Noah's flood story, did it happen?

[Rival]

So called Israelis

'So-called'?

 

[Altfish]

YES!

You must have better geological evidence than me, could you post post a reference/link ... and please don't say Genesis ch 6-9

 

[Colt]

^ just in case there was any doubt.

Like Floridians, Russians, Canadians, Eskimos, Chinese, Brooklynites. Sorry, you aren't a special case and the historical claims of so called Israelites are open to criticism.

 

[ChristineM]

All the planets had water when they formed from the Nebular cloud.
Even the moon, and moons of other planets in the solar system.
The idea that only the earth has water, is already proven false with visits and tests on Venus and Mars.

I said, "mostly" dry, i.e. no free water

over the past 50 years.
As for meteors, their water isotopes does not math the water on earth, and the old scientific theory that meteors delivered water to the earth, was proven incorrect.
I am in a hurry, but there is ample websites explaining it.

I am sure there are many fundi sites making such claims, There are many others that follow the science

Multiple geochemical studies have concluded that asteroids are most likely the primary source of Earth's water.
Origin of water on Earth - Wikipedia

As for the earth containing 80 times more water now than before, is news.
I will make time tonight to research that claim.

Simple calculation, the volume of the earth
The volume of the earth.
Research how much water it contains, there are many sites with the value of fresh and salt water.

Volume of a sphere the diameter of earth plus 17700 metres which accounts for the amount Everest has increased in height over the last 4000 years

Subtract that from your initial volume. Then work out the difference between that volume and the amount of existing water.

I did this calculation many years ago i am surprised more bible literalists done do it to check flood claims... Ok right

 

[sayak83]

When the Earth took shape in the Nebular cloud, and collected ice, gas and other materials, it grew bigger and eventually reached the aproximate size it has today. However, there are many things to consider.
1. The Earth would be much smoother, for there was no continental plate movement in its infancy, therefore when this icy collection warmed up on the surface of the Earth, water appeared, and flowed to areas which was lower than the rest.
2. The crust of this Earth would also thaw out, and would start to "shrink" into itself. As it shrinked, it built up preasure beneath the crust, which had a lot of water in its enterior. (Think of the Russian Cola deep which discovered more water in the rocks that scientists ever thought possible, and the oceans of water collected beneath China in woodite that contains more water than the oceans of the Earth put together.)
3. There must also have been huge quantities of water and ice in and beyond the Earth's atmosphere, which scientists today find very viable after their discoveries of cie rings on moons and planets in our solar system we never previously knew about.

Now that we have the foundations correct on what the Earth looked like after it took shape to before the flood, lets see what happened.

The Earth was a wet and soggy entity. The inland continent was hugh marsh lands and swamps. Evidence that dinosaurs could never have walked on land with their huge boddies, is evidence that they were either reptillian or amphibian. Therefore, taken the above into account, the continents did not appear as it does today.

You seem confused about the time scales involved. Humans have existed on earth for the last 400,000 years. Plate tectonic activity and the consequent formation of continents and mountain chains have been happening 2 billion years. Most mountains today are far older than humans. Himalayas are 40-50 million years old. Unless you are proposing that the flood happened before the even the first multi-cellular organisms evolved on earth, your proposition has no merit.

If the Bible spaeks about high mountains, it speaks of mountains that appeared after the flood, which was perhaps less than 500 meters above sea level before the event.

Nonsense. As I have noted. All the mountains today predate humans by millions and millions of years.

Good, then for some or other reason, the Earth's crust collapsed into itself, creating a huge crack circumventing the Earth twice, pushing this water out from below 50 miles of surface, gushing this water out at supersonic speeds, into and way passed the atmosphere.

No it did not. Nothing like this ever happened in the last 2 billion years at least for which we have very good geological evidence. And the idea of a collapsing earth pushing water out is nonsense. Most of the water in the upper mantel is not free water, but bonded to basalt rocks (at 100-200 ppm quantities ie. trace amounts) and only escape these crystals when the rocks are partially melted. A wholesale melting of the entire mantel and escape of all the water never happened as that would return earth back to molten fireball stage. Anyhow, such a crustal collapse cannot happen, because the rocks inside earth are denser than the rocks floating on top of it. Light rocks stay afloat denser rocks of the mantle. You need to read a book on basic history of earth's geological history.
Geological history of Earth - Wikipedia

We have to consider the following factor.
It the Earth's crust fell in upon itself, DUE TO THE INCREASE OF GRAVITY, then the icy ring around the Earth was drawn in from space and rained down on the Earth in water and Ice. Heat generated in this event would turn into snow at the poles, and created one huge Ice age.
As the earth changed from the shape of a nice smooth passionfruit, into a contracted shape of a dried pasionfruit, mountains formed with the earth crust contracting.

This was when mountains took shape.
Another factor to keep in mind is the description of the atmosphere from the Bible.
The Bible says that before the flood, it did not rain but a mist rose from the Earth and wet the land. This will be understandable if we take into consideration that the Earth shaped from solids liquid and Gas as per the understanding from the Nebular theory.

All of this is nonsense based on geological evidence of billions of year old mountains, plate tectonics, evidence of stable crust and continental cores for the last 2 billion years. And there is fossil evidence of rainfall from 2.7 billion years.
Primeval Precipitation: What Fossil Imprints of Rain Reveal about Early Earth

However, after the flood A RAINBOW APPEARED FOR THE FIRST TIME!
which means in scientific terms that for the first time the atmosphere was cleared from all its water, and refraction of light was observed.

Once again, this is nonsense. Rainbow is caused by water droplets that float in air and refract sunlight.

Now, this had its consequences too. A clear atmosphere will now allow ultraviolet and cosmic radiation, which will on turn, reduce the lifespan of humans. Exactly what we saw happened.

Once again this is nonsense. Atmosphere has been clear for billions of years, otherwise photosynthesis could not have occurred. Humans have emerged on earth in the last 300,000 years only. Human lifespan has remained roughly the same and have increased in the recent times due to good medical facilities. Otherwise most humans would die in the 40s or earlier in ancient times.[/quote]

 

[Subduction Zone]

A few months ago I opened a thread about the Biblical description of Creation, and whether science disproved the Bible on its description.
It was a very nice debate with some very intellectual members, and I must admit, that there were quite a few new arguments that came to the front, which I never seen before. Be as it may, my conclusion on the discussion is that there are no evidence in science to disprove the creation narrative, but just as scientists makes assumptions about how eveerything came into being, it is very easy for the Biblical apologist to be ready with other assumptions which is equally sound and not easily debunked.
Therefore, I have yet to see any evidence in science in contradiction with the Bible.

However, there were quite a few members that continiously arrived at another argument, to validate their viewpoint that the Bible is a compilation of mythology, and not scientific at all.
That argument is...the Noah's flood story...

Again, if one were to read the story of this global flood, and dont want to take many, or as much factors, into consideration to allow the Biblical narative to explain itself, then with a superficial bias are able to discard the story as far fetched made up.

What do I mean with superficial?
Well, a "Global flood"?
One filling the earth to about 20 meters above the highest mountains?
"Are you serious?", the question normally goes, " 20 meters above Everest?
Everest is what, 8850 meters high! If the earth was covered with 8850 meters of water...
"Where did the Water come from, and where did it go?"

Questions such as the one above is not asked by simply normal joes such as you and I, nope, this is asked by highly educated scientists.
And guess what?
This simple question is actually a statement, by mostly bias thought, not as a question, but as a statement:
And that statement is: "Are you serious? you dont understand a simple logical statement which your Bible speaks about. Only a very stupid uneducated person will believe that there was billions of cubic miles of water covering Everest and the rest of the Earth, without even considering that this water had to come from somewhare, and we dont see that volume everywhere at all today! So where is that water!

If I remember, Carl Sagan asked the exact same question.

From my point of view, I was amased that such highly educated scientists would be so superficial on their observation. let me demonstrate how this strawpuppet they created simply burns out once we take everything into consideration.

When the Earth took shape in the Nebular cloud, and collected ice, gas and other materials, it grew bigger and eventually reached the aproximate size it has today. However, there are many things to consider.
1. The Earth would be much smoother, for there was no continental plate movement in its infancy, therefore when this icy collection warmed up on the surface of the Earth, water appeared, and flowed to areas which was lower than the rest.
2. The crust of this Earth would also thaw out, and would start to "shrink" into itself. As it shrinked, it built up preasure beneath the crust, which had a lot of water in its enterior. (Think of the Russian Cola deep which discovered more water in the rocks that scientists ever thought possible, and the oceans of water collected beneath China in woodite that contains more water than the oceans of the Earth put together.)
3. There must also have been huge quantities of water and ice in and beyond the Earth's atmosphere, which scientists today find very viable after their discoveries of cie rings on moons and planets in our solar system we never previously knew about.

Now that we have the foundations correct on what the Earth looked like after it took shape to before the flood, lets see what happened.

The Earth was a wet and soggy entity. The inland continent was hugh marsh lands and swamps. Evidence that dinosaurs could never have walked on land with their huge boddies, is evidence that they were either reptillian or amphibian. Therefore, taken the above into account, the continents did not appear as it does today.

If the Bible spaeks about high mountains, it speaks of mountains that appeared after the flood, which was perhaps less than 500 meters above sea level before the event.

Good, then for some or other reason, the Earth's crust collapsed into itself, creating a huge crack curcumventing the Earth twice, pushing this water out from below 50 miles of surface, gushing this water out at supersonic speeds, into and way passed the atmosphere.

We have to consider the following factor.
It the Earth's crust fell in upon itself, DUE TO THE INCREASE OF GRAVITY, then the icy ring around the Earth was drawn in from space and rained down on the Earth in water and Ice. Heat generated in this event would turn into snow at the poles, and created one huge Ice age.
As the earth changed from the shape of a nice smooth passionfruit, into a contracted shape of a dried pasionfruit, mountains formed with the earth crust contracting.

This was when mountains took shape.
Another factor to keep in mind is the description of the atmosphere from the Bible.
The Bible says that before the flood, it did not rain but a mist rose from the Earth and wet the land. This will be understandable if we take into consideration that the Earth shaped from solids liquid and Gas as per the understanding from the Nebular theory.

However, after the flood A RAINBOW APPEARED FOR THE FIRST TIME!
which means in scientific terms that for the first time the atmosphere was cleared from all its water, and refraction of light was observed.

Now, this had its consequences too. A clear atmosphere will now allow ultraviolet and cosmic radiation, which will on turn, reduce the lifespan of humans. Exactly what we saw happened.

Anyhow, I hope this will be a nice discussion going forward, and I urge anyone who would like to join in, to please take one step at a time.
Nothing is so frustrating as someone coppying and pasting a lot of claims, not expecting any answer.

Greetings

Let's not play silly games. The Noah's Flood myth is about an event that happened while man was alive. Not something that happened billions of years ago.

What is your version of the Flood myth?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Like Floridians, Russians, Canadians, Eskimos, Chinese, Brooklynites.

^ note that he didn't say "like so called Floridians, so called Russians, so called Canadians, so called Eskimos, so called Chinese, so called Brooklynites" while decrying "so called Israelis."

 

[Subduction Zone]

You must have better geological evidence than me, could you post post a reference/link ... and please don't say Genesis ch 6-9

I think that he may have an extreme reinterpretation of the Noah's Ark story. Right now he seems to be claiming that it is true because the surface of the Earth may have been wet once. I don't know how one can defend the Noah's Ark myth without Noah and without the Ark.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The flood is happening right now I think, in London. Wettest May I've ever seen.

Hard rain's a gonna fall, as some Jewish hippy said (not Jesus).

 

[Altfish]

The flood is happening right now I think, in London. Wettest May I've ever seen.

Hard rain's a gonna fall, as some Jewish hippy said (not Jesus).

Same in Manchester

 

[RestlessSoul]

Same in Manchester

It always rains in Manchester

 

[Subduction Zone]

It has been one of the driest springs ever here. I had to mow the lawn early too. Usually we rarely see the Sun until late June. It has been a nice change.

 

[Altfish]

It always rains in Manchester

You can't have a green and pleasant land without H2O

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A few months ago I opened a thread about the Biblical description of Creation, and whether science disproved the Bible on its description.
It was a very nice debate with some very intellectual members, and I must admit, that there were quite a few new arguments that came to the front, which I never seen before. Be as it may, my conclusion on the discussion is that there are no evidence in science to disprove the creation narrative, but just as scientists makes assumptions about how eveerything came into being, it is very easy for the Biblical apologist to be ready with other assumptions which is equally sound and not easily debunked.
Therefore, I have yet to see any evidence in science in contradiction with the Bible.

Off course, science doesn't make such "assumptions". The conclusions of science are the result of rigorous study, research, experimentation, testing, re-testing, etc etc etc and thus supported by a boatload of objective independently verifiable evidence.

The bible.... is not.
That's just plain assumptions. More often then not in contradiction with all the eivdence that supports contradicting the scientific conclusions instead.

However, there were quite a few members that continiously arrived at another argument, to validate their viewpoint that the Bible is a compilation of mythology, and not scientific at all.
That argument is...the Noah's flood story...

Again, if one were to read the story of this global flood, and dont want to take many, or as much factors, into consideration to allow the Biblical narative to explain itself, then with a superficial bias are able to discard the story as far fetched made up.

What do I mean with superficial?
Well, a "Global flood"?
One filling the earth to about 20 meters above the highest mountains?
"Are you serious?", the question normally goes, " 20 meters above Everest?
Everest is what, 8850 meters high! If the earth was covered with 8850 meters of water...
"Where did the Water come from, and where did it go?"

Questions such as the one above is not asked by simply normal joes such as you and I, nope, this is asked by highly educated scientists.
And guess what?
This simple question is actually a statement, by mostly bias thought, not as a question, but as a statement:
And that statement is: "Are you serious? you dont understand a simple logical statement which your Bible speaks about. Only a very stupid uneducated person will believe that there was billions of cubic miles of water covering Everest and the rest of the Earth, without even considering that this water had to come from somewhare, and we dont see that volume everywhere at all today! So where is that water!

If I remember, Carl Sagan asked the exact same question.

From my point of view, I was amased that such highly educated scientists would be so superficial on their observation. let me demonstrate how this strawpuppet they created simply burns out once we take everything into consideration.

When the Earth took shape in the Nebular cloud, and collected ice, gas and other materials, it grew bigger and eventually reached the aproximate size it has today. However, there are many things to consider.
1. The Earth would be much smoother, for there was no continental plate movement in its infancy, therefore when this icy collection warmed up on the surface of the Earth, water appeared, and flowed to areas which was lower than the rest.
2. The crust of this Earth would also thaw out, and would start to "shrink" into itself. As it shrinked, it built up preasure beneath the crust, which had a lot of water in its enterior. (Think of the Russian Cola deep which discovered more water in the rocks that scientists ever thought possible, and the oceans of water collected beneath China in woodite that contains more water than the oceans of the Earth put together.)
3. There must also have been huge quantities of water and ice in and beyond the Earth's atmosphere, which scientists today find very viable after their discoveries of cie rings on moons and planets in our solar system we never previously knew about.

Now that we have the foundations correct on what the Earth looked like after it took shape to before the flood, lets see what happened.

The Earth was a wet and soggy entity. The inland continent was hugh marsh lands and swamps. Evidence that dinosaurs could never have walked on land with their huge boddies, is evidence that they were either reptillian or amphibian. Therefore, taken the above into account, the continents did not appear as it does today.

If the Bible spaeks about high mountains, it speaks of mountains that appeared after the flood, which was perhaps less than 500 meters above sea level before the event.

Wow, that is some huge collection of ignorant statements. You seem completely oblivious to the timeframes involved in the history of both earth as well as live itself, and the age of homo sapiens.

I especially lol'ed at the statements about how dino's apparantly weren't able to walk on land how you think every mountain taller then 500m has appeared in the last couple thousand years.

Absolutely hilarious.

Good, then for some or other reason, the Earth's crust collapsed into itself, creating a huge crack curcumventing the Earth twice, pushing this water out from below 50 miles of surface, gushing this water out at supersonic speeds, into and way passed the atmosphere.

We have to consider the following factor.
It the Earth's crust fell in upon itself, DUE TO THE INCREASE OF GRAVITY, then the icy ring around the Earth was drawn in from space and rained down on the Earth in water and Ice. Heat generated in this event would turn into snow at the poles, and created one huge Ice age.
As the earth changed from the shape of a nice smooth passionfruit, into a contracted shape of a dried pasionfruit, mountains formed with the earth crust contracting.

This was when mountains took shape.
Another factor to keep in mind is the description of the atmosphere from the Bible.
The Bible says that before the flood, it did not rain but a mist rose from the Earth and wet the land. This will be understandable if we take into consideration that the Earth shaped from solids liquid and Gas as per the understanding from the Nebular theory.

However, after the flood A RAINBOW APPEARED FOR THE FIRST TIME!
which means in scientific terms that for the first time the atmosphere was cleared from all its water, and refraction of light was observed.

Now, this had its consequences too. A clear atmosphere will now allow ultraviolet and cosmic radiation, which will on turn, reduce the lifespan of humans. Exactly what we saw happened.

Anyhow, I hope this will be a nice discussion going forward, and I urge anyone who would like to join in, to please take one step at a time.
Nothing is so frustrating as someone coppying and pasting a lot of claims, not expecting any answer.

Greetings

lol

So from which apologetic con-man did you get all this nonsense?
Kent Hovind or alike?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Actually to form a rainbow the atmosphere must contain water, a rainbow is caused by sunlight being refracted by that eater

I see what you did there.
You tried to use basic elementary scientific facts to counter this amazing spaghetti of apologetic nonsense.
I'm afraid that your effort will be in vain, but you know that, I'm sure.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why making it so complicated? I find it puzzling that people go crazy to explain a supernatural event via naturalistic processes. It is like explaining Jesus ascension to Heaven in terms of rockets under His sandals, or some local temporary gravitational anomaly, and such.

According to the myth, it was a supernatural event. Therefore, all the apologist has to do, is invoke a miracle. Water from nowhere and flowing back into nowhere. Why not?

Ciao

- viole

Exactly..... this reminds me of some documentary I once say, of a geologist who was taking 3 YECs on a trip through sites in the USA to show them how wrong they are. The docu was actually some sort of experiment to see just how closed of to evidence those people were.

At one point during the show, they were once again stuck in an endless "debate" of the geologists spewing facts at them, while the kept handwaving them away with either completely ignorant "counters" or by invoking "miracles". This time, the topic was the ark.

The geologist got tired of repeatedly showing them with math who the entire thing is obvious nonsense. Math involving the amount of room they would have required for the animals, the amount of food they would have needed, the amount of droppings they would have had to dispose of DAILY, etc...

At some point, he got so fed up with the magical claims that he simple asked why they even bothered with, indeed, trying to "explain" it all using "naturalistic" processes or what have you....

If they are going to invoke magic anyway, why not just say that god used magic to shrink all the animals down and put them in temporary artificial hibernation and then store them in a small box the size of a bog of matches that Noah could then just keep in his pocket or something.

Why do they insist on making all those nonsense crazy claims to desperatly try to make it work in light of scientific realities... After all, if we are going to allow for magic to occur, then scientific realities are ignored anyway - since that IS what magic is.

So go all the way then, instead of arguing yourself into such impossible corners while making yourself look like a total scientifically illiterate fool ..................

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Why making it so complicated? I find it puzzling that people go crazy to explain a supernatural event via naturalistic processes. It is like explaining Jesus ascension to Heaven in terms of rockets under His sandals, or some local temporary gravitational anomaly, and such.

If I had to guess, all the jumping through "realistic hoops" when they could just appeal to "magic" is because the believer fully understands and must admit that we have no demonstrations of such drastic "magic" in our world as it stands now.

They're finding the window within which they can make outrageous claims without being called out when it turns out someone recorded the event, or that someone did some investigation and found them to be frauds, etc. getting smaller and smaller and smaller. So they have resorted to trying to fit God inside a box of realism so that they don't have to explain "magic" when pressed and must necessarily admit that they have absolutely no good contemporary examples to back them up.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Same in Manchester

You know, for some reason, whenever I read the word "Manchester" in an english sentence, I can't help but have it sound like it's being said by some british soccer hooligan voice.

I'm sure it's an actual accent of a region, but for some reason it's heavily connected to some hardcore soccer fan. I guess it's the result of TV, like in this scene of a (HILARIOUS) episode of IT Crowd:

Sorry for the off topic post, but I thought this thread might use a laugh or two.

 

[ChristineM]

I see what you did there.
You tried to use basic elementary scientific facts to counter this amazing spaghetti of apologetic nonsense.
I'm afraid that your effort will be in vain, but you know that, I'm sure.

Yes, i realise.
C'est la vie

 

[firedragon]

1. The Earth would be much smoother, for there was no continental plate movement in its infancy, therefore when this icy collection warmed up on the surface of the Earth, water appeared, and flowed to areas which was lower than the rest.

Considering this explanation, and the age Noah supposedly lived according to the Biblical timeline, it does not match.

How would you counter that?