Why we know that there was no global flood.

[Thief]

No wild goose chase. An inability to reason by one party doesn't mean that there is a wild goose chase.

I reason.....something happened to inspire the story
too many cultures hold the the event as........an event


all that is left is the story

 

[Subduction Zone]

I reason.....something happened to inspire the story
too many cultures hold the the event as........an event


all that is left is the story

So far you have demonstrated that you can not reason here. And yes, something probably happened to inspire the myth. That does not mean that there is any reality to the biblical version.

And the Noah's Ark myth is quite different from those of other areas. The similarities are there because myths tend to follow the common story line of hero facing the elements.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thief, what you have proposed so far is worse than an ad hoc explanation. Your explanation only covers a very small bit of what we can observe. At times when someone claims that an event occurred then quite often there are consequences to that claim. We go back to the example of a claimed stampede of buffalos through a kitchen. There is no way that the kitchen would still be pristine.

 

[Thief]

So far you have demonstrated that you can not reason here. And yes, something probably happened to inspire the myth. That does not mean that there is any reality to the biblical version.

And the Noah's Ark myth is quite different from those of other areas. The similarities are there because myths tend to follow the common story line of hero facing the elements.

and you just demonstrated your inability....

'yes....something probably happened'
followed immediately....
'does not mean that there is any reality'

you can't have it both ways

something happened .....or it did not

I would agree.....something did

 

[Thief]

Thief, what you have proposed so far is worse than an ad hoc explanation. Your explanation only covers a very small bit of what we can observe. At times when someone claims that an event occurred then quite often there are consequences to that claim. We go back to the example of a claimed stampede of buffalos through a kitchen. There is no way that the kitchen would still be pristine.

very poor comparation
give a few centuries....the kitchen would be restored

give a few centuries.....the Ark is gone
all is well

 

[Subduction Zone]

and you just demonstrated your inability....

Please, no false claims about others.

'yes....something probably happened'
followed immediately....
'does not mean that there is any reality'

you can't have it both ways

something happened .....or it did not

I would agree.....something did

Wrong again. If my next door neighbor has a baby that does not mean that a storm dropped it off. You keep demonstrating an inability to reason. Something happened does not mean that what you believe happened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

very poor comparation
give a few centuries....the kitchen would be restored

give a few centuries.....the Ark is gone
all is well

Nope, it is an excellent comparison. On a scale of geologic time the supposed flood occurred this morning. We see evidence of far smaller and older floods. We would still see the evidence of Noahs flood.

 

[Thief]

Please, no false claims about others.



Wrong again. If my next door neighbor has a baby that does not mean that a storm dropped it off. You keep demonstrating an inability to reason. Something happened does not mean that what you believe happened.

and YOU said I can't reason

so now you are trolling

 

[Subduction Zone]

and YOU said I can't reason

so now you are trolling

Wow!!! Nope, you can't reason. You are making a claim that is the equivalent of "My neighbor had a baby, that means the stork did it".

Please do not troll the thread. If you do not understand the proper action to take is to ask questions politely and properly.

So far you have only demonstrated that you do not understand logic, how to apply analogies, and the concept of evidence seems to be totally beyond you.

Let's back up a bit. Let's discuss the nature of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmm, no response on evidence from Thief.

At any rate, here is just one source on what scientific evidence is:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

There are a few "put ups or shut ups" in science. If one does not have a testable idea, a scientific theory or hypothesis, then one by definition cannot have any scientific evidence for ones beliefs. In other words an idea must be formulated in a manner that one could conceivably falsify it. If the standard geological model was wrong it could be falsified. For example if layers of strata were found in all sorts of disorder that would falsify the model since the model predicts how strata will be found. The same applies to the theory of evolution. Violation of phylogeny is just one example of an event that would cause the theory to fail.


If someone cannot think of a reasonable test to see whether his idea is wrong or not then by definition one does not have a testable hypothesis. One cannot claim to have any evidence. And of course if someone makes a model, but does not test it, others may do so for him. If that testing makes the model fail then there no longer is a model. I have yet to see a flood advocate come up with a testable model, though many of their claims can be tested and refuted even if they are too afraid to make model.

 

[Sunstone]

Thread closed.​