Evidence of NOAH's FLOOD

[Eli G]

There are many ways to know the truth about many things.

If you have a friend who tells you 40 things, and 35 of them are things you've already proven to be true, isn't there a good chance that the other 5 are true too? Then your friend is reliable; you can trust him.

That's the way the Bible is: it says many things that skeptics have questioned for many years... little by little all of them have been proven true. So the Bible is reliable, and skeptics are not.

 

[Ebionite]

That's the way the Bible is: it says many things that skeptics have questioned for many years... little by little all of them have been proven true. So the Bible is reliable, and skeptics are not.

That would depend on what parts of it you read.

Paul's defamation of Moses:

We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at the end of what was fading away.
2 Corinthains 3:13

Exodus 34​
29	And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him.
30	And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him.
31	And Moses called unto them; and Aaron and all the rulers of the congregation returned unto him: and Moses talked with them.
32	And afterward all the children of Israel came nigh: and he gave them in commandment all that YHWH had spoken with him in mount Sinai.
33	And [till] Moses had done speaking with them, he put a vail on his face.
34	But when Moses went in before YHWH to speak with him, he took the vail off, until he came out. And he came out, and spake unto the children of Israel [that] which he was commanded.
35	And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses' face shone: and Moses put the vail upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him.

 

[Eli G]

Well.... There are animals, there are boats, it does rain, it does flood..

Bazinga!! Four pieces of evidence

What evidence do you have that a thaw in the last ice age caused the seas to rise 120 meters high and millions of animals died, and that is why there are fossils of marine animals on the tops of the mountains and there are thousands of bones of non-endemic animals in caves where those animals shouldn't be?

Wait...it's just rhetoric, so don't even mention them. I could give you those same evidences (changing dates) as evidences of the Biblical Deluge. So it is not that you don't have proofs; but that you reinterpreted them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is it not truth that what science says today, tomorrow could be obsolete?

No. You are not approaching that properly. For example ideas are shown to be wrong all of the time, but those tend to be details. For example Einstein "refuted" Newtonian Gravity. To be more accurate he showed how the areas where Newton's laws failed could still be explained. Einstein's General relativity corrects the errors in Newton's Law. But Newton's Law of Gravity was still accurate enough to get us to the Moon and back. The math is much simpler. But when it comes to your GPS, that has to rely on both General and Special relativity to be accurate.

What you need to do is to look at the pattern of scientific advances. The sciences keep getting more and more precise. The Flood of Noah was refuted a long time ago and every advance in science has only shown how it has been refuted in another way.

 

[Eli G]

Is it not truth that what science says today, tomorrow could be obsolete?

Hehehe. Is it not truth?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What evidence do you have that a thaw in the last ice age caused the seas to rise 120 meters high and millions of animals died, and that is why there are fossils of marine animals on the tops of the mountains and there are thousands of bones of non-endemic animals in caves where those animals shouldn't be?

Wait...it's just rhetoric, so don't even mention them. I could give you those same evidences (changing dates) as evidences of the Biblical Deluge. So it is not that you don't have proofs; but that you reinterpreted them.

That is not how fossils got on top of mountains. No one has any evidence for that.

And no, you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence. If you did you would know that there is no scientific evidence for the flood. Only evidence against it.

The evidence against the flood is so strong that one can only say: If God cannot lie then there was no Flood of Noah.

 

[Eli G]

Is it not truth that there are fossils of marine animals on the tops of the mountains and there are thousands of bones of non-endemic animals in caves where those animals shouldn't be?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are many ways to know the truth about many things.

If you have a friend who tells you 40 things, and 35 of them are things you've already proven to be true, isn't there a good chance that the other 5 are true too? Then your friend is reliable; you can trust him.

That's the way the Bible is: it says many things that skeptics have questioned for many years... little by little all of them have been proven true. So the Bible is reliable, and skeptics are not.

But the Bible is nowhere near that 35 out of 40 mark. You are making unwarranted assumptions.

And you are also not reasoning rationally. Let's say that 35 times your friend made perfectly reasonable claims. "I am going shopping" and he did. "I have to go to work" and he did. Let's say he makes $50,000 a year. Would you believe him when he said that he was going to buy a Ferrari? Claims need to be weighted when one considers if they are likely to be true or not.

 

[Eli G]

Is it not truth that modern techniques of dating are not infallible?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is it not truth that there are fossils of marine animals on the tops of the mountains and there are thousands of bones of non-endemic animals in caves where those animals shouldn't be?

Your first claim, yes. But that is not evidence for a flood. You are looking at those facts in a very shallow fashion. They are actually evidence against the flood. And your cave claim appears to be rather bazaar. So I cannot respond to it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is it not truth that modern techniques of dating are not infallible?

No, but when one has thousands and millions of dates that are reliable why would you doubt it. The Bible on the other hand fails when it comes to science, archaeology, history, morality, prophecy and other areas as well.

There is no reliable evidence for it. You seem to only have poor reasoning. Do you have anything of substance?

 

[Eli G]

Is it not true that humans only knows a tiny part of the reality of the Universe, and that what they do not know is infinitely greater than what they do know?

Isn't it true that scientists from all different branches of science have been rejecting previous paradigms for all time, and are expected to continue rejecting others as more is discovered over time?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is it not true that humans only knows a tiny part of the reality of the Universe, and that what they do not know is infinitely greater than what they do know?

Isn't it true that scientists from all different branches of science have been rejecting previous paradigms for all time, and are expected to continue rejecting others as more is discovered over time?

More fallacious reasoning. Just because we do not know everything that does not mean that we do not know anything.

 

[Eli G]

Isn't it true that some of the deductions scientists make that are taught to be acceptable are based on statistics and speculations that could be wrong?

 

[Eli G]

Isn't it true that many scientists contradict each other before deciding what can be taught officially and sometimes some scientists do not compromise and have to be exiled out of their jobs for reasons of institutional politics???

 

[Eli G]

Besides, frauds happen more often than they should among scientists who are being pressured for results or have vested interests.

If all that I have said before is true, should I blindly believe all scientists say? Isn't that blind faith?

 

[John53]

Is it not truth that there are fossils of marine animals on the tops of the mountains and there are thousands of bones of non-endemic animals in caves where those animals shouldn't be?

Got a link about these thousands of non-endemic animal bones in caves?

 

[John53]

Isn't it true that many scientists contradict each other before deciding what can be taught officially and sometimes some scientists do not compromise and have to be exiled out of their jobs for reasons of institutional politics???

I believe it's a good thing to have varying opinions and discussion. Seems much fairer than "believe what I believe or you will be tortured for eternity".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Isn't it true that some of the deductions scientists make that are taught to be acceptable are based on statistics and speculations that could be wrong?

Please, you are still using arguments that do not help you. Until you can rationally support your claims you lose. This sort of arguing is just you admitting that you are wrong again and again since you have even less than sciences do.

Isn't it true that many scientists contradict each other before deciding what can be taught officially and sometimes some scientists do not compromise and have to be exiled out of their jobs for reasons of institutional politics???

No, there is no "official teaching" so this is a strawman argument on your part. And you are still in effect admitting that you are wrong.

Besides, frauds happen more often than they should among scientists who are being pressured for results or have vested interests.

If all that I have said before is true, should I blindly believe all scientists say? Isn't that blind faith?

Ooh fraud? You bring up fraud? Are you unaware of how many fraudulent claims have been made for your religious beliefs? By your standards you just shouted that you are wrong.

And no one should believe blindly what scientists say. You are projecting again. You have blind faith. Do not accuse other of that flaw.

 

[John53]

Besides, frauds happen more often than they should among scientists who are being pressured for results or have vested interests.

If all that I have said before is true, should I blindly believe all scientists say? Isn't that blind faith?

The good part is you can read their findings and make your own mind up which is how the frauds are exposed. No blind faith required.