Ancient flood stories from many parts of the world

[Agnostic75]

Message to rusra02: Following is part of one of my posts from another thread that you did not reply to:

How can you reject evolution when you continue to refuse to discuss Dr. Ken Miller's article on the evolution of the flagellum? You are opposing something that you do not even understand. You do not even understand the basics of biology, let alone advanced biology, and geology. This could easily be proven with a quick question and answer session where you would agree not to consult any sources, and only provide answers based upon your own knowledge.

As Dr. Miller said in his article, the flagellum is sometimes referred to as creationists' "poster child" since they believe that it provides excellent evidence for creationism. Well, how much do you know about that "poster child," not things that you can copy, but things that you understand yourself? You criticize other people, but you consistently refuse to show what your scientific academic credentials are.

One study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept naturalistic or theistic evolution.

Some black African Christian creationists live in remote jungle regions in the world, do not know how to read or write, and have very little contact with the outside world. Have they "examined the evidence" of evolution in detail? Of course not, not even minimally, and yet you are happy that they became Christians even though they know next to nothing about science. So, "examining the evidence" is not really an issue for you after all as long as people choose to believe what you want them to believe.

So now we have an answer to my question. I said "Do you believe that it is acceptable for people who know very little about science to accept creationism, and the global flood story?" As I just showed with the African scenario, your obvious answer is "yes," which invites the question "Since science doesn't really matter to you after all, why are you making posts in a science forum?"

As far as "the popular course" is concerned, you do not have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about. Until the 1800s, "the popular course" for most Christians was accepting creationism, and the global flood theory. Christians who did not accept those theories were widely criticized. As science began to develop further, fewer Christians chose to be inerrantists. So, until the 1800s, you had exactly the situation that you wanted, where most Christians accepted creationism, and the global flood theory, but it did not last. Until theistic evolution became popular, it took a lot of courage for some Christians to publically accept it. They did not accept "the popular course." They did what they believed what right.

It is reasonable to assume that the majority of Christians in the world do not know enough about biology, and geology, to claim from an entirely scientific perspective, that creationism, and the global flood theory, are true.

That is proof that your supposed interest in science is not genuine.

 

[fantome profane]

But there is something else to consider: The Bible states that God "did not hold back from punishing an ancient world, but kept Noah, a preacher of righteousness, safe with seven others." (2 Peter 2:5) Those who claim the Ark could not survive the Flood do not take into account that God kept Noah and his family safe. I believe the same God who kept the three hebrews safe from the superheated furnace of Nebuchadnezzar could also insure that the ark would weather the global Deluge. (Daniel 3:19,27)

Fine, whatever. I am not going to try to have a rational discussion with someone invoking the power of "God". But don't try to tell me that the dimensions described in the Bible are some kind of optimal design.

Call it magic, call it a miracle, call it whatever you want. But it is not science. You can decide to put faith in the place of evidence, that is your choice. But I can only base my conclusions on what the evidence indicates.

 

[Eliu]

@Immortalflame
Hello!
-Evolution is a worldview. It began as explanation for how living beings were as they were. But, as time passes, branches of Science as chemistry, geology and astronomy were conquered by it and scientists began to fit their branches into it. Now it's a complete worldview. Which start is the (theoretic) Big Bang.
-I can't understand why continue in separating these branches of science, for they are integrated in history of Universe, Earth, and life. In the evolutionist worldview, life comes from non-living matter. And it's scientifically impossible, as we know.
-Life is organic, self-replicating and extremely complex. If a much lesser complex and functional object could be obtained following physical laws and by chance, that makes evolution possible.
For this cannot happen, evolution is impossible (but, as a creationist, maybe the problem is that I've never seen it or heard of it, for “creationist = uneducated”...).
-Faith is not questioned. If one wants to believe in possible or impossible things, it's his choice.
-The only “new features” you are talking about are not non-preexisting complex and functional structures. If we, for example, talk about new wings of Drosophila... we are talking about repeating a preexisting information. And the result is not an advantage... and so on.
-Please... adaptation is not evolution. Adaptation means something like birds with the better beak will survive. But no beak appeared when there was no beak. Better beak gave an advantage. And animals with better beaks survive. So that species will have that type of beak. But there was no new beak, so no evolution. Or single cells developed beaks?
-Please, re-read... if surviving bacteria are weaker than starting bacteria, while no developing new structures... this is no evolution.
God bless you.

 

[Eliu]

Evolution is biology. The Big Bang is astrophysics.

There are world of differences.

Hello!
Copying from above:

-Evolution is a worldview. It began as explanation for how living beings were as they were. But, as time passes, branches of Science as chemistry, geology and astronomy were conquered by it and scientists began to fit their branches into it. Now it's a complete worldview. Which start is the (theoretic) Big Bang.
-I can't understand why continue in separating these branches of science, for they are integrated in history of Universe, Earth, and life. In the evolutionist worldview, life comes from non-living matter. And it's scientifically impossible, as we know.

God bless you.

 

[Eliu]

Belief in God is not belief in magic. True faith is evidence-based. (Hebrews 11:1)
I would argue that belief in evolution is belief in magic. After all, all this biological diversity just...happened, because....just because...

Hello!
I talk as a Creationist, for I am a Creationist.
It's not a useful argument!
It's something like this:
"the Bible is the Word of God"
"why"
"because it's written on the Bible"
Kind of circular reasoning.
But you're doing right in the second part.
Believe in abiogenesis... that complex and functional living beings can appear by themselves, against physical laws... it's believe in magic.
Or believe in a miracle.
So... evolutionists and creationists both believe in a miracle.
But creationists admit it.

God bless you!!

 

[gnostic]

You say that you believe in Natural Selection, but not Evolution. You said that they are not the same things.

I have to agree and disagree with you.

Natural Selection and Evolution are not exactly the same the same things, but it Natural Selection is part of Evolution, whether you believe in it or not. Natural Selection is just one of 5 mechanisms of Evolution. The other mechanisms of Evolution are:

• Mutation
• Genetic Drift
• Genetic Hitchhiking
• Gene Flow

All of these mechanisms (including Natural Selection) fall under the umbrella of Evolution. These other mechanisms actually improve and update our knowledge on Natural Selection.


And despite your belief, the evidences do support Evolution, so Evolution is not faith or unverified hypothesis. For if was unverified, then why do over 95% of the biologists in the science communities accept Evolution, including many of those being Christians.


Only the literalist creationists and intelligent design advocates don't believe in Evolution, and that's mainly because of largely they cannot grasp Evolution.

 

[gnostic]

-Evolution is a worldview. It began as explanation for how living beings were as they were. But, as time passes, branches of Science as chemistry, geology and astronomy were conquered by it and scientists began to fit their branches into it. Now it's a complete worldview. Which start is the (theoretic) Big Bang.
-I can't understand why continue in separating these branches of science, for they are integrated in history of Universe, Earth, and life. In the evolutionist worldview, life comes from non-living matter. And it's scientifically impossible, as we know.

Because the Big Bang only deal with the expansion of space, the birth of the early universe, the first stars, when the Earth, and even the Sun, didn't exist. Life didn't exist in

Life may have exist elsewhere in the universe, but it purely conjecture. We can only examine life on earth.

Evolution only deal with biology, and only with life on Earth.

And lastly, the Big Bang is no longer theoretic.

Evidences for the Big Bang were discovered in the mid-60s - the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). The recent NASA scan from the WMAP probe confirmed CMBR, and therefore providing the evidences to support the Big Bang.

My biggest problem with creationists is that they confused their personal faith with evidence. They are willing to ignore any evidence to personal belief in miracles, creation, god or their scriptures.

 

[GawdAweful]

Call it magic, call it a miracle, call it whatever you want. But it is not science. You can decide to put faith in the place of evidence, that is your choice. But I can only base my conclusions on what the evidence indicates.

“Finding Darwin’s God” by Kenneth R. Miller. For anyone interested in Creation/Evolution

Loved that book. :yes:

 

[Krok]

@Krok Hello! Basicchemistry we can observe shows it. But no one was there to see rock formation.

Unfortunately for you, we do see igneous rocks forming right in front of our own little eyes in nature every few years. We even do it in labs!

And there is the possibility of influences, like the Argon diffused by solubility in moltenlava, also showed by experiments.

Why do you keep on spreading lies? Ar cannot be "absorbed" or "diffused" or "go into "solubility" in the crystal lattice of a biotite crystal. You keeping on lying about it, won't turn it into the truth.

The 2 possibilities ar real, both.

Yours is impossible. Basic chemistry.

I don't understand why recall “soft tissue” matter.

Well, I didn't understand yours, as you only made vague claims. I do know about the work on "soft tissue" found in dinosaur fossils by Dr Mary Schweizer, and I also know about all the lies creationists spread about that. Creationists even lie about those fossils being carbon dated to 20 000 or something like that. That's another huge creationist lie.

For C14, itwas found.

C14 is found all over the place. Everywhere. It's even formed now, as I write this, in the crystal lattices of diamonds where trace amounts of N15 produce C14 by certain forms of radiation, found abundantly in the earth. So, yeah, C14 will be found basically everywhere as it is formed everywhere, every day. You should be surprised if you don't find it everwhere you look.Creationist even lie about that, they claim diamonds are "dated" as young, because of that. All creationist lies, of course.

Saying repeatedly “no” doesn’t change.

Maybe you shouldn't be so vague then. C14 is constantly naturally produced virtually everywhere on this earth. You should expect to find it virtually everywhere.

I'm sure that if Bible says “Water is wet”, I will sometimes hear “Water is dry”. Nothingnew.

Actually, please don't lie about what I will do. Lies never turn into the truth.

God blessyou.

And may the FSM touch you with one of His Holy Appendages. May you lie less after that.

I'll repeat what John Derbyshire wrote for in case you missed it:
"It’s a wearying business, arguing with Creationists. Basically, it is a game of Whack-a-Mole. They make an argument, you whack it down. They make a second, you whack it down. They make a third, you whack it down. So they make the first argument again. This is why most biologists just can’t be bothered with Creationism at all, even for the fun of it. It isn’t actually any fun. Creationists just chase you round in circles. It’s boring."

It is just so true.

 

[Krok]

-Evolution is a worldview.

So, do you see the acceptance of the existence of atoms as a worldview?

It began as explanation for how living beings were as they were.

That's exactly what the theory of evolution still does. After all these years.

But, as time passes, branches of Science as chemistry, geology... .

Hey, please stop telling lies right here. The concept of deep time was formulated by James Hutton, seen as the father of modern geology. He died in 1797, before Darwin was even born. The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection was published in 1859.

You're dealing with educated people here.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

-Evolution is a worldview. It began as explanation for how living beings were as they were. But, as time passes, branches of Science as chemistry, geology and astronomy were conquered by it and scientists began to fit their branches into it. Now it's a complete worldview. Which start is the (theoretic) Big Bang.

Again, no matter how many times you repeat this it doesn't make it any less of a lie. Just because many branches of science lend credibility to evolution doesn't make it a "worldview". Just as many branches lend their credibility to the theory of gravity and atomic theory, yet I doubt you consider them a "worldview". Once again, evolution does not have anything to do with the big bang. Please, stop persisting in this lie.

-I can't understand why continue in separating these branches of science, for they are integrated in history of Universe, Earth, and life. In the evolutionist worldview, life comes from non-living matter.

That is not evolution, that is abiogenesis.

And it's scientifically impossible, as we know.

No, we don't. Do you honestly believe you know better than all the world's top biologists on this subject?

-Life is organic, self-replicating and extremely complex. If a much lesser complex and functional object could be obtained following physical laws and by chance, that makes evolution possible.

Snowflakes. There you go.

For this cannot happen, evolution is impossible (but, as a creationist, maybe the problem is that I've never seen it or heard of it, for “creationist = uneducated”...).

Not only uneducated, but willfully dishonest.

-Faith is not questioned. If one wants to believe in possible or impossible things, it's his choice.

That makes no sense. You don't require faith to believe things.

-The only “new features” you are talking about are not non-preexisting complex and functional structures. If we, for example, talk about new wings of Drosophila... we are talking about repeating a preexisting information. And the result is not an advantage... and so on.

What on earth are you talking about? Could you be more accurate in your example?

-Please... adaptation is not evolution.

Yes, it is. Evolution is the name we give to the process that results in adaptation. What you're suggesting is like saying "we know objects move forward, but that's not motion".

Adaptation means something like birds with the better beak will survive.

No, that's natural selection.

But no beak appeared when there was no beak.

Evidence suggests that, over time, modern beaks formed from earlier mouth-like appendages.

Better beak gave an advantage. And animals with better beaks survive. So that species will have that type of beak. But there was no new beak, so no evolution. Or single cells developed beaks?

Okay, you really need to go away and study evolution. Go to a library, rent a book on it. Go to a University, attend a biology lecture. You clearly do not understand basic evolutionary biology.

-Please, re-read... if surviving bacteria are weaker than starting bacteria, while no developing new structures... this is no evolution.

Again, what are you talking about? Why would surviving bacteria be weaker?

 

[Alceste]

I just wanted to say that it amazes me completely that any grown person believes in a global flood. Noah's ark is the most absurd and implausible story in the entire Bible. Even as a child I knew it for a myth. I can't imagine what it must be like to be so... wrong. How can people live like that?

 

[YmirGF]

I just wanted to say that it amazes me completely that any grown person believes in a global flood. Noah's ark is the most absurd and implausible story in the entire Bible. Even as a child I knew it for a myth. I can't imagine what it must be like to be so... wrong. How can people live like that?

Well. it appears we do agree 100% on some things, Alceste.

 

[Eliu]

@gnostic
Hello!
A bit of circular reasoning. You say natural selection is part of evolution. This should be correct if evolution is true.
But is evolution true? Does hands, annular ligaments, eyes and semicircular canals of internal ear came from bacteria? Simply, and visibly, no.
And no one of the mechanisms you recall can “add” those structures, time and chance also can’t do.
A statement, or a teaching, does not become “true” for the percentage of people who believe it, you know.
A statement can be considered “true” if it correspond to what is “real”, and no for “voting”.
For me, I don’t believe in evolution because it is scientifically impossible, just it.

You’re right, we can only observe life on Earth. And, due to this, we know abiogenesis is scientifically impossible. For the same reason, it will be impossible to find complex life forms in far parts of the Universe.
You’re right also while saying that evolution “in itself” only concerns biology. It tries to explains why life forms are in the way they are. But we can’t deny that evolutionary mode conquered other branch of Science, which bended themselves to it. So we have, now, an almost complete evolutionary worldview (from BB to molecules to bacteria to man). I hope I explained less rough!

Big Bang model is just an interpretation of datas, an not the only possible. But it’s the one who better fits the “most voted” worldview, the evolutionary worldview.
Dr. Russell Humphreys wrote about a cosmologic model which simply added a boundary for the Universe, made of matter, and it could explain things like cosmic background radiation, redshift and relativistic effects, without Big Bang. The main problem was that model came from a creationist. This speaks by itself.

Creationists and evolutionists are looking at the same evidences. What changes is the interpretation of those evidences. If someone is negating evidences and reality… sure, there is a problem!
And… I’m a creationist. But do I usually speak of God and Bible, while explaining? Usually, no.

God bless you!!

-----------------------------------------

@Krok
Hello!
-There are evidences for Argon non-present.
There are evidences for Argon present.
What happens, it’s the choice of what evidence best fits to the model. Nothing new, nothing strange. Just faith in a model. But no absolutes, in this.
-For “biotite”, radiohalos question obviously says nothing.
-For recalibration necessary to fill discrepancy among this method and others, of course this method is not absolute.
-A rock being old “because I believe so” without knowing it should be old, of course this reasoning is circular.
-For C14 in diamonds, due to N15 “traces” and “some type of radiation”, there is lacking of fission tracks.
-Maybe, dinosaurs were not living organisms? So strange.
-I know… C14 can also be found in air itself. But diamonds, we know, are hard, and inside rocks. It’s difficult to be contaminated. And without fission tracks, something is lacking.
-“A creationist is lying just because he’s a creationists”. Circular reasoning, just a small bit.
-Atoms exist…
-There is an evolutionary model, largely believed. There are various interpretations for evidences. Those which fit better into the model are chosen. Circular.
-If Bible says “Water is wet” I’ll hear some people say “Water is true”. For sure, for faith positions.
Bible says that planet Earth is round and hanged upon nothing. After this, the only answer a Christian receives is usually be insulted. Nothing new, nothing strange.
God bless you!

 

[crossfire]

This is equally well explained by an ice age that doesn't involve a flood at all.

Oh, but there were megafloods associated with the melting of the great glaciers. Here's the one from my area:
Missoula Floods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
NOVA | Mystery of the Megaflood | PBS


This event is also associated with the extinction of many species of giant megafauna, as well.

 

[rusra02]

I just wanted to say that it amazes me completely that any grown person believes in a global flood. Noah's ark is the most absurd and implausible story in the entire Bible. Even as a child I knew it for a myth. I can't imagine what it must be like to be so... wrong. How can people live like that?

Jesus Christ firmly believed in the Bible's account of the Flood. (Luke 17:26,27) So do Christ's true followers. I find nothing in the record of the Flood to be implausible nor absurd. To the contrary, the geological, fossil, and archeological evidence, while not conclusive, certainly supports the idea of a great disaster involving water occurring in the historical past. How can someone know the Flood is a myth, especially as a child? To know implies having irrefutable facts as evidence. I know of no such facts.

 

[Krok]

@Krok Hello! -There are evidences for Argon non-present.

This doesn't make sense. Please expand on it.

There are evidences for Argon present.

Doesn't make sense. Pease expand on it.

What happens, it’s the choice of what evidence best fits to the model. Nothing new, nothing strange. Just faith in a model. But no absolutes, in this.

Doesn't make sense. Please expand on it.

-For “biotite”, radiohalos question obviously says nothing.

Doesn't make sense. Please expand on it.

-For recalibration necessary to fill discrepancy among this method and others, of course this method is not absolute.

Doesn't make sense. Please expand on it.

-A rock being old “because I believe so” without knowing it should be old, of course this reasoning is circular.

Doesn't make sense. Please expand on that.

-For C14 in diamonds, due to N15 “traces” and “some type of radiation”, there is lacking of fission tracks.

Doesn't make sense. Please expand on it.

-Maybe, dinosaurs were not living organisms? So strange.

Doesn't make sense. Please expand on it.

-I know… C14 can also be found in air itself. But diamonds, we know, are hard, and inside rocks. It’s difficult to be contaminated. And without fission tracks, something is lacking.

Doesn't make sense. Please expand on it.

-“A creationist is lying just because he’s a creationists”.

Actually, it has been demonstrated repeatedly that creationists always have to lie. That's all they have. Now, that makes sense.

-“Circular reasoning, just a small bit.

Doesn't make sense. Please expand on it.

-Atoms exist…

According to every single bit of verifiable, empirical evidence, they actually do. It's not a word view. It's fact.

-There is an evolutionary model, largely believed. There are various interpretations for evidences. Those which fit better into the model are chosen. Circular.

Doesn't make sense. Please expand on it.

-If Bible says “Water is wet” I’ll hear some people say “Water is true”. For sure, for faith positions.

Doesn't make sense. Please expand on it.

Bible says that planet Earth is round and hanged upon nothing.

And? The Bible also says that the earth is a circle. Doesn't make sense.

After this, the only answer a Christian receives is usually be insulted. Nothing new, nothing strange.

Actually, everyone who keeps on lying continually, even after shown that they lie, is usually insulted by people who value the truth and who want to learn more. Nothing strange about that. lots of Christian scientists have also pointed out that creationists always lie.

God bless you!

May the FSM touch you with one of His Noodly Appendages. May you lie less after that.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Jesus Christ firmly believed in the Bible's account of the Flood. (Luke 17:26,27) So do Christ's true followers.

So?

I find nothing in the record of the Flood to be implausible nor absurd.

You mean, except for the lack of absolutely any evidence, the impossibility of building an arc large enough to house enough animals with enough genetic diversity to repopulate the earth in a few thousand years, the fact that there is not enough water on earth or in it's atmosphere to flood the entire surface of the planet, the fact that no reliable historical records of any kind refer to any global flooding event and the notion that there exists an all-powerful magical man who one day decided to kill almost every living thing on the planet?

Nope, nothing absurd or implausible about that whatsoever. Seriously, the fact that you consider this a possibility while outright denying all the evidence of evolution is absolutely, hilariously hypocritical.

To the contrary, the geological, fossil, and archeological evidence, while not conclusive, certainly supports the idea of a great disaster involving water occurring in the historical past.

How? If there was a singular, global flood what we would expect to find is a singular geological layer that contains all (or, at least, a great variety) of the species that currently exist (and some that don't, according to some global flood theories). We do not observe this. We see gradual layers over time with entirely separate generations of species in each. There is absolutely no archeological or geological evidence for any kind of global flood.

How can someone know the Flood is a myth, especially as a child? To know implies having irrefutable facts as evidence. I know of no such facts.

Again, the hypocrisy is overwhelming. "Evolution is unfeasible because the facts are inconclusive". "Global flood is feasible because, even though the facts are inconclusive, you cannot disprove it".

Apparently, that's how science works now.

 

[rusra02]

Fine, whatever. I am not going to try to have a rational discussion with someone invoking the power of "God". But don't try to tell me that the dimensions described in the Bible are some kind of optimal design.

Call it magic, call it a miracle, call it whatever you want. But it is not science. You can decide to put faith in the place of evidence, that is your choice. But I can only base my conclusions on what the evidence indicates.

I think if you did a little research for yourself concerning the ark's dimensions, you would see that some naval architects state the ark's ratios are optimal.
I call the Flood true history, backed by available evidence. As you said, each person is free to draw their own conclusions, but should not be unduly swayed by what other people do or do not believe. As the Bible says: "Make sure of all things. Hold fast to what is fine." (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

 

[rusra02]

So?


You mean, except for the lack of absolutely any evidence, the impossibility of building an arc large enough to house enough animals with enough genetic diversity to repopulate the earth in a few thousand years, the fact that there is not enough water on earth or in it's atmosphere to flood the entire surface of the planet, the fact that no reliable historical records of any kind refer to any global flooding event and the notion that there exists an all-powerful magical man who one day decided to kill almost every living thing on the planet?

Nope, nothing absurd or implausible about that whatsoever. Seriously, the fact that you consider this a possibility while outright denying all the evidence of evolution is absolutely, hilariously hypocritical.

Of course you know, or ought to know, that the arguments above have all been discussed and refuted in this forum.

How? If there was a singular, global flood what we would expect to find is a singular geological layer that contains all (or, at least, a great variety) of the species that currently exist (and some that don't according to some, global flood theories). We do not observe this. We see gradual layers over time with entirely separate generations of species in each. There is absolutely no archeological or geological evidence for any kind of global flood.


Again, the hypocrisy is overwhelming. "Evolution is unfeasible because the facts are inconclusive". "Global flood is feasible because, even though the facts are inconclusive, you cannot disprove it".

Apparently, that's how science works now.

Evolution is unfeasible because the facts are lacking. While the scientific evidence for the global Deluge is inconclusive, what scientific evidence exists along with the eyewitness testimony found in the Bible is sufficient to convince me. Interestingly, the Bible reveals the motivation of some not believing in the Flood: "in the last days there will come ridiculers with their ridicule,...saying:"Where is this promised presence of his?...For, according to their wish, this fact escapes their notice, that there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God: and by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water. But by the same word the heavens and the earth that are now are stored up for fire and are being reserved to the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly men. (2 Peter 3:3-7)