Do you believe in a global flood?

[DeitySlayer]

Not real sure why, just don't.

Possibly because the Egyptian and Mesopotamian cultures just continued on as they were before, and apparently did not notice the sixty-metre waves that were crushing their cities and killing them?

 

[Peacewise]

Well I didn't know those facts DeitySlayer so that's certainly not the reason.

 

[gnostic]

Interestingly, Science has no explanation for the Rainbow.

Are you sure about this statement, jtartar?

I can give you a brief explanation about rainbow, in layman term that anyone can understand. All I'll say right now that there nothing magical about rainbow...

 

[DeitySlayer]

Well I didn't know those facts DeitySlayer so that's certainly not the reason.

Well now you do

 

[Peacewise]

No disrespect DeitySlayer but i don't automatically accept new facts into my world view without first having a look into them. I neither deny nor affirm your statement regarding the Egyptian and Mesopotamian cultures.

 

[DeitySlayer]

No disrespect DeitySlayer but i don't automatically accept new facts into my world view without first having a look into them. I neither deny nor affirm your statement regarding the Egyptian and Mesopotamian cultures.

Also the fact that there is no credible place for the water to have come from, there is no credible place it could have gone, the small number of animals aboard the ark would have caused a population bottleneck and too low a genetic variety to allow survival for all of them (a few could be put down to probability, but all is near-impossible), the fact that the flood would have flattened all marine animals through its sheer force and churn-up of sediment, the fact that the flood would have destroyed fragile geological formations like rock arches, boulders perched atop spires, etc., the unbelievable fact that you would somehow have to believe the animals managed to sort themselves into an order of morphological progression to be overhwelmed and fossilized by the Flood.

Discounting, of course, the fact that the Bible also places the date of construction on the Tower of Babel roughly 100 years after the Flood, which means that the population went from 6 to enough people to build a tower that threatened God, i.e. higher than the Burj al-Khlalifa (which is about a kilometre tall), and then discounting the fact that they didn't have modern technology. Such a growth rate would be about 500%.

So essentially, in my humble, scientifically-literate opinion, the Global Flood is bollocks.

 

[Peacewise]

I don't hold that the flood was a single event global occurrence but I know that the moon causes tides, and it may be possible another gravitational body could have travelled through the solar system and affected tides creating a flood with the water that was already present on the earth - not that I hold this, just that it seems plausible.

I do not accept your claim of "flattened all marine animals..." as a fact, feel free to provide a source as to why all marine life would be killed by a flood.

I have no knowledge of how 'destroyed fragile geological formations...' is relevant to a flood not occurring, would you care to elaborate on why this supports your argument against a global flood please.

 

[DeitySlayer]

I do not accept your claim of "flattened all marine animals..." as a fact, feel free to provide a source as to why all marine life would be killed by a flood.

I didn't mean flattened as in literally squashed flat, I meant just generally battered into unconciousness.


Models of the global flood result in ocean currents fluctuating between 40 and 80 meters per second (PATTERNS OF OCEAN CIRCULATION OVER THE CONTINENTS DURING NOAH'S FLOOD), a speed of 4000% (40 times) as fast as the fastest ocean currents today, which peak at 2 meters per second. Marine animals wouldn't have done too well with this, as an understatement. The flood would have also stripped the Earth of topsoil, hugely raising sediment content of the seas, especially near the continental shelves where the vast majority of ocean life exists, and literally choking the fish/cetaceans to death. Coral reefs, which are hugely sensitive to pressure and depth changes (light levels) would have been obliterated by the Flood. The Great Barrier Reef is dated at approx. 6,000 years old, older than the claimed date of the Flood, approx. 4,000 years old.

I have no knowledge of how 'destroyed fragile geological formations...' is relevant to a flood not occurring, would you care to elaborate on why this supports your argument against a global flood please.

That would have been knocked off by a Global Flood that covered all the Earth. It could not have formed by erosional processes in the time after the alleged Flood, circa. 2000ish BC, at any reasonable rate of erosion. That sort of thing takes a few ten thousand years to form by erosion.

 

[DeitySlayer]

*Bump* What do you think, Peacewise?

 

[Peacewise]

I didn't mean flattened as in literally squashed flat, I meant just generally battered into unconciousness.

- then say what you mean first up please. And I still don't accept that 'generally battered into unconsciousness' is what would happen to ALL marine lifeforms during a flood.

Models of the global flood result in ocean currents fluctuating between 40 and 80 meters per second (PATTERNS OF OCEAN CIRCULATION OVER THE CONTINENTS DURING NOAH'S FLOOD), a speed of 4000% (40 times) as fast as the fastest ocean currents today, which peak at 2 meters per second. Marine animals wouldn't have done too well with this, as an understatement. The flood would have also stripped the Earth of topsoil, hugely raising sediment content of the seas, especially near the continental shelves where the vast majority of ocean life exists, and literally choking the fish/cetaceans to death. Coral reefs, which are hugely sensitive to pressure and depth changes (light levels) would have been obliterated by the Flood. The Great Barrier Reef is dated at approx. 6,000 years old, older than the claimed date of the Flood, approx. 4,000 years old.

The link provided was beyond my casual look, yet was arguing for a global flood so i'm not quite sure why you provided it.

That would have been knocked off by a Global Flood that covered all the Earth. It could not have formed by erosional processes in the time after the alleged Flood, circa. 2000ish BC, at any reasonable rate of erosion. That sort of thing takes a few ten thousand years to form by erosion.

I don't know how long erosion takes to cause a rock formation like that and you've not provided evidence of how long it would take. Nor have you provided evidence of your assertion that a flood, global or otherwise, would move that rock.

My opinion remains that the 'global flood' is more likely to have been a localised flood (or several) that we have incorrectly described as the whole world because we are too literal in interpreting the words. For the people making the description that region probably was the whole world, for me the context of the history recorder provides insight into why they would describe events in the way they do.

 

[DeitySlayer]

- then say what you mean first up please.

Fair do's.

The link provided was beyond my casual look, yet was arguing for a global flood so i'm not quite sure why you provided it.

The link was a Biblical literalist modelling of the Flood, which placed the ocean currents at 40x today's peak currents. This would be analagous to humans walking around in a hurricane about 5 times worse than anything in recorded history. You just don't survive cataclysms of that magnitude.

I don't know how long erosion takes to cause a rock formation like that and you've not provided evidence of how long it would take

Rocks do not erode anywhere near that fast. To see this, you merely have to look out around you. Additionally, the extreme heat and dessicated nature of the area means that the rock is also not subject to chemical or water weathering, further reducing the rate of erosion.

Nor have you provided evidence of your assertion that a flood, global or otherwise, would move that rock.

If small scale localized floods can move houses, uproot trees, and shift cars, a worldwide Flood could have definitely shifted a rock of such a precariously balanced nature.

My opinion remains that the 'global flood' is more likely to have been a localised flood (or several) that we have incorrectly described as the whole world because we are too literal in interpreting the words. For the people making the description that region probably was the whole world, for me the context of the history recorder provides insight into why they would describe events in the way they do.

Wouldn't contest that.

Does raise the question however; the alleged purpose of the Flood was to wipe out mankind's sinful ways. God missed out pretty much all of the inland continents with his Flood. Human remains, dated prior to 2000 BC, have been found in all these places. So it wasn't a very good Global Flood to wipe out all sin.

 

[Noaidi]

Does raise the question however; the alleged purpose of the Flood was to wipe out mankind's sinful ways. God missed out pretty much all of the inland continents with his Flood. Human remains, dated prior to 2000 BC, have been found in all these places. So it wasn't a very good Global Flood to wipe out all sin.

Good point, DS. What would have been the purpose of the ark, therefore? Was it two of every animal, or just two of each local species?
This is when the bible annoys me - it's claimed to be the inspired word of god, but it's so blatantly full of holes that it could only have been written by people living within their own time, location and culture, and with their own limited experiences. The flood is an excellent example of this 'inspired' yet extremely parochial view.

 

[rusra02]

Also the fact that there is no credible place for the water to have come from, there is no credible place it could have gone, the small number of animals aboard the ark would have caused a population bottleneck and too low a genetic variety to allow survival for all of them (a few could be put down to probability, but all is near-impossible), the fact that the flood would have flattened all marine animals through its sheer force and churn-up of sediment, the fact that the flood would have destroyed fragile geological formations like rock arches, boulders perched atop spires, etc., the unbelievable fact that you would somehow have to believe the animals managed to sort themselves into an order of morphological progression to be overhwelmed and fossilized by the Flood.

Discounting, of course, the fact that the Bible also places the date of construction on the Tower of Babel roughly 100 years after the Flood, which means that the population went from 6 to enough people to build a tower that threatened God, i.e. higher than the Burj al-Khlalifa (which is about a kilometre tall), and then discounting the fact that they didn't have modern technology. Such a growth rate would be about 500%.

So essentially, in my humble, scientifically-literate opinion, the Global Flood is bollocks.

You state: "Also the fact that there is no credible place for the water to have come from, there is no credible place it could have gone". That is incorrect. The Bible tells us a water canopy existed around the earth before the Flood. This harmonizes with scientific research that show the earth enjoyed a more temperate climate in the past. As to where the waters could have gone, the oceans are the obvious answer.

You state: " the unbelievable fact that you would somehow have to believe the animals managed to sort themselves into an order of morphological progression to be overhwelmed and fossilized by the Flood."
I'm not sure what you're implying here, but you seem to be saying that the fossil record supports a steady progression (evolutionary, presumably). IF that is what you are saying, you are misrepresenting what the fossil record really says.

You state: "that the flood would have flattened all marine animals through its sheer force and churn-up of sediment, the fact that the flood would have destroyed fragile
geological formations like rock arches, boulders perched atop spires, etc."
All that is mere conjecture on your part. Indeed, the Flood changed the landscape dramatically, possibly creating the geological formations you assume were destroyed. In any case, it's a very weak argument.

You state: "that the population went from 6 to enough people to build a tower that threatened God". The Bible does not say that God felt threatened, nor anything explicit about how tall the Tower of Babel was. Neither does it give an exact year of construction. Peleg lived from 2269 to 2030 B.C.E. His name meant “Division,” for “in his days the earth [that is, “earth’s population”] was divided”; Jehovah “scattered them from there over all the surface of the earth.” (Ge 10:25; 11:9) If the Flood came in 2370 BCE, that would be from 100-270 years or so after the Flood that God confused man's language.

 

[DeitySlayer]

You state: "Also the fact that there is no credible place for the water to have come from, there is no credible place it could have gone". That is incorrect. The Bible tells us a water canopy existed around the earth before the Flood. This harmonizes with scientific research that show the earth enjoyed a more temperate climate in the past. As to where the waters could have gone, the oceans are the obvious answer.

Let's start first with the water canopy idea.

This is, first off, bollocks. There is no credible mechanism by which water can maintain a 'shell' around the Earth without collapsing. Water does not float in shells around the Earth. Simple physics; it is impossible. Secondly, such a volume of water in the atmosphere would cause incredible atmospheric pressure.

This raises three points.

1) Greater pressure = greater heat. Noah et al. would have been living in the equivalent of a giant pressure cooker. 'Temperate climate' is a rather large understatement. The temperature would have been more than 25 degrees Centigrade higher.

2) When this canopy collapsed, the pressure would be released at great speed. Know what happens when a fish from the deep sea is brought up to the surface? It becomes depressurized and explodes. Noah and his animals, Ark or not, would have literally blown apart from the change in pressure.

3) When this canopy collapsed, the energy released would be greater than every single nuclear weapon on the planet being let off simultaneously, and then some, due to the massive conversion of GPE into KE. Noah and his guys would have been cooked.

Raising another point: in the 24th century BC, several civilizations, such as Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley existed, and continued to exist, without any sign of extinction or damage from a global flood. Egypt has a continuous written history going back to 3100 BC, (plus archaeological evidence of continuous habitation going back to 9000 BC. Apparently they failed to notice their entire civilization being submerged by the Flood.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Raising another point: in the 24th century BC, several civilizations, such as Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley existed, and continued to exist, without any sign of extinction or damage from a global flood. Egypt has a continuous written history going back to 3100 BC, (plus archaeological evidence of continuous habitation going back to 9000 BC. Apparently they failed to notice their entire civilization being submerged by the Flood.

And yet the literalist keep holding on to the notion this supposed event actually happened. We have no archeological evidence to suggest a WWF during the time frame that creationist or any other biblical literalist has laid out. The story is a ripoff and redaction of earlier flood myths thus making its way into the OT seemingly as a (new) story.

 

[Noaidi]

If the flood did indeed cover the land, what happened to the terrestrial plant life? Didn't a dove return with an olive leaf? If so, where on Earth (literally) did it find a surviving olive tree? No terrestrial plants that I know of can survive fully submerged for 40 days and still produce viable leaves.

 

[DeitySlayer]

If the flood did indeed cover the land, what happened to the terrestrial plant life? Didn't a dove return with an olive leaf? If so, where on Earth (literally) did it find a surviving olive tree? No terrestrial plants that I know of can survive fully submerged for 40 days and still produce viable leaves.

Goddunit and any evidence to the contrary was planted by Satan to lead us astray.

 

[Noaidi]

Ah. Yes, of course....!

 

[DeitySlayer]

Ah. Yes, of course....!

Sheesh can't believe you didn't figure that out

 

[rusra02]

Let's start first with the water canopy idea.

This is, first off, bollocks. There is no credible mechanism by which water can maintain a 'shell' around the Earth without collapsing. Water does not float in shells around the Earth. Simple physics; it is impossible. Secondly, such a volume of water in the atmosphere would cause incredible atmospheric pressure.

This raises three points.

1) Greater pressure = greater heat. Noah et al. would have been living in the equivalent of a giant pressure cooker. 'Temperate climate' is a rather large understatement. The temperature would have been more than 25 degrees Centigrade higher.

2) When this canopy collapsed, the pressure would be released at great speed. Know what happens when a fish from the deep sea is brought up to the surface? It becomes depressurized and explodes. Noah and his animals, Ark or not, would have literally blown apart from the change in pressure.

3) When this canopy collapsed, the energy released would be greater than every single nuclear weapon on the planet being let off simultaneously, and then some, due to the massive conversion of GPE into KE. Noah and his guys would have been cooked.

Raising another point: in the 24th century BC, several civilizations, such as Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley existed, and continued to exist, without any sign of extinction or damage from a global flood. Egypt has a continuous written history going back to 3100 BC, (plus archaeological evidence of continuous habitation going back to 9000 BC. Apparently they failed to notice their entire civilization being submerged by the Flood.

You say: "There is no credible mechanism by which water can maintain a 'shell' around the Earth without collapsing. Water does not float in shells around the Earth."
Of course, clouds float in the atmosphere full of water. However, the Bible says the waters were above the expanse. Your assumptions about the effects of this water canopy are, of course, unfounded conjecture. The Creator who placed this water canopy is more than capable of controlling it's effects.

You say: "in the 24th century BC, several civilizations, such as Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley existed, and continued to exist, without any sign of extinction or damage from a global flood. Egypt has a continuous written history going back to 3100 BC, (plus archaeological evidence of continuous habitation going back to 9000 BC. Apparently they failed to notice their entire civilization being submerged by the Flood."

The above argument presupposes the accuracy of the dates you claim. Archaeologists have assigned dates earlier than the Flood to numerous clay tablets they have excavated. But these clay tablets are not dated documents. Hence the dates that have been assigned to them are merely conjectural and provide no solid basis for establishing a relationship in time to the Biblical Flood. None of the artifacts that have been excavated are definitely known to date from pre-Flood times.
Professor Merrill F. Unger fittingly observes: “Scholars also must be extremely wary of attaching undue authority to archeologists’ estimates of dates and interpretation of data. That the fixing of dates and the conclusions drawn from archeological findings often depend on subjective factors is amply demonstrated by the wide divergences between competent authorities on these matters.”—Archaeology and the Old Testament, 1964, p. 164. Or to put it a little more succinctly, such 'evidence' is only accepted by those who want it to be true.