• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The so-called global flood--evidence against

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Noah and the ark is an allegory. There was no ark. There was no flood. This is believed by the majority of Christians. I am baffled as to what people you think you are addressing.
I'd say it was a folktale rather than an allegory, not that it makes a deal of difference. It's found in Sumerian stories from the third millenium BCE, and passed on to their Semitic neighbors, the Akkadians and Babylonians (which is how come it's in The Epic of Gilgamesh ─ I highly recommend Arthur George's translation if you haven't read it) . Its origin may suggest an hypothesis along the lines that it originates from a major flood on either the Tigris or Euphrates where someone perhaps did clever things for his household with a raft.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I agree. And I find it odd that so many atheists read it literally too.
I read it as I'd read any other ancient document, so I too am concerned with what it literally says (though having no biblical Hebrew myself, I'm reliant on expert translators ─ the RSV in particular). It certainly doesn't paint a very attractive picture of its god, but that makes it a valuable record of tribal attitudes in those times and places. In the present century, though, there's a lot not to applaud as [he] ordains massacres of surrendered populations, mass rape of conquered virgins, human sacrifice, how to own a slave properly, denigration and subordination of women, murderous religious intolerance and so on. This continues in the NT, where God sends [his] son on a suicide mission to be a sacrifice to [him]self, after which [he]'ll forgive original sin or something. That seems totally barbaric when with one snap of those omnipotent fingers [he] could tell everyone (including the citizens of India, the Orient, Africa, the Americas, Australia and the various islands) "Hey, people, all your sins are forgiven!."

(Which leads me to point out that anyway there's no Fall of Man in the Genesis garden story at all, and that Ezekiel 18 makes it clear that sin can't be inherited.)
 

1213

Well-Known Member
Why do you call your God a liar?
Please don't spread lies, I have not called God a liar.
Really? And now you are an engineer. You are now ignoring the law of gravity. The force of gravity varies each day as the Earth rotates. That is why we have tides. You cannot have "balance" in structures that large. And why was the water there in the first place?
Clearly you are not an engineer. :D Why there could not be balance in structures that large?

The water was there, because according to the Bible, God stretched the dry land above the water. Why He did so? By what is said in the Bible, the reason is that He taught it is good so.
Why do you keep claiming that God is incompetent.
I have not claimed so.
Really? So now you are an expert in rates of erosion. Okay. show me the math.
I think you should start observing nature.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
The atmosphere can only hold a few inches of water.
I am not claiming that atmosphere would hold more water than it can.
In your myth the atmosphere did not have rain at all. That would make it even drier than it is today and if all of the water fell out of the atmosphere today. So no water from the atmosphere. You would have to go to space. And that is how you cook Noah. Have you ever watched a rocket take off. It has to burn an incredible amount of fuel to get a relatively low rate up to orbital speed. Well, when things come out of orbit they have that same energy. That is why most meteors, bits of rock and even metals, burn up before they hit the ground. You would have water with more than enough energy to "burn" if it could raining down, Large chunks of ice might make it through the atmosphere, but they would explode on impact. All of that energy, and you need about five miles of water, would cook everything on the face of the Earth. It would burn it to an ash.
That sounds nonsense. Sorry, apparently you have not understood what I have said.
The "waters of the deep" would also kill Noah and company with heat, but not as badly. Again, groundwater near the surface is insufficient to do the job nor is there a way to get it out of the Earth. If somehow you had super heated water, as you go down both pressure and temperature increase, and that was released somehow it would come out as live steam. This would not be quite as hot as space water, but still more than enough to kill Noah and family.
:D
Oops, see above. But now you are killing Noah and family another way. Even lying creationist sources admit that the rapid movement of continents and the molten magma involved would again kill Noah and family with heat.
By what I say, the original continent was mainly on top of water, not on top of magma. The amount of water cooled things enough so that the result was only long period of rain. No intelligent reason to assume there was super heating.
No, the mountains are very very old.
I have no good reason to believe that.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
Well, at least you know that the Earth isn't flat.
I don't know it, I believe it. I don't think you can offer any good proof that earth is not flat.
That's why you deny that the Bible says so.
Bible doesn't say earth is flat. It is only a poor interpretation, probably by those who wanted to believe Babylonian model.
But everything else is just as much in conflict with science as an Earth with four corners where you can see all of Earth from a high mountain.
Bible doesn't say that you can see all earth from a high mountain.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
(a) point to even one credible example of these caverns, and
(b) explain how bringing water up from underground can raise the world's water levels at all, let alone by 28,000 feet or more, since the spaces it previously occupied would either instantly refill with water, or with rocks, soil, and the like, thus bringing the average gain in raising to zero, near enougj.
Water level didn't rise. It was the dry land that sunk and was covered by water.
Where did the water constituting the rain come from?
Most of it came from below earth, similarly as in water fountains.
And any such event in the last 5,000 years or so would be overwhelmingly obvious from the resulting geology ─ though as you know there's nothing of the kind.
I think it is obvious, and actually only reasonable explanation for what we can observe. We would not have earth looking like this, if it would be about millions of years.
The bible says the earth is flat.
It doesn't if it would say so, you could show a scripture that has "earth is flat", but there is no such thing. It is only a poor interpretation.
And immovably fixed.
Earth, which means dry land in the Bible, is in a way fixed.
And that the sky is a hard dome ...
Interesting interpretation you have.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
...from one single year and event one would expect to see one single, mixed layer...
I don't see any intelligent reason to assume so, even a flood event that Bible is describing.
AND if humans (and Nephilim) lived on earth at the time of the flood, we'd expect human fossils and remains of human buildings in the LOWER layer of the proposed flood strata. There's none.
Humans likely could have avoided to get stuck to the sediments. They can swim and float. And as said before, drowned mammals tend to float. They would have been eaten before they become fossils.
Yeah, but then you have the problem, again, that while you assume that all organisms existed simultaneously since creation, the layers fo sediment only contain certain species.
They contain species that were most vulnerable to get caught into the sediments.
Oh, and if you think that all of that stuff is physically possible I'd like to hear your solution to the Heat Problem, please!
I don't think there is any heat problem. The vast amount of water cooled things down, and there is no good reason to assume any supernatural heating.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I am not claiming that atmosphere would hold more water than it can.

That sounds nonsense. Sorry, apparently you have not understood what I have said.

:D

By what I say, the original continent was mainly on top of water, not on top of magma. The amount of water cooled things enough so that the result was only long period of rain. No intelligent reason to assume there was super heating.

I have no good reason to believe that.
What good reason do you have to believe that the bible is factual? Let alone that it is inerrant?

It clearly says that the earth is flat, that the sun goes round it, that the earth is immovably fixed, and that's just for a start.

Do you think those are accurate statements about reality?
 

Tamino

Active Member
I don't see any intelligent reason to assume so, even a flood event that Bible is describing.
So can you explain how huge numbers of layers form in one single event, and why the layers look different around the world when it's supposedly a global event?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Humans likely could have avoided to get stuck to the sediments. They can swim and float. And as said before, drowned mammals tend to float. They would have been eaten before they become fossils.
drowned birds, dinosaurs or extinct mammal species would float just as well when their bodies bloat with gas during decomposition. Or get eaten (by whom, though? Because everyone is dying??).
They contain species that were most vulnerable to get caught into the sediments.
Really not. Fossils are created in specified environmental conditions, but any creature dying in the right area and having bones or shell is likely to get fossilized.
I don't think there is any heat problem. The vast amount of water cooled things down, and there is no good reason to assume any supernatural heating.
NATURAL heating. As would be created by continents moving rapidly across the earth, by limestone as ist forms, and most importantly: by the decay of radioactive isotopes.
...
...

I give up. Go on believing whatever you like.
If you have no clue what you're talking about, and if you are obviously uninterested in learning any basics on geology or fossil creation or the laws of thermodynamics, instead just going by "I don't think so"... we have nothing to talk about.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
But you haven't told me how the space taken by your own imagined underground ocean was filled, preventing a net result of water no higher than previously.

Water level didn't rise. It was the dry land that sunk and was covered by water.
Quote me the part of the bible that says the land sank. Bet you can't ─ it isn't there.

Most of it came from below earth, similarly as in water fountains.
Your problem with net space remains unanswered.

I think it is obvious, and actually only reasonable explanation for what we can observe. We would not have earth looking like this, if it would be about millions of years.
But no professional geologist agrees with you. Still, I guess when your shtick is antiscience, you get used to that.

It doesn't if it would say so, you could show a scripture that has "earth is flat", but there is no such thing. It is only a poor interpretation.
I've given you the quotes, and again you haven't read them. Or if you've read them, again you've only read them to dream up ways to make them say what you want them to say.

Earth, which means dry land in the Bible, is in a way fixed.
I'm looking forward to your quote from the bible saying the waters didn't rise, the land sank.

Lay it on!
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Please don't spread lies, I have not called God a liar.

You have many times. You refuse to learn how you have done that.
Clearly you are not an engineer. :D Why there could not be balance in structures that large?

Clearly you are not one. The square cube law makes them impossible.
The water was there, because according to the Bible, God stretched the dry land above the water. Why He did so? By what is said in the Bible, the reason is that He taught it is good so.

I have not claimed so.
I know, you keep blaming God. You just claimed that he was a liar again .
I think you should start observing nature.

I have. You need to learn how to reason rationally. That will stop you from claiming that God is a liar.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I am not claiming that atmosphere would hold more water than it can.
I know. You were claiming that God cooked Noah.
That sounds nonsense. Sorry, apparently you have not understood what I have said.

No,I understood what you said far better than you did. That is why I am not the one that called God a liar. I know better than that.
:D

By what I say, the original continent was mainly on top of water, not on top of magma. The amount of water cooled things enough so that the result was only long period of rain. No intelligent reason to assume there was super heating.

Oh my! You are back to claiming that the Earth is flat. Please make up your mind.
I have no good reason to believe that.
I know. You keep yourself ignorant to defend your mythological beliefs. There are consequences to that ignorance. Number one is obvious. You keep claiming that your God is a liar without knowing how you do that.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I don't know it, I believe it. I don't think you can offer any good proof that earth is not flat.
I grew up on an island, sailing being my main hobby during the summer. I could show you the curvature and calculate Earth's circumference when I was 11.
Bible doesn't say earth is flat. It is only a poor interpretation, probably by those who wanted to believe Babylonian model.

Bible doesn't say that you can see all earth from a high mountain.
"The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world." - Luke 4:5 - The Temptation of Jesus

Not only don't you know science, you also don't know the Bible.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Noah and the ark is an allegory. There was no ark. There was no flood. This is believed by the majority of Christians. I am baffled as to what people you think you are addressing.

I do believe the believe in a literal Pentateuch represents intentional ignorance of science based on an ancient tribal view of Creation and history but . . .

I believe that you underestimate the number of Christians the believe that the Pentateuch is literal history, though some believe on OEC a universe and earth billions of years old, but still believe in a literal Biblical Creationist view and and literal Pentateuch. Polls demonstrate that between 37% to 50% American believe in a form of literal historical Creationism and Pentateuch.


As many as 47% and as few as 38% of Americans have taken a creationist view of human origins throughout Gallup's 37-year trend. Likewise, between 31% and 40% of U.S. adults have attributed humans' development to a combination of evolution and divine intervention over the same period.

It is Christians and Muslims that predominantly believe in a some form of literal Pentateuch, and when you consider the polls are based on the population of the USA the none Christian and Muslim population the percentage of belief in literal Creationism is higher, because by far most non-believers accept the science as opposed to a literal Pentateuch.

The reason for the reason for the high percentage of Christians and Muslims believing in a literal Pentateuch is their scripture supports this view. The authors, compilers of the Pentateuch and the NT, and the Church Fathers believed in a literal historical Pentateuch.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
So can you explain how huge numbers of layers form in one single event, and why the layers look different around the world when it's supposedly a global event?
The flood lasted many days and it has different water sources, the rain and the flooding water from the "fountains of the great deep". Rain would have done different layers, depending on the place and what materials there were. And the water from the fountains carried different materials and its effect was probably more dramatic, because it was more powerful. The water from below would also probably have had many minerals in it to cause different layers.

And, by what is said in the Bible, in the beginning earth was covered with dust. I don't know what exactly it was, but what would have been carried away from the fault line of the original continent, for example Mid-Atlantic ridge, cleaning the are that is now for example the bottom of Atlantic ocean. By what we can see from the result, the conclusion is, earth (=dry land) was not homogeneous before the flood.
drowned birds, dinosaurs or extinct mammal species would float just as well when their bodies bloat with gas during decomposition. Or get eaten (by whom, though? Because everyone is dying??).
Eaten by water animals, and birds that can live on water.

It may be that dinosaurs had died before the flood already. But, on basis of their structure, I would think they would not float when dead.

And many birds could have drowned, but because they normally can fly, they would not get as easily stuck into the sediments. They would fly some time and drop to water and sink. But at that point there would not be much material coming to cover them and make them fossils. They would sink to the bottom of the ocean floor, where they would be eaten by all kind of water animals.
NATURAL heating. As would be created by continents moving rapidly across the earth, by limestone as ist forms, and most importantly: by the decay of radioactive isotopes.
Why do you think they moved rapidly across the earth?

I think Bible suggests that the original continent was broken and sunk down. And it was relatively slow process, almost a year, because the water below it made it softer.

Many vast limestone formations were likely from the dust that covered the earth in the beginning and were carried by the flooding water to current places.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
What good reason do you have to believe that the bible is factual? Let alone that it is inerrant?
No one has been able to prove it really inerrant. And Bible gives the best explanation, therefore I believe it is also factual in matters that I can't check.
It clearly says that the earth is flat, that the sun goes round it, that the earth is immovably fixed, and that's just for a start.
Bible doesn't say earth is flat, it is only an silly interpretation. And from earth perspective sun goes around the earth. Saying it so is not necessary astronomical statement, but relative information from certain point of view. Still, I think it could be possible that sun goes around earth actually. We don't have any good proof for how it is.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
But you haven't told me how the space taken by your own imagined underground ocean was filled, preventing a net result of water no higher than previously.
The amount of water is relatively same. The difference comes from that after the flood, all the sunken stuff has been compressed, which has caused the ocean floor to go down, resulting in "rising mountains" and also oil, gas and coal.
Quote me the part of the bible that says the land sank. Bet you can't ─ it isn't there.
It is obvious by the text:
1. earth was stretched over the great deep
2. flood came when the fountains of great deep burst open, meaning, the original continent on top of the water was broken.
3. When the original continent was broken, water came flooding from the cracks. And obviously when the continent was broken, it's pieces sunk, because they are generally heavier than water.

It is simple logical matter.
 
Top