1. 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!

Featured Noah's flood story, did it happen?

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by SA Huguenot, May 21, 2021.

  1. Fallen Prophet

    Fallen Prophet Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2021
    Messages:
    679
    Ratings:
    +122
    Most likely.

    How dare you take advantage of those poor women!
    That's where I have issues - because it makes sense to me - and I think its because I disagree with "mainstream" Christianity about many things including the nature of God and His relationship with us.

    I don't believe that the Genesis account - or many other books of the Bible - were meant to be proper explanations - just a general record - because it was written by and for a nation of believers.
    That's good.
    Well - was it ever intended to?

    I believe that religion is designed to provide a basic foundation - to give adherents the tools they need to find the answers for themselves.
    That is no different than my "faith" in prayer. I have "faith" that my prayers are being heard and that I may receive answers because I have repeated that process and have gained much experience and understanding from it.

    It's like how the Bible is not proof in and of itself - but it asks the reader to seek out proof - and this is done by doing what the Bible asks - be obedient to the commandments - and then learn through experience the truth of what the Bible teaches.

    That is my understanding anyway.
    To me - faith isn't blind - it is an experiment.

    By having a mere desire to believe - or a willingness to experiment on the promises God has made by sincerely and humbly doing them - expecting nothing - then faith comes when you receive the effects of the promise.

    Then it is on to the next experiment and the next one - over and over - your faith growing and building as you come to experience more and learn by doing.

    And obviously Islam and Hinduism aren't Christian - but aren't Mormons restorationist Christians?
    But it can never be proven true either - placing believers and nonbelievers in the same position.

    The conclusion of whether it is true or not will always be subjective and personal - there's no other way.

    That is why two people can study the same bit of "evidence" and one believes it disproves God while it strengthens the faith of the other.

    That's why I don't like throwing "evidence" around - because it won't amount to anything in the long run.

    Everyone believes what they believe.

    Like you - I like to ask questions - which often makes any "evidence" - for or against - ineffectual.
     
  2. Fallen Prophet

    Fallen Prophet Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2021
    Messages:
    679
    Ratings:
    +122
    Yeah - I never said the first line you supposedly quoted from me.

    When you responded to me in Post #322 - you didn't properly annotate my post from yours - which therefore screwed up my response in Post #329 - where it included what you had said as if it were part of my post.

    Anyways - yes - many people believe that Genesis is recounting actual events that happened in history. They mostly don't pay much attention to what the record actually claims - but they believe it is real history.

    What is your point?
     
  3. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    6,774
    Ratings:
    +5,762
    That's the sort of thing I got when I was older, especially from my Christian friends. At least by then I was mature enough to just let it go and conclude they were behaving that way because they couldn't really answer.

    Isn't it amazing how some folks just can't seem to be able to say "I don't know"?
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    6,774
    Ratings:
    +5,762
    Lol.... there's also a bit more that was going on that I only became aware of later, mainly that they kind of had messed up personal lives. Pretty much everyone in that church did.

    I'm curious....what do you think about the concept of blood sacrifice to appease the gods, and how Christianity fits in to it?

    Do you consider yourself a "liberal Christian"?

    I've always thought so. In fact, I see religion as man's early attempt to explain the world around him. A drought? The gods must be angry. A good harvest? The gods must be happy. And so on...

    In part, I agree.

    I have to disagree strongly. Everyone in the world can flip the same switch in my house and get the exact same results, regardless of what they believe or what their background is. We can physically test the explanation given for the results (electric current travelling through wires, and if we cut those wires the light doesn't come on).

    Prayer OTOH is nothing like that. For example, what is the specific mechanism that makes it work? Are you changing a god's mind and convincing it to do something it wouldn't have done otherwise? And how is the result implemented?

    Also, how often do two people praying get the exact same results? And how do we test the link between the prayer and the outcome?

    You see the point? Me having "faith" that flipping the switch will cause the light to turn on is nothing like "faith" in prayer.

    Have you tried this test with other religions? Have you tried living as a Hindu, Muslim, Mormon, Pagan, etc?

    Probably should ask that to a Mormon.;)

    If it can never be shown to be true or false, then it's pretty limited in its utility, isn't it? It's basically just a matter of opinion.

    Which makes me wonder what all the fuss is then. We don't kill people over whether or not they like curry, so what is it with religion that makes people do so?

    I'm not sure I understand how the latter follows from the former. Can you explain?
     
  5. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    5,241
    Ratings:
    +239
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    Science is wrong.

    Science said to science science is wrong.

    Reason creation existed first without human presence formed.

    Exactly why science is wrong.

    Reason why a human conscience thinks first highest conscious life. A self.
    A healthy self.
    The highest thinker self conscience before any theories.

    So a natural human conscience told science science you are wrong

    Egotism the inventor says my invention is correct. Really! Of course invention works however you use science to infer everything else also.
     
  6. Fallen Prophet

    Fallen Prophet Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2021
    Messages:
    679
    Ratings:
    +122
    Makes sense - its the sick that need the physician - as the Lord Jesus Christ was known for saying.
    I'm sure my answer won't be much different than other Christians in this regard.

    I believe that before the sacrifice of the Son of God - faithful Priesthood holders were commanded to perform animal sacrifices - as a symbol of the eventual sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.

    I do not believe that the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ was to "appease the gods" - but rather to satisfy the demands of the Law - which required justice to be executed upon those guilty of breaking it - which was all of Mankind.

    That may not sound like much of a difference - but it's a worlds difference to me.

    His willing sacrifice - which satisfied the demands of justice - placed Him in the position as the creditor of Mankind - which allowed Him to set the terms of our contract - so instead of perfection (which was the requirement of the Law) - He asks for faith, repentance, baptism, receiving the Holy Ghost and us doing our best to keep His commandments.

    And in return - He offers us forgiveness - which would have been impossible without Him paying our debt.
    I don't know. Depends on how you define it.
    I cannot confirm or deny this - but I'm inclined to believe otherwise.

    I mean - just taking into account Abrahamic religions - there is so much depth involving the needs for salvation and the hope of a Resurrection.

    These same concepts pervade too many cultures - from ancient Mayans, Babylonians, Egyptians - I just don't think it's that random.
    Some stars must be aligning - we agree on something - in part. It's something.
    I disagree.

    I believe that if everyone in the world had the same desire to believe, amount of experience and prayed with the same amount of faith, sincerity and humility - they would all receive answers.

    Not the same answers - but answers.
    Mechanism? I suppose some people are just more technical than others.

    Prayer is not like making a wish - it's a conversation between a Father and child. Most of any prayer should consist of expressing gratitude and asking Him what you should pray for - because He knows what you need better than you do.

    Obviously - most people tend to only pray when they need something - which is a component of prayer - but it is not the main reason.

    You feel the difference when you make prayer a daily part of your life. It's like working a muscle.

    And if you are being sincere and humble enough - you should feel the Holy Spirit stir in your mind and heart.

    As you gain more experience with the Holy Spirit - you can feel it swell in you - pressing you to pray for or about things - and giving you impressions.

    These impression are usually feelings - but they can come as solid ideas (like images or scenes playing in your head), or you can hear a voice (usually your own voice conveying an idea) - yet there are some times when you hear a voice that is not your own.

    You may even be visited.

    There are spiritual Beings all around us at all times that are waiting to act on our behalf - they just need us to ask.

    I've had a few experiences I'd be willing to share sometime - as long as you don't turn around and "rend" me. ;)
    I see that - so it's less like a light switch and more like performing a pull up.

    And not those wussy "chin ups" - a real pull up.

    Depending on your own personal level of fitness - performing a pull up can be a certainty, an act of "faith" or a soup sandwich.

    If you are someone who never works out - you ain't going to be able to do it.

    There is a method to the madness though.
    I try it with any new idea I find compelling - but I obtained a testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ and His roles as Redeemer of the world, Savior of Mankind and Son of God early on - so that kinda ruined non-Christian religions for me.

    I was at a point in my life where I needed to know that before continuing down the path I was on - and I came from a position where I did not want it to be true - but I believe it was confirmed to me and I could not deny it.
    I know a thing or two about them - I was just wondering what made you think they weren't Christian.
    Of course it is a matter of opinion - it takes experience - which is built on obedience - that can confirm these things or not.

    As to its "utility" - some of the most helpful things we have in our lives cannot be proven true or false.
    The vast majority of human conflicts do not have religion as their primary motivator.

    Humans are creatures of conflict.
    Well - consider this thread - people claiming that there is no evidence of a global Flood event - and even claiming that there is evidence against the idea.

    They claim that this evidence is grounds to claim that Noah never existed, that there was no Ark, the Bible is a lie and that there is no God.

    That leads me to point out that the Genesis account is not necessarily describing a global Flood event.

    Which led to my questions about who wrote the Genesis account and how they were able to give a testimony on the status of the entire planet.

    If the writer of the Genesis account has no ability to view the entire world - and is therefore unable to accurately claim that the entire planet was covered in water - then none of the "evidence" proves those things.

    Basically - people often offer "evidence" that supposedly disproves claims that the Bible itself never made - and pointing that out makes the "evidence" ineffectual.
     
    #386 Fallen Prophet, May 28, 2021
    Last edited: May 28, 2021
  7. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    43,255
    Ratings:
    +25,885
    Religion:
    Atheist
    That is true.

    Correct. Wow! Two in a row. That must be a record.

    Oops, I knew that it could not last. Back to projecting and distorting.

    And now you have gone completely off the rails. No one claimed that. But if you insist upon believing the flood myth you are in effect refuting your own version of God.

    Like many creationists you make the error of thinking that refuting a literal interpretation of the mythical books of the Bible refutes Christianity and worse yet refutes God.

    Of course it does not refute God. It only refutes false versions of God and why would you want to worship that? It does not even refute Christianity. If anything it makes it stronger since the theology of a literal interpretation of Genesis is a claim that God is evil and incompetent. Why would you claim that?
     
  8. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    14,806
    Ratings:
    +10,300
    Religion:
    Christian
    I don't know anymore. Perhaps it is just that there is no evidence of a global flood as described in the Bible. According to physics, it is not even possible for such a flood to occur. Perhaps also, that viewing such biblical stories as allegory in no way devalues them for Christians. In fact, it may enhance the value of the lesson derived from it and reduce the fear that if some of the Bible isn't real, then what about the rest.
     
  9. Fallen Prophet

    Fallen Prophet Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2021
    Messages:
    679
    Ratings:
    +122
    The Bible is not without it's flaws - that is for sure. It is not a perfect and complete record.

    However - there are some things - especially in the Genesis account - that if they had not happened - would upend Christianity - and other Abrahamic religions - completely.

    Most important is the story of Adam and Eve's Fall.

    In order for there to be a literal Savior of Mankind - the Lord Jesus Christ - there needed to be a literal Fall of Mankind.

    If Adam and Eve were not real people - then there is no need for the Lord Jesus Christ.
     
  10. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    43,255
    Ratings:
    +25,885
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Worldwide most Christians appear to disagree with you. If you fully understood that myth you would see that God was at fault and blamed his error on others. It is very poor theology. Other Christians can see that man is flawed even without a mythical Adam.
     
  11. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,746
    Ratings:
    +5,211
    Religion:
    Pi π
    That’s absurd.

    You cannot make comparisons like this.

    Do you always make everything up just so that you can spread misinformation of what science say or don't say and what the Bible say or don’t say.

    This is very typical, so I don’t know why I am at all surprised by what any creationist might say to justify his or her belief.

    What Genesis have to say about the Earth’s atmosphere, which is btw is faulty, has nothing to do with who built the earliest settlement at Tell es-Sultan or the Neolithic Jericho.

    And btw, I have never ignored anything in Genesis, particularly Genesis 2nd day of creation, the creation of the sky and the firmament.

    If you know anything about the Earth’s atmosphere, you would know that the large volume of the atmosphere, don’t match with the mass.

    Much of “wet collection” of what you called mist, is more concentrated at the lowest layer of atmosphere, the Troposphere, is what science called water vapour.

    The Troposphere is where all the weather and climate come from that we on the surface, experienced, eg wind, rain, hail, snow, frost, fog, etc. But the boundary between Troposphere and the atmosphere above, Stratosphere, of which this boundary is called Tropopause, varied in altitude between 8 or 9 km at the poles, about 16 or 17 km at the equator.

    My point in all this description about the Troposphere, is that higher atmospheric layers, like the Stratosphere there are increasingly less water vapour in the air, and even less water vapour in the Mesosphere. So by the time you come to the Thermosphere, there is zero moisture in the air.

    The distance between the higher atmosphere is actually a lot more than the Troposphere. For example, the Stratosphere is about 43 km, meaning there are more volume in the Stratosphere than the Troposphere. And the volumes in the Mesosphere higher than the combined atmosphere of Stratosphere and Troposphere.

    But if were to calculate the total percentages of masses between wet gases (eg water vapour) and dry gases, water vapour only make up less than 3% in the total mass, comparing the 96%/97% of dry gases.

    So Genesis 1:6-8 about the “firmament” and “the water above”, your claim about the atmosphere being “wet atmosphere” isn’t accurate at all.

    So if the atmosphere has only less than 3% water vapour, there is no way for Genesis Flood in chapters 7 & 8, to cover all the high mountains.

    And since the Himalayas were formed through uplift by the Indian tectonic pushing into Euroasia plate, and not by volcanic activities, mountain like Everest has been rising about half-a-centimeter (5mm) per year for the last 50,000 years.

    What this mean, is that 4500 years ago, Everest is only 22 metres shorter than today’s elevation of 8848.8 metres. So back in 2500 bce, the elevation would have been 8826 metres.

    Less 3% water vapour wouldn’t have covered Everest. In fact, the flood water would even cover Little Ararat.

    Most of the earth’s atmosphere consisted of dry gases, especially nitrogen gas. So your claim that the Earth’s atmosphere is not only inaccurate, it is shameless misinformation.
     
  12. joelr

    joelr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,833
    Ratings:
    +583
    There are many aspects of C14 dating that demonstrate very old dates. The concept of a nuclear winter fog is speculation. But a fog that was permanent enough to effect C14 would kill all plant life for starters. All animals that evolved with sunlight would not survive a permanent fog. Animals that evolved in fog would not survive sunlight.

    Other creationists seem to think there was more oxygen in the atmosphere before the "flood".
    This is great, they have to acknowledge the original Pangea continent so they created a situation where it was divided up like a video game continent. Like Super Mario World. Ha!

    "It seems that the original continent was divided into distinct geographical living areas (called biomes) with fully functioning communities of plants and animals unique to each. The great reptiles dominated vast inland lake and swamp regions, while the human population (and other larger mammals) would have occupied a separate biome at a higher elevation, well above the swamplands"


    I'll answer my own question about 2 or 7, it looks like it's both:


    Two
    Of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark. Genesis 6:19
    Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah. Genesis 7:8-9

    Every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. Genesis 7:14-15

    Seven
    Of every clean beast thou shalt take thee by sevens, the male and his female. Genesis 7:2

    Either way the calculated space this would take, plus food has been calculated. It's too big.

    The spread of mammals from the last 4000 years also has been analyzed and could not possibly have come from Mt Ararat. These are actually trivial because flood geology has ruled out a world wide flood using several parameters.
     
    #392 joelr, May 29, 2021
    Last edited: May 29, 2021
  13. Fallen Prophet

    Fallen Prophet Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2021
    Messages:
    679
    Ratings:
    +122
    You're right. That was a dumb thing for me to say. It used to be true.

    Besides - this thread isn't even about Christianity - but about the Bible.

    So - I should have said,

    "Well - the Bible claims 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."

    That would be more relevant - considering the OP - and also because every Christian is gonna have a different take on these things.
    You mean besides the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Popul Vuh - two sources mentioned in this thread - one from ancient Mesopotamia and the other ancient Mesoamerica.

    And I know various Native American tribes have versions of Floods in their myths too and more than likely many others.
    How did you do that whole "crossing out the we" thing? That's awesome. Can make so very pointed jabs.

    Anyways - perhaps if there were clear cut interpretations of the Genesis Flood event - or clear cut "science" that disproves every wishy-washy interpretation of every wishy-washy Christian - then you may have had a point.

    The fact remains that "the science" - which has been "wishy-washy" on things like masks and is heavily influenced by politics - has not proven what you think it has.

    God is always going to be an option for any believer. That doesn't mean that they reject objective reality - just that they are not willing to throw away their beliefs based on half-assed claims.
    Hah. Did you know that people still smoke - even though "the science" has claimed it is bad for them for decades?

    These people are "denying the science" - "picking and choosing" which science they want to live by - but they still fly on planes just fine.

    There is evidence linking cancer to smoking though - unlike your claims about Noah and the Flood.
    Great questions - but what are the "fountains of the great deep" and how had they "broken up"?

    Why do you assume that the "great deep" is a reference to the Earth? Or at least "water from inside the earth"?

    Does the word "fountain" describe a deep reservoir? Or a well?

    When I read that passage I interpret the "fountain of the great deep" to be the sea and the shoreline is the "rim" of the fountain containing the water.

    The ocean(s) were the "fountains of the great deep" because they held the water and they were very deep - but as the rain came down - sea levels rose higher - "breaking" the "fountain" and spilling out over the dry land.

    I don't see any reason to assume that this is a reference to some massive underground reservoir - and how would the writer of Genesis even know where the source of all this water came from?

    All he probably saw was a bunch of rain and flood waters coming from the sea - "all the fountains of the great deep were broken up".

    You see how interpretation can change everything? You're trying to disprove scenarios that the record may not even be describing.

    And the no sunshine thing would be tough - but the Genesis account claims that Noah did not receive the olive branch until months after the waters abated - lots of time for a tree to grow back some.

    I know of many species of tree - including the olive - that can survive underwater - even grow leaves.
    I don't believe it would need any method of propulsion - simple engineering could have kept the Ark pointed at the waves.
    I never claimed that God did anything - only that He could.

    Unlike you - I'm not willing to rule anything out just because I don't agree with the possibility.
    Makes you wonder if there were possibly other reasons for why God decided to wipe out so many people the way He did.

    You not knowing or liking any of the possible answers doesn't mean there can't be answers.
    Yeah - it must be weird for you when the Bible actually stays consistent.
    I have yet to see anything - and like we talked about before - who's to say they are "disproving" the actual Biblical account?

    You know - you got a lot of "faith" in "the science".
    Yeah - knowing the dimensions of the Ark is hardly knowing the "specifics of its construction" - which is what I said.

    Are you sure that a "cubit" used by Noah was the same size as those used by the Israelites?

    We don't know if the Ark had a bow fin or stern projection - things that would help point it toward waves.

    We don't know if the Ark had overlapping planks, interlocking joints or trunnels.

    And the Wyoming - the same boat Bill Nye talked about - right?

    Is he your "the science" prophet?

    This particular ship stayed afloat for about 14 years before it sank. That's a long time compared to Noah's supposed scant five months on the Ark.

    And who claimed that the Wyoming was the best constructed ship? You believe that just because it was made of wood it could compare to the Ark? A vessel we know next to nothing about?
    The Biblical record does not claim that God was "pissed" and it doesn't claim that there were only "two of each kind" of animal.

    The record does not claim that the waters were horrendous or calm.

    But it does claim that the Flood waters killed "all" of life on Earth outside of the Ark - but how could the writer of the Ark verify that claim?

    On one hand - you cast doubt on the Bible - but then on the other hand - you use it to make your points.
    I cannot confirm or deny this - but other cultures sharing the same - or similar versions - of that story does not mean that it did not happen as the Bible claims.
    Why do you think that?
     
  14. Fallen Prophet

    Fallen Prophet Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2021
    Messages:
    679
    Ratings:
    +122
    Ok. I can live with that. Why can't you?
     
  15. joelr

    joelr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,833
    Ratings:
    +583

    Not only Peter but Luke considers it literal:

    2 Peter
    5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

    Luke
    26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.


    27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
     
  16. joelr

    joelr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,833
    Ratings:
    +583
    Flood geology is not wishy washy.

    Flood geology - Wikipedia

    Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is the attempt to interpret and reconcile geological features of the Earth in accordance with a literal belief in the global flood described in Genesis 6–8.

    Modern geology, its sub-disciplines and other scientific disciplines utilize the scientific method to analyze the geology of the earth. The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community.
    Erosion
    The global flood cannot explain geological formations such as angular unconformities, where sedimentary rocks have been tilted and eroded then more sedimentary layers deposited on top, needing long periods of time for these processes. There is also the time needed for the erosion of valleys in sedimentary rock mountains. In another example, the flood, had it occurred, should also have produced large-scale effects spread throughout the entire world. Erosion should be evenly distributed, yet the levels of erosion in, for example, the Appalachians and the Rocky Mountains differ significantly.[112]


    Geochronology


    Geochronology is the science of determining the absolute age of rocks, fossils, and sediments by a variety of techniques. These methods indicate that the Earth as a whole is about 4.54 billion years old, and that the strata that, according to flood geology, were laid down during the Flood some 6,000 years ago, were actually deposited gradually over many millions of years.

    Paleontology
    Carbonate hardgrounds and the fossils associated with them show that the so-called flood sediments include evidence of long hiatuses in deposition that are not consistent with flood dynamics or timing.[7]
    Geochemistry
    Proponents of Flood Geology are also unable to account for the alternation between
    calcite seas and aragonite seas through the Phanerozoic.
    Sedimentary rock features
    Phil Senter's 2011 article, "The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology", in the journal
    Reports of the National Center for Science Education, discusses "sedimentologic and other geologic features that Flood geologists have identified as evidence that particular strata cannot have been deposited during a time when the entire planet was under water ... and distribution of strata that predate the existence of the Ararat mountain chain." These include continental basalts, terrestrial tracks of animals, and marine communities preserving multiple in-situ generations included in the rocks of most or all Phanerozoic periods, and the basalt even in the younger Precambrian rocks. Others, occurring in rocks of several geologic periods, include lake deposits and eolian (wind) deposits. Using their own words, Flood geologists find evidence in every Paleozoic and Mesozoic period, and in every epoch of the Cenozoic period, indicating that a global flood could not have occurred during that interval.[117] A single flood could also not account for such features as unconformities, in which lower rock layers are tilted while higher rock layers were laid down horizontally on top



    No one is denying the science. They are playing the odds and hope that they still have more time. Same with obesity and such.






    It does say there were 2 of each kind and it also says they went by "sevens".

    This does sound pissed:

    And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. Genesis 6:5-7

    It also does say everyone else was killed because the words supposedly from Yahweh say "and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth."

    It also claims both 150 days and 40 days.
    And the flood was forty days upon the earth. Genesis 7:17
     
  17. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    14,806
    Ratings:
    +10,300
    Religion:
    Christian
    That it is spoken of as literal in the Bible does not make it a literal event. Using the source of a claim as evidence of a claim has a name.
     
  18. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    14,806
    Ratings:
    +10,300
    Religion:
    Christian
    I disagree. There is no evidence supporting the existence of Adam and Eve and a lot of things that do not support a single pair of human progenitors. For all intents and purposes, it is allegory. Even if it were true how could we really know? Either way, that does not mean that man is without sin and in need of salvation from that sin.

    Your logic in this is pretty shaky.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Fallen Prophet

    Fallen Prophet Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2021
    Messages:
    679
    Ratings:
    +122
    I'm sorry - what are you claiming all this above proves?

    And I never said that "Flood geology" was wishy-washy - but that every Christian's interpretation of the Genesis Flood event was.
    You haven't heard about all the obese people out there claiming that their weight is healthy and that "the science" is on their side?
    It was the "clean" animals that went by sevens - which agrees with what I had said - the Biblical record does not claim that there were only "two of each kind" of animal.
    Sounds mournful. Regretful.
    But He supposedly saved an Ark-ful of "living substance".
    It claims 40 days of rain followed by 150 days of the waters "prevailing upon the Earth" - then they started to "abate" - at which time the Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.
     
  20. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    43,255
    Ratings:
    +25,885
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Perhaps if we dealt with your version one claim at a time you might learn why we know that there was no flood.
     
Loading...