Evidence of NOAH's FLOOD

[shunyadragon]

No, it isn’t. It’s assumption-based.

When your peer-reviewed literature resort to explanations that contain “probably”s, “likely”s & other suggestive language, which is pervasive in biology publications, you’ve entered the realm of philosophy.
You however attempt to portray these as fact, when in reality, they are based on assumption & guesses Not logic. Lol.

You need to cite specifically the "scientific literature" that uses this wording in the context of the 'published research. The above is meaningless otherwise, and slander referring to unnamed sources.

You have no explanation as to how the first of these molecular machines, or the first cell itself, arose.

This a logical fallacy of 'arguing from ignorance' concerning 'sciencE you have no knowledge at all.

There will always be unanswered questions in science. That is not a basis for your accusations based on an ancient tribal religious agenda that constantly cited scientific literature out of context

As more & more cellular complexity is being discovered, in
explaining how it began, the more “evolution of the gaps” there will be, added to the already huge list!

ditto as above

But without any understanding as to how the complexity originated, you will continue to exclaim, “look what evolution did!”

That’s biased ignorance. And blind faith.

We know of no other source for complex functioning structures, than intelligence.

That is science.

ditto as above. Your lack of knowledge and dishonest misrepresentation of science

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, it isn’t. It’s assumption-based.

When your peer-reviewed literature resort to explanations that contain “probably”s, “likely”s & other suggestive language, which is pervasive in biology publications, you’ve entered the realm of philosophy.
You however attempt to portray these as fact, when in reality, they are based on assumption & guesses Not logic. Lol.

You have no explanation as to how the first of these molecular machines, or the first cell itself, arose.

As more & more cellular complexity is being discovered, in
explaining how it began, the more “evolution of the gaps” there will be, added to the already huge list!

But without any understanding as to how the complexity originated, you will continue to exclaim, “look what evolution did!”

That’s biased ignorance. And blind faith.

We know of no other source for complex functioning structures, than intelligence.

That is science.

And you have no explanation for anything. No evidence. Nothing.

The best you can do is speculate wildly, attempt to marginalize and distort the position of science and try to refocus the conversation away from your burden of proof and push it onto others.

Do you really consider that an exercise in Christian values?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I wonder how you determine and demonstrate that a set of dimensions or the ratio of those dimensions is perfect for a particular application?

I wonder how you demonstrate that the information of structural dimensions was divinely provided for a project and not the result of knowledge of ship building by the author of the writing that is considered divine dictation?

I see a lot of claims and a lot of questions that go unanswered by the folks claiming all the answers. I wonder why that is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wonder how you determine and demonstrate that a set of dimensions or the ratio of those dimensions is perfect for a particular application?

I wonder how you demonstrate that the information of structural dimensions was divinely provided for a project and not the result of knowledge of ship building by the author of the writing that is considered divine dictation?

I see a lot of claims and a lot of questions that go unanswered by the folks claiming all the answers. I wonder why that is?

There was a fake "peer reviewed" paper that he kept referring to. There was no way to even check if the author was valid. It was written for one of the Hamster's publications. It only had unsupported claims in it, there was no proper research.

The problem is that the scientifically illiterate are easy prey for these sorts of fake articles. They have no clue on how to search to see if they are legitimate or not.

 

[Audie]

There was a fake "peer reviewed" paper that he kept referring to. There was no way to even check if the author was valid. It was written for one of the Hamster's publications. It only had unsupported claims in it, there was no proper research.

The problem is that the scientifically illiterate are easy prey for these sorts of fake articles. They have no clue on how to search to see if they are legitimate or not.

I feel that the all caps, underlined italics, bold underlined italics etc more than compensates for the lack of content.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There was a fake "peer reviewed" paper that he kept referring to. There was no way to even check if the author was valid. It was written for one of the Hamster's publications. It only had unsupported claims in it, there was no proper research.

The problem is that the scientifically illiterate are easy prey for these sorts of fake articles. They have no clue on how to search to see if they are legitimate or not.

It seems to me I remember some paper being touted as the basis for the ark dimension claims as scientific support of the Bible and the flood. It is probably the one you refer too. It seemed like pie in the sky for a failed position.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I feel that the all caps, underlined italics, bold underlined italics etc more than compensates for the lack of content.

The JW's seem to have a penchant for what seems like a very theatrical and distracting post presentation. Lots of mixed fonts, colors, bolding and the emojis. Good grief the emojis.

To me it seems like another mechanism to distract the reader and make it more difficult to read the posts. Especially the overly long posts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The JW's seem to have a penchant for what seems like a very theatrical and distracting post presentation. Lots of mixed fonts, colors, bolding and the emojis. Good grief the emojis.

To me it seems like another mechanism to distract the reader and make it more difficult to read the posts. Especially the overly long posts.

I love to link this article for those people. Sometimes, if they actually read it, they calm down for a while:

Green ink

Green ink is a British journalistic term for the frothing of lunatics.[1][2][3] Back when letters to news outlets were produced in an archaic medium based on materials known as "paper" and "ink", the nutters would supposedly always write their IMPORTANT INFORMATION in green.

rationalwiki.org

Let me see if I can quote some of it properly:

"
Green ink is a British journalistic term for the frothing of lunatics.[1][2][3] Back when letters to news outlets were produced in an archaic medium based on materials known as "paper" and "ink", the nutters would supposedly always write their IMPORTANT INFORMATION in green.

It is not known just how many such letters actually existed, or if this is just urban legend, though there are occasional reports of physical manifestations.[4] Common comorbid characteristics include irrelevant capitalisation, religious mania, overuse of exclamation marks, and veiled threats or warnings directed at the recipient. An article in The Observer about letters to the editor suggests avoidance of green ink.[5] According to etymologist Michael Quinion, the association of green ink with cranks was well-known by 1985; however, his readers found earlier references including Carl Sagan receiving a long letter in green ink about life on other planets prior to 1973, and a reference by Kingsley Amis in 1953 to a shady character, revealed as an academic thief, also writing in green ink.[6]

The term remains a useful metaphor for similar frothing in the electronic age, even though the pages are likely to include every colour rejected from the rainbow,[7] in a tasteful variety of fonts. Though the truly exquisite green ink often appears in carefully-formatted black and white PDFs."

Nope. It did not work. I tried using the font color option and it will not change the color of a copied page. Image it all in lovely green. That is until it hist "every colour rejected from the rainbow" every word is a different color. Let me see if I can mimic it:

"every colour rejected from the rainbow" whew! The next line in the text also had a variety of fonts, but I am not doing that here. Check it out.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I love to link this article for those people. Sometimes, if they actually read it, they calm down for a while:

Green ink

Green ink is a British journalistic term for the frothing of lunatics.[1][2][3] Back when letters to news outlets were produced in an archaic medium based on materials known as "paper" and "ink", the nutters would supposedly always write their IMPORTANT INFORMATION in green.

rationalwiki.org

Let me see if I can quote some of it properly:

"
Green ink is a British journalistic term for the frothing of lunatics.[1][2][3] Back when letters to news outlets were produced in an archaic medium based on materials known as "paper" and "ink", the nutters would supposedly always write their IMPORTANT INFORMATION in green.

It is not known just how many such letters actually existed, or if this is just urban legend, though there are occasional reports of physical manifestations.[4] Common comorbid characteristics include irrelevant capitalisation, religious mania, overuse of exclamation marks, and veiled threats or warnings directed at the recipient. An article in The Observer about letters to the editor suggests avoidance of green ink.[5] According to etymologist Michael Quinion, the association of green ink with cranks was well-known by 1985; however, his readers found earlier references including Carl Sagan receiving a long letter in green ink about life on other planets prior to 1973, and a reference by Kingsley Amis in 1953 to a shady character, revealed as an academic thief, also writing in green ink.[6]

The term remains a useful metaphor for similar frothing in the electronic age, even though the pages are likely to include every colour rejected from the rainbow,[7] in a tasteful variety of fonts. Though the truly exquisite green ink often appears in carefully-formatted black and white PDFs.

You've mentioned this before and I'm glad you mentioned it again. I had forgotten about it.

It seems to be a very common practice that I suspect is taught as a mechanism of presentation with the same intent as a gish gallop. Overwhelm and distract the reader so they don't get a sound reading of the content. I can't see that it adds anything of value to the reader to have to wade through that or extend greater effort to look passed it and focus on the content.

Is it distracting?
What do you THiNK?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I love to link this article for those people. Sometimes, if they actually read it, they calm down for a while:

Green ink

Green ink is a British journalistic term for the frothing of lunatics.[1][2][3] Back when letters to news outlets were produced in an archaic medium based on materials known as "paper" and "ink", the nutters would supposedly always write their IMPORTANT INFORMATION in green.

rationalwiki.org

Let me see if I can quote some of it properly:

"
Green ink is a British journalistic term for the frothing of lunatics.[1][2][3] Back when letters to news outlets were produced in an archaic medium based on materials known as "paper" and "ink", the nutters would supposedly always write their IMPORTANT INFORMATION in green.

It is not known just how many such letters actually existed, or if this is just urban legend, though there are occasional reports of physical manifestations.[4] Common comorbid characteristics include irrelevant capitalisation, religious mania, overuse of exclamation marks, and veiled threats or warnings directed at the recipient. An article in The Observer about letters to the editor suggests avoidance of green ink.[5] According to etymologist Michael Quinion, the association of green ink with cranks was well-known by 1985; however, his readers found earlier references including Carl Sagan receiving a long letter in green ink about life on other planets prior to 1973, and a reference by Kingsley Amis in 1953 to a shady character, revealed as an academic thief, also writing in green ink.[6]

The term remains a useful metaphor for similar frothing in the electronic age, even though the pages are likely to include every colour rejected from the rainbow,[7] in a tasteful variety of fonts. Though the truly exquisite green ink often appears in carefully-formatted black and white PDFs."

Nope. It did not work. I tried using the font color option and it will not change the color of a copied page. Image it all in lovely green. That is until it hist "every colour rejected from the rainbow" every word is a different color. Let me see if I can mimic it:

"every colour rejected from the rainbow" whew! The next line in the text also had a variety of fonts, but I am not doing that here. Check it out.

I did check it out. I think there is space for some character theatrics in writing, but I found even the widespread use in that article somewhat more demanding to read than simple black and white and standard character usage. It could be me, but I'd be interested to see the results of real study into this.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Which would be what? Why have all those details, & how do they fit into the teachings?

For example, what’s the teaching behind the highest mountain covered over by “15 cubits” of water?

Or, the meaning behind the Ark’s dimensions & ratios?

Or, the meaning of why animals were saved?

Or, say, covering the Ark with bitumen & tar?

Or of a hundred other details?

See, Too many details in a teaching illustration defeats its purpose. (Simple illustrations are best.)

Are you saying it teaches nothing or something? It is difficult to tell with you going so many different directions at once. Doesn't even sound like you think it does.

No, it was a real event.

Are you saying what the Bible claims is real and the truth and not just something believed or to be believed as an opinion?

One purpose the Flood serves, is what Peter said, 2Pet.2:5,6..
“And he did not refrain from punishing an ancient world, but kept Noah, a preacher of righteousness, safe with seven others when he brought a flood upon a world of ungodly people. And by reducing the cities of Sodʹom and Go·morʹrah to ashes, he condemned them, setting a pattern for ungodly people of things to come.“

So it does teach something? Which is it? Teach or not teach?

So see, if these events didn’t happen, then there’s really no pattern set. It’s empty.

It would do that regardless of it's validity as a real event. It isn't empty unless you demand an interpretation and a view that cannot be sustained. Your demand that others see it only one way empties it of value in my opinion.

 

[Heyo]

I love to link this article for those people. Sometimes, if they actually read it, they calm down for a while:

Green ink

Green ink is a British journalistic term for the frothing of lunatics.[1][2][3] Back when letters to news outlets were produced in an archaic medium based on materials known as "paper" and "ink", the nutters would supposedly always write their IMPORTANT INFORMATION in green.

rationalwiki.org

Let me see if I can quote some of it properly:

"
Green ink is a British journalistic term for the frothing of lunatics.[1][2][3] Back when letters to news outlets were produced in an archaic medium based on materials known as "paper" and "ink", the nutters would supposedly always write their IMPORTANT INFORMATION in green.

It is not known just how many such letters actually existed, or if this is just urban legend, though there are occasional reports of physical manifestations.[4] Common comorbid characteristics include irrelevant capitalisation, religious mania, overuse of exclamation marks, and veiled threats or warnings directed at the recipient. An article in The Observer about letters to the editor suggests avoidance of green ink.[5] According to etymologist Michael Quinion, the association of green ink with cranks was well-known by 1985; however, his readers found earlier references including Carl Sagan receiving a long letter in green ink about life on other planets prior to 1973, and a reference by Kingsley Amis in 1953 to a shady character, revealed as an academic thief, also writing in green ink.[6]

The term remains a useful metaphor for similar frothing in the electronic age, even though the pages are likely to include every colour rejected from the rainbow,[7] in a tasteful variety of fonts. Though the truly exquisite green ink often appears in carefully-formatted black and white PDFs."

Nope. It did not work. I tried using the font color option and it will not change the color of a copied page. Image it all in lovely green. That is until it hist "every colour rejected from the rainbow" every word is a different color. Let me see if I can mimic it:

"every colour rejected from the rainbow" whew! The next line in the text also had a variety of fonts, but I am not doing that here. Check it out.

Has someone told @Quintessence?

 

[metis]

Which would be what? Why does the Genesis Flood narrative have all those details, & how do they fit into the teachings?

For example, what’s the teaching behind the highest mountain covered over by “15 cubits” of water?

Or, the meaning behind the Ark’s dimensions & ratios?

Or, the meaning of why animals were saved?

Or, say, covering the Ark with bitumen & tar?

Or of a hundred other details?

See, Too many details in a teaching illustration defeats its purpose. (Simple illustrations are best.)

No, it was a real event.

One purpose the Flood serves, is what Peter said, 2Pet.2:5,6..
“And he did not refrain from punishing an ancient world, but kept Noah, a preacher of righteousness, safe with seven others when he brought a flood upon a world of ungodly people. And by reducing the cities of Sodʹom and Go·morʹrah to ashes, he condemned them, setting a pattern for ungodly people of things to come.“

So see, if these events didn’t happen, then there’s really no pattern set. It’s empty.

Try to picture reading the Flood narratives [there's more than one] for the first time and not having any previous exposure to basic Judaism. Now, what does this tell you about the basic beliefs of Judaism? And then compare those beliefs with the Babylonian narratives on the Flood account. Obviously, they don't match hardly at all.

Whether the Flood really happened at all is not that important as what would that tell us today other than floods happen? OTOH, the basic teachings of basic Jewish beliefs can be used today on a daily basis, and it's this that's most important, including for Christians, imo.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, it isn’t. It’s assumption-based.

No, it's evidence pased.

When your peer-reviewed literature resort to explanations that contain “probably”s, “likely”s & other suggestive language, which is pervasive in biology publications, you’ve entered the realm of philosophy.

How many times must it be pointed out to you that that is mere intellectual honesty and the type of language use you will encounter in literally EVERY paper on ANY subject?

Your ridiculous "argument" here is not against evolution. It's against the whole of science.

You have no explanation as to how the first of these molecular machines, or the first cell itself, arose.

We don't have to.

As more & more cellular complexity is being discovered, in
explaining how it began, the more “evolution of the gaps” there will be, added to the already huge list!

No. This also has been addressed a bazillion times.
Willful ignorance is not something we can solve for you.

But without any understanding as to how the complexity originated, you will continue to exclaim, “look what evolution did!”

Already been addressed.
Willful ignorance is not something we can solve for you.

We know of no other source for complex functioning structures, than intelligence.

False.

That is science.

No. It's willful ignorance.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

yes, it leave many unanswered questions if the flood was local.

if the flood was local, and Noah knew when and where the Flood would occur, then why take a hundred years to build the Ark, when he could have easily migrated to a location, safe from the Flood.

It took alexander the Great to travel from Greece to India (more precisely the Indus Valley), 7 years. And that with sizeable army following him.

Noah have far more time than Alexander, so imagine how far Noah travel in a hundred years?

He could be at any part of Asia or Europe or Africa, with much smaller party than Alexander’s army. He could have travel one end to another, such as far east (eg China) and far west (eg Spain), back and forth, 4, 5, 6 times? More?

Noah took 7 days, not 100 years to make the boat, please.

 

[John53]

Noah took 7 days, not 100 years to make the boat, please.

Wow! That makes Ken Ham look useless, he took years and had cranes, chain saws, roads, a saw mill, trucks.

 

[Audie]

Noah took 7 days, not 100 years to make the boat, please.

Just when I thought it could get no worse.

 

[gnostic]

Noah took 7 days, not 100 years to make the boat, please.

Genesis 5:32 say that Noah was 500 when he had his 3 sons. In 6:10 mentioned the 3 sons again, without mentioning his age. Then in verse 11 and onwards to end of the chapter, he warned Noah about the coming flood with instructions on building the ark.

Then the flood came when he was 600, in verse 7:6. But this “7 days” (7:4) you are talking about only from 7:1-4 about Noah having to gathering the animals and his family, to go onboard the Ark, not build the Ark in 7 days.

do you seriously believe that the Ark of size given in Genesis 6 (with 3 decks plus the roof) can be built in 7 days with only 8 people?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wow! That makes Ken Ham look useless, he took years and had cranes, chain saws, roads, a saw mill, trucks.

Just that?

 

[Audie]

Genesis 5:32 say that Noah was 500 when he had his 3 sons. In 6:10 mentioned the 3 sons again, without mentioning his age. Then in verse 11 and onwards to end of the chapter, he warned Noah about the coming flood with instructions on building the ark.

Then the flood came when he was 600, in verse 7:6. But this “7 days” (7:4) you are talking about only from 7:1-4 about Noah having to gathering the animals and his family, to go onboard the Ark, not build the Ark in 7 days.

do you seriously believe that the Ark of size given in Genesis 6 (with 3 decks plus the roof) can be built in 7 days with only 8 people?

It's as possible as anything else in the story.