Noaidi
slow walker
Let's see it, please. I'm assuming we are talking about evidence as presented in established, reputable and peer-reviewed journals, not Answers In Genesis.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do you believe in a global flood?
- Thread starter Atruthseeker
- Start date
Let's see it, please. I'm assuming we are talking about evidence as presented in established, reputable and peer-reviewed journals, not Answers In Genesis.
Eliot Wild
Irreverent Agnostic Jerk
The epic of Gilgamesh which was based on various Sumerian legends has a flood story which predates the Bible.
While it is possible that these two stories appearing in ancient texts is no more than mere coincidence, I personally believe there is a possible connection.
Perhaps the Biblical story was based on the Sumerian legend of a vast flood that destroyed the world.
Or perhaps a regional flood occuring somewhere near the Euphrates Delta, or whatever they call that place where the Tigris and Euphrates meet and flow into the Persian Gulf, consumed that entire region once leaving any surviving residents to believe the entire world was flooded.
Stories get passed down generation to generation. They morph into larger legends, and what began as a story about the banks of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers overflowing with water and washing away a few early human settlements becomes a tall tale of an impossible flood that covered the entire world leaving only one, lone survivor who was hand-picked by God.
So it goes.
By the way, I consider myself a Christian, I suppose, 'cause I try to follow the teachings of Christ. But I certainly don't subscribe to the modern, popularized, Americanized version of Christianity. And I don't believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God. How can it be? God certainly wouldn't have to steal some of his best material from Gilgamesh.
Last edited:
Peacewise
Active Member
Just thought I'd throw this out there, as an idea.
What about a comet/meteor strike in an ocean for cause of a global flood?
Large mass hits ocean of water at speed, causes massive waves that propagate globally. Heat vaporises water and puts that into the atmosphere, which cools and then rains.
In time the wave dies down and the rain stops happening, yet the damage is done.
Any thoughts?
What about a comet/meteor strike in an ocean for cause of a global flood?
Large mass hits ocean of water at speed, causes massive waves that propagate globally. Heat vaporises water and puts that into the atmosphere, which cools and then rains.
In time the wave dies down and the rain stops happening, yet the damage is done.
Any thoughts?
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
A strike big enough to cause the kind of flood the christians talk about would have absolutely smashed the earth up.
Peacewise
Active Member
your guessing
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Not really. How do you think a fractured planet would stand up to the force generated by a meteor smashing into it?
gnostic
The Lost One
I doubt even a meteor could cause waves to cover the mountains.
Do you serious believe that Peacewise?
The smaller of the highest peaks of Mount Ararat is nearly 3900 metres high, and the tallest peak is over 5000 metres. I doubt there would be waves high to reach that height. And the mountain were higher back, then but due to weathering and erosion, these are the current heights of Mount Ararat. And Mount Ararat is supposed to be the mountain(s) which the Ark had landed.
Do you serious believe that Peacewise?
The smaller of the highest peaks of Mount Ararat is nearly 3900 metres high, and the tallest peak is over 5000 metres. I doubt there would be waves high to reach that height. And the mountain were higher back, then but due to weathering and erosion, these are the current heights of Mount Ararat. And Mount Ararat is supposed to be the mountain(s) which the Ark had landed.
Last edited:
Peacewise
Active Member
Perhaps gnostic you should reread my original post on this.
In some regards a meteor strike may fit the theory.
I don't believe or deny or have any evidence - I am just thinking out loud.
In some regards a meteor strike may fit the theory.
Tiapan
Grumpy Old Man
Mediterranean Sea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So I guess Noah predates Lucy (estimated to be 3-3.2 million years old).
Cheers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_Sea#cite_note-10
Your post contains unsupport assertions and suppositions. What geological evidence is there to refute that the waters in the oceans came from the global deluge? How do you know the depth of pre-flood oceans? Certainly pre-flood oceans can have both shallow and deep areas, as the oceans of today do. The existence of deep-sea life in all it's beauty and complexity argues for an intelligent maker, not that the global deluge is anything other than historical truth.
Every time someone finds an ape's skull, they give it a cutesy human name and claim it is mankind's progenitor. What a farce to call this science.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
We've never had meteors big enough to cause massive floods of the proportions in concern however.
A meteor big enough to flood the mountains would most certainly fracture the earth enough to hugely if not critically disrupt the convection of the earths core causing a major major change in our way of life, namely, how do we survive with a bit part dynamo affect.
Eliot Wild
Irreverent Agnostic Jerk
I am no scientist. So, if anyone who does have some expert knowledge on these matters would like to correct me or clarify me where necessary, I would appreciate it.
But it seems to me that while a local or regional flood, perhaps even a continental flood, could result from a massive meteor strike hitting the planet, it couldn't cause a "global" flood because such a strike would merely displace water, not create it.
There is only so much water on the planet. Granted, it is a large amount, something like 70% or more of the earth's surface is covered by water, I believe. But still, simply moving that water around, displacing it from one location to another by means of a massive meteor strike, would not cover the entire surface. If all the major oceans had their waters displaced to nearby continental surfaces, it might appear to any observers who survived the event that the whole world was flooded, but there would still have to be some dry surface somewhere.
Of course, I believe the whole point of the OP is to question Biblical Infallibility, anyway. In other words, can we take the Bible seriously when such stories as a global flood are reported as historical fact therein? The Bible seems to indicate that the flood waters came directly from rain, not a meteor strike. So, I guess my point is that even if there were some cosmic or otherwise non-preciptation cause for a global flood, that would still discount the Bible story which indicates the flooding was cause by rains.
But it seems to me that while a local or regional flood, perhaps even a continental flood, could result from a massive meteor strike hitting the planet, it couldn't cause a "global" flood because such a strike would merely displace water, not create it.
There is only so much water on the planet. Granted, it is a large amount, something like 70% or more of the earth's surface is covered by water, I believe. But still, simply moving that water around, displacing it from one location to another by means of a massive meteor strike, would not cover the entire surface. If all the major oceans had their waters displaced to nearby continental surfaces, it might appear to any observers who survived the event that the whole world was flooded, but there would still have to be some dry surface somewhere.
Of course, I believe the whole point of the OP is to question Biblical Infallibility, anyway. In other words, can we take the Bible seriously when such stories as a global flood are reported as historical fact therein? The Bible seems to indicate that the flood waters came directly from rain, not a meteor strike. So, I guess my point is that even if there were some cosmic or otherwise non-preciptation cause for a global flood, that would still discount the Bible story which indicates the flooding was cause by rains.
Last edited:
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Your post contains unsupported assertions and suppositions. What geological evidence is there to support your assertion that the waters in the oceans came from the global deluge?
There is no geographical, oceanographic, or meteorological evidence in support of a worldwide flood occurring at any time during human history.
gnostic
The Lost One
rusra02 said:
If the flood happened around sometimes the 2nd half of 3rd millennium BCE (c. 2400-2100 BCE), then there should be geological evidences. Most creationists favored the dating of 2340 BCE.
Not only that the Persian Gulf used to further inland than it is today, so the Sumerian cities of ancient Ur, Eridu and Lagash used to be closer to the sure of the gulf; in fact, Ur used to be a coastal city-state. The city of Ur has been around since early Sumerian period (c. 3000 BCE) but archaeological evidences showed centuries of human occupations in the area (as Neolithic villages), prior to 3000 BCE. And flourished by 2600 BCE, roughly around the same time of historical Gilgamesh supposed to rule in Uruk.
Had the flood occurred as the bible say around that time, then these city-states would have been wiped out and washed away. No such evidences of such flood of that magnitude hit any of the 3 cities, archaeologically or geologically.
Also the Euphrates and Tigris used to both drained out into the Persian Gulf, SEPARATELY. In fact, the Persian Gulf, if anything has been receding back, instead of covering these cities, which what should have done had the flood occurred. Instead centuries after centuries, the Persian Gulf recede further and further back. By the time of Hammurabi, the 1st great king of Babylon, living in the 18th century BCE, Ur was no longer a coastal city; they were miles away from the shore at that time.
By the time of Alexander the Great, the Tigris have already been joined to the Euphrates river.
The point I'm making is that Ur has been a coastal city-state centuries before, during and after the supposed Flood, and being a low-land city, it should not and could not have existed had the Flood happened, and there would not have been a 3rd dynasty of Ur in the last quarter of the 3rd millennium BCE, if what you're saying is true.
The Indian Ocean do affect the Persian Gulf, and it has been showed that the Gulf has been receding gradually in the late 3rd millennium BCE. It did not experience sudden increase in sea level, otherwise it would show geologically and archaeology of such destruction.
AaronG
Member
What convinces me that the Flood was worldwide is the biblical account:
a. Genesis 1 begins with the earth unformed and unfilled. Genesis 7 brings the earth to the same condition.
b. Genesis 1 begins with the earth being covered in water. The Flood returns the earth to the same state (cf. 2 Peter 3:5-7).
c. Genesis 7:19 says the water prevailed so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.
d. Genesis 7:20 says that the water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.
e. Genesis 7:21 says that all flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.
f. When Noah gets off the Ark, God blesses Noah and his sons just as God blessed Adam and Eve after they were created, Be fruitful and multiply (Gen.1:28 with Gen.9:1)
g. God makes a covenant with Noah that applies to the entire earth (Gen.8:21).
h. God promises that never again would he destroy the world with water and put the rainbow in the sky as a reminder that He would never again destroy the earth with the Flood (Gen.9:12-17). If the Flood was only local then how do we explain subsequent floods killing hundreds of thousands and even millions of people?
i. In 1911 a flood in China killed 100,000 people.
ii. In 1931 another flood in China killed 3,700,000 people.
iii. In 1960 a Flood in Bangladesh killed 100,000 people.
iv. In 1991 another Flood in Bangladesh killed more than 150,000 people.
I also find it significant that Flood legends abound in the folklore of people groups from around the world (e.g. The Sumerian 'Deluge' story, the Akkakian 'Atrahasis' epic and the Epic of Gilgamesh).
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Would you care to show geological evidence for the global flood?
As i've stated many times, there are no signs of a flood.