Why we know that there was no global flood.

[SkepticThinker]

it's a matter of faith

Well, anything can be believed on faith.

How do we know a thing is actually true though? I think that's the more important question.

 

[Thief]

Nope, this is another assumption that you have not been able to justify. I asked you why and all you could do is to wave your hands. Too bad that you do not understand evolution. If you did you would see why your claim was bogus.

assumption is a useful tool .....used by those who know how

denial is a wreck in the hands of many

 

[Subduction Zone]

assumption is a useful tool .....used by those who know how

denial is a wreck in the hands of many

You are deep in denial and do not know how to use assumptions properly. Here is a clue, if you make an assumption you need to know how to test it. Otherwise it is just garbage.

One last time, let's get back on topic. Sadly you probably won't get back on because you know that your beliefs are wrong. That is some serious cognitive dissonance.

 

[Hawkins]

assumption is a useful tool .....used by those who know how

denial is a wreck in the hands of many

Assumption makes sense upon valid speculation. There are zillions of bloods for us to speculate that none of them can cover a high mountain as described in "Noah's flood", so scientifically it's pointless to have to assume that it's a flood at all. It may be something else. It may be a kind of catastrophe we never know of.

 

[Thief]

Assumption makes sense upon valid speculation. There are zillions of bloods for us to speculate that none of them can cover a high mountain as described in "Noah's flood", so scientifically it's pointless to have to assume that it's a flood at all. It may be something else. It may be a kind of catastrophe we never know of.

yeah....too many events to sort through and not enough data on any one

I don't think science can deal with this topic
It seems now, a story that may have some event foundation
and the overall response is at your disposal

 

[Subduction Zone]

Assumption makes sense upon valid speculation. There are zillions of bloods for us to speculate that none of them can cover a high mountain as described in "Noah's flood", so scientifically it's pointless to have to assume that it's a flood at all. It may be something else. It may be a kind of catastrophe we never know of.

So not a flood.

Tell me what your beliefs are. Were Noah and family and the animals in the Ark the only survivors? Why or why not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

yeah....too many events to sort through and not enough data on any one

I don't think science can deal with this topic
It seems now, a story that may have some event foundation
and the overall response is at your disposal

It depends. Tell me your beliefs and I can tell you how science can deal with them and test them. Vague hand waving only indicates a lack of understanding on your part.

 

[Thief]

It depends. Tell me your beliefs and I can tell you how science can deal with them and test them. Vague hand waving only indicates a lack of understanding on your part.

I believe science cannot deal with the lack of evidence

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe science cannot deal with the lack of evidence

Why not?

Here is an example. A friend of yours claims that a herd of 1,000 buffaloes just stampeded through his kitchen. You run to his house and find the kitchen spotless. Do you believe his claim? Why or why not?

 

[Thief]

Why not?

Here is an example. A friend of yours claims that a herd of 1,000 buffaloes just stampeded through his kitchen. You run to his house and find the kitchen spotless. Do you believe his claim? Why or why not?

poor analogy

let's say instead your ancestors were all killed in a buffalo stampede
and yet.....here you are

 

[Subduction Zone]

poor analogy

let's say instead your ancestors were all killed in a buffalo stampede
and yet.....here you are

Nothing wrong with that example. It was not an analogy by the way. It demonstrated the fact that absence of evidence can be evidence against an event. If someone makes a claim of an event that should leave obvious evidence the lack of that evidence is evidence against that claim.

 

[Thief]

Nothing wrong with that example. It was not an analogy by the way. It demonstrated the fact that absence of evidence can be evidence against an event. If someone makes a claim of an event that should leave obvious evidence the lack of that evidence is evidence against that claim.

you didn't get it

your ancestors were killed in a buffalo stampede
you are here

there are a great many things in our history that don't add up for lack of detail
and science cannot plug the gaps

for religious belief ......all you can do is think about it

 

[Subduction Zone]

you didn't get it

your ancestors were killed in a buffalo stampede
you are here

there are a great many things in our history that don't add up for lack of detail
and science cannot plug the gaps

for religious belief ......all you can do is think about it

I do get it. You did not understand the analogy. That indicates an inability to reason logically and rationally.

Try again.

 

[Thief]

I do get it. You did not understand the analogy. That indicates an inability to reason logically and rationally.

Try again.

if your ancestors died

you should not be here

flip the coin
too many details......too many names
the flood happened

I suspect exaggeration
but the story has some foundation.....somewhere, somehow
science may endeavor for dismisal

but that won't happen

 

[Subduction Zone]

if your ancestors died

you should not be here

flip the coin
too many details......too many names
the flood happened

I suspect exaggeration
but the story has some foundation.....somewhere, somehow
science may endeavor for dismisal

but that won't happen

This is a red herring and has nothing to do with your inability to understand a simple analogy.

And you do not understand the nature of evidence and how and why we know that the flood never happened. But let's go over parents and how your DNA demonstrates that a flood never happened.

But first I need to understand what version of the flood that you believe in. Can you please tell me your version of the flood?


Now you may be right on one point. There probably was a strong flood that gave arise to the myth. But no one has denied a strong local flood that could have given rise to this particular story. There is no need or even any reason to believe the Ark part of the myth. The story may be based upon a real event, but that is as far as it goes. The story in the Bible fails on many levels. Once again, what version do you believe in?

 

[columbus]

There probably was a strong flood that gave arise to the myth. But no one has denied a strong local flood that could have given rise to this particular story. There is no need or even any reason to believe the Ark part of the myth.

I once read an interesting hypothesis from Isaac Asimov.
He suggested that a strong seismic event, or even a meteor strike, in the Persian Gulf might have pushed a giant wall of tsunami up the Tigris and Euphrates River valleys. The backwash could have dragged substantial wooden buildings, much less river barges, out to sea where they might drift for days or weeks.

Survivors aboard such a vessel would become the stuff of legends.
Tom

 

[Subduction Zone]

I once read an interesting hypothesis from Isaac Asimov.
He suggested that a strong seismic event, or even a meteor strike, in the Persian Gulf might have pushed a giant wall of tsunami up the Tigris and Euphrates River valleys. The backwash could have dragged substantial wooden buildings, much less river barges, out to sea where they might drift for days or weeks.

Survivors aboard such a vessel would become the stuff of legends.
Tom

Not unreasonable. When I get home I will link an article on an observed flood of the Tigris and Euphrates system. A person floating in the middle of that flood would have seen only water from horizon to horizon.

 

[columbus]

I don't find the Flood myth too interesting. So I stopped reading the thread about 10 pages back. Maybe somebody has already brought this up.

I mostly just look at the elementary physics. Raising the current sea level by a mile, about 5000', would take around 200 million cubic miles of additional water. That would qualify as a global flood, although there'd still be a bunch of dry land. There's about 300 million cubic miles of liquid water on Earth. Noah's Flood would require adding about 2/3 total volume to the oceans, and then getting rid of it. During a human lifetime, ostensibly under a year.
I don't find that plausible.
Tom

 

[Thief]

This is a red herring and has nothing to do with your inability to understand a simple analogy.

And you do not understand the nature of evidence and how and why we know that the flood never happened. But let's go over parents and how your DNA demonstrates that a flood never happened.

But first I need to understand what version of the flood that you believe in. Can you please tell me your version of the flood?


Now you may be right on one point. There probably was a strong flood that gave arise to the myth. But no one has denied a strong local flood that could have given rise to this particular story. There is no need or even any reason to believe the Ark part of the myth. The story may be based upon a real event, but that is as far as it goes. The story in the Bible fails on many levels. Once again, what version do you believe in?

go back and read this thread.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

go back and read this thread.....

I don't need to reread a thread that you did not understand.