Rubbish
-
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!
Evidence of the Great Flood has been found; or not?
- Thread starter james dixon
- Start date
RabbiO
הרב יונה בן זכריה
Apparently you don't get out very much.
Last edited:
herushura
Active Member
Genesis is the foundation for all Abrahamic religions , they have too believe the Earth is 6000 years old, because the generations from Adam>Isaac>Jesus and Adam>Ishmael>Muhammad is how they determine the Earth is 6000 years old, if they don't believe that to be true, they are contradicting their own beliefs .
The deluge of Noah is mentioned in the Quran, thus they must believe that to be true too.
Quran 71:25 Because of their sins they were drowned, then made to enter a Fire. And they found they had no helpers in place of Allah
Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies
RabbiO
הרב יונה בן זכריה
You apparently don't know many Jews, Christians or Muslims. That's hard to believe, given that you apparently live in England, but there is no other explanation for your original comment or this follow-up.
RabbiO
הרב יונה בן זכריה
Certainly there are Jews, Christians and Muslims who believe in a 6,000, give or take, year old earth and/or believe in a world wide great flood. However, you said all Jews, Christians and Muslims hold those beliefs and that is false.
You should inform my boyfriend about this. He doesn't believe in most of those things despite using the "Christian" label. He deviates from a lot of the Christian norms though.
You dare call me a fool , and yet you dont know that the Martian sasquatch is in a totally different location than the mermaid. They were separated years ago by the reptilians due to their inability to get along with each other. The sasquatch couldn't stand the fishy smell of the mermaid and the mermaid was constantly complaining about the sasquatch shedding all over the sofa.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
Those pictures could be evidence of regional flooding (though there are other events that can cause similar results and I believe those pictures actually show combinations of them) but there’s nothing there to support the idea of a singular world-wide event, especially not of the size and scale depicted in the Bible.
The major blocker for the idea of the Biblical flood being world-wide is that there are other cultures with recorded history throughout that period which make absolutely no reference to it. It’s also difficult to support the idea of literally every single living species on Earth being wiped out to a handful of individuals and then repopulating back to the state we have today.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Why would anyone want to waste their time trying to prove that Noah's flood is anything other than a mythical story about a purely local catastrophe.
I can not believe any one could be so naive, as to base their faith, on having to believe that mythical stories are based on historical happenings.
I can not believe any one could be so naive, as to base their faith, on having to believe that mythical stories are based on historical happenings.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Because this massive erosion could not have come from wind; but water; in my view-
Erosion happens in deserts, Just as much as where there is water or ice.
Much of the more dramatic erosion is caused by moisture that is not flowing at all.
Entire rock faces are broken away by moisture that has slowly seeped into fissures, Frozen in winter, expanded and cracked the rock to fall as slabs and rubble.
Similar deep erosion happens, on a smaller scale, on the many stone built churches we have all seen. Masonry, statues, and carved stone is eaten away by wind rain and frost in only a few hundred years.
The photographic images that have been shown in this thread, have had eons of geological time to reach their current state. The entire surface of this earth has been modified by erosion and deposition many times. This can be seen in those self same Photographs, as layers in strata of different hardness, and differing depths of erosion.
Floods generally do little erosion, Rather they move existing alluvial deposits before them, and deposit it elsewhere. As was the case when the land joining France and England was breached forming the north sea and the English channel. And this happened during the era of mankind.
Inundations from monsoons and river floods happen all the time in areas like Bangladesh, and cause extensive damage and massive deposits of alluvial material from river valleys. but nothing like the proverbial flood, with standing water covering hills for weeks on end. That sort of flood simply does not happen.
The images the OP shows, shows erosion that started long before man existed and certainly eons before Noah was supposed to have lived.
You seem to have issues with verified facts that go against your 'assumed truths'.
Some Jews, Christians, and Moslems take this story as allegory.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Especially those denominations that teach their congregants to wear blinders instead of looking for and at reality. I grew up in one of those anti-science churches, btw, and not only is their "science" nonsensical, so also is some of their "theology".
They tend to use a literalistic interpretation even though there's evidence and even basic logic that the Creation and Flood narratives were borrowed from Babylonian narratives and then reworked to teach our Jewish values. Cultures throughout the world have done this, so it's a common technique that makes a great deal of sense historically.
What makes the teachings of these churches even more bizarre is that so much of the Jewish scriptures involve various forms of symbolism, and yet these churches can't seem to be able to apply this to these narratives. On top of that, what difference does it really make if these narratives are a form of symbolism or are historically accurate because what we can use today are the teachings of moral and values intrinsic to them? That's what's really important because we can apply those to our daily lives.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
Maybe they over-invested in boats and animal feed so are trying to stir up a sellers’ market?
Wirey
Fartist
I can't imagine a sadder fate than to be blind to reality. Of course there was no flood.
The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark | NCSE
This is a longish read but spells out pretty plainly how foolish the flood myth is. Of particular note:
Not only was the ark without pedigree, it was without descendants also. Creationists Kofahl and Segraves tell us that civilization quickly redeveloped after the flood because the survivors carried over the prediluvian culture: Noah lived 350 years afterwards, Shem 502 (The Creation Explanation, p. 227). During this time, people were fanning out and "replenishing the earth," carrying with them reminiscences of the deluge that would someday excite American missionaries from Sumatra to Spitzbergen. Yet Noah's primary contribution to humanity, his incredible knowledge of naval engineering, vanished without a trace, and the seafarers returned to their hollow logs and reed rafts. Like a passing mirage, the ark was here one day and gone the next, leaving not a ripple in the long saga of shipbuilding.
And of course:
The mention of waste brings attention to that problem. All authorities on animal care insist on the cleanliness of the stalls, urging the daily removal of waste and soiled bedding. Neubuser remarks that "the removal of zoo waste presents almost insuperable difficulties" (p. 170); on the ark these must have multiplied manyfold. Creationists Balsiger and Sellier suggest that the bottom deck was used to store slurry, which accumulated to 800 tons during the voyage. However, a single adult elephant could produce 40 tons during this time (Coe), and there were many creatures even larger. Our average animal, the sheep, produces 0.34 tons per year; poultry, 0.047 (Sainsbury and Sainsbury, p. 110). Multiplying the number of vertebrates by 0.34, the seven pairs of birds by 0.047, yields 25,508 tons of waste—six times heavier than the ark itself! Of course, hibernation would greatly reduce this quantity, while the invertebrates and dinosaurs would add to it. Whatever the total, it would have been an awesome amount on the overcrowded boat, a breeder of infinite numbers of pathogens, and a source of noxious, choking fumes.
A comparison with Lamoureux's Guide to Ship Sanitation is instructive. Complex plumbing systems of pipes and pumps, air-gaps and back-flow valves, filters and chemical treatments are necessary to provide potable water and dispose of sewage. Waste is treated and dumped overboard, not discharged to the bilge as on the ark. Such technology was clearly beyond Noah's ability and the maintenance capabilities of his tiny crew; yet, if ever it was needed on a voyage, this was it.
Reality is such a killjoy.
The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark | NCSE
This is a longish read but spells out pretty plainly how foolish the flood myth is. Of particular note:
Not only was the ark without pedigree, it was without descendants also. Creationists Kofahl and Segraves tell us that civilization quickly redeveloped after the flood because the survivors carried over the prediluvian culture: Noah lived 350 years afterwards, Shem 502 (The Creation Explanation, p. 227). During this time, people were fanning out and "replenishing the earth," carrying with them reminiscences of the deluge that would someday excite American missionaries from Sumatra to Spitzbergen. Yet Noah's primary contribution to humanity, his incredible knowledge of naval engineering, vanished without a trace, and the seafarers returned to their hollow logs and reed rafts. Like a passing mirage, the ark was here one day and gone the next, leaving not a ripple in the long saga of shipbuilding.
And of course:
The mention of waste brings attention to that problem. All authorities on animal care insist on the cleanliness of the stalls, urging the daily removal of waste and soiled bedding. Neubuser remarks that "the removal of zoo waste presents almost insuperable difficulties" (p. 170); on the ark these must have multiplied manyfold. Creationists Balsiger and Sellier suggest that the bottom deck was used to store slurry, which accumulated to 800 tons during the voyage. However, a single adult elephant could produce 40 tons during this time (Coe), and there were many creatures even larger. Our average animal, the sheep, produces 0.34 tons per year; poultry, 0.047 (Sainsbury and Sainsbury, p. 110). Multiplying the number of vertebrates by 0.34, the seven pairs of birds by 0.047, yields 25,508 tons of waste—six times heavier than the ark itself! Of course, hibernation would greatly reduce this quantity, while the invertebrates and dinosaurs would add to it. Whatever the total, it would have been an awesome amount on the overcrowded boat, a breeder of infinite numbers of pathogens, and a source of noxious, choking fumes.
A comparison with Lamoureux's Guide to Ship Sanitation is instructive. Complex plumbing systems of pipes and pumps, air-gaps and back-flow valves, filters and chemical treatments are necessary to provide potable water and dispose of sewage. Waste is treated and dumped overboard, not discharged to the bilge as on the ark. Such technology was clearly beyond Noah's ability and the maintenance capabilities of his tiny crew; yet, if ever it was needed on a voyage, this was it.
Reality is such a killjoy.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Unless you have some evidence to support your claim, then you're just logical fallacying and wishfully thinking all over the place!!
You can't prove that it's NOT a Martian Sasquatch that just looks like a mermaid.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
They are not verified facts. They are verified on the basis of assumed truths. Not facts except in fantasy land.
And this is a false statement. The 'assumed truths' of science are simply that there are laws of nature that can be explored through testing and observation.
We can test how wind affects erosional structures. We can test how water does also. We can test between flooding and other types of water erosion. We can test for the range of possibilities and then observe to see which is the case in the situations we see. In the cases above, flooding is definitely NOT the way the structures were formed. if you want examples of flooding, look up the Missoula floods. There is a *huge* difference between the results of actual flooding events and the wind and river erosion seen above.
Missoula Floods - Wikipedia
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Interesting theory
Interesting evasion.