Noahs Ark

[footprints]

This statement is illogical considering you've stated at least twice you don't care what creationist believe. In order to hold a debate you have to care. What's the point in debating a point where everyone is in agreement?

This is a moot point. We've both ruled out WWF and neither of us (You nor Me) have ruled out local flooding.

You're asking the wrong person here. Although I personally don't think he existed I never raised that here as a point of debate. In fact I even said;

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1859180-post1402.html

" Whether he did or not is not particularly important to this debated."

Again, this is moot considering I've stated early on that the supposed flood could have been local. Local and seasonal flooding has and does occur in the middle east and areas of Africa.

That's just it. I never said there was never any flooding in the area. Again, local flooding was a possibility. The story is false in that as of today no geologist will contend the whole world was flooded unless they are presenting the data that showed flooding millions of years ago. Since creationist believe the earth itself is only 13k years old then we have no choice but to conclude the story told has no merit. The claim of a WWF is a baseless one given the 13k time line. Nowhere in that time line do we find WW Flooding. We find local flooding in various areas but that's it.

No the points were not moot. They are all reasoned points. No reasoned point is ever moot.

You seem to keep wanting to go back to World Wide Floods all the time. Not even all Christians or Creationists believe it to be a literal world wide flood. However, I guess if it is the only point in your arsenal to prove it wrong, apart from your personal belief, then I guess you will keep hammering it.

 

[Arlanbb]

This debate is for any member who wishes to join in. I wish to do so.

We have already ruled out a world wide flood.
You say you have already ruled out a world wide flood, and according to archaeological evidence you are right, but you have over looked one question. IF there was no WW Deluge, as the bible says there was, then why build a great big boat to save the animals from distruction from the local flooding. There were lots of animals on other parts of the earth that were never flooded so what reason was there to build a ark to save them? The building of the ark had no meaning at all if the Deluge didn't happen as the bible says it did. It all boils down to the ark story has no purpuse without a W W Deluge and with out an ark you don't need a Noah. One of the main problem with you folk is you use the words "Flood" "Deluge" as meaning the same thing. A flooding is a local problem but a "Deluge" as the bible uses it is something that covers the world. The bible says over and over that all the people and all the animals were killed that were on earth. If it was a local flooding those statement are FALSE.
Most Christians suggest that the biblical WW Deluge happened within the last 4,000 to 5,000 years and most archaeologist realize that at that time period there were 8 cultures that was flurishing on earth before and the same 8 coulture were living after that time period. Millions of people that never knew they were to have died, lived on. So what does that say for the biblical story of the WW Deluge - all it is is a story and if it is just a story then there was no Noah and the stories before the flood and after the flood are still nothing but stories because they are all tied together. There is no evidence for any of them clear down to Abraham. All the archaeological evidence proves the Genesis stories are false. :yes:
So now I await your evidence which conclusively shows, 1) Noah didn't exist. 2) There was never a flood of any other description. If such evidence exists, then it is obviously evidence which I may have missed or overlooked, which has a high probability of changing my perception of this very issue.

Of course if you do not have this evidence, just tell me straight out, you do not know if the story is true or false, or if a flood of any other description ever took place. That way I will know I haven't missed or overlooked any evidence.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[footprints]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Arlanbb,

Around 5,200 years ago there is evidence of the world going through a climate change.

Major Climate Change Occurred 5,200 Years Ago: Evidence Suggests That History Could Repeat Itself

This could possibly align with what the bible is saying, if the time periods given by some are correct.

As for the boat and the flood, I would suggest you stick to people who haven't had as much to do with ancient cultures as I have, or have my knowledge on how the human brain relates and associates.

As this story pertains to an ancient culture, the story could pertain to a severe local flood and a person, say Noah, who went out and rescued some animals in a boat. It could have even pertained to a swollen river in flood, and again a person rescuing some animals in a boat. As with many legends, over time, by the time this story was translated from word of mouth to paper, it stands a high probability of being blown completely out of proportion.

Again from ancient cultures, the story may just be one to pass a moral along, that animals are just a important as humans. Most ancient cultures have one, some have many.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

No the points were not moot. They are all reasoned points. No reasoned point is ever moot.

Yes. They were. I've answered why even. We were both in agreement on a particular point of interest. There's no need to debate that which we both agree.

You seem to keep wanting to go back to World Wide Floods all the time. Not even all Christians or Creationists believe it to be a literal world wide flood.

It's part of the whole topic of discussion here. As far as "Christians" I don't thin I've even think I've mentioned them here because I'm perfectly aware most of them don't take it literal. As far as "Creationist"...yes I have mentioned them but only the ones that "DO" take it literal. We are discussing a WWF which THEY do believe, as a matter of biblical fact, happened. The proof to that are their very own responses here. So I'm "ONLY" addressing them. Before holding any debates with you on this matter I was debating with those who actually believe in a literal WWF. There's no need for me to not debate them unless we both come to an impasse and agree to disagree and move on. That has not been the case as of yet so my point is still valid as well as theirs

However, I guess if it is the only point in your arsenal to prove it wrong, apart from your personal belief, then I guess you will keep hammering it.

You're having a hard time with the difference between "proof" and "evidence". I'm only showing the current archeological, anthropological and geological data/evidence that does not agree with the creationist's view that a WWF has occurred. There's no logical reason why we should consider the story to be even "possibly" true seeing as though there's not a shred of evidence that would lend any credibility to it. If there were it would have been presented by now.

 

[footprints]

Yes. They were. I've answered why even. We were both in agreement on a particular point of interest. There's no need to debate that which we both agree.



It's part of the whole topic of discussion here. As far as "Christians" I don't thin I've even think I've mentioned them here because I'm perfectly aware most of them don't take it literal. As far as "Creationist"...yes I have mentioned them but only the ones that "DO" take it literal. We are discussing a WWF which THEY do believe, as a matter of biblical fact, happened. The proof to that are their very own responses here. So I'm "ONLY" addressing them. Before holding any debates with you on this matter I was debating with those who actually believe in a literal WWF. There's no need for me to not debate them unless we both come to an impasse and agree to disagree and move on. That has not been the case as of yet so my point is still valid as well as theirs



You're having a hard time with the difference between "proof" and "evidence". I'm only showing the current archeological, anthropological and geological data/evidence that does not agree with the creationist's view that a WWF has occurred. There's no logical reason why we should consider the story to be even "possibly" true seeing as though there's not a shred of evidence that would lend any credibility to it. If there were it would have been presented by now.

Yes we agree penguin. There is no way of telling yet if the story of Noah has merit or not. Both views of accept or reject have merit and can be argued either way.

 

[fantome profane]

Yes we agree penguin. There is no way of telling yet if the story of Noah has merit or not. Both views of accept or reject have merit and can be argued either way.

But you are talking about the possibility of accepting a modified version of the Noah story, are you not? It seems that you agree that the idea of a worldwide flood occurring during human history in which two (or more) of all land animals had to be saved on a boat is not reasonable.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Yes we agree penguin. There is no way of telling yet if the story of Noah has merit or not.

Yes there is. The story, as it is written, does not coincide with what we know of the natural world. There has been nothing in man's 10, 15, 20 or even 30,000 year history that suggest a WWF. See, I know you want to get away from the thought of a WWF but that is the crux of the debate and it's what some here actually believe. We can't debate a local flood because it's not what some are suggesting the bible is talking about. So we have to take the story at face value with those who also take it at face value and determine if the story has merit. And considering what we know, the story does not have merit.

Both views of accept or reject have merit and can be argued either way.

There's only two ways of looking at this story. One is with blinders on and completely rejecting the geological, archeological and anthropological data. Basically rejecting pretty much anything that scientifically refutes the claim. The other is as I described, using a logical and scientific approach to the story. Where we, over time, have gone out to study the geology of the planet and the history/life/death of the people that inhabit it.

 

[footprints]

But you are talking about the possibility of accepting a modified version of the Noah story, are you not? It seems that you agree that the idea of a worldwide flood occurring during human history in which two (or more) of all land animals had to be saved on a boat is not reasonable.

Am I talking about accepting any theory fantome? That appears to have come from your belief patterns, no evidence in reality to support it though.

Am I talking about a modified version? I know of many versions pertaining to this story ranging from a full belief of a literal,world wide flood, to a point blank denial that no flood ever occured and noah never existed. So tell me which ones are the modified ones? Which one is real, and which ones are modified?

Just to get you back to reality, just as with the existance, non existance of a deity, if anybody could conclusively prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt that either noah and the flood never existed, or that noah and one of the stories pertaining to the flood was absolutely right, it would make headline news right around the world. The media would have a field day with it.

Whatever your belief is fantome, you should be content in the knowledge that it is as good as any other belief, pertaining to this knowledge.

 

[footprints]

Yes there is. The story, as it is written, does not coincide with what we know of the natural world. There has been nothing in man's 10, 15, 20 or even 30,000 year history that suggest a WWF. See, I know you want to get away from the thought of a WWF but that is the crux of the debate and it's what some here actually believe. We can't debate a local flood because it's not what some are suggesting the bible is talking about. So we have to take the story at face value with those who also take it at face value and determine if the story has merit. And considering what we know, the story does not have merit.

Yes I understand penguin that your opinion and beliefs mean a lot to you. However this means nothing to truth or science.

There's only two ways of looking at this story. One is with blinders on and completely rejecting the geological, archeological and anthropological data. Basically rejecting pretty much anything that scientifically refutes the claim. The other is as I described, using a logical and scientific approach to the story. Where we, over time, have gone out to study the geology of the planet and the history/life/death of the people that inhabit it.

There are more than two Penguin. You are just being selective to suit your belief patterns of personal opinion.

 

[McBell]

There are more than two Penguin. You are just being selective to suit your belief patterns of personal opinion.

Really?
Please back up your claim by presenting a few more.

 

[footprints]

Really?
Please back up your claim by presenting a few more.

Try reading Mestemia, I am not going to repeat them just because of your ignorance, and there are more than what I have listed, just talk to everybody with an opinion on this subject.

 

[McBell]

Try reading Mestemia, I am not going to repeat them just because of your ignorance, and there are more than what I have listed, just talk to everybody with an opinion on this subject.

So, you make a claim and then refuse to support your claim...

No big surprise there.

 

[Arlanbb]

Hi Arlanbb,

Around 5,200 years ago there is evidence of the world going through a climate change. Yes Footprint ~ there was a climate change about 3,200BC as Lonnie Thompson discovered BUT if you read the artical you will find that the world got DRIER not WETTER as a flood would have done. The Sahara area was wet and people lived in that area but the whole world had become drier and now we have the Saraha Desert because of the DRINESS back in 3200BC. Also I would like to point out that 3,200BC is about 800 years before what most Christian date the Flood @ 2400BC so for two reason the reference below disprove what you are trying to prove, wrong time and wrong condition.

Major Climate Change Occurred 5,200 Years Ago: Evidence Suggests That History Could Repeat Itself

This could possibly align with what the bible is saying, if the time periods given by some are correct. Which it dosen't

As for the boat and the flood, I would suggest you stick to people who haven't had as much to do with ancient cultures as I have, PLEASE don't give me that sob story and your knowledge of ancient cultures. I'm 78 years old this coming Feb 1, I have been involved with archaeology for the last 30 years. In 1997 and 1999 I was in Israel digging up the Yarmukian Culture a few miles south of the Sea of Galilee which dates back to 6000BC that is over 8,000 years ago. I have walked on the remains of Old Jericho that dates back to over 11,000 years ago. or have my knowledge on how the human brain relates and associates. Most archaeologist think that the biblical flood story which was written down about 2500 years ago is basiclly a copy of the Sumerian flood story written in 3700 years ago.

As this story pertains to an ancient culture, the story could pertain to a severe local flood and a person, say Noah, who went out and rescued some animals in a boat. It could have even pertained to a swollen river in flood, and again a person rescuing some animals in a boat. As with many legends, over time, by the time this story was translated from word of mouth to paper, it stands a high probability of being blown completely out of proportion.

Again from ancient cultures, the story may just be one to pass a moral along, that animals are just a important as humans. Most ancient cultures have one, some have many.

There is only one BIG problem with your theory. When you try to rationalize the Biblical flood story as a "Moral" story only you destroy the whole concept of Christanity. If early Genesis stories are "Moral" stories then Adam and Eve never really sinned and if they never sinned that Jesus couldn't have die for their original sin because they never lived. Adam and Eve were to have committed original sin about 6000 years ago but archaeology has proven that mankind has lived and die millions of years ago long before Adam and Eve were claimed to have lived and sin.:yes:

 

[footprints]

So, you make a claim and then refuse to support your claim...

No big surprise there.

LOL your ignorance of knowledge doesn't equate to a lack of support for knowledge, just your ignorance of it.

No big surprise there.

 

[footprints]

There is only one BIG problem with your theory. When you try to rationalize the Biblical flood story as a "Moral" story only you destroy the whole concept of Christanity. If early Genesis stories are "Moral" stories then Adam and Eve never really sinned and if they never sinned that Jesus couldn't have die for their original sin because they never lived. Adam and Eve were to have committed original sin about 6000 years ago but archaeology has proven that mankind has lived and die millions of years ago long before Adam and Eve were claimed to have lived and sin.:yes:

I am not sure where you are getting the knowledge that the earth got drier. I have never read any reports where Lionne Thompson says that at all. In fact he suggests something similar to our current climate. For most part Lonnie Thompson is a glaciologists, his reports pertain to this matter. The most striking part of his evidence is the quickness that plants were frozen, nearly instantaneously or snap frozen. I have never seen anywhere where he even relates directly to the middle east. Albeit a dramatic climate change will have some form of impact on the rest of the world. This is still under investigation.

I am not sure what planet you are living on, many christians world wide hold a range of associations to this biblical story. Our scientific knowledge of (base) ancient cultures supports every one of them.

I would suggest it doesn't pose a big problem to Christianity, it only poses a big problem to your belief and your association patterns. Unless you believe you were either Adam or Eve, I further suggest that how your brain relates, may be considerably different to how the brains of Adam and Eve related. :yes: So any personal reason you may come up with yourself is basically irrelevant, albeit as good a guess as anybody elses on this matter.

There are many ways (base) ancient cultures relate to the beginning. A good start is trying to identify the time period it was alledged to have happened in. What your belief patterns tell you are also irrelevant, albeit relevant to your own beliefs.

By the way, your archeological evidence has no basis pertaining to base cultures such as the Australian Aboriginal nor the African Bushman. I too have been through the areas you have mentioned and studied the cultures. I further have knowledge that when something was written doesn't necessarily equate to when it happened. Basically speaking the Sumerian people were of the same heritage, so it is not surprising to find they have the same or similar story in their ancestory.

 

[McBell]

LOL your ignorance of knowledge doesn't equate to a lack of support for knowledge, just your ignorance of it.

No big surprise there.

Are you honestly that stupid or are you hoping everyone else is?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Yes I understand penguin that your opinion and beliefs mean a lot to you. However this means nothing to truth or science.

I'm not really sure what you mean here. I'm actually presenting the scientific data that refutes the claim so you may have to provide clarification. Those who posit a WWF are not presenting the evidence for it.

There are more than two Penguin. You are just being selective to suit your belief patterns of personal opinion.

No there isn't. If you think so then can you kindly produce them? As I can tell you either understand the story to be false considering the scientific evidence against it or believe the story to be true based on ones faith in the story.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Sahara Desert
Sahara Desert Was Once Lush and Populated | LiveScience
"7,300 to 5,500 years ago: Retreating monsoonal rains initiate desiccation in the Egyptian Sahara, prompting humans to move to remaining habitable niches in Sudanese Sahara. The end of the rains and return of desert conditions throughout the Sahara after 5,500 coincides with population return to the Nile Valley and the beginning of pharaonic society."

And we know that the desert was and is still there before and existing through the supposed WWF flood.........

For additional information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_desert

 

[footprints]

Are you honestly that stupid or are you hoping everyone else is?

No Mestemia, there are only a few posters in this forum who I conclude inane. And of those that I do, I know they cannot help it, their brain is all twisted and distorted.

 

[footprints]

Sahara Desert
Sahara Desert Was Once Lush and Populated | LiveScience
"7,300 to 5,500 years ago: Retreating monsoonal rains initiate desiccation in the Egyptian Sahara, prompting humans to move to remaining habitable niches in Sudanese Sahara. The end of the rains and return of desert conditions throughout the Sahara after 5,500 coincides with population return to the Nile Valley and the beginning of pharaonic society."

And we know that the desert was and is still there before and existing through the supposed WWF flood.........

For additional information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_desert

Hmmm, yes we do have suggested knowledge to indicate that.

Do we have suggested knowledge to conclude that 7,300 to 5,500 years is a couple of hundred years off, 5,200 years? Not that a thousand years difference makes a whole heap of difference in the bigger picture.

What about our knowledge of deserts? Are we really in possession of knowledge which says it never rains in any desert? Or that a desert cannot flood due to flash flooding effects generated by rain elsewhere in the area?

This notwithstanding, I have not even remotely suggested there wasn't a lead in period, and the same knowledge Lonnie Thompson is suggesting of todays environment.

The bible itself, from the best of my knowledge, doesn't even mention, whether the area this alleged flood pertains to, was fertile or desert. Even this knowledge would give us some insight as to the period in question. I mean, when knowledge of (base) ancient cultures is taken in consideration, we cannot even be sure of the exact location.