Flood Evidences — revised

[james dixon]

I am sorry, but if one understands all of the observations that you referred to they are all evidence against the Noah's Ark Myth.

Was the term "Ark" a myth or a metaphor-?

A metaphor is a figure of speech that, for rhetorical effect, directly refers to one thing by mentioning another.[1] It may provide (or obscure) clarity or identify hidden similarities between two ideas.

If you want to discuss them properly, that means one at a time, I will gladly do so with you.

We could debate this until hell freezes over and still a definitive conclusion would not be reached. This is a circular debate.

Having said that, I do like debates. Unfortunately I have to go.
Hopefully we can cross paths at some point in the future.
-

 

[Subduction Zone]

Was the term "Ark" a myth or a metaphor-?

A metaphor is a figure of speech that, for rhetorical effect, directly refers to one thing by mentioning another.[1] It may provide (or obscure) clarity or identify hidden similarities between two ideas.



We could debate this until hell freezes over and still a definitive conclusion would not be reached. This is a circular debate.

Having said that, I do like debates. Unfortunately I have to go.
Hopefully we can cross paths at some point in the future.
-

No, there is no debate about the mythical nature of Noah's Ark. It is best to look on it as a morality tale. Using evidence to support an idea is the opposite of a circular one. You are merely throwing out terms that you are abusing at best. You were the one that made the mistake of referring to seashells on top of mountains as evidence for the Ark. Understanding that evidence tells us why it is evidence against the Ark.

 

[Audie]

This has been like talking to a child who is explaining
how it was someone else who ate the cookies.

I will refrain from another try.

 

[Wandering Monk]

People who do think notice a few problems.

Lets go through some...
"Vast" is a (deliberately) vague term. Biologists
like to think in terms of population density.

There is little or no actual data to go by, so it
is entirely speculative how numerous the creatures
were.


Why have huge herds of frozen
grazers, been discovered

Thinkers will think to ask, why do you
ask this question? No such has been discovered;
any claim you may be making to the contrary is
simply false.

As I recall, it is around fifty frozen mammoth carcasses
that have been found. They range to about 30,000
years different in age. Only a very few are close to
complete, most are fragments. All are in varying
states of decay, producing a "sickening stench"
when thawed.

freeze so quickly?

Who besides you and mr woo woo says they
froze fast? They stayed unfrozen long enough
to get pretty ripe. Thinking people think of such
things.
Many of the mammoth carcasses show that they
were scavenged.
How does that fit with your story, the wolves / bears
foxes etc were not bothered by this quick freeze and
muck-flood.


There is a reasonably intact longhorn bison at
the University of Alaska,from a carcass found
in dredging operation.

What "herds"? What animals?
Lets see some data, instead of your brush
strokes and phony facts.

How would they even survive those low temps.?

We dont know what low temps you refer to. The
flash freese temp? The temp of the arctic today?
During the pleistcene?

Muskoxen, caribou and moose live well above
the arctic circle today, in temperatures that may
go to 70 below.

Why do you ask? Are you claiming that mammoths
etc could not live in deep cold?

Standing by for you to respond with
EVIDENCE, not empty words.

Pick any one of those empty claims
you made and back it up. haha
Like you could.

.

 

[james dixon]

I will refrain from another try.

Please don't; we need your thoughts

“The Flood”​

There are two (2) levels of discussion here.

[1] biblical
The bible was written over 2,000 years ago and yet the verses in Genesis mirror the development of life in amazing detail. Denying this just shows a fear of the unknown.

[2] scientific based on empirical evidence
For the moment, I ask the naysayers here to set aside biblical verses and just concentrate in the empirical evidence provided, once done you will accept the idea of a “great flood” only because the evidence is undeniable.

Please stop trying to connect [1] with [2]; just accept the idea that both could be true in their own context. But once done then there is no more need for debate which ends fruitful thought, so I change my mind, please carry on with the flood debate. This does seem to pass the time of day.

-

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please don't; we need your thoughts

“The Flood”​

There are two (2) levels of discussion here.

[1] biblical
The bible was written over 2,000 years ago and yet the verses in Genesis mirror the development of life in amazing detail. Denying this just shows a fear of the unknown.

No the Bible does not do that. If one compares the Genesis creation story to reality it gets the order wrong and of course it is nowhere near reality. And it is not fear to point out the failures of the Bible.

[2] scientific based on empirical evidence
For the moment, I ask the naysayers here to set aside biblical verses and just concentrate in the empirical evidence provided, once done you will accept the idea of a “great flood” only because the evidence is undeniable.

No, the evidence rules against it. You do not seem to understand the evidence at best.

Please stop trying to connect [1] with [2]; just accept the idea that both could be true in their own context. But once done then there is no more need for debate which ends fruitful thought, so I change my mind, please carry on with the flood debate. This does seem to pass the time of day.

-

Trying to connect the errors of the Bible is the work of literalists. There are countless Christians that realize that at best Genesis is simply a book of morality tales and it should be approached as such. A literal or even half literal translation is incredibly bad theology because it can easily be shown to be wrong and theologically it paints God as an evil and incompetent God.

 

[ratiocinator]

The bible was written over 2,000 years ago and yet the verses in Genesis mirror the development of life in amazing detail.

No, they don't.

Denying this just shows a fear of the unknown.

...or the ability to read with comprehension.

For the moment, I ask the naysayers here to set aside biblical verses and just concentrate in the empirical evidence provided, once done you will accept the idea of a “great flood” only because the evidence is undeniable.

Except for being denied by pretty much every expert in the relevant fields, you mean?

 

[james dixon]

...or the ability to read with comprehension.

Genesis was first put to print in 1611BC

Now put yourself in that time frame. A time before the oceans and the American continent had been discovered. Does the information stated below seem a bit out of place for that time frame--?

The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.”

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.

10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.

12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”

21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.”

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NIV

The timeline above has been scientifically proven to be true, life did “evolve” as stated. And this evolving process was put to print in 1611 BC.

It is clear to me that the authors of Genesis had some help and it wasn’t from some bird tweeting to them from some window sill.

 

[ratiocinator]

Now put yourself in that time frame. A time before the oceans and the American continent had been discovered.

A time before oceans?

Does the information stated below seem a bit out of place for that time frame--?

Nope.

The timeline above has been scientifically proven to be true...

No, it hasn't. Nothing is ever "scientifically proven", but this creation myth has been falsified by extensive evidence. Have you actually read what you're posting or is it your knowledge of science that's wrong?

It has night, day, and vegetation before the sun, it has birds before land animals. Scientifically, it's utter nonsense.

...life did “evolve” as stated.

It doesn't state that life evolved (or even "evolved").

 

[sooda]

Please don't; we need your thoughts

“The Flood”​

There are two (2) levels of discussion here.

[1] biblical
The bible was written over 2,000 years ago and yet the verses in Genesis mirror the development of life in amazing detail. Denying this just shows a fear of the unknown.

[2] scientific based on empirical evidence
For the moment, I ask the naysayers here to set aside biblical verses and just concentrate in the empirical evidence provided, once done you will accept the idea of a “great flood” only because the evidence is undeniable.

Please stop trying to connect [1] with [2]; just accept the idea that both could be true in their own context. But once done then there is no more need for debate which ends fruitful thought, so I change my mind, please carry on with the flood debate. This does seem to pass the time of day.

-

The Jews borrowed the myths and folklore from the civilizations around them … like Babylon, Egypt and the north coast Canaanites.

 

[tas8831]

Further information:
Noah’s Ark was the focus of a major 1993 scientific study headed by Dr. Seon Hong at the world-class ship research center KRISO, based in Daejeon, South Korea. Dr. Hong’s team compared twelve hulls of different proportions to discover which design was most practical. No hull shape was found to significantly outperform the 4,300-year-old biblical design. In fact, the Ark’s careful balance is easily lost if the proportions are modified, rendering the vessel either unstable, prone to fracture, or dangerously uncomfortable.
The research team found that the proportions of Noah’s Ark carefully balanced the conflicting demands of stability (resistance to capsizing), comfort (“seakeeping”), and strength. In fact, the Ark has the same proportions as a modern cargo ship.


The study also confirmed that the Ark could handle waves as high as 100 ft (30 m). Dr. Hong is now director general of the facility and claims “life came from the sea,” obviously not the words of a creationist on a mission to promote the worldwide Flood. Endorsing the seaworthiness of Noah’s Ark obviously did not damage Dr. Hong’s credibility.

Dr. Seon Won Hong was principal research scientist when he headed up the Noah’s Ark investigation. In May 2005 Dr. Hong was appointed director general of MOERI (formerly KRISO). Dr. Hong earned a B.S. degree in naval architecture from Seoul National University and a Ph.D. degree in applied mechanics from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Are you Tim Lovett? Because someone with that name wrote those EXACT, SAME passages here:
Thinking Outside the Box: Size and Shape of the Ark

What is a little plagiarism among zealots, I guess....

 

[tas8831]

Revised? Your first link is © 1970, 1973!

And he failed to even provide links or citations for about 1/3 of it. Creationists just love them some plagiarism.

 

[tas8831]

Resorting to attacks, huh?

So... pointing out plagiarism is an attack now, huh?

I thought you'd be bigger than that. (You've proven otherwise, before.)
You won't find one quote from the Watchtower.
"Vastly exaggerated"? Right!

Maybe so, but I easily found 3 or so paragraphs lifted verbatim without attribution to the clowns at AiG.

Naughty, naughty!

 

[tas8831]

The Earth was much wetter, even if you take the fact that the Bible describes a Mud ball earth on the beginning of the 3rd day, changing into Land and sea. Therefore, the Bible say the Earth was a very wet and soft entity.

That is some inventive "interpretation", to be sure!

As gravity grew stronger in the earth's core, the surface "Squashed" this water out to its surface.

How did the gravity grow stronger?

Again if gravity increased, it would answer why the water in the earths' atmosphere were pulled to the Earth,

Hmmm... So why is there water vapor in the atmosphere today? Did gravity get weaker?

and if there was a ring around the earth, which is also a scientific propability, it would also have fallen to the earth.

Right - just like the gas giants in the solar system had rings that were pulled down into/onto them due to their much larger amount of gravity than on earth... Oh, wait..... Never mind...

I am not an engineer, and I know the ark was built with wood from trees that were at least 1500 years old.

How do you know this?

Again, if you demand that the Ark should be built from steel, you are actually building a strawpuppet, but this time from steel.

Well, being built at least with steel supports would be pretty much the only way it could have floated for any length of time.

Do you realise you are actually displaying your bias and ignorance and are in defiance of your own logic?
Think...
Why would you perceive Noah to be so stupid as to load 7 of whales on a ship?

Think...
Whales...Water...Fish...Water...ship????

Whales are not fish. Many fish cannot adapt to brackish water unless they have a long period of gradual acclimation.

But why bother with whales? What about all of the various elephant kinds? I think there must have been at least 4 or 5 pairs, since they surely could not have, you know, evolved or anything into separate species in the 4500 years between this flood and today.
A couple of years ago, I saw a post on another forum in which someone had done a rough calculation and concluded that nearly 1/3 of the entire volume of the ark (not including the space taken up by weight-bearing structures between floors) would have had to be used just to store food and water just for the elephant kinds.
Not sure why religionists cannot just accept the flood tale as the moral tale it was meant to be.

Noah never loaded any animal that did not breath through nostrils on the ark!

Whales have nostrils. Sort of - we call it a blowhole.

Even your Bacteria and viruses were not needed to be saved! This is silly!

So, you have 2 options - either God, post-flood, re-created bacteria and viruses and did not tell anyone about it, or the living things on the ark were vectors for all bacteria and viruses. Like the stuff that causes typhus, plague, syphilis, etc. - all in need of hosts.

Do you see how silly atheists can be?

My my - I love the smell of unwarranted condescension in the morning. Smells like.. the triumph of indoctrination over reason...

 

[tas8831]

You appear to be very gullible when it comes to stories defending your myth.

Lets not forget the ever-present double standards - a person has a doctorate and they support creation? Top notch! World renowned! Totally correct!

A person has a doctorate and supports evolution?
Indoctrinee! Biased!

 

[tas8831]

Never did I claim the story of Noah's flood to be a myth. It is literal, and I hope you would read my post again, I see you have great ddifficuilty to do sn Fresh and Salt, I am of opinion that the waters of the earth were not as salty as today.
But then again, I am not a Chemistry major, and will not venture into this thinking without first learning more.

Do you see how silly creationists can be?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How did the gravity grow stronger?

Perhaps he is referring to the fact as the matter for the Earth accumulated that its gravitational force grew too. Though I think that I am being overly optimistic here in giving him that much understanding.

 

[sooda]

Do you see how silly creationists can be?

To think the stories are anything but morality tales is childish. Even the ancient Jews knew that.

 

[sooda]

Perhaps he is referring to the fact as the matter for the Earth accumulated that its gravitational force grew too. Though I think that I am being overly optimistic here in giving him that much understanding.

Gravity wouldn't change unless the earth's orbit changed.. Right? Gosh creationists are really dumb.

 

[tas8831]

Perhaps he is referring to the fact as the matter for the Earth accumulated that its gravitational force grew too. Though I think that I am being overly optimistic here in giving him that much understanding.

I would agree with your second sentence.