How we know that there was no Flood of Noah.

[nPeace]

I am so sorry that you are so immature that you can't handle a bit of coarse language. You too are guilty of poor behavior and would have earned that language if you dealt with him.

Can you act like an adult here? Or are you going to maintain a belief that is no different from a belief in Santa Claus?

One last question, why do you worship a lying God?

First. I'll ignore the outright insults - You so love doing that, and you are still on these forums. Hmmm.
Second. Say what you like.
Third. The proof you have that believing in God is like believing in Santa Claus, and that God is a liar, is no different to the proof you have that a flood did not happen.
So why should that faze me? You have nothing.

 

[nPeace]

But Mt. Ararat is volcanic.

And we know from geological measurements quite a lot about its history of past eruptions. Interestingly, there seems to have been a phreatic (steam-driven) eruption as recently as the c.19th. More here: Mount Ararat - Wikipedia

Thank you very much for the link. I was just asking for it.
At some point in time volcanoes do become dormant, or inactive though. isn't that true. So I still think that argument isn't here or there, in relation to if a vessel landed on it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First. I'll ignore the outright insults - You so love doing that, and you are still on these forums. Hmmm.
Second. Say what you like.
Third. The proof you have that believing in God is like believing in Santa Claus, and that God is a liar, is no different to the proof you have that a flood did not happen.
So why should that faze me? You have nothing.

What insults?

And I did not say that believing in God is like believing in Santa Claus. This is a reading comprehension issue on your part. We are talking about the flood myth, not God here. Believing in the flood myth is no different than believing in Santa Clause. Don't worry, refuting the flood does not refute God. Nor did I claim that God is a liar. You have not been paying attention. You have in effect claimed that God is a liar. Once again, work on that reading comprehension a bit. I think your emotions may be getting in the way.

And breaking the Ninth Commandment is clearly not the act of a proper Christian. But it does give insight into why you seem to believe in a lying God.

Once again, can you debate as an adult? Support your claims with proper sources. Don't abuse emojis. In fact you should pretend that they do not exist. I know that you do not like this fact, but when it comes to this subject you are the ignorant one. Taking offense at that does not help your case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you very much for the link. I was just asking for it.
At some point in time volcanoes do become dormant, or inactive though. isn't that true. So I still think that argument isn't here or there, in relation to if a vessel landed on it.

If you read the Bible it does not even say that the Ark landed on Ararat. It says that the Ark landed on the "Mountains of Ararat" at least in most translations that I have seen. The plains that the mountain lies on are at roughly 4,000 feet and even that is an impossibly high altitude for the flood. The geology of the area is relatively young but it is still millions of years old. A bit of a primer on Ararat and the area around it:

Mount Ararat - Wikipedia

 

[exchemist]

Thank you very much for the link. I was just asking for it.
At some point in time volcanoes do become dormant, or inactive though. isn't that true. So I still think that argument isn't here or there, in relation to if a vessel landed on it.

If you read my comments (and the link) you'll see that, while it may be currently dormant, it cannot be said to be extinct. You will also see in the article something about the dating of a number of lava flows, some around the time the Mesopotamian flood stories would have been written. A human settlement was even buried by an eruption around 2500BC.
If you read the article you will see that the volcano built itself up in stages and that lava flows from it have been dated from 1.5m yrs ago through to 400,000yrs, all well before modern man. So it's safe to say that while it may have changed its shape during these eruptions, it was a substantial volcanic mountain at the time the flood myths developed.

 

[exchemist]

If you read the Bible it does not even say that the Ark landed on Ararat. It says that the Ark landed on the "Mountains of Ararat" at least in most translations that I have seen. The plains that the mountain lies on are at roughly 4,000 feet and even that is an impossibly high altitude for the flood. The geology of the area is relatively young but it is still millions of years old. A bit of a primer on Ararat and the area around it:

Mount Ararat - Wikipedia

Yes, we're just debating all that now. Dating of lava flows etc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, we're just debating all that now. Dating of lava flows etc.

That is also why I linked an article on radiometric dating by a Christian scientist. One can be a scientist and a Christian, as you well know. I thought that he might appreciate that source more than one that merely tells one how objects are dated. It still is mostly science based, it only mentions the fact that once Christians had a problem with a moving Earth and how that was not found to be a threat to their faith. The same should apply to this topic.

 

[nPeace]

What insults?

And I did not say that believing in God is like believing in Santa Claus. This is a reading comprehension issue on your part. We are talking about the flood myth, not God here. Believing in the flood myth is no different than believing in Santa Clause. Don't worry, refuting the flood does not refute God. Nor did I claim that God is a liar. You have not been paying attention. You have in effect claimed that God is a liar. Once again, work on that reading comprehension a bit. I think your emotions may be getting in the way.

And breaking the Ninth Commandment is clearly not the act of a proper Christian. But it does give insight into why you seem to believe in a lying God.

Once again, can you debate as an adult? Support your claims with proper sources. Don't abuse emojis. In fact you should pretend that they do not exist. I know that you do not like this fact, but when it comes to this subject you are the ignorant one. Taking offense at that does not help your case.

Me. Take offense? You don't know me. So that's understandable.
I know your kind well, and I smile broader
Emojies are here to be used. If you don't like others using them, you can probably make a complaint to the board.

I told you before - call it what you like - I'm not watching no video with no filthy mouth man. What don't you understand about that?
If you want me to take part in the debate provide the info in an alternate way.
There is a reason why decent people censor filth when it's delivered to the public.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Me. Take offense? You don't know me. So that's understandable.
I know your kind well, and I smile broader
Emojies are here to be used. If you don't like others using them, you can probably make a complaint to the board.

I told you before - call it what you like - I'm not watching no video with no filthy mouth man. What don't you understand about that?
If you want me to take part in the debate provide the info in an alternate way.
There is a reason why decent people censor filth when it's delivered to the public.

Emojis can be abused and can earn an infraction just as insulting someone can. And I am pretty sure that I know you better than you know me.

That video does not have a "filthy mouth man". I am sure that he brushes his teeth as often as you do. I never said that was the only source, nor did I link that video here. I merely said that it is a very good source. Now you may use your immature aversion to his language as an excuse not to listen to him, but his arguments are still sound. What is nice about that particular series is that he goes into depth into how we know that there was no flood from many different perspectives. If you like videos I will link one by a more polite person if you would like:

 

[nPeace]

If you read my comments (and the link) you'll see that, while it may be currently dormant, it cannot be said to be extinct. You will also see in the article something about the dating of a number of lava flows, some around the time the Mesopotamian flood stories would have been written. A human settlement was even buried by an eruption around 2500BC.
If you read the article you will see that the volcano built itself up in stages and that lava flows from it have been dated from 1.5m yrs ago through to 400,000yrs, all well before modern man. So it's safe to say that while it may have changed its shape during these eruptions, it was a substantial volcanic mountain at the time the flood myths developed.

I know the difference between extinct, and dormant.
Each person can decide for themselves what they believe. I do not believe man can accurately measure events in the past - even though he tries his best.
So whereas some may accept that they got these dates right. I don't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know the difference between extinct, and dormant.
Each person can decide for themselves what they believe. I do not believe man can accurately measure events in the past - even though he tries his best.
So whereas some may accept that they got these dates right. I don't.

Some volcanoes can be "dormant" for millions of years. I don't think that there is a hard line in geology.

Why do you not believe that we can't measure dates in the past? Being ignorant of the science is not a valid reason for a lack of belief. The correct action to take when one does not understand something is to learn, not to automatically deny the science involved. There is no difference between you and a Flat Earther if you simply deny that what you do not believe because it goes against the Bible. Flat Earthers are just like you only taken up a notch.

 

[nPeace]

Emojis can be abused and can earn an infraction just as insulting someone can. And I am pretty sure that I know you better than you know me.

That video does not have a "filthy mouth man". I am sure that he brushes his teeth as often as you do. I never said that was the only source, nor did I link that video here. I merely said that it is a very good source. Now you may use your immature aversion to his language as an excuse not to listen to him, but his arguments are still sound. What is nice about that particular series is that he goes into depth into how we know that there was no flood from many different perspectives. If you like videos I will link one by a more polite person if you would like:

Thanks. That was better.
I don't see how those videos disprove a global flood. Maybe you can help me. The arguments are purely based on assumptions, and attacking what this Kent fellow said - whoever he is.

 

[nPeace]

Some volcanoes can be "dormant" for millions of years. I don't think that there is a hard line in geology.

Why do you not believe that we can't measure dates in the past? Being ignorant of the science is not a valid reason for a lack of belief. The correct action to take when one does not understand something is to learn, not to automatically deny the science involved. There is no difference between you and a Flat Earther if you simply deny that what you do not believe because it goes against the Bible. Flat Earthers are just like you only taken up a notch.

I believe I am going by the science.
Scientific Proof Is A Myth

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks. That was better.
I don't see how those videos disprove a global flood. Maybe you can help me. The arguments are purely based on assumptions, and attacking what this Kent fellow said - whoever he is.

Now you put the burden of proof on you. What "assumptions"? This is a helpful hint for all that oppose scientific arguments, don't use terms like "assumptions" unless you can support your claim that people assumed something.

And Kent Hovind is a rather dishonest creationist. In fact he is not just a liar, as so many creationists are, he is a convicted liar. He refuted the arguments of Hovind. Perhaps you would like to make some of your own and find out why you are wrong. So far flood supporters have only made unsupported claims in this thread.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe I am going by the science.
Scientific Proof Is A Myth

Please, an article that you do not understand will not help you. In the sciences there is no "absolute proof". Ideas are always held to be possibly refutable. What you are guilty of right now is an equivocation fallacy.

Do you accept gravity? Is gravity "proven" in your opinion? In the sciences it is not. By every other standard it is. By those same standards that there was no flood is "proven". Relying on equivocation fallacies is not a proper debating technique.

 

[nPeace]

Now you put the burden of proof on you. What "assumptions"? This is a helpful hint for all that oppose scientific arguments, don't use terms like "assumptions" unless you can support your claim that people assumed something.

And Kent Hovind is a rather dishonest creationist. In fact he is not just a liar, as so many creationists are, he is a convicted liar. He refuted the arguments of Hovind. Perhaps you would like to make some of your own and find out why you are wrong. So far flood supporters have only made unsupported claims in this thread.

First. He assumes that Kent's theory is gospel, so that's the way it happened according to the Bible. The Bible never said how God drained the water, what happened to the carcasses, where anything went. If you know where it says that in the Bible, then show me.

God promises to destroy the world of mankind, and he says, their carcasses will be food for the birds, etc. God caused a whole set of quail to fly in one area, and fall to the earth as food. God caused dry bones to get up, and walk - and flesh came upon them. I could mention all the other things God did, and will do that will baffle the mind.

He is God, not man. So the assume that this happened this, way, and that happen that way, is ludicrous imo.

 

[exchemist]

I know the difference between extinct, and dormant.
Each person can decide for themselves what they believe. I do not believe man can accurately measure events in the past - even though he tries his best.
So whereas some may accept that they got these dates right. I don't.

Well, that's your privilege of course. You'd see it differently if you had had a science education. You'd also see it differently, I think, if you had a more mainstream religious background, as I do.

But as you reject the science, there is not much more to discuss - unless you care to debate the short and inglorious history of biblical literalism.

P.S. But until I looked it up, prompted by you, I never knew Mt Ararat was a volcano. Which just provides further evidence of my theory that I learn most in forum discussions from those people who do NOT know their science!

 

[Valjean]

You mean I came to this thread looking for you to present the so called proof you claim you have that the flood could not have happen, and you are now telling me that the only way I can see that proof, is by looking at videos from a filthy mouth man?

Can you kindly provide me with a link to this information - a credible source please. I don't want to watch no video with no man cussing. Thanks.

The Talk.Origins Archive: Flood Geology FAQs
Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
Twenty-One Reasons Noah’s Worldwide Flood Never Happened - CSI
Better?

 

[Subduction Zone]

First. He assumes that Kent's theory is gospel, so that's the way it happened according to the Bible. The Bible never said how God drained the water, what happened to the carcasses, where anything went. If you know where it says that in the Bible, then show me.

God promises to destroy the world of mankind, and he says, their carcasses will be food for the birds, etc. God caused a whole set of quail to fly in one area, and fall to the earth as food. God caused dry bones to get up, and walk - and flesh came upon them. I could mention all the other things God did, and will do that will baffle the mind.

He is God, not man. So the assume that this happened this, way, and that happen that way, is ludicrous imo.

No, he makes no such assumption about Kent's nonsense. He refutes Kent's nonsense. Do you even know what "assume" means?

 

[nPeace]

Please, an article that you do not understand will not help you. In the sciences there is no "absolute proof". Ideas are always held to be possibly refutable. What you are guilty of right now is an equivocation fallacy.

Do you accept gravity? Is gravity "proven" in your opinion? In the sciences it is not. By every other standard it is. By those same standards that there was no flood is "proven". Relying on equivocation fallacies is not a proper debating technique.

I accept that many accepted theories can change... at any given moment, and be replaced. There are some things that may not change immediately - but note I did not specify anything. Nor will I attempt to.