shows the massive contempt you have for science and experts.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

@nPeace science is not equal to faith.

Why do you guys argue so strong for beliefs, and pretend there are different to another person having beliefs?

The two "beliefs" are not equal.

"Germ Theory" is not equal to "Terrain Theory".
"Flat Earth" is not equal to "Heliocentrism".
"Creationism" is not equal to "Evolution".
"Faith" is not equal to "Science".

The myths presented to explain our solar system, are not facts. Scientist tell you outright, they do not know. they assume what they believe is correct... and often hope they are too. Faith?

No. The reason why this is not so is right in front of your face. The very fact that science changes its mind in view of compelling evidence is not how "faith" works, because "faith" clings to an idea in spite of evidence. Science is based on observation and experimentation, but faith is "evidence of things not seen".

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I think the Orthodox Jew would probably turn to pig roasting experts if he or she did want to know about those techniques though.

I suddenly want BBQ.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

It is a criticism, and criticism from ignorance. Your post demonstrate a very poor understanding of even the basics of science. You had no idea what a hypothesis was as part of your criticism. This is bogus stuff creationists pick up on websites aimed to disinform believers. You're in no position to be critical of any of the work experts in science do. That you think you can shows the massive contempt you have for science and experts.

Dunning-Krueger effect; believing one is far more competent than what they really are because they know so very little that they honestly don't even have a clue how much they don't know. Kinda like the teenager who is learning to think for him/herself and so now thinks they have life all figured out.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I suddenly want BBQ.

I maintain a significant background level of BBQ want.

 

[ecco]

YEC argue that MT Everest didn’t exist during the flood, only small mountains here and there………….you might disagree but it would be nice if you actually understand the model before attacking it. (at this point you are no different from those who reject evolution without even understanding it)

Some YECs argue that MT Everest did not exist 4000 years ago. Not all. The ones that try to argue that Everest came into existence/grew to 30,000 feet during the past 4000 years have just added another impossibility to their story.

Besides its irrelevant, my point is that not all animals would have died at the same moment…………a pile of mud could have killed a claim, while birds where still flying.

Given 30 feet of rain per hour, nothing much would have survived more than a week.
Given massive mud slides and rockslides, nothing much would have survived more than a week.
Given the extreme cold brought on by a few days with no sun, nothing much would have survived more than a week.
Given the complete absence of food, nothing much would have survived more than a week.

In the meantime the tides and waves would have dragged various other environments from all over the world placing many layers (and fossils) between the clam and the bird

Yet these immense tides and waves that were capable of "dragging various other environments from all over the world" did not capsize a powerless wooden ship. How miraculous!

The flood lasted for 1 year or so, tides went up and down all the time, nobody is saying that the whole planet was covered with water 100% of the time.

Genesis 17-24 says so. Your concept of tides is nonsensical. Even if you imagine tides of 500 feet, Mt Ararat is 16,000 feet. Your tides would not uncover any lands.

I personally don’t believe in the global flood, but I find it repulsive when people like you attack it without even understanding what YEC say.

Why don’t you make an honest effort, try to understand the what YEC say and then try to refute what they actually say.

YECs say a lot of things. If you put 10 YECs in a room there would probably be 11 versions of Creationism. I do understand what they say. I do understand that YECs make up their own stories to justify their own beliefs. In any case, the flood story is "valid" for some Old Earth Creationists as well.

Any and all versions can be attacked with logic. The only way Creationist (YEC or otherwise) stories can be real is if you accept that the god came in after the fact and "cleaned up". In other words, GodDidIt.

At this point you are not different from those who say “if evolution is true and we evovled from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys around”

What a nonsensical comment! Any and all versions of Creationism can be attacked with logic. The only way Creationist (YEC or otherwise) stories can be real is if you accept that the god came in after the fact and "cleaned up". In other words, GodDidIt. That was intentionally repetitious.

 

[ecco]

if you google "global flood everest" this is what you get in the first resoult

Therefore the water did not need to rise over 29,000 ft. to cover today’s Mt. Everest because the Himalayan mountains didn’t exist before the Flood but, rather, formed during, or shortly after, the Flood by tectonic forces​

​

When I Google "global flood everest" using Chrome, the first thing I get is.

Short Answers to Creationists - Proof of Evolution
https://www.proof-of-evolution.com › short-answers-to-cr...

The problem is, fossilized clams on Mt. Everest would be a prediction geologists would make every bit as much as advocates of a global flood. Everest is part of ...
​

As I posted previously. If apologists want to argue that Everest did not exist at the time of the flood, then they need to explain how mountain ranges the size of the Himalayas came into existence rapidly. The only answer there is GodDidIt. That's the same answer that covers "Where did all the water come from", "Where did ll the water go", How did the powerless Ark survive the massive storms that accompanied the rapidly rising water and the immense temperature changes.

​

The fact that you are making a big deal out of the Everest, strongly suggest that you didn’t even went to Google to see if your objection has been answered.

See my first and second comments in this post.

But answered by whom? Creationist apologists? I can only respond to people who post on RF. Not people who wrote a bunch of self-serving stuff and put it on the web.

And before you provide an objection to “Everest didn’t existed back then” please go to Google and see if someone has already addressed your objection. Don’t be lazy.

See above.

 

[ecco]

Ok read my last post, I am awaiting for you to acknowledge your mistakes.

Particularry the claim that the flood covered mt Everest, because it seems that most of your objections have to do with that strawman.

To be clear, no the water didn’t covered mt Everest, mt Everest didn’t existed during the flood.

I have no mistakes to acknowledge.

You are the one focusing on Everest. If you want to argue that the flood water didn't have to reach 30,000 feet because there were no high mountains, then you need to explain how the world's high mountains went from zero to over 20,000 feet. There are more than one hundred of them. (List of mountains by elevation - Wikipedia).

Zero to over 20,000 feet in just a comparatively few years and no one noticed or wrote about it. The only "plausible" answer is GodDidIt. Is that your answer? If not, what is?



ETA: Why don't you detail what your view of the beginning of the universe and earth and man are. That way I can direct my comments to your beliefs and not just to some general overall vague beliefs.

 

[nPeace]

I've never met a Jehovah's Witness who understood science, which makes sense given how anti-science the denomination is (and how they discourage their members from pursuing higher education).

It's kinda like how an Orthodox Jew probably won't know much about pig-roasting techniques.

Foolishness Fly. utter nonsense, and stupidity.
People that say scientist do not know science, are either just plain dishonest, or biased, and in this case discriminating.
I'm not calling you any of those, but which one fits you,
If a scientist rejects the belief - because that's what it is, a belief, in theories in science, does that make him ignorant of science?
That's baloney. isn't it?
Do you consider any scientist that do not believe as you do, a scientist who does not understand science.
I doubt you can even create a molecule.
Wher is your name in a book for receiving Noble Prizes?
How many awards have been given you, in your science career?
No need to answer. The questions are rhetorical.

 

[F1fan]

I have interpreted nothing.
Jews are free to do whatever Jews want to do. That has nothing to do with the Bible.

You're not advocating for interpreting the Genesis flood stay literally? You have no view about any of the Genesis stories?

That's your opinion, and has nothing to do with what's written in the Bible.

No, it's a matter of fact that ancient stories were embellished.

Approach? what approach are you referring to?

You debate approach. Are you unaware that you're involved in a debate about the Genesis flood myth, and that you're approaching it from a certain way?

Are you saying that because you did not exist up until the last meager 70 years most, that no one was real before you? Or do you get to decide who is real, and who listened to whom?

These are absurd questions that aren't relevant to my point.

Again. That is your opinion.

It's not my opinion that theists claim their God exists despite a lack of evidence for how they presume to know it. We observe this behavior from theists.

 

[Jose Fly]

Foolishness Fly. utter nonsense, and stupidity.
People that say scientist do not know science, are either just plain dishonest, or biased, and in this case discriminating.
I'm not calling you any of those, but which one fits you,
If a scientist rejects the belief - because that's what it is, a belief, in theories in science, does that make him ignorant of science?
That's baloney. isn't it?
Do you consider any scientist that do not believe as you do, a scientist who does not understand science.
I doubt you can even create a molecule.
Wher is your name in a book for receiving Noble Prizes?
How many awards have been given you, in your science career?
No need to answer. The questions are rhetorical.

Try reading what I actually wrote.

Oh and FYI, I've won tons of scientific awards. I just received one recently as a matter of fact.

 

[leroy]

​

When I Google "global flood everest" using Chrome, the first thing I get is.

Short Answers to Creationists - Proof of Evolution
https://www.proof-of-evolution.com › short-answers-to-cr...

The problem is, fossilized clams on Mt. Everest would be a prediction geologists would make every bit as much as advocates of a global flood. Everest is part of ...
​

As I posted previously. If apologists want to argue that Everest did not exist at the time of the flood, then they need to explain how mountain ranges the size of the Himalayas came into existence rapidly. The only answer there is GodDidIt. That's the same answer that covers "Where did all the water come from", "Where did ll the water go", How did the powerless Ark survive the massive storms that accompanied the rapidly rising water and the immense temperature changes.

​

See my first and second comments in this post.

But answered by whom? Creationist apologists? I can only respond to people who post on RF. Not people who wrote a bunch of self-serving stuff and put it on the web.



See above.

Well you have been corrected on the issue of mt Everest and you are still rising objections that presuppose that the waters covered my Everest.

So please provide your objections (related to the fossil record) taking in to account that big mountains didn't exist before the flood.

 

[ecco]

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

Science advances. Knowledge is improved. That is not a big deal. It happens every day in some branch of science or another. It would have been a Big Deal if it said:

"But based on this new information, the split had to happen during the past 4000 years and was caused by a massive worldwide flood. It means that information has to be adjusted in every textbook."
​

That would have turned Evolution on its head.

​

Which version of the Bible do you rely on? Are you aware of all the Big Deal changes made to the Bible over the past 2000 years?

Here is just one example...(my red emphases)

King James Version - Wikipedia

The books of the King James Version include the 39 books of the Old Testament, an intertestamental section containing 14 books of the Apocrypha, and the 27 books of the New Testament.​

Science makes changes when new information is discovered.

Changes to the Bible are made to satisfy the whims of rulers...

King James Version - Wikipedia

In January 1604, King James convened the Hampton Court Conference, where a new English version was conceived in response to the problems of the earlier translations perceived by the Puritans,[6] a faction of the Church of England.[7]

James gave the translators instructions intended to ensure that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology—and reflect the episcopal structure—of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.[8]
​

Yet, some people still cling to the notion that the Bible is God's word.

 

[leroy]

I have no mistakes to acknowledge.

You are the one focusing on Everest. If you want to argue that the flood water didn't have to reach 30,000 feet because there were no high mountains, then you need to explain how the world's high mountains went from zero to over 20,000 feet. There are more than one hundred of them. (List of mountains by elevation - Wikipedia).

Zero to over 20,000 feet in just a comparatively few years and no one noticed or wrote about it. The only "plausible" answer is GodDidIt. Is that your answer? If not, what is?

Irrelevant we are talking about the fóssil récord .

ETA: Why don't you detail what your view of the beginning of the universe and earth and man are. That way I can direct my comments to your beliefs and not just to some general overall vague beliefs.

My view is that the fossil record doest support evolution nor refutes the flood (as the OP claims)

Let's focus on this

 

[ecco]

Well you have been corrected on the issue of mt Everest and you are still rising objections that presuppose that the waters covered my Everest.

You have corrected nothing. You are right only if all YECs believe Everest did not exist at the time of the flood. You have no evidence to support that belieff.

So please provide your objections (related to the fossil record) taking in to account that big mountains didn't exist before the flood.

I haven't discussed anything about fossils. You and I have been discussing flood waters and their effects. Let's stay on topic.

If hundreds of mountain ranges popped up after the flood, then you need to explain how this happened.

 

[ecco]

Irrelevant we are talking about the fóssil récord .

Not "we" as in you and I. You may have been discussing fossils with other people. So, not irrelevant.


Try again.

You are the one focusing on Everest. If you want to argue that the flood water didn't have to reach 30,000 feet because there were no high mountains, then you need to explain how the world's high mountains went from zero to over 20,000 feet. There are more than one hundred of them. (List of mountains by elevation - Wikipedia).

Zero to over 20,000 feet in just a comparatively few years and no one noticed or wrote about it. The only "plausible" answer is GodDidIt. Is that your answer? If not, what is?[/QUOTE]

 

[nPeace]

Try reading what I actually wrote.

Oh and FYI, I've won tons of scientific awards. I just received one recently as a matter of fact.

Try thinking about what you wrote. There are scientists who are JWs.

 

[ecco]

@leroy,
Why don't you detail what your view of the beginning of the universe and earth and man are. That way I can direct my comments to your beliefs and not just to some general overall vague beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You mean like Darwin's prediction that we would find human ancestors in Africa.


Well I got news for ya'.....evolution is true, regardless of what's in the fossil record. You know why? Because we see it happen, all the time, right before our eyes.

One would think you'd know that by now, given all the time you've spent on the subject. But I guess you never really picked up on that tidbit.

Have you ever noticed that no matter how often that it is pointed out that the fossil record is not the only evidence for the theory of evolution. That they only talk about the fossil record? It is not even the strongest evidence for the theory of evolution. It was not even the original evidence for the theory of evolution. It is merely the easiest evidence for an amateur to understand and they even get that wrong constantly. Of course the fossil record is not the only evidence but it alone is strong enough to confirm the theory. The genetic evidence for evolution is far stronger.

And speaking of predications when it was discovered that other Great Apes have an additional chromosome pair to us it was predicted that either the other three great ape groups had to have three separate cases of chromosomes splitting (highly unlikely) or we had one case of chromosomes splitting. And the more likely prediction was found to be true. We found the two joined chromosomes in our genome:

Evolution: Library: Human Chromosome 2

That is a very specific prediction. One that is not based upon anything but the theory of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Try thinking about what you wrote. There are scientists who are JWs.

Yes there are. But creationism is not a science. One can be a chemist and believe in creationism. One would be a rather silly scientist for that belief but it would be unlikely to hinder his work. When one becomes a biologist one has to keep oneself in a very narrow niche and pretend to be ignorant of the vast majority of the science to be a creationist. That is why even biologists "creationists" tend to accept common descent. And they cannot seem to do any science when that involves their creationist beliefs.

Why is that?