The so-called global flood--evidence against

[IndigoChild5559]

Deformed means something that has not grown normally. For example limbs are not fully grown, or are not functioning correctly. Logically in this case the ability to escape is not as good as with something with no disabilities.

Let me ask you. Is there any research into the percent of fossils that show deformities? Or are you just making this up?

 

[Muffled]

Then you do not know what is and what is no evidence or you are just being silly or both. You are also claiming that your God is a liar.

Does God lie? If the answer is no then you cannot read Genesis literally. I can help you to learn how we know that, but I cannot force you to learn.

That is true. This is why you should learn whenever possible. It helps one from making silly mistakes, such as mistakenly calling one's own god a liar. I am not saying that I can prove that there is no God. I can only disprove long ago refuted versions of God.

I believe I can say I have never learned anything useful from you.

 

[Muffled]

No, now you are assuming that God gave the record. We can test ideas to see if they are accurate or not. Genesis did not come from God as history. It may have come from him as an inspired morality tale.

I believe you have no way of knowing what you stated. You are just guessing. I believe your tests are invalid. I believe Moses had God to tell him what happened in the past. Moses was not in the past to know it and the idea that he had historical records is a stretch.

 

[Muffled]

Actually, it does if one looks at this objectively and scientifically.



"Myth", in the theological context, does not mean nor imply falsehood. It's the use of the ancient art of "storytelling" to get certain messages across, and Jesus used that technique with his parables.



That doesn't work if one checks it out as the numbers of animals, for example, don't match.

Logic has its own rules. It does not depend on objectivity nor scientific rules.

I believe there are parables but Moses is not telling any. I do not believe parables are myths. I believe they are fiction.

If you mean the two flood stories should match I believe you would be incorrect. The secular account is likely to be less reliable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe I can say I have never learned anything useful from you.

That would be your fault, not mine. I could save you from calling your own God a liar. Who knows, perhaps you really believe that he is one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe you have no way of knowing what you stated. You are just guessing. I believe your tests are invalid. I believe Moses had God to tell him what happened in the past. Moses was not in the past to know it and the idea that he had historical records is a stretch.

That is only because you are very ignorant and afraid to learn. You also just broke the Ninth Commandment again. Let me see, you regularly claim that your god is a liar and you break the Ninth Commandment by making false claims about others. Are you sure that you are a Christian?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Logic has its own rules. It does not depend on objectivity nor scientific rules.

I believe there are parables but Moses is not telling any. I do not believe parables are myths. I believe they are fiction.

If you mean the two flood stories should match I believe you would be incorrect. The secular account is likely to be less reliable.

He is talking about the two flood stories in the Bible. If you read it carefully you can separate the two.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe I can say I have never learned anything useful from you.

Have you ever learned anything useful from anyone in this forum?

 

[metis]

Logic has its own rules. It does not depend on objectivity nor scientific rules.

I believe there are parables but Moses is not telling any. I do not believe parables are myths. I believe they are fiction.

If you mean the two flood stories should match I believe you would be incorrect. The secular account is likely to be less reliable.

Science goes by the objective "scientific method" approach, whereas religion goes by the subjective hearsay approach. Thus, if they conflict, I go with the former.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@Dan From Smithville

Here's one of those personal attack posts we were discussing .
Unless I am wrong and straight out telling others they are very ignorant isn't against the rules.

I'm not really sure what the rules are in here, so you may in fact be right. But the word ignorant simply means someone who does not yet have certain information. It is not the same thing as being stupid. You can be a very smart cookie but be ignorant on a given topic. Stating that you are ignorant CAN be a personal attack, but it can also simply be the person pointing out that you just don't have all the facts.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not really sure what the rules are in here, so you may in fact be right. But the word ignorant simply means someone who does not yet have certain information. It is not the same thing as being stupid. You can be a very smart cookie but be ignorant on a given topic. Stating that you are ignorant CAN be a personal attack, but it can also simply be the person pointing out that you just don't have all the facts.

Well, the same goes for stupid. It has a formal use and a folk use.

 

[MelancholicPotatoChip]

I realize that this topic has been addressed here and there in many threads. I'd like to collect all the points into one clearly labeled thread. Let's list all the arguments and evidence against the flood. They can include, for example, geological evidence, or internal problems with the Genesis account.

I'll start.

If there had been a global flood, there would be a single layer of silt extending all around the world. No such layer of silt exists.

This may be of value because it sums up the opposing points of creationism. The Fatal Flaws of Flood Geology | National Center for Science Education
Sorry I can't provide my own statement other than a link but I am not a geologist.

 

[Quester]

I realize that this topic has been addressed here and there in many threads. I'd like to collect all the points into one clearly labeled thread. Let's list all the arguments and evidence against the flood. They can include, for example, geological evidence, or internal problems with the Genesis account.

I'll start.

If there had been a global flood, there would be a single layer of silt extending all around the world. No such layer of silt exists.

Regarding history, there is a story written in Mesopotamian and biblical myths of the flood that happened. You can read the info here: Noah | Biblical Hero, Flood Survivor & Patriarch

To me, I wondered if there was an earlier event that could have been changed into what was eventually written, and, it seems there were two. in and around 6000 BC the side of Mt Etna slid into the Mediterranean and caused a mega tsunami. (The video is below.)

In and around the same time, there was another event where a piece of the seabed about the size of Iceland, slipped off the continental shelf, west of Norway. The geological event resulted in giant tsunamis with waves up to 20 meters high [about 6 stories] that washed over Iceland, Greenland,
Norway, Faroe Islands, and the UK.

Europe hit by devastating tsunamis 8,200 years ago

New research shows how tsunamis hit Northwest Europe 8200 years ago, ravaging Stone Age coastal communities as far south as Denmark.

www.sciencenordic.com

The idea is, this information went through a few millennia and like anything else, the picture changed over time until it popped up in religious texts as a completely different story.

I've never posted a video in here, so if I did this wrong the link is:

 

[Muffled]

That is only because you are very ignorant and afraid to learn. You also just broke the Ninth Commandment again. Let me see, you regularly claim that your god is a liar and you break the Ninth Commandment by making false claims about others. Are you sure that you are a Christian?

I believe I am sure that I am a Christian.

 

[Muffled]

He is talking about the two flood stories in the Bible. If you read it carefully you can separate the two.

I don't know of any othe rflood story in the Bible other than that of Noah.

 

[Muffled]

Science goes by the objective "scientific method" approach, whereas religion goes by the subjective hearsay approach. Thus, if they conflict, I go with the former.

I believe what God says is not subjective hearsay and it is more dependable than science which often turns out to be in error.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I don't know of any othe rflood story in the Bible other than that of Noah.

Scholars teach us that the book of Genesis splices two different flood stories into one. For example, the first author states two of each kind of animal enters the ark, making no distinction between clean and unclean:
Genesis 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
The second author states that seven pairs of clean animals enter the ark:
Genesis 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

 

[MelancholicPotatoChip]

I realize that this topic has been addressed here and there in many threads. I'd like to collect all the points into one clearly labeled thread. Let's list all the arguments and evidence against the flood. They can include, for example, geological evidence, or internal problems with the Genesis account.

I'll start.

If there had been a global flood, there would be a single layer of silt extending all around the world. No such layer of silt exists.

Less people occupied Earth in ancient times. I am sure to them when a localized flood occured it seemed 'global'. As we have further advanced in science, history and an increase in earthly population it doesn't seem like a global flood. We know the world is a much bigger place than previously thought.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Less people occupied Earth in ancient times. I am sure to them when a localized flood occured it seemed 'global'.

Absolutely. I have no problem with people who concede that the flood of Noah story is based on a localized flood, rather than a global one.

 

[metis]

I believe what God says is not subjective hearsay and it is more dependable than science which often turns out to be in error.

With me, it's the other way around. The Bible is clearly not inerrant as there are many what theologians call "variations" on the same narratives. However, I certainly am not diminishing the good that the Bible teaches.