Noah's Flood Never Happened

[Aquila King]

On ‎8‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 8:11 PM, 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 necessarily believe in a literal flood story either (and I haven't read anything but the OP so others might've already said this by now but here goes), however there technically speaking, the earth's oceans do have the necessary amount of water to flood the entire earth if you level out all of the mountains and valleys. Basically if the earth had a more perfectly spherical shape there'd be plenty of water for a global flood. This is actually a common misconception people have regarding the claims of biblical creationists. 'How could the water reach the height of mount Everest?' they ask. Well the creationist's answer is typically that mount Everest (or any substantially large mountain that is) didn't exist as the earth was more spherical, and that it was actually the biblical flood itself that rapidly carved out the mountains to be the shape they are today.

Of course once again, I don't personally believe this nonsense, I'm just saying that's what they believe. Best to know what arguments your opponent's are making before you try refuting them.

[+joc]

13 hours ago, stereologist said:

Sorry Harte I was referring not to Dwarka but to the fake cities. I realize that Dwarka has sunk. I was referring to the following which I know you know about.

http://www.hermetics.org/cambay.html

There are places in the Med where land has sunk and risen again in historic times. The tectonically active region is home to many vertical displacements.

New Orleans is sinking.

...Man and I don't want to swim.

 

[Ozymandias]

29 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I don't necessarily believe in a literal flood story either (and I haven't read anything but the OP so others might've already said this by now but here goes), however there technically speaking, the earth's oceans do have the necessary amount of water to flood the entire earth if you level out all of the mountains and valleys. Basically if the earth had a more perfectly spherical shape there'd be plenty of water for a global flood. This is actually a common misconception people have regarding the claims of biblical creationists. 'How could the water reach the height of mount Everest?' they ask. Well the creationist's answer is typically that mount Everest (or any substantially large mountain that is) didn't exist as the earth was more spherical, and that it was actually the biblical flood itself that rapidly carved out the mountains to be the shape they are today.

Of course once again, I don't personally believe this nonsense, I'm just saying that's what they believe. Best to know what arguments your opponent's are making before you try refuting them.

Read my posts #76 and #88 on Page 4. The Bible clearly says that there were mountains, it names Mt. Ararat and says that 'all the high mountains of the earth were flooded to a depth of 15 cubits'.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Ozymandias

[kmt_sesh]

46 minutes ago, joc said:

...

Why didn't the dinosaurs get on the ark?  

[SHaYap]

3 hours ago, Harte said:

Berossus got the Oannes story almost completely wrong.

What little we have of his writings are interesting, but only in the context of how literature was viewed in the ancient world.

Harte

The latest tidbits I've read seems to lean towards not Berossus getting it wrong but was adapting or rendering it Grecian friendly for the Greeks ...

~

[jaylemurph]

3 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Let me try also

Huskies are the mascot for the school where I work. Oddly, I get a little annoyed when we're collectively called "Dawgs."

--Jaylemurph

[Harte]

4 hours ago, third_eye said:

The latest tidbits I've read seems to lean towards not Berossus getting it wrong but was adapting or rendering it Grecian friendly for the Greeks ...

~

Okay.

Except we now have the actual story and Oannes was not some creature, he was a human being. Not half fish, but a fisherman.

Quite an adaptation, wouldn't you say?

Harte

[SHaYap]

1 minute ago, Harte said:

Okay.

Except we now have the actual story and Oannes was not some creature, he was a human being. Not half fish, but a fisherman.

Quite an adaptation, wouldn't you say?

Harte

Well times being what it was and were back in the day with them gods and demigods and centaurs and cyclops ... well ... what's the fella gonna do ?

Kinda reminiscent of all things wizards and dragons and vampires and zombies for our day and age lately eh Mr Harte ?

~

[Essan]

55 minutes ago, Harte said:

Okay.

Except we now have the actual story and Oannes was not some creature, he was a human being. Not half fish, but a fisherman.

Quite an adaptation, wouldn't you say?

Harte

Fishman, fisherman ......  They do say to er is to be human  

Edited September 15, 2017 by Essan

[Quaentum]

10 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

Read my posts #76 and #88 on Page 4. The Bible clearly says that there were mountains, it names Mt. Ararat and says that 'all the high mountains of the earth were flooded to a depth of 15 cubits'.

However the word for Mountains is also the word for hills  and 15 cubits would have been enough to cover the high hills.

[Ozymandias]

11 minutes ago, Quaentum said:

However the word for Mountains is also the word for hills  and 15 cubits would have been enough to cover the high hills.

Word for mountains in what language?

[Quaentum]

1 hour ago, Ozymandias said:

Word for mountains in what language?

Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon

 

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/har.html

[Quaentum]

12 hours ago, joc said:

Hmmmm....have to find one first...but wait....

I just put my ear up to my coffee cup and ....yep....I heard the ocean.  Not sure what that means but...just had another thought...

Why didn't the dinosaurs get on the ark?  

Now according to the creationist museum, they were.

[stereologist]

The creationist lectures I went to talked about the Earth being remodeled during the flood. A new world was made for those that came off the ark. I think there was some realization by the lecturer that this might be considered implausible by the audience. This was one of those times when the lecturer told the audience this was a crowd that knew that they were not afraid to use a miracle. I guess that fixes all of the wacky ideas. When you've painted yourself into a corner shout miracle.

[+DanL]

I scanned through this and as always I have to laugh. My biggest problem is deciding exactly who is the most pig headed and myopic the creationists that swear that every word in their King James Bible is the total and exact truth or the so called "scientists that are willing to walk out on the stage and make equally ignorant ravings. 

It is not possible that a single man and his family built a giant boat and then filled it with a two of every animal on earth. On the other side of the story is the FACT that something obviously happened in the way of a flood that made a huge impression on the surviving people. People all over the planet that have not had contact for thousands of years all seem to have some version of a flood myth. 

Add to this the fact that these were primitive people without a written language. I assure you, if we were that prinitive now I have lots of friends in Houston who have kids that would be telling their grandkids that the entire world was flooded by Harvey and by the time a few thousand years passed if they had been the only human survivor the story could well sound a lot like the story of Noah. 

There is serious evidence in our DNA that about 50,000 years ago the human species almost went extinct. The numbers of people that survived though that period may have been as few as a thousand. I, even with my limited imagination, can think of several scenarios that would seem to be that the entire world was flooded by the survivors. An asteroid impact in the ocean would throw an unimaginable amount of water into the air. The tsunami would flood all the low lying lands for thousands of miles around and then it would rain for months! No sun light clouds would wrap the Earth even when it wasn't raining and this sort of thing would make a lasting impression on the ecology and the people that survived. 

Another possibility is the sudden flooding of places like the Persian Gulf or maybe even the Mediterranean basien when a huge ice dam broke during the thawing at the end of the ice age. There are all sorts of evedence that places like the Black and Caspian seas have grown massivly and even changed in salinity content. 

To a primitive people the entire world is basically only what they have seen or heard of. If every place that you have ever even heard of was flooded and no longer there to you the entire world had gone under. Wait a few thousand years and the stories will be there but since there was no written word and no pictures it will vary massively. Hell's silly bells we can't even keep American History straight and it is filled with legends that are not true! 

I am not even close to being a creationist BUT I do find it rather fascinating how a primitive people that no doubt thought the world was flat and the sun planets and star were going around it managed to get so much right in the creation story. Read it some time with an open mind and imagine that it is someone trying to explain the creation of the universe to a bunch of 5 year old children. Understand also that it is even closer is you step back to the Jewish Torah and include the parts that the Christians tossed out. 

I don't have any certain answers. Anyone that thinks they do is fooling themselves. What I have is questions. Back when Science was REAL rather than a priesthood run by an intellectual aristocracy a question was where all science started rather than as it is now with an answer that you are trying to prove even when it becomes rather obvious that it is wrong.. 

Edited September 18, 2017 by DanL

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

So basically, what you're saying DanL is "evil cabal of scientists is also deluded". 

[cormac mac airt]

2 hours ago, DanL said:

I scanned through this and as always I have to laugh. My biggest problem is deciding exactly who is the most pig headed and myopic the creationists that swear that every word in their King James Bible is the total and exact truth or the so called "scientists that are willing to walk out on the stage and make equally ignorant ravings. 

It is not possible that a single man and his family built a giant boat and then filled it with a two of every animal on earth. On the other side of the story is the FACT that something obviously happened in the way of a flood that made a huge impression on the surviving people. People all over the planet that have not had contact for thousands of years all seem to have some version of a flood myth. 

Add to this the fact that these were primitive people without a written language. I assure you, if we were that prinitive now I have lots of friends in Houston who have kids that would be telling their grandkids that the entire world was flooded by Harvey and by the time a few thousand years passed if they had been the only human survivor the story could well sound a lot like the story of Noah. 

There is serious evidence in our DNA that about 50,000 years ago the human species almost went extinct. The numbers of people that survived though that period may have been as few as a thousand. I, even with my limited imagination, can think of several scenarios that would seem to be that the entire world was flooded by the survivors. An asteroid impact in the ocean would throw an unimaginable amount of water into the air. The tsunami would flood all the low lying lands for thousands of miles around and then it would rain for months! No sun light clouds would wrap the Earth even when it wasn't raining and this sort of thing would make a lasting impression on the ecology and the people that survived. 

Another possibility is the sudden flooding of places like the Persian Gulf or maybe even the Mediterranean basien when a huge ice dam broke during the thawing at the end of the ice age. There are all sorts of evedence that places like the Black and Caspian seas have grown massivly and even changed in salinity content. 

To a primitive people the entire world is basically only what they have seen or heard of. If every place that you have ever even heard of was flooded and no longer there to you the entire world had gone under. Wait a few thousand years and the stories will be there but since there was no written word and no pictures it will vary massively. Hell's silly bells we can't even keep American History straight and it is filled with legends that are not true! 

I am not even close to being a creationist BUT I do find it rather fascinating how a primitive people that no doubt thought the world was flat and the sun planets and star were going around it managed to get so much right in the creation story. Read it some time with an open mind and imagine that it is someone trying to explain the creation of the universe to a bunch of 5 year old children. Understand also that it is even closer is you step back to the Jewish Torah and include the parts that the Christians tossed out. 

I don't have any certain answers. Anyone that thinks they do is fooling themselves. What I have is questions. Back when Science was REAL rather than a priesthood run by an intellectual aristocracy a question was where all science started rather than as it is now with an answer that you are trying to prove even when it becomes rather obvious that it is wrong.. 

Your evidence for the bold portion above is what exactly?

cormac

[Hanslune]

2 hours ago, DanL said:

I scanned through this and as always I have to laugh. My biggest problem is deciding exactly who is the most pig headed and myopic the creationists that swear that every word in their King James Bible is the total and exact truth or the so called "scientists that are willing to walk out on the stage and make equally ignorant ravings. 

It is not possible that a single man and his family built a giant boat and then filled it with a two of every animal on earth. On the other side of the story is the FACT that something obviously happened in the way of a flood that made a huge impression on the surviving people. People all over the planet that have not had contact for thousands of years all seem to have some version of a flood myth. 

Add to this the fact that these were primitive people without a written language. I assure you, if we were that prinitive now I have lots of friends in Houston who have kids that would be telling their grandkids that the entire world was flooded by Harvey and by the time a few thousand years passed if they had been the only human survivor the story could well sound a lot like the story of Noah. 

There is serious evidence in our DNA that about 50,000 years ago the human species almost went extinct. The numbers of people that survived though that period may have been as few as a thousand. I, even with my limited imagination, can think of several scenarios that would seem to be that the entire world was flooded by the survivors. An asteroid impact in the ocean would throw an unimaginable amount of water into the air. The tsunami would flood all the low lying lands for thousands of miles around and then it would rain for months! No sun light clouds would wrap the Earth even when it wasn't raining and this sort of thing would make a lasting impression on the ecology and the people that survived. 

Another possibility is the sudden flooding of places like the Persian Gulf or maybe even the Mediterranean basien when a huge ice dam broke during the thawing at the end of the ice age. There are all sorts of evedence that places like the Black and Caspian seas have grown massivly and even changed in salinity content. 

To a primitive people the entire world is basically only what they have seen or heard of. If every place that you have ever even heard of was flooded and no longer there to you the entire world had gone under. Wait a few thousand years and the stories will be there but since there was no written word and no pictures it will vary massively. Hell's silly bells we can't even keep American History straight and it is filled with legends that are not true! 

I am not even close to being a creationist BUT I do find it rather fascinating how a primitive people that no doubt thought the world was flat and the sun planets and star were going around it managed to get so much right in the creation story. Read it some time with an open mind and imagine that it is someone trying to explain the creation of the universe to a bunch of 5 year old children. Understand also that it is even closer is you step back to the Jewish Torah and include the parts that the Christians tossed out. 

I don't have any certain answers. Anyone that thinks they do is fooling themselves. What I have is questions. Back when Science was REAL rather than a priesthood run by an intellectual aristocracy a question was where all science started rather than as it is now with an answer that you are trying to prove even when it becomes rather obvious that it is wrong.. 

Regional & local floods, most places have floods so most people would have experienced them. These floods also leave traces in the geological record. A world wide flood is highly unlikely do to a lack of water and no sign of said flood in the sediments. Additionally most species cannot survive flooding, if something knocked out humans (somed have theorized about the Toba volcano was the agent that did this) it would - a world wide flood - have also done the same thing to mammals, it didn't from what the record shows us.

[cormac mac airt]

12 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Regional & local floods, most places have floods so most people would have experienced them. These floods also leave traces in the geological record. A world wide flood is highly unlikely do to a lack of water and no sign of said flood in the sediments. Additionally most species cannot survive flooding, if something knocked out humans (somed have theorized about the Toba volcano was the agent that did this) it would - a world wide flood - have also done the same thing to mammals, it didn't from what the record shows us.

Just wanted to add that the alleged Toba eruption bottleneck theory has been effectively dead from about 4 years now. 

Quote

The most explosive volcanic event of the Quaternary was the
eruption of Mt. Toba, Sumatra, 75,000 y ago, which produced
voluminous ash deposits found across much of the Indian Ocean,
Indian Peninsula, and South China Sea. A major climatic downturn
observed within the Greenland ice cores has been attributed to
the cooling effects of the ash and aerosols ejected during the
eruption of the Youngest Toba Tuff (YTT). These events coincided
roughly with a hypothesized human genetic bottleneck, when the
number of our species in Africa may have been reduced to near
extinction. Some have speculated that the demise of early modern
humans at that time was due in part to a dramatic climate shift
triggered by the supereruption. Others have argued that environmental
conditions would not have been so severe to have such an
impact on our ancestors, and furthermore, that modern humans
may have already expanded beyond Africa by this time. We report
an observation of the YTT in Africa, recovered as a cryptotephra
layer in Lake Malawi sediments, >7,000 km west of the source
volcano. The YTT isochron provides an accurate and precise age
estimate for the Lake Malawi paleoclimate record, which revises
the chronology of past climatic events in East Africa. The YTT in
Lake Malawi is not accompanied by a major change in sediment
composition or evidence for substantial temperature change, implying
that the eruption did not significantly impact the climate of
East Africa and was not the cause of a human genetic bottleneck
at that time.

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/20/8025.full.pdf?with-ds=yes

Source: 

Ash from the Toba supereruption in Lake Malawi shows no volcanic winter in East Africa at 75 ka

Christine S. Lane^a,1, Ben T. Chorn^b, and Thomas C. Johnson^b

^aResearch Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QY, United Kingdom; and ^bLarge Lakes Observatory
and Department of Geological Sciences, University of Minnesota, Duluth, MN 55812

Edited by Mark H. Thiemens, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA, and approved March 15, 2013 (received for review January 23, 2013)

cormac

[Hanslune]

1 minute ago, cormac mac airt said:

Just wanted to add that the alleged Toba eruption bottleneck theory has been effectively dead from about 4 years now. 

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/20/8025.full.pdf?with-ds=yes

Source: 

Ash from the Toba supereruption in Lake Malawi shows no volcanic winter in East Africa at 75 ka

Christine S. Lane^a,1, Ben T. Chorn^b, and Thomas C. Johnson^b

^aResearch Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QY, United Kingdom; and ^bLarge Lakes Observatory
and Department of Geological Sciences, University of Minnesota, Duluth, MN 55812

Edited by Mark H. Thiemens, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA, and approved March 15, 2013 (received for review January 23, 2013)

cormac

Well dang I didn't get the memo! Thanks for the update.

[+DanL]

12 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

So basically, what you're saying DanL is "evil cabal of scientists is also deluded". 

NO, what I'm saying is that most so called scientists hold onto their theories with the same close minded FAITH as a Christian fundamentalist do to their beliefs. Being an old fart has some advantages and one of those has to do with perspective. I remember getting a bad grade on a paper because I questioned the straight line Darwinian evolution theory. Basically an entire generation of academics had to die before suddenly it was acceptable to question their theories. The fact is, by today,s understanding, is that evolution is as much a matter of luck as just plain survival of the fittest because the environment is ocassionally changed by cataclysmic means and then the survivors slowly refill all the different spots in the new ecology. Their survival was not a slow survival of the fittest sort of thing at all but in my life time I have seen that FACT die and be replaced with new FACTS. 

People are the same. Don't kid yourself a person that has their academic standing tied to a theory will defend it and hold on to it with EXACTLY the same blind mindless ferocity as a born again preacher with cling to his beliefs. EVEN what they are faced with irrefutable proof they will deny it, destroy it and ruin the careers of those that tried to show it to them. It isn't that they are a part of an evil Cabal, it is because they are human. 

My original point was, in part, that I find very little difference between the way a Creationist Christian and a So called Scientist approaches and handles this question. NEITHER side will stop and actually look at the thing. They each already KNOW everything that there is to know about it and they both defend their idea with exactly the same mindless rabid anger that anyone dares to disagree with their point of view. 

Anyone that actually read my little piece above will note that I didn't present ANSWERS. I'm not sure that at this time we have set in stone answers to much. I offered questions and tossed out some or the MANY thoughts and theories that are already out there, NONE of which originated from ME. LOL, I'm just a seeker without many answers. BUT I am way ahead of many because I am still seeking and haven't put on the blinders of asinine certainty and don't refuse to listen to others thoughts with an open is somewhat skeptical mind. 

[Essan]

53 minutes ago, DanL said:

NO, what I'm saying is that most so called scientists hold onto their theories with the same close minded FAITH as a Christian fundamentalist do to their beliefs.

 

Examples?

Science is the antithesis of religion because it is all about seeking new data, testing theories, constantly.changing or even completely overturning them in the light of new evidence.   Religion is a rock.  Standing still.   Science is the river, ever moving.
 

[+DanL]

If religion is a rock then why aren't we all Jewish or even whatever came before there were jews?. If science is so fluid then why does it take decades for theories that are silly in the light of new understanding to be replaced with new theories? Science like Religion is slow as molasses when it comes to changing its core beliefs.Sure Science pops up with the new theory of the day but those are wrong as often as they are right. I'm old, I remember when it was an Ice age that was going to do us in rather than global warming. I remember the hole in the ozone that was going to give us all skin cancer, I even remember when science told us that tobacco smoke was GOOD for us in more ways than one! 

 For you Science is your religion and you cling to it with exactly the same fervor as a foaming charismatic christian. Just because someone says something from a podium in a university auditorium doesn't make it any more gospel that if it comes from a pulpit. Religion and Science are not the antithesis of each other EXCEPT in the closed minds of the absolute BELIEVERS. Both are based on answering questions that people have that they want answers to and there are not any sure answers available. A scientific theory has no more validity than a religious one. Both are guesses based on observations that may or may NOT be correct. 

I find very little difference between In The Beginning... and the Big bang theory. Both basically are trying to describe how something HUGE was made from basically NOTHING...SUDDENLY. I am neither anti science nor anti religion. Mostly if I just HAD to be anti something I guess that I am anti close-mindedness. People are much the same. They all have their beliefs and cling to them. If you listen to them you might learn something but if you stick your fingers in your ears and go LA_LA_LA_LA_LA you are a fool and wallowing proudly in your ignorance. 

Open your mind to other people's thoughts. You don't have to take it all as fact but if you absolutely refuse to listen then you are ignorant and will stay that way. Every person has a story. We all see the world differently. Sometimes I have found that when I had thought that someone was totally wrong that all it was was that they were telling me what they saw from another angle. If I looked only at a hippo's ass then my description of what a hippo looks like would be radically different than the description from someone that had only seem one from the front when the hippo had his mouth open. Some times I suspect that this is what I am seeing between the Religious and the Scientific. My biggest wonder if that is true is which one is looking at the ass end of things??? SMILE people, life is too short to be serious for more than a few minutes at a time. 

Edited September 18, 2017 by DanL

[Essan]

26 minutes ago, DanL said:

If religion is a rock then why aren't we all Jewish or even whatever came before there were jews?. If science is so fluid then why does it take decades for theories that are silly in the light of new understanding to be replaced with new theories? Science like Religion is slow as molasses when it comes to changing its core beliefs.Sure Science pops up with the new theory of the day but those are wrong as often as they are right. I'm old, I remember when it was an Ice age that was going to do us in rather than global warming. I remember the hole in the ozone that was going to give us all skin cancer, I even remember when science told us that tobacco smoke was GOOD for us in more ways than one!

Well, leaving aside I think you are wrong on what science thought, you have to admit that in the past 50 years they have completely changed their minds based in new evidence

How many religions have done that?   Some Christians still adhere to what was believed 3,000 years ago ......  (yes, I know Christianity is only 2,000 years old)

Science is today.  Religion is millenia ago ....

[Hanslune]

2 hours ago, DanL said:

NO, what I'm saying is that most so called scientists hold onto their theories with the same close minded FAITH as a Christian fundamentalist do to their beliefs. Being an old fart has some advantages and one of those has to do with perspective. I remember getting a bad grade on a paper because I questioned the straight line Darwinian evolution theory. Basically an entire generation of academics had to die before suddenly it was acceptable to question their theories. The fact is, by today,s understanding, is that evolution is as much a matter of luck as just plain survival of the fittest because the environment is ocassionally changed by cataclysmic means and then the survivors slowly refill all the different spots in the new ecology. Their survival was not a slow survival of the fittest sort of thing at all but in my life time I have seen that FACT die and be replaced with new FACTS. 

People are the same. Don't kid yourself a person that has their academic standing tied to a theory will defend it and hold on to it with EXACTLY the same blind mindless ferocity as a born again preacher with cling to his beliefs. EVEN what they are faced with irrefutable proof they will deny it, destroy it and ruin the careers of those that tried to show it to them. It isn't that they are a part of an evil Cabal, it is because they are human. 

My original point was, in part, that I find very little difference between the way a Creationist Christian and a So called Scientist approaches and handles this question. NEITHER side will stop and actually look at the thing. They each already KNOW everything that there is to know about it and they both defend their idea with exactly the same mindless rabid anger that anyone dares to disagree with their point of view. 

Anyone that actually read my little piece above will note that I didn't present ANSWERS. I'm not sure that at this time we have set in stone answers to much. I offered questions and tossed out some or the MANY thoughts and theories that are already out there, NONE of which originated from ME. LOL, I'm just a seeker without many answers. BUT I am way ahead of many because I am still seeking and haven't put on the blinders of asinine certainty and don't refuse to listen to others thoughts with an open is somewhat skeptical mind. 

While some few scientist might be like that the vast majority are not. Science is constantly shifting and changing as new evidence and observations come in. Compare 1817 to 2017 - if scientistsare close minded why such a vast amount of change? While religion holds to essentially the same tenets?