For Christians. Was the flood real or just a myth?

[gnostic]

I believe I fail to see your logic if there is any. Why can't the flood be local? There is no mention of extinction. There is no mention of other survivors but that could simply be because it wasn't important enough to mention. As for a boat, I believe I have seen people traverse through their neighborhoods in boats in floods in this country and it didn't rain for forty days to produce those minor floods.

The claim of Genesis Flood being a local flood, would make it pointless for a number of reasons.

One of them being, as SZ pointed out there would be no need to take so many animals to the ark, because areas not affected by the flood, animals and humans would survive, since the flood would not reach them, if it is localised.

Two, why build an Ark of that size?

Seriously, if the Flood was indeed a local flood, noah being a prophet, who can talk directly with God, had a hundred years (Genesis 6) warning about when the Flood would hit them. If he had that many years to prepare for the coming flood. With a hundred years, it would have been more easier for Noah’s family simply to walk away from the flood-affected region to a safer region than to built such a sizeable vessel.

In a single day (8 hours of walking), a healthy person can walk 20 miles. In a year, he could covered as much as 7300 miles. In a decade, he can walk as much 70,000 miles. Can you imagine if he walked 20 miles per day, for one hundred years?

Alexander the Great travelled from Macedon to Indus River (India and Pakistan), between 332 to 326 BCE, with a army, making many stops along the way to Indus (Egypt, Babylon, Susa, etc), before returning to Babylon, where he died in 323 BCE.

The ark is pointless, especially when Noah has a hundred years to prepare, and if the Flood wasn’t a global flood.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It was a Global Catastrophe!

And the evidence supports it! It was no ice age that caused Mammoths and other animals to instantly freeze, some after having a meal of buttercups, lol.

"Immanuel Velikovsky is known as the "father" of catastrophism. In 1955 he wrote "Earth in Upheaval", using known but suppressed scientific data to make the case that the world had gone through universal "upheaval" instead of the gradualism and uniformism which is still the scientific paradigm, today."

Excerpt taken from :

Ooparts & Ancient High Technology--The Boneyards IV

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was a Global Catastrophe!

And the evidence supports it! It was no ice age that caused Mammoths and other animals to instantly freeze, some after having a meal of buttercups, lol.

"Immanuel Velikovsky is known as the "father" of catastrophism. In 1955 he wrote "Earth in Upheaval", using known but suppressed scientific data to make the case that the world had gone through universal "upheaval" instead of the gradualism and uniformism which is still the scientific paradigm, today."

Excerpt taken from :

Ooparts & Ancient High Technology--The Boneyards IV

Seriously, you need to learn how to vet your sources. That site looks as if it was made by a middle school student. Looks aren't everything, but right away one knows that that is nowhere near being a serious site.

 

[Hildeburh]

It was a Global Catastrophe!

And the evidence supports it! It was no ice age that caused Mammoths and other animals to instantly freeze, some after having a meal of buttercups, lol.

"Immanuel Velikovsky is known as the "father" of catastrophism. In 1955 he wrote "Earth in Upheaval", using known but suppressed scientific data to make the case that the world had gone through universal "upheaval" instead of the gradualism and uniformism which is still the scientific paradigm, today."

Excerpt taken from :

Ooparts & Ancient High Technology--The Boneyards IV

OOPArts= Out Of Place Artifacts. OOPArts are often used by Creationiststs to create fakelore.

There's a rebuttal site here for most of the claims made by Creationists:

The Talk.Origins Archive: Arguments against Creationism and Intelligent Design FAQs

 

[Hockeycowboy]

OOPArts= Out Of Place Artifacts. OOPArts are often used by Creationiststs to create fakelore.

There's a rebuttal site here for most of the claims made by Creationists:

The Talk.Origins Archive: Arguments against Creationism and Intelligent Design FAQs

Evidence from TO? Lol. Always biased.

Refute the evidence objectively on its own merits, not with an a priori interpretation, which ignores most of the discoveries!

It just won't fit uniformitarian interpretations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence from TO? Lol. Always biased.

Refute the evidence objectively on its own merits, not with an a priori interpretation, which ignores most of the discoveries!

It just won't fit uniformitarian interpretations.

Dang it, there goes an irony meter again.

 

[Jose Fly]

Evidence from TO? Lol. Always biased.

It's always amusing to see a Jehovah's Witness wave something away because it comes from a "biased" source.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It's always amusing to see a Jehovah's Witness wave something away because it comes from a "biased" source.

Whenever I see bias, I’m not amused.... I’m saddened. At least you didn’t deny the site is biased!

I just ‘waved it away’? As I indicated, All evidence should be examined and judged on its own merit, not necessarily disregarded because of its source. The evidence is what matters, and which scenario or cause explains it best.

(How come you didn’t mention that, and quoted me out of context? Haven’t you accused me of that many times with regard to experts of Darwinian evolution? Yet you just did it to me.)

Or do you just hold others to higher standards?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whenever I see bias, I’m not amused.... I’m saddened. At least you didn’t deny the site is biased!

I just ‘waved it away’? As I indicated, All evidence should be examined and judged on its own merit, not necessarily disregarded because of its source. The evidence is what matters, and which scenario or cause explains it best.

(How come you didn’t mention that, and quoted me out of context? Haven’t you accused me of that many times with regard to experts of Darwinian evolution? Yet you just did it to me.)

Or do you just hold others to higher standards?

Talk origins is a science based source. You rely on sources where the people that work at them have to swear not to use the scientific method.

But like most creationists you are probably afraid of the concept of evidence. Would you care to discuss the nature of evidence.

And what creationist try to do is to take quotes out of context that are hard to track down. Was it difficult to track down your original post?

 

[Jose Fly]

Whenever I see bias, I’m not amused.... I’m saddened.

Then the posts from your fellow Jehovah's Witnesses must make you positively depressed. Or do you actually think not being able to budge an inch on a subject and saying that nothing will ever convince them isn't an extreme form of bias?

At least you didn’t deny the site is biased!

I've not seen any evidence that it is. You certainly didn't post any, and instead just made an empty accusation.

I just ‘waved it away’?

Yes, that's exactly what you did.

As I indicated, All evidence should be examined and judged on its own merit, not necessarily disregarded because of its source. The evidence is what matters, and which scenario or cause explains it best.

Then you're not living up to your own standard. You were given a link to a TO page and without considering any of the evidence or information on that page, you waved it away with literally nothing more than "Evidence from TO? Lol. Always biased."

(How come you didn’t mention that, and quoted me out of context? Haven’t you accused me of that many times with regard to experts of Darwinian evolution? Yet you just did it to me.)

Or do you just hold others to higher standards?

What in the world are you talking about? Exactly what context did you intend "Evidence from TO? Lol. Always biased" to be read in?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then the posts from your fellow Jehovah's Witnesses must make you positively depressed. Or do you actually think not being able to budge an inch on a subject and saying that nothing will ever convince them isn't an extreme form of bias?


I've not seen any evidence that it is. You certainly didn't post any, and instead just made an empty accusation.


Yes, that's exactly what you did.


Then you're not living up to your own standard. You were given a link to a TO page and without considering any of the evidence or information on that page, you waved it away with literally nothing more than "Evidence from TO? Lol. Always biased."


What in the world are you talking about? Exactly what context did you intend "Evidence from TO? Lol. Always biased" to be read in?

I am always amazed by creationists that claim science based sites are biased and then they rely on sites that actually have in writing that workers cannot use the scientific method.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Im not familar with how noaks arch connects with the flood.

There was this big flood and Noah and his family survived the flood in a big boat called an Ark. The story is found in Genesis a few chapters in.

My professor quoted scientists who suggests that the world continents were once together (do to their shape and history). It made sense since our planet is made up of more water than land.

Our planet is still made up of more water than land, and yet there is not a supercontinent.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I am always amazed by creationists that claim science based sites are biased and then they rely on sites that actually have in writing that workers cannot use the scientific method.

For example:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."--Answers in Genesis
Statement of Faith

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There was this big flood and Noah and his family survived the flood in a big boat called an Ark. The story is found in Genesis a few chapters in.

I only read the story. I'm not familiar with how the two relates to each other outside of what I read about it.

Our planet is still made up of more water than land, and yet there is not a supercontinent.

Was not is. Wrong verb.

It's a theory, for lack of scientific terms, when the planet was one full block of earth. Because the earth isn't static, and its still forming as we speak via earthquakes and volcanoes, the earth's crust shifted etc and the water, naturally, filled where there was no land and separated the earth into continents.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For example:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."--Answers in Genesis
Statement of Faith

Exactly. I try to find out if a person can support evolution no matter what the evidence says and still call it science and they tend to say "No". Yet sadly when one points out that is what the creationists are doing they can't see this. A massive cognitive dissonance occurs quite often and their brains simply will not process it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I only read the story. I'm not familiar with how the two relates to each other outside of what I read about it.



Was not is. Wrong verb.

It's a theory, for lack of scientific terms, when the planet was one full block of earth. Because the earth isn't static, and its still forming as we speak via earthquakes and volcanoes, the earth's crust shifted etc and the water, naturally, filled where there was no land and separated the earth into continents.

You appear to misunderstand the concept of a super-continent. The Earth's surface was still 2/3 ocean at that time. The only difference was that almost all land was in one area.

To find a time when there were no oceans one would have to go back to very very early in the Earth's history shortly after it formed when it was too hot for liquid water.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You appear to misunderstand the concept of a super-continent. The Earth's surface was still 2/3 ocean at that time. The only difference was that almost all land was in one area.

To find a time when there were no oceans one would have to go back to very very early in the Earth's history shortly after it formed when it was too hot for liquid water.

I didnt go that far back nor detailed. That wasnt my point. Unless you can tie Noah Arch to the pangea thing, I dont know how the arch is real other than what people wrote about it.

Do you know?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Was not is. Wrong verb.

70% of the Earth is still covered in water, and yet there is no supercontinent.

It's a theory, for lack of scientific terms, when the planet was one full block of earth. Because the earth isn't static, and its still forming as we speak via earthquakes and volcanoes, the earth's crust shifted etc and the water, naturally, filled where there was no land and separated the earth into continents.

It wasn't the water that separated the continents. According to modern science, it is a combination of moving magma within the mantle and cold slab pull.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didnt go that far back nor detailed. That wasnt my point. Unless you can tie Noah Arch to the pangea thing, I dont know how the arch is real other than what people wrote about it.

Do you know?

Pangaea broke up roughly 200 million years ago so . . . no.

There are quite a few variations on the Noah's Ark myth and all of them are flawed.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You mean present tense?

70% of the Earth is still covered in water, and yet there is no supercontinent.

the definition of pangea

Thats the brief definition. Youre off by millions of years.