How we know that there was no Flood of Noah.

[Audie]

I think we have different of "polite '.

Maybe i missed something

 

[Audie]

burying a soft hat will flatten it. It will then be preserved flat, not in its original shape.

Depends on how you bury it.

In the event, his idea may be that tiresome thing about how
any kind of fossil can be formed quickly.

The things (facile things) creationists say about
fossils and their formation just grind the ears of
someone who actually knows something about it.

I guess part of it is, they know god is there, a flood
really happened, and the AIG sort of people arr
Christian soldiers, fighting the good fight and would
no more lie than they would eat babies.

"Behold, I have made hard my face"

Against this barrier of defense against an objective
examination of facts must be extraordinarily hard!
Not a wonder that so few even begin to attempt it.

I would ask though that even the most determined
set aside, just a thought experiment, and dare to ask
an existential question. "Is it possible for me to
ever be mistaken about anything?"

And give it a careful (not facile) answer.

Maybe another approach would be to imagine
being on trial in a capital offense case.

How about a judge and jury who've made hard
their faces, will not even consider actually taking
an objective look at the facts?

 

[Shaul]

765 m and zion is 768 m, which is still impossible.

Not necessarily. Those are their heights now. Their heights before the Flood could have been less, for one. During tsunami floods islands with similar heights have been inundated. So it is possible.

 

[Shaul]

Read it again. Genesis says that people were dispersed before Babel. Babel was merely one settlement.

But then it is a story book and story books are not known for their consistency.

“‘Let us go down and mix up their language so that they will not understand each other.’ So the Lord scattered them all over the earth, and they stopped building the city.” The Tower of Babel was the location where all the people were gathering. The people weren’t scattered all over the earth until after Babel, not before. Take your own advice and read it again.

 

[Audie]

Not necessarily. Those are their heights now. Their heights before the Flood could have been less, for one. During tsunami floods islands with similar heights have been inundated. So it is possible.

Everest grpws an inch or so a year. "Could have" is not data.

 

[Audie]

“‘Let us go down and mix up their language so that they will not understand each other.’ So the Lord scattered them all over the earth, and they stopped building the city.” The Tower of Babel was the location where all the people were gathering. The people weren’t scattered all over the earth until after Babel, not before. Take your own advice and read it again.

An old fable is not data either.

The detailed work coring Antarctic ice, tho,
provides a great wealth of data.

 

[Shaul]

That’s silly. G-d promised to never flood (curse) the land because of man. That means He won’t flood over all the land people live on. That doesn’t negate that it was only a local flood. The guy with the moustache is simply applying his on interpretation, “the entire earth”, upon the text. The Hebrew word is “eratz”. That word means land or earth depending on the context. The word is also often used to for the land of Israel only. Which is one possible interpretation of this passage.

 

[Shaul]

Everest grpws an inch or so a year. "Could have" is not data.

Remember, we are discussing a world changing occurrence. Land can rise faster than Everest’s rate. For example land can rise and fall dramatically during earthquakes. Also it is not necessary for these mountains to have risen at all for them to have been covered. I merely state, quite correctly, that their heights may have changed. “Could have” is sufficient for speculative discussions, such as this one. I don’t have to prove it did happen, only that it could have.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That’s silly. G-d promised to never flood (curse) the land because of man. That means He won’t flood over all the land people live on. That doesn’t negate that it was only a local flood. The guy with the moustache is simply applying his on interpretation, “the entire earth”, upon the text. The Hebrew word is “eratz”. That word means land or earth depending on the context. The word is also often used to for the land of Israel only. Which is one possible interpretation of this passage.

I'm sorry @Shaul , to what verse are you referring?

 

[Shaul]

I'm sorry @Shaul , to what verse are you referring?

Not a single verse, the entire passage that recounts the Flood. Basically chapters 7 and 8 of Genesis which use eratz.

 

[Audie]

Remember, we are discussing a world changing occurrence. Land can rise faster than Everest’s rate. For example land can rise and fall dramatically during earthquakes. Also it is not necessary for these mountains to have risen at all for them to have been covered. I merely state, quite correctly, that their heights may have changed. “Could have” is sufficient for speculative discussions, such as this one. I don’t have to prove it did happen, only that it could have.

And, I said it has risen.

But "could have" is not data.

You assert that there was a world wide flood.
All relevant data, though, goes against it.

So your "could have" is idle and pointless.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Not a single verse, the entire passage that recounts the Flood. Basically chapters 7 and 8 of Genesis which use eratz.

So you made it up. Perhaps you should have more respect for the Torah ...

 

[ecco]

esp as I tend to inadvertantly mimic

This is not unusual. I have a good friend who was raised in Rural Georgia and Florida (Floridians do not have a "southern" accent).

Usually this person speaks "good English", but once he gets back with his relatives in Georgia, the heavy drawl and vernacular automatically kicks in.

It's probably an evolutionary thing about needing to fit in with our "current" tribe.

 

[ecco]

Remember, we are discussing a world changing occurrence. Land can rise faster than Everest’s rate. For example land can rise and fall dramatically during earthquakes. Also it is not necessary for these mountains to have risen at all for them to have been covered.

WAVES! Have you ever considered the waves that would have been generated during such an event?
HURRICANES! Have you ever considered the force of hurricanes created during such an event?

The ark would have been no match for the seas.

 

[Cacotopia]

Sounds like a heaping pile of special pleading to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Remember, we are discussing a world changing occurrence. Land can rise faster than Everest’s rate. For example land can rise and fall dramatically during earthquakes. Also it is not necessary for these mountains to have risen at all for them to have been covered. I merely state, quite correctly, that their heights may have changed. “Could have” is sufficient for speculative discussions, such as this one. I don’t have to prove it did happen, only that it could have.

Not really. Since it is extremely out of the ordinary you would need to show how it could be possible. You might as well that pigs could fly because other mammals can fly. There is no point in taking such a speculation seriously.

 

[Subduction Zone]

“‘Let us go down and mix up their language so that they will not understand each other.’ So the Lord scattered them all over the earth, and they stopped building the city.” The Tower of Babel was the location where all the people were gathering. The people weren’t scattered all over the earth until after Babel, not before. Take your own advice and read it again.

It neither says that nor implies that Babel was the location of everyone. You may be twisting your interpretation of the myth a bit:

"11 Now the whole world had one language they found a plain in Shinar and settled there."

Please note it says "the whole world" and then describes how a group of people settled at Shinar. It seems redundant and odd to say "the whole world" when you mean one small tribe.

At any rate that is another myth. Perhaps a linguist could deal with that. Since almost all believers of the flood myth make it less than 10,000 years ago they still can't deal with the tribes that migrated to the Americas at the end of the last glaciation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe i missed something

I looked back at my OP and see that I forgot to ask for science based sources, so I guess that using arguments from lying sources might not be considered rude.

 

[james dixon]

The images that you posted only told us of your ignorance. It did nothing to help you defend your belief.

You lack of comprehension may be the log jam we seem to be in. Those pictures were included in articles where Archaeologists stated that the rapid flow of water caused the erosion.

Having said that, you are welcome to research this yourself and prove me wrong. If you do I will accept your findings and thereby change my mind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You lack of comprehension may be the log jam we seem to be in. Those pictures were included in articles where Archaeologists stated that the rapid flow of water caused the erosion.

Having said that, you are welcome to research this yourself and prove me wrong. If you do I will accept your findings and thereby change my mind.

LOL, sorry, that is not the work of "Archaeologists". And rapid flow of water does not mean "flood" either. Nor does the existence of a flood plain support the flood myth. Why not link the article? I could explain it to you. But since you like picture so much here is one that clearly refutes the flood myth, if you understand what you are looking at: