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

[Revoltingest]

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, ancient cultures all over the world believed in a worldwide flood.

The Chinese flood of 2300-2200 BCE had them fleeing
to higher ground. Twas a very different flood from the
Christian myth.
Perhaps many ancient people speak of floods because
floods happen throughout history, eh.

 

[Colt]

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, ancient cultures all over the world believed in a worldwide flood.

Those cultures would have drowned in Noah's flood. They would have to be descendants of Noah's mixed race in-laws on his boat. But remember that the story says that 600+ year old Noah ended up passed out drunk and naked in his tent. Maybe he was in a bar in Ur and told someone from the National Enquirer this story???

 

[Colt]

Roughly 2/3 of early cultures have flood accounts in their tradition, and they usually are societies that do have at least some struggles with flooding.

IMO, the Judeo-Christian flood narrative probably is a counter to the earlier and much more widespread Babylonian polytheistic account. IOW, we need to look for "What's the moral(s) of the story?", which are far more important anyway.

The moral of the story is, don't trust anyone who tells such a story wherein the people who wrote it call themselves Gods "chosen people".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know that there was water. The people may have just assumed it was water. Water in Hebrew is M-I-M and it can also mean, "source," or ,"turmoil."
I think.

You may not know, other people do. You should be trying to learn how we know that there was no flood. Though you may need to start at the beginning when it comes to the sciences. If you want to understand how we know you first must understand the scientific method and scientific evidence. Assumptions in the way that you used the term are not allowed in the sciences.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, ancient cultures all over the world believed in a worldwide flood.

Some do, some don't. So what? Ancient cultures tend to have myths based upon actual events. Navigable waterways tend to flood. People need water to live, and towns and larger groups of people need them even more. They are going to have floods in their past, why do you think that a myth would not grow up around that event?

 

[John1.12]

So does the Star Wars movie, and yet I don't know of anyone who was confused about it being fiction. I even read a novel years ago wherein the characters were all inanimate objects, and even that story presented itself as if it were a record of actual events. Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote a novel called "Notes From The Underground" that has the lead character speaking directly to the reader, telling his own story. Perhaps back in the 1860s, when it was published, a few people were confused by this, but I've never actually heard of any.
Or, most likely, it's a combination of all of these. As nearly all stories are.
Yes, authors almost always do that, whether it actually happened or not. And we, their readers, agree to suspend our disbelief for the duration of the story to allow it to create it's own reality. It' a really big part of what story-telling is for.

I don't know anyone that's confused about star wars being real ? It doesn't present itself as real .

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know anyone that's confused about star wars being real ? It doesn't present itself as real .

So you did not read the opening crawl, It seemed to present itself as real. Where did they tell you that it was a work of fiction in the movie?

 

[John1.12]

Because all ancient cultures have experienced floods. A flood as important as the Genesis flood would be remembered if all the people in the world descended from Noah.

Flood Legends

 

[John1.12]

So you did not read the opening crawl, It seemed to present itself as real. Where did they tell you that it was a work of fiction in the movie?

Spoiler alert .

 

[PureX]

I don't know anyone that's confused about star wars being real ? It doesn't present itself as real .

Of course it does. It even says so in writing right in the beginning of the movie: "In a galaxy far, far away ...". But of course we all understood that this was, itself, part of the 'artifice' of the story.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Spoiler alert .

You don't seem to know how to use that term correctly.

It was presented as "history". We know going in that it is fiction.. That is a bit different from the Bible where we know going out that it is fiction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Flood Legends

Why use a science denying source? They are far from reliable.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

How would the Bible describe a concept people couldn't understand,?

Not inserting stuff that is utterly false to replace "what people couldn't understand" would have been a great start.

This is how much of claimed science goes doesn't it. Making assumptions, and concluding that those assumptions are correct.

No. Not in the slightest. Not even close. In fact, this approach belongs to religion -- not science.

No one knows the rate of growth of any mountain centuries into the past. Ever growing and shrinking
Erosion can, paradoxically, accelerate mountain growth.

So you are using science to disprove science. Fascinating.

Science, apparently, not only can tell which mountains experienced growth spurts, but can also explain the mechanisms by which that occurred. You then assume that all mountains experienced these "growth spurts", in the presence or absence of those mechanisms, so that you can continue to pretend that the "world was a drastically different place" -- just a few years ago.

Equally fascinating.

In a way, I pity you. Your world is a very small and simple place; and in making it such a small and simple place, you are robbed of the opportunity to take in just how splendid, powerful, awesome, amazing, complex our universe truly is.

"Lets wind the clock back", works with the assumption that your clock has a constant, fixed rate - like our clock... every sixty second will be the same.

There are a few basic assumptions to science, which you can read and learn about here:

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

What ideas has been refuted by evidence?

Aether, for one. That one jumped right into my head. Here is a list of more:

10 Most Famous Scientific Theories That Were Later Debunked

Man can plot a path from earth to the moon, or Pluto, or mars, and send a vessel there. Why? They are dealing with a reliable system.
If the system was unreliable, their ships would all be lost. their crew - extinct.

Yet they used the predictions and equations designed by those whom you said "had nothing to do with it" to get them there without getting lost.

1) I am not dishonest, and you are in no position to determine that, as you only have two feet, and a head, like all human creatures. I could call you dishonest too, but what does pointing fingers, and making accusations do? We are not in a courtroom, you know.

I am speaking of "intellectual dishonesty", which is a psychological phenomenon, not a value statement or attack on one's character (as it happens to everyone to one degree or another).

Intellectual honesty - Wikiversity

2) What I believe, is based on evidence, and your evidence is no more superior to the evidence that million of religios people - scientists by the thousands included, see.

But you haven't presented any evidence; but then again, I am certain that our standards of evidence are very, very different.

3) Much of what you believe, are ideas of men, which cannot be verified, and are believe on faith - blind faith, that is. Far worse than any Christian faith. You do believe in the earth and moon formation proposed by scientist, don't you? Well, there you go.

"Belief" is not "faith". My "beliefs" that evolution is mostly true and that geologists know what they're doing and that the world wide flood did not occur is based on evidence that is testable, repeatable, provides explanatory and predictive powers. That is far, far different than the very definition of faith given in the bible, which is found in Hebrews 11:1 -- which basically says, "I believe and hope for it to be true, therefore it is true". When you state that these things "can not be verified", then you have closed your mind to how these things are "verified" in order to cling to your presuppositions; which is the very definition of "intellectual dishonesty".

43) Try debating and stop attacking the poster. It's an Ad hominem and is more transparent of dishonesty.

Let me give you examples of "attacking the poster" so that you can see the different: "@ArdentChristian, you are a liar, an idiot, and someone who needs to crawl under a rock and disappear from society". I said nothing of the sort, and though I get frustrated and sometimes slip, I make an attempt to avoid statements of that nature; nor have I used statements of that nature in this discourse.

A criticism is not an attack; however, you are so emotionally invested into your religious beliefs that is is more or less your identity. When I criticize your religious beliefs, I am, in your perception, criticizing your identity, so you perceive it as a personal attack on your identity, thus you. The reality of the situation is that I did not attack you -- heck, I invited you over to my house for dinner -- what I did do was criticize ideas which you are emotionally invested. Because of your emotional investment and your beliefs so infused with your identity, it is difficult for you to tell the difference between a criticism and an attack.

If one is allowed to use the atheist method those objections are very easy to answer:

Answers

I don’t know, but we are searching for an answer.


this answer is suppose to be good enough to trum any objections you might have to refute the flood model

Out of curiosity....do you know of anyone in leadership positions who believes the Biblical flood story, and more importantly, are in a position where their belief in the story is relevant?

No. We say "I don't know" when there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion; or compelling evidence to question a previous conclusion. Because science's "I don't know" is based on empirical evidence, it is not on the same level as "God works in mysterious ways".

I'm uncertain of any leader who holds to the flood story as literal historical fact; but I can point to this congressman, U.S. Representative John Shimkus, who proposed that we needed to do nothing about climate change because of a bible verse where god promised that the earth won't be destroyed until he's done with it ....

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm uncertain of any leader who holds to the flood story as literal historical fact; but I can point to this congressman, U.S. Representative John Shimkus, who proposed that we needed to do nothing about climate change because of a bible verse where god promised that the earth won't be destroyed until he's done with it ....

Yeah, a real piece of work, eh? But even if he doesn't believe in a literal global flood, I'm pretty sure he'd still keep the same head-in-the-sand view on climate change.

It'd be nice though if him expressing nonsense like that made him unelectable. Maybe one day.....

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

 

[robocop (actually)]

The Chinese flood of 2300-2200 BCE had them fleeing
to higher ground. Twas a very different flood from the
Christian myth.
Perhaps many ancient people speak of floods because
floods happen throughout history, eh.

Right, I heard India saying they were the only country to survive.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Those cultures would have drowned in Noah's flood. They would have to be descendants of Noah's mixed race in-laws on his boat. But remember that the story says that 600+ year old Noah ended up passed out drunk and naked in his tent. Maybe he was in a bar in Ur and told someone from the National Enquirer this story???

They would have had to have had the story revealed to them.

 

[robocop (actually)]

You may not know, other people do. You should be trying to learn how we know that there was no flood. Though you may need to start at the beginning when it comes to the sciences. If you want to understand how we know you first must understand the scientific method and scientific evidence. Assumptions in the way that you used the term are not allowed in the sciences.

I am good at forming hypotheses. That's all I'm doing is looking for a hypothesis that works.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Some do, some don't. So what? Ancient cultures tend to have myths based upon actual events. Navigable waterways tend to flood. People need water to live, and towns and larger groups of people need them even more. They are going to have floods in their past, why do you think that a myth would not grow up around that event?

I said, "world-wide flood," not just, "flood."