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

[Jose Fly]

So Fly, You come home from the office, and tells your wife and 'kids' something that happened to you. None of what you said was true, you just thought it was.

And if I truly thought what I said was true, I'm not a "liar" am I? I'm merely "mistaken".

Oh wait. Let me guess. You got hit over your head, and are suffering from temporary senility.... Or maybe you are senile.

Exactly. That the whole idea. The writers were all senile. They lost it.

Or they were simply wrong....something that happens with people every minute of every day.

Have you ever said something that turned out to be wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK Let's look at that one...(Biblehub KJV)

The Genealogy of Jesus

23And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, <snip>
36Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, 37Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.​

Let's look carefully at the first sentence. The author, let's refer to him as Luke, supposes Jesus is the son of Joseph. Supposes! He is not stating knowledge, he is stating a supposition. It is, of course, an incorrect supposition.

Regarding the genealogy of Jesus, Joseph was not the Blood Father of Jesus. Jesus was not the Blood Son of Joseph. According to your own scripture, God impregnated Jesus' mother Mary. GOD! Not Joseph.

"Luke" is a pretty poor excuse for a historian.

@nPeace, did you not understand what is written in your scripture or did you assume others did not?

Luke remembered specific events, but sometimes his dates were way off. There was never an empire wide census at the time of Jesus's birth. But there was a local census when Quirinius, who Luke sites by name, when he took over the governorship of Judea. Unfortunately that was about all that he got right. The census was ten years later than he thought that it was. There would never have been a requirement to go to one's ancestral home and to make it even worse even if there was Joseph lived in Israel, not in Judea so there would have been no such need. The story is one failure after another.

 

[nPeace]

And if I truly thought what I said was true, I'm not a "liar" am I? I'm merely "mistaken".

...and if you were right, you are neither a liar, or mistaken.

Or they were simply wrong....something that happens with people every minute of every day.

Or they were truthful and correct. Something that is a reality in life.
While others don't want to believe... something that is a regular everyday reality.

Have you ever said something that turned out to be wrong?

Said something that turned out to be wrong...

Said something... I got some lashes at school when I didn't say what teacher expected.
When I guess at things, I get them wrong often. Is that what scientists do?

What does imperfect man making mistakes have to do with this?
If you want to claim that people who believe in God, are all mistaken about what they see, or do, feel free to make that claim, but why try to drag people into holding your opinion?

 

[Jose Fly]

...and if you were right, you are neither a liar, or mistaken.

Or they were truthful and correct. Something that is a reality in life.
While others don't want to believe... something that is a regular everyday reality.

Sure, there are all sorts of possibilities. Maybe the person never really said what they're recorded as saying? Maybe they said it, but the person who wrote it down missed some key context that significantly changes the meaning? Maybe there's some cultural context that the scribe doesn't grasp?

There are lots more possibilities than just "he either told the truth or was a liar".

Said something that turned out to be wrong...

Said something... I got some lashes at school when I didn't say what teacher expected.
When I guess at things, I get them wrong often. Is that what scientists do?

What does imperfect man making mistakes have to do with this?
If you want to claim that people who believe in God, are all mistaken about what they see, or do, feel free to make that claim, but why try to drag people into holding your opinion?

So you can't think of any time in your life where you've said something that was incorrect? Wow...what's it like to be infallible?

The point here is rather obvious. You're saying that when Jesus, Paul, and the authors of the Bible spoke of the flood as if it were a real event, then the only two conclusions we can reach are either that they were speaking the truth, or they were liars. But as I describe above, that's a false dichotomy. There are plenty of other possibilities.

 

[ecco]

What do scientists know? What they don't know?
You accept ideas. Not facts. Fact do not change.

Some people accept ideas that are substantiated with evidence.

Some people accept ideas because they have been taught to believe a magic man in the sky did some things.

Science is an ongoing study. Real scientist do not dogmatically claim they know,

Science is an ongoing study. Real scientist do not dogmatically claim they know,

That's true. There is nothing wrong with that.

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

Because the things some of us guys believe in are substantiated by evidence garnered by thousands of scientists in many different fields of expertise over many years.

That is very different than you guys who believe things that were written thousands of years ago by people trying to start a new religion.

On the other hand, you do not believe the things written by guys trying to start new religions 1800 years ago and a couple of hundred years ago.

 

[ecco]

I could take what someone says, and interpret it, however I want.

You could. But would that be because you are ignorant of the subject or would it be because you are dishonest?

 

[nPeace]

Sure, there are all sorts of possibilities. Maybe the person never really said what they're recorded as saying? Maybe they said it, but the person who wrote it down missed some key context that significantly changes the meaning? Maybe there's some cultural context that the scribe doesn't grasp?

There are lots more possibilities than just "he either told the truth or was a liar".


So you can't think of any time in your life where you've said something that was incorrect? Wow...what's it like to be infallible?

The point here is rather obvious. You're saying that when Jesus, Paul, and the authors of the Bible spoke of the flood as if it were a real event, then the only two conclusions we can reach are either that they were speaking the truth, or they were liars. But as I describe above, that's a false dichotomy. There are plenty of other possibilities.

Yes. We can miss things either deliberately, or mistakenly.
Did you mistakenly miss the point of the questions, or deliberately?

Do you agree that if they are just stories, then they are all made up?
Was my first question.
This based on the claim that they are writen as stories, supposedly to teach, and not as factual events.
If they are all made up, then...
Since those who quoted the writers do not think they are made up stories, or fiction, then...

Your argument is not relevant to that. Your argument is considering something isolated... just one part of what was said. Thus missing an important piece to the questions.

 

[leroy]

The theory can still predict that, In fact that is one way to test the theory of evolution. If it is not true there is no reason that animals could not be found out of their time zone in the fossil record.

There are countless examples where “evolution” predicts that such animal evolved in such date, and then we find fossils that contradict that prediction………………and no body seems to be making a big deal.

For example supposedly gorillas where suppose to “appear” 6M years ago, but then we found a 10Myo fossil and scientists simply said “hey maybe gorillas evolved before previously thought”)

https://phys.org/news/2016-02-gorilla-fossil-humans-million-years.html

my point is that evolution doesn’t make any impressive predictions (feel free to correct me) feel free to provide a prediction that you think is good enough (comparable to predictions made by other scientific theories)………………..(we are talking about the fossil record, please do not share predictions that have nothing to to with the fossil record.)

That is because we have almost no gorilla fossils at all. I know why, I am betting that you do not. And no, that is quite wrong. I see that you do not understand how we know the dates of objects. Once again instead of making incredibly poor arguments you should be asking questions. Politely by the way. Rude questions only merit rude responses.

The point that I made is that not finding a specific fossil in a specific era, doesn’t mean that the animal was not alive back then…………… so ether agree with this point or refute it (please do not add words that are not related to this particular point)

Their date of dying in the flood has nothing to do with their ability to run. We can find some very fast dinosaurs below the levels of very slow sloths. Once again, ask questions. Try to avoid making ignorant claims

Sure some exceptions are expected, but usually we find slow / marine / dumb animals at the bottom and fast, land / intelligent animals at the top…………… sure there are some exceptions (which are expected) but we definitely and controversially have this trend.

It depends upon what it is. Today for a certain date one uses radiometric dating. Though sedimentary strata cannot be dated that way there usually will be some layers of volcanic ash. Those can be dated. That gives us a bracket. The fossils found in it may enable us to match it up to other Precambrian strata elsewhere that does have some volcanic layers in it.

Yes but dating the ashes is done very rarely, layers are typically dated by the fossils, any layer with rabbits would by default be dated within the last few million years.

If there is any contradiction “fossil dating” (and common sense) will always trump radiometric dating.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes. We can miss things either deliberately, or mistakenly.

There ya' go...it's not just a matter of "truth-teller or liar".

Do you agree that if they are just stories, then they are all made up?

Was my first question.

That pretty much answers itself. If they are "just stories", then by definition they are made up.

This based on the claim that they are writen as stories, supposedly to teach, and not as factual events.

Or they could be like what we call today "based on real events", where some parts of the story are real and true and others are not.

If they are all made up, then...

Since those who quoted the writers do not think they are made up stories, or fiction, then...

Maybe they're wrong. Perhaps there's a context surrounding those stories that the people quoting them are unaware of, or are ill equipped to grasp.

Your argument is not relevant to that. Your argument is considering something isolated... just one part of what was said. Thus missing an important piece to the questions.

Well hopefully you won't continue to make the same error, where you artificially limit explanations to only two possibilities (truth-teller or liar).

Life is usually more complex than what is presented in binary scenarios.

 

[ecco]

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?

That scientist? A Motor Mechanic? Let's add a Doctor.

When your car starts making noises you go someplace to get it evaluated and, hopefully, rectified. Do you go to multiple places and have multiple mechanics give you opinions, or do you just go with the first? The answer, probably is, it depends. If you have a mechanic whom you trust and his estimate is reasonable you would probably just have him fix the problem. If not, you may shop around.

Ditto the doctor. If you don't like his diagnosis or his treatment plan, you might look further - or not.

With science, however, it's almost never that or a scientist. Especially when the information gets to the level of a layman like yourself. Not many people believed Darwin when he first published. Not many people agreed with Hubble when he asserted the universe was expanding. Not many people accepted plate tectonics when it was first proposed. That's the beauty of science. Stuff isn't just accepted. Other people jump on the bandwagon and do research. That research either confirms or debunks the theory.

By the time laypeople hear about it, it's pretty well established and backed with evidence.



You may object to this and bring up the story of the guys who claimed to have proven they could get generate electricity using nuclear fission. This story got a lot of press. You may have heard the story.

If at that time you said "You guys believe this stuff because a scientist said so", you would have been wrong. Us guys are the kind who wait until there is a consensus among scientists based on research and evidence.


No one is suggesting "You should believe everything that scientist tells you". The problem is that you do not believe anything science tells you where it conflicts with your ingrained religious beliefs. It doesn't matter that thousands of scientists (not just a scientist) in many different fields of research over decades have shown that evolution occurred. You believe Genesis. Period. End of Story.

 

[Jose Fly]

my point is that evolution doesn’t make any impressive predictions (feel free to correct me)

I'm pretty sure I've shown you how evolutionary relationships have been used to predict genetic function with ~96% accuracy. In fact, evolutionary relatedness being used to make predictions in genetics is the basis for an entire field of genetics, i.e., phylogenomics.

 

[ecco]

But there is evidence that some animals (mammals birds etc.) are capable of escaping from floods floods

What evidence is there that birds are capable of escaping from a flood that reached higher than Everest and lasted a hundred and fifty days?

I don't know of any bird that can last that long without eating.
I don't know of any bird that can fly while rain is coming down in feet per hour.
I don't know of any bird that can live for 150 days in zero degrees (F) temperature.

I don't know of any mammal that can last that long without eating.
I don't know of any mammal that can breathe while rain is coming down in feet per hour.
I don't know of any mammal that can live for 150 days in zero degrees (F) temperature.

That includes all the mammals on the ark.

But, maybe I'm wrong. You say you have evidence. Show it and I'll admit my mistake.

 

[nPeace]

There ya' go...it's not just a matter of "truth-teller or liar".


That pretty much answers itself. If they are "just stories", then by definition they are made up.


Or they could be like what we call today "based on real events", where some parts of the story are real and true and others are not.


Maybe they're wrong. Perhaps there's a context surrounding those stories that the people quoting them are unaware of, or are ill equipped to grasp.


Well hopefully you won't continue to make the same error, where you artificially limit explanations to only two possibilities (truth-teller or liar).

Life is usually more complex than what is presented in binary scenarios.

I have not made any mistake.
Either it's a story, or it is not.
Either those who substantiated the accounts were liars or they were not.
It's as simple as that.
Perhaps you are making the mistake of limiting people's view to yours.
I'm not going to hope you don't continue with that though
Experience tells me you will.

You are just causing me to repeat what I said.
There are quite a lot of loonballs, people don't mind reading.
Jesus, Peter, Paul... Why, because they came along after this event, and spoke of it as real.

So what you are doing, is actually saying, all the people that came along after, and "mistakenly" thought the story is real, are all loonballs. That excludes you, and anyone who does not think the event really happened.
Because why would they not see that the account has to be a story, but you can?
Why would they be mistaken, when you are not?

Oh wait. They did not live in modern times, when knowledge that everything aside from the possibility that there could be a God who only started the universe, but does nothing else, is known.
So, basically, people get to pick and choose what God is allowed to do.

It's an either or, because we don't get to decide what we want it to be.
I am quite certain you are not going to tell me. there are lots of possibilities where belief in the ToE, is concerned. Oh, it's not a belief?
Then there are no other possibilities right.
Maybe you are mistaken, and the fossil record does not tell the story you believe, and you are mistaken.
Maybe DNA sequencing tells you a lot about the genes, etc, but you mistakenly think it tells you what you believe.
Maybe...

Yes, your binary scenario just did not simplify things. It was fitting for one thought only.... yours.

 

[leroy]

SLOWLY? Do you understand your bible? Do you know basic geography? Can you do simple math? Mount Everest is about 30,000 feet high. It was covered after 40 days. That's a rise in water of 750 feet per day. Thirty one feet per hour. Everywhere!

YEC argue that MT Everest didn’t exist during the flood, only small mountains here and there………….you might disagree but it would be nice if you actually understand the model before attacking it. (at this point you are no different from those who reject evolution without even understanding it)

Besides its irrelevant, my point is that not all animals would have died at the same moment…………a pile of mud could have killed a claim, while birds where still flying.

In the meantime the tides and waves would have dragged various other environments from all over the world placing many layers (and fossils) between the clam and the bird

It's kinda hard to run or fly away when rain is steadily coming down at the rate of 31 feet per hour. It's kinda hard to run or fly away for months when there is no sunshine. It's kinda hard to run or fly away for months when there is no food to eat because it is raining 31 feet per hour. It's kinda hard to run or fly away when there are constant mudslides burying everything everywhere.

Do the words "critical thinking" have any meaning?

The flood lasted for 1 year or so, tides went up and down all the time, nobody is saying that the whole planet was covered with water 100% of the time.

"critical thinking"

I personally don’t believe in the global flood, but I find it repulsive when people like you attack it without even understanding what YEC say.

Why don’t you make an honest effort, try to understand the what YEC say and then try to refute what they actually say.


At this point you are not different from those who say “if evolution is true and we evovled from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys around”


if you google "global flood everest" this is what you get in the first resoult

Therefore the water did not need to rise over 29,000 ft. to cover today’s Mt. Everest because the Himalayan mountains didn’t exist before the Flood but, rather, formed during, or shortly after, the Flood by tectonic forces

The fact that you are making a big deal out of the Everest, strongly suggest that you didn’t even went to Google to see if your objection has been answered.

And before you provide an objection to “Everest didn’t existed back then” please go to Google and see if someone has already addressed your objection. Don’t be lazy.

 

[leroy]

What evidence is there that birds are capable of escaping from a flood that reached higher than Everest and lasted a hundred and fifty days?

I don't know of any bird that can last that long without eating.
I don't know of any bird that can fly while rain is coming down in feet per hour.
I don't know of any bird that can live for 150 days in zero degrees (F) temperature.

I don't know of any mammal that can last that long without eating.
I don't know of any mammal that can breathe while rain is coming down in feet per hour.
I don't know of any mammal that can live for 150 days in zero degrees (F) temperature.

That includes all the mammals on the ark.

But, maybe I'm wrong. You say you have evidence. Show it and I'll admit my mistake.

But, maybe I'm wrong. You say you have evidence. Show it and I'll admit my mistake

Ok read my last post, I am awaiting for you to acknowledge your mistakes.

Particularry the claim that the flood covered mt Everest, because it seems that most of your objections have to do with that strawman.

To be clear, no the water didn’t covered mt Everest, mt Everest didn’t existed during the flood.

 

[leroy]

I'm pretty sure I've shown you how evolutionary relationships have been used to predict genetic function with ~96% accuracy. In fact, evolutionary relatedness being used to make predictions in genetics is the basis for an entire field of genetics, i.e., phylogenomics.

I'm pretty sure I've shown you how evolutionary relationships have been used to predict genetic function with ~96% accuracy. In fact, evolutionary relatedness being used to make predictions in genetics is the basis for an entire field of genetics, i.e., phylogenomics.

aja and why didnt you quote the whole sentence? (reeeeeeeeeeeeed the red letters)

my point is that evolution doesn’t make any impressive predictions (feel free to correct me) feel free to provide a prediction that you think is good enough (comparable to predictions made by other scientific theories)………………..(we are talking about the fossil record, please do not share predictions that have nothing to to with the fossil record.)

The fact that you are moving to genetics simply shows that I am correct, “evolution doesn’t make any impressive predictions related to the fossil record” otherwise you would have not change the topic to genetics.

 

[Jose Fly]

I have not made any mistake.
Either it's a story, or it is not.
Either those who substantiated the accounts were liars or they were not.
It's as simple as that.
Perhaps you are making the mistake of limiting people's view to yours.
I'm not going to hope you don't continue with that though
Experience tells me you will.

I guess you're just locked in to black/white thinking and limiting yourself to only two possibilities, even when other possibilities are presented.

It must be a deeply ingrained trait for you.

So what you are doing, is actually saying, all the people that came along after, and "mistakenly" thought the story is real, are all loonballs.

Actually, it's the opposite of that.

That excludes you, and anyone who does not think the event really happened.
Because why would they not see that the account has to be a story, but you can?
Why would they be mistaken, when you are not?

Why would a Muslim be mistaken about Muhammed visiting heaven, but you not be?

It's an either or, because we don't get to decide what we want it to be.

Well, it's obvious that you are certainly limited that way. Fortunately, not everyone else is similarly limited.

I am quite certain you are not going to tell me. there are lots of possibilities where belief in the ToE, is concerned. Oh, it's not a belief?
Then there are no other possibilities right.
Maybe you are mistaken, and the fossil record does not tell the story you believe, and you are mistaken.
Maybe DNA sequencing tells you a lot about the genes, etc, but you mistakenly think it tells you what you believe.
Maybe...

Yes, your binary scenario just did not simplify things. It was fitting for one thought only.... yours.

You are certainly an interesting person to interact with.

 

[Jose Fly]

aja and why didnt you quote the whole sentence? (reeeeeeeeeeeeed the red letters)

The fact that you are moving to genetics simply shows that I am correct, “evolution doesn’t make any impressive predictions related to the fossil record” otherwise you would have not change the topic to genetics.

Sure it does. It not only predicts the sort of specimens and their traits we should find (such as Darwin's prediction about finding human ancestors in Africa), it also predicts what we shouldn't find, such as fish with insect antennae, birds with leaves, crabs with mammalian hair, etc.

 

[nPeace]

I guess you're just locked in to black/white thinking and limiting yourself to only two possibilities, even when other possibilities are presented.

It must be a deeply ingrained trait for you.


Actually, it's the opposite of that.


Why would a Muslim be mistaken about Muhammed visiting heaven, but you not be?


Well, it's obvious that you are certainly limited that way. Fortunately, not everyone else is similarly limited.


You are certainly an interesting person to interact with.

Thank you. You have no idea how your words apply to you, I am sure.

 

[gnostic]

I'm sorry I misunderstood.

You want to know if God left evidence for the flood in science.

Of course the whole 5 books of moses don't have evidence and if God were to do such a great thing as flood the earth he could probably hide the evidence, but I'll look at your post.

You are still misunderstanding.

You don’t find the physical evidence from the Bible itself, you’d look for them in the strata of rocks during that supposed period from various sites; you’d look for them at archaeological sites that existed at that time.

Ur, Uruk (Erech), Kish, Nineveh, Susa (in Elam), Aleppo, Damascus, Tell es-Sultan (Jericho), Abydos, Nekken (Hierakonpolis), Edfu, Pylos (Greece), Argos, Knossos (Crete), Harappa & Mohenjo-daro (both in Pakistan, major cities of the Indus Valley Civilization), Huaricanga (Peru), etc, they are all cities that existed throughout the Early Bronze Age, from 3100 to 2000 BCE.

If Genesis did hypothetically happen then archaeologists would find consistent signs of destruction from flood in every ancient cities that I have mentioned, pointing to single date. There are no such evidence, because there were no single global flood covering all these places.

If you say God can hide evidence, then you are basically calling your own god a liar, and what scholars in mythology commonly referred to as the Trickster.

How can God can consider the embodiment of Truth, if actually go about deceiving people?