Noah's Ark Flood Theories

[Vile Atheist]

Thank you, Autodidact lol. Your posts are a pleasure to read.

 

[footprints]

Yes exactly, it is absolute crap. There was no global flood.

The whole globe didn't have to flood for an ancient culture to perceive the whole world was flooded. Just their known world would have been sufficient, which in essence was the whole world to them.

 

[darkendless]

Yes exactly, it is absolute crap. There was no global flood.

The whole globe didn't have to flood for an ancient culture to perceive the whole world was flooded. Just there known world would have been sufficient, which in essence was the whole world to them.[/quote]

Typical arguement. Tiresome, but the only really possible defence for the bible i guess.

I have never seen anything suggesting there was a flood during the time in that part of the world. Do you have any sources?

 

[footprints]

Typical arguement. Tiresome, but the only really possible defence for the bible i guess.

I have never seen anything suggesting there was a flood during the time in that part of the world. Do you have any sources?

Typical response. Tiresome, but the only really possible defence for your belief I guess.

Please see original post, for link pertaining to climate change about 5,200 years ago. Although no time reference can be given to this alleged flood, it may have 5,000 plus years ago, then again it may have been 40,000 years ago.

 

[darkendless]

Typical response. Tiresome, but the only really possible defence for your belief I guess.

Please see original post, for link pertaining to climate change about 5,200 years ago. Although no time reference can be given to this alleged flood, it may have 5,000 plus years ago, then again it may have been 40,000 years ago.

Belief. You are silly. I hate saying it but dude im a geotech minoring in geology, i don't believe.

There is no defence. The flood is a poor story, the only thing poorer is people who twist and warp the story to make it as possible as they can.

What im saying is get me a soil sample at a depth of 5 or 6 m in depth and we'll see how "defensible" my position is. Climate change does not reflect global surges in water levels. Ice causes displacement of water, so the ice melting would have no bearing.

The sad thing about these debates is that no one will ever show anything substantial, all you people do is exploit your own story to make it possible when really we only agree with you conditionally because you're too ignorant or uneducated in the field to understand what really happens.

 

[footprints]

Belief. You are silly. I hate saying it but dude im a geotech minoring in geology, i don't believe.

Oh forgive me, how could a geotech minoring in geology, ever have a belief. LOL.

There is no defence. The flood is a poor story, the only thing poorer is people who twist and warp the story to make it as possible as they can.

Do you mean like you are twisting and warping it to suit your own belief?

What im saying is get me a soil sample at a depth of 5 or 6 m in depth and we'll see how "defensible" my position is. Climate change does not reflect global surges in water levels. Ice causes displacement of water, so the ice melting would have no bearing.

How about if I show you a fossilised fish 1000,s of meters above the earths surface. What do you think happened to all the water the fish was once swimming in. LOL I know, it just disappeared.

LOL of course storms and things do not cause surges in water, how silly of me. It was only an illusion of the water damage caused to New Orleans by Katrina wasn't it. Obvious propaganda, but it didn't fool a geotech minoring in geology.

The sad thing about these debates is that no one will ever show anything substantial, all you people do is exploit your own story to make it possible when really we only agree with you conditionally because you're too ignorant or uneducated in the field to understand what really happens.

LOL nobody could ever show you anything substantial, you live in instant denial.

 

[camanintx]

How about if I show you a fossilised fish 1000,s of meters above the earths surface. What do you think happened to all the water the fish was once swimming in. LOL I know, it just disappeared.

Did it ever occur to you that those mountains are rising and what was once below the ocean is now 1000's of meters above Earth's surface, no flood required?

 

[JeLy]

Do you accept plate tectonics, Footprints?

 

[footprints]

Did it ever occur to you that those mountains are rising and what was once below the ocean is now 1000's of meters above Earth's surface, no flood required?

Strange caminintx, you say they were once below the ocean and are now 1000's of feet above the surface. Now here was I thinking the fish must have fallen down from the sky. Hmmm so your oceans don't have water, what do they contain? Even if the mountain range was part of an acient ocean, or explained by continental drift and the colliding of continents, water was displaced.

 

[footprints]

Do you accept plate tectonics, Footprints?

If I didn't accept continental drift, I wouldn't have mentioned the fish.

 

[JeLy]

Strange caminintx, you say they were once below the ocean and are now 1000's of feet above the surface. Now here was I thinking the fish must have fallen down from the sky. Hmmm so your oceans don't have water, what do they contain? Even if the mountain range was part of an acient ocean, or explained by continental drift and the colliding of continents, water was displaced.

No one is saying water hasn't been displaced over time - you are claiming those fossils got to the tops of mountain chains via a massive flood. If you admit to those mountains once being at the bottoms of ancient oceans, then rising over time via plate tectonics, you've just rid yourself of an argument for a god-given flood.

 

[footprints]

No one is saying water hasn't been displaced over time - you are claiming those fossils got to the tops of mountain chains via a massive flood. If you admit to those mountains once being at the bottoms of ancient oceans, then rising over time via plate tectonics, you've just rid yourself of an argument for a god-given flood.

Oh JeLy, I am not saying that, didn't even imply that, as a matter of fact I offered no explanation as to how they got there. Your imagination put your answer there. And I certainly didn't offer it (fish on a mountain) as an explanation for a flood, as in it was left there after a flood, so I wonder why this thought even entered your brain?

By the way, if you still haven't got it, I never had this argument to rid myself of. But I am glad to see you don't have it as an argument point.

 

[JeLy]

Oh JeLy, I am not saying that, didn't even imply that, as a matter of fact I offered no explanation as to how they got there. Your imagination put your answer there. And I certainly didn't offer it (fish on a mountain) as an explanation for a flood, as in it was left there after a flood, so I wonder why this thought even entered your brain?

By the way, if you still haven't got it, I never had this argument to rid myself of. But I am glad to see you don't have it as an argument point.

Forgive me because I am still pretty new here, but is it common practice for you to dance around logical arguments? If so, I apologize for even starting this with you if this is all you can muster.

I suppose your arguing on the last page about the possibility of a flood was what... something you didn't intend?

 

[camanintx]

Oh JeLy, I am not saying that, didn't even imply that, as a matter of fact I offered no explanation as to how they got there. Your imagination put your answer there. And I certainly didn't offer it (fish on a mountain) as an explanation for a flood, as in it was left there after a flood, so I wonder why this thought even entered your brain?

By the way, if you still haven't got it, I never had this argument to rid myself of. But I am glad to see you don't have it as an argument point.

Please don't lie. You specifically offered it as evidence of a global flood.

How about if I show you a fossilised fish 1000,s of meters above the earths surface.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I've heard several theories as to how Noah's flood occured, ranging from the polar ice caps melting to a canopy of ice surrounding the Earth, melting and covering the Earth with water.

I invite anyone who thinks Noah's Ark literally happened as described in the Bible to describe their preferred theory and offer up their scientific evidence for it. I ask that you please keep Scripture quotes to a minimum (all that's necessary to acquire details of the flood).

Here is an interesting take on whether it was a local or worldwide flood, leaning toward it being local.

 

[darkendless]

Oh forgive me, how could a geotech minoring in geology, ever have a belief. LOL.

When it comes to this i don't need to. Facts are enough for me not to need to fabricate my position against people who are intillectually dishonest.

Do you mean like you are twisting and warping it to suit your own belief?

Twisting and warping what? You're the one claiming there was a flood, i don't need to use a bible to do anything buddy. You make the claims, the rest of us challenge them, thats how it goes.

How about if I show you a fossilised fish 1000,s of meters above the earths surface. What do you think happened to all the water the fish was once swimming in. LOL I know, it just disappeared.

You really should stop, its quite embarrassing. I can see the post below yours has already shown you why.

Its possible (if we could get that far down) to find fossils nd very young rocks in the mantle. Its called rifting, google it.

LOL of course storms and things do not cause surges in water, how silly of me. It was only an illusion of the water damage caused to New Orleans by Katrina wasn't it. Obvious propaganda, but it didn't fool a geotech minoring in geology.

Actually, good example. You should go to a university and compare core samples taken before and after the flooding there. It will reinforce what im saying, but not majorly since the soil is still saturated. In maybe 10 years it would be interesting to look at a soil profile from the levys.

LOL nobody could ever show you anything substantial, you live in instant denial.

No, thats you sir. I simply present facts. The reason people like me are always denying what people like you are saying is because its always crap and always hitting and hoping. Nothing substantial.

 

[darkendless]

Forgive me because I am still pretty new here, but is it common practice for you to dance around logical arguments? If so, I apologize for even starting this with you if this is all you can muster.

I suppose your arguing on the last page about the possibility of a flood was what... something you didn't intend?

Its a typical and sad arguement. They attack sound science (i know it works because i stand in a hole all day ) with no idea of the laws of nature they're breaking.

If i prayed i'd pray that someone of reasonable scientific knowledge would challenge me properly.

 

[darkendless]

Here is an interesting take on whether it was a local or worldwide flood, leaning toward it being local.

Local flood is the only reasonasble conclusion.

Its quite simple, older plants from thousands of years ago are often fragile in water, if a global flood occured we wouldn't still have them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Local flood is the only reasonasble conclusion.

I think another reasonable conclusion is that it's not based on any specific literal flood, but instead it's a parable or metaphor (or maybe simply plain ol' fiction) that uses the imagery of a flood for dramatic effect or to communicate its message.

 

[Amill]

Not only are there fish fossils high above the ocean's surface, there are also fossils of corals. How does a flood account for those fossils? Did god take his hand and swipe the water from the oceans, therefore tearing up some of the sea floor?