The flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-01-2011, 12:15 PM (This post was last modified: 07-01-2011 10:13 AM by theophilus.)
The flood
Here is an excerpt from the "Bible Contradictions" section of this site:

http://thethinkingatheist.com/bible_contradictions.html

Quote:EXPLAIN THE FLOOD IT SELF
{the waters} They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. Genesis 7:19-20 (This would require steady, planet-wide rainfall at the rate of 6 inches per minute, 360 inches an hour, for 40 days and 40 nights, covering Mount Everest under 22 feet of water. How, exactly, did Noah measure this for the record? And where has all of the water gone since?)
The answer to the second question is found in Psalm 104:6-9.
Quote:You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. At your rebuke they fled; at the sound of your thunder they took to flight. The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them. You set a boundary that they may not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth.
This shows that before the flood the topography of the earth was entirely different from what it is today. It was much flatter so that the water now found in the oceans covered the earth completely. The flood ended when the continents that exist now rose above the rest of the earth's surface. The waters didn't have to cover Mt. Everest because it didn't exist then.

To answer the first question, Noah didn't have to measure the depth of the water. God could have revealed the information to him.

You can find out more about the flood here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2

The flood is also the reason for the existence of fossils:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...sil-record

The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of God.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2011, 01:24 PM
RE: The flood
The question has been pushed around, but the ultimate answer remains the same. How did all the mountains and deep-sea fissures come into existence within the forty days of the flood? By the same means that water could have covered the earth otherwise; because god said so.

I personally don't see why people bother to try to give a naturalistic explanation to the supernatural events in holy books. It almost seems to defeat the purpose. They are suppose to miracles, things that cannot be explained without a supernatural force.

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2011, 04:01 PM
RE: The flood
It makes me wonder.
God made sure a male and a female animal got "the signal" to go to the ark.
inside the ark prey and predator lived peacefully together. God also made sure they did not starve to death. etc etc etc.

What an amazing waste of effort!
just make the whole zoo disappear and reappear Smile omnipotence can do that in one finger snap.

also...
most fossils I find around here are from sea-creatures
care to explain how they would suffer from a flood?

btw... noah's ark used to be my favorite bible story. As a kid I had a book amazingly beautifully drawn!
but never-ever -even as a 5 year old- I would have taken it LITERALLY

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2011, 04:01 PM
RE: The flood
The flood story like many others in the Bible is writer interpretation of other myths and legends that were going round at the time it was written. The flood story is similiar to the Atrahasis Flood Myth, and other myths. I even wrote a paper on this and received an "A" so I am pretty accurate. The whole Bible has similarities to pagan traditions. Jesus for example seems almost 100 percent ripped off of pagan deities and saviors.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2011, 06:25 PM (This post was last modified: 03-01-2011 06:32 PM by No J..)
RE: The flood
(03-01-2011 12:15 PM)theophilus Wrote:  The flood is also the reason for the existence of fossils:

That will win first prize at "The Liars Club" this year, unless the judges are religious. Tongue

When I find myself in times of trouble, Richard Dawkins comes to me, speaking words of reason, now I see, now I see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2011, 06:55 PM
RE: The flood
Everyone focuses on what happened before the flood. What about after? Tell me, theophilus, how you account for all the marsupials only living in Australia? After the flood did they just thank Noah for the ride and walk to Australia?

What about the Galapagos tortoises that Darwin studied? How do you account for these creatures all having a slightly different shell pattern depending on which island they were on? Did Noah take 2 from each island, even though they really are all the same creature, and then put them all back to their individual islands afterward? And, if so, why is that not mentioned in the bible?

These are just two obvious problems with the whole Flood theory but I could probably come up with a 100 such examples if I took the time. But, I think you just need two to demonstrate that the entire Flood story is nothing but pure nonsense and mythology.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2011, 01:40 AM
RE: The flood
You know, there are certain things you should look at when sourcing information (as any English teacher/professor will tell you), one of the big things you want to look at is if the website contains some sort of bias. To do this, you want to be very careful about site that are .org, because these tend to be those sites with the largest bias, however some can be trusted, so how do you know? Well in your case, you can just look at the name "answers in genesis" and know that it is a bunch of religious fanatics that believe that they can defend their faith with a very very old book of oral tradition (unless they used another definition of Genesis, which you can tell from the site they did not).

I'm sorry, but I have to eliminate your source for it is most obviously biased. In the future, I would suggest you look for more reputable sources. If you are going to make a statement about geology, then you probably would want to source a few geologists, but before you source them you may want to do a google search on the author and see if you can truly count them as a valid source.

Other members of this site point out the flaws in the statements well enough, so I will tell you I agree with them, and I feel anything else I would say would just be repetitive.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2011, 03:25 AM (This post was last modified: 04-01-2011 03:28 AM by MasterRottweiler.)
RE: The flood
Ok, first of all your information is quite biased because it has a religious approach. You have no scientific and/or geological data in order tu sustain your claims. I'm not a scientist/geologist but I can find several flaws in your argument;

This shows that before the flood the topography of the earth was entirely different from what it is today. It was much flatter so that the water now found in the oceans covered the earth completely.

Ok then, earth's surface was covered with water... Was it fresh water or salt water? then, how in the name of Timothy F**k did the fresh water life forms managed to survive during a salt water flood? And again, how did the salt water life forms survived a fresh water flood? Did a wizard errr.... god do it? If so do you have verifiable data?

The flood ended when the continents that exist now rose above the rest of the earth's surface. The waters didn't have to cover Mt. Everest because it didn't exist then.

Do you have any geological evidence to support this other than religious/biblical sources? The grand canyon is several million years old, it wasn't modeled in a few millenia and neither the rest of the continents. Again your are not giving TRUE un-biased proof.

The flood is also the reason for the existence of fossils

Some fossils are millions of years old, proven by dating methods, but before you start yelling "carbon dating is not reliable", there are a lot of more accurate dating methods other than carbon dating, then this contradicts the idea of young earth creationism. I'm sorry but your sources are not reliable in order to accept them as the absolute truth just because they say so, EVIDENCE is the key of true science, we get evidence through observation not by denying it. Again sorry but I cannot buy this fantastic and cheap information. Peace

P.S: Sorry for my bad english Big Grin.

"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world.”
-Georgia Harkness.

"La fe es patrimonio de los pendejos. (Faith is patrimony of the dumbfucks)."
-Diego Rivera
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2011, 10:42 AM
RE: The flood
Quote:This shows that before the flood the topography of the earth was entirely different from what it is today.
Not that different. We're talking about a few thousand years, right?
Quote:And again, how did the salt water life forms survived a fresh water flood?
Weren't they in the ark?
Quote:The flood ended when the continents that exist now rose above the rest of the earth's surface.
They rose that much in a year (the flood lasted for about a year, right?)? Please...Big Grin

Correct me when I'm wrong.
Accept me or go to hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2011, 11:59 AM
RE: The flood
(03-01-2011 01:24 PM)ashley.hunt60 Wrote:  I personally don't see why people bother to try to give a naturalistic explanation to the supernatural events in holy books.
God created nature and works through it.

(03-01-2011 04:01 PM)The_observer Wrote:  most fossils I find around here are from sea-creatures
care to explain how they would suffer from a flood?
There was more involved that just a flood. The earth was completely changed and some of these changes would have been fatal to much of the sea life.

(03-01-2011 04:01 PM)omega21 Wrote:  The flood story like many others in the Bible is writer interpretation of other myths and legends that were going round at the time it was written. The flood story is similiar to the Atrahasis Flood Myth, and other myths.
The fact that so many cultures have legends of a flood seems to me to be evidence that it actually occurred.

(03-01-2011 06:55 PM)BnW Wrote:  Everyone focuses on what happened before the flood. What about after? Tell me, theophilus, how you account for all the marsupials only living in Australia? After the flood did they just thank Noah for the ride and walk to Australia?

What about the Galapagos tortoises that Darwin studied? How do you account for these creatures all having a slightly different shell pattern depending on which island they were on? Did Noah take 2 from each island, even though they really are all the same creature, and then put them all back to their individual islands afterward? And, if so, why is that not mentioned in the bible?
You can find the answer to your first question here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...als-spread

and to your second one here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...thin-kinds

(04-01-2011 01:40 AM)TheKetola Wrote:  I'm sorry, but I have to eliminate your source for it is most obviously biased.
Then do you think I should look for a source where the bias is less obvious? Every source is biased in some way because people always interpret what they see in terms of what they believe.

Quote: In the future, I would suggest you look for more reputable sources.
But what standards do you use to determine which sources are reputable?

(04-01-2011 03:25 AM)MasterRottweiler Wrote:  Ok, first of all your information is quite biased because it has a religious approach.
But sources that aren't religious are equally biased. They start by assuming that everything that exists came about by natural processes without any kind of divine intervention. If their assumption is correct their conclusions can be considered reliable, but what if their initial assumptions are wrong?

Quote:Ok then, earth's surface was covered with water... Was it fresh water or salt water?
We have no way of knowing what conditions were like before the flood. It is possible that their wasn't any difference between the water in the ocean and that in other bodies.

Quote:Do you have any geological evidence to support this other than religious/biblical sources? The grand canyon is several million years old, it wasn't modeled in a few millenia and neither the rest of the continents.
How can anyone know how old it was? The people came up with that age assumed that it formed gradually and didn't take into consideration the possiblity that it was formed by some cataclysmic event such as the flood. There is no way to test their claims to see if they are correct.

Quote:Some fossils are millions of years old, proven by dating methods, but before you start yelling "carbon dating is not reliable", there are a lot of more accurate dating methods other than carbon dating.
How do you know they are more reliable? Unless someone invents a time machine and travels back in time to see how the earth was formed there is no way to check their accuracy.
Quote:Scientists use observational science to measure the amount of a daughter element within a rock sample and to determine the present observable decay rate of the parent element. Dating methods must also rely on another kind of science called historical science. Historical science cannot be observed. Determining the conditions present when a rock first formed can only be studied through historical science. Determining how the environment might have affected a rock also falls under historical science. Neither condition is directly observable. Since radioisotope dating uses both types of science, we can’t directly measure the age of something. We can use scientific techniques in the present, combined with assumptions about historical events, to estimate the age. Therefore, there are several assumptions that must be made in radioisotope dating. Three critical assumptions can affect the results during radioisotope dating:

1.The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known.
2.The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.
3.The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...ting-prove

Quote:EVIDENCE is the key of true science, we get evidence through observation not by denying it
And we can only directly observe the present.

Quote:Sorry for my bad english Big Grin.
There's nothing wrong with your English. I understood everything you said.

The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of God.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: