Ancient flood stories from many parts of the world

[Agnostic75]

I do believe that many biologists have been duped (or silenced) by the propaganda campaign for the ToE.

From an entirely scientific perspective, it would be impossible for a non-expert in biology to accurately make such a claim based upon their own personal knowledge of biology. You are not an expert in biology. Even if you were, the vast majority of experts would still disagree with you. Why should non-experts in biology take your word over the word of a very large consensus of experts?

As I have told you before in some other threads, until the 1800's, evolution had very little support in the Christian church, and Christians who accepted evolution were often persecuted, and unpopular. Only later did theistic evolution become accepted by many Christians. Before the 1800's, the "propaganda" definitely favored creationism, not evolution. Obviously, scientific advances were the main reason why many Christians decided that God did not intend for all of the book of Genesis to be interpreted literally regarding creationism, the global flood theory, and the young earth theory.

You want a fair playing field today, but how much more fair of a playing field could there have been for creationists before the 1800's? You had your fair playing field, and science eventually won as far as the vast majority of experts are concerned.

Science does not intentionally dupe anyone. For example, regarding the global flood theory, if a geologist studies the sorting of fossils and sediments, he has at least two choices, to presuppose that a global flood occured before he conducts his research, and automatically refuse to accept any scientific evidence that appears to contradict biblical literalism, or he can follow the scientific evidence wherever it leads. Are you suggesting that all scientists should presuppose that the book of Genesis is literally true before they study creationism, the global flood theory, and the young earth theory? How could scientific research ever be fair and objective if scientists always presupposed their conclusions before they even started their research?

A great many scientists originally presupposed "your way," and later changed their minds after they conducted lots of scientific research. One of them is geophysicist Glenn Morton, who has studied and written extensively on the global flood. Would you like to critique a lot of Morton's extensive writings on the global flood? If you cannot adequately demonstrate that you know a lot about biology, geology, and physics, why should anyone pay attention to you?

At this time, would you be able to pass the first test in a freshman biology, geology, or physics class? If not, there is no way that you would be able to intelligently discuss creationism, the global flood theory, and the young earth theory. Even if you were an expert in all of those fields, the vast majority of experts would still disagree with you, and most laymen would not know enough about science to understand you. The majority of people do not know a lot about biology, geology, or physics, nor does God require them to. Why should those people accept your uninformed scientific opinions over the opinions of the vast majority of experts?

 

[Agnostic75]

The weaknesses and deficiencies in this theory have been presented. But here they are again:

First, the ToE has no beginning, no proven starting point. Evolution cannot explain the origin of life and has given up trying. Thus, it is a theory without a foundation.

That is absolutely false. Every single biologist in the world knows that evolution only addresses "changes," not "origins." No widely accepted definition of evolution ever mentions the origin of life on earth. Your objection is against atheism, not against evolution since millions of Christians accept evolution. Are you actually not aware that when Charles Darwin wrote "On the Origin of Species," he was a theist, not an atheist?

Macroevolution theory rests on three main ideas:

1. Mutations provide the raw materials for creating new species.
After 100 years of mutation research and decades of attempts to prove this ToE claim, what do we find? “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.” - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig (quote from Life - How Did It Get Here.)

2. "Natural Selection" leads to new species.
Attempts to prove natural selection led to new species have uniformly failed. Darwin's finches are a prime example.

3. The fossil record supports macroevolutionary changes in animals and plants.
To the contrary: “When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there.”—The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching. THEY SIMPLY AREN'T THERE.

Now, as to why so many scientists and others are willing to accept this baseless theory, in my opinion there are a number of reasons:

1. "There will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3, 4)
What desires would motivate a scientist or other person to want to believe in evolution? Well, evolution does away with the need to consider God in one's decisions and actions. Further, many want to be accepted by their peers and this moves them to accept without serious question what they are taught.

2. "Trembling at men is what lays a snare." (Proverbs 29:25) Evolutionists are quick to attack any who dare challenge their pet theory. One example is Richard Dawkins: "If you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane.” Such attacks as documented in "Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed" and elsewhere are designed to quell dissent among scientists and bully nonbelievers into silence.

3. A constant drumbeat of propaganda in the media, academia, and the scientific establishment reinforcing the "Big Lie": "evolution is a fact", repeated over and over again.

But you are merely copying, not explaining what you know from your own personal knowledege. If you really understood evolution well from your own personal knowledge, you would be able to adequately critique Ken Miller's article on the flagellum, but you have refused to do so on a number of occasions. Quoting the Bible is not a discussion about Miller's article. Scientists do not conduct research by quoting the Bible, even creationist experts. Creationist experts go to their laboratories, conduct their research, record their results, and are willing to discuss their results. Why aren't you willing to discuss their results, not just copy or paraphrase them? Even if you were right about creationism, you do not know enough about biology to know that you are right from an entirely scientific perspective.

Despite all the bluster and posturing of evolutionist apologists, millions of thinking, intelligent people reject this theory after examining the evidence for themselves.

But most African Christians who live in remote jungle regions do not know how to read and write, have little contact with the outside world, and have not conducted any scientific research at all on creationism, the global flood theory, and the young earth theory.

Millions of experts "have not" accepted creationism, the global flood theory, and the young earth theory. One study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accepted naturalistic or theistic evolution. Out of 480,000 scientists, only 700 accepted creationism.

How can you adequately judge lots of complex biology, geology, and physics that you do not understand?

 

[CG Didymus]

Originally Posted by rusra02
This fraud does terrible damage. Its victims feel freed from the Creator’s laws, and they become a law to themselves: ‘No right or wrong. Fulfill all fleshly desires. Do your own thing. No need for any guilt trips.’

Every religion has moral codes. Every religion has to justify why that set of moral codes should be followed. Do you follow all the codes set down in the Bible? No, most don't make sense in today's society. Not that anybody wants to have anything to do with a lady during her period, but to say that you are "unclean" if you touch her, sounds like an ancient tale developed by a male dominated society. Is that true for you? Do you avoid touching a woman during her period? Maybe. But, if you don't, then you don't take the Hebrew part of the Bible literally. You might tell me, it had its time and place. Now it's over and done. So did the flood story.
Why couldn't the flood story be only a way to scare people into following God's laws? And, if I don't believe it literally happened, it doesn't mean I don't want to follow and obey the rules of society. When some Christians go over board with beliefs and moral laws that impinge on what I think is right, then it's your moral code and your beliefs that I'm going to question.
Besides, very few Christians take the moral laws of the Bible to heart anyway. So why pretend that those of us that question the literalness of a flood want to be moral anarchists? Nobody follows Christian moral teachings perfectly. Rules are great. Rules are needed. But even in a community of like-minded Christians, does Christian morality work? I would have hated to live in a Puritan village. Or, how about those other Christians, the Catholics? Should I follow their beliefs and moral codes? Or, should I raise questions?

 

[gnostic]

First, the ToE has no beginning, no proven starting point. Evolution cannot explain the origin of life and has given up trying.

Already, you've started on the wrong foot. It demonstrates to me, you don't have an inkling of what the theory of evolution is.

Are you willfully ignorant, rusra02?

I am quite sure I have mentioned this to you before, and so have others.

Evolution IS NOT, AND NEVER WAS ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.

Evolution was never about the formation of first life.

Evolution is about biological changes, hence biodiversity of life that already exist. And I have to emphasise this again: LIFE THAT ALREADY EXIST.

If you really want to discuss the origin of life in science, then you are actually talking ABIOGENESIS, not evolution.

Until you understand this, you will continue to misunderstand the theory of evolution.

 

[Agnostic75]

3. The fossil record supports macroevolutionary changes in animals and plants. To the contrary: “When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there.” The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching. THEY SIMPLY AREN'T THERE.

That is a good example of why people should not trust what you say about science. As an article at Francis Hitching: Commonly Quoted by Creationists shows, your source, Francis Hitching, IS NOT A SCIENTIST, AND ACCEPTS EVOLUTION, AND ACCEPTS THE PARANORMAL. HItching does not reject evolution, only how Darwinism explains evolution.

Here are some excerpts from the article:

"Research on Hitching turned up the following: Hitching is basically a sensational TV script writer and has no scientific credentials. In The Neck of the Giraffe he claimed to be a member of the Royal Archaeological Institute, but an inquiry to that institute said he was not. He implied in the 'Acknowledgements' of The Neck of the Giraffe that paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould had helped in the writing of the book, but upon inquiry Gould said he did not know him and had no information about him. Hitching also implied that his book had been endorsed by Richard Dawkins, but upon inquiry Dawkins stated: 'I know nothing at all about Francis Hitching. If you are uncovering the fact that he is a charlatan, good for you. His book, The Neck of the Giraffe, is one of the silliest and most ignorant I have read for years.'

"Hitching believes in the paranormal and has written on Mayan pyramid energy and for some 'In Search Of...' episodes on BBC television. The reference work Contemporary Authors, Vol. 103, page 208, lists him as a member of the Society for Psychical Research, the British Society of Dowsers and of the American Society of Dowsers. His writings include: Earth Magic, Dowsing: The Psi Connection, Mysterious World: An Atlas of the Unexplained, Fraud, Mischief, and the Supernatural and Instead of Darwin."

Your source is obviously a liar.

You claim that creationism, and the global flood story, and the young earth theory are true. Those claim deals with often complex biology, geology, and physics. There is no way that you know enough about all three of those fields of science to intelligently discuss them. Even if you did, why should anyone take your word over the word of the vast majority of experts? Will you please admit that you do not know enough about biology, geology, and physics to give a lecture on those sciences without any notes, and answer questions from the audience? Your only evidence is theology, certainly not science.

How much do most Christian African natives who live in remote jungle regions, most of whom do not know how to read or write, know about biology, geology, and physics? Probably very little. How much do the majority of Christian missionaries who teach them about the Bible know about biology, geology, and physics? Frequently, not much.

Where does the Bible require Christians to know anything about biology, geology, and physics?

 

[Agnostic75]

Rusra02 is a Jehovah Witness. I know some very nice Jehovah Witnesses, and I like them. However, their theology is wrong. For example, an article at http://www.cftf.com/booklets/jwslisten/prophecies.htm shows some examples of many of their failed prophecies, which they frequently revise when they don't come true. The article was written by a former Jehovah Witness.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to rusra02: Do you object when people who know very little about science become Christians?

 

[johnhanks]

This fraud does terrible damage. Its victims feel freed from the Creator’s laws, and they become a law to themselves: ‘No right or wrong. Fulfill all fleshly desires. Do your own thing. No need for any guilt trips.’

Whom are you quoting here?

No reply: we can presumably conclude that rusra02 was quoting only his own warped perception of evolutionary biologists' moral awareness.

The notion that evolution's "victims" acknowledge the fact of evolution in order to free themselves from a divine creator's moral laws is one of the more bizarre items in the creationist manifesto, and slanderous to boot.

Rusra02, it's time to put your cards on the table: are you really declaring that the "evolutionists" on this forum are amoral reprobates who do not know right from wrong?

 

[rusra02]

No reply: we can presumably conclude that rusra02 was quoting only his own warped perception of evolutionary biologists' moral awareness.

The notion that evolution's "victims" acknowledge the fact of evolution in order to free themselves from a divine creator's moral laws is one of the more bizarre items in the creationist manifesto, and slanderous to boot.

Rusra02, it's time to put your cards on the table: are you really declaring that the "evolutionists" on this forum are amoral reprobates who do not know right from wrong?

“Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don’t want there to be anything beyond nature. They don’t want a supernatural being to affect nature.”
"If a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. . . . Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside." - Michael Behe


"Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” - lc p.22

As mentioned in other posts,I think there is a wide variety of factors that motivate scientists and others to accept evolution: Fear of ridicule or career barriers, being taught evolution without critical analysis from childhood, personal feelings about God, the unscriptual claims of creationists (for example, that God created the earth in six 24-hour days), desire for personal freedom, and other reasons.​

I will leave the personal attacks and unwarranted judging of other's motives to you, johnhanks.​

​

​

 

[johnhanks]

I will leave the personal attacks and unwarranted judging of other's motives to you, johnhanks.

And I will leave it to our fellow posters to decide whether the following constitutes "unwarranted judging of other's motives".

This fraud [evolution] does terrible damage. Its victims feel freed from the Creator’s laws, and they become a law to themselves: ‘No right or wrong. Fulfill all fleshly desires. Do your own thing. No need for any guilt trips.’

You were not attacked. You were simply asked whether you regard the "evolutionists" you debate with on this forum as people who wish to be "a law to themselves" with no sense of right or wrong. If not us, who are these people?

 

[gnostic]

This fraud [evolution] does terrible damage. Its victims feel freed from the Creator’s laws, and they become a law to themselves: ‘No right or wrong. Fulfill all fleshly desires. Do your own thing. No need for any guilt trips.’

What a bucket-load of craps. Can you not debate without all these lies and propaganda? You sounds nothing than a conspiracy theorist: one-part paranoid, two-part delusional.

 

[outhouse]

What a bucket-load of craps. Can you not debate without all these lies and propaganda? You sounds nothing than a conspiracy theorist: one-part paranoid, two-part delusional.

Its very sad in this common era, that theism can cause this kind of behaviour for many to flat refuse common observed knowledge.

 

[CG Didymus]

Six chapters into the Bible and God destroys everything--What a waste. How many people were even on the planet at the time? I still say to flood the whole planet was overkill. If he was going to do a miracle why didn't he at least cause the animals to float in the air for a year, drain the Earth and return the animals to dry land? What did they do? The animal rights people should really be upset with God about that.
But what is up with a "canopy of water" above the air? Does that make any scientific sense? Water's heavier than air isn't it? Would it freeze? Wouldn't it rain down anyway? Wouldn't a mist come down and cause rainbows?
There's a guy, Kent Hovind, on Christian TV saying that the air pressure was greater and there was more oxygen in the air during the pre-flood era. He talks about how the canopy of water protected man from the harmful rays of the sun and that's how they got to live so long. What's weird, he's using science to try and prove the Bible. He's also big on bones, big bones, like fossils of giant humans. Is any of what he says for real? Why didn't ancient man use these bones to build skyscrapers? Or, to use these guys on their sports teams? Oh yeah, I forgot, Hebrews 1 Philistines 0. But Goliath was long after the canopy disappeared. Why was he so big?
And speaking of big, I looked up the size of aircraft carriers and modern cruise ships. I was on the Carnival Dream I think, I forget which one it was, but it was big--more than 1000 feet and something like 15 decks. It was nice. But, I couldn't imagine it being stuffed full of animals that I had to take care of. And, I definitely couldn't imagine being on a wooden box of a boat half that size and only three decks, and in bad weather. Seriously, do Christians really need it to be literal?

 

[Noaidi]

Six chapters into the Bible and God destroys everything--What a waste. How many people were even on the planet at the time? I still say to flood the whole planet was overkill. If he was going to do a miracle why didn't he at least cause the animals to float in the air for a year, drain the Earth and return the animals to dry land? What did they do? The animal rights people should really be upset with God about that.

Agreed. Why the need for mass murder and ecocide (the only word to describe it, really)? I've asked a number of Christians about this and have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.
One answer is that the whole of creation had become "infected by sin" and had to be destroyed. How does this work on a practical level? How does sin transmit from the human species to non-human species and how does it manifest itself? How can an oak tree or a polar bear or a snail sin?

 

[rusra02]

Agreed. Why the need for mass murder and ecocide (the only word to describe it, really)? I've asked a number of Christians about this and have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.
One answer is that the whole of creation had become "infected by sin" and had to be destroyed. How does this work on a practical level? How does sin transmit from the human species to non-human species and how does it manifest itself? How can an oak tree or a polar bear or a snail sin?

Let the Bible respond to this question: Genesis 6:5,13 states:"Consequently Jehovah saw that the badness of man was abundant in the earth and every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time...The end of all flesh has come before me, because the earth is full of violence as a result of them; and here I am bringing them to ruin together with the earth."
As both Lifegiver and Owner of the earth, I believe Jehovah has every right to decide what to do with what he has created. (Exodus 9:29) As for animals, Jehovah states that "unreasoning animals [are] born naturally to be caught and destroyed." (2 Peter 2:12) God created the animals and plants for mankind. They would naturally be affected by the wicked conduct of men, even as they are today affected.
Once again, I believe, the Bible promises that God will destroy the wicked, and restore the balance of nature both man and animals enjoyed in Eden. (Isaiah 11:6-9)

​

​

​

 

[gnostic]

If god was all-powerful as you believe god to be, rusra02, then wouldn't it make more sense to start from scratch, unmake all mankind (make them all vanish), and create a better Adam & Eve.

The whole business of killing everyone with the flood seemed totally unnecessary, especially when you consider it didn't work after saving Noah and his family, because sins continued to exist and some people went back to not worshipping him.

 

[rusra02]

If god was all-powerful as you believe god to be, rusra02, then wouldn't it make more sense to start from scratch, unmake all mankind (make them all vanish), and create a better Adam & Eve.

The whole business of killing everyone with the flood seemed totally unnecessary, especially when you consider it didn't work after saving Noah and his family, because sins continued to exist and some people went back to not worshipping him.

As for me, I would not presume to think I know better than God how to fulfill his purpose. Perhaps Satan thought that God would not be able to fulfill his stated purpose regarding Adam and Eve: "Further, God blessed them and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:28) But “God is not like men . . . Whatever he promises, he does; he speaks, and it is done.”—Numbers 23:19, Today’s English Version.
God would not allow the rebellion by Adam, Eve, and Satan to thwart his purpose.
I believe another reason why God did not immediately destroy these rebels is that their destruction would not have answered the questions Satan raised: Was God's way of ruling right or not? Satan said it was not. Also, the faithfulness of all intelligent creatures was called into question by the rebellion in Eden. Would Satan be able to turn all intelligent creatures away from God, as he claimed he could? (Job 2:1-5) Whose way of ruling is right, God's or Satan's? Jehovah wisely allowed time for these issues to be firmly settled. Once settled for all time to come, Jehovah could then end Satan's existence forever.
As to the reasons for the Flood, the Bible explains: God "did not hold back from punishing an ancient world, but kept Noah, a preacher of righteousness, safe with seven others when he brought a deluge upon a world of ungodly people; and by reducing the cities Sod′om and Go·mor′rah to ashes he condemned them, setting a pattern for ungodly persons of things to come." (2 Peter 2:5, 6) I believe the Bible clearly teaches that soon wickedness will be removed earthwide forever, but "The righteous themselves will possess the earth, And they will reside forever upon it."
(Psalm 37:10,11,29)

 

[Noaidi]

As both Lifegiver and Owner of the earth, I believe Jehovah has every right to decide what to do with what he has created. (Exodus 9:29) As for animals, Jehovah states that "unreasoning animals [are] born naturally to be caught and destroyed." (2 Peter 2:12) God created the animals and plants for mankind. They would naturally be affected by the wicked conduct of men, even as they are today affected.

Leaving aside, for the moment, the moral implications of your god wiping out " unreasoning animals that are born naturally to be caught and destroyed" because of the actions of one species, my post centred on how plants and animals are affected by sin. Your post above doesn't address that - it merely states that they would be.

How are snails and oak trees (for example) affected by sin?

 

[outhouse]

As for me, I would not presume to think I know better than God how to fulfill his purpose. Perhaps Satan thought that God would not be able to fulfill his stated purpose regarding Adam and Eve: "Further, God blessed them and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:28) But “God is not like men . . . Whatever he promises, he does; he speaks, and it is done.”—Numbers 23:19, Today’s English Version.
God would not allow the rebellion by Adam, Eve, and Satan to thwart his purpose.
I believe another reason why God did not immediately destroy these rebels is that their destruction would not have answered the questions Satan raised: Was God's way of ruling right or not? Satan said it was not. Also, the faithfulness of all intelligent creatures was called into question by the rebellion in Eden. Would Satan be able to turn all intelligent creatures away from God, as he claimed he could? (Job 2:1-5) Whose way of ruling is right, God's or Satan's? Jehovah wisely allowed time for these issues to be firmly settled. Once settled for all time to come, Jehovah could then end Satan's existence forever.
As to the reasons for the Flood, the Bible explains: God "did not hold back from punishing an ancient world, but kept Noah, a preacher of righteousness, safe with seven others when he brought a deluge upon a world of ungodly people; and by reducing the cities Sod′om and Go·mor′rah to ashes he condemned them, setting a pattern for ungodly persons of things to come." (2 Peter 2:5, 6) I believe the Bible clearly teaches that soon wickedness will be removed earthwide forever, but "The righteous themselves will possess the earth, And they will reside forever upon it."
(Psalm 37:10,11,29)

since you discount all scientific evidence for a flood, that is proof positive, a global flood never happened.


what evidence would it take to convince you, and if there is nothing short of magic, then your mind is closed and if that is the case


you have no buisiness debating the topic

 

[johnhanks]

God created the animals and plants for mankind.

Especially, one assumes, Filaria , Schistosoma and Guinea worm. Oh, and how could I forget Toxocara?

What a thoughtful deity.