Noah's flood story, did it happen?

[Dan From Smithville]

So, everyone is wrong if they dont agree with you on Noah's flood, the Biblical creation in relation to science, the existence of God etc.

Oph! but the world is realy bad in having Christians and people using science to attest that God exists.

The Nobel Laureates over 100 years.
65% of the overall winners identified as Christian,2 whilst over 20% were Jewish and just under 1% were Muslim
Just under 11% of the winners had no belief in God (e.g. atheists and agnostics), although, interestingly, far more of them were in the field of literature (around 35% of winners), than in scientific disciplines (7% of winners in chemistry, 9% in medicine and 5% in physics).
Christians made up just under two–thirds of those receiving the physics and medicine awards (64% and 65% respectively), whilst the figure was even higher for chemistry, as they accounted for nearly three–quarters of the winners (74%).

Here we have it,
The most educated people on this earth that made everyone's life better.

None of those Nobels was for anything that would support the flood and these facts about the Nobel Prize are not anything that supports the flood.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Honestly - if there is a God as described in the Bible - there may be a lot of truth here.

I mean - if the God described in the Bible did actually create the Earth and has power over life and death - why couldn't He do these things?

Your disdain is definitely not going to discourage anyone who believes in a real and living God.

So - why be so disdainful when it is not productive?[/QUOTE]
The question really isn't whether God could do them, but if these things actually happened or if they are a myth. There is no evidence that a global flood as described in the Bible ever happened. A regional flood could be the source of story, but that is not what Genesis claims.

 

[sayak83]

Shall I give you a list of Scientists who do choose to engage in Flood geology?
There are hundreds of them.
I know af many who due to scientific discoveries became believers in God!
Why do you think you can claim science for atheism?
That is utterly arrogant.
Gee whizz!

There is not a single scientist who has published a single paper in any respected scientific journal validating flood geology. Scientists can personally believe whatever they want, but it's not science if they can't make publication worthy research supporting such theories.
Before any such published scientific papers come out supporting such theories, it's worthless to argue about it.
I am not an atheist. Religious ideologies are irrelevant in science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, everyone is wrong if they dont agree with you on Noah's flood, the Biblical creation in relation to science, the existence of God etc.

Oph! but the world is realy bad in having Christians and people using science to attest that God exists.

The Nobel Laureates over 100 years.
65% of the overall winners identified as Christian,2 whilst over 20% were Jewish and just under 1% were Muslim
Just under 11% of the winners had no belief in God (e.g. atheists and agnostics), although, interestingly, far more of them were in the field of literature (around 35% of winners), than in scientific disciplines (7% of winners in chemistry, 9% in medicine and 5% in physics).
Christians made up just under two–thirds of those receiving the physics and medicine awards (64% and 65% respectively), whilst the figure was even higher for chemistry, as they accounted for nearly three–quarters of the winners (74%).

Here we have it,
The most educated people on this earth that made everyone's life better.

It is a mistake to assume that just because someone is a Christian that they deny reality. Why do you have such a low opinion of those in your religion.

Yes, there are Christians that can do science. Ver very few of them believe the myths of Genesis. It is not required to call your own God a liar to be a Christian.

 

[metis]

Yes, there are Christians that can do science. Ver very few of them believe the myths of Genesis.

Cosmologists whom are theists, according to a survey I read about 10 years ago, hardly are conventional in their religious beliefs. I think I can vouch much the same for my fellow anthropologists, including yours truly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Shall I give you a list of Scientists who do choose to engage in Flood geology?
There are hundreds of them.
I know af many who due to scientific discoveries became believers in God!
Why do you think you can claim science for atheism?
That is utterly arrogant.
Gee whizz!

Most of those people will not be scientists. They will merely be people with a BA or better in the sciences. I have seen those lists. Just having a degree does not make one a scientist. To be a scientist one has to be working in the sciences. Doing research. Publishing papers. The true percentage of those working as scientist is a small fraction of 1%. The percentage of mentally ill in the population is probably larger than that.

What you would need to do to substantiate your claims of scientists that are flood believers would be to find and link papers from well respected peer reviewed professional journals. They are simply not to be found. The "papers" written by flood believers tend to be so full of errors that they can only publish in fake creationism journals.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cosmologists whom are theists, according to a survey I read about 10 years ago, hardly are conventional in their religious beliefs. I think I can vouch much the same for my fellow anthropologists, including yours truly.

I would say that Christians that do not believe the myths of Genesis were still "conventional". In fact worldwide it appears that most Christians do not believe the myths of Genesis. Creationism is a disease that is largely concentrated in the US. To a lesser degree in Australia, and then it almost drops off the charts.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

So... you're here to be a disingenuous interlocutor.... got it.

I have claimed from the start that it is impossible to prove these things one way or another.

Pointing out when evidence is lacking runs true to that claim.

It beats claiming you're right or someone else is wrong based on nothing.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Honestly - if there is a God as described in the Bible - there may be a lot of truth here.

I mean - if the God described in the Bible did actually create the Earth and has power over life and death - why couldn't He do these things?

Your disdain is definitely not going to discourage anyone who believes in a real and living God.

So - why be so disdainful when it is not productive?

The question really isn't whether God could do them, but if these things actually happened or if they are a myth. There is no evidence that a global flood as described in the Bible ever happened. A regional flood could be the source of story, but that is not what Genesis claims.[/QUOTE]
And as I have said many times before - it is impossible for the Genesis account to make any claims about the status of the entire planet - since there is no way that they would be privy to that information.

If you were to view the Genesis account as more of a record - rather than a fictional story book - that idea may start to make some sense.

 

[Jose Fly]

it is impossible for the Genesis account to make any claims about the status of the entire planet - since there is no way that they would be privy to that information.

When I was about 8 years old, I actually asked that question to my Sunday School teacher (how could they say the whole world was flooded, when they knew nothing about N. and S. America). Her answer was that God gave Moses that knowledge, but took it away after he wrote it down.

I can still remember shaking my head and saying "That doesn't make sense", which I guess was about all they could take from me. That same day they had a talk with my mom about how I "ask too many questions and needed to be taught what it means to have faith".

It ended up being a significant part of me never being a Christian, despite being immersed in it.

 

[ecco]

Please note that I was referring to what Asimov said & you're quoting like, wikipedia quoting Thiotimoline quoting Asimov.

Did you not bother to read my entire post:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_flood

Isaac Asimov posited a hypothesis that a large meteorite struck the Persian Gulf and created a tsunami that washed over the lowlands and killed a lot of people.[67] This is feasible, and it is the sort of thing that could be verified by geologists.
Or, are you referring to this:
Thiotimoline - Wikipedia
Asimov speculated that Noah's flood might have been brought about by thiotimoline experiments among the ancient Sumerians.

Some parts in red, since you missed them.

What Asimov himself directly said in his Noah's Ark thingee (from Asimov's Bible book) is----

This, according to the Bible, was a world-wide deluge, but there is no record of any such phenomenon, of course. The Egyptian civilization, for instance, was in a particularly flourishing state at this very time and was building its pyramids. Nor do the Egyptian records speak of any floods other than the annual overflow of the Nile, as far as we know. This is not to say, however, that the Biblical story of the Flood was not based on some actual, but local, flood in Sumerian history."​

The part you yourself quoted clearly says LOCAL. It clearly does not say WORLDWIDE.

Your original comment:

Y'all are running around in circles & imho Issac Asimov (no starry eyed religious fanatic he) wrote up a marvelous description of the validity of Noah's flood. I'd be happy to post it here if u want.

You implied that Asimov validated Noah's flood. Noah's flood was all-encompassing, covering the entire earth. Asimov clearly stated the Noah's flood story was probably based on a local flood. You even quoted the passages from Asimov showing that. So, no. Asimov did not validate Noah's flood as you asserted.

You've got to remember that Asimov was no theist, but at the same time he was realistic enough to have a profound respect for the Bible which he described as follows--

Respect for is not the same thing as belief in or acceptance of the stories within.



BTW, you are not the first person on RF to try to make it look like Asimov validated Noah's flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have claimed from the start that it is impossible to prove these things one way or another.

Pointing out when evidence is lacking runs true to that claim.

It beats claiming you're right or someone else is wrong based on nothing.

When a person refuses to state what they believe it is not possible to demonstrate how they are wrong.

But even so it is safe to say that Noah of the Bible was fictitious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And as I have said many times before - it is impossible for the Genesis account to make any claims about the status of the entire planet - since there is no way that they would be privy to that information.

If you were to view the Genesis account as more of a record - rather than a fictional story book - that idea may start to make some sense.

And yet if one reads the Bible it does make statements about the entire Earth. Now it was possible to have a large enough flood so that an individual in the midst of it in a small boat might believe that all of the Earth was flooded. They did not know how large the Earth was or that it was spherical. It is possible to have a large enough flood in a low lying region so that all one would see from horizon to horizon would be water. Of course there would be no visible "high hills" much less mountains in that sort of a region. So even with that the flood is still refuted by reality.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

When I was about 8 years old, I actually asked that question to my Sunday School teacher (how could they say the whole world was flooded, when they knew nothing about N. and S. America). Her answer was that God gave Moses that knowledge, but took it away after he wrote it down.

I can still remember shaking my head and saying "That doesn't make sense", which I guess was about all they could take from me. That same day they had a talk with my mom about how I "ask too many questions and needed to be taught what it means to have faith".

It ended up being a significant part of me never being a Christian, despite being immersed in it.

Moses may have been privy to that information - but the Bible does not explain it - so there is no reason to teach it as doctrine.

I'm sorry for your experience. It's heartwrenching.

I feel for both people like you and for the faithful and I personally believe that both sides go to far.

The doubter goes too far by rejecting the teachings just because there isn't an answer for every question.

The religious zealot goes too far by making stuff up in an attempt to answer those questions.

I'm fine with a happy medium - believing but also asking questions and not willing to let what I don't know change what I do know.

 

[ecco]

Well, there you have it.
...
All you need to know is: GodDidIt!

[/QUOTE]

Honestly - if there is a God as described in the Bible - there may be a lot of truth here.

I mean - if the God described in the Bible did actually create the Earth and has power over life and death - why couldn't He do these things?

Your disdain is definitely not going to discourage anyone who believes in a real and living God.

So - why be so disdainful when it is not productive?

When faced with tough questions, you revert to GodDitIt. If you are going to revert to GodDidIt, then all discussion is fruitless. Your GodDidIt views are just as valid (and just as nonsensical) as believing that God Created Everything Last Thursday.

Please disprove that God Created Everything Last Thursday.
wait - that's too hard
Please show evidence falsifying God Created Everything Last Thursday.
wait - that's too hard
Please make an argument showing that God Created Everything Last Thursday is wrong.

Do you still wonder why disdain may creep into my comments when GodDidIt becomes part of one's argument?

 

[ecco]

65% of the overall winners identified as Christian.
Here we have it,
The most educated people on this earth that made everyone's life better.

You seem to think that all people referring to themselves as Christians are Creationist Fundamentalists. They aren't.

Perhaps you have some stats on how many Nobel winners were Creationist Fundamentalists.

 

[ecco]

Good, now that you get the picture....

So, as with science, you don't understand sarcasm either.

 

[Jose Fly]

Moses may have been privy to that information - but the Bible does not explain it - so there is no reason to teach it as doctrine.

They didn't teach it as doctrine, but just offered it as an answer to my question (one I don't think they were expecting).

I'm sorry for your experience. It's heartwrenching.

I'm quite grateful for it, to be honest.

The doubter goes too far by rejecting the teachings just because there isn't an answer for every question.

To be clear, that Q&A wasn't the reason I rejected Christianity. It was however among the first instances I can remember where I began to realize that what I was being taught didn't make sense. So it was sort of an early step in my walk away from the religion.

The religious zealot goes too far by making stuff up in an attempt to answer those questions.

Very much like the scene in Life of Brian, where the guy yells at Brian...."He's making it up as he goes along!".

I'm fine with a happy medium - believing but also asking questions and not willing to let what I don't know change what I do know.

For me, I finally realized that none of it really made sense.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

They didn't teach it as doctrine, but just offered it as an answer to my question (one I don't think they were expecting).

Oh - so you believe that it was just the opinion of the teacher?

I'm quite grateful for it, to be honest.

Why is that? Someone teaching their own opinion as if it was truth to impressionable children?

I can't stand stuff like that. If a teacher doesn't know something - they should own up to it.

To be clear, that Q&A wasn't the reason I rejected Christianity. It was however among the first instances I can remember where I began to realize that what I was being taught didn't make sense. So it was sort of an early step in my walk away from the religion.

I like when things make sense to - but are you of the opinion that something needs to makes sense in order to be true?

Everything must be discernible and explainable - before it could ever be believed?

Very much like the scene in Life of Brian, where the guy yells at Brian...."He's making it up as he goes along!".

Yeah - it's gross.

For me, I finally realized that none of it really made sense.

Well - if you ever feel like rehashing it and picking at that scab - you know where to find me.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

When faced with tough questions, you revert to GodDitIt. If you are going to revert to GodDidIt, then all discussion is fruitless. Your GodDidIt views are just as valid (and just as nonsensical) as believing that God Created Everything Last Thursday.

Please disprove that God Created Everything Last Thursday.
wait - that's too hard
Please show evidence falsifying God Created Everything Last Thursday.
wait - that's too hard
Please make an argument showing that God Created Everything Last Thursday is wrong.

Do you still wonder why disdain may creep into my comments when GodDidIt becomes part of one's argument?[/QUOTE]
I didn't invent the idea of God and I did not claim that "God did it".

He will always be an option for religionists though.

If you "disdain" that argument - don't talk to religionists - because asking them to take God out of their equations is kinda like asking them to give up their beliefs in order explain their beliefs.