Evidence of NOAH's FLOOD

[Eli G]

If that's what they do, what we can get out of their proponents online?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you retracting accusing me of falsifying my claims?

It is said: you were right.

Do you think any other of the above statements I've made is false? Do you need any other proof?

If not, then you see that I am right: scientists do not always tell the truth to the common public. The Bible has shown me to be more truthful than men. That's why I think what it says is true.

There are many reasons why I consider the Bible reliable:

1) is frank in speaking of the weaknesses and mistakes of God's faithful servants, such as Moses, David, and others;

That is just good story telling. Do you think that is unique to the Bible?

2) contains advice that is still valid for the family, personality, dealings with others, etc.

And also advice that is very bad if you are honest.

3) contains exclusive information in its time, such as the quarantine, the roundness of the earth, the water cycle, that the earth hangs upon nothing, etc

No it doesn't. Well quarantine was not unique to them by any means. And the Bible never describes the Earth as a sphere. A flat round disc is "round" too and you need to see what sort of "round" that the Bible talks about. The "circle of the Earth" verse is a Flat Earth verse.

4) contains detailed prophecies that have been fulfilled and others that are already coming

I do not know of any detailed prophecies that were fulfilled. You have to be careful. Parts of the Bible were written later than you think. And it has clear failed prophecies. When it comes to prophecies and the Bible it has a very very bad history.

5) contains data on events, characters and historical places that no one can deny that they existed

And it also has very wrong events too. Ask any scholar. He will tell you that there is a ten year difference between the date of the nativity myth in Matthew and the one in Luke.

6) Give details such as the measurements of the ark that God told Noah to build, the materials he should build it, the floors it should have, the roof he should make, how he should waterproof it, and other interesting details. Although there are other ancient flood stories, none are as specific.

That only harms you since we have know since before Darwin's time that there was no Noah's Ark.

There are more proofs that the Bible is reliable.

None of these are "proofs". And if one is honest they only show that the Bible is not reliable.

 

[viole]

Here we shall discuss evidence of NOAH's FLOOD. There is ongoing scientific research that has brought to light many interesting finds, that contrary to some or many ---- does in fact point more and more to a monumental worldwide cataclysm that is labelled the FLOOD in GOD's Word: Global Evidences of the Genesis Flood

AIG? I would not take them too seriously. They belong to the heretic Flinstonian denomination, still.

Ciao

- viole

 

[YoursTrue]

Paul defamed him when he wrote that Moses wore the veil so that the Israelites wouldn't know that his "shine" had gone.

Paul was making a good point. How do feel about this?
Exodus 34:32,33
And after this all the Israelites came near, and Moses commanded them to do everything that the LORD had told him on Mount Sinai.
When Moses had finished speaking with them, he put a veil over his face.

 

[YoursTrue]

When they died. Bones get washed into caves a lot because the cave is a low point. Gravity rules.

ohhhh

 

[gnostic]

What else did Judge Jones say?

Interesting statement made by Jones, the presiding judge:



“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.”



So, what may actually be truth, was not the important issue to Judge Jones, i.e., the court.



Jones was more interested in keeping the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment intact, that is, the separation of church & state.



This is the underlying reason for his ruling. What explanation may be accurate, was of lesser importance.



But as usual, those putting their faith in Natural Methodologies take it & run with it, looking for confirmation bias. Not truth.



And Science doesn’t need that mentality.

@Hockeycowboy

if you understood the requirements of Scientific Method that the explanatory and predictive models require to be tested with observations of the evidence and/or experiments and the data that are acquired through such observations, you will realise that testing of the models will either verify or refute the models.

The evidence and experiments should mitigate biases of person’s highly subjective & personal preferences or belief. The hypothesis analysis of test results and the hypothesis’ conclusion should be based on the tests, and not the scientist’s beliefs or preferences.

So any potential theory, the models have to pass the tests in accordance with the Scientific Method.

In the Kitzmiller v Dover trial, no one on the defendant’s side (ID) - especially the so-called expert witnesses.

if you had followed the trial, the trial was about the Dover School board trying to introduce Intelligent Design as science to be taught in public school. It was found that Intelligent Design is actually a creationism movement, hence ID is a religious ideology, not science. 3 of the members of school board voted against Of Pandas And People (Intelligent Design book) to be taught as science reference in science classrooms, and resigned in protests, when they were outvoted 3-6.

Intelligent Design is just Christian creationism in guise, and that the “Designer” is no different from another title of Christian God - the “Creator”.

As sciences, in accordance with Methodological Naturalism, required explanations of natural causes for natural occurrence or natural phenomena, and that Scientific Method required the models (eg explanatory models & predictive models) to be falsifiable and to be tested, though observations of physical evidence or of performing experiments…these models are only scientifically true (“verified”) and “probable”, only if the evidence & experiments plus data (all of them observations), supported the models, then the models (or the hypothesis) would have the “potential“ of being a new “scientific theory”.

But should the evidence & experiments, not support the falsifiable models, then those models would be “refuted”, so the hypothesis would be disregarded as being “improbable”.

So there are two possible outcomes for falsifiable models of a hypothesis:

1. the models have been “TESTED”, and the tests VERIFIED the models, so the models are PROBABLE;
2. the models have been “TESTED”, and the tests REFUTED the models, so the models are IMPROBABLE.

If the1st outcome was the case, then the author(s) can present his/her/their hypothesis along with ALL OBSERVATIONS (eg DATA acquired from the evidence or experiments) for independent scientists to review and analyse the hypothesis and findings, hence Peer Review). Should the scientists not find any errors in either hypothesis (models) or in the tests, the hypothesis have the “potential” of being elevated as a new scientific theory.

But there is a 3rd possible outcome, which I didn’t list above.

3. Should the models not provide instructions on how to test the models…​

​

​

eg …should there be no methodology on finding evidence, or no instructions on how to carry out any experiments…​

​

…then, the models “UNFALSIFIABLE”, “UNTESTABLE”, therefore CANNOT BE TESTED, then the models are IMPROBABLE.​

Outcome 2 is better than Outcome 3, because at least, 2 is still testable despite being refuted, but 3 is untestable, because the models are unfalsifiable.

Unfalsifiable models cannot even qualify as a “hypothesis”, because at the very least, a hypothesis have to be falsifiable.

Creationism, whether it be Young Earth Creationism or Old Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design, all belonged to unfalsifiable category (3). Also unfalsifiable are Michael Behe’s Irreducible Complexity and William Dembski’s Specified Complexity.

Behe had even admitted at the trial, when he was being cross-examined:

[Rothschild] Q. Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct?
[Behe] A. No, I argued for it in my book.
Q. Not in a peer reviewed scientific journal?
A. That's correct.
Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?
A. That is correct, yes.

 

[Ebionite]

Paul was making a good point.

No, Paul was a liar who couldn't cope with the law of Moses so he defamed him. He lied about being appointed as a minister and witness on the road to Damascus (Acts 26:16, Acts 9:15).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When they died. Bones get washed into caves a lot because the cave is a low point. Gravity rules.

There many reasons that bones might end up in caves that do not require a global flood. In fact, there is no explanation how a global flood would do that. There are over 5,000 caves in the state I live in and none have these piles of animal bones all dating from the same time. It is interesting how a flood of the claimed scale could be so delicate in selecting a single cave out of those available to deposit the bones.

 

[John53]

There many reasons that bones might end up in caves that do not require a global flood. In fact, there is no explanation how a global flood would do that. There are over 5,000 caves in the state I live in and none have these piles of animal bones all dating from the same time. It is interesting how a flood of the claimed scale could be so delicate in selecting a single cave out of those available to deposit the bones.

The bones in the Malta cave system don't all date from the same time either, he conveniently avoids that small detail and focuses on the species. He also seems to miss the fact that the species he thinks are non endemic were once found all over Europe. However if he finds a kangaroo bone I'll be interested.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The bones in the Malta cave system don't all date from the same time either, he conveniently avoids that small detail and focuses on the species. He also seems to miss the fact that the species he thinks are non endemic were once found all over Europe. However if he finds a kangaroo bone I'll be interested.

It is a typical tactic that has been in use for decades. This thread has been like an historical review of failed creationist/literalist claims and denials that have been bandied about and addressed many decades into the past.

The idea that science is contingent is twisted into a claim that science changes and what is "truth" now won't be in the future. The unspoken claim is that religious claims will always be true by contrast. And despite that belief-based claims cannot be verified with evidence or tested in any way to show that one is objectively valid by itself or over any other such claim.

What we have discovered in the past with science doesn't change. It is our understanding that potentially changes and the explanations that potentially change or are ever supported with each bit of new information that is added.

The old data doesn't suddenly change to support claims of belief that they didn't before and when a position has been previously supported by all the evidence, something that would change that position would need to be incredibly robust, repeatable and explain all the evidence (old and new) far better than the existing explanations.

It is what I consider to be an exercise of the Default Paradigm. Itself an extension of "God of the gaps". If science cannot explain it or denial of science can be maintained to overwhelm rational explanation, then whatever is believed becomes the explanation by default. That seems to be what I have found in most of these arguments against rational discovery and explanation.

A very closed-minded view that a particular personal interpretation--even one held by a large number--is the "truth" and everything else is so wrong, you can say whatever you want to nullify it so that personal interpretation ascends by default. Never mind that a testable explanation based on evidence would be required in the event that even a very well-supported theory were to be found wanting.

 

[John53]

It is a typical tactic that has been in use for decades. This thread has been like an historical review of failed creationist/literalist claims and denials that have been bandied about and addressed many decades into the past.

The idea that science is contingent is twisted into a claim that science changes and what is "truth" now won't be in the future. The unspoken claim is that religious claims will always be true by contrast. And despite that belief-based claims cannot be verified with evidence or tested in any way to show that one is objectively valid by itself or over any other such claim.

What we have discovered in the past with science doesn't change. It is our understanding that potentially changes and the explanations that potentially change or are ever supported with each bit of new information that is added.

The old data doesn't suddenly change to support claims of belief that they didn't before and when a position has been previously supported by all the evidence, something that would change that position would need to be incredibly robust, repeatable and explain all the evidence (old and new) far better than the existing explanations.

It is what I consider to be an exercise of the Default Paradigm. Itself an extension of "God of the gaps". If science cannot explain it or denial of science can be maintained to overwhelm rational explanation, then whatever is believed becomes the explanation by default. That seems to be what I have found in most of these arguments against rational discovery and explanation.

A very closed-minded view that a particular personal interpretation--even one held by a large number--is the "truth" and everything else is so wrong, you can say whatever you want to nullify it so that personal interpretation ascends by default. Never mind that a testable explanation based on evidence would be required in the event that even a very well-supported theory were to be found wanting.

And when all else fails walk out in a huff after pointing out how the dirty, evil, smelly evolutionists are picking on the creationist martyrs.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And when all else fails walk out in a huff after pointing out how the dirty, evil, smelly evolutionists are picking on the creationist martyrs.

Or ask questions like you're serious, then ignore the answers with flippant retorts. Then ask the questions and again later and repeat. Or ignore those tough questions where rational responses are lacking and take hi fives from your buddies.

 

[John53]

ohhhh

Ohhhh ohhhh

 

[shunyadragon]

Paul was making a good point. How do feel about this?
Exodus 34:32,33
And after this all the Israelites came near, and Moses commanded them to do everything that the LORD had told him on Mount Sinai.
When Moses had finished speaking with them, he put a veil over his face.

So?!?!?! How does tis line of reasoning lead to evidence of Noah's flood?

 

[shunyadragon]

Search about Għar Dalam cave in Malta and Polledrara di Cecanibbio in Rome.

None of this relates to evidence of a world flood.

 

[Truthseeker]

Here we shall discuss evidence of NOAH's FLOOD. There is ongoing scientific research that has brought to light many interesting finds, that contrary to some or many ---- does in fact point more and more to a monumental worldwide cataclysm that is labelled the FLOOD in GOD's Word: Global Evidences of the Genesis Flood

This was the basis for the story of Noah's flood, I believe. It wasn't worldwide. It was the pouring of salt water from the Mediterranean Sea into the Black Sea 7,500 years ago. This was published by the Smithsonian Institute.

Evidence for a Flood

Of course, others might have other candidates, or believe there was no event in the past that was the basis of the Noah's flood story.

There is no evidence of a worldwide flood:

Flood geology - Wikipedia

Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is a pseudoscientific attempt to interpret and reconcile geological features of the Earth in accordance with a literal belief in the Genesis flood narrative, the flood myth in the Hebrew Bible. In the early 19th century, diluvial geologists hypothesized that specific surface features provided evidence of a worldwide flood which had followed earlier geological eras; after further investigation they agreed that these features resulted from local floods or from glaciers. In the 20th century, young-Earth creationists revived flood geology as an overarching concept in their opposition to evolution, assuming a recent six-day Creation and cataclysmic geological changes during the biblical flood, and incorporating creationist explanations of the sequences of rock strata....

Scientific analysis has refuted the key tenets of flood geology.[5][6][7][8][9] Flood geology contradicts the scientific consensus in geology, stratigraphy, geophysics, physics, paleontology, biology, anthropology, and archaeology.[10][11][12] Modern geology, its sub-disciplines and other scientific disciplines use the scientific method. In contrast, flood geology does not adhere to the scientific method, making it a pseudoscience.[13]

 

[YoursTrue]

This was the basis for the story of Noah's flood, I believe. It wasn't worldwide. It was the pouring of salt water from the Mediterranean Sea into the Black Sea 7,500 years ago. This was published by the Smithsonian Institute.

Evidence for a Flood

Of course, others might have other candidates, or believe there was no event in the past that was the basis of the Noah's flood story.

There is no evidence of a worldwide flood:

Flood geology - Wikipedia

Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is a pseudoscientific attempt to interpret and reconcile geological features of the Earth in accordance with a literal belief in the Genesis flood narrative, the flood myth in the Hebrew Bible. In the early 19th century, diluvial geologists hypothesized that specific surface features provided evidence of a worldwide flood which had followed earlier geological eras; after further investigation they agreed that these features resulted from local floods or from glaciers. In the 20th century, young-Earth creationists revived flood geology as an overarching concept in their opposition to evolution, assuming a recent six-day Creation and cataclysmic geological changes during the biblical flood, and incorporating creationist explanations of the sequences of rock strata....

Scientific analysis has refuted the key tenets of flood geology.[5][6][7][8][9] Flood geology contradicts the scientific consensus in geology, stratigraphy, geophysics, physics, paleontology, biology, anthropology, and archaeology.[10][11][12] Modern geology, its sub-disciplines and other scientific disciplines use the scientific method. In contrast, flood geology does not adhere to the scientific method, making it a pseudoscience.[13]

Hello. I read the first reference you put above, that from the Smithsonian Institute and find it not only inconclusive, but it also refers to the fact that the scientists offer postulations regarding the occurrences.

 

[Truthseeker]

Hello. I read the first reference you put above, that from the Smithsonian Institute and find it not only inconclusive, but it also refers to the fact that the scientists offer postulations regarding the occurrences.

How can it be conclusive? It could be that the story was not based on some ancient story, that inspired a story of the flood in Gilgamesh, and the Hebrews took up the story and gave their own spin of the Gilgamesh story. Who knows? I read the book about this some time before the article came out, and it was very interesting. I'm not sure how the linguists part bears on this. Probably this flood was not the basis of the Noah's flood story, but it's fun to speculate.

 

[YoursTrue]

How can it be conclusive? It could be that the story was not based on some ancient story, that inspired a story of the flood in Gilgamesh, and the Hebrews took up the story and gave their own spin of the Gilgamesh story. Who knows? I read the book about this some time before the article came out, and it was very interesting. I'm not sure how the linguists part bears on this. Probably this flood was not the basis of the Noah's flood story, but it's fun to speculate.

From my reading of the article offered per the Smithsonian, there's a lot of guesswork. I'm not talking about the flood itself but the postulations offered by scientists in the article about the possibilities of what happened. In other words, they are guessing.

 

[YoursTrue]

How can it be conclusive? It could be that the story was not based on some ancient story, that inspired a story of the flood in Gilgamesh, and the Hebrews took up the story and gave their own spin of the Gilgamesh story. Who knows? I read the book about this some time before the article came out, and it was very interesting. I'm not sure how the linguists part bears on this. Probably this flood was not the basis of the Noah's flood story, but it's fun to speculate.

And it seems to me, because no test results are offered, the dates are guesswork too. I won't even talk about the linguistic part of it, just the research itself about the water and earth under the water. Not conclusive.