Why we know that there was no global flood.

[Subduction Zone]

Well you have absolutely no evidence that Noah did not build an ark, set sail after a major flood, and land months later in the middle east, as recorded in the stories of multiple world cultures. I think I would agree that there has not been a flood that covered Mt, Everest, for instance, but there may well have been a flood that covered the low lying area Noah had lived in, and you have presented no evidence to support the idea that that story is impossible, maybe its unlikely, but it is not impossible.

Depending upon how you define "Noah". I may or may not have evidence. You seem to have a problem with properly defining your terms.

Tell me, who was Noah, how long did he live, how did he build the Ark, and most important of all, was the Ark at all necessary and why?

If Noah was just some random individual that survived a flood you might have point. But that definition of "Noah" totally negates the Bible version.

So tell us your version of Noah and I can tell you if I have evidence in regards to his existence or not.

 

[sayak83]

Another problem with his claim is that in such applications, which are also used in the sciences (observations are never perfect) is that the number of significant digits is always mentioned when using this convention along with an error range. The problem as stated dealt with integral math in which decimal values do not exist just as in most math that people use the square root of negative one does not exist.

Even in the full real number line 2+2 only equals 4 and nothing else. In engineering applications the relation the ≈ sign should be used.

 

[sayak83]

Well I did work as a loudspeaker design engineer for several years, but I learned this in basic math courses. Maybe you don't remember what they taught in math, I don't remember my calculus courses.

You were taught wrong then.

 

[Lyndon]

I think the Bible is a fairly accurate historical document that gets less and less reliable the further back in time you go, I think its an accurate portrayal of the exploits of the Israelites, and what their mythology was, some of which was probably based on fact

 

[Sapiens]

I think the Bible is a fairly accurate historical document that gets less and less reliable the further back in time you go, I think its an accurate portrayal of the exploits of the Israelites, and what their mythology was, some of which was probably based on fact

But the Exodus is so easily falsifiable.

 

[Lyndon]

Falsifying ancient History of which there is no other record of is much harder than you might think!!

 

[Native]

I am sorry, but you are merely guilty of reinterpreting the Bible in the light of what we know today. That can always be done with many works and actually only shows them to be false. Also you are admitting that the Ark story is a myth by doing so. I don't care if you can abuse the Bible to make it look like a story is true. I am only dealing with those that take a fairly literal interpretation of Genesis.

You obviously didn´t read these links - or you failed to make the logical connections.

Milky Way (mythology) - Wikipedia
List of names for the Milky Way - Wikipedia
Creation Stores origin from the Milky Way Mythology and before its Creation.

I´m referring to numerous ANCIENT cultural names for the Milky Way River from where I also conclude the Biblical Flood to represent the mythical and scientific Milky Way River and NOT any geographical flood at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You obviously didn´t read these links - or you failed to make the logical connections.


I´m referring to numerous ANCIENT cultural names for the Milky Way River from where I also conclude the Biblical Flood to represent the mythical and scientific Milky Way River and NOT any geographical flood at all.

There was no need to follow links on knowledge that I am already familiar with and there was no "logical conclusion". Reinterpreting religious books is an error that many theists make in defending their beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Falsifying ancient History of which there is no other record of is much harder than you might think!!

You might be right on that, and the Noah's Ark myth is an excellent example of that. It has simply been shown to be wrong from quite a few independent approaches.

 

[Hawkins]

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

My question is rather why scientists has to base on a Christian hypothesis to draw a conclusion?

Christians base the idea on what Noah witnessed. Can Noah see the whole globe to draw the conclusion that "water covers each and every inch of earth"?
Christians base the year calculation on genealogy, even the Bible never said that those years can be used scientifically. So when you say "no global flood", it is "no" in the past 6000 years, or it's no in the past 600 million years?


First, we don't know the exact year of Noah's existence. So when you said "no flood" the no flood is within how long of time. In the past 100,000 years?

Second when Noah witnessed that water covering the mountain. Do we have another reference to confirm that it's actually a flood at all. It could be another kind of catastrophe we never know of. I don't think that it's a flood at all as I can't find another instance where water can cover a mountain that high for us to scientifically call it a flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My question is rather why scientists has to base on a Christian hypothesis to draw a conclusion?

What? English please. First off I am totally unaware of any "Christian hypothesis". And all we are doing is discussing whether the flood of Noah occurred or not. Spoiler alert, it didn't.

Christians base the idea on what Noah witnessed. Can Noah see the whole globe to draw the conclusion that "water covers each and every inch of earth"?
Christians base the year calculation on genealogy, even the Bible never said that those years can be used scientifically. So when you say "no global flood", it is "no" in the past 6000 years, or it's no in the past 600 million years?

No, Christians base this upon their interpretation of the Noah's Ark story. If you want to claim that Noah ever existed the burden of proof is upon you. And there has been no global flood any time that man has existed. In fact you will not find a time when the entire Earth was flooded. The last is more of a prediction than anything else. The best I have seen are misinterpretations of science by Christians. For example they misinterpret "Snowball Earth" as an Earth that was totally covered by ice, though that is not the claim and not what happened. It was merely a time when almost the whole Earth, or even the whole Earth, was at a temperature of less than 0 Celsius.

[


First, we don't know the exact year of Noah's existence. So when you said "no flood" the no flood is within how long of time. In the past 100,000 years?

Correct, no global flood in the last 100,000 years. And even more.

Second when Noah witnessed that water covering the mountain. Do we have another reference to confirm that it's actually a flood at all. It could be another kind of catastrophe we never know of. I don't think that it's a flood at all as I can't find another instance where water can cover a mountain that high for us to scientifically call it a flood.

You do not seem to understand the meaning of the word "witnessed". And a flood is an extended event. Noah's supposedly lasted a year. There are extremely rare cases of massive waves of water going up a hillside, not so much from a tidal wave, but rather as a reaction to a large mass falling into a body of water. Those are not floods and they are very isolated. They would be disqualified from being a source of the myth.

Here is a reasonable offer. You tell me your version of the flood and I will tell you why we know that it did not happen.

 

[Lyndon]

You mean science can adapt to negate any possibility??

 

[Sapiens]

Falsifying ancient History of which there is no other record of is much harder than you might think!!

The Exodus is falsified by the complete and utter lack of any sign that it ever occurred. No kitchen middens, no burials, no firepits, etc. You must either explain the disappearance of all such evidence or abandon the story as legend rather than fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You mean science can adapt to negate any possibility??

Science can be used to test concepts. Your beliefs have been shown to be wrong from multiple approaches. What happens is that sooner or later flood believers are forced to redefine their myth to the point that Noah is irrelevant, making the myth a failed myth.

 

[Lyndon]

You haven't demonstrated anything other than that you're very convinced you're right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You haven't demonstrated anything other than that you're very convinced you're right.

Wrong again. I demonstrated that your post glaciation version was wrong. Don't blame me if you did not pay attention or could not understand.

Once again, when you do not understand something the correct action to take is to ask questions. Right now you are approaching outright lying about what has happened on this thread. Like many creationists, you are merely running away now that your claims have been refuted.

 

[Thief]

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

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

There are of course other arguments too, but a video can serve as a primer on the subject.

i would argue.....
the text was written with the KNOWN world in mind

and the flood need only be deep enough to destroy crops
grazing animals would fail
then famine would follow

as for the test proclaiming the water was deep enough to submerge mountains.....
I never believed....that hard

 

[Thief]

Ever heard of the ocean, if you enter the ocean from a flood you could end up anywhere in the world, like the middle east.

and to be adrift for soooooo long
you could indeed land anywhere

but compared to sea level.....where did the landing take place?

 

[Lyndon]

Wrong again. I demonstrated that your post glaciation version was wrong. Don't blame me if you did not pay attention or could not understand.

Once again, when you do not understand something the correct action to take is to ask questions. Right now you are approaching outright lying about what has happened on this thread. Like many creationists, you are merely running away now that your claims have been refuted.

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

 

[Subduction Zone]

i would argue.....
the text was written with the KNOWN world in mind

and the flood need only be deep enough to destroy crops
grazing animals would fail
then famine would follow

as for the test proclaiming the water was deep enough to submerge mountains.....
I never believed....that hard

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