Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Ozymandias

Noah's Flood Never Happened

96 posts in this topic

If we analyse the Biblical flood story using science it is obvious that it never occurred as described. The earth could not produce the amount of water needed over 40 days to drown itself to the height of Mt. Everest, or even Mt. Ararat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We already know that there was never a worldwide flood. There would be evidence of one if it had actually happened. People just cling to it because they think if they give up this bit over here, the whole thing falls apart. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ozymandias said:

If we analyse the Biblical flood story using science it is obvious that it never occurred as described. The earth could not produce the amount of water needed over 40 days to drown itself to the height of Mt. Everest, or even Mt. Ararat.

It's just a pretty story...with all the animals two x two. I loved the story as a child though.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Astra. said:

It's just a pretty story...with all the animals two x two. I loved the story as a child though.

I didn't. To much death and destruction. That and as heavily as it rains here on Florida... 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ShadowSot said:

I didn't. To much death and destruction. That and as heavily as it rains here on Florida... 

To heavy - that's why I probably stuck with the cuter version ;)..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Astra. said:

It's just a pretty story...with all the animals two x two. I loved the story as a child though.

Yeah, it's funny how we focused on the cuteness and didn't think about all the drowning animals and people.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, ChaosRose said:

Yeah, it's funny how we focused on the cuteness and didn't think about all the drowning animals and people.

Well, that's the Catholic church for you.

Much like Adam and Eve who frolicked in the pretty Garden of Eden all day, without a care in the world. Then of course, the wicked serpent turned up, and turned their glorious paradise onto it's head. I'm sure you'd be familiar with the story. 

Edited by Astra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

If we analyse the Biblical flood story using science it is obvious that it never occurred as described. The earth could not produce the amount of water needed over 40 days to drown itself to the height of Mt. Everest, or even Mt. Ararat.

I don't want to upset you but the creation story didn't happen either.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

I don't want to upset you but the creation story didn't happen either.

I know. I'm a scientist. I'm also new to this forum and thought I would get a good argument from the Creationists and Fundamentalists. Oh well! We are all agreed then?

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there are many creationists on this site, and the ones that are here don't usually try to defend the creation myth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

52 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

I know. I'm a scientist. I'm also new to this forum and thought I would get a good argument from the Creationists and Fundamentalists. Oh well! We are all agreed then?

 

You should have probably gone to the Spirituality vs Skepticism or Ancient Mysteries & Alternative History sub-forums and maybe made it more obvious that you wanted a debate on the subject. because without that the original post is rather...confusing, kind of like walking into a room and blurting out "The story of Rumpelstiltskin never happened, because it's impossible to alter the molecular composition of  straw to match that of gold!" From me, something like that would just produce a "Well...obviously!"

Also don't think you are going to convince many biblical literalists by simply stating a fact like that. Many of those people have read or written entire books, essays and horrible power-point presentations in order to explain that "problem" away (that there was, somehow, more water in those days, that god could just create as much water as he wanted, that Mt. Everest was only created as a consequence of the flood etc. etc. etc.) So there's better some more arguments than "science says no". Particularly because you neither explain why this is an impossibility (so a "fundamentalist" might misinterpret that as "blind belief in science" akin to their blind belief in religion) nor is your wording very rhetorically gripping (and rhetoric skill is a huge factor in many streams of Young Earth Creationism)   

Edited by Orphalesion
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ozymandias said:

I know. I'm a scientist. I'm also new to this forum and thought I would get a good argument from the Creationists and Fundamentalists. Oh well! We are all agreed then?

 

Matey, the Catholic Church doesn't believe Noah's Flood happened. According to doctrine a metaphorical story that serves to reveal a truth about God.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ozymandias said:

I know. I'm a scientist. I'm also new to this forum and thought I would get a good argument from the Creationists and Fundamentalists. Oh well! We are all agreed then?

 

You're wrong.

God created all the water, then God made it all disappear.

Just like he put all those fossils into the Earth - so He would leave no trace of his actions.

He couldn't leave any evidence, or else there could be no faith.

Is that more like what you wanted?

Harte

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The world didn't flood but there is evidence of a little flood in that region of the world.

Which is probably why all myths and relgions in that area include a big flood story

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Astra. said:

Well, that's the Catholic church for you.

Much like Adam and Eve who frolicked in the pretty Garden of Eden all day, without a care in the world. Then of course, the wicked serpent turned up, and turned their glorious paradise onto it's head. I'm sure you'd be familiar with the story. 

The Catholic church do not believe in the truth of the Flood. It's the Christian Fundamentalists who do.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Orphalesion said:

You should have probably gone to the Spirituality vs Skepticism or Ancient Mysteries & Alternative History sub-forums and maybe made it more obvious that you wanted a debate on the subject. because without that the original post is rather...confusing, kind of like walking into a room and blurting out "The story of Rumpelstiltskin never happened, because it's impossible to alter the molecular composition of  straw to match that of gold!" From me, something like that would just produce a "Well...obviously!"

Also don't think you are going to convince many biblical literalists by simply stating a fact like that. Many of those people have read or written entire books, essays and horrible power-point presentations in order to explain that "problem" away (that there was, somehow, more water in those days, that god could just create as much water as he wanted, that Mt. Everest was only created as a consequence of the flood etc. etc. etc.) So there's better some more arguments than "science says no". Particularly because you neither explain why this is an impossibility (so a "fundamentalist" might misinterpret that as "blind belief in science" akin to their blind belief in religion) nor is your wording very rhetorically gripping (and rhetoric skill is a huge factor in many streams of Young Earth Creationism)   

Well, I do have an argument against the literal truth of the Biblical Flood story but apparently there is no need for me to trot it out here.

Neither is there such a thing as "blind belief in science". Science is the antithesis of belief and certainly is not blind. Science may have to be believed by those who cannot understand it or are less informed and hence choose to trust what scientists tell them.

As to my rhetorical skills it is always better to have both style and substance but no argument is convincing, however well articulated, if it lacks substance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harte said:

You're wrong.

God created all the water, then God made it all disappear.

Just like he put all those fossils into the Earth - so He would leave no trace of his actions.

He couldn't leave any evidence, or else there could be no faith.

Is that more like what you wanted?

Harte

That certainly is sticking it to me, Harte. There is no overcoming that level of childish belief. No rational argument can deal with fantasy and imagination on its own terms in its own world of magical self-delusion. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

I know. I'm a scientist. I'? m also new to this forum and thought I would get a good argument from the Creationists and Fundamentalists. Oh well! We are all agreed then?

 

Just curious, what kind of scientist are you , what is your expertise? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, kartikg said:

Just curious, what kind of scientist are you , what is your expertise? 

Well, Kartikg, I meant 'scientist' in its broad sense of someone who relies on empiric knowledge. In fact, I lecture in mechanical engineer with a speciality in transport and automotive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Harte said:

You're wrong.

God created all the water, then God made it all disappear.

Just like he put all those fossils into the Earth - so He would leave no trace of his actions.

He couldn't leave any evidence, or else there could be no faith.

Is that more like what you wanted?

Harte

Pretty good but you lacked the venomous denial of evidence and suggesting the non-believer will be tormented in hell for eternity.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There was a great disaster involving water during the reign of Semerket, Sixth Pharaoh, First Dynasty.  The world's first earth-fill dam collapsed; it's ruins are still there.  Also, the Nile cut a new channel at Memphis; the modern city stands, in part, in the old channel.

There was some sort of flood at about the same time in the Persian Gulf area.  There is a layer of flood debris under the marsh deposits.

Tree rings from the White Mountain2 and Methuselah Walk chronologies show a climate disturbance in 2806 to 2801 BC.  A single tree from the Tornetrask Chronology (Sweden) shows one from 2792 to 2797 BC - the difference could be a simple cross-dating mistake.

There is evidence to support a conclusion that SOMETHING big happened about that time, probably A flood.  But was it THE flood?

 

IF the whole world was covered by water for up to a year, how is it that we have Egyptian records of the flood?  How is it that Gilgamesh survived to produce a flood story?  How is it that bristlecone pines, a species that prefers very dry, nasty sites, survived?  How is it that a stand of Scotts pine survived?  Or a 10,000-year old Huon pine in Indonesia, or the 80,000 year old Clone Pando in Utah.  Or a 9550-year old Norway spruce in northern Sweden?  Or any of a dozen or so other very old trees from around the world.

Some details obviously disagree with the biblical description.  But could that flood be the prototype of the Noah's Flood story?  In a sense, it could have been Noah's Flood.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

There was a great disaster involving water during the reign of Semerket, Sixth Pharaoh, First Dynasty.  The world's first earth-fill dam collapsed; it's ruins are still there.  Also, the Nile cut a new channel at Memphis; the modern city stands, in part, in the old channel.

There was some sort of flood at about the same time in the Persian Gulf area.  There is a layer of flood debris under the marsh deposits.

Tree rings from the White Mountain2 and Methuselah Walk chronologies show a climate disturbance in 2806 to 2801 BC.  A single tree from the Tornetrask Chronology (Sweden) shows one from 2792 to 2797 BC - the difference could be a simple cross-dating mistake.

There is evidence to support a conclusion that SOMETHING big happened about that time, probably A flood.  But was it THE flood?

 

IF the whole world was covered by water for up to a year, how is it that we have Egyptian records of the flood?  How is it that Gilgamesh survived to produce a flood story?  How is it that bristlecone pines, a species that prefers very dry, nasty sites, survived?  How is it that a stand of Scotts pine survived?  Or a 10,000-year old Huon pine in Indonesia, or the 80,000 year old Clone Pando in Utah.  Or a 9550-year old Norway spruce in northern Sweden?  Or any of a dozen or so other very old trees from around the world.

Some details obviously disagree with the biblical description.  But could that flood be the prototype of the Noah's Flood story?  In a sense, it could have been Noah's Flood.

Doug

You can add to that how coral reefs could have survived without sunlight, all manner of shore/coastal/tidal creatures would have died along with most fresh water living creatures or if the water was now mainly fresh due to godly actions then the salt loving fish would have expired. As you have noted there have been lots of regional/river floods in the past.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

That certainly is sticking it to me, Harte. There is no overcoming that level of childish belief. No rational argument can deal with fantasy and imagination on its own terms in its own world of magical self-delusion. 

Yes, it's a dead end.

But that's what you asked for.

Why you would is a mystery to me, but to each his own.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

You can add to that how coral reefs could have survived without sunlight, all manner of shore/coastal/tidal creatures would have died along with most fresh water living creatures or if the water was now mainly fresh due to godly actions then the salt loving fish would have expired. As you have noted there have been lots of regional/river floods in the past.

It is my contention that folklore accounts, like the Bible, reflect real events.  They just don't do a very good job of describing them.

Doug

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harte said:

Yes, it's a dead end.

But that's what you asked for.

Why you would is a mystery to me, but to each his own.

Harte

No, it is not a dead end and there is no mystery. I know I am right. Furthermore I can prove it using reason. 

The fact that self-deluded fantacists cannot be persuaded or convinced does not make me wrong, it simply reinforces their irrationality.

I see you have written nearly 13,000 posts to these forums. How many of them were wasted in 'dead end' exchanges with believers irrational nonsense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.