Evidences Supporting the Biblical Flood

[shunyadragon]

I agree, it is only an argument against a specific version of God. But clearly not all versions. Most Christians do not seem to take that story very seriously at all and their faith is not threatened by this.

Actually by polls over 50 years, ~40 to possible over 50 percent of Christians in America believe in some degree of a literal Genesis Creation and take it seriously. You still have the fact that the authors/ editors and most of the Church Fathers believed in a literal Genesis, and this is reflected in the scripture of the NT. What is sometimes argued by liberal Christians is some Church Fathers believed in an allegorical and symbolic interpretation, but the reality is they believed in both not one or the other.

No other developed country have this embarrassing problem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually by polls over 50 years, ~40 to possible over 50 percent of Christians in America believe in some degree of a literal Genesis Creation and take it seriously. You still have the fact that the authors/ editors and most of the Church Fathers believed in a literal Genesis, and this is reflected in the scripture of the NT. What is sometimes argued by liberal Christians is some Church Fathers believed in an allegorical and symbolic interpretation, but the reality is they believed in both not on or the other.

No other developed country have this embarrassing problem.

I know, no need to shame my country I was talking worldwide.

 

[Muffled]

Watch the video again. This is not a case of mere fingerprints in the Ben Ham case. It was piece of evidence after piece of evidence that told who did it it. It is the same with why we know that there was no flood. It is piece of evidence after piece of evidence that tells us that there was no flood. It is rather hypocritical to claim that a video attempts to deceive people when if you watched it you would know that your analogy failed.


And you have no way to know that God was an eyewitness. You do not even know that he exists. All that you have is mere belief. Eye witness evidence is the lowest level of legally acceptable evidence. The evidence that supports my claims is much stronger.

I presented a piece of evidence that there was a flood. Are you saying you can ignore evidence? So what are you saying a lack of evidence is better than evidence?

I believe He says so.

I believe I do know that He exists.

I believe I have the Bible and my personal experience and the personal experience of thousands more at least. What you are saying is that evidence can be rejected as valid. I say a lack of evidence can't invalidate evidence.

I believe as a self assessment that lacks credibility.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I presented a piece of evidence that there was a flood. Are you saying you can ignore evidence? So what are you saying a lack of evidence is better than evidence?

I believe He says so.

I believe I do know that He exists.

I believe I have the Bible and my personal experience and the personal experience of thousands more at least. What you are saying is that evidence can be rejected as valid. I say a lack of evidence can't invalidate evidence.

I believe as a self assessment that lacks credibility.

No, you didn't. You only posted an observation that you did not understand at best.

And yes, some evidence is better than other evidence. The Bible is not evidence for the flood. We are testing the Bible and it cannot be evidence for itself. At best it is evidence against itself since it is loaded with self contradictions.

And yes, a lack of evidence can be evidence against an idea.

Here are a couple of examples. A friend calls and tells you that a large WWII bomb just went off downtown in the small city that you live in. You drive through downtown immediately and there is not a sign of destruction anywhere. Not only no broken glass etc, but no police keeping people away from certain areas.

Is this lack of evidence for your friends claim evidence against it?

If Noah's flood was real we would see all sorts of clear evidence for it.

Tell me, can you get a kidney transplant from anyone or does that person have to be carefully matched?

Of course you have to be carefully matched. That too is evidence against the flood since the flood actually predicts that organ donation would not be a problem.

And no, you do not know that God exists, nor does he "say so". If you knew you could show that he exists. You only believe strongly that he exists. And the Bible was written by man. Or men Genesis was not written by Moses, or God, the former because he is a mythical character, but that is a subject for another thread.

 

[Muffled]

Supernatural acts, or "miracles" if you will.

I flick the switch and the light magically comes on. It is only magic if I don't know how it happens. I do know how God can control animals. He can get inside their heads and control their minds just as He is in me and can control me. It is simply the power to do that just as electricity is the power to turn on light.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I flick the switch and the light magically comes on. It is only magic if I don't know how it happens. I do know how God can control animals. He can get inside their heads and control their minds just as He is in me and can control me. It is simply the power to do that just as electricity is the power to turn on light.

That is the problem. If you do not understand something it may appear to be "by magic". And no, you don't "know". Once again you only believe. If you knew you could show how and why.

Now I know that there was no flood and can show you piece of evidence after piece of evidence of how and why I know that there was no flood.

 

[Muffled]

No, you didn't. You only posted an observation that you did not understand at best.

And yes, some evidence is better than other evidence. The Bible is not evidence for the flood. We are testing the Bible and it cannot be evidence for itself. At best it is evidence against itself since it is loaded with self contradictions.

And yes, a lack of evidence can be evidence against an idea.

Here are a couple of examples. A friend calls and tells you that a large WWII bomb just went off downtown in the small city that you live in. You drive through downtown immediately and there is not a sign of destruction anywhere. Not only no broken glass etc, but no police keeping people away from certain areas.

Is this lack of evidence for your friends claim evidence against it?

If Noah's flood was real we would see all sorts of clear evidence for it.

Tell me, can you get a kidney transplant from anyone or does that person have to be carefully matched?

Of course you have to be carefully matched. That too is evidence against the flood since the flood actually predicts that organ donation would not be a problem.

And no, you do not know that God exists, nor does he "say so". If you knew you could show that he exists. You only believe strongly that he exists. And the Bible was written by man. Or men Genesis was not written by Moses, or God, the former because he is a mythical character, but that is a subject for another thread.

That is the case if one comes right after the bomb goes off but if one comes 5,000 years later a new city has been built over the old one and all that is left is a hot spot or two. So you will tell me that is not enough evidence because the whole city should be hot but it doesn't work that way. Archeological evidence leaves us tidbits instead of the whole story.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is the case if one comes right after the bomb goes off but if one comes 5,000 years later a new city has been built over the old one and all that is left is a hot spot or two. So you will tell me that is not enough evidence because the whole city should be hot but it doesn't work that way. Archeological evidence leaves us tidbits instead of the whole story.

Please, don't make excuse. That is not proper debating. The Flood of Noah would have left massive evidence that we still would see today. It is also dishonest to try to change the argument as you did. I gave you one clear example of how we know that there was no flood. Another is that there is no physical evidence of it at all and yet it would have left massive evidence. We can see the effects of older smaller floods. Noah's Flood should have overwritten much of that evidence. Where is it?

 

[Jose Fly]

I flick the switch and the light magically comes on. It is only magic if I don't know how it happens.

So to you, a miracle is an event we can't explain, rather than a definitive act of God?

I do know how God can control animals. He can get inside their heads and control their minds just as He is in me and can control me. It is simply the power to do that just as electricity is the power to turn on light.

By definition, God can do absolutely anything. That's why invoking acts of God removes the event from the realm of scientific inquiry.

 

[shunyadragon]

I know, no need to shame my country I was talking worldwide.

Well if you are considering Canada, China, Japan, the British Isles and most of Western Europe you are correct to a degree, the the rest of the world is questionable at best. The USA Evangelical Christians are hard at work deceiving many, and in Brazil even are popular enough to elect and Nazi style Evangelist as President.

In the Old remnants of the Soviet Union the Orthodox Church, the Evangelicals and Muslims are returning the populace to old ways even rising antisemitism and fundamentalism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well if you are considering Canada, China, Japan, the British Isles and most of Western Europe you are correct to a degree, the the rest of the world is questionable at best. The USA Evangelical Christians are hard at work deceiving many, and in Brazil even are popular enough to elect and Nazi style Evangelist as President.

In the Old remnants of the Soviet Union the Orthodox Church, the Evangelicals and Muslims are returning the populace to old ways even rising antisemitism and fundamentalism.

Sadly that may be true. Since the Catholic Church seems to have no problem with the theory of evolution, though they do want to keep their Adam and Eve myth, I thought that they would be have no problem with the even more obvious fact that there was no global flood. Of course it seems that not only does the internet support the spread of knowledge, it also supports the spread of stupid. Look at the recent resurgence of Flat Earth beliefs. All of the Flatties that I know of are Christian. I am sure that there are a few that are of other faiths, but it makes me very sad for my old religion when I see such beliefs.

 

[shunyadragon]

I presented a piece of evidence that there was a flood. Are you saying you can ignore evidence? So what are you saying a lack of evidence is better than evidence?

I do not believe you have presented a piece (?) of evidence that there was a world flood. There is objective verifiable evidence for catatrophic regional floods in the Tigris Euphrates Valley, in particular one great flood about 2900 BCE that parallels the Sumarian account of the flood where the Genesis account originated by the evidence.

The world wide objective evidence has determined that our earth is billions of years old, and there is absolutely no evidence that there was any world flood that could remotely associated with the Biblical flood.

I believe He says so.

I believe I do know that He exists.

I believe I have the Bible and my personal experience and the personal experience of thousands more at least. What you are saying is that evidence can be rejected as valid. I say a lack of evidence can't invalidate evidence.

I believe as a self assessment that lacks credibility.

The evidence you describe here remains personal and anecdotal, and no relevance concerning objective evidence to support what yu believe. Stoic anecdotal arguments do not represent evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sadly that may be true. Since the Catholic Church seems to have no problem with the theory of evolution, though they do want to keep their Adam and Eve myth, I thought that they would be have no problem with the even more obvious fact that there was no global flood. Of course it seems that not only does the internet support the spread of knowledge, it also supports the spread of stupid. Look at the recent resurgence of Flat Earth beliefs. All of the Flatties that I know of are Christian. I am sure that there are a few that are of other faiths, but it makes me very sad for my old religion when I see such beliefs.

Yes, the Roman Church has no problem (sort of) with evolution, but still allows literal interpretation of Genesis on an individual belief level by one's conscience, because some sort of literal Genesis is original with the Church Fathers and/or the authors of the gospels. The concept of some sort of Adam and Eve, the Fall and Original Sin remains necessary, which makes their view problematic, and literally getting splinters in their butt straddling the fence.

Sort one step forward and two back.

 

[shunyadragon]

That is the case if one comes right after the bomb goes off but if one comes 5,000 years later a new city has been built over the old one and all that is left is a hot spot or two. So you will tell me that is not enough evidence because the whole city should be hot but it doesn't work that way. Archeological evidence leaves us tidbits instead of the whole story.

Unfortunately for the Noah flood there are no tidbits. A world flood would be a catastrophic destructive world event, and there is absolutely no evidence for this.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Please make the bacteria evolve into a dog and I'll be happy to change my mind about evolution

At least highlight / explain with reasonable evidence the steps evolutionary processes took to construct such differentiated anatomy of metazoan creatures! How does the genetic code increase the de novo information to build these parts?

I guess that's what you meant, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

At least highlight / explain with reasonable evidence the steps evolutionary processes took to construct such differentiated anatomy of metazoan creatures! How does the genetic code increase the de novo information to build these parts?

I guess that's what you meant, right?

When one uses terms that one cannot understand or define how can that person understand the answer?

For example how new information enters the system has been explained. Would you like to go over that?

 

[shunyadragon]

I presented a piece of evidence that there was a flood. Are you saying you can ignore evidence? So what are you saying a lack of evidence is better than evidence?

I believe He says so.

I believe I do know that He exists.

I believe I have the Bible and my personal experience and the personal experience of thousands more at least. What you are saying is that evidence can be rejected as valid. I say a lack of evidence can't invalidate evidence.

I believe as a self assessment that lacks credibility.

Piece of evidence? So what?!?!?

There has been evidence of floods all over the world caused by natural local causes, like tsunamis,
and river floods, but nothing comparable to the Biblical Flood in timing and extent described. The ship involved was virtually impossible to be built as sea worthy by the technology of a Bronze Age people.

 

[shunyadragon]

At least highlight / explain with reasonable evidence the steps evolutionary processes took to construct such differentiated anatomy of metazoan creatures! How does the genetic code increase the de novo information to build these parts?

I guess that's what you meant, right?

What are your qualifications to understand the 'reasonable' overwhelming evidence for evolution?

What is needed for evolution? Billions of years, and the environment for the evolution of life.

The evolution of 'de novo' information is overwhelmingly demonstrated by the nature of genetics in evolution and continues today.

You need to present your argument based on positive evidence based on peer reviewed scientific journals, and not an a priori religious agenda.

 

[shunyadragon]

I flick the switch and the light magically comes on. It is only magic if I don't know how it happens. I do know how God can control animals. He can get inside their heads and control their minds just as He is in me and can control me. It is simply the power to do that just as electricity is the power to turn on light.

I do not believe we are autonomic manikins, neither are the other animals.


,

 

[Audie]

At least highlight / explain with reasonable evidence the steps evolutionary processes took to construct such differentiated anatomy of metazoan creatures! How does the genetic code increase the de novo information to build these parts?

I guess that's what you meant, right?

I think subzie has a bit of a point, re vocab.

Also, of course, you is, as they say out west,
swingin' a mighty big loop, even though your
phrase it as "just the highlights".

Perhaps a better way to go at it would be to
start with thoughts on the change from single
to multi-cellular.

Do you find this problematic as something
that could happen without Divine Guidance?

Maybe if so you could say why, as an aid to
explaining it to you.