How we know that there was no Flood of Noah.

[Subduction Zone]

No, you didn't put it in the proper perspective.
The event - the flood - is mentioned by the eyewitnesses and passed on in letter form - the texts written by Moses - the primary source.

So you do not know what an eye witness is. And you are putting another burden of proof upon yourself. Since there was no Exodus as portrayed in the Bible scholars are fairly sure that Moses is mythical too.

Documents centuries later, and other physical evidence seen by others, is the secondary source, which verifies the primary source.
That's the evidence - whether weak or strong.

The physical evidence all says that there was no flood. The"documents " are very weak evidence.

It's up to critics now to disprove the evidence. That's you.

The only evidence you have is the Bible. That has been disproved.

 

[gnostic]

The event - the flood - is mentioned by the eyewitnesses and passed on in letter form - the texts written by Moses - the primary source.

You are simply making apologetic excuses on nonexistent letters.

In the Bronze Age Canaan and in the Iron Age kingdoms of Judah and Israel, there are no existence of any such letters being passed down from Noah to Moses.

And you have not been paying much attention of what I have written so far.

There are no evidences of any text being written by anyone in the Bronze Age (3100 - 1000 BCE) on the books of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The earliest surviving text come scroll fragments found in a cave at Ketef Hinnom, circa 600 BCE.

No evidences that Moses ever existing as a real historical person, so how could he possibly written anything.

There are big differences between writings existing in the period they were written, and something completely different if someone claiming writings existing but actually don’t exist.

 

[nPeace]

You are simply making apologetic excuses on nonexistent letters.

In the Bronze Age Canaan and in the Iron Age kingdoms of Judah and Israel, there are no existence of any such letters being passed down from Noah to Moses.

And you have not been paying much attention of what I have written so far.

There are no evidences of any text being written by anyone in the Bronze Age (3100 - 1000 BCE) on the books of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The earliest surviving text come scroll fragments found in a cave at Ketef Hinnom, circa 600 BCE.

No evidences that Moses ever existing as a real historical person, so how could he possibly written anything.

I have been paying attention to what you are saying - note, saying.
A credible link would be helpful.

I came on these forums and for the most part I see people posting things without even backing up what they say with any evidence.

I post information, and provide links to validate what I am saying, and I get insulted, and accused of only knowing how to copy and paste,

You keep saying there is no evidence. Keep in mind you also gave me a limited definition of evidence.

Isn't the Bible considered evidence? Are archaeological findings void and null because they are not digging up bones for evolutionary support - in this case?

Biblical archaeology involves the recovery and scientific investigation of the material remains of past cultures that can illuminate the periods and descriptions in the Bible, be they from the Old Testament (Tanakh) or from the New Testament, as well as the history and cosmogony of the Judeo-Christian religions.

There is much evidence in archaeological findings that support the writings, even in the book of Genesis. I'll put together that information soon.

We can start with the Babylonian clay tablet, if you like.

 

[nPeace]

Where? I must have missed that.

That's obvious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have been paying attention to what you are saying - note, saying.
A credible link would be helpful.

I came on these forums and for the most part I see people posting things without even backing up what they say with any evidence.

I post information, and provide links to validate what I am saying, and I get insulted, and accused of only knowing how to copy and paste,

Perhaps because that is what you did. Don't roll your eyes when you are called out, you will never learn that way.

You keep saying there is no evidence. Keep in mind you also gave me a limited definition of evidence.

Perhaps he should have said reliable evidence. I myself like to use scientific evidence. There is no scientific evidence at all for the flood and that is rather easy to show.

Isn't the Bible considered evidence? Are archaeological findings void and null because they are not digging up bones for evolutionary support - in this case?

The Bible is what is being tested, so no, it can't be evidence for its own defense. That is circular reasoning. Archaeological findings do not support the flood so why even bring them up?

Biblical archaeology involves the recovery and scientific investigation of the material remains of past cultures that can illuminate the periods and descriptions in the Bible, be they from the Old Testament (Tanakh) or from the New Testament, as well as the history and cosmogony of the Judeo-Christian religions.

There is much evidence in archaeological findings that support the writings, even in the book of Genesis. I'll put together that information soon.

We can start with the Babylonian clay tablet, if you like.

This?

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-mathematical-mystery-ancient-babylonian-clay.html

That is all that shows up when I Google search that phrase. How does that support the Bible story at all?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's obvious.

It probably does not exist. All I can remember is nonsense not tied to the concept at all.

You have quoted sources that indicate that you understand neither evidence nor the scientific method. It would not take that long to learn these very basic concepts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@nPeace , let's go over concepts one at a time. That is the best way to understand. And to demonstrate here is what scientific evidence is:

It is merely evidence that supports or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis.

So to have scientific evidence for the flood one would at the very least need some hypothesis or testable idea of the flood. In other words what reasonable test could show that a flood never happened? If you don't have a test that can refute your idea then you do not have a scientific hypothesis and by definition do not have any scientific evidence for that idea.

 

[nPeace]

@nPeace , let's go over concepts one at a time. That is the best way to understand. And to demonstrate here is what scientific evidence is:

It is merely evidence that supports or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis.

So to have scientific evidence for the flood one would at the very least need some hypothesis or testable idea of the flood. In other words what reasonable test could show that a flood never happened? If you don't have a test that can refute your idea then you do not have a scientific hypothesis and by definition do not have any scientific evidence for that idea.

Give me a day or two. Today isn't a good day for me to put together something, but I'll respond to this in a while. I'll also get back to you on the clay tablet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Give me a day or two. Today isn't a good day for me to put together something, but I'll respond to this in a while. I'll also get back to you on the clay tablet.

That is fine. Meanwhile here is link to an article on scientific evidence:


Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

 

[Audie]

That is fine. Meanwhile here is link to an article on scientific evidence:


Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

We've seen your thing about "evidence", how's
about a new string on your fiddle there?

 

[Subduction Zone]

We've seen your thing about "evidence", how's
about a new string on your fiddle there?

As soon as some of these people learn.

 

[gnostic]

Isn't the Bible considered evidence? Are archaeological findings void and null because they are not digging up bones for evolutionary support - in this case?

The bible itself is only a literary evidence, that at some points in time different people wrote and edit certain books.

But if you talking about certain events taking places in the bible, as if they were historical events, then you must go outside the bible to find the evidences.

And in this case, the bible isn’t a reliable source.

Take for instance, the flood, you state that letters have been passed down from Noah’s time to Moses. All I am getting your say so of such sources existing.

Unless you can present such letters, you are just making excuses or you are making it up. Neither ones are credible unless you do have such Bronze Age correspondents.

There are no Hebrew writings in the Bronze Age (that if Moses even existed).

The oldest evidences of Hebrew writings are the Zayit Stone and the Gezer Calendar. The inscriptions on these were both written in 10th century BCE, during early Iron Age, not Bronze Age. And neither inscriptions contain anything relating to the bible.

The oldest existence of writings concerning the bible, as I have already stated before (in my other replies), is the scrolls (known as the “Silver Scrolls”) found in cave/tomb, Ketef Hinnom, near Jerusalem. Both the tomb and artefacts found, including that fragments of the scrolls, have been dated around 600 BCE, which mean before the Fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple.

That no earlier texts from the bible than the Silver Scrolls, in centuries before Ketef Hinnom, make it very hard to say there are evidences to Moses or to Noah, when there are no literary evidences contemporary to Moses and Noah.

It is very late now, so I don’t have time to find the relevant links for you, but you can easily looked up yourself, by typing any of the following:

• Ketef Hinnom
• Silver Scrolls
• Zayit Stone
• Gezer Calendar

 

[Subduction Zone]

But just for Audie. One huge problem that flood advocates cannot explain are index fossils:

Geologic Time: Index Fossils

List of index fossils - Wikipedia

A good index fossil is widespread, distinctive, and is found in a limited number of strata.

Worse yet are microscopic index fossils. Their evolution can be observed in strata demonstrating that they were deposited slowly and steadily over ages, not in one year. Here is just one article on how changes in them are observed:

Calcareous nannoplankton evolution and diversity through time

There is no way that they could be deposited, much less evolve in one short year. Nor is there any sorting mechanism that can sort such fine fossils. A flood would have one mixed up layer, not layer after layer where the evolution of a species can be observed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another problem for believers in a worldwide flood are geological formations that tell us that a flood could not happen. This is one of my favorite pictures that tells us this tale:

Link to a larger image:

Goosenecks State Park - Wikipedia

Click on that image and it will blow up again.

This is an embedded meander. Meanders form in flood plains from relatively slow moving streams. They do not form in floods. This could not have formed during the flood, it had to form after the flood if it occurred. So we begin with a post flood landform at best. Except at that time it would be flat. No deep valley. These forms when either the body of the water the meander flows into drops (Hey! Like after the flood!) or if the land is uplifted. But here we get into trouble. It was after the flood. No massive water flows. Worse yet if there was the meander would simply be flooded and new straighter channels would be cut as we see on the southern Mississippi today. The only way to dig this would be with slow steady flow. Worse yet the steep banks, some of them cliffs, tell us that the rock was very well cemented. This was not easily eroded strata. The rate of erosion could not be much different than it is today.

 

[InChrist]

I never took it that way, and I beg to differ. He did not. He called the mustard seed the smallest seed, yet there are many smaller than it. But as a poetic statement it works fine. I am sure that there are others as well. He may have been merely using an adage.

Yes, there are seeds smaller than the mustard seed, but from what I understand the black mustard seed would have been the smallest seeds the farmers of that day were familiar with, so Jesus was simply using something they understood. I think there are times that the Bible uses metaphorical language, but at other times the literal interpretation is obvious by the language, details given, and context. The account of the flood in the scriptures includes specific details not necessary if it were meant to be poetic or metaphorical, Jesus and Peter refer to the flood event as historical fact, and the Hebrew and Greek words uses for this flood are unique and used only in reference to that event.

Tell me, how do you deal with all of the evidence that tells us that life evolved? That there was no flood?

Just to clarify, maybe you could tell what you mean when you say...life evolved.

Concerning the flood, I deal with the subject first by acknowledging that I trust God, not only His power, but also the reliability of His word. I realize that means nothing to you, an atheist, but God is real in my life and He always provides adequate answers when I ask or find something challenging. So I find the scriptures are reasonable. Secondly, while there may be evidence that is claimed to disprove the flood occurred, I believe in many respects that is a matter of how such evidence is interpreted and interpretation is influenced by one's foundational worldview, whether...atheist or theist, evolutionist or creationist. Evidence such as fossil graveyards found on every continent, oceanic fossils found upon mountain tops around the world, large amounts of coal deposits that would require the rapid covering of vast quantities of vegetation, and various cultures in all parts of the world which have some form of flood legend are indicative of a global flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, there are seeds smaller than the mustard seed, but from what I understand the black mustard seed would have been the smallest seeds the farmers of that day were familiar with, so Jesus was simply using something they understand. I think there are times that the Bible uses metaphorical language, but at other times the literal interpretation is obvious by the language, details given, and context. The account of the flood in the scriptures includes specific details not necessary if it were meant to be poetic or metaphorical, Jesus and Peter refer to the flood event as historical fact, and the Hebrew and Greek words uses for this flood are unique and used only in reference to that event.


Just to clarify, maybe you could tell what you mean when you say...life evolved.

Concerning the flood, I deal with the subject first by acknowledging that I trust God, not only His power, but also the reliability of His word. I realize that means nothing to you, an atheist, but God is real in my life and He always provides adequate answers when I ask or find something challenging. So I find the scriptures are reasonable. Secondly, while there may be evidence that is claimed to disprove the flood occurred, I believe in many respects that is a matter of how such evidence is interpreted and interpretation is influenced by one's foundational worldview, whether...atheist or theist, evolutionist or creationist. Evidence such as fossil graveyards found on every continent, oceanic fossils found upon mountain tops around the world, large amounts of coal deposits that would require the rapid covering of vast quantities of vegetation, and various cultures in all parts of the world which have some form of flood legend are indicative of a global flood.

Life as we know it is the product of evolution. There are mountains of scientific evidence that support the theory. There is no scientific evidence for the creation myth.

And as far as the flood goes there are no interpretations that support the flood that have not been refuted. I have posted several lines of evidence that negate the flood. The flood as described in the Bible would have left one relatively thin layer of life in the sediments at best. But go ahead, try to justify the flood myth. I know from experience that you will fail. And please, try to use legitimate sources when you do.

 

[InChrist]

So you do not know what an eye witness is. And you are putting another burden of proof upon yourself. Since there was no Exodus as portrayed in the Bible scholars are fairly sure that Moses is mythical too.



The physical evidence all says that there was no flood. The"documents " are very weak evidence.



The only evidence you have is the Bible. That has been disproved.

You probably should just start another thread about debunking the Bible since that appears to be your primary goal.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You probably should just start another thread about debunking the Bible since that appears to be your primary goal.

That is not my intention. There are parts of the Bible that were never meant to be read literally. The entire book of Genesis is one of them.

 

[InChrist]

Life as we know it is the product of evolution.

Can you explain to me how you think this product of life began?

 

[InChrist]

That is not my intention. There are parts of the Bible that were never meant to be read literally. The entire book of Genesis is one of them.

How do know this? You, as an atheist, I assume don't accept the existence of God or a Creator, so how are you so confident in knowing that parts of the Bible are not meant to be read literally?