• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The flood in Genesis

themadhair

Well-Known Member
you mean there are scientists that have proven, not theorized, but proven a flood never happened?
Proofs a global flood did not occur:
1) Not enough water. 2) No flooding layer common to all areas. 3) Genetics show common ancestry extends far beyond the flood for humans and all organisms thus sequenced. 4) Written history from civilisations alive during the flood who didn't notice they drowned.

The the Sea of Reeds never split? That Moses never walked and climbed Mt. Sinai and received the Torah? That a mass revelation, as what happened there, has been repeated?
I'd put money on the Sea of Reeds not splitting due to it violating the laws of physics. The others are possible (although I believe unlikely) but are not contradicted by science.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
you mean there are scientists that have proven, not theorized, but proven a flood never happened? The the Sea of Reeds never split? That Moses never walked and climbed Mt. Sinai and received the Torah? That a mass revelation, as what happened there, has been repeated?
Are you anywhere near the Israeli Museum, Jerusalem?
 

Rakhel

Well-Known Member
Proofs a global flood did not occur:
1) Not enough water. 2) No flooding layer common to all areas. 3) Genetics show common ancestry extends far beyond the flood for humans and all organisms thus sequenced. 4) Written history from civilisations alive during the flood who didn't notice they drowned.
that is not proof. That is theory.

I'd put money on the Sea of Reeds not splitting due to it violating the laws of physics. The others are possible (although I believe unlikely) but are not contradicted by science.
How much money would you be willing to put down that a sea can't split?
 

themadhair

Well-Known Member
that is not proof. That is theory.
1) Please tell me where all that extra water is.
2) Please tell me where the flooding layer that the worlds’ geologists have missed in two centuries of investigated.
3) Genetics, using the same techniques used to determine paternity, has common ancestry millions of years before the flood. We can measure mutation rates of DNA, we can count the number of mutations, we can use this information to calculate when two DNA samples diverged. Why does this results orders of magnitude larger than 4,000 years (nematodes go back 250 million years between species for example)?
4) Written history is a theory……wot?????

You do realise that ignoring these things doesn’t make them go away?

How much money would you be willing to put down that a sea can't split?
As described in the bible where Moses leads his troops through giant walls of water – rather a lot of money I would imagine.
 
A god that used magic to make the flood happen. You believe in magic. Do you not have the balls to admit this?
No I don't believe in magic, but I do believe in God. Here are three short video's that tell a lot of what I believe about the flood. It won't take long, watch them and learn how I can believe the way I do. What do you think?

YouTube - Creation in the 21st Century - Noah's Flood Fact or Fantasy 1 of 3
YouTube - Creation in the 21st Century - Noah's Flood Fact or Fantasy 2 of 3
YouTube - Creation in the 21st Century - Noah's Flood Fact or Fantasy 3 of 3
 

themadhair

Well-Known Member
Watched the first video. It isn’t good:
YouTube - Creation in the 21st Century - Noah's Flood Fact or Fantasy 1 of 3

0:26 What is Carl Baugh a doctorate in? I remember searching this before but I never found the answer to that.

1:09 Pascal’s wager. You folks really should stop using this ridiculous argument since it illustrates how evidentiary bankrupt your position is.

1:32 This chap led expeditions to find dinosaur fossils and he is a YEC???? How does that work???

2:13 Not really mate. Pterodactyls are neither as light as birds nor are they as flexible in their wings. That they required greater cerebral mass to fly isn’t a surprise.

2:29 Someone tell this chap that palaeontology is one of the reasons for rejecting the global flood.

2:37 Not all fossils are formed by being trapped in sedimentary layers. Volcanic material, mud, bogs etc. are a few other ways. He is building up to the argument that the flood buried them but he deflated his own argument before he gets there.

3:04 No mate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossi This feature has been known about, and understood, by geologists for close to a century now. The fact that fossils within those sedimentary layers are order and indicative of evolutionary progression sort of batters the flood interpretation too.

3:15 Geology confirms the global flood didn’t happen. There is no real interpretation required to see this.

3:34 We can analyse those layers for chemical composition and see that, today on ocean floors, these same layers are being created. They do not form in a short space of time and any geologist worth their salt can see that.

3:52 Palaeontology and genetics confirms human ancestry. The flood wouldn’t change the fossil or genetic record now would it?

4:02 How can this moron extrapolate from the flood to a restriction of cosmological age??????? How does that even make any logical sense????

4:12 Again, will someone tell this chap that the fossil and genetic records show the biblical timeframe is wrong? And that hypothesising a flood doesn’t change that?

4:23 The flood has not been academically accepted to have occurred because there is no evidence to suggest it happened, and plenty of evidence to suggest it didn’t. You must wonder why there are no geological peer-review papers championing the flood.

4:32 A professional educator does not teach factually incorrect information to school children.

4:39 He spent how long in the public education and academic arena? That is a scary number of kids he fed crap to then. Incidentally, I wonder why he never got his ideas through peer-review if his idea were so good and he spent time in the academic arena.

5:15 Not the torturous conversion story……come on. So you folks have no actual evidence at all and have to rely on cheap rhetoric?

5:42 You can trust god at what he says? So you think god is lying to you through the geological evidence?????

6:25 Flood traditions are evidence for floods. Going from that to a global flood is nonsensical. But this is his evidence for the global flood???

6:45 Taking those historians reasoning means those cultures experienced floods and wrote about them. Why does this chap not follow through on what the historians say? O that’s right, they would disprove the global flood.

6:55 Similarity means the phenomenon must have happened globally?? That’s his argument????

8:09 So he is using data from cultures to attempt proving the flood that, according to this same man, spent a year under the global flood without noticing it????

8:53 A Chinese symbol????? Does this fellow not realise that this culture he is using to try prove the flood spent a year under his alleged flood without noticing it?????

9:14 8 people to 6.5 billion in 4,500 years?? Does this mean that humans reproduce like bacteria???

9:58 Did this chap ever consider the simpler explanation that there was no boat??

Net result is no evidence demonstrating a global flood. If any of the other two videos have something worthwhile in the way of evidences then please present. I genuinely fell stupider having watched that first video.

Why have you not responded to any of the points raised on this thread IAMABELIEVER? Linking videos isn’t really a response.

And yes, you do believe in magic.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
no, actually you are cherry picking a definition to suit your intended purpose. That of an attempt not to subscribe to a religion at all. It's not working.
It's not my definition, rakhel, that's the scientific definition. We're talking about science, so that's the relevant definition here. In other contexts, people might use other definitions, but in science, that's the definition, period.

A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
from here.

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."
from here.

A scientific theory must be testable. It must be possible in principle to prove it wrong.
Experiments are the sole judge of scientific truth.
Scientific method: observations, hypothesis/theory, experiment (test), revision of theory.
A "good" or useful scientific theory will make testable predictions of what should happen under new circumstances that are independent of the original problem or observation for which the theory was developed.
from here.

Now do you see? Evolution is a scientific theory in a specific field, Biology. That is all it is. It is also one of the most important and best supported theories in the history of science, which makes it very important indeed.

all three definitions fit all theories. They are all nothing but hypotheses that allow people to explain what made no sense to them in the first place.
No, a theory is not a hypothesis. It looks like you don't know much about science.

Religious is also a theory. It is a hypothesis that is merely an explanation that explains what made no sense to a person in the first place.
Except that it will be accepted independent of evidence. Religion is one thing, science another.
There is no difference between religious theory and scientific theory except to the cherry-picker
There is a crucial difference. One relies on evidence; the other does not.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
you mean there are scientists that have proven, not theorized, but proven a flood never happened? The the Sea of Reeds never split? That Moses never walked and climbed Mt. Sinai and received the Torah? That a mass revelation, as what happened there, has been repeated?

I think the problem here is that you don't know much about science. Science never proves anything, ever. Science is based on evidence. Science has found that the evidence shows that there has never been, and could never be, a global flood. Don't know about the Red Sea thing. The rest--don't think science has any view on it. Not really subjects of scientific interest.
 
Top