Ancient flood stories from many parts of the world

[ImmortalFlame]

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

I very, very much doubt that. If so, please present evidence of a global flood.

Evolution is unfeasible because the facts are lacking.

Which facts? The fossil record? The genetics? The endogenous retroviral inserts? The successful predictions made by evolution theory? The observed instances of speciation? What facts, exactly, are being missed?

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.

Firstly, there is no evidence whatsoever of a global flood. If there is, please present it. Take note that only a reputable scientific, archeological or geological source need apply.

Secondly, the Bible was first compiled around 400ad and contains testimonies supposed from people who lived no earlier than 70ad. There are no eyewitness accounts of the global flood in the Bible.

To deny all the evidence of evolution while relying on the purely subjective, inaccurate and almost entirely scientifically invalid contents of a bronze-age book of spiritual philosophy and mythology shows that you are merely trying to prop up your religious beliefs. You are denying scientific facts and presenting religious superstition as truth. You are not after the truth, merely trying to convince yourself that your beliefs have some absolute basis in reality. They don't. Don't bring your mythology into science.

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)

I get it. So, when a book tells you that people who question it are fools, you just believe it. I guess if scientists did that it would make them more believable to you, too? Do you honestly believe a text that says "believe what I tell you or you are a fool and will be punished eternally" couldn't possibly just be lying to you? I mean, who is more likely to be correct: the person who says "this is what is true, and here are the facts" or the person who says "this is what is true, and if you don't agree you're a moron and I'll kill you"?

Seriously, it's not difficult to figure out.

 

[Eliu]

@immortalflam

Hello!

-SureI’ll not continue on the subject, ‘cause it’s something near denying scientificexplanations…

-Abiogenesiswas the theoretical start for “evolution”. Abiogenesis: scientificallyimpossible. Evolution: scientifically impossible. From any angle and point ofview. “Reality” does not mean “as I prefer it to be”.

-We knowno biologist demonstrated abiogenesis. Also no near to demonstrate it. Justthis. Faith is something else.

-Snowflakesare not complex as living beings. Not good example.

-Believethat could happen what could not, scientifically, happen, need a STRONG faith.Stronger than most Christians’.

-Drosophilaexample was included in the thousands of experiments on Drosophila “evolution”.It only proved thousands of horrible mutations, but not evolution, in no “new”Drosophila. No new (non-preexisting, complex and functional) structures, noevolution. I’m sorry.

-“Evidencesuggest”. The same as having in hand 2 photograms and tell the entire movieamong them, from photogram A to photogram B, just imaging it.

-Whystudy what is scientifically impossible?

-Forweaker bacteria: they were. I don’t know how to tell it.



Godbless you.



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



@Krok

Hello!



There isall what is needed. Sufficient for educated ones (which I am not).

Andbeing a Christian is not just declaring it… sorry if you believe this.

If theBible wrote that the Earth was round and hanged on nothing (in cosmic space)2300 years ago than Galileo means nothing, nothing else will mean.

So,creationists will always lie, whatever they are saying. Matter of faith, justit.



Godbless you.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

-Abiogenesiswas the theoretical start for “evolution”.

Abiogenesis is the starting point for life. It is an entirely seperate field of biology from evolution.

Abiogenesis: scientificallyimpossible.

Total garbage. Scientists are working on it as we speak and the Miller-Urey experiment has already demonstrated that the conditions required for early life to form can and has formed naturally.

Evolution: scientifically impossible.

Also total garbage. Evolution has been observed, and the theory of evolution is the most widely supported theory in modern science. Even gravitational theory doesn't have the level of academic and factual support that evolution does. To simply say "it's impossible" is nothing but an outright delusion. At least present facts.

From any angle and point ofview. “Reality” does not mean “as I prefer it to be”.

Clearly it does, since you're denying reality because you feel they conflict with what you want to believe.

-We knowno biologist demonstrated abiogenesis. Also no near to demonstrate it. Justthis. Faith is something else.

So? Abiogenesis is still in it's largely hypothetical state - nobody here has said otherwise.

-Snowflakesare not complex as living beings. Not good example.

You're moving the goalposts. You asked for something not as complex that forms naturally.

-Believethat could happen what could not, scientifically, happen, need a STRONG faith.Stronger than most Christians’.

Again, garbage. I believe what the facts demonstrate. The facts demonstrate that all species share a common ancestor. If you went into the geological column now and produced evidence that disproved evolution (say, any contemporary species alongside the bones of their supposed ancestor), then I would not believe it. There is no faith required.

-Drosophilaexample was included in the thousands of experiments on Drosophila “evolution”.It only proved thousands of horrible mutations, but not evolution, in no “new”Drosophila. No new (non-preexisting, complex and functional) structures, noevolution. I’m sorry.

Drosophila melanogaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note all the features that have been observed to evolve. You're welcome.

-“Evidencesuggest”. The same as having in hand 2 photograms and tell the entire movieamong them, from photogram A to photogram B, just imaging it.

So, you just ignore all evidence until you have every piece of evidence that could ever possibly exist of anything? Argument from ignorance.

-Whystudy what is scientifically impossible?

How can you say it's scientifically impossible if you've never studied it? You've just demonstated your own ignorance.

-Forweaker bacteria: they were. I don’t know how to tell it.

If you can't explain your example, don't use it. Present facts to support your claims - that's how science works.

 

[Agnostic75]

Evolution is unfeasible because the facts are lacking.

But you do not know enough about evolution to discredit it. If you know a lot about evolution, then you should be able to adequately critique an article at The Flagellum Unspun by Dr. Ken Miller about the evolution of the flagellum, but you know that you can't. Logically, it is impossible for a person to adequately discredit something that he does not understand.

Some natives who live in remote jungles in Africa are Christians, do not know how to read and write, and have very little contact with the outside world. They know next to nothing about evolution, and yet you are happy that they became Christians. So much for your pretense that you are interested in science.

 

[Agnostic75]

While the scientific evidence for the global Deluge is inconclusive, what scientific evidence exists.......

But you do not know enough about geology to make such a claim of your own personal knowledge. All that you can do is quote a relative handful of experts who agree with your religious opinions. You know that you would not be able to win a formal debate with a geologist who does not believe that a global flood occurred. You do not even have sufficient knowledge of basic biology, let alone sufficient knowledge of advanced geology.

.......along with the eyewitness testimony found in the Bible is sufficient to convince me.

But you could not possibly know when the biblical global flood story was originally recorded, who wrote it, and where the writer got his information from.

 

[johnhanks]

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

Rusra, I'm sure even you are aware that 'denied' is not the same as 'refuted'.

Evolution is unfeasible because the facts are lacking.

Fact: gene pools change over time. Fact: no mechanism has ever been observed that puts a limit on the extent of that change. Ergo, fact: evolution happens.

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...

Where in the bible is there an eyewitness account of Noah's flood?

 

[gnostic]

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”.

No, eliu.

In science, the statement is only true, if there are number of VERIFIABLE EVIDENCES to support the statement.

You said that you've studied evolution, did you not?

Because if you did, then you would have also study biology. And if you've studied biology or any other branches of science, then you would know how important it is to have VERIFIABLE EVIDENCES and rigorous and repeated testings in science.

You do understand verifiability don't you?

Evolution, like gravity, electricity, optics, chemistry, have fufilled several of the all-important requirements of scientific method: observation (which would also evidences) and testing. That you refused to see and examine the evidences, is actually your shortcoming and biased.

But as far as I can tell from your posts, you don't understand the difference between science and creationism, between evidence and faith. And one for certain, you don't understand the difference between abiogenesis and evolution, and between big bang cosmology and evolution, which is really laughable if you were so serious about it.

The only person doing circular reasoning and lying is you.

 

[Alceste]

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

Had to happen sooner or later.

 

[Krok]

KrokHello! There isall what is needed. Sufficient for educated ones (which I am not).

Yes, it's very obvious that you're functionally uneducated. You can actually do something about your lack of education, you know? So, don't pretend to seem so helpless. Get an education. You just want to be a victim. It really is your own fault that you appear to be so , well......ignorant. You are a very professional liar, as evidenced from your posts.

Andbeing a Christian is not just declaring it… sorry if you believe this.

I believe that Muslims are Muslims, too. Whats your point?

If theBible wrote that the Earth was round and hanged on nothing (in cosmic space)2300 years ago than Galileo means nothing, nothing else will mean.

This makes no sense, at all. Could you be more specific or explain?

So,creationists will always lie, whatever they are saying. Matter of faith, justit.

No, it's been demonstrated that professional creationists always lie. Always. The same lies you keep on repeating their lies.

Godbless you.

May the FSM touch you with one of His Holy Noodly Appendages. May you be less inclined to always lie after that.

 

[Krok]

KrokHello! There isall what is needed. Sufficient for educated ones (which I am not).

Yes, it's very obvious that you're functionally uneducated. You can actually do something about your lack of education, you know? So, don't pretend to seem so helpless. Get an education. You just want to be a victim. It really is your own fault that you appear to be so , well......ignorant. You are a very professional liar, as evidenced from your posts.

Andbeing a Christian is not just declaring it… sorry if you believe this.

I believe that Mulims are Muslims, too. Whats your point?

If theBible wrote that the Earth was round and hanged on nothing (in cosmic space)2300 years ago than Galileo means nothing, nothing else will mean.

This makes no sense, at all. Could you be more specific?

So,creationists will always lie, whatever they are saying. Matter of faith, justit.

No, it's been demonstrated that professional creationists always lie. Always. The same lies you keep on quoting.

Godbless you.

May the FSM touch you with one of His Holy Noodly Appendages. May you be less inclined to always lie after that.

 

[CG Didymus]

But you could not possibly know when the biblical global flood story was originally recorded, who wrote it, and where the writer got his information from.

Where in the bible is there an eyewitness account of Noah's flood?

Who wrote it and eyewitnesses? You know I was thinking about this. Let's suppose there was an oral tradition passed down from father to son. After the alleged flood only three sons had to get the story right. Why didn't they write it down? Or, if they started an oral tradition, why did God have to tell Moses what happened? God, apparently, had to tell the Hebrews their whole history.

Did Moses write it down? I heard it was an oral tradition for a while. So prior to Moses, where was the oral tradition? Were the Hebrews unaware of their past until God told Moses about Adam and Eve, the flood, and Abraham? Or was there an oral tradition?

Probably 99% of the people that even care if the story is accurate are Fundamental Christians. They need an infallible, literal word, whether that word was written or oral. But the Jews had other oral traditions, the Talmud for instance. How come Christians don't believe that Jewish oral tradition?

Regardless, the flood story sounds like a myth to me. All the scattered people told a version of the flood, but the stories were all different. How come they forgot to mention the thing about the rainbow? How come they don't talk about the canopy of water in the sky that burst open? What about the Nephilim? They'd sure would be part of my story.

"Hey kids gather 'round, it's story time. You know those Hebrew people down the street? They've got the story all wrong. It wasn't Noah in the ark. It was your uncle Rudy. He took a sling shot and killed this 39 foot giant called Andre and stole his boat. He loaded up Fluffy, our pet rabbit, and Spot, our dog. He sailed by, picked up your mother and I, and for forty days and forty nights we partied on the lido deck."

"Dad, that's not how you said it happened last time you told the story."

"Shut up and listen. You'll be expected to pass this story down to your kids."

Nephilim? Dinosaurs? Rainbows? Continents drifting? Animals ending up in different distant places on the Earth? Gilgamesh? But, the biggest question: God did this to get rid of evil? It didn't work very well.

 

[Eliu]

@Immortalflame
-Please… Miller-Urey experiment was a complete disaster. No all 20 aminoacids were obtained, they were “left-handed” AND “right-handed”, lethal for life, and they were just some (not all) bricks for the house, there was no “build up”, in no way. Also, that experiments was a little too much driven…
-Evolution has been observed? What has been observed? Hope we are not talking about antibiotic resistance.
Evolution, speaking of “evolution” (appearing of complex and functional structures, not already “written in DNA”) has never been observed, and it’s also impossible for physical laws.
I’m not denying what is physically possible. It simply happens. What is physically impossible does not happen.
-Abiogenesis will remain hypothetical ‘til the end of times.
-And we are comparing snowflakes with a living cell.
Information of a living cell is something similar to “The lord of the rings” by Tolkien.
Information in a snowflake is something similar to a repeated short sentence, and repeated and repeated. Nothing comparable.
-Single “photograms” don’t make the complete movie. Only all photograms complete the movie, and the movie is observable.
Photograms can maybe exist.
The movie is inside the head of the believers.
No proof of a common ancestor outside imagination.
-For Drosophila: only mutated Drosophila were obtained, and not advantaged ones. No new structures, but repetition of already existing structures (“already written” inside DNA). No evolution.
-It's not matter about ignore all evidence. It's matter about drawings told as “scientific proved”. With no base else than imagination.
-I don't know how to explain for weaker bacteria because I'm not able to explain easier than I'm doing.
God bless you.

 

[Krok]

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

What you find in your head is of no importance at all. It's what you can demonstrate that counts.

To the contrary, the geological, fossil, and archeological evidence, while not conclusive,...

Every single piece of the geological, fossil and archaeological evidence is completely conclusive that there was no global flood in human history. Proved beyond any doubt. There was no global flood since humans appeared on the scene.

... certainly supports the idea of a great disaster involving water occurring in the historical past.

Err, no. Not a disaster. There's lots of evidence for lots of disasters involving water. In lots of areas. In other areas there's no evidence for disasters involving water. No evidence for one big disaster involving the whole world.. No evidence for a great disaster involving the whole world in geology, fossils or in archaeology. None.

How can someone know the Flood is a myth,...

Through, for example geology, fossils and archaeology, amonst others.

...especially as a child?

Well, lots of children believe in Father Xmas and the bogey man. Luckily a lot of people grow up, though not not everyone does. Some keep on believing in the bogey man till death at a very old age.

To know implies having irrefutable facts as evidence.

Luckily we do have those irrefutable facts. For example in geology, fossils and archaeology.

I know of no such facts.

Get an education, then. Just remember, reading creationist websites does not count as getting an education at all. That actually lowers your level of education.

 

[Eliu]

@gnostic
Hello!
-I agree with you for the point, but what “verifiable evidences” for evolution?
-I can understand verifiability. And it counts the same for creationism and evolution.
-What can be observed for evolution? What can be tested for evolution? I like to think always “maybe I'm wrong”, for make my thinking as better and true as possible. So, please, in correcting me you're also helping me.
-Why evolutionist worldview is not a faith position? Based on what? What is “scientific” about evolution?


God bless you.

 

[Eliu]

@Krok

Infinite loop.

God bless you.

 

[Agnostic75]

What can be observed for evolution?

You do not have the education to understand what has been observed.

 

[gnostic]

-I agree with you for the point, but what “verifiable evidences” for evolution?

In order to answer this, you have to define evolution.

How would you define evolution?

To me, my definition of evolution is (my definition meaning in my own words):

Evolution is the study of biodiversity, where creatures CHANGE over time through successive generations, diverging from others, physically, physiologically, or genetically. They CHANGE so they can survive in changing environments. (Environment as in habitat, terrain, climate, availability of food, isolation, etc.) This CHANGE would involve in biological change to their body, whether that be genetic, physiological and physically that will allow them to adapt to different environment.
​

That's my definition, in plain English, without me looking up a dictionary or encyclopedia.

Give me your definition, then I will provide you with example (of verifiable evidences) that would prove or support my case. If you can't successfully refute my example of evidences along with my definition then I will concede to you as being right. But you must concede that you are wrong, if you can't refute my example (plus definition).

BUT YOU MUST PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE (or two) AS EVIDENCE in order to refute my example/evidence. YOU MUST PROVE TO ME WHY EVOLUTION DON'T EXIST, but they must be verifiable evidences, so I can confirm or reject your own evidences.

I will ONLY provide my example, WHEN (and only when) you've given me your definition. Do you agree?

 

[rusra02]

"Secondly, the Bible was first compiled around 400ad and contains testimonies supposed from people who lived no earlier than 70ad. There are no eyewitness accounts of the global flood in the Bible."

Really? Are you aware that the Dead Sea Scrolls, containing the complete scroll of Isaiah, and fragments of several other books of the Hebrew scriptures, are reliably dated to not later then the 1st or 2nd century before Christ? That human survivors of the Flood, 8 people, were eyewitnesses of that event? The lives of Shem (one of the survivors) and Abraham overlapped about 150 years. Thus, Abraham could have received first-hand knowledge of the Flood.

 

[rusra02]

I very, very much doubt that. If so, please present evidence of a global flood.


Which facts? The fossil record? The genetics? The endogenous retroviral inserts? The successful predictions made by evolution theory? The observed instances of speciation? What facts, exactly, are being missed?


Firstly, there is no evidence whatsoever of a global flood. If there is, please present it. Take note that only a reputable scientific, archeological or geological source need apply.

Secondly, the Bible was first compiled around 400ad and contains testimonies supposed from people who lived no earlier than 70ad. There are no eyewitness accounts of the global flood in the Bible.

Thirdly, you are a massive hypocrite. To deny all the evidence of evolution while relying on the purely subjective, inaccurate and almost entirely scientifically invalid contents of a bronze-age book of spiritual philosophy and mythology shows that you are merely trying to prop up your religious beliefs. You are denying scientific facts and presenting religious superstition as truth. You are not after the truth, merely trying to convince yourself that your beliefs have some absolute basis in reality. They don't. Don't bring your mythology into science.


I get it. So, when a book tells you that people who question it are fools, you just believe it. I guess if scientists did that it would make them more believable to you, too? Do you honestly believe a text that says "believe what I tell you or you are a fool and will be punished eternally" couldn't possibly just be lying to you? I mean, who is more likely to be correct: the person who says "this is what is true, and here are the facts" or the person who says "this is what is true, and if you don't agree you're a moron and I'll kill you"?

Seriously, it's not difficult to figure out.

I get it. You don't have faith in the Bible and you don't like those who do. So be it.
Your attack against the Bible, however, does not change the facts. The Bible has withstood centuries of intellectual attack by people claiming it is inaccurate and unscientific. When pressed for examples, the attackers generally back away or present distortions of what the Bible really says.
It is not just I, but scientists and biologists that say the evidence for evolution doesn't exist, unless you define evolution as any change, however slight, in a living organism.
Finally, calling someone names, such as "massive hypocrite" is demeaning to the name-caller and does you no credit.

 

[johnhanks]

... The lives of Shem (one of the survivors) and Abraham overlapped about 150 years. Thus, Abraham could have received first-hand knowledge of the Flood.

Even if for the moment we overlook the absurdity of these lifespans, Abraham was still not an "eyewitness" of the supposed flood. And which parts of the bible do you suggest were written by Abraham?