geological evidence disproving global flood (noah)

[semlogo]

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.

That is not the Hebrew cosmology. They did not have any concept of a spherical earth. Domes must sit on a flat or flatish surface. A ball in a fishbowl is not their model. Your picture must include a new surface upon which the sphere and the dome would sit - something totally absent from their cosmology. The Hebrews asbolutely believed in a flat earth and their myths reflect that. One passage in the OT I believe talks of the "circle" of the earth - which would fit well with dome idea. Certainly better than a square shape.

In any case, there is no dome, either. We've sent our rockets up much higher than the Tower of babel, and discovered that the firmament is neither iron nor clay, but rather myth.

[semlogo]

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?

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

That's actually a great example. Santa Clause IS based on a real person, but the myths that have created about him aren't literally true, but based on a more mundane truth. I suspect the same is true of all flood myths- they're tall tales about real floods that happened long ago in each culture's past.

[Walden]

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.

Was there ever a man named St. Nick....well, yes, according to historical accounts he did exist. And I do not argue that a man referred to as Jesus of Nazareth existed, though the actual evidence is much weaker than that for St. Nick's existence. How does that make either of them anything more than human?

And if there is a world-wide culture of childen who definitely believe in the tuthfulness of Santa. I know that belivers hate the comparison, but to me it makes perfect sense. The Jesus as savior myth is just a myth that most adults have not been able to let go of, for any number of reasons. And I am not here to tell you to let go of that myth. All I am saying is don't confuse myth for fact, or legends for evidence.

[ElfLord]

That is not the Hebrew cosmology. They did not have any concept of a spherical earth. Domes must sit on a flat or flatish surface. A ball in a fishbowl is not their model. Your picture must include a new surface upon which the sphere and the dome would sit - something totally absent from their cosmology. The Hebrews asbolutely believed in a flat earth and their myths reflect that. One passage in the OT I believe talks of the "circle" of the earth - which would fit well with dome idea. Certainly better than a square shape.

In any case, there is no dome, either. We've sent our rockets up much higher than the Tower of babel, and discovered that the firmament is neither iron nor clay, but rather myth.

The verse is in Isaiah

Isaiah 40:22

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

but he also knew what a ball/sphere was.

Isaiah 22:18

He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord

[thesometimesaint]

ElfLord:

All animals compete in a given a ecological niche for survival. It creates more problems than it solves to have all the animals as juveniles.

Unless God also changed their natural instincts, and physics needs penguins need considerable land time in order to breed, and an iceberg just doesn't last long enough for that to happen. Not to mention sloths really don't like the cold. Add in that several species of cave insects require 100% humidity in order to survive. Did Noah go spelunking too? How did he keep them alive?

[ElfLord]

ElfLord:

All animals compete in a given a ecological niche for survival. It creates more problems than it solves to have all the animals as juveniles.

Unless God also changed their natural instincts, and physics needs penguins need considerable land time in order to breed, and an iceberg just doesn't last long enough for that to happen. Not to mention sloths really don't like the cold. Add in that several species of cave insects require 100% humidity in order to survive. Did Noah go spelunking too? How did he keep them alive?

The iceberg need only last 40 days. Some versions of the Flood story only last 14 days.

Do you think Noah took Walrus and Seals on the ark? How about Sea otters? There would have been no need.

[Tarski]

I wish we could discuss the following questions

1) How big would a local flood have to be to cleanse "the earth" of its evil inhabitants. (pretty big it seems)

2) How big would it have to be in order that the number animals that had to be gathered was big enough for the story as told to make sense as a real occurrence with an epic lesson? Would it be in the bible as an epic occurrence if the whole thing was just a guy helping a pig over a puddle? What if it were just a few farm animals that were saved on a raft? Would it even be a scared story if gathering two of every kind on the earth just meant collecting a pair of each of a dozen kinds of farm animals?

3) Is there any evidence of a local flood of this size and indeed, can it be ruled out scientifically from knowledge of the geology of the region? (I bet it can)

[ElfLord]

I wish we could discuss the following questions

1) How big would a local flood have to be to cleanse "the earth" of its evil inhabitants. (pretty big it seems)

Some additional data is needed.

1) Earths human population and their geographical locations at the time?

2) How much dry earth was not covered by water or ice right before the flood?

2) How big would it have to be in order that the number animals that had to be gathered was big enough for the story as told to make sense as a real occurrence with an epic lesson? Would it be in the bible as an epic occurrence if the whole thing was just a guy helping a pig over a puddle? What if it were just a few farm animals that were saved on a raft? Would it even be a scared story if gathering two of every kind on the earth just meant collecting a pair of each of a dozen kinds of farm animals?

Where do you get the idea that every single species of animal had to be on the ark? The text never makes that claim.

Gen 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.

3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

It only claims "every clean beast" (AKA farm animals) which are listed in Leviticus. And it doesn't claim that every unclean beast was on the ark, only that he should take some by 2 but he didn't need to worry about ALL of them. We could also get a list of what these beasts were from Leviticus.

3) Is there any evidence of a local flood of this size and indeed, can it be ruled out scientifically from knowledge of the geology of the region? (I bet it can)

The black sea burst comes to mind AND it is in the correct geographical location.

http://en.wikipedia....a_deluge_theory

[semlogo]

The verse is in Isaiah

Isaiah 40:22

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

but he also knew what a ball/sphere was.

Isaiah 22:18

He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord

[semlogo]

The black sea burst comes to mind AND it is in the correct geographical location.

http://en.wikipedia....a_deluge_theory

Just what I was thinking. It happened long before the global flood was supposed to have happened (and actually before the earth was supposed to have been created!), but it makes a good source story for the myths that were later told about it. I'm sure for people in that area it would have seemed like the whole earth was flooding.

[thesometimesaint]

ElfLord:

As Seals, Otters, and the Walrus and the sea life they feed on all live in specific salinity of water. They would have to be taken on the Ark plus the necessary environment to live it.

Let's not forget the Whales, and sea mammals related to them also are saline specific. Further nearly all land plants do not survive even mild saline conditions for more than a few hours.

Did Noah turn all those animals loose in a dead world?

[ElfLord]

ElfLord:

As Seals, Otters, and the Walrus and the sea life they feed on all live in specific salinity of water. They would have to be taken on the Ark plus the necessary environment to live it.

Let's not forget the Whales, and sea mammals related to them also are saline specific. Further nearly all land plants do not survive even mild saline conditions for more than a few hours.

Did Noah turn all those animals loose in a dead world?

Yet whales dive to the deepest depths to catch giant squid under tremendous depth, preasure and differing salinities. I think life on earth is much more resiliant than you are letting on.

What was it that the scientific minded Jeff Goldblum said on Jurassic park? "Life will find a way"

One question is, were did the bird find the fig leaf?

PS. Why do desert Isles which are under the ocean some times months at a time still have vegitation?

[bluebell]

And if there is a world-wide culture of childen who definitely believe in the tuthfulness of Santa. I know that belivers hate the comparison, but to me it makes perfect sense. The Jesus as savior myth is just a myth that most adults have not been able to let go of, for any number of reasons.

So says Walden. I'm sure you can appreciate how little that means to those of us who disagree with you (and i'm not saying that in a snarky manner or in anger-just as a reminder that your declaration of 'how it is' is equal to my declarations of 'how it is' and so i am naturally respond to it in the exact same way that you respond to people tell you, as if it was proven and a fact, that God exists)

All I am saying is don't confuse myth for fact, or legends for evidence.

I will try not to do that as long as you try not to confuse your beliefs with fact either (since you seem to struggle with that and it appears to be important to you that people not indulge that weakness).

[Rob Osborn]

I wish we could discuss the following questions

1) How big would a local flood have to be to cleanse "the earth" of its evil inhabitants. (pretty big it seems)

No "localized" flood would have been adequate to cleanse the earth of it's evil inhabitants. Noah had 120 years notice to try to change the world. In this time, man could have walked or migrated to the farthest possible location away from Noah. If it was a local flood then God is a liar. God covenanted with Enoch that he would no more cover the whole of the earth with a flood after the flood of Noah's day.

2) How big would it have to be in order that the number animals that had to be gathered was big enough for the story as told to make sense as a real occurrence with an epic lesson? Would it be in the bible as an epic occurrence if the whole thing was just a guy helping a pig over a puddle? What if it were just a few farm animals that were saved on a raft? Would it even be a scared story if gathering two of every kind on the earth just meant collecting a pair of each of a dozen kinds of farm animals?

Do some simple math on what the scriptures say about the size of the ark. It wasn't no ordinary little fishing boat. It's size could support the literal tens of thousands of animals. Nobody has dispiuted that if the ark was as big as it says it was then it could hold tens of thousands of animals. I find this to be quite problematic for localized flood believers. Only a small boat would be required if it was limited in scope. In a limited flood account Noah would only have to save a few animal species that were on only that portion of land that would get flooded.

3) Is there any evidence of a local flood of this size and indeed, can it be ruled out scientifically from knowledge of the geology of the region? (I bet it can)

This quite futile really because we do not know exactly where the flood started and where it ended. All we know is that Noah landed in the mountains of Ararat. The area of land where those mountains are is pretty vast.

[ELF1024]

This quite futile really because we do not know exactly where the flood started and where it ended. All we know is that Noah landed in the mountains of Ararat. The area of land where those mountains are is pretty vast.

Not to mention that it has been a great deal of time since the "mountains of Ararat" were named, and it's possible, perhaps even likley, that Mount Ararat in Turkey is not the same landmark as the mountains of Ararat that was named in the Bible.

[ElfLord]

Do some simple math on what the scriptures say about the size of the ark. It wasn't no ordinary little fishing boat. It's size could support the literal tens of thousands of animals. Nobody has dispiuted that if the ark was as big as it says it was then it could hold tens of thousands of animals. I find this to be quite problematic for localized flood believers. Only a small boat would be required if it was limited in scope. In a limited flood account Noah would only have to save a few animal species that were on only that portion of land that would get flooded.

3 decks I hear.

http://www.arksearch.com/na3dark.htm

PS. Do some math on how many animals the scriptures actually says were on the ark.

[semlogo]

No "localized" flood would have been adequate to cleanse the earth of it's evil inhabitants. Noah had 120 years notice to try to change the world. In this time, man could have walked or migrated to the farthest possible location away from Noah. If it was a local flood then God is a liar. God covenanted with Enoch that he would no more cover the whole of the earth with a flood after the flood of Noah's day.

Do some simple math on what the scriptures say about the size of the ark. It wasn't no ordinary little fishing boat. It's size could support the literal tens of thousands of animals. Nobody has dispiuted that if the ark was as big as it says it was then it could hold tens of thousands of animals. I find this to be quite problematic for localized flood believers. Only a small boat would be required if it was limited in scope. In a limited flood account Noah would only have to save a few animal species that were on only that portion of land that would get flooded.

This quite futile really because we do not know exactly where the flood started and where it ended. All we know is that Noah landed in the mountains of Ararat. The area of land where those mountains are is pretty vast.

You know, you accuse science-friendly members of being atheists, but your perspective on scripture is rather similar to that of every atheist I have met. All or nothing, black or white, it's literally true or God is a liar.

[ElfLord]

You know, you accuse science-friendly members of being atheists, but your perspective on scripture is rather similar to that of every atheist I have met. All or nothing, black or white, it's literally true or God is a liar.

I can agree with you here. I think the scriptures are alot more colorful than some people give them credit for.

[thesometimesaint]

ElfLord:

So getting your science from a Hollywood movie is good, but getting from an actual scientist is not?

I never said life in general was fragile. It isn't but different life forms require different to vary different environments in order to survive. A Global Flood would play havoc with all ecosystems including the one man is dependent on.

[Rob Osborn]

You know, you accuse science-friendly members of being atheists, but your perspective on scripture is rather similar to that of every atheist I have met. All or nothing, black or white, it's literally true or God is a liar.

No, I only accuse those who hold atheist ideals and side with known atheists to be atheists- big difference there. It's only you who must try to rationalize the holy word of God- try to make your shoe fit what already exists. You must do so in perfect light that much of the wording must fall outside of the correct definitions to do so. When such fails, you just block it all up as some kind of fictional event. These are the same paths that atheists take- chalk ip the miracles of God as fictional and then next move to replace the word of God with humanistic teachins which run contrary to Gods holy word.

[ElfLord]

ElfLord:

<snip>

I never said life in general was fragile. It isn't but different life forms require different to vary different environments in order to survive. A Global Flood would play havoc with all ecosystems including the one man is dependent on.

Very true. But you assume all these animals wouldn't find other ways of subsisting. For example.... There would be plenty of dead land animal carcasses to feed off of, a literal smorgasport not a dead waste land.

[semlogo]

No, I only accuse those who hold atheist ideals and side with known atheists to be atheists- big difference there. It's only you who must try to rationalize the holy word of God- try to make your shoe fit what already exists. You must do so in perfect light that much of the wording must fall outside of the correct definitions to do so. When such fails, you just block it all up as some kind of fictional event. These are the same paths that atheists take- chalk ip the miracles of God as fictional and then next move to replace the word of God with humanistic teachins which run contrary to Gods holy word.

Sorry, your approach is much more atheistic than mine. You put scripture in an unfriendly, strictly literalist light. The only difference between you is an atheist is an atheist knows that such an interpretation makes the scriptures untenable. Ignorance is not a virtue, Rob. Sorry. Informed, intelligent believers must strive to strike a balance between objective reality and scripture, the latter being of course open to interpretation.

[Kiviuq]

I think a much more interesting approach to this topic is one of doctrine. Does the Earth have a spirit and a need of baptism by immersion? What do we learn from the teachings from the Book of Mormon? How about the God declared purpose of destroying all human life (except Noah and his group.)

The real problem with believing some kind of local flood event myth is that it runs contrary to the doctrinal teachings of the Church for many generations. In my opinion, the scientific evidence points to some local flood and a story that was retold over many generations and eventually made it into a book of scripture representing the beliefs of the day. The problem is that this scientific knowledge runs contrary to what I was taught in Sunday School for 40 plus years. It

[ELF1024]

It

[Kiviuq]

The story of the flood being a localized or regional happening doesn't change what is important for salvation. Jesus is still the Christ. He still died for our sins. It doesn't matter one iota of difference if the flood was global or regional, or just a story to scare people into behaving.

The story of the flood is not what is important, it is my trust in scripture, my trust in the words and teachings of modern prophets, and a desire to know that doctrine is unchanging. These all are important to my salvation.