• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How we know that there was no Flood of Noah.

gnostic

The Lost One
ev·i·dence
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly - i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation.
Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out.

Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer that a fact exists.

Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences.

When we make an inference, we draw a conclusion based on the evidence that we have available.

inferred evidence
to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence.

Are you joking, nPeace?

First you give me some definitions on evidence, and then you talk of primary sources as such, and then you write this at the end:

The event of a global flood is referred to by later historical figures, and there is evidence to indicate that the event is true - did happen.
Matthew 24:38 Jesus Christ
Most scholars believe it was composed between AD 80 and 90, with a range of possibility between AD 70 to 110 (a pre-70 date remains a minority view)
2 Peter 2:5 Simon Peter
Josephus - The Antiquities of the Jews

Sorry, but neither the gospel of Matthew, nor Josephus in Antiquities, provide 1st-hand eyewitness accounts to the Flood, so as a literary evidences, not very reliable.

Second, although according to traditions, Moses have been attributed to being the author to the Genesis, but there are no evidences that ancient Hebrew writing existing in the late Bronze Age, which Moses supposedly lived (late 2nd millennium BCE).

But the fact, there are no literary texts in the Bronze Age, regarding to Flood or to Moses, it is highly unlikely that Moses wrote anything in Bronze Age, let alone existing to write the Genesis and Exodus.

The oldest writing of the Old Testament is a late 7th or early 6th century BCE fragments from scrolls found in Ketef Hinnom cave, near Jerusalem, that served as a tomb.

The scrolls are known today as the “Silver Scrolls” because the materials used is silver. It contained passage in Numbers 6, regarding to the Priestly Blessing.

There are nothing older than these scrolls.

But the oldest Hebrew writings, are the Gezer Calendar and Zayit Stone, written in 10th century BCE in Paleo-Hebrew (Old or ancient Hebrew). Neither inscriptions contain anything from the Old Testament.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Since Mt. Everest did Not exist before the Flood, how can Mt. Everest have a bearing.
The Flood waters pushed the land masses around thus creating 'peaks and valleys' that did Not exist before the Flood.
What are you talking about? Mt. Everest is millions of years old.

You do realize that this thread is supposed to be based upon real science, don't you?

EDIT: The collision that caused Mt Everest to grow began about thirty to fifty million years ago. I may have underestimated the age of the mountain:

Geology of Mount Everest
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
Thank you. I know you mean well, but I don't need a history lesson. Sidon was made after the flood. Dating methods used for archaeology are especially tricky.
Saying the dating is tricky is not valid argument.

If you are going to argue against the results that Sidon exist since 4000 BCE, then you will need to -

either (A) provide evidences in how archaeologists got the date wrong,

(B) or cite valid archaeological sources to refute 6000 years old Sidon.​

If you have sources or evidences that Sidon is less than 4000 years old, then you need to provide one or the other (or even both).
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I don't see it that they ..."decide what the answer is before you do research", any more than those with an Darwinian mindset do. Everyone starts with their presuppositions, that doesn't necessarily mean those who accept creation or even those who accept Darwinian evolution will ignore where the evidence leads. As a matter of fact, quite a few evolutionists have followed the evidence and come to the conclusion that there is a Creator or at least some kind of Intelligent Design.


A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
https://dissentfromdarwin.org/about/
No! You've got it bas-ackwards!

Science follows the evidence, and lets the chips fall where they may. In fact, when science proposes a possible explanation, it then tries to disprove the theorum. That's part of the scientific method.
Science begins with observed facts, then tries to draw conclusions from them, then tries to disprove the conclusions.

It's religion that begins with a conclusion, cherry-picks "facts" -- largely folklore -- to support it, and then discourages all criticism or attempts to investigate the conclusion.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Why do the ignorant laugh at reality that they do not want to face?
I'd cut nPeace some slack. He seems sincere, he seems honestly interested in what we're saying, his responses are polite and well considered. His persistence here despite considerable criticism is impressive.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
No! You've got it bas-ackwards!

Science follows the evidence, and lets the chips fall where they may. In fact, when science proposes a possible explanation, it then tries to disprove the theorum. That's part of the scientific method.
Science begins with observed facts, then tries to draw conclusions from them, then tries to disprove the conclusions.

It's religion that begins with a conclusion, cherry-picks "facts" -- largely folklore -- to support it, and then discourages all criticism or attempts to investigate the conclusion.
Well, I know that is the model, but everyone does have their presuppositions. For instance, suppose some observable evidence or facts point to a designer or Creator, but the particular scientist has already ruled out the possibility of such an entity. How then could this scientist follow evidence to that conclusion?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I'd cut nPeace some slack. He seems sincere, he seems honestly interested in what we're saying, his responses are polite and well considered. His persistence here despite considerable criticism is impressive.
Perhaps persistent. I would not call them polite, or even well considered that often. Abuse of smileys, creationist sources etc.. But if he can be polite, I can be polite too.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Well, I know that is the model, but everyone does have their presuppositions. For instance, suppose some observable evidence or facts point to a designer or Creator, but the particular scientist has already ruled out the possibility of such an entity. How then could this scientist follow evidence to that conclusion?

Why do you think that a scientist would do that? And studies are never limited to one scientist. If one scientist found such evidence you can bet that others would find it too.

The problem for literalists is that no one has ever found such evidence. If anything the only ones ever caught being dishonest have been the creationists.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
Why do you think that a scientist would do that? And studies are never limited to one scientist. If one scientist found such evidence you can bet that others would find it too.

The problem for literalists is that no one has ever found such evidence. If anything the only ones ever caught being dishonest have been the creationists.
I think a scientists could do that because they are humans and humans tend to do that, even those who try to be unbias, whether evolutionists or creations, or whoever. Besides, I believe the Bible which says that the human mind is alienated and opposed to God. Anyway, I did watch that video you posted. I am still thinking about it and doing further research. I do think it is lame that they used deceptive methods to get people to sign or had scientists sign it whose field/specialty was park ranger or computer engineering and unrelated to biology, chemistry, etc.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It's really a good thing I didn't get that drink after all, rather than spill it, I might have choked. Gee. That would have been awful... Well maybe not for some.

I saw nothing but some guy trying to inject his thoughts and ideas into the creation account... which I don't find to be different to what many are doing here.

So what was your point for providing the video?
He brings up facts that cast doubt on the physical possibility of the biblical narrative.
If I were to claim there was a family living next door to me, in a matchbox, with a pet elephant, I expect you'd come back with some well reasoned facts about known sizes of people and elephants vs matchboxes that would cast doubt on the possibility of my assertion being correct. This is what we're doing in this thread, is it not?

Thank you. I know you mean well, but I don't need a history lesson. Sidon was made after the flood. Dating methods used for archaeology are especially tricky.
If done correctly, dating methods are reliable -- and they're consilient. The dates come from multiple sources.

The cities Gnostic cites aren't the only ones that apparently lived through the flood, all unawares, and there are also plants, corals, &al that evidently missed it, as well as undisturbed, pre-flood strata and fossils.
Lots of evidence militates against the flood story.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I think a scientists could do that because they are humans and humans tend to do that, even those who try to be unbias, whether evolutionists or creations, or whoever. Besides, I believe the Bible which says that the human mind is alienated and opposed to God. Anyway, I did watch that video you posted. I am still thinking about it and doing further research. I do think it is lame that they used deceptive methods to get people to sign or had scientists sign it whose field/specialty was park ranger or computer engineering and unrelated to biology, chemistry, etc.


Some might. But again, others won't. Many scientists are Christians. One does not have to believe all of the myths of the Bible to be a Christian.

And your Bible has defensive verses in it. You should give them no more credence than you give similar verses in the Koran. It makes no sense to be opposed to a God, if one exists.

But I am glad that you watched that video. Also very few scientists were taken in. There are millions of scientists around the world and only about a thousand signed that at the most. That is less than a tenth of a percent.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
No logical fallacies committed by me. You simply do not understand the concept.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

Merely claiming you committed no logical fallacies doesn't make it true.
I provided logical argumentation and definitions to demonstrate how you committed numerous logical fallacies, points which you have not even attempted to refute for the most part.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
Some might. But again, others won't. Many scientists are Christians. One does not have to believe all of the myths of the Bible to be a Christian.

And your Bible has defensive verses in it. You should give them no more credence than you give similar verses in the Koran. It makes no sense to be opposed to a God, if one exists.

But I am glad that you watched that video. Also very few scientists were taken in. There are millions of scientists around the world and only about a thousand signed that at the most. That is less than a tenth of a percent.
Yeah, well I'm not sure why anyone would bother considering themselves a Christian if they don't acknowledge God as Creator or think He is so limited that He is incapable of accomplishing the things attributed to Him in the scriptures.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Well, I know that is the model, but everyone does have their presuppositions. For instance, suppose some observable evidence or facts point to a designer or Creator, but the particular scientist has already ruled out the possibility of such an entity. How then could this scientist follow evidence to that conclusion?
Good point, but this is why science tests its hypotheses and invites criticism.

What would these facts pointing to a creator be? The history of science is one long progression of discoveries of natural explanations for phenomena previously ascribed to divine magic.

The "evidence" isn't ruled out. It's outside the purview of science. Science cannot examine or test the supernatural.
 
Last edited:

Rise

Well-Known Member
Let me pose an admittedly extreme hypothetical...

Person A is a high school dropout.
Person B has advanced degrees in cosmology.

Person A and Person B engage in a debate about the Universe.

Person A makes a fifteen minute statement containing many incorrect assumptions and assertions.
Person B responds by taking some of A's claims and showing they are wrong.

Person A spends his next fifteen minute time slot make more incorrect assertions.
Person B responds: It is clear, from your own statements, that you don't have the knowledge or training to discuss the subject. You are ignorant of even basic facts.

Is person B wrong for accurately pointing out the obvious?

I'm not seeing the relevance of your analogy.

Let's back up your hypothetical bus and talk about this part where person B is able to show why person A is wrong. I'd like to see someone attempt to do that first.

The OP promised he would show us why what we believe about the flood is wrong if we first told him what we believed - but so far he hasn't been able to do that.

He attempted to provide only a single point, to claim that the ice caps prove the flood couldn't have happened, yet when challenged to back up with data why his claim is true he refused and ran away from the debate.

When someone else in this thread also tried to make the same claim, they also ran away when challenged to provide what the logical and factual basis was for their claim.

You don't get to claim someone is wrong if you were unable, at even a most basic level, to substantiate why they are wrong with logical argumentation and facts. That's a logical fallacy, and it's not how you arrive at the truth.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

Merely claiming you committed no logical fallacies doesn't make it true.
I provided logical argumentation and definitions to demonstrate how you committed numerous logical fallacies, points which you have not even attempted to refute for the most part.
No, I went over why you failed. You simply either did not understand your failure or could not bring yourself to own up to them.

And you need to be able to argue and think logically to provide "logical argumentation". You have not done that yet.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Yeah, well I'm not sure why anyone would bother considering themselves a Christian if they don't acknowledge God as Creator or think He is so limited that He is incapable of accomplishing the things attributed to Him in the scriptures.


Why can't they believe that God created the universe so that it could run itself? It appears that you are trying to put limits on your version of God. Worse yet since all of the evidence tells us that life as we know it is the product of evolution, and that there was no flood, you are in effect saying that God lied.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I'm not seeing the relevance of your analogy.

Let's back up your hypothetical bus and talk about this part where person B is able to show why person A is wrong. I'd like to see someone attempt to do that first.

The OP promised he would show us why what we believe about the flood is wrong if we first told him what we believed - but so far he hasn't been able to do that.

He attempted to provide only a single point, to claim that the ice caps prove the flood couldn't have happened, yet when challenged to back up with data why his claim is true he refused and ran away from the debate.

When someone else in this thread also tried to make the same claim, they also ran away when challenged to provide what the logical and factual basis was for their claim.

You don't get to claim someone is wrong if you were unable, at even a most basic level, to substantiate why they are wrong with logical argumentation and facts. That's a logical fallacy, and it's not how you arrive at the truth.


That is not true and you know it. You keep forgetting how your rude behavior was a factor here. Aren't Christians supposed to be honest? Or at the very least not bear false witness against others?
 
Top