Noah's flood story, did it happen?

[Jose Fly]

Oh - so you believe that it was just the opinion of the teacher?

I've always thought so.

Why is that? Someone teaching their own opinion as if it was truth to impressionable children?

It was among the first nudges towards critically questioning what I was being taught that I can remember. But I suppose had they given better answers, I probably would have just asked more questions.

I can't stand stuff like that. If a teacher doesn't know something - they should own up to it.

Well, they were basically just housewives, so I don't think it's fair to expect them to have done much better.

I like when things make sense to - but are you of the opinion that something needs to makes sense in order to be true?

When it comes to religion, since there's no external, objective means to determine whether it's true or not, making sense is essential.

Everything must be discernible and explainable - before it could ever be believed?

Religion is different though.

Well - if you ever feel like rehashing it and picking at that scab - you know where to find me.

Sure thing. And btw, it's not really a "scab". Like I said, I'm quite grateful for the experience.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Exactly my view also.

Clearly it isn't, as you've been arguing the opposite post after post.

You said: "Maybe you should give the theists time. Maybe as they will discover how science doesn't say what apologists and con-artists claim, they will be the ones to change opinions?
Your double standard and confirmation bias is showing again."
Theists dont bother about if science proves the Bible and vice versa.

Then stop arguing otherwise.

Simply put, it is the Atheists who continiously accuse the Theists of not believing the atheists' science for being Theists!

1. plenty of theists demonstrably have no issues with science (and don't pretend as if they confirm their religious beliefs)

2. there's no such thing as "atheist science".

All I do is to show the Atheists that such a game cuts both ways!

Which is you arguing yet another strawman, since there is no such game. That only exists in your head.

Just as the Atheist would like to think they have science as evidence that God does not exist

Not once in my life have I met an atheist who claims that.
Yet another strawman.

Therefore,
If the Atheist admits that he is atheist because he "Believes" there is no God...

Not what atheism is.

Sheesh dude, are you capable of being correct about something?

I will be happy to say, cool, I respect your religion.

Atheism is the opposite of a religion.
Atheism is a religion like "bald" is a hair color or "barefoot" is a type of shoe.

But as soon as the atheist says... I am an atheist because there is no evidence of God![
They are too ashamed to call their beliefs a religion, and they want to revoke the "Science proves God does not exist" argument.

Not believing something, is not a belief. It is the opposite.
And once again I can only inform you that I've never met an atheist who claimed he could prove no gods exist. I certainly never said so, so I have no clue why you think mentioning this is relevant to our conversation, unless you are once again just trying to argue a strawman.

But they never keep in mind that there are many scientists in the scientific cream who believes in God.

Point me to one atheist who is unaware that there are scientists who are also religious?

Atheists do not have any copyright on science!
Period!

Who claimed otherwise?
Certainly nobody on this forum. Or I must have missed it off course, in which case you are most welcome to quote the post where this was said. I won't be holding my breath.

Science is not the atheist's weapon to arm themself to belittle the Bible, God, and the Christian.
It is a tool to use to improve Humans life on this earth!

And this tool also happens to show how absurd the creationist worldview is.

Anything else about science is money wasted on futile projects, such as sending people to mars, or building bigger colliders that will not have any bennefit to anyone but self poisenous egoistic scientists.
just my view.

You seem oblivious to the fact how in a very real sense the internet device you are using right now was made possible by R&D that was done in context of space travel, to name just one obvious thing.

I'm not surprised though.

You seem oblivious to a great many things.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Bible does not claim any such facts, but it does claim that life is not older than 7000 years at most.

If it does, it is demonstrably wrong about that.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I've always thought so.

Well that's good.

It was among the first nudges towards critically questioning what I was being taught that I can remember. But I suppose had they given better answers, I probably would have just asked more questions.

As you should.

Well, they were basically just housewives, so I don't think it's fair to expect them to have done much better.

Eh - I still don't like it - housewife or not.

I mean - a housewife is just as capable as anyone else to learn what the Bible claims and that its not smart to make stuff up.

Kinda "anti-housewife" of you to say.

When it comes to religion, since there's no external, objective means to determine whether it's true or not, making sense is essential.

I think the opposite.

Since no one can objectively verified any of these things - it would be impossible to know everything about it.

Some things would need to be taken on "faith".

Religion is different though.

Why do you believe that?

It's either true or it isn't.

Sure thing. And btw, it's not really a "scab". Like I said, I'm quite grateful for the experience.

Whatever it is - feel free to pick at it.

 

[Jose Fly]

Eh - I still don't like it - housewife or not.

I mean - a housewife is just as capable as anyone else to learn what the Bible claims and that its not smart to make stuff up.

Kinda "anti-housewife" of you to say.

I figure they did the best they could, and were probably afraid that saying "I don't know" to an annoyingly inquisitive 8 year old would lead to more problems. Little did they know....

I think the opposite.

Since no one can objectively verified any of these things - it would be impossible to know everything about it.

To me, if there's no external objective way to tell if something is true or not, and it doesn't make sense, then why believe it?

Some things would need to be taken on "faith".

That was something I realized pretty early....I don't take things on faith.

Why do you believe that?

It's either true or it isn't.

Because there's no external objective way to tell if it's true or not.

Whatever it is - feel free to pick at it.

It's an interesting discussion for sure.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Did you not bother to read my entire post:

​

Some parts in red, since you missed them.


The part you yourself quoted clearly says LOCAL. It clearly does not say WORLDWIDE.

Your original comment:

​

You implied that Asimov validated Noah's flood. Noah's flood was all-encompassing, covering the entire earth. Asimov clearly stated the Noah's flood story was probably based on a local flood. You even quoted the passages from Asimov showing that. So, no. Asimov did not validate Noah's flood as you asserted.



Respect for is not the same thing as belief in or acceptance of the stories within.



BTW, you are not the first person on RF to try to make it look like Asimov validated Noah's flood.

You're taking my statements out of context and I'm very offended by your serious lack of civility. I find that your attitude adversely affects the tone of this forum and that the moderators should be notified immediately.

[/sarc]

Cheers!

 

[ecco]

I didn't invent the idea of God and I did not claim that "God did it".

You worded it differently...

Yeah - it's weird. Unless - of course - God were somehow involved.

Different wording, same meaning.

He will always be an option for religionists though.

Exactly:
How can you explain the ark surviving the most horrendous seas?
God was somehow involved.
How can you explain how seven people populated the entire earth?
God was somehow involved.

If you "disdain" that argument - don't talk to religionists - because asking them to take God out of their equations is kinda like asking them to give up their beliefs in order explain their beliefs.

It's the fallback for the religious when rational thinking fails.

Care to discuss LastThursdayism?

 

[ecco]

You're taking my statements out of context and I'm very offended by your serious lack of civility. I find that your attitude adversely affects the tone of this forum and that the moderators should be notified immediately.

[/sarc]

Cheers!

Nice duck and dodge. I guess it's easier than actually addressing my post.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Nice duck and dodge...

--and what I'm getting is that you're totally missing the point, that everyone is entitled to his own opinion, that a light heart is always welcome, that it's ok to disagree, & there are some convo's not worthy of continuance.

 

[rational experiences]

You were irradiated? As in, seriously over-irradiated by some source? What was the source, if you don't mind me asking?

I have a real problem following what you are saying in a lot of posts, I'm not going to lie. It sounds here like you are saying that one must refer to scientific findings in order to give someone information about where theists place our human origins. Seems strange, and I would entirely disagree. Or perhaps you're saying that science may hold the key to understanding why theists' minds place our origins in the hands of buffoons like "God?" Not sure there is anyone actually working on this issue from a scientific perspective, but perhaps you know better than I.

I can pick some sense out of this one, but it is only descriptive of what we (modernly) understand to be the process of the ability of the living matter of the earth (which seems to have most likely started in water) to use the energy of sunlight to gather particularly beneficial or nutritious elements and minerals into large quantities at the surface of the Earth, thereby furthering the survivability of all variety of creature on the planet. Nothing revolutionary here from a modern perspective, and I am not exactly sure why you simply mention it without context here.

I said nothing of the sort, at all. I made an appeal to evidence for common descent of man from other ape species. How does that IN ANY WAY equate to my making any sort of claims about the origins of life on Earth? Human forms of life, perhaps - but your "in stone" garbage doesn't hold up when compared to anything I have said. Humans evolving from other apes is only the "origin story" of humans insofar as it is a description of how life that already existed and came about in some way (I readily admit that I do not know exactly how this was achieved - though I have my suspicions) eventually became the human form.

Irrelevant to anything I have said, honestly.

It seems as though you are sort of making a claim that "lit water" (assumedly, water with starlight pouring into it) cannot produce life intrinsically, and that it takes "God" to make the leap from a combination of water and light to "life." Is that what you are saying? If so, you have no evidence for this. You don't. As such, I'd probably stop stating it so matter-of-factly, if I were you.

There is no sense to be found in this sentence, as far as I can tell. What do you mean when you use the word "own" here? I can't make heads or tails of this gibberish.

This doesn't sound accurate, and seems to simply assume the pre-existence of "microbes." In the end are you saying that "God" created the microbes? I am entirely confused.

More gibberish to me, unfortunately. In particular, "Mass of." is not even a complete sentence. Perhaps try using more words?

And now an appeal to "UFOs." And you expect to be taken seriously because... ?

"Intelligent spiritual humans" you say? Those certainly aren't 3 words you would ever catch me purposefully stringing together thusly.

Notice the operative word garbage is used again.

I live inside heavens cold space cold clear gas first cold advice. Burning cold gas that falls out a cause.

Irradiation state inside heavens burning gas. Cold gas unnaturally burning as it is not the mass held naturally as a gas burning in the vacuum.

Named by man scientist radiation fallout.

Science thesis from energy to get energy. Science thesis as thesis from O energy which is God stone in science thesis.

Gases its spirits historic. Science talks beginnings as age defined by factors maths. Age by factor does not exist mass changing exists.

Gas hot ejected out of stone body O earth as heavens historic is hot. Historic all dead bodies.

Only present and presence is living.

Science as science for science a human status only references stone mass energy earth in reality as it is our first body.

Ours means ownership in human consciousness so humans not God gave false ownership to stone.

Identification consciousness word user became a liar. We are only human.

Water was formed in space.

Water is only water

Microbes energy is separate in water.

Energy a human bio life form uses water with microbiomes. Says mind. Water not energy. Water is a medium mass.

UFO status became a studied science concept. I don't lie I live naturally.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I figure they did the best they could, and were probably afraid that saying "I don't know" to an annoyingly inquisitive 8 year old would lead to more problems. Little did they know....

I assume you're right - but I don't understand why that would be.

To me, if there's no external objective way to tell if something is true or not, and it doesn't make sense, then why believe it?

I'm sure you have an extensive list of thing that you think don't make sense - but I'd like to hear at least the top three.

There are reasons to believe even if it cannot be proven. You agree with the lifestyle choices. You resonate with the doctrine. It makes you happy.

I mean - scientists are constantly striving and exploring - looking to answer the "big questions".

I don't know why people give up on the "big questions" when it comes to religion though.

I mean - I believe I know - but I don't know - you know?

That was something I realized pretty early....I don't take things on faith.

Really? What's that like?

I'm not saying I take everything on faith - but there are many basic and important things that I - and I believe everyone - just needs to or they will never be satisfied with life.

Because there's no external objective way to tell if it's true or not.

That doesn't prove that it is wrong though - nor does it negate the option of internal subjective ways.

Only you can have your personal journey.

It's an interesting discussion for sure.

Just the big three. That's all I'm asking.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

You worded it differently...

​

Different wording, same meaning.

Well - Christians are people that believe that the first man was made from dust, the first woman from that guy's rib, Moses parted the Red Sea, flaming chariots came down from Heaven and that Jesus came back to life.

All of that was done with God's help.

If God performed works at these times - then there is nothing stopping Him from doing it at any time - even during the Flood event.

I mean - the Flood event itself was a work from God - was it not?

God is at the center of everything Christians believe in - so if there is something they cannot explain either they got it wrong, the "evidence" is wrong or God was somehow involved.

How can you explain the ark surviving the most horrendous seas?

What makes you think they were "horrendous"?

Was this actual water we are talking about or something spiritual?

How can you explain how seven people populated the entire earth?

Well - considering that the Bible claimed that Adam and Eve (two people) started this whole thing off and that these people were reported to have lived over 900 years each - I'm thinking they were just different and were capable.

God was somehow involved.

Yeah - that's kinda the message of the whole Bible - God was always involved.

It's the fallback for the religious when rational thinking fails.

Or when they are left with no other explanation.

None of your questions you have asked disprove the story of Noah.

I'm not saying they aren't good questions that should be asked - but questioning something doesn't prove it right or wrong.

Considering that you don't know the specifics of the Ark construction - you cannot claim it wouldn't survive the "horrendous" seas.

Considering the reported lifespans of Noah and his family - and the previous example of Adam and Eve - you cannot claim that they couldn't repopulate the Earth.

The Biblical record implies that there was some different genetics at play here.

Care to discuss LastThursdayism?

Sure.

 

[gnostic]

The Bible does not claim any such facts, but it does claim that life is not older than 7000 years at most.

Excuse me, but people have building settlements on top of one another, in the Middle East. The oldest settlement would be at the bottom, when excavated. Excavation of such sites would show settlements of progressive different periods, just as scientists are able to date tree rings in dendrochronology or dating ice core samples.

Tell es-Sultan, is the location of ancient Jericho with over 20 successive permanent settlements, dating all the way near the start of the Neolithic period. Carbon dating showed that the 1st settlement is dated to 9600 BCE, so about 11,600 years ago.

This settlement was so innovative that by , that in less than half, they actually high fortified wall around the town and even a watch tower.

If what you said were true, about there being no life before 5000 BCE or 7000 years, then did Jericho simply just magically pop into existence 11,600 years ago?

And Jericho wasn’t the only Neolithic sites that predated 7000 years ago. There are Damascus and Eridu and Nineveh, and lesser known sites, like Göbekli Tepe, Tell Aswad, Gesher and Mureybet, which are all older than the oldest layer of Uruk (Erech) of 5000 BCE.

 

[gnostic]

In a world where there was little cosmic radiation, and no Ultra violet rays damaging life, as well as a total abscense of C14 radiation, the Earth was a tropical rainforrest from one end to the other.Plantlife would have been immencely thick and lush, and man would have lived for hundreds of years.

You really have absolutely no understanding of plant biology, do you?

You make up things not realizing that what you are saying are not true.

You have heard of the PHOTOSYNTHESIS, haven't you?

Plants required 3 things to survive:

1. carbon dioxide
2. water
3. sunlight

And sunlight don't just mean visible light EM radiation, but also visible light, infrared (radiant heat) and ultraviolet.

While it is true, excessive ultraviolet would cause burn, it is also the most essential EM radiation in the photosynthesis process, and without ultraviolet, the plants won't live.

Plants draw water (H2O) through its roots in the soil, circulating water to other parts of the plants, while the plant breath in carbon dioxide (CO2).

Sunlight, particularly ultraviolet, is the catalyst that cause chemical reaction between H2O and CO2, converting into carbohydrates (C6H11 O6), which you would know commonly as sugar, and releasing oxygen (O2).

Carbohydrate is like food energy to plants, just like for other forms of life requiring carbohydrates.

If there were no ultraviolet, then there would be no chemical reaction, and no chemical reaction would mean no carbohydrates, no carbohydrates would mean no life.

 

[rational experiences]

Science by human status a one only first formed status preached as it's terms science.

Just by humans agreeing.

So it was thought for owning invention by scientist as the human designer used reacted and life attacked.

Less son learnt meaning lesson.

A man is one self a baby to adult

His son male first baby then in same body becomes man father.

Origin father man never was the scientist.

Baby to man adult evolved into choices as science.

Science attacked his baby son man adult life. Learnt.

Re learnt actually.

Science evil attacked self human life before.

Lesson not learnt is the scientist.

Conscious spirit of self teacher in life said once science proven evil.

Ignored.

Machine parts found inside stone fusion his owned human destroyer proof.

Thinker says I heard human screaming recorded voices when humans only one status human is alive as said memory recording records .... human went to hell.

Science only theories by human status a man.

Your own human warning.

Try something once and you get hurt were proven once you are wrong.

Warning ignore Jesus reviewed life sacrificed three times and then earth will destroy your life as. God status.

Basic human warning to self prophetic as maths is prophetic a one of only practice

Cosmos is multi faceted forms anywhere in a massive space body.

Natural. Cosmos. Great deep space deep state owns any variation of form.

Natural human psyche says natural cosmos is deep state.

Human on O God natural earth said God in science stone products is just God.

Basics.

Mind says natural one word.

Natural cosmos is not natural God.

The statement I am naturally intelligent human told.

Scientist first memory. I thought for maths in a higher holier living status.

No change had yet occurred to self by science.

My memory first high man state. Natural.

I then used science. First man status changed gone.

Two memories. Both memories advised you were wrong.

Cold evolution of changed state. Man's bone rib never grew back.

Reason atmosphere never returned to higher mass. More mass was now burning. Gas mass burning same.

Reasoning said space pulls the burning sun by universe deeper into its navel cooling. Earth moved into deeper space the cold state. Atmosphere however owned mass increase burning. Why phenomena now exists not previously seen.

The space womb holy mother warning. Science was wrong. Space saved earth God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well - Christians are people that believe that the first man was made from dust, the first woman from that guy's rib, Moses parted the Red Sea, flaming chariots came down from Heaven and that Jesus came back to life.

All of that was done with God's help.

If God performed works at these times - then there is nothing stopping Him from doing it at any time - even during the Flood event.

I mean - the Flood event itself was a work from God - was it not?

God is at the center of everything Christians believe in - so if there is something they cannot explain either they got it wrong, the "evidence" is wrong or God was somehow involved.

What makes you think that most Christians believe that? Worldwide they clearly do not. I have my doubt if even most believe that in the US. Most Christians accept the fact of evolution. And I seriously doubt if most believe the Ark myth either.

What makes you think they were "horrendous"?

Was this actual water we are talking about or something spiritual?

Well - considering that the Bible claimed that Adam and Eve (two people) started this whole thing off and that these people were reported to have lived over 900 years each - I'm thinking they were just different and were capable.

Yeah - that's kinda the message of the whole Bible - God was always involved.

Or when they are left with no other explanation.

None of your questions you have asked disprove the story of Noah.

I'm not saying they aren't good questions that should be asked - but questioning something doesn't prove it right or wrong.

Considering that you don't know the specifics of the Ark construction - you cannot claim it wouldn't survive the "horrendous" seas.

Considering the reported lifespans of Noah and his family - and the previous example of Adam and Eve - you cannot claim that they couldn't repopulate the Earth.

The Biblical record implies that there was some different genetics at play here.

Sure.

You show that you do not even have any idea what the Ark myth is.

Most Christians believe that God cannot lie. The Flood would have left clear evidence. To plant false evidence is a form of lying. If God cannot lie and there was a flood we would have seen the evidence for it. We can see evidence of much smaller and older floods. But until you get specific in your claims explanations cannot be made to you.

 

[SA Huguenot]

So, as with science, you don't understand sarcasm either.

Ditto

 

[SA Huguenot]

Err, no. Actual South African Geologist here. The approximately 182 million year old basalts now forming the Drakensberg Mountains were formed when basaltic and andesitic lavas reached the then surface. This happened as a result of rifting tectonics; the breakup of the Gondwana. Needless to say; we don't find fossils in basalts.

To the rest of you, be assured that only a very small percentage of South Africans are like SA Hugenot.

2 things.
or shall say, 2 Apologies!
1. I apologise for only answering today, because I try to answer the posts from the start, and unfortunately there are so many, that I fell far behind.
I see that I can never answer or respond to everything, and I only came to your post yesterday afternoon before I had to leave.
2. I also apologise for the statement I made on the Drakensberg Geology, which was totally incorrect. Due to my attempt to answer all the posts, I never refreshed my memory, and crossed the geology of the Magalies with Drakens.

Gretings

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Notice the operative word garbage is used again.

Yep. I call it like I see it. I'm quite sure you don't like it. Note however that you only mention that I used the word "garbage" - you didn't actually say anything to defend your own words. Interesting, isn't it?

I live inside heavens cold space cold clear gas first cold advice. Burning cold gas that falls out a cause.

What is this? Seriously... what in the hell are you saying here?

Irradiation state inside heavens burning gas. Cold gas unnaturally burning as it is not the mass held naturally as a gas burning in the vacuum.

Named by man scientist radiation fallout.

Science thesis from energy to get energy. Science thesis as thesis from O energy which is God stone in science thesis.

Gases its spirits historic. Science talks beginnings as age defined by factors maths. Age by factor does not exist mass changing exists.

Gas hot ejected out of stone body O earth as heavens historic is hot. Historic all dead bodies.

Only present and presence is living.

Science as science for science a human status only references stone mass energy earth in reality as it is our first body.

Ours means ownership in human consciousness so humans not God gave false ownership to stone.

Identification consciousness word user became a liar. We are only human.

Water was formed in space.

Water is only water

Microbes energy is separate in water.

Energy a human bio life form uses water with microbiomes. Says mind. Water not energy. Water is a medium mass.

UFO status became a studied science concept. I don't lie I live naturally.

Unfortunately this is just all more of the same. It is incomprehensible, really. It is. To anyone who speaks English in an even somewhat normal/average manner, just about everything you have written here is just babbling. I am of the mind that you're using some kind of keyword/phrase generator or something and just posting whatever comes out of it based on some seed ideas/variables. That's what this all reads like. Like some poorly formulated computer-based algorithm spitting buzz words with a little bit of grammatical structure (and when I say "little bit" that is exactly what I mean - your writing is pretty abhorrent from several angles) thrown in.

 

[rational experiences]

Yep. I call it like I see it. I'm quite sure you don't like it. Note however that you only mention that I used the word "garbage" - you didn't actually say anything to defend your own words. Interesting, isn't it?

What is this? Seriously... what in the hell are you saying here?

Unfortunately this is just all more of the same. It is incomprehensible, really. It is. To anyone who speaks English in an even somewhat normal/average manner, just about everything you have written here is just babbling. I am of the mind that you're using some kind of keyword/phrase generator or something and just posting whatever comes out of it based on some seed ideas/variables. That's what this all reads like. Like some poorly formulated computer-based algorithm spitting buzz words with a little bit of grammatical structure (and when I say "little bit" that is exactly what I mean - your writing is pretty abhorrent from several angles) thrown in.

All said from a mind who wishes it were true controlled by maths.

When you attack the person and not the subject you prove to yourself you already own a formed opinion and are not on the forum to consider information. Seeing you use the computer non stop yourself.

I don't need to defend the use of words as the word was given a taught meaning already.

Topic Noah's Ark.

Topic human scientist says he knows why the sky flooded. The teaching titled Noah's Ark was a scientific description actually. What men in science claim. I know why.