• 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!

Does Anyone Take the Story of Noah's Ark Literally?

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Boy this has turned into a mess since I was here last. The subjects being brought up now, like evolution, abiogenesis and the Big Bang are so unrelated that even if you disproved them all doesn't change that the evidence is clearly against a global flood being a historical event, and there is sound reason to reject the assertion.

It's a bit like trying to link Tesla's work with AC to his work with radio communications with Mars. The former doesn't make the latter more likely and the latter doesn't make the former less likely. Debate the validity on its own merit. Not through gods of gaps or false dichotomies.
 

First Baseman

Retired athlete
Boy this has turned into a mess since I was here last. The subjects being brought up now, like evolution, abiogenesis and the Big Bang are so unrelated that even if you disproved them all doesn't change that the evidence is clearly against a global flood being a historical event, and there is sound reason to reject the assertion.

It's a bit like trying to link Tesla's work with AC to his work with radio communications with Mars. The former doesn't make the latter more likely and the latter doesn't make the former less likely. Debate the validity on its own merit. Not through gods of gaps or false dichotomies.

Actually ICR presents quite a bit of good evidence for the global flood. I guess you missed that.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Then you're still left explaining where god came from. All including god to the equation does is make the question more convoluted.

That apparent paradox applies to any explanation does it not? where did THAT come from? So it's a wash, and also a moot point, because here we are- either way we know there is a solution

Discovering the Big Bang behind a superficially static universe, quantum mechanics behind apparently simple classical physics, DNA within cells, all convoluted the big questions did they not?

And they also provided answers, the universe does not seem to want to comply with Occam's razor!

And back on topic, we now know there was enough water for the great flood, almost exactly enough to cover the tallest mountains by some estimates, something that was once considered absurd according to a simpler understanding of our planet.
 

PackJason

I make up facts.
That apparent paradox applies to any explanation does it not? where did THAT come from? So it's a wash, and also a moot point, because here we are- either way we know there is a solution

Discovering the Big Bang behind a superficially static universe, quantum mechanics behind apparently simple classical physics, DNA within cells, all convoluted the big questions did they not?

And they also provided answers, the universe does not seem to want to comply with Occam's razor!

Adding in a sky daddy does not answer any questions.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Adding in a sky daddy does not answer any questions.

It might.

atheists originally rejected the concept of a beginning to the universe, explicitly because it implied a sky daddy to them too. Some liked classical physics because it 'left no room' for mysterious unpredictable forces that reeked of a guiding hand

in other words, we don't have to add God to allow science to progress, we just have to avoid eliminating him

'Nature is the executor of God's laws" Galileo
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
You're trotting this out again?
You need some new material.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Actually ICR presents quite a bit of good evidence for the global flood. I guess you missed that.
We've already been over this. It doesn't, actually. And it's been rebutted several times already. Both through other links and within this thread. Plus, many and more questions were asked about problems with the flood weren't answered and aren't featured on the page.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
You are completely unique, even if you had an identical twin.
No I'm not. I am largely and mostly a product of Mid-West American culture. Though I differ in many ways, I cannot deny that I am very Western, and even very white. I have even been shaped to some extent by my social privileges. I am also a product of my genes. Such as, more or less, my life is very similar, in many ways, to other people with Asperger's. Sure we have differences, but the syndrome's defining feature is social illiteracy, and general traits include poor motor skills, thinking more in terms of logic than emotion, obsessing over the parts of a whole, and it's very common for us to be bullied in school. But, ultimately, we all learn from somewhere, we are not original, and we are products of products, copies of copies - we are the "combined effort of everyone we've ever known."
Most 'Earthlike' planets as referred to in click bait press releases are far from it.
we can tell little other than a vague sense of size, and whether the orbit is in a 'habitable zone' which is like deciphering a vague outline of arms and legs in a stick figure and calling it 'human like'
Actually we can tell a good deal about the elements that compose their atmosphere, if they have water or not, and even if the orbit is within a habitable zone. And the Havard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and data from the Kepler mission is hardly click bate.
It's interesting that atheists invariably take the simplest blip drifting across space to be convincing evidence of intelligently created math (wow signal)
It's interesting that so many Christians automatically assume someone is an atheist for resorting to non-supernatural descriptions and for challenging Christian views.
Of course not, anything but God!
Except Richard Dawkins was literally not talking about god. It's not a "any but God!," but a fact that he was not discussing or acknowledging god in that interview.
That apparent paradox applies to any explanation does it not? where did THAT come from? So it's a wash, and also a moot point, because here we are- either way we know there is a solution
Which is why I'm Agnostic. Ultimately, where did anything come from? Anything that may have existed before our universe is not exempt, and scientists do not exempt it. God is not exempt from the question either. The main difference, between scientists and theists such as yourself, is the scientist keeps searching for answers rather than proclaiming an ancient book--an ancient book that claims pi = 3, that it's a good idea to sling bird blood everywhere after someone is cured of leprosy, and that states the Earth has four corners that can all be seen from a high enough point--holds all the answers.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
You forget that we are dealing with an omnipotent God here. Transporting animals back and forth across the globe isn't a problem for Him.

You are guessing.

If God was truly omnipotent then the flood don't make any sense. He could have erase everyone from existence, leaving only Noah and his family, as well as all the animals in place, without flood water.

Second, there are no evidences for global disruption of a single year, in which everyone else died.

The Egyptian civilisation and Egyptian continued uninterrupted throughout the 3rd millennium BCE. If there was a flood in 2340 BCE, then the culture in Egypt would have been completely different.

The pre-flood and post-flood cultures should be different, different styles in art, different writing, they wouldn't be building pyramids like those before the flood, because there wouldn't be enough people to build them for each successive kings.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
The Egyptian civilisation and Egyptian continued uninterrupted throughout the 3rd millennium BCE. If there was a flood in 2340 BCE, then the culture in Egypt would have been completely different.

The pre-flood and post-flood cultures should be different, different styles in art, different writing, they wouldn't be building pyramids like those before the flood, because there wouldn't be enough people to build them for each successive kings.
As well as Chinese and Indian culture. And not too mention Europe which also had people running around by then, but none of them bothered to mention this alleged non-stop rain and rising flood levels. Of course there are many such flood stories, but every one of them beg the question that how could these floods have flooded the entire earth, kill everyone but the given flood story's given god's given chosen person, but yet life continued unabated everywhere we had settled by those times, without disruption, extinction, or even an inkling of a clue that this flood happened.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
As well as Chinese and Indian culture. And not too mention Europe which also had people running around by then, but none of them bothered to mention this alleged non-stop rain and rising flood levels. Of course there are many such flood stories, but every one of them beg the question that how could these floods have flooded the entire earth, kill everyone but the given flood story's given god's given chosen person, but yet life continued unabated everywhere we had settled by those times, without disruption, extinction, or even an inkling of a clue that this flood happened.

That's the thing.

There was no global mass extinction at any time during the 3rd millennium BCE.

If there were, there would be consistent and considerable evidences everywhere, dated TO A SPECIFIC or SINGLE POINT IN TIME.

There would be evidences in geology everywhere. There would be archaeological evidences everywhere. But there are none that point to a global flood.

2340 BCE would be the date this biblical Flood could have occurred - THAT IF the bible was at all reliable with the number of years, generations and reigns - then that would put the Flood during the near the beginning of the 6th dynasty (2345 – 2181 BCE), in Egypt.

And we have a lot of archaeological evidences, that the Egyptians continue to build pyramids after 2340 BCE.

Teti (reign 2345 - 2333 BCE) was the founder of the 6th dynasty, after he succeeded Unas (reign 2375 – 2345 BCE) of the 5th dynasty, because Unas didn't have any son left to succeed him, so Unas' son-in-law (Teti) succeeded him. His two sons ruled after him, and they were half-brothers - Userkare and Pepi I (2332 – 2287 BCE).

If the Flood had occurred, then Teti and every members of his family would have died with him, leaving no successors, and yet Pepi succeeded Userkare's very short reign, and built himself a pyramid.

And in the pyramids of Unas, Teti and Pepi I were hieroglyphs that mean assist the decease rulers with their afterlife in the Netherworld; these hieroglyphs became known as the Pyramid Text, which included later pyramids of later 6th dynasty kings too. If the Flood had occurred, would the Egyptian kings continue this same tradition of writing those hieroglyphs in their tombs?

I would say no. Because if Flood was true, then like I said earlier, the tradition or culture would be different to the pre-Flood Egypt.

But, according to Genesis 10, Egypt didn't exist until Ham had a second son, named Egypt or Mizraim (in KJV). If the Bible was true, then they would have to wait for Ham's son to grow to adulthood. That mean there should be a gap of 15 to 20+ years. In fact, it would have been centuries before Egypt could recover, recover enough to be a civilisation again, if the Bible's Flood was true.

Can Egypt have a gap of 20 years, with no one to continue on the "Egyptian" tradition or culture?

I would say "no", because the Flood and the generations that followed afterward is unrealistic, unreliable and has no evidences to support anything that the Bible had to say about the flood and Noah's descendants. And all the evidences are there that a global flood didn't happen - both in archaeology and in geology.

And like you have said, Indian and Chinese cultures continued without interruptions.
 
Last edited:
You forget that we are dealing with an omnipotent God here. Transporting animals back and forth across the globe isn't a problem for Him.
Not only that, but according to the stories I was told growing up, I'm not a Christian anymore but I know the stories almost as well as anyone, the layout of the continents changed dramatically after the flood
 

McBell

Unbound
he retracted / reworded the statement, but you can see the original here, very good editing if it is a fake!


But he is not unique, Hoyle was a renowned atheist who also came to consider ID in some form as a solution 'A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question'
that quote mine again?
You really do not care one bit about your credibility, do you?
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
No I'm not. I am largely and mostly a product of Mid-West American culture. Though I differ in many ways, I cannot deny that I am very Western, and even very white. I have even been shaped to some extent by my social privileges. I am also a product of my genes. Such as, more or less, my life is very similar, in many ways, to other people with Asperger's. Sure we have differences, but the syndrome's defining feature is social illiteracy, and general traits include poor motor skills, thinking more in terms of logic than emotion, obsessing over the parts of a whole, and it's very common for us to be bullied in school. But, ultimately, we all learn from somewhere, we are not original, and we are products of products, copies of copies - we are the "combined effort of everyone we've ever known."

Actually we can tell a good deal about the elements that compose their atmosphere, if they have water or not, and even if the orbit is within a habitable zone. And the Havard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and data from the Kepler mission is hardly click bate.


It's interesting that so many Christians automatically assume someone is an atheist for resorting to non-supernatural descriptions and for challenging Christian views.

Except Richard Dawkins was literally not talking about god. It's not a "any but God!," but a fact that he was not discussing or acknowledging god in that interview.

Which is why I'm Agnostic. Ultimately, where did anything come from? Anything that may have existed before our universe is not exempt, and scientists do not exempt it. God is not exempt from the question either. The main difference, between scientists and theists such as yourself, is the scientist keeps searching for answers rather than proclaiming an ancient book--an ancient book that claims pi = 3, that it's a good idea to sling bird blood everywhere after someone is cured of leprosy, and that states the Earth has four corners that can all be seen from a high enough point--holds all the answers.

Arguably the greatest scientific discovery of all time was the big bang, the term atheists originally used to mock the priest Lemaitre's primeval atom theory

Consider that the direct scientific observations show the universe beginning in an utterly unique creation event, a beginning of time itself- once called 'religious pseudoscience' by atheist academics
That we are alone, the galaxy is not teaming with ETs
and that the fossil record shows major phyla appeared suddenly, with no evolutionary history, and species remaining in statis for millions of years

The difference between science and athiesm, is that atheist beliefs that have to supplement a wide array of creative inventions to the scientific observations, to come up with multiverses, ET and Darwinism, etc
 
Top