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

[Hockeycowboy]

Also the fountains of the deep opened. (Genesis 7:11) Earth's underground oceans could have 3 times more water than the surface.

I know! Awesome, huh?!

You know, if we were to smooth the Earth out to have a surface like a cue ball.... I mean, flatten the mountain ranges and raise the ocean basins.... the current water (that's above the crust) would cover the planet to a depth of 2 1/2 miles! We wouldn't even need to access the waters below the crust! Just goes to show that there's already enough water in the present oceans that was used in the Flood. From Scripture (Psalms 104), we know the Earth lacked the mountain ranges and deep ocean trenches it has today! It was quite a catastrophic event.

Take care.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You say it would need to be utterly destroyed. We're not arguing that all the water came out. Obviously a lot is still down there. But part of it could have come out. It says the fountains of the deep were "broken up". To be broken up is to destroy; so this is actually supportive. It's true it would take a lot of pressure to make this water come out; however it is possible. Another thing is you're assuming conditions then are exactly as they are now. Actually it wouldn't take much water coming out (in comparison to the vast amount stored down there) to create immense geysers sufficient in size to effect the weather and create rain for 40 days straight. Geysers are the best theory in my opinion and there are no geysers without great pressure. So, yes immense pressure had to be involved.

For any significant amount.

But lets go over the more obvious evidence that there was no flood. The sedimentary record is extremely strong evidence against the flood myth. What you need to do is to understand what the flood predicts and what the standard model of geology predicts. One of them matches reality, the other does not. This is my favorite image:

Food believers have no explanation for it that has not been refuted. Would you care to try?

 

[74x12]

For any significant amount.

But lets go over the more obvious evidence that there was no flood. The sedimentary record is extremely strong evidence against the flood myth. What you need to do is to understand what the flood predicts and what the standard model of geology predicts. One of them matches reality, the other does not. This is my favorite image:

Food believers have no explanation for it that has not been refuted. Would you care to try?

Which canyon is that?

I know! Awesome, huh?!

You know, if we were to smooth the Earth out to have a surface like a cue ball.... I mean, flatten the mountain ranges and raise the ocean basins.... the current water (that's above the crust) would cover the planet to a depth of 2 1/2 miles! We wouldn't even need to access the waters below the crust! Just goes to show that there's already enough water in the present oceans that was used in the Flood. From Scripture (Psalms 104), we know the Earth lacked the mountain ranges and deep ocean trenches it has today! It was quite a catastrophic event.

Take care.

Right. Imagine a bowl only half full of water or even less. The water does not cover all the sides of the bowl. But if you slosh the water around then the water thins out and can indeed cover all the sides of the bowl. In other words the water splashes all around. The point is that yes there is enough water to flood the whole earth including the mountains. It would only require enough turmoil. Stormy weather, seismic activity etc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which canyon is that?

That is a picture of Goosenecks State Park in Utah.

Goosenecks State Park | Utah State Parks

Right. Imagine a bowl only half full of water or even less. The water does not cover all the sides of the bowl. But if you slosh the water around then the water thins out and can indeed cover all the sides of the bowl. In other words the water splashes all around. The point is that yes there is enough water to flood the whole earth including the mountains. It would only require enough turmoil. Stormy weather, seismic activity etc.

The only problem is that we know how old the various mountain ranges are. You have to deny all of science to support your beliefs. That makes your use of computer, tablet, or phone rather hypocritical.

You really should be trying to learn why your beliefs are wrong. Genesis was never meant to be read literally.

 

[74x12]

The only problem is that we know how old the various mountain ranges are. You have to deny all of science to support your beliefs. That makes your use of computer, tablet, or phone rather hypocritical.

You really should be trying to learn why your beliefs are wrong. Genesis was never meant to be read literally.

I feel I've learned that plenty of times. I've heard from many people, atheists, agnostics, other Christians, Jews, Muslims and everything else(not literally) exactly how wrong my beliefs are. But, you do understand the difference between geology and computer science? Or electronics and let's say biology?

And secondly, I do not have to deny all science. What I do is think for myself. I love science and think it's great but I believe even scientists can be wrong. So I use my thinking cap alright? Scientific theories come and go. Even scientists don't always agree between themselves. There is a scientific consensus but it would be really boring if we all just went along with the current consensus don't you think? Maybe if Copernicus just went along with the consensus; then we'd still think the earth was the center of the universe? What I'm saying is that someone has to question the consensus.

BTW, if you read the Genesis account carefully you'll find it doesn't mention when the planet was actually made. The "earth" of Genesis is actually the land; in other words the continents. So the mountains can be much older than many creationists believe for all I know. However evidence shows that the mountains were once under the oceans. So this actually supports the Genesis account which describes the land as being underwater at the beginning in Genesis 1:9.

That is a picture of Goosenecks State Park in Utah.

Goosenecks State Park | Utah State Parks

Interesting place. Do you live in Utah? I want to research this specific canyon a little bit more before answering you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I feel I've learned that plenty of times. I've heard from many people, atheists, agnostics, other Christians, Jews, Muslims and everything else(not literally) exactly how wrong my beliefs are. But, you do understand the difference between geology and computer science? Or electronics and let's say biology?

And secondly, I do not have to deny all science. What I do is think for myself. I love science and think it's great but I believe even scientists can be wrong. So I use my thinking cap alright? Scientific theories come and go. Even scientists don't always agree between themselves. There is a scientific consensus but it would be really boring if we all just went along with the current consensus don't you think? Maybe if Copernicus just went along with the consensus; then we'd still think the earth was the center of the universe? What I'm saying is that someone has to question the consensus.

BTW, if you read the Genesis account carefully you'll find it doesn't mention when the planet was actually made. The "earth" of Genesis is actually the land; in other words the continents. So the mountains can be much older than many creationists believe for all I know. However evidence shows that the mountains were once under the oceans. So this actually supports the Genesis account which describes the land as being underwater at the beginning in Genesis 1:9.


Interesting place. Do you live in Utah? I want to research this specific canyon a little bit more before answering you.

You have made several errors in this post. The most obvious is that you do have to deny all of science to believe the flood myth. But then you would have to understand the basics of science to see this.

Second you are reinterpreting the Bible to match what we know today, that is an error. I would be glad to help you. Why don't you watch this series of videos, the first one leads to the second etc.:

That is the first in a series of eight. I will gladly discuss them with you. He demonstrates how the myth is refuted from eight different perspectives.

 

[Jose Fly]

"Inconvenient material"?.

Yes. If it turns out that the scientific version of the history of life on earth is accurate, at the very least that would be "inconvenient" for Jehovah's Witnesses.

There's nothing wrong with examining the evidences in every field, in fact we encourage it.... the only inconvenience is when the evidence is misinterpreted; usually those who prefer a materialistic explanation,

So your beef isn't so much with evolutionary biology as it is with science in general (all fields of science utilize methodological naturalism).

"Then you haven't been paying attention. There's not a single published scientific paper that concludes God doesn't exist."

That's just double-talk to me... It's the ultimate goal.

Ah, so to you all of science is an atheistic conspiracy to get people to reject belief in God. While I obviously don't agree with that, I hope you at least appreciate how that gives folks the impression that Jehovah's Witnesses are anti-science.

"In order for something to be scientifically investigated, it must be testable. Can you provide a means by which we can test the supernatural?"

No, but does that mean it doesn't exist? It just highlights the limited abilities of current science.

Therefore........?

"And no, I don't visit the paranormal board at RF."

I appreciate your honesty. Why not?

It's not something I'm interested in.

Abraham Lincoln, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and many other smart, prominent people did and do believe it.

So?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Ah, so to you all of science is an atheistic conspiracy to get people to reject belief in God

What a disingenuous statement.
Now you're creating a strawman. (Please, be accurate.) Most fields of science are excellent.

While I obviously don't agree with that, I hope you at least appreciate how that gives folks the impression that Jehovah's Witnesses are anti-science.

You twisting my words will give that impression. Why would I appreciate that? I think most "folks" here will see that.

 

[Jose Fly]

What a disingenuous statement.
Now you're creating a strawman. (Please, be accurate.) Most fields of science are excellent.

Let's recap.

You stated that since science can't test God, "they reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist".

I responded by noting that no scientific paper has ever concluded that God doesn't exist.

You characterized my response above as "double talk" and said "It's the ultimate goal".

I took that as you saying that the "ultimate goal" of scientists was something related to showing that God doesn't exist.

If I'm mistaken, then please explain exactly what you meant when you said "it's the ultimate goal". What "goal" were you thinking of, and whose goal is it?

Why would I appreciate that?

Well, I suppose if you are oblivious to how you and the other Jehovah's Witnesses here come across as very anti-science, there's not much else to say.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Let's recap.

You stated that since science can't test God, "they reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist".

I responded by noting that no scientific paper has ever concluded that God doesn't exist.

You characterized my response above as "double talk" and said "It's the ultimate goal".

I took that as you saying that the "ultimate goal" of scientists was something related to showing that God doesn't exist.

If I'm mistaken, then please explain exactly what you meant when you said "it's the ultimate goal". What "goal" were you thinking of, and whose goal is it?

I am also posting on a thread dealing with evolution, and didn't realize this was the "Flood" thread...so this discussion between you and I here is off-topic.


'What "goal" were you thinking of, and whose goal is it?'

I think that you fit it...your wish is to remove God from His rightful position as Creator. Some facets of science -- like molecule-to-man evolution, and abiogenesis (the fringe sciences that cant rely on the scientific method) -- fit the mindset, but not all.

Well, I suppose if you are oblivious to how you and the other Jehovah's Witnesses here come across as very anti-science, there's not much else to say.

I guess I need to put it another way: anything that refuses to acknowledge Jehovah God and His qualities or Word, we refuse to acknowledge as having any veracity. That does not include all science.
By lumping us as "anti-science" when we only find fault with CD and very little else -- that's not honest at all!

That's like calling someone who is anti-Chrysler, "anti-vehicle".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am also posting on a thread dealing with evolution, and didn't realize this was the "Flood" thread...so this discussion between you and I here is off-topic.


'What "goal" were you thinking of, and whose goal is it?'

I think that you fit it...your wish is to remove God from His rightful position as Creator. Some facets of science -- like molecule-to-man evolution, and abiogenesis (the fringe sciences that cant rely on the scientific method) -- fit the mindset, but not all.

If this god had a "rightful place" why is there no sign of him?

I guess I need to put it another way: anything that refuses to acknowledge Jehovah God and His qualities or Word, we refuse to acknowledge as having any veracity. That does not include all science.
By lumping us as "anti-science" when we only find fault with CD and very little else -- that's not honest at all!

That's like calling someone who is anti-Chrysler, "anti-vehicle".

Actually it does include all of science. Science neither acknowledges the existence of a god or denies one. Certain versions of "God" can be refuted and shown not to exist. Yours for example. That of course does not even mean that all Christian versions of "God" have been refuted, only the versions that require a lying God when God supposedly can't lie. All of science tells us that there was no flood.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

If this god had a "rightful place" why is there no sign of him?
All of science tells us that there was no flood.

Since there is the remains of the Genesis Ark-like vessel on top of Mount Ararat that does show waters put it there.
To me, the fact that you are here on this forum is a proof that there is a sign of God.
Just as Jesus taught us at Matthew 24:14 that the good news of God's kingdom of Daniel 2:44 would be proclaimed world wide just as it is being done today is a ' sign of God '.
Do you know of anyone who has Not heard of the Bible ______

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since there is the remains of the Genesis Ark-like vessel on top of Mount Ararat that does show waters put it there.
To me, the fact that you are here on this forum is a proof that there is a sign of God.
Just as Jesus taught us at Matthew 24:14 that the good news of God's kingdom of Daniel 2:44 would be proclaimed world wide just as it is being done today is a ' sign of God '.
Do you know of anyone who has Not heard of the Bible ______

No, you are seriously listening to the rantings of a loon. The Ark was never found an Ararat. The man that made that claim is laughed at even by other Christians. Even by other creationists for that matter.

No Ark, no vessel, has ever been found on Ararat.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Eh... if Eve was without obvious flaws why exactly then did God force Adam from Eden just because he loved her? It sounds as if you're suggesting it's God who is flawed.

Adam threw himself out of Eden for breaking the Do Not eat from God's one-and-only tree.
Out of all the trees in Eden only one tree belonged to God.
By saying Not to touch His tree was as if God put up a No trespassing sign on His tree.
If you had a generous neighbor who had many fruit trees and he said you can have all the fruit you want at any time except for one (1) particular tree, would you think your neighbor was Not generous, or did Not have the right to say what is to be done with his trees ______

 

[URAVIP2ME]

No, you are seriously listening to the rantings of a loon. The Ark was never found an Ararat. The man that made that claim is laughed at even by other Christians. Even by other creationists for that matter.
No Ark, no vessel, has ever been found on Ararat.

There were many old pictures taken of it. I think it is Turkey who does Not allow exploration of Mount Ararat.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Adam threw himself out of Eden for breaking the Do Not eat from God's one-and-only tree.
Out of all the trees in Eden only one tree belonged to God.
By saying Not to touch His tree was as if God put up a No trespassing sign on His tree.
If you had a generous neighbor who had many fruit trees and he said you can have all the fruit you want at any time except for one (1) particular tree, would you think your neighbor was Not generous, or did Not have the right to say what is to be done with his trees ______

Yet God created Eve so naive and gullible that the deceptive talking serpent that God created and allowed into Eden was able to easily convince her to disregard the NO TRESPASSING sign that God put on His tree.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There were many old pictures taken of it. I think it is Turkey who does Not allow exploration of Mount Ararat.

Nope, not a one. I have seen some pictures of an anticline that Ron Wyatt claimed was the Ark. A good laugh was had by all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet God created Eve so naive and gullible that the deceptive talking serpent that God created and allowed into Eden was able to easily convince her to disregard the NO TRESPASSING sign that God put on His tree.

So now you are claiming that God was neither omnipotent nor omniscient. Are you sure that you want to do that?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

What is the connection between the story and real life?

I know where it is in the book. Unless youre correcting me on something?

First off, the arch is the curved section of the foot. An ark is a boat.

The Noah story is a retelling of the Sumerian flood myth which was probably inspired by one of the floods that regularly happened in the flood plains of Sumer. A modern example might be a disaster movie based on a worldwide earthquake that destroys human civilization.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Right. Imagine a bowl only half full of water or even less. The water does not cover all the sides of the bowl. But if you slosh the water around then the water thins out and can indeed cover all the sides of the bowl. In other words the water splashes all around. The point is that yes there is enough water to flood the whole earth including the mountains. It would only require enough turmoil. Stormy weather, seismic activity etc.

It is explanations like the one above which cause creationists to lose all credibility.