• 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!

Why we know that there was no global flood.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Once again when you don't like something I say you go right back into the personal attack mode.


No, there was no personal attack there. Merely observations. When your errors are made public that is not a "personal attack". And if you don't think that you are running away you could try to substantiate your claims. I already explained why your claims were wrong and provided support for my refutation. I can do so again. I can go into more detail. But when you run away there is nothing to present any detail for.

Tell me what your beliefs are and I can explain why they are wrong.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Tell me your version of the "flood" and I can tell you why we know that it did not happen. General statements are worthless. Sooner or later all versions breakdown to the point that the story is irrelevant compared to the claims in the Bible.
the story may not have a 'point' in terms of proving God....or heaven.....

it may indeed be a report...exaggerated...
to explain unusually wet weather that killed many

bible stories are an attempt to rationalize the relationship between God and Man

if you don't believe in God.....you will not rationalize in that manner
and the story will never hold any meaning for you
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
Tell me your version of the "flood" and I can tell you why we know that it did not happen. General statements are worthless. Sooner or later all versions breakdown to the point that the story is irrelevant compared to the claims in the Bible.


Again the claim to be able to manufacture "science" to refute any claim, and you're calling my arguments illogical!!
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
the story may not have a 'point' in terms of proving God....or heaven.....

it may indeed be a report...exaggerated...
to explain unusually wet weather that killed many

bible stories are an attempt to rationalize the relationship between God and Man

if you don't believe in God.....you will not rationalize in that manner
and the story will never hold any meaning for you

Please, don't try to make a myth of your own God, it is bad enough for you already. Most Christians do not take the myth literally. They can see that it is a morality tale. My beef is with Bible literalitsts that try to claim that the Bible has to be true. The story was probably inspired by a real flood, but there was no "Ark". There was not only one family left, the entire Earth was never flooded, there was no need to bring animals on the Ark.

So once again, what is your version of the Ark myth? If you agree that the Bible version is totally unrealistic we can go our merry ways. Otherwise I can explain why your version is wrong.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Again the claim to be able to manufacture "science" to refute any claim, and you're calling my arguments illogical!!

This is a false claim about me. I am not manufacturing anything. The science and evidence is out there. I am merely offering to supply the science that refutes your claims. Now this is a personal attack on your part. You are making a claim about me that you cannot substantiate in any way at all. Your actions are hypocritical to say the least.
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
I'm simply commenting on what you have said in your post, that's not against TOS, attacks on the person are.

You are basically asserting that science proves there has not been any major flood in the Middle East that could have floated an ark in over 100,000 years. Science does not say that, you do.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I'm simply commenting on what you have said in your post, that's not against TOS, attacks on the person are.

Nope, you made a false claim about me "manufacturing" science. That is a personal attack. If you want to make that claim you put the burden of proof upon yourself If you can't support it then it is a breaking of the Ninth Commandment, a commandment that all too many creationists do not understand. If one makes a statement against a person that he or she cannot back up that is "bearing false witness". It does not matter whether one believes if or not. The Ninth Commandment is not a ban on lying, that is an oversimplified and improper interpretation of it. Think of it as if you were in a court of law making a statement about someone. One is supposed to make claims that the person is able to support. If one believes something it is permissible to state that one believes something, but it is not permissible to state that as a fact.

You are basically asserting that science proves there has not been any major flood in the Middle East that could have floated an ark in over 100,000 years. Science does not say that, you do.

Wrong, I am stating that science can prove that there was not any major flood that in any way would allow the Noah's Ark myth to have any meaning at all. But you seem to know that. That is why you are running away from even stating what you believe because you know that I can refute those beliefs. I have stated more than once that there probably was a real flood that the myth was based upon.

Here let me help you a bit:

The flood tries to claim that everyone in the world except for Noah and his family were killed. We know that did not happen. Man was not threatened with extinction by any flood event. In fact there have never in the history of man been only one family of man.

The flood myths tries to claim that only the animals on the Ark survived. We know that did not happen. We can go over the evidence that refutes that as well, besides the impossibility for Noah to collect and take care of these animals.

If Noah and his family and the animals had no need of the Ark to survive it makes the story irrelevant. But, and this is a point that most Christians understand, if the story is merely a morality tale it is still relevant, even though it never happened.
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
Your comments are getting more and more irrational, give it a rest!! You want to ridicule the Bible, then next thing you want to quote it against me, what is it, you can't have it both ways. You're not arguing with any 6000 year Creationists in this thread, so maybe you could find a Christian forum to argue on.
 
Thought I'd upgrade my game from youtube to religiousforums, trying to find people to talk to that disagree with what I consider facts.

Looks like Candidate #1 here is Lyndon, but I don't really see much wrong with thinking the flood was global from simultaneous ice age meltings.

That IS what you're saying, right, Lyndon? Fresh water runoff from glaciers dumping into the sea?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Your comments are getting more and more irrational, give it a rest!! You want to ridicule the Bible, then next thing you want to quote it against me, what is it, you can't have it both ways. You're not arguing with any 6000 year Creationists in this thread, so maybe you could find a Christian forum to argue on.

LOL!! You are projecting your flaws upon others again.

How many times do I need to remind you that if you do not understand something the proper course of action to take is to ask questions. And since your flawed thinking appears to be based upon an inability to understand the Bible I merely offered to clear up parts of the Bible that you do not seem to understand. That is a problem with many creationists, they can't maintain a consistent belief in the Bible and believe in it at the same time. That is only because the Bible contradicts itself so many times.

And your beliefs are not that far off from those "6,000 year" creationists. What are you afraid of? Why can't you clearly state your beliefs?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Thought I'd upgrade my game from youtube to religiousforums, trying to find people to talk to that disagree with what I consider facts.

Looks like Candidate #1 here is Lyndon, but I don't really see much wrong with thinking the flood was global from simultaneous ice age meltings.

That IS what you're saying, right, Lyndon? Fresh water runoff from glaciers dumping into the sea?


I went over that already. Backed with at least one source. The melting of the glaciers took thousands of years. Even when the sea level change "jumped" it was on the order of 5 meters per century, which is a very fast rate in geological time. In the sense of people living next to the sea it would only mean an occasional movement of an encampment.

Global sea-level rise at the end of the last Ice Age | National Oceanography Centre

Oops, the jumps may have been 2.5 meters per century. That was quite a few posts ago:

"Southampton researchers have estimated that sea-level rose by an average of about 1 metre per century at the end of the last Ice Age, interrupted by rapid ‘jumps’ during which it rose by up to 2.5 metres per century."

After checking numerous sources there were a few "meltwater pulses" in which the sea level rose faster than at other times. The most noted one was still less than 5 meters per century:

Meltwater pulse 1A - Wikipedia
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
This thread will be dedicated to the evidence that tells us that there was no traditional flood of Noah. That idea fails in almost all aspects of science. Though of course if any believers think that they have some evidence for the flood those thoughts are welcome as well.

I am also willing to discuss videos, if posters are willing to discuss them, and they will also have to be willing to discuss this series that starts with this video:


There are of course other arguments too, but a video can serve as a primer on the subject.
Who said there was? Are you proposing that 12 15,000 years ago people understood the planet was a 24, 000 mile in circumference sphere? That is the most absurd notion ever!!!!!!
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
the problem is you whole argument is based on refuting 6000 year Creationism, I am not a 6000 year Creationist, and I don't believe everything in the Bible is fact, you seem to show an inability to incorporate that into your argument so your answer is to quote the Bible against me!! Again as I say your arguments are getting more and more illogical, time out??
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Who said there was? Are you proposing that 12 15,000 years ago people understood the planet was a 24, 000 mile in circumference sphere? That is the most absurd notion ever!!!!!!

Quite a few Christians do. They tend to make the error of reading Genesis literally. I don't expect ancient peoples to have a firm understanding of the Earth. The claim that they are reliable does not come from me. That is what I am refuting in this thread. By the way, I do not claim that refuting the Noah's Ark myth refutes God. That is not my claim at all. If one's personal "God" is that where there was a flood, then only that version of "God" is refuted. Not the general concept of God.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
the problem is you whole argument is based on refuting 6000 year Creationism, I am not a 6000 year Creationist, and I don't believe everything in the Bible is fact, you seem to show an inability to incorporate that into your argument so your answer is to quote the Bible against me!! Again as I say your arguments are getting more and more illogical, time out??
Nope, I am not limiting my refutation to that criteria. I have merely pointed out that various interpretations of Genesis are wrong. Since being shown to be wrong in your early claims you have been to afraid to make any new ones. My claim is that the Noah's Ark story is simply myth and can be shown to be such.
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
So do you believe the scientific evidence you present couldn't possibly be wrong, that's an almost religious claim if you indeed believe it.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
So do you believe the scientific evidence you present couldn't possibly be wrong, that's an almost religious claim if you indeed believe it.

The evidence could be wrong, but that is highly doubtful. Especially since various independent sources of evidence all agree. And no, that is not a religious claim. Religions require belief without evidence.

Are you familiar with the concept of consilience:

Consilience - Wikipedia

If one has only one source of evidence there may be some doubt involved. We see that in courts of law when one has only one witness. But when a witness is supported by DNA, a video tape, tire tracks etc. and so on all independent of one another, then the case becomes a slam dunk.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
There was a lot of flooding when the Ice Age ended, not covering the whole earth, but quite possibly covering where Noah lived.

The flooding that occurred during the end of the last Ice age was a lot more than just a local flood, it was global and involved massive streams of water flowing of the ice shelves, and a massive rise in sea level presumably flooding 90% of earths inhabitants that would have lived near the old ice age sea level.

I have been reading up a number of your replies, Lyndon, and I can tell you have no idea what you are talking about, and bringing up the Ice Ages, actually doesn't help your argument.

For one, the last glacial periods, the ice sheets of the Quaternary Glaciation or the Pleistocene Glaciation, covered large regions, but not everywhere.

For instance, in Europe, the Scandinavia, Baltic, most of the British Isles, Poland and part of Germany were covered, but the rest of Europe weren’t covered, except at some high altitude mountain ranges, like the Swiss Alps, only some parts of the Pyrenees and Balkan.

It was the same in North America. While Canada was covered, not all of the US. And the only ice sheets covering South America was at the high altitude of the Andes.

In the Middle East, from Iran in the east, and Egypt and Anatolian Turkey in the west, the only ice sheets to be found, were on the Caucasus.

Second. The Quaternary Glaciation started about 2 million years ago, but those regions that were prone to these ice sheets, weren’t always covered. The Ice Age went through series of glacial period and interglacial period.

Glacial periods can last tens or hundreds of thousands of years, while the warmer interglacial periods can last for centuries or thousands of years.

Scientists don’t believe the Quaternary Glaciation has ended yet. The geological epoch that they called Holocene is one of those interglacial periods, which to date has lasted 11,500 years.

Third. Like others have been telling you, the ice sheets don’t melt all at once, overnight. There have been no global Flood since the Holocene and the Neolithic industry began, 11,500 years ago.

If Adam and Noah were real historical people, they would be dated to approximately 4000 and 2350 BCE, basing on the translations of the Masoretic Text (Hebrew texts of the Old Testament eg. KJV, NASB, NRSV, NIV, etc).

(Sources: Genesis 5 & 7, adding the years from each generation plus Noah’s age (600) when the Flood occurred, is equal to 1656 years)

Since the last glacial period ended about 12,000 years ago, or 10,500 BCE, there is about 7500 years gap between this time, and that supposedly Noah’s Flood.

I find it very doubtful that the ice would melt all at once, 7000 years later.

Beside that, Genesis 7:11-12, only two sources of where the water come from: from the ground, eg “fountains” (7:11) and that it rain for 40 day’s and 40 nights. No where in the bible, did it ever mention waters coming from melting ice sheets or glaciers.

So basically, your claims that Noah's Flood was due to melting ice, is just pure speculation, and you projecting your belief.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Quite a few Christians do. They tend to make the error of reading Genesis literally. I don't expect ancient peoples to have a firm understanding of the Earth. The claim that they are reliable does not come from me. That is what I am refuting in this thread. By the way, I do not claim that refuting the Noah's Ark myth refutes God. That is not my claim at all. If one's personal "God" is that where there was a flood, then only that version of "God" is refuted. Not the general concept of God.
That's a joke that you apparently like!!! In 1927 about all physicists "believed" that the observer was required to collapse the wave particle event. Today everyone knows that's stupid but it wasn't clear in 1927. So should I go around talking about that as if it's anything? . No.

I suppose if I have a Sunday school church level reading comprehension level of ancient texts then, HELL YES, I would most certainly an atheist and "believe" the text is nonsense. But that would at best be a church level reading of the text from what, a liberty University level? I wouldn't brag about that.

I have ran this by dozens if not hundreds of Christians. I have said" my father thought what was reasoned that the ark had only x amount of space we know factually that all of life could not fit into it due to y dimesions therefore, God does not exist".they laugh. They are not as stupid as the cherry picking that is going on here. I hate defending religion at all, it annoys me.

I suggest extreme caution relying on religion to understand its own texts that's rater impossible, in aggregate, due to morphology of langauge itself. Evolution ever heard of it?

So yea creationists are nuts how is that not "normal"? Anyone who believes the texts are explanatory are out to lunch anyway.. Not only are they not explanatory they were self aware to know that as well as they were told. Do you "believe" like the clearly fruitloop nut job creationists the text is explanatory?

Please explain how explanatory is remotely valid in application to the ancient texts? Since that's exactly how creationists understand it that its An ancient science text? Ha. Btw its 12k to 15k old liberty grad.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
That's a joke that you apparently like!!! In 1927 about all physicists "believed" that the observer was required to collapse the wave particle event. Today everyone knows that's stupid but it wasn't clear in 1927. So should I go around talking about that as if it's anything? . No.

I suppose if I have a Sunday school church level reading comprehension level of ancient texts then, HELL YES, I would most certainly an atheist and "believe" the text is nonsense. But that would at best be a church level reading of the text from what, a liberty University level? I wouldn't brag about that.

I have ran this by dozens if not hundreds of Christians. I have said" my father thought what was reasoned that the ark had only x amount of space we know factually that all of life could not fit into it due to y dimesions therefore, God does not exist".they laugh. They are not as stupid as the cherry picking that is going on here. I hate defending religion at all, it annoys me.

I suggest extreme caution relying on religion to understand its own texts that's rater impossible, in aggregate, due to morphology of langauge itself. Evolution ever heard of it?

So yea creationists are nuts how is that not "normal"? Anyone who believes the texts are explanatory are out to lunch anyway.. Not only are they not explanatory they were self aware to know that as well as they were told. Do you "believe" like the clearly fruitloop nut job creationists the text is explanatory?

Please explain how explanatory is remotely valid in application to the ancient texts? Since that's exactly how creationists understand it that its An ancient science text? Ha. Btw its 12k to 15k old liberty grad.


Your poor analogy only demonstrates a lack of understanding of how science is done.

And please, why do you keep repeating the error of thinking that refuting the Ark myth is an attempt to refute God? I never made that claim. That is simply a very poor understanding of what this thread is about. There is no cherry picking, except by you perhaps.

Since you clearly have no clue as to what this thread is about you should be asking questions instead of making ridiculous false statments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top