-
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!
Evidences Supporting the Biblical Flood
- Thread starter Hockeycowboy
- Start date
Misunderstood
Active Member
I assume you are trying to say he needs to support his hypothesis with more evidence.
In the OP he made some statements, if the statement are weak they should be easy to refute. You can either refute them by either giving a hypothesis that would falsify his claims, or present evidence that would show his claims to be false.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
He needs to 1) summarize the evidence, and 2) explain how his model explains it better than the non-flood models.
Just like @Hockeycowboy you have it backwards. When attempting to make a case, in this instance a case that the Biblical flood model is a superior explanation for the data, you do not do so by making a series of vague assertions and demanding that everyone else refute them.
That sort of thing is a logical fallacy, called shifting the burden of proof.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Ken Ham's entire purpose was to show how the Ark was historical, and yet the entire facility is a testament to just how stupid the entire story is.
Look how horrible the exterior looks and there hasn't even been a worldwide flood.
edit: Noah took a LONG time to build the thing and this museum looks like it's rotting in less than a decade.
Moses wasn't there either. Weird how that's never acknowledged by the "were you there" crowd.
Moses was raised by Egyptians who never made boats like that. Moses spent 40 years in a desert, where one does not usually find boats. We don't make boats like the Ark. Every Ark replica so far that has attempted "life-size" shows how prone to damage it is in NORMAL weather, much less what the Flood supposedly did.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Wooden Hull maintenance
Page 4-1
Page 4-3
Tell me: How does Team Noah repair a boat being tossed all around in a Flood? Does he have scuba gear or something?
Page 4-1
Page 4-3
Tell me: How does Team Noah repair a boat being tossed all around in a Flood? Does he have scuba gear or something?
I thought you reasoned better than this.
First, did Ken Ham use "resinous wood", or a wood type similar to the wood used by Noah? Did he mean for his facsimile to float? Didn't he make an entrance in the side of it, with doors? Yeah, it would sink. Lol.
However, the studies I presented prove it's feasibility.
Didn't God start the Flood? Didn't He bring the animals to Noah? Doesnt the account say, He "shut the entrance?"
But then, I guess you think His protection stopped there. He just caused the greatest cataclysm the world ever experienced, but you think He didn't do anything else to protect and preserve the Ark's occupants.
Now, that is ridiculous!
As the Bible indicates, If we do our best toward Jehovah, He'll do His best toward us.
RedhorseWoman
Active Member
Oh, my...35,000 animals on the Ark? Really? Even using Woodmorappe's estimate of 16,000 animals, there would not have been enough time in the day for eight people to feed, water, exercise, groom and care for even 16,000 animals, leaving no time whatsoever for the humans to eat, sleep or do anything else, and now you're more than doubling that amount?
Absolutely impossible.
RedhorseWoman
Active Member
What is really ridiculous is claiming that God had to handle all of these details and forgetting that God could have simply destroyed those humans who were wicked in the blink of an eye without having to micro-manage a global flood that would kill, not only the wicked humans, but millions of innocent animals and all plant life on the face of the earth, after which he would have had to micro-manage the restoration of all plant life and airlift the few remaining animals back to where he originally airlifted them from.
Makes no sense whatsoever.
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
Gish gallop? how creative.
You need better evidence which you cannot find so you go back to the old. Everyone has already explained what is wrong with your evidence so repeating it will not help. Try again.
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
No I am very familiar with the myth of genesis. Trying to make it into something it is not is clearly not understanding the myth in light of what is known even if you have read genesis 35,000 times. Ignorance about our world will not help your argument.
Yes the amount of water needed to flood the earth at the timeframe the story of Noah is proposed to have happened was never enough to flood the earth needed to remove life from the earth except for the life on the ark could not have come from the atmosphere.
You never have explained how plants returned to the earth after being flooded. Maybe because there is no answer compatible with the flood story. You also cannot explain how the animals were feed with there special diets. You could always just say they used magical spells and had a wizard on board.
Uh, the next sentence covered it (why did you cut it out?).....”that helped produce the huge amounts of vegetation needed for supporting those discovered vast herds of mega grazers.”
With the Sun’s warmth hitting the Earth, you think more water in the atmosphere would. Make. It. Colder? The water would serve to act as a blanket, keeping the warmth in.
The Arctic climate being warmer than now, is a given....millions of mega grazers, which have been discovered (some even discovered underwater in the Bering Sea), could not survive without the huge amounts of vegetation, and huge amounts of vegetation do not exist in Arctic regions, today!. If there were, vast herds of thick-furred mega grazers would be living there now.
Really? Considering the inadequacies of 14C dating, and scientists’ general lack of agreement on what caused many geological features, that should give them pause to consider other explanations. And the Bible does provide it. But in doing so, it portrays paranormal events. Do you know of any mainstream scientists who are inclined to believe those events? They’re ignoring evidences, in favor of their bias.
Did I even say that?
Although that’s a valid point, useful at times.
However, it doesn’t apply here.... what Moses wrote concerning the Ark’s dimensions, is recorded. No one had to “be there.”
And it wasn’t ‘inserted into a manuscript’ later on.
I’m sure skeptics would love to say that! Too bad.
Last edited:
Well, this shows that you don’t tell the truth.
“80 Days”.....What was 80 days? Nothing related to the Flood.
This compels me to cease this discussion with you now. If one resorts to lies, the endeavor to discuss any topic is worthless.
But I will debunk, or at the very least counter, your list of numbered objections.
Last edited:
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Again, you obviously don't know how this sort of thing works. The above is just a series of assertions, not evidence.
Do you have any actual evidence of this "vapor canopy"? About how much water was in it? What kept it in place? What caused it to fall? Where did it come from in the first place? Why isn't there one now?
Again, nothing but empty assertions. Here's a tip....things aren't so just because you say they are. If you're going to accuse scientists of malfeasance, then you need to provide documented evidence of such.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
There you go invoking God-magic again.
You should probably just stick with God-magic and drop the whole attempt at bringing science into it. It's not working for you.
Audie
Veteran Member
That way there is no need to temporize.
Actually you didn't. You posted a series of assertions, poor evidence and some wild claim about Chinese written characters that makes little sense. I read your post and the attached material.
I don't know what Moses knew. I only know it is claimed that he wrote the first five books of the Bible. There is no real evidence that he did and some evidence to call that claim into question. As to the ideal dimensions, that claim has been successfully challenged by other posters. I am not a naval architect, but their responses were sound.
As I said, you dumped so many different claims into one post, that I have been following up on them one at a time for the most part. Here is my response to what you list as your first piece of evidence.
I found different references for the author of the paper you linked. One Paul W. Kroll is currently Professor of Chinese in the Dept. of East Asian Languages & Civilizations, University of Colorado. Looking further, I found a Paul W. Kroll at Ambassador College in the early 1970's and he was listed as the author of a short--48 pages--publication entitled "Managing your personal finances". Both are listed as born in 1948 and based on the author link on Amazon.com, they appear to be the same person as best as I can tell. Whether, the same person or two different people, neither is trained and familiar enough with the type of evidence being used in the paper you linked entitled "Worldwide mammal massacre to say much about the subject with any authority. I'm not saying this author couldn't have produced a work outside his field of expertise, but at first blush, it calls his credibility into question to me personally. The tenor of that paper seems like it is desperately seeking to create a story where one does not really exist.
Next, I reviewed the work of Frank C. Hibben--the star--in that paper and it is clear that Hibben did not find vast herds of flash-frozen animals in Alaska or any other kind of dead animal material in a volume consistent with millions of grazing animals.
His characterization of Alaskan "muck" "vast herds" of dead animals and a late Pleistocene catastrophe is over 60 years old and intervening investigation by scientists in a number of fields has failed to corroborate it. His claims have been determined to be exaggerated on a vast scale. Hibben largely restricted his work to the southwest and was clearly unfamiliar with the geomorphology of Alaska. His "muck" is a layer strata composed largely of loess--a wind-formed soil and not flood-formed. Had he been at all experienced with this, he would have recognized that instead of building the basis for a false story that creationists cling to like a life preserver.
Moving on--like the fabrication of an entire story from a single unsupported source similar to the "Alaskan muck animal graveyard" of Hibben--the entire "mouthful of buttercups" mythology arises from a single Saturday Evening Post article written by Ivan T. Sanderson in 1960. Sanderson was apparently under the mistaken notion that animals frozen in the Arctic tundra were flash frozen and flavor sealed. This seems to have arisen from an incident regarding a dog eating the flesh of the Beresovka mammoth and not from any study of the flesh or objective review of its quality. Apparently, the Beresovka mammoth likely died slowly from injuries in a fall or from being trapped in a mud pit and not from being flash frozen in some catastrophe.
Contemporary descriptions by scientists that were actually studying the Beresovka mammoth mention food in the stomach as well as remnants of food on the tongue and teeth. Nothing about whole, uneaten buttercups. The explorers that found the beast reported that the flesh was in a decrepit state and obviously had begun to rot prior to being frozen. Not a description of something flash frozen by a catastrophe.
Jason Colavito gives an excellent account of the "mouthful of buttercups" myth as well as debunking the notion of a flash frozen mammoths.
Flash-Frozen Mammoths and Their Buttercups: Yet Another Case of Repetition and Recycling of Bad Data
It seems that you no longer need to worry about this question, since the evidence used to back it up is clearly worthless.
Keep in mind, some of the water (not most...most were from the “vast springs” underneath the ground) came from above, from the atmosphere....the troposphere?...the mesosphere?...the stratosphere? The Bible doesn’t say, it is silent. (Maybe from all five.) But the waters above the Earth caused temperatures to be very mild, and pleasantly warm.... similar to a greenhouse effect, worldwide. (That’s why Adam & Eve could go naked, and be very comfortable.) Yes, the Bible indicates there were seasons, but apparently mild ones.
All of that drastically changed, with the break in this canopy! Temperatures would drop suddenly!
How you have determined the share of water between two speculated, but unverified, sources is a puzzle. I don't know of any source that indicates that most of the water came from below ground in the form of fountains or even what form those fountains is supposed to have taken. Was it jets of water? Was it bubbling up through the ground? Where is the evidence? How do you know most of a believed, but unverified, flood was sourced from these "fountains of the deep"? This is another example of creationists jumping on a fragment of a story, adding vastly to it and stretching that kernel all out of original proportion.
There is also no indication that the earth was enveloped in some sort of water canopy. I know of no evidence or any valid scientific view that supports this. From my understanding, such a canopy would have radically altered the earth and there would have been no Noah or his family or other people to worry about it. At the very least it would have radically altered atmospheric pressure to the point that life then or now would not be as we know it. Probably no life at all above thermophilic bacteria.
I cannot see how you can claim the climate of the earth was radically altered by a break in an atmospheric water canopy when you cannot establish such a canopy existed or could possibly have existed. You are piling speculation on top of speculation without verification of each succeeding layer of speculation.
Jumping around a bit, I thought I would address your claimed evidence from number 8. This isn't evidence of a global flood or the existence of Noah or the ark. It is taking a coincidental bit of information and applying characteristics to it that are neither valid nor testable. Anyone could craft up a claim from that bit of esoterica and say anything about it with equal validity.
From my view including something as ridiculous as that undermines your main thesis, not supports it.
I admit, I got a laugh out of it.
In an aside, I have been trying to articulate a more inclusive view of my thoughts on creationists efforts and the entire intelligent design movement. When I feel like I have something well ironed out, I will post it and see what everyone here thinks. Mostly, I do not see ID or all these efforts to provide scientific evidence for allegory to be a fruitful pursuit and people would be better served in focusing their energies on improving themselves and their spirituality.
I’m presenting facts, as they’ve been discovered. (Do you not believe that explorers have discovered mass graveyards of grazing ‘megafauna’ in extreme northern latitudes? Or what? If you do agree with that, then tell me, would a lot of food need to exist to support such a huge population?)
There’s no “invoking God-magic” about the Ark’s dimensions, or many of the other facets regarding the Flood. Not even the water....there’s plenty of water, existing now, that could’ve covered the entire Earth’s surface, considering the Earth’s topography was less nountainous than today, as stated in Psalms 104.
But a lot of other aspects....yes. The Scriptures tell us a few of the things Jehovah did for Noah. For one thing, He brought the animals to Noah; Jehovah “shut the door”; He gave Noah ideal dimensions....does it have to tell us everything?