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

[robocop (actually)]

You are looking for excuses to believe. You are not trying to find out if your idea is true or not.

If you do not have a test that can refute your idea you do not have a hypothesis. And without at least a hypothesis you cannot have reliable evidence for your idea.

Look for the isotope overlap. Look for a nuke or shockwave. Look for a phenomenon where a ship can be carried into space. Look at why all those cultures speak of a worldwide flood. Look for other realms of existence for the earth. Look for symbolism in the Bible. Look for other evidence of the Bible that might confirm this.

You notice I followed NewKidOnTheBlock and rejected the status quo Bible explanation right away.

Most of the things I suggest philosophically are too difficult to test yet. That is why they are philosophy and not science. That's what I do. My bent is to determine whether anything could be true or cannot be true, and I have not yet found the Noah's Ark story false in all ways.

By the way: don't get me wrong. Noah's Ark is no fun for any creationist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look for the isotope overlap. Look for a nuke or shockwave. Look for a phenomenon where a ship can be carried into space. Look at why all those cultures speak of a worldwide flood. Look for other realms of existence for the earth. Look for symbolism in the Bible. Look for other evidence of the Bible that might confirm this.

You notice I followed NewKidOnTheBlock and rejected the status quo Bible explanation right away.

Most of the things I suggest philosophically are too difficult to test yet. That is why they are philosophy and not science. That's what I do. My bent is to determine whether anything could be true or cannot be true, and I have not yet found the Noah's Ark story false in all ways.

By the way: don't get me wrong. Noah's Ark is no fun for any creationist.

No, no no. You would need to look for that. I see that you have no test. You just demonstrated that you are very poor at forming a hypothesis.

Confirming evidence is important, but not all that strong. It is not the key thing that is needed you need a proper test that could refute your idea. Right now you have not formed one single hypothesis. You have no evidence.

 

[robocop (actually)]

No, no no. You would need to look for that. I see that you have no test. You just demonstrated that you are very poor at forming a hypothesis.

Confirming evidence is important, but not all that strong. It is not the key thing that is needed you need a proper test that could refute your idea. Right now you have not formed one single hypothesis. You have no evidence.

I just considered this topic today I'm not going to have a test overnight.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just considered this topic today I'm not going to have a test overnight.

Alright. Take some time. Now you might have proposed some of your ideas for a test that would falsify the claim that there was no flood. But since it is evidence that does not exist it cannot be evidence for a flood. And finding that would not refute the flood so it is not a test for the flood either.

 

[PruePhillip]

This illustrates how Christian leadership has interpreted the Bible in inaccurate ways over the millennia. It amazes me that many modern Christians buy into the global flood idea, of which there are many books and websites, but also the young earth idea, which was created by a guy named Ussher. The Catholics have adjusted their dogma over time to conform to observations and science but fundamentalist Christians have actually worked hard to maintain these false interpretations. It's only worked because there are many believers who adopt these ideas and promote them to the next generation.

...

In a way I accept that. I was telling my spouse yesterday that if the flood was literal then Noah came to
Australia. He wouldn't have just got two of every animal, he would have had to take Aborigines back as
well. There would be two of every ethnic group on earth in that ark - OR.... these tribes EVOLVED into
their ethnic features AFTER LEAVING THE ARK.
AND, all life on earth would have gone through one massive bottle neck - every kangaroo, elephant,
taipan snake, polar bear (salmon, whale?) etc would be inbred. No, this was something local, as interpreted
by later writers.
This wasn't a Jewish story, it's Sumerian. And in Sumer the 'world' was where the horizon
met the sky.

 

[Jose Fly]

Why I am here in this thread?
I will answer that after you tell me the truth of why you are here, especially after declaring to everyone, it doesn't matter to you.

I'm interested in why this topic generates so much interest from different sides.

Your turn.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Alright. Take some time. Now you might have proposed some of your ideas for a test that would falsify the claim that there was no flood. But since it is evidence that does not exist it cannot be evidence for a flood. And finding that would not refute the flood so it is not a test for the flood either.

Some ideas to test for why no flood wouldn't work (again, not tonight):

A gene pool for humans.
A gene pool for animals.
A discovery that dating changed so we are only dating things after.
A discovery that dating and genetic drift looked like they had gone on for a while but there was actually a code in the DNA (and that code could be evidence of creation too).
Explaining Ayer's rock in Australia.
Perhaps the land mass was a lot smaller; it says in the Bible that the earth was divided in the days of Peleg.
Perhaps there were so many floods that they bypassed detection.

Just a start...

 

[rational experiences]

Well that clears it all up.

Sinkholes are solution-formed features in what is known as karst topography. Slightly acidic water dissolves limestone and dolostone, carrying it away in solution. Caverns form as a result and where their ceilings touch the surface, and that surface weakens and collapses, sinkholes are formed. But never mind the facts, I want to hear more about these UFO's.

Your mind man in science. Word user. Word use described says unidentified.

Mr know it all argues.

Father said science is a liar.

Maths man said is a problem. Status of math. Hence it causes all problems. I must use a problem to solve an answer.

So are you going to stop the formation process sink hole are you scientist?

Origin scientist straight from eternal as adult manifested man. Transition aware conscious change owned just self.

Talks big bang blast moment for gods past body. Yet today the theory once again is string linked to self body idealising an easy transition man self life as gain of God.

From big bang blast being gods history to self

Claims it is the same.

Try being the big bang yourself theist man.

Why you wrote a document proclaiming self destroyer idolisation. As your science man status. Lying about what you personally knew to what was impossible to know.

Humans are only actually fighting your egotism as a human know it all promise of science to the elitist....
I will give you everything including the eternal. I will subjective claim return to the eternal.

That status is a mental condition as so is math.

Man came straight from eternal into man presence as a pre owned eternal self.

God O bodies held mass big bang burst burning instant.

Satanists theory I will inherit and be given back the eternal it will come back to earth. Talking burning moment not eternal to self.

The argument spiritual wisdom versus satanism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some ideas to test for why no flood wouldn't work (again, not tonight):

A gene pool for humans.
A gene pool for animals.
A discovery that dating changed so we are only dating things after.
A discovery that dating and genetic drift looked like they had gone on for a while but there was actually a code in the DNA (and that code could be evidence of creation too).
Explaining Ayer's rock in Australia.
Perhaps the land mass was a lot smaller; it says in the Bible that the earth was divided in the days of Peleg.
Perhaps there were so many floods that they bypassed detection.

Just a start...

No, no, no. Some of your ideas have been tested already and the myth of the flood has been refuted on some of the tests that you mentioned. You refuted your hypothesis before you even made it. That may be a first.

 

[nPeace]

Not inserting stuff that is utterly false to replace "what people couldn't understand" would have been a great start.

No. Not in the slightest. Not even close. In fact, this approach belongs to religion -- not science.

For a long time, scientists assumed that India was isolated in this way due to continental drift.
Scientists assumed for a long time that the subcontinent was largely isolated during its long journey through the ocean and unique species of plants and animals were therefore able to develop on it.

However, paleontologists at the University of Bonn in Germany are now showing using tiny midges encased in amber that there must have been a connection between the apparently cut off India and Europe and Asia around 54 million years ago that enabled the creatures to move around.

Entelognathus
Prior to the discovery of Entelognathus, scientists assumed that the last common ancestor of jawed vertebrates was a shark-like animal, with no distinct jawbones, and that modern jaws evolved in early bony fishes. This discovery shows that modern jaws evolved earlier.

Dmanisi skull
Until the 1980s, scientists assumed that hominins had been restricted to the African continent for the whole of the Early Pleistocene (until about 0.8 Ma), only migrating out during a phase named Out of Africa I. Thus, the vast majority of archaeological effort was disproportionately focused on Africa.

Fretted terrain
In some of the best images taken by the Viking Orbiters, some of the valley fill appeared to resemble alpine glaciers on Earth. Given this similarity, some scientists assumed that the lineations on these valley floors might have formed by flow of ice in (and perhaps through) these canyons and valleys. Today it is generally agreed that glacial flow caused the lineations.

Aquaporins
Aquaporins are "the plumbing system for cells". Water moves through cells in an organized way, most rapidly in tissues that have aquaporin water channels. For many years, scientists assumed that water leaked through the cell membrane, and some water does. However, this did not explain how water could move so quickly through some cells.

Amy Parish is a Biological Anthropologist, Primatologist, and Darwinian Feminist. She has taught at the University of Southern California in the Gender Studies and Anthropology departments since 1999. She is recognised as being a world leading expert in bonobo studies.
For centuries, the mainly male evolutionary scientists overlooked the significance of female animals behaviour; treating it as a passive constant in a drama dominated by aggressive males.
Scientists assumed that patriarchy was only natural. Bonobos proved them wrong
Bonobos, sometimes known as pygmy chimpanzees, were neglected for decades by primatologists who assumed they were just smaller versions of chimps. But from the 1990s onwards, researcher Amy Parish and others studied bonobos and came to an astonishing conclusion: Chimps and bonobos are nothing alike.

Seas are rising faster than ever
Ask climate scientists how fast the world’s oceans are creeping upward, and many will say 3.2 millimeters per year—a figure enshrined in the last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, from 2014. But the number, based on satellite measurements taken since the early 1990s, is a long-term average. In fact, the global rate varied so much over that period that it was hard to say whether it was holding steady or accelerating.

The team’s data show that, after a period of global dam building in the 1950s that held back surface water and slowed sea level rise, it began to accelerate in the late 1960s—not the late 1980s, as many climate scientists assumed, Dangendorf says. “That was surprising,” because the main drivers of sea level rise—the thermal expansion of ocean water from global warming, together with melting glaciers and ice sheets—were thought to have kicked in later.

I think that's enough for a day's work.

 

[nPeace]

So you are using science to disprove science. Fascinating.

No. I am using facts to counter erroneous claims - not science. Please don't fool yourself.

Science, apparently, not only can tell which mountains experienced growth spurts, but can also explain the mechanisms by which that occurred. You then assume that all mountains experienced these "growth spurts", in the presence or absence of those mechanisms, so that you can continue to pretend that the "world was a drastically different place" -- just a few years ago.

No. That's apparently what you are doing, assuming that you know everything about the past, by taking data in the future and applying it to everything in the past.

Equally fascinating.

In a way, I pity you. Your world is a very small and simple place; and in making it such a small and simple place, you are robbed of the opportunity to take in just how splendid, powerful, awesome, amazing, complex our universe truly is.

Should you not really be pitying yourself, NewGuy?
I am not the one lost in a world where there is a need to desperately fight against something I'd prefer not to accept.
I mean, just look at your OP.
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. Isn't that pitiful?

There are a few basic assumptions to science, which you can read and learn about here:

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

Thanks teacher, but I am quite familiar with how science works.
Rather than try to be a teacher on RF, since I don't think that's their policy... unless they have changed it, may I suggest you you do two things...
1) Don't assume people are ignorant, just because they have not swallowed what you did - that is, believe is suppositions, and conjecture.
2) If you really are educated in the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theory, then please be sure you are not making an argument for the former.

However, you seem to be trying, so I appreciate that, at least.

Aether, for one. That one jumped right into my head. Here is a list of more:

10 Most Famous Scientific Theories That Were Later Debunked

I forgot what this is in reference to.
Oh yeah. Ideas you don't accept. Okay. So you accept ideas until they are overturned. Thanks. I could have told you that.

Yet they used the predictions and equations designed by those whom you said "had nothing to do with it" to get them there without getting lost.

Well if I study Motor Mechanics, and after a few years, can't find the carbonator and know where the hose runs, I should be given a book, and pencil, and asked to write out the alphabet.
I think they would greatly reduce the funds, if scientist didn't develop instruments they can rely on.

I am speaking of "intellectual dishonesty", which is a psychological phenomenon, not a value statement or attack on one's character (as it happens to everyone to one degree or another).

Intellectual honesty - Wikiversity

Can you in your own words show me how accusing me of "intellectual dishonesty", is not attacking the poster.

But you haven't presented any evidence; but then again, I am certain that our standards of evidence are very, very different.

You haven't asked me for any, dude.

"Belief" is not "faith". My "beliefs" that evolution is mostly true and that geologists know what they're doing and that the world wide flood did not occur is based on evidence that is testable, repeatable, provides explanatory and predictive powers. That is far, far different than the very definition of faith given in the bible, which is found in Hebrews 11:1 -- which basically says, "I believe and hope for it to be true, therefore it is true". When you state that these things "can not be verified", then you have closed your mind to how these things are "verified" in order to cling to your presuppositions; which is the very definition of "intellectual dishonesty".

Please read what you just wrote, and sit and think about it, because the two sentences are saying exactly the same thing.
Also, I am at how you defined faith in the Bible. Quite funny. Thanks.

Let me give you examples of "attacking the poster" so that you can see the different: "@ArdentChristian, you are a liar, an idiot, and someone who needs to crawl under a rock and disappear from society". I said nothing of the sort, and though I get frustrated and sometimes slip, I make an attempt to avoid statements of that nature; nor have I used statements of that nature in this discourse.

A criticism is not an attack; however, you are so emotionally invested into your religious beliefs that is is more or less your identity. When I criticize your religious beliefs, I am, in your perception, criticizing your identity, so you perceive it as a personal attack on your identity, thus you. The reality of the situation is that I did not attack you -- heck, I invited you over to my house for dinner -- what I did do was criticize ideas which you are emotionally invested. Because of your emotional investment and your beliefs so infused with your identity, it is difficult for you to tell the difference between a criticism and an attack.

"You are irrational in your view, because you want to cling desperately to what you believe, for your own personal reasons", is turning my attention away from what you post, and targeting you - the poster.
It may be true, but...

I'm saying you don't need to go there.
I am not saying I am not guilty of doing that sometimes, and it's usually when I have someone hounding me with misapplied, misunderstood, or ridiculous ideas they have, and I am answering them, and they continue repeated... I mean repeatedly going over the same thing, post after post, and thread after thread. That's annoying. I won't call any names.
So if you got frustrated, I understand, but I am giving you a reminder, that's all.

The rules say...Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other
It's a reminder to me also.
However, how many of us apply the rules here, or even seem to understand them. Sometimes I think I don't.
This one I think one or two, try to get around...Repeatedly targeting or harassing members of particular groups will also be considered bullying.
Anyhow... back to the topic.
I am not being dishonest. I create threads, and am willing to discuss with anyone with the heart to take me on.

... I mean, prove it wrong.

No. We say "I don't know" when there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion; or compelling evidence to question a previous conclusion. Because science's "I don't know" is based on empirical evidence, it is not on the same level as "God works in mysterious ways".

I don't know who says "God works in mysterious ways", other than the imitation Christians, some of whom even say they have blind faith.
So tell me, do you agree you can't say with certainly how the earth was 6000 years ago?

 

[nPeace]

Well, if they're capable of building a fully covered floating device that could house pairs of thousands of species of animals and the fodder to last them and their incident offspring a year plus the year or years it took for vegetation hence fodder to grow back at the end of the flood, plus animals for food for themselves and the carnivores, and the sanitation requirements to go with that, why, surely they wouldn't just have fridges, they'd have electric light, air con, atomic power, no?

But still no genetic bottleneck in all species of land animals and all of the same date.

Still no geological flood layer all over all continents and islands and the ocean floor and dated to the last 10,000 years or so.

And where on earth could that extra billion cubic miles of water have got to? Gosh, it's like when you're distracted for a second and then you can't find your keys ...

Still, it's a pretty story, and a Noah's Ark for Christmas has solved a lot of present-buying problems, so it can be useful too. And for sex education ─ this is the mummy bos taurus, this is the daddy bos taurus, this is the mummy hydrochaerus, this is the daddy hydrochaerus ...

See here.

 

[nPeace]

I'm interested in why this topic generates so much interest from different sides.

Your turn.

Sorry. "the truth of why you are here". You don't have to post in a thread, in order to show interest in it. You don't have to mention the name of a particular group (which seems to be always on "your lips") or the name of a poster (which seem to be always on "your lips"), if you are just interested in why this topic generates so much interest from different sides.
Try one more time.

 

[74x12]

Really, that's funny. It must be a small, fringe element. But irrelevant. Genesis isn't interpreted literally by Jews.

You insist on being incorrect. Not that it even matters. Your whole point is irrelevant and an appeal to authority.

Nope, it's the Jew's book. Christians abducted it and changed many of the meanings. That's why there are still Jews, and they don't agree with what Christians did with it.

That's a narrow minded point of view. The earliest Christians were Jews. Christianity is a Jewish religion. We don't claim to represent the views of Jewish rabbis. We have our own views so; no we haven't abducted anything.

There is no evidence. That's why science is superior and doesn't back up your interpretation.

So close minded. So certain of your own opinions and "knowledge" or lack thereof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You insist on being incorrect. Not that it even matters. Your whole point is irrelevant and an appeal to authority.

That's a narrow minded point of view. The earliest Christians were Jews. Christianity is a Jewish religion. We don't claim to represent the views of Jewish rabbis. We have our own views so; no we haven't abducted anything.

So close minded. So certain of your own opinions and "knowledge" or lack thereof.

Most of his claims were pretty much correct. Especially the last one. There is no evidence for the flood and all sorts of evidence that refutes it.

But sadly literalists will not even take the time to learn what is and what is not evidence when one is having a scientific discussion.

 

[F1fan]

I don't know anyone that's confused about star wars being real ? It doesn't present itself as real .

A Tale of Two Cities and For Whom the Bell Tolls both read like history, and are actually based on real historical events. The difference is there's no tradition in any culture that raises its kids as if these stories are factual as written.

 

[nPeace]

@NewGuyOnTheBlock I was just wondering why you use Wikiversity as opposed to Wikipedia.
I was comparing the two, when I came across this.
Requests for comment/Shut down Wikiversity - Meta
We, the undersigned, believe that Wikiversity has no clearly defined mission; that Wikiversity has become a haven for users banned from other Wikimedia projects; and that recent behavior emanating from that project has damaged the credibility of other Wikimedia wikis. We believe that the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees should shut down Wikiversity.

 

[blü 2]

See here.

What I'm looking for are those simultaneous genetic bottlenecks in all land animals, that single flood layer all over all continents and islands and the ocean floor and that billion cubic miles of water over and above the water presently on the earth ─ because ─ as you know ─ IF there was a Genesis flood THEN they MUST be there.

But they ain't.

So ...no Genesis flood.

Pretty straightforward, you'll agree.

 

[F1fan]

You insist on being incorrect. Not that it even matters. Your whole point is irrelevant and an appeal to authority.

Sorry man, I'm appealing to the fact that Jews don't interpret Genesis literally. Heck not even all Christians interpret it literally. The fringe group is the literalists. And my point is very relevant since it's the fringe Christian literalists who struggle with the science and facts that go against their interpretation. Jews and liberal Christians can accept science and have their religion too.

That's a narrow minded point of view. The earliest Christians were Jews. Christianity is a Jewish religion. We don't claim to represent the views of Jewish rabbis. We have our own views so; no we haven't abducted anything.

Early Christians probably had no problem with the stories. Surely everyone interpreted them literally back then. No one had science that explained how things are in the universe. Creationists were born out of the age of reason and science becoming more established. The more science explains about the universe the more literalist Christians fumble to justify their interpretation of Genesis. Everyone else adjusted their beliefs to what science reported. That's what smart theists do.

What's funny is how Creationists have long accepted the 6000 year old Ussher timeline and really fought hard to explain how the diversity of life could happen after a global flood. As science made this more difficult Creationists have pushed back the age of the earth to as much as 10,000 years. But what's the point? The only reason for young earth is to validate Ussher's timeline. If they can;t make that work, well just throw it out. They don't. They just keep changing their details, and without any science.

So close minded. So certain of your own opinions and "knowledge" or lack thereof.

Quite the contrary. Science shows its work and I am very open minded to how it does its work. Creationists don't follow facts or have any methodological process. CRI is literally a propaganda organization, not a science lab. They don't do research, nor are an institute.

The closed minded are those who reject science when it contradicts their religious beliefs.

 

[F1fan]

I think you are assuming that the bodies would all have settled where they died. You also are assuming that all these bodies were buried quickly. Are you making these assumptions?
I don't think everything works ideally as humans assume. So when you create in your mind situations, then there is where surprises take you at every turn.

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?