Evidences Supporting the Biblical Flood

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I follow your logic, and even agree that if the only reason to destroy most all life is all God wanted, there may have been a better way. However, I do not know the mind of God and do not why this method was chosen over any other, I do have an idea, but that is all. But this conversation I feel is for a different thread.

I was responding to a suggestion that we cannot use the power of God in defense of the flood story. Without God their would be no story.

In order for the flood to have happened in the way the Bible states God would have had the power to cause it. If he did not have the power he would have had to wait for a natural disaster to happen and then taken credit for it. So if God has the power to create the whole universe, create life, and to cause the flood, would he not have the power to protect a few inhabitants of an Ark?

I feel in order to disprove this story, you would need to either disprove God or that God is powerless.

Whereas it is a fair cop, to state that the Mind Of God is inconceivable?

We don't need to know or understand what god had in mind, to observe what allegedly took place.

And the Ark Story is a mess of Rube Goldberg nonsense, if it is to be taken literally.

If it's simply a Morality Play? Then it isn't all that bad, as these Ancient Tales go, in fact, it's apropos for someone living in the Bronze Age, who was utterly and completely clueless with respect to the Earth's shape, size, composition, etc, etc.

But. If the story is to be Real? We certainly can judge it from the wonderful position of Hindsight.

And if a mere human (me, and others) can look at that Rube Goldbergian Contraption, and exclaim, "That's a whole lot of Nothingberg, just to punish far less than 0.00001% of life on Earth!"

So yeah, I can and do judge the "mind of god" in this story-- and I find that mind to be dumber than a box of rocks!

It's akin to a story written by a 3 or 4 year old, after having had his first experience with building Sand Castles at the beach, and watching the tide come in and wash it all away....

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I feel in order to disprove this story, you would need to either disprove God or that God is powerless.

Not really. You seem to have hinged your god's power, onto a story that is rather poorly made.

That's not very good, with respect to your god's reputation... !

But all I really have to do? Is prove the story is impossible... and without even trying, I can think of at least 20 points of failure, any one of which destroys the credibility of the tale ... in fact, I wrote those down in a little list... wanna see?

 

[Shad]

It’s in the OP! Plain as day.

Wow.

Nope. There is no study from Hong linked in the OP. You quoted something, nothing more. Now I want that source, the study, so I can read it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@Hockeycowboy

Hey. If you did not have the bible, can we determine the earth flood and the natural events in your OP lead to the abrahamic god or anything supernatural without any religious reference to go by?

 

[Misunderstood]

Not really. You seem to have hinged your god's power, onto a story that is rather poorly made.

That's not very good, with respect to your god's reputation... !

But all I really have to do? Is prove the story is impossible... and without even trying, I can think of at least 20 points of failure, any one of which destroys the credibility of the tale ... in fact, I wrote those down in a little list... wanna see?

OK... I am not sure of your list, but with God I can say God's power caused it all to happen for all 20.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope. There is no study from Hong linked in the OP. You quoted something, nothing more. Now I want that source, the study, so I can read it.

Good luck with that. I Google searched the man and only found creationist nonsense.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

Who? Do you know me? Do you know what degrees I hold? You should just stop your attempts at ad hominem.

When one resorts to attacking the person, it usually reveals desperation...they have no decent counter argument.

So....thanks, I guess.

I am through
dancing with you.

Well, if you grew up as JW, and have always been considered to be a "good JW" and a "mature Christian," then it is not likely that you hold any degrees whatsoever, since your main goal in life should have always been to pioneer or, at the very least, spend as much time as possible out in service, and, as all good JWs know, higher education is pretty much a waste...so you probably went to a trade school if you opted for more education after High School.

It is possible that you flaunted the wise counsel from the GB, however, and attended college. Not likely that you would have spent years and years garnering multiple degrees, though. A BA is probably the only degree you have, if any, and it's not likely that you would have wasted your time taking any course other than those focused on getting a "job" so that you could pioneer and not anything that would become a career.

And, despite what the WTS claims, reading and studying Watchtower literature is NOT equivalent to a college education.

 

[Shad]

Good luck with that. I Google searched the man and only found creationist nonsense.

I tried as well. General searches only result in Creationist and Noah's ark sites. Sites which contain parts of to the OP itself ergo the source(s) of the post are not the studies. Without the name of the study all I could do is read anything linked to the name of researcher which got old really fast.

I used DuckDuckGo not Google. I am not sure how much that may matter to anyone. However I think at least establishes we were not just going over the same results due to the search engine used.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

So...doesn't the Bible present the Flood as a phenomenon caused by God? (It wasn't natural.) But then, you propose He did nothing else? He wouldn't protect the arks contents, during and after? (One of the last paragraphs in the OP discusses this.)

Regarding the animals....don't you believe in evolution? I do, to an extent. Those animals would be all that was needed, for the diversity within the families and genera we see today.

We're not told, but Jehovah could've induced a state of hibernation or torpor, to keep them calm.

We have precedent in the Bible, other accounts, describing God keeping people and animals from eating.

You give Jehovah very little credit.

But at least you discussed some of the OP evidence. Thanks for that.

So the basic explanation for this is "goddidit." Whenever a Flood believer cannot produce logical explanations, it's always back to "goddidit." Since God had to handle every little aspect of this as far as you're concerned, why couldn't he have just as easily destroyed only the wicked humans in the blink of an eye?

And you do realize, do you not, that the limited evolution you seem to be referring to would have had to be extremely rapid, since there is evidence (both fossil and historical) of all of our currently known species being in existence for thousands of years. Does your "theory" of evolution allow for all that diversity to occur within only a few years or a few decades?

Additionally, since there would have been NO vegetation available for the herbivores to eat for quite some time (desalinization of the brine-soaked soil would have taken years) exactly how do you suppose they would have been healthy enough to reproduce, much less on a scale so rapid as to create vast herds of ALL the species that were extant thousands of years ago?

And, of course, let us not forget those hungry predators, who would have definitely killed and eaten those starving herbivores long before they were ever able to reproduce.

And as far as "hibernation" or "torpor" is concerned...you do realize, do you not that many animals cannot survive for long in a recumbent position? Horses and elephants are just two examples.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Nope. There is no study from Hong linked in the OP. You quoted something, nothing more. Now I want that source, the study, so I can read it.

Sorry, I thought you just overlooked the quoted article, as some seem to be doing w/ other aspects of this post.

Do you really think mainstream researchers, dedicated to supporting only naturalism, would even consider Noah’s Ark a possibility, let alone performing experiments that might give the Event credibility?

Ignore the rest if you want; read the bottom references of this paper:

WWF: Korean Safety Paper

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, I thought you just overlooked the quoted article, as some seem to be doing w/ other aspects of this post.

Do you really think mainstream researchers, dedicated to supporting only naturalism, would even consider Noah’s Ark a possibility, let alone performing experiments that might give the Event credibility?

Ignore the rest if you want; read the bottom references of this paper:

WWF: Korean Safety Paper

That is fake paper. It evens says so right at the top. It was written for a site that requires people not to use the scientific method. How can you use it to try to support a scientific concept? It appears that you were fooled by a Christian scam artist.

And since @Hockeycowboy appears to be ignoring me someone else might want to relay this note to him.

If you cant' find anything from scientific sources how can you claim to have scientific evidence?

 

[Shad]

Sorry, I thought you just overlooked the quoted article, as some seem to be doing w/ other aspects of this post.

Nope. I was trying to avoid such an assumption by keeping my posts as neutral as possible. I was giving the benefit of the doubt.

Do you really think mainstream researchers, dedicated to supporting only naturalism, would even consider Noah’s Ark a possibility, let alone performing experiments that might give the Event credibility?

This is irrelevant to me. Scientists consider things outside of methodological naturalism all the time. I want to see the study so I can read about the models being used. The model of the Ark itself in the study and the model(s) for simulated conditions

WWF: Korean Safety Paper

Thanks.

 

[Misunderstood]

That is fake paper. It evens says so right at the top. It was written for a site that requires people not to use the scientific method. How can you use it to try to support a scientific concept? It appears that you were fooled by a Christian scam artist.

And since @Hockeycowboy appears to be ignoring me someone else might want to relay this note to him.

If you cant' find anything from scientific sources how can you claim to have scientific evidence?

Why do you say that? Because of who wrote it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you say that? Because of who wrote it?

No because of its source. To work at Answers in Genesis one must swear not to use the scientific method. They do not seem to be very ashamed of that fact, and yet they pretend that they do science.

 

[Shad]

My objections to the study are the fact that the researchers have to use modern and their own knowledge to fill in the blanks regarding structural details as per section 5.1 and 5.2, and hull design of 3.2. The conclusion is biased towards the design which is successful without an evidence Noah's Ark was such a design.

 

[Misunderstood]

No because of its source. To work at Answers in Genesis one must swear not to use the scientific method. They do not seem to be very ashamed of that fact, and yet they pretend that they do science.

That would seem odd they would be made to swear such a thing, would you have a reference?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That would seem odd they would be made to swear such a thing, would you have a reference?

Of course, they are my reference. But first, if a scientific publishing house insisted that no matter what the evidence said, that the theory of evolution was right and to work there you would have to swear to agree to that would they be ordering their employees not to be using the scientific method?

Spoiler

They would be ordering their employees not to follow the scientific method, you can't tell someone that either their interpretation is wrong or the data is wrong no matter what.

 

[Shad]

Why do you say that? Because of who wrote it?

AiG has no positive reputation nor is considered reliable in science circles. Hence it becomes an association issue. It also undermines the peer-review process as AiG uses journals which are illegitimate, questionable, pay to review sites, etc. There is a general issue in review sources as many sociology journals have been victims of hoax papers such as feminism, gender studies, etc. Many of these hoax papers received positive reviews. To borrow an creationism argument. "Of course pro-evolution journals are going to support evolution" The same can be applied to AiG as it specializes in goal. The study itself is internally review it seems calling into question the review process and bias. As per the hoax examples people can and will read what they want into a study if they think the studies supports their ideology. Science and academy, in my opinion, has spawned a number of ideological movements especially those linked to politics and current society.

Hence why I wanted the study.

 

[Shad]

That would seem odd they would be made to swear such a thing, would you have a reference?

What Is Science?

"Science has been hijacked by those with a materialistic worldview and exalted as the ultimate means of obtaining knowledge about the world. Proverbs tells us that the fear of God, not science, is the beginning of knowledge. In a biblical worldview, scientific observations are interpreted in light of the truth that is found in the Bible. If conclusions contradict the truth revealed in Scripture, the conclusions are rejected."

Not what you asked for but this is representative of the organization thus staff.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What Is Science?

"Science has been hijacked by those with a materialistic worldview and exalted as the ultimate means of obtaining knowledge about the world. Proverbs tells us that the fear of God, not science, is the beginning of knowledge. In a biblical worldview, scientific observations are interpreted in light of the truth that is found in the Bible. If conclusions contradict the truth revealed in Scripture, the conclusions are rejected."

I was thinking more along the "Statement of Faith" that all employees must swear to:

Statement of Faith

And in regards to this discussion:

"

• Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation, spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ.
• The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of creation.
• The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
• The gap theory has no basis in Scripture.
• The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into secular and religious, is rejected.
• By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

By making their employees swear to that they are making them swear to not to use the scientific method. And to boot they are telling others that they will not follow it either.