How we know that there was no Flood of Noah.

[URAVIP2ME]

The problem is that the lack of expected physical evidence of the flood negates your so called "rational reasons". Once shown to be wrong adhering to a refuted idea is irrational.

To me it is physical evidence that real ancient physical peoples migrated out of ancient Babylon.
Mankind can trace its ' family tree ', so to speak, back to ancient Babylon.
So, as those ancient people migrated throughout the Earth they took with them their Flood stories or legends.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fossils are deposited? The animals fully fossilized skeleton is deposited THEN covered up?

No I know that in the first layer/s we are aware of reveals a "burst" of marine life (kind of out of nowhere) .. I imagine because they were simply lower than the land animals in the flood but we also find deposits of marine fossils in areas that are completely dry now - as if the ocean covered mountains and went down after depositing the animals.

Wow! You continue to demonstrate utter ignorance. Most fossils are not "skeletons" and yes, even fish fossils are "deposited".

If you are not willing to learn there really is not much point in continuing. You really should try to learn why and how we know that the Earth is billions of years old. It was not an invented idea for the theory of evolution.

When you do not understand the proper action to take is to to try to learn. Not to try to support an old refuted myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope hon I've done that way too much to be dismissed for no real reason more than "he said she said" I'm okay with "losing" if that's what you call it - I'm not here to win anything. But talk.

Then all it takes is a handwave to refute any of your claims. It looks like I will have to keep this handy in our discussion:

 

[CLee421]

Wow! You continue to demonstrate utter ignorance. Most fossils are not "skeletons" and yes, even fish fossils are "deposited".

If you are not willing to learn there really is not much point in continuing. You really should try to learn why and how we know that the Earth is billions of years old. It was not an invented idea for the theory of evolution.

When you do not understand the proper action to take is to to try to learn. Not to try to support an old refuted myth.

"Most" but plenty are and I was trying to discuss those specifically since they exist.

There are many who disagree with you and for good reason. Whether you approve or not.

I love learning. Hasn't happened here.

Bye

 

[Audie]

How is it that someone who denies the existence of a Creator God and claims that the very scriptures which contain the commandments are nothing more than fables, can so readily cite one of those commandments as if in a meaningful way? Oh the irony!

The "commandments" mostly are statements of folk wisdom
common to all cultures. Dont steal, dont lie, dont murder.
Those do not require arcane knoweldge to understand, whether
you are Chinese or a Brazilian Indian.

How, "irony" wise, do you feel qualified to comment on earth
history and biology, about which thou knowest not nor naught,
neither one?

 

[Subduction Zone]

To me it is physical evidence that real ancient physical peoples migrated out of ancient Babylon.
Mankind can trace its ' family tree ', so to speak, back to ancient Babylon.
So, as those ancient people migrated throughout the Earth they took with them their Flood stories or legends.

Sorry, that is not "physical evidence". Physical evidence is something that one can touch, feel, see etc.. It is not stories.

 

[Valjean]

View attachment 22538 View attachment 22539 View attachment 22540
Evidence of a great flood is all around us. Whether it is "the" flood is debatable but still the evidence is right before your eyes----

Any first year geology student would recognize these photos as evidence against a flood origin.

The Bible says that In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

You make this claim... The water bursting from the earht would have killed Noah and family.

Could you say how you can go about testing your hypothesis?

Knowledge of ordinary, high-school science militates against this flood hypothesis. There is just no conceivable way it could have happened without dismissing the most basic facts of mathematics and physics. The tale is simply inconsistent with established mechanics, thermodynamics, math, &c.

The Bible says On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark. They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the Lord shut him in.

You keep citing this Bible -- as if it were an authoritative report. Why do you expect us to accept this book? Would you accept citations from the Vedas, the Guru Granth Sahib or Popol Vuh?
If you're going to cite a source, you first have to establish its reliability. You have not done that.

You make this claim...
That this is impossible - couldn't happen - didn't happen, because... of what the long hair man said, and a few other videos.

Could you say how you can go about testing these hypotheses?

How do we know the temperature of the transition zone? How we can calculate the volume needed to cover the Earth? How we calculate the calories of latent heat?
This is all established technology; established math, established science. Our whole modern world depends on it. Your objections make no sense.
If I dropped an egg into boiling water for ten minutes, would you not be mystified if I adamantly claimed it would soon hatch?

Do you know what happens if Genesis is dismissed as a fable? To start with you get rid of...In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (fits right in with a atheism). Besides discounting the flood, there is no literal garden, no tree or forbidden fruit, no Adam and Eve, no Deceiver, no Fall into sin, no covenant with Abraham, no twelve tribes of Israel.

Exactly! Why would you find this remarkable?
The Bible is not the source of all knowledge. You seem to start with an assumption that it's axiomatic, and are surprised when others don't share your preconceptions.

Do you know what happens if the Vedas are dismissed as fable? To start with, no creation of the world, no Brahma, Vishnu or Shiva. No Puranas, no Brahmayana, no Avatars or humanity to be enlightened.
See?

I suppose you must also conclude that all the Gospels and epistles are fables, too, because if Genesis is a myth there is no sin, so why did Jesus have to come as the Savior?

This doesn't even make sense.
Again, you're taking unsupported facts as givens, eg: why do you assume there was a Jesus, or that He came to Earth as a savior?

I'm sure that science has never been able to show evidence of the resurrection, either. Basically, it sounds like you are saying that the entire Bible is a lie and you want Christians to agree with you based on the naturalistic evidence that is available.

No, it's more the other way around. It's the Christians who are proselytizing and want us to accept their stories. You're mistaking our skepticism about your unsupported claims for preaching.

I don't think that you would be so bold as to say that you have all the evidence or all knowledge concerning the history of the earth or the beginning of life, or even whether or not there is a supernatural element to this universe.

Certainly not, but what evidence we have is actual evidence, and not folklore.
If there is a supernatural element to the Universe it has, thus far, left no evidence of its existence.

I am at least open to possibility that Genesis is accurate and God does not lie because ALL the evidence has yet to be discovered or understood.

So are we -- as soon as we find any evidence for any of this.

If there is a Being who created everything and has revealed some information to humanity about it, I just have to conclude that this Creator knows more than I do on the subject.

"If there is a being..." But your certainty doesn't support an "if." You're assuming this Creator as axiomatic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Most" but plenty are and I was trying to discuss those specifically since they exist.

There are many who disagree with you and for good reason. Whether you approve or not.

I love learning. Hasn't happened here.

Bye

You have not been able to find one person that disagrees with me for "good reason". Nor have you been able to support any of your claims. And you can't learn if you refuse to do so. You are blaming others for your own shortcomings. Why did you not at least take my up on my offer to discuss the scientific method with you? You have only demonstrated fear and ignorance here. You won't be missed.

 

[CLee421]

You have not been able to find one person that disagrees with me for "good reason". Nor have you been able to support any of your claims. And you can't learn if you refuse to do so. You are blaming others for your own shortcomings. Why did you not at least take my up on my offer to discuss the scientific method with you? You have only demonstrated fear and ignorance here. You won't be missed.

I said go for it regarding the method - you didn't.

People on this thread alone are clearly not what I'm referring to. It's a wide world. But their reasons won't be deemed "good" by you but they don't need your approval.

Fear? Hehe. Nah.

Keep on keeping your thread policed, friend.

 

[Audie]

It depends upon the type of fossils. Most fossils are deposited and buried over the period of years, or more. You are only considering land based fossils when most of the fossil record are marine fossils. Coral reefs grow and leave a record that is eventually fossilized. Chalk beds cannot be formed rapidly. And though you may not realize it chalk is ALL fossils. One needs a microscope to see that.

Land based fossils tend to be buried relatively rapidly, that is true, but they are the exception and not the rule

I found a lot of miocene mammal fossils in Nebraska badlands. Usually a
scrap of bone, a tooth, a single bone. Same as what you will see in a
pasture, a skeleton does not stay intact for long. Complete fossil
skeletons are rare.

Some fossils I found showed they'd been chewed by rodents, or were
cracked and "checkered" from lying in the open before burial.

These creoswho pretend they know all about fossil formation-rapid, flood,
all that- are just ignorant liars.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said go for it regarding the method - you didn't.

People on this thread alone are clearly not what I'm referring to. It's a wide world. But their reasons won't be deemed "good" by you but they don't need your approval.

Fear? Hehe. Nah.

Keep on keeping your thread policed, friend.

I don't just lecture, and yes, you have shown fear. A person that is not afraid will properly support their claims.

But let's discuss the scientific method a bit. First here is an illustration that lays out a simplified view of it:

 

[Subduction Zone]

I found a lot of miocene mammal fossils in Nebraska badlands. Usually a
scrap of bone, a tooth, a single bone. Same as what you will see in a
pasture, a skeleton does not stay intact for long. Complete fossil
skeletons are rare.

Some fossils I found showed they'd been chewed by rodents, or were
cracked and "checkered" from lying in the open before burial.

These creoswho pretend they know all about fossil formation-rapid, flood,
all that- are just ignorant liars.

I know that. They seem to think that the exception, complete skeletons, are the rule. Much of mammal evolution is based upon teeth only because teeth are the hardest material in a body and most likely to be preserved. A lot can be learned by a proper analysis of teeth.

 

[nPeace]

Any first year geology student would recognize these photos as evidence against a flood origin.
Knowledge of ordinary, high-school science militates against this flood hypothesis. There is just no conceivable way it could have happened without dismissing the most basic facts of mathematics and physics. The tale is simply inconsistent with established mechanics, thermodynamics, math, &c.

You keep citing this Bible -- as if it were an authoritative report. Why do you expect us to accept this book? Would you accept citations from the Vedas, the Guru Granth Sahib or Popol Vuh?
If you're going to cite a source, you first have to establish its reliability. You have not done that.

How do we know the temperature of the transition zone? How we can calculate the volume needed to cover the Earth? How we calculate the calories of latent heat?
This is all established technology; established math, established science. Our whole modern world depends on it. Your objections make no sense.
If I dropped an egg into boiling water for ten minutes, would you not be mystified if I adamantly claimed it would soon hatch?
Exactly! Why would you find this remarkable?
The Bible is not the source of all knowledge. You seem to start with an assumption that it's axiomatic, and are surprised when others don't share your preconceptions.

Do you know what happens if the Vedas are dismissed as fable? To start with, no creation of the world, no Brahma, Vishnu or Shiva. No Puranas, no Brahmayana, no Avatars or humanity to be enlightened.
See?
This doesn't even make sense.
Again, you're taking unsupported facts as givens, eg: why do you assume there was a Jesus, or that He came to Earth as a savior?
No, it's more the other way around. It's the Christians who are proselytizing and want us to accept their stories. You're mistaking our skepticism about your unsupported claims for preaching.

Certainly not, but what evidence we have is actual evidence, and not folklore.
If there is a supernatural element to the Universe it has, thus far, left no evidence of its existence.
So are we -- as soon as we find any evidence for any of this."If there is a being..." But your certainty doesn't support an "if." You're assuming this Creator as axiomatic.

If your hair was on fire but you could not feel it, nor was you hair or head being consumed, you probably would conclude that you were hallucinating right? What more do you want from me?

 

[nPeace]

@CLee421 whenever you are ready to jetpack out of here, I'm right behind you. Or I may well go before you. I think my time is just about up, on this thread.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If there wasn't a world-wide flood why are there still monkeys?

 

[CLee421]

@CLee421 whenever you are ready to jetpack out of here, I'm right behind you. Or I may well go before you. I think my time is just about up, on this thread.

Check. I just posted a new topic in religious debates (maybe you can see if you think it fits there) still getting used to the setup on here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@CLee421 whenever you are ready to jetpack out of here, I'm right behind you. Or I may well go before you. I think my time is just about up, on this thread.

Instead of running away why not try to learn for once?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If your hair was on fire but you could not feel it, nor was you hair or head being consumed, you probably would conclude that you were hallucinating right? What more do you want from me?

It would be nice if you tried to learn. @CLee421 at least seemed interested in learning what the scientific method is. You could benefit from such a discussion as well.

 

[CLee421]

Instead of running away why not try to learn for once?

"For once" like you're my dad who's watched me run my whole life ... hehe I JUST got on here today.

My dear - I simply don't want to continue this. If it comes up again and I feel inclined to jump in I shall. I promise I've been down this road and I just want to have real discussions. We simply have different views on how that should go at the moment and that's okay.

 

[CLee421]

I'm not upset or afraid or running. I am still a member and you can get to know me apart from this bumpy start if you wish.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"For once" like you're my dad who's watched me run my whole life ... hehe I JUST got on here today.

My dear - I simply don't want to continue this. If it comes up again and I feel inclined to jump in I shall. I promise I've been down this road and I just want to have real discussions. We simply have different views on how that should go at the moment and that's okay.

That comment was not aimed at you but at nPeace. Throughout this thread he has run away rather than discussing. He has refused to even discuss the scientific method. He has only been outraged when his ignorance was mentioned and then went on to confirm the claim.