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

[viole]

This where you show that your knowledge of the bible/ scriptures are limited..

That fish that swallow Jonah was not a fish as we know a fish to be.
God created that whale for a special purpose..
As written in Jonah 1:17--"Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah"
Therefore that Great Fish is not a fish as we know a fish to be..
But was specially prepared to swallow up Jonah..
So that fish was not an ordinary fish as we know a fish to be..

I thought it was tuna, or something like that. Do you think it was some sort of U-Boot instead?

Ciao

- viole

 

[nPeace]

I accept ideas as truth that are substantiated by evidence. I reject ideas as truth that are refuted by evidence.

What ideas has been refuted by evidence?
I know a few that have, but they are accepted by those who believe in them.

You conflate "Reliable" with "Infallible". Einstein's theories are reliable as they withstand scrutiny; but he nonetheless errored in clinging to the Static Infinite Universe model (and admitted the same). Newton, the Father of Physics, remains reliable and most of his theories and equations remain in use today; yet it took others following his work to solve puzzles he failed to solve.

I think you are misapplying reliable.
Both Einstein and Newton discovered a system that is reliable. What they did, was only tell us what they theorize about an already reliable system.
They had nothing to do with it.
In fact, that's why they both were unreliable, as humans are, and today, they are still questioning if Einstein is right. How is that reliable.
Man can plot a path from earth to the moon, or Pluto, or mars, and send a vessel there. Why? They are dealing with a reliable system.
If the system was unreliable, their ships would all be lost. their crew - extinct.
Thus the creator is reliable. We should thank him for a system that did not pop out of nowhere for no reason, and follow unguided random processes, which would be disorderly, and haphazard.

If you understood the "overwhelming preponderance of evidence", then you would at least be able to be honest enough to say, "Noah's Flood is not substantiated by evidence and is, in fact, refuted by evidence. But I believe it anyway". Where you fail is pretending that evidence contrary to the myth does not exist, then pretend that our views on the reality of whether or not this event actually occurred are equally valid. They're not. One is based on evidence (or the lack thereof) and the other based on belief. I think it's time you stop pretending that science somehow validates the myth as being an actual historical event.

Now I am dishonest?
All you guys do is attack the poster. That's your best debate skill.
You are not really interested in discussions. You just want to post what you believe, and everyone must say. "Yup Yup Yup Yup Uh Huh Uh Huh", and you feel happy.
This is a debate forum. It's not a school, where you get on a platform, and teach what you believe, and the "children" go, "Yes sir." or "Yes Ma'am". Nor is it a religious building, where you get on a platform, and preach what you believe, and the listeners go "Amen brother".

1) I am not dishonest, and you are in no position to determine that, as you only have two feet, and a head, like all human creatures. I could call you dishonest too, but what does pointing fingers, and making accusations do? We are not in a courtroom, you know.
2) What I believe, is based on evidence, and your evidence is no more superior to the evidence that million of religios people - scientists by the thousands included, see.
3) Much of what you believe, are ideas of men, which cannot be verified, and are believe on faith - blind faith, that is. Far worse than any Christian faith. You do believe in the earth and moon formation proposed by scientist, don't you? Well, there you go.
43) Try debating and stop attacking the poster. It's an Ad hominem and is more transparent of dishonesty.

 

[Twilight Hue]

How so?

If you don't know already , your too far gone.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This where you show that your knowledge of the bible/ scriptures are limited..

That fish that swallow Jonah was not a fish as we know a fish to be.
God created that whale for a special purpose..
As written in Jonah 1:17--"Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah"
Therefore that Great Fish is not a fish as we know a fish to be..
But was specially prepared to swallow up Jonah..
So that fish was not an ordinary fish as we know a fish to be..

I think there's a musical in there somewhere.

 

[Colt]

- The geological record simply does not support the idea of a "world wide flood".
- The fossil record does not support the idea of a "world wide flood".
- There should be a layer of massive death of modern animals and that evidence should be found worldwide; which of course, we don't see.
- The Ark was too large to be seaworthy. (SEE Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The rough seas would have twisted the Ark apart.
- The altitude to Mt. Everest places temperatures at a range of -15 to -30 Degrees Fahrenheit. Noah and his animal companions would have frozen to death.
- The altitude of Mt. Everest places an oxygen level insufficient for sustaining life. Noah and his animal companions would have asphyxiated, provided the cold didn't get them first.
- It would have taken years, possibly decades, for these animals to reach the Ark, passing through environments for which they would be ill suited. Their survivability at taking such a journey ranges from impossible to highly unlikely.
- Land plants would have been under water for a full year, causing their death and extinction. Thus, exiting the Ark, the herbivores would have been bereft of all food, causing their extinction as well.
- Coming off the Ark, the hungry predators would have done what predators do; hunt for food; in which case most prey would have immediately gone extinct.
- 2 of each kind exiting the ark causes insufficient genetic diversity. The inbreeding would have caused severe genetic defects.
- Repopulating the earth with their species could have only been accomplished with highly accelerated and unnatural reproduction rates.
- Conservative estimates for species on board the ark would have been: 17,400 birds; 12,000 reptiles; 9,000 mammals; 5,000 amphibians; 2,000,000 insects: 8 zookeepers are expected to care for such a large number of animals is beyond the realm of believability.
- Placing such large numbers in this confined area would have left no room for food and supplies. A pair of elephants, alone, would require 365,000# of food; and we haven't even gotten to the water yet!
- Even with the sheer bulk of the foodstuffs put aside, what are further problems of highly specialized diets of some species and the problem of food rotting without the benefit of modern methods of preservation.
- We would expect to find remains of animals where those animals do not belong in their movements across the world. We do not find Penguin remains or Kangaroo remains in Europe.
- In making the crossing, many of the animals would have needed a land bridge to cross large bodies of water. No such land bridges exist, nor is there any evidence of such land bridges ever existing.
- Changes in water temperature, pressure, sunlight filtration, salinity and ph balance. The flood would have devastated most aquatic life.
- The RMS Titanic has the dimensions of: 175' H, 882' L, 92' W and steel construction; yet it's capacity was 3,547 people and enough provisions for 2-3 weeks. The Ark's dimensions are supposedly 45' X 450' X 75' of wood construction; yet was expected to house over 50,000 animals, millions of insects, 7 people, a 600 year old man and enough provisions for a year ....
- The Rainbow itself is another mystery; the Rainbow is an optical illusion caused by the refraction of light; in other words, Physics. Thus, we are expected to believe that the physics of light behaved differently before the flood than they do now.
- Many parasitic organisms cause disease (Mosquitos, Tapeworms), which would have further severe implications on the survivability of such a voyage..
- Then, we have the problem of deciding where that incredible mass of water came from.
- Then, we have the problem of deciding where that massive mass of water went.
- Science has discovered many genetic bottlenecks among many species, including the Cheetah, the Human Being (Homo Saipien), Elephant Seals, American Bison, European Bison and many others. If such an event were to have occurred, we would have seen genetic bottlenecks of all species (which we don't see) happening at approximately the same time (which we don't see) being about 10,000 years ago (which we don't see).

And that is far from all of the problems in accepting a literal interpretation of Noah's Ark ....

So if you can believe ... or even question ... whether or not there was really a world wide flood from 6 to 10 thousand years ago, then you have not questioned the tale or are unwilling to do so.

Add the fact that God was supposedly disappointed in his own creation after allowing Satan to "mislead the whole world", so he drowns the entire earth except, of course, an ancestor of the people who invented the story. Yet, God keeps the Satan creature alive and nothing changed.

As a child i knew Santa Clause was a lie as well as some of the vastly exaggerated history of the Israelites.

 

[leroy]

- The geological record simply does not support the idea of a "world wide flood".
- The fossil record does not support the idea of a "world wide flood".
- There should be a layer of massive death of modern animals and that evidence should be found worldwide; which of course, we don't see.
- The Ark was too large to be seaworthy. (SEE Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The rough seas would have twisted the Ark apart.
- The altitude to Mt. Everest places temperatures at a range of -15 to -30 Degrees Fahrenheit. Noah and his animal companions would have frozen to death.
- The altitude of Mt. Everest places an oxygen level insufficient for sustaining life. Noah and his animal companions would have asphyxiated, provided the cold didn't get them first.
- It would have taken years, possibly decades, for these animals to reach the Ark, passing through environments for which they would be ill suited. Their survivability at taking such a journey ranges from impossible to highly unlikely.
- Land plants would have been under water for a full year, causing their death and extinction. Thus, exiting the Ark, the herbivores would have been bereft of all food, causing their extinction as well.
- Coming off the Ark, the hungry predators would have done what predators do; hunt for food; in which case most prey would have immediately gone extinct.
- 2 of each kind exiting the ark causes insufficient genetic diversity. The inbreeding would have caused severe genetic defects.
- Repopulating the earth with their species could have only been accomplished with highly accelerated and unnatural reproduction rates.
- Conservative estimates for species on board the ark would have been: 17,400 birds; 12,000 reptiles; 9,000 mammals; 5,000 amphibians; 2,000,000 insects: 8 zookeepers are expected to care for such a large number of animals is beyond the realm of believability.
- Placing such large numbers in this confined area would have left no room for food and supplies. A pair of elephants, alone, would require 365,000# of food; and we haven't even gotten to the water yet!
- Even with the sheer bulk of the foodstuffs put aside, what are further problems of highly specialized diets of some species and the problem of food rotting without the benefit of modern methods of preservation.
- We would expect to find remains of animals where those animals do not belong in their movements across the world. We do not find Penguin remains or Kangaroo remains in Europe.
- In making the crossing, many of the animals would have needed a land bridge to cross large bodies of water. No such land bridges exist, nor is there any evidence of such land bridges ever existing.
- Changes in water temperature, pressure, sunlight filtration, salinity and ph balance. The flood would have devastated most aquatic life.
- The RMS Titanic has the dimensions of: 175' H, 882' L, 92' W and steel construction; yet it's capacity was 3,547 people and enough provisions for 2-3 weeks. The Ark's dimensions are supposedly 45' X 450' X 75' of wood construction; yet was expected to house over 50,000 animals, millions of insects, 7 people, a 600 year old man and enough provisions for a year ....
- The Rainbow itself is another mystery; the Rainbow is an optical illusion caused by the refraction of light; in other words, Physics. Thus, we are expected to believe that the physics of light behaved differently before the flood than they do now.
- Many parasitic organisms cause disease (Mosquitos, Tapeworms), which would have further severe implications on the survivability of such a voyage..
- Then, we have the problem of deciding where that incredible mass of water came from.
- Then, we have the problem of deciding where that massive mass of water went.
- Science has discovered many genetic bottlenecks among many species, including the Cheetah, the Human Being (Homo Saipien), Elephant Seals, American Bison, European Bison and many others. If such an event were to have occurred, we would have seen genetic bottlenecks of all species (which we don't see) happening at approximately the same time (which we don't see) being about 10,000 years ago (which we don't see).

And that is far from all of the problems in accepting a literal interpretation of Noah's Ark ....

So if you can believe ... or even question ... whether or not there was really a world wide flood from 6 to 10 thousand years ago, then you have not questioned the tale or are unwilling to do so.

If one is allowed to use the atheist method those objections are very easy to answer:

Answers

I don’t know, but we are searching for an answer.


this answer is suppose to be good enough to trum any objections you might have to refute the flood model

 

[robocop (actually)]

How would they be? Hand waving is not an argument. Be specific.

Suppose God used nuclear bombs to cause the flood/tidal wave/shock wave. If it messed with isotopes so that the decays overlapped (it always confuses me but I have done the math), then it would go undetected.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Suppose God used nuclear bombs to cause the flood/tidal wave/shock wave. If it messed with isotopes so that the decays overlapped (it always confuses me but I have done the math), then it would go undetected.

Nuclear weapons leave radioactive isotopes behind. And you are still ignoring the fact that large amounts of moving water leave massive amounts of evidence behind. No evidence, no flood. it is just that simple.

One question, I hope that you know that the story of someone waking up in an ice filled bathtub in a cheap motel room missing a kidney is a myth.. Why is it a myth?

 

[F1fan]

Please consider - there was no 'global' in 'biblical' times.
There was no idea of such things.
When it says in the Gospels that the 'whole world was taxed' that meant a different
world again. It meant the Roman Empire - not even the Parthian Empire, or Africa,
or China or beyond Germania.
'World' meant different things at different times. Sometime 'world' meant different
thing at the same time.
I hold that Noah was Sumerian and refers to something local.

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.

 

[Jose Fly]

For most people, it doesn't matter to me what they believe; it's just an entertaining diversion.
For some people, it matters a great deal; such as in the case of those in positions of leadership or power whose personal beliefs affect their decisions; and their decisions affect the rest of us.

Out of curiosity....do you know of anyone in leadership positions who believes the Biblical flood story, and more importantly, are in a position where their belief in the story is relevant?

Because right now, right here, all I see are a few Jehovah's Witnesses defending their belief in the story which again leads me to think "So what? Let 'em believe what they want".

 

[Jose Fly]

What puzzles me is that a literal interpretation of the Bible does not affect salvation, apparently. Which is obvious, considering that the vast majority of Christians laugh at Adam and Eve, talking serpents and such. For instance, WL Craig calls YEC an embarrassment for Christianity.

So, it looks to me like pure intellectual masochism, that exposes to global ridicule, also coming from most Christians, without any real advantage.

That's a good question. Perhaps @nPeace can help answer....what exactly is the point of defending the Biblical flood story to non-Christians? Is believing the story essential for salvation? If not, then why spend so much time and effort advocating for it?

IOW, what exactly is your purpose in this thread?

 

[robocop (actually)]

Nuclear weapons leave radioactive isotopes behind. And you are still ignoring the fact that large amounts of moving water leave massive amounts of evidence behind. No evidence, no flood. it is just that simple.

One question, I hope that you know that the story of someone waking up in an ice filled bathtub in a cheap motel room missing a kidney is a myth.. Why is it a myth?

And it could have been a nuclear blast/schockwave.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And it could have been a nuclear blast/schockwave.

No, just no.

You dodged a question. Please answer it.

 

[robocop (actually)]

No, just no.

You dodged a question. Please answer it.

I don't know that there was water. The people may have just assumed it was water. Water in Hebrew is M-I-M and it can also mean, "source," or ,"turmoil."
I think.

 

[Colt]

No other culture on earth remembers a great, great, great.....great grandpa Noah.

In Babylon, when the scripture books were being finalized, the authors tried to trace their blood line back to Adam whom they assumed was the first human. Unable to do so they decided to drown the whole world in its own wickedness. Problem solved!

 

[robocop (actually)]

No other culture on earth remembers a great, great, great.....great grandpa Noah.

In Babylon, when the scripture books were being finalized, the authors tried to trace their blood line back to Adam whom they assumed was the first human. Unable to do so they decided to drown the whole world in its own wickedness. Problem solved!

Flood "myths" are spread throughout almost all ancient societies. They could have changed the name in their own languages.

 

[PureX]

No I think the bible actually describes it as happening.

So does the Star Wars movie, and yet I don't know of anyone who was confused about it being fiction. I even read a novel years ago wherein the characters were all inanimate objects, and even that story presented itself as if it were a record of actual events. Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote a novel called "Notes From The Underground" that has the lead character speaking directly to the reader, telling his own story. Perhaps back in the 1860s, when it was published, a few people were confused by this, but I've never actually heard of any.

Now either they made it up , believed that it happened or it really did happen .

Or, most likely, it's a combination of all of these. As nearly all stories are.

Its not Just Moses that wrote about the worldwide flood, other authors write about it as happening also. Fine if you don't believe it happened but the authors definitely wrote it as an actual event .

Yes, authors almost always do that, whether it actually happened or not. And we, their readers, agree to suspend our disbelief for the duration of the story to allow it to create it's own reality. It' a really big part of what story-telling is for.

 

[Colt]

Flood "myths" are spread throughout almost all ancient societies. They could have changed the name in their own languages.

Because all ancient cultures have experienced floods. A flood as important as the Genesis flood would be remembered if all the people in the world descended from Noah.

 

[metis]

Roughly 2/3 of early cultures have flood accounts in their tradition, and they usually are societies that do have at least some struggles with flooding.

IMO, the Judeo-Christian flood narrative probably is a counter to the earlier and much more widespread Babylonian polytheistic account. IOW, we need to look for "What's the moral(s) of the story?", which are far more important anyway.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Because all ancient cultures have experienced floods. A flood as important as the Genesis flood would be remembered if all the people in the world descended from Noah.

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, ancient cultures all over the world believed in a worldwide flood.