Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

nickleus

geological evidence disproving global flood (noah)

Recommended Posts

Ceeboo:

As my elementary school teacher told us. "Show your work" meaning of course show me how you arrived at that answer.

Hey sometime,

As my Lord God told all of us, "I am the one who did all the work" meaning of course that as one who has faith that Holy Scripture is indeed the Divine breathed word of Almighty God, he has clearly given us our answers.

BTW: although I understand there are many "scientific proofs" that there was no global flood, I would suggest that there are also many "scientific proofs" that have some very contradictory evidence to what it claims.

Peace,

Ceeboo

Share this post


Link to post

nickleus:

Evidence is one thing proof is quite another. I would agree that there is strong evidence against a world wide flood, and little to no evidence for it. But that is not ultimate proof.

Myself I believe it is a myth, but with a kernel of fact. I believe it was a very large but regional flood around the time of Noah. It fits the narrative and the science better than any other.

It's much much better than the kind of proof it takes to send someone to the electric chair which is where we should send the flood myth.

Remember, there are many many other scientific reasons to reject the global flood myth.

Share this post


Link to post

ElfLord:

That is why we can not appeal to popularity of an argument as the basis for fact. There needs be an outside determination. To use science is to use one of the best determiners. It is available to the True Blue Believer, as well as the harden skeptic, and everything in between. It produces consistent, and repeatable results.

Share this post


Link to post

So sure, if you can accept all that, there was a global flood. :P

GREAT!!!!

I knew you would come along! ;)

Now if we can just get you to believe in the other silly things like Adam and Eve we will really be making huge strides.

Peace,

Ceeboo

Share this post


Link to post

GREAT!!!!

I knew you would come along! :P

Now if we can just get you to believe in the other silly things like Adam and Eve we will really be making huge strides.

Peace,

Ceeboo

Ha!

Do you believe in a flat earth, Ceeboo?

creationism-3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

I personally don't believe there is enough water on the planet for a "global flood". I have a hard time believeing the idea that Noah's Ark is around the 15,000 foot mark on Mount Ararat in Turkey. I think there is good cause for belief that if there was a flood, it was regional. I doubt that mankind was spread wide enough for the flood to have been "global" as we understand it.

In any case, I don't see any reason for the understanding of man to shake your testamony in Jesus Christ.

If one follows the bath tub model for the flood the math on that has already been done and that ark won't float.

http://www.johnstons...waterworld.html

(Scroll to the bottom of that link for some google earth models)

As you can see there is not enough water to even cover the Oquirrh mountians west of SLC melting all the ice at the poles. However, Much land does disappears like Florida and Georgia.

But one also has to remember ice floats. Many animals species would not have had to been taken on the ark because they could have floated on the ice. To top that off according to science there where mile high sheets of ice covering much of the northern hemisphere around this time thus there wouldn't be much land left to even have to flood. Thus pointing even further to a local flood.

Through some Pixar Ice Age into the mix with an ice dam holding back flood waters then breaking and flooding the dry earth as it bursts and... wha la! Global Flood.

Share this post


Link to post

Ha!

Do you believe in a flat earth, Ceeboo?

creationism-3.jpg

No

Do you believe that Holy Scripture is the Divine inspired word of God?

Peace,

Ceeboo

Share this post


Link to post

No

Do you believe that Holy Scripture is the Divine inspired word of God?

Peace,

Ceeboo

Genesis teaches that the earth is flat. Also, the whole mechanism of the flood depends on a flat earth. So a better question is, do you believe that Holy Scripture is the Divine inspired word of God? And does that mean that it can't be wrong on some points or at least figurative?

Share this post


Link to post

If one follows the bath tub model for the flood the math on that has already been done and that ark won't float.

http://www.johnstons...waterworld.html

(Scroll to the bottom of that link for some google earth models)

As you can see there is not enough water to even cover the Oquirrh mountians west of SLC melting all the ice at the poles. Much land disappears like Florida and Georgia.

But one also has to remember ice floats. Many animals species would not have had to been taken on the ark because they could have floated on the ice. To top that off according to science there where mile high sheets of ice covering much of the northern hemisphere around this time thus there wouldn't be much land left to even have to flood. Thus pointing even further to a local flood.

Through some Pixar Ice Age into the mix with an ice dam holding back flood waters then breaking and flooding the dry earth as it bursts and... wha la! Global Flood.

The Flood, I can take it or leave it. It just isn't that important to me in the cosmic scheme of existance.

I guess would make me one of those people standing around Noah thinking that he was totally out of his gourd.

Share this post


Link to post

Genesis teaches that the earth is flat. Also, the whole mechanism of the flood depends on a flat earth. So a better question is, do you believe that Holy Scripture is the Divine inspired word of God? And does that mean that it can't be wrong on some points or at least figurative?

CFR on that one. I've only seen the revelation "4 corners" for proof of the flat earth.

Share this post


Link to post

The Flood, I can take it or leave it. It just isn't that important to me in the cosmic scheme of existance.

I guess would make me one of those people standing around Noah thinking that he was totally out of his gourd.

Me neither.

I just think that some of the critics exaggerated complaints have perfectly logic explanations.

For example, not enough room on the ark.

1) for full grown animals, but what if they were relatively young beasts? Possible some of them in embryo/egg form.

2) only species that do not regularly frequent watery environments would have had to been taken.

eg. Crocodiles can survive in both salt and fresh water, polar bears and Penguins live on the ice. Some karaboo and other snow beasties had a built in life raft.

Share this post


Link to post

If one follows the bath tub model for the flood the math on that has already been done and that ark won't float.

http://www.johnstons...waterworld.html

(Scroll to the bottom of that link for some google earth models)

As you can see there is not enough water to even cover the Oquirrh mountians west of SLC melting all the ice at the poles. However, Much land does disappears like Florida and Georgia.

But one also has to remember ice floats. Many animals species would not have had to been taken on the ark because they could have floated on the ice. To top that off according to science there where mile high sheets of ice covering much of the northern hemisphere around this time thus there wouldn't be much land left to even have to flood. Thus pointing even further to a local flood.

Through some Pixar Ice Age into the mix with an ice dam holding back flood waters then breaking and flooding the dry earth as it bursts and... wha la! Global Flood.

I think another good arguement for a regional flood comes from the tale of Lot and his Daughters. After the destruction of Sodom, Lot's daughters were convinced that it was up to them to make sure that mankind continued, thus getting "jiggy" with their father.

You can argue that this shows a very narrow understanding of the world, and the idea of a "global" flood as we think of "global" today would have been incomprehendable to people of that age. I just don't think they could understand the scale of what "Global" implies.

Either that you could argue that it shows the wickedness of Sodom; but I like the first point better.

Share this post


Link to post

CFR on that one. I've only seen the revelation "4 corners" for proof of the flat earth.

The four corners is one, but the belief in a firmament is stronger evidence. The firmament was a dome structure covering the whole earth, over which were the waters that came down and caused the flood. You can't have a dome on a spherical earth - domes only work on a flat surface. Genesis was written assuming a flat earth - once you realize that, it makes more sense, internally.

This is the ancient Hebrew concept of the earth:

continuum-Fig-3-2-hebrew.preview.gif

otcosmos.jpg

I'm feeling lazy, so I'll link to previous posts from me with sources in them.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/51436-i-believe%E2%80%A6do-you-believe-in-the-gospel%E2%80%A6/page__st__80__p__1208916924#entry1208916924

Share this post


Link to post

Genesis teaches that the earth is flat. Also, the whole mechanism of the flood depends on a flat earth. So a better question is, do you believe that Holy Scripture is the Divine inspired word of God? And does that mean that it can't be wrong on some points or at least figurative?

I answered your question and you do not answer mine but instead ask me another/better question? That's odd!

Very well :P

The "mechanism" (You are sounding "scientific" again) of the flood has very little to do with God (The very Almighty Creator OF ALL THINGS). Simply put, God needs not prove to His creations the "proof", "mechanical way", or "scientific standards" by wich he did anything (The global flood included)

Lastly (To further answer you additional questions to me), The word of God is indeed inspired and breathed by Almighty. It most cetainly can be figurative (I have seen several interesting debates of such things between believer, including your reference that Genesis "teaches" a flat earth. But it is, IMHO, NEVER "wrong".

Peace,

Ceeboo

Share this post


Link to post

I think another good arguement for a regional flood comes from the tale of Lot and his Daughters. After the destruction of Sodom, Lot's daughters were convinced that it was up to them to make sure that mankind continued, thus getting "jiggy" with their father.

You can argue that this shows a very narrow understanding of the world, and the idea of a "global" flood as we think of "global" today would have been incomprehendable to people of that age. I just don't think they could understand the scale of what "Global" implies.

Either that you could argue that it shows the wickedness of Sodom; but I like the first point better.

I think that's an excellent point.

Share this post


Link to post

I think another good arguement for a regional flood comes from the tale of Lot and his Daughters. After the destruction of Sodom, Lot's daughters were convinced that it was up to them to make sure that mankind continued, thus getting "jiggy" with their father.

You can argue that this shows a very narrow understanding of the world, and the idea of a "global" flood as we think of "global" today would have been incomprehendable to people of that age. I just don't think they could understand the scale of what "Global" implies.

Either that you could argue that it shows the wickedness of Sodom; but I like the first point better.

I think that's an excellent point.

Share this post


Link to post

Tarski:

As I've already said I don't personally believe in a global flood. However if someone whom I accepted as a Prophet of God asked me to get on the boat. I'd like to think I would. :P

Things as a scientist I can't address.

1. Genesis 6-8 can be interpreted as a homiletic story such that the "world" that was flooded was just the area that Noah knew. Creationists argue against the local flood model because it doesn't fit their own literalist preconceptions, but I know of no physical evidence contrary to such a model.

2. Second, the whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that a global flood occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

Problems with a Global Flood.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Ps. In Tombstone Arizona there grave marker that has "Hung by mistake". But that is a whole another discussion.

Share this post


Link to post

The four corners is one, but the belief in a firmament is stronger evidence. The firmament was a dome structure covering the whole earth, over which were the waters that came down and caused the flood. You can't have a dome on a spherical earth - domes only work on a flat surface. Genesis was written assuming a flat earth - once you realize that, it makes more sense, internally.

This is the ancient Hebrew concept of the earth:

<snip>

I'm feeling lazy, so I'll link to previous posts from me with sources in them.

http://www.mormonapo...__p__1208916200

http://www.mormonapo...entry1208916924

Yes I have seen these pictures... and understand them. But i disagree that a sphere cannot have a dome. Put a ball in an empty fish bowl in a filled bath tub and you have the same model with a sphere. A snow globe also comes to mind.

Share this post


Link to post

[quote name='bluebell' timestamp='1291905700' post='1208949490'

Changed is replying to that assertion by explaining that the fact that so many cultures have a global flood myth in their traditions is actually evidence in favor of the reality of a global flood, not against it.

Share this post


Link to post

Ceeboo:

When religion makes a unsupportable claim about the physical earth don't be surprised if religion is shown to be incorrect.

Can God make a rock so big that God can't lift it? Or better yet can God make Pi equal to exactly three?

Share this post


Link to post

By that logic, I would take it that you believe in the actual existence of Santa Claus? I mean, there are so many cultures that venerate the myth of Santa Claus that he must be true, right?

Was there ever a man who lived who's name was St. Nick who gave presents to children?

Comparing the fictional story of santa clause to religion always weakens the arguement in my opinion, because santa is not supposed to be taken as truth by any culture that has the story. It's like using something from the Lord of the Rings or Watership Down to try to refute a religious myth.

The santa story and religious myths are not the same thing, no matter how often atheists or agnostics attempt to use them in similar ways.

Just because a lot of people believe in a myth doesn't make it a fact.

That is obvious and nothing that i asserted.

:P

Share this post


Link to post

Was there ever a man who lived who's name was St. Nick who gave presents to children?

Comparing the fictional story of santa clause to religion always weakens the arguement in my opinion, because santa is not supposed to be taken as truth by any culture that has the story. It's like using something from the Lord of the Rings or Watership Down to try to refute a religious myth.

The santa story and religious myths are not the same thing, no matter how often atheists or agnostics attempt to use them in similar ways.

That is obvious and nothing that i asserted.

:P

You know thats a very good point Bluebell. People keep calling Santa Claus a "Myth", while many particulars of the story are indeed mythical and have been added and embelished over the years, the story had an actual seed of truth as its Genesis. Why not the Flood story?

Share this post


Link to post

Elflord:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Were the animals aboard the ark mature? Woodmorappe gets his animals to fit only by taking juvenile pairs of everything weighing more than 22 lbs. as an adult. However, it is more likely that Noah would have brought adults aboard:

* The Bible (Gen. 7:2) speaks of "the male and his mate," indicating that the animals were at sexual maturity.

* Many animals require the care of adults to teach them behaviors they need for survival. If brought aboard as juveniles, these animals wouldn't have survived.

The last point does not apply to all animals. However, the animals don't need parental care tend to be animals that mature quickly, and thus would be close to adult size after a year of growth anyway.

Share this post


Link to post

Indeed!

I have seen scientific proof that they found the skeletal remains of Saint Nick. (Santa, unlike Adam, was a real human)

Apparently, he was buried in the "ice layers" and is dated, by a scientist with graduate papers, to be 6 million 467 thousand and 6 years old (With a scientific variance of 9 days either way).

MERRY CHRITMAS TO ALL! :P

Peace,

Ceeboo

Share this post


Link to post

Elflord:

http://www.talkorigi...-noahs-ark.html

Were the animals aboard the ark mature? Woodmorappe gets his animals to fit only by taking juvenile pairs of everything weighing more than 22 lbs. as an adult. However, it is more likely that Noah would have brought adults aboard:

* The Bible (Gen. 7:2) speaks of "the male and his mate," indicating that the animals were at sexual maturity.

* Many animals require the care of adults to teach them behaviors they need for survival. If brought aboard as juveniles, these animals wouldn't have survived.

The last point does not apply to all animals. However, the animals don't need parental care tend to be animals that mature quickly, and thus would be close to adult size after a year of growth anyway.

Why should we jump to the conclusion they were "sexually mature"?

Many Kings over the centuries ascended to their thrones when just children (prior to puberty) already betrothed or promised to their mates from other kingdoms. Also, many animals are not monogamous.

Many animals such as crocodiles and sea turtles (Yet two more examples of animals who would not need saving on an ark) are born already knowing how to survive, IOW scientists have shown their survival behaviors are passed down genetically, or so they say.

From your link...

Could animals have traveled from elsewhere? If the animals traveled from other parts of the world, many of them would have faced extreme difficulties.

  • Some, like sloths and penguins, can't travel overland very well at all.

Do penguins need saving on an ark when an iceberg would do just fine?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...