A Bunch of Reasons Why I Question Noah's Flood Story:

[BilliardsBall]

The only claim that was "refuted" was this one, and I was the one that explained to him how it was wrong:

" The altitude to Mt. Everest places temperatures at a range of -15 to -30 Degrees Fahrenheit. Noah and his animal companions would have frozen to death.
- The altitude of Mt. Everest places an oxygen level insufficient for sustaining life. Noah and his animal companions would have asphyxiated, provided the cold didn't get them first."

I've noticed that for someone who claims to be at RF to learn, you don't ask questions of others.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I freely confess that I prefer statements that are true ─ in the sense of being accurate statements about reality ─ to statements that aren't true in that sense.

And had the world been under water as described in Genesis' Noah story then there would now HAVE to be simultaneous genetic bottlenecks in all species of land animal, a single geological flood layer all over all continents, islands and the ocean floor, and a billion cubic miles of water over and above the water presently on the earth ─ but instead we find none of those things.

And that's the truth.

If your underlying assumptions are correct, yes. I've found they are often misguided.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've noticed that for someone who claims to be at RF to learn, you don't ask questions of others.

I do not ask questions of people that do not know what they are talking about. If people demonstrate that they understand a subject I will ask questions.

When 99% of scientists support an idea someone that opposes that idea is almost certainly wrong. And they show that they are wrong when they post nonsense. I don't ask questions of those people. Wait, actually I do. Those people do not tend to like the questions that I ask and they never seem to be able to answer them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If your underlying assumptions are correct, yes. I've found they are often misguided.

If you want to claim that the underlying assumptions that someone makes are incorrect the burden of proof is upon you.

 

[nPeace]

Any flood that happens has similar elements. There is floating debris that ends up settling wherever the water leaves it. Any plants or animals will remain where they were when they were covered with water and debris. I was pointing out that floods leave evidence that they occurred because of this phenomenon of leaving organic material as the water recedes.

But you avoided my questions:

When all that water recedes (quite quickly, and where did it go?) why wouldn't all the organic matter settle in one big mass/layer like it does in other floods?

A. where does water recede to in a global flood? In normal earthly floods the water drains into streams and rivers, and eventually carried to oceans. That's because the whole damn planet isn't flooded at once.

B. why isn't there a massive layer of material from a flood? Have you ever seen the effects of a flood? Mud and plant material everywhere, plus chairs, trash, picnic tables, buckets, etc.



You might be right. We have not searched the whole planet yet. There are certainly many more fossils that humans will find as time goes on. And thus far the fossils we find demonstrate that species on the planet evolve over time. Despite all the discovery of fossils there has been no indication that the planet had a massive flood event some 4000 years ago.



I noticed this has been addressed already.

There has been countless undetected earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, hurricanes, etc. throughout the centuries.
No one is able to rummage through the earth, and tell which earthquake occured when.
Just as a person can arrive on a crime scene, and contaminate the evidence, by what they do, floods, earthquakes, etc., can do the same.
So yes, you have conjecture. No, you don't know a thing.
What the evidence shows, in the fossils record, is only the opinions of man.
You believe it. Fine.

Water can go anywhere - up, down, sideways, crossways. There is water under the earth, and scientist says water is still being sucked below the surface. There is water in the oceans. There is water above the earth. and beyond, and scientists say water is still escaping the earth's atmosphere.
So I don't think you are asking a reasonable question, as though anyone knows everything there is to know past, present, and future. Unless...

Nah. You don't want to hear about the one who knows. That foolishness to you.
I believe otherwise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There has been countless undetected earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, hurricanes, etc. throughout the centuries.
No one is able to rummage through the earth, and tell which earthquake occured when.
Just as a person can arrive on a crime scene, and contaminate the evidence, by what they do, floods, earthquakes, etc., can do the same.
So yes, you have conjecture. No, you don't know a thing.
What the evidence shows, in the fossils record, is only the opinions of man.
You believe it. Fine.

Water can go anywhere - up, down, sideways, crossways. There is water under the earth, and scientist says water is still being sucked below the surface. There is water in the oceans. There is water above the earth. and beyond, and scientists say water is still escaping the earth's atmosphere.
So I don't think you are asking a reasonable question, as though anyone knows everything there is to know past, present, and future. Unless...

Nah. You don't want to hear about the one who knows. That foolishness to you.
I believe otherwise.

I love the argument!! It amounts to:

"I don't understand geology, therefore you have conjecture".

Talk about massive projection.

 

[Yerda]

By that I mean that it's purpose is not to present the reader with actual historical events, of people, but rather to present the reader with a literal representation of some universal ideal.
It's an irrelevant argument either way. That is my point.

Ok, I agree entirely.

However, the creationists, fundies and other loonballs take it quite literally and use it as a pivot to argue against evolution, geology and science and general. This is why you often see people arguing that the global flood story is literally silly.

 

[blü 2]

If your underlying assumptions are correct, yes. I've found they are often misguided.

Since any one on its own would be in effect a disproof it would be helpful if you specified which of the three you think is or are misguided, and most importantly, why.

 

[F1fan]

There has been countless undetected earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, hurricanes, etc. throughout the centuries.
No one is able to rummage through the earth, and tell which earthquake occured when.
Just as a person can arrive on a crime scene, and contaminate the evidence, by what they do, floods, earthquakes, etc., can do the same.
So yes, you have conjecture. No, you don't know a thing.
What the evidence shows, in the fossils record, is only the opinions of man.
You believe it. Fine.

Irony.

I accept what the facts and evidence shows. I don't assume an accent story is true when there's no evidence for it.

Water can go anywhere - up, down, sideways, crossways. There is water under the earth, and scientist says water is still being sucked below the surface. There is water in the oceans. There is water above the earth. and beyond, and scientists say water is still escaping the earth's atmosphere.
So I don't think you are asking a reasonable question, as though anyone knows everything there is to know past, present, and future. Unless...

Notice you have no facts that explain where all that water drained on a planet covered in water.

Nah. You don't want to hear about the one who knows. That foolishness to you.
I believe otherwise.

Scientists know, and I listen to them. I don't listen to believers in myth who can't present evidence for their absurd beliefs.

 

[nPeace]

Ok, I agree entirely.

However, the creationists, fundies and other loonballs take it quite literally and use it as a pivot to argue against evolution, geology and science and general. This is why you often see people arguing that the global flood story is literally silly.

Ouch.
There are quite a lot of loonballs, people don't mind reading.
Isaiah - Isaiah 54:9
Ezekiel - Ezekiel 14:14
Luke the historian - Luke 3:36
Jesus the Christ - Matthew 24:37-39 ; Luke 17:26-30
Paul - Hebrews 11:7
Peter - 1 Peter 3:19, 20 Peter! You of all persons.


Can I ask... You don't believe the Bible, do you?
I don't really understand how a person can say they believe the Bible, and think that it contains information from a bunch of men who are all liars. I would throw away my Bible, to be honest, if I had that view.
Can you explain that concept to me please, if you believe the Bible? It boggles my mind.

 

[F1fan]

Have you researched the prophecies that Israel would re-achieve nationhood in 1948 CE?

Really? There's a prophesy that says Israel will be a nation in 1948? Let's see that text.

And even if that text exists with that date, please show us how the nations of the world after WW2 weren't just trying to help the Jewish people after massive anti-Semitism in Europe and the USA.

 

[nPeace]

Irony.

I accept what the facts and evidence shows. I don't assume an accent story is true when there's no evidence for it.


Notice you have no facts that explain where all that water drained on a planet covered in water.


Scientists know, and I listen to them. I don't listen to believers in myth who can't present evidence for their absurd beliefs.

What do scientists know? What they don't know?
You accept ideas. Not facts. Fact do not change. Facts do not involve probabilities, or opinions.
Facts allow one to form theories. the theories are not the facts. they are accepted opinions, and often based on conjecture.

Science is an ongoing study. Real scientist do not dogmatically claim they know, but express the possibility of being wrong in what they believe.
Why do you guys argue so strong for beliefs, and pretend there are different to another person having beliefs?

The myths presented to explain our solar system, are not facts. Scientist tell you outright, they do not know. they assume what they believe is correct... and often hope they are too. Faith?

 

[F1fan]

Can I ask... You don't believe the Bible, do you?

To "believe the Bible" is an exceptionally vague thing to ask. As we observe there is a broad range of Christians who believe many different things in the Bible. Liberals are more symbolic in their interpretations while fundamentalists are more literal in their interpretation. So the question has to be specific to a believer's type of interpretation.

This discussion exposes the dilemma of a literalist interpretation and why it's not factual, nor rational.

 

[F1fan]

What do scientists know? What they don't know?

They know what is factual and testable. They don't know what isn't based on facts, like a global flood. Thus far the only people who insist on a global flood are non-experts who are poorly interpreting ancient stories in a book.

You accept ideas. Not facts. Fact do not change. Facts do not involve probabilities, or opinions.

I accept valid ideas, the global flood is not one of them. And I do accept facts, this is why I reject the global flood idea.

Facts allow one to form theories. the theories are not the facts. they are accepted opinions, and often based on conjecture.

Theories aren't formed. A hypothesis is formed on facts and observations, and includes a way to test a prediction. A theory are successful tests of a hypothesis, which has to meet a minimum statistical standard of 99.95%.

Science is an ongoing study. Real scientist do not dogmatically claim they know, but express the possibility of being wrong in what they believe.

That's why competent experts in science don't back up the poor interpretation of Genesis stories like you do.

Why do you guys argue so strong for beliefs, and pretend there are different to another person having beliefs?

We argue for what the facts and science demonstrates. Thus far none of it supports a global flood. So what you're experiencing is people opposing YOUR belief that a global flood happened. Educated and informed people defer to the sciences, not religious dogma.

The myths presented to explain our solar system, are not facts.

If you're referring to Aristotle's model that Galileo disproved with observations, then yes. If you're referring to religious stories, yes, those are dismissed for the explanations made by experts in science.

Scientist tell you outright, they do not know. they assume what they believe is correct... and often hope they are too. Faith?

Not faith. Scientists report their work and findings. If you dismiss their findings then my question to you is why you have contempt for these experts who kn ow vastly more than you.

 

[nPeace]

To "believe the Bible" is an exceptionally vague thing to ask. As we observe there is a broad range of Christians who believe many different things in the Bible. Liberals are more symbolic in their interpretations while fundamentalists are more literal in their interpretation. So the question has to be specific to a believer's type of interpretation.

This discussion exposes the dilemma of a literalist interpretation and why it's not factual, nor rational.

I could take what someone says, and interpret it, however I want. I could take any document and do the same.
The person that spoke the words know what they said, and what they meant. Other reasonable people will understand and know too.
The same is true of any document.
Today, people break codes.

The thing about this is, 10 people can argue between themselves what Jack said, or meant. Jack will correct that, if he wishes.
The same is true with any person.
If God is the author of the Bible, people will know what God said, and meant - one way or the other... in his own time, according to the Bible. Ezekiel 38:23

Yes. one or two of those persons may be correct.

 

[nPeace]

They know what is factual and testable. They don't know what isn't based on facts, like a global flood. Thus far the only people who insist on a global flood are non-experts who are poorly interpreting ancient stories in a book.


I accept valid ideas, the global flood is not one of them. And I do accept facts, this is why I reject the global flood idea.


Theories aren't formed. A hypothesis if formed on facts and observations. A theory are successful tests of a hypothesis, which has to meet a minimum statistical standard of 99.95%.


That's why competent experts in science don't back up the poor interpretation of Genesis stories like you do.


We argue for what the facts and science demonstrates. Thus far none of it supports a global flood. So what you're experiencing is people opposing YOUR belief that a global flood happened. Educated and informed people defer to the sciences, not religious dogma.


If you're referring to Aristotle's model that Galileo disproved with observations, then yes. If you're referring to religious stories, yes, those are dismissed for the explanations made by experts in science.


Not faith. Scientists report their work and findings. If you dismiss their findings then my question to you is why you have contempt for these experts who kn ow vastly more than you.

if you believe that all findings of scientists are true, then I have to ask you, 1) why are they found to be not true, so often, and 2) why do scientists debate these findings so often.

I said before, I accept science - the one that doesn't require me to believe what other scientists disagree with, and fight about. The one that other scientists don't say does not pass the test of the scientific method.
I don't accept hypotheses - ideas - as science.
You evidently do.

Scientist know more than I do, in their field of study, just as a Motor Mechanic knows more than I do, in their field of study.
Does that mean I should believe everything that scientist tells me, or a Motor Mechanic?
No. They can be wrong. do you disagree.

I think I know more than you, or any scientist, about many things, but time will tell if i am wrong, or not.

 

[PureX]

I think that was directed at @NewGuyOnTheBlock, but that makes it quite surprising that you wouldn't answer @nPeace's very fanciful response in precisely the same way.

People who have chosen to believe that the stories are factual history have already surrendered reason for fantasy. Nothing you or I say will change their mind.

 

[PureX]

Ok, I agree entirely.

However, the creationists, fundies and other loonballs take it quite literally and use it as a pivot to argue against evolution, geology and science and general. This is why you often see people arguing that the global flood story is literally silly.

People who have surrendered reason for fantasy are not likely to be dissuaded by any such arguments. Especially when those doing the arguing don't, themselves, know what the stories are about.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I often have posted them, however, again, I'm responding to the OP, who seems possibly open-minded.

You have? Really? But not here. Not after requests. What is the problem? Pretty please post this evidence you claim, I want to review it with my open mind.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Jesus fulfilled the law of Moses. Even Jews don't practice much of it.

Since many of those laws were immoral or nonsensical that is a good thing. And then there is the fact that Moses was mythical. But even with that Jesus disagrees with you.

*I do not know what Jesus knew about Moses.

What did I just say?

"If the Aliens hide from the scientists they do not know about them."

And I said that aliens are more plausible than ghods existing because they are natural beings of the universe, and gods are in the category of supernatural phenomenon of which there is no known actual real things.

*agreed, but I am shooting for a higher belief personally.


That book is wonderful.

If you're going to dis on it I prefer not to talk to you.

On second thought; I can understand. You were taught by academia.

The Lord of the Rings was wonderful too. Pointing out that both are fiction is not "dising" on them.

* It is dissing it when it is supposed to be non-fiction. bookofmormoncentral.org and evidencecentral.org .

Adam and Eve deliberately disobeyed God and allowed humanity to exist in the process.

So the Creator designed beings that had inadequate discipline to obey the rules the Creator set for them. So if the Creator wanted its beings to obey the rules don't you think it would have given them adequate discipline and wisdom to be obedient?

* You missed what I said.

Show me Bible-supported slavery in the New Testament.

That wasn't required for the Southern Baptists of the Confederate South. They were very well justified in slavery due to the Bible itself as a whole.

*Too bad for them, but don't blame Jesus Christ.

Homosexuality was also frowned upon in the nt.

Really? Where is it brought up, and why do Christians always cite the OT Leviticus reference instead?

*Because they're twisting the Bible.

And fortunately I don't think it was frowned upon too much.

So you stand against the law of God?

*What law, it just describes the effects of homosexuality in the NT. It doesn't state a law. But my church says a heterosexual sin is equivalent to a homosexual sin.
Then why are you trying to grade the Bible scientifically if it's a story about God?

If God exists then it's a fact. Science relies on facts, as does reason and logic. So are you suggesting God isn't factual and is merely a concept?

*I am not explaining my reasoning that God is scientific here.

Also, I do believe I have a non-mystical way for there to be God, but since I get reviled I better not try it.

So you're admitting to low confidence in what you believe? Then why believe it?

*My confidence here is fine.

Could you elaborate?

The argument human science thesis.

Human intelligence says I theory science first about planet earth.

Products for practicing science from earth body. Reactions not controlled in nature.

Theories I want to hold control a reaction.

Machine conditions only.

Says God O is stone. Stone is a one only holy body in science. Stone.

Said stones gas spirits own it's own heavens.

One of known special body a planet. Earth as our God.

Owning no other thesis as earth is not any beginning science.

Says I quantify God as being present first as natural.

I then quantify my own person to be a satanist wanting gods non presence.

As God the seal was only stone that had sealed inside of its body Satan's fall into hell.

Reason.

Eternal always had existed owned no change. Highest place.

Change is forced.

Change is the science status.

Eternal forced change lost God into Satan. The first memory of God O the held eternal God.

Gods first memory an eternal held body.

O gods then burst burnt fell into the hell state.

Status the eternal now owns a hole in its body. The eternal never owned presence radiation.

God however now does.

Memory is the status coerced inaccurate theories about God in creation history. Just stories. Stories are memories.

God the stone is therefore not the origin God form.

God in science is only ever stone A seal. Owning fused particles held together.

Coldest place is deep state empty space only.

Remove God being gases the spirit equals gaining empty space only the deep state. Only a gas burns out into space existing just as empty.

Remove radiation from a metal leaves a Black radiating hole.

Reasoning. If you removed radiation to the deep state no form just complete empty space would exist.

Radiation cannot remove it's form to complete emptiness. As it is not a spirit.

What science says about God is to not allow stone to exist as God as it was never sun mass.

The theist says exactly by description word use the intent so humans can't lie about the intent. Words tell us their intent. Called a confession.

The theist by words proves his intent is to not allow God to exist. As he wants to find God name god convert God into not being God.

A sun was still self consuming in space. God earth was holding its body in hell. Sun was destroying hell.

Deeper colder empty space by pressure cold held the sun metal by mass so if you remove it's cold as cold space itself it reverts back to a state self consuming.

A satanist is a human who never believed in God continuance preaches for gain of the deep state as a total removal of God knowing God was only ever spirit and not a sun.

Why father taught me listen to what words are being used as it owns a confession.

*I can't understand this.

But some smart people have their own reasons which might use one of these themes.

They also might not.
Come back when you have something more then speculation, assumption and fallacious arguments from popularity or perceived authority

*I told you, the Bible says God reveals Himself to whom He will and you have to do His will, so come back when you are going to do the will of God and by the Bible's own words only then can you know.

Show me Bible-supported slavery in the New Testament.

First of all, this is shifting the burden of proof. YOU claimed that NT did away with slavery. So really, it is upto you to demonstrate that with passages of the NT saying that slavery is bad and should be done away with.
You can't do that off course, because the NT says no such thing.

The fact is that the OT clearly and unambigously allows slavery and even regulates it in terms of explain in disgusting detail who you can enslave, for how long, from whom you can buy slaves, how your children can "inherit" them, how they are your "property", how you can beat them, etc.

The NT does not repeat this, that is true. It also never recants it or overturns it.

Instead, it treats slavery as a basic fact of life. It is so indifferent to it that it barely mentions it. And in the few spots where it does mention it, it says disgusting things like this:

Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. (1 Pet 2.18)

Nowhere does it say "masters, free your slaves" or "slaves, revolt and demand your freedom" or "slavery is bad" or anything remotely like that.

*The New Testament did away with slavery in "Love thy neighbor as thyself."
It's a very important comment:

"Science competes to bring human capability and religions compete to bring human will power. A good one of either of them allows the other effect too."

It's a comment that is completely irrelevant to the points being raised in the post you were replying to.

*disagree

Then it should come as no surprise to you that I don't believe some of your assertions.

Please mention or quote a single instance where I expect you to believe / accept an assertion with as only justification that I believe it.

You won't find such.

In fact, if asked directly, I will always say "don't believe me. don't take my word for it. look it up and verify it for yourself instead".

I don't expect ANYONE to take my word for it on ANYTHING, EVER.

*Good for you.

The ot law was fulfilled in the nt and no longer necessary. You should know that.

So bye bye 613 commandments, which includes the 10 you previously cited as still being valid.

*Right, because the 10 commandments were very important, the rest was supposed to be let go of.

I will not reveal my reasoning that there is a God.

So you must not be very confident about the validity of that reasoning then.

If your reasoning is sound, it should be able to withstand some basic scrutiny.

*Nope, because you guys want to revile it.