7,200 inches of rain each day

[LewisWildermuth]

Today at 07:49 AM PhantomLlama said this in Post #20 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=683554#post683554)

My favourite theory for the origin of the flood myth I heard a few years ago. Apparently many thousands of years ago the Black Sea was created by the Mediteranean (I have never been able to spell that) draining into the basin which it now sits in. This would have been almost like the whole world flooding to the local people of the time, apparently. This is the great flood that the legend is from, as stories would have been told about it and been corrupted, as myths do. If God exists, he may have decided to draw on this well known piece of mythology to base an allegorical story around.

Has this been falsified? I heard it several years ago on a Horizon documentary, so I am a little out of date.

No it hasn't, in fact they are finding more and more ruins there every day.

Also the Mediterranean has also drastically raised and lowered over time and may also have contributed to some of the flood mythology.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 11:16 AM LewisWildermuth said this in Post #21 No it hasn't, in fact they are finding more and more ruins there every day.

If you do a study on the Furtile Cresent, the Craddle of Civilization, you will see this is very furtile farm land, but it is a major flood plane. Flood planes usually make for very furtile farm land. There was more then just the flood Moses tells us about, there were other whole groups of people destoyed there, before they began to find ways to control the area from flooding.

This area between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers is most likly the area the Bible refers to as the Land of Eden where the Garden of Eden was. Civilization came out of this area. First came the Sumerians, who were replaced in turn by the Assyrians and then the  Babylonians.  The Greeks later called this region Mesopotamia, which means "between the rivers."

Abraham was from this area, from the city of Ur. He was a Chaldean, who were known as learned and wise men. Chaldea was located just north of the Persian Gulf between the two rivers.

Of course today this area is call Iraq, and our president has been threatening to go to war with them. It is a very rich area in natural wealth and also they have very furtile farm land there.

 

[Zadok001]

JohnR7:

I'm not sure I understand your contention here. You're saying this flood DIDN'T cover the entire earth? That seems like a wierd contention: The Bible clearly states that every living creature was destroyed in the flood except those on the Ark. Now, unless you're claiming that living organisms were confined to Adamia, your claim seems nonsensical when compared to the rest of the Biblical text.

(Additionally, if the Bible didn't cover the whole planet, the 'geological column' creationist argument falls apart completely, which would kinda suck for them... )

(And just for the record, it's "Fertile," not "Furtile."  That looks far too close to "futile" for comfort.  --Editted in, Zadok001)

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 12:34 PM Zadok001 said this in Post #23  You're saying this flood DIDN'T cover the entire earth? 

I do not believe the Flood that Moses is telling us about covered the whole earth. But you can believe whatever you want to believe. I believe the Flood Moses is telling us about, covered the area in Iraq known as the fertile Cresent, the Craddle of Civilization. It is a valley between the Tigris and Euphrates River. At the time, there were four rivers there. But two of them have been changed by man, to prevent future floods.

From a perspective of history, whole groups of people kept getting wiped out in this area, up untell they figured out a way to control the flooding. It took a very advanced people in science to survive this area, because they had to be able to control the flooding. But it was a very rich farm land, and produced an abundant crops.

 

[ardipithecus]

Yesterday at 03:49 PM PhantomLlama said this in Post #20

My favourite theory for the origin of the flood myth I heard a few years ago. Apparently many thousands of years ago the Black Sea was created by the Mediteranean (I have never been able to spell that) draining into the basin which it now sits in. This would have been almost like the whole world flooding to the local people of the time, apparently. This is the great flood that the legend is from, as stories would have been told about it and been corrupted, as myths do. If God exists, he may have decided to draw on this well known piece of mythology to base an allegorical story around.

Has this been falsified? I heard it several years ago on a Horizon documentary, so I am a little out of date.

It has not been falsified to my knowledge.  But then again it really does not have any evidence for it either.

 

 

[webboffin]

Scientifically free fall of water in Earth's gravity does not reach 180 mph. A 1lb rain drop would not be a drop at that speed due to air resistance it would flatten out and break up. Throw a gallon bucket of water out of an airplane it would come down in smaller drops.

 

[webboffin]

And yes God as real as he is - then why not? Or is he constrained to your determined scientific algorithims?

 

[PhantomLlama]

Has it occured to you that saying 'God did it' as a response to objections about flood plausibility actually weakens your case in the eyes of non-christians who will see this as a lack of ability to rationally defend your argument.

In any case, all forests were created by a magic leprechaun who planted trees for one day at a rate of one an hour. You cannot disprove this by saying he was planting too slowly or asking how he moved between the continents, as he is magic and doesn't have to fit in to your determined scientific algorithms.

That idea sounds crazy to you doesn't it? Like the flood idea sounds to non-believers. And your 'God did it, he is not constrained by your science, he is the almighty God' counterargument sounds like the 'he is magic' argument, to me at least.

 

[Zadok001]

JohnR7:

Interesting concept, and much closer to my personal belief regarding the origin of flood myths. I am curious how you go about explaining the Grand Canyon, and the fossils spread out about the rest of the earth in much the same order as we find in Mesopotamia. (i.e., most creationists try to explain the order we find fossils in by saying that animals were running away from the flood. Now, under your model, this excuse is still usable, but only for the flood plain in question. How can you explain that this general order remains intact for the REST of the world? It seems like you end up needing a new catastrophe to explain the rest of the world, if you want to stick to the "running away from rising water" theorum for the geologic column in Mesopotamia.)

 

[webboffin]

Today at 04:55 PM PhantomLlama said this in Post #28

Has it occured to you that saying 'God did it' as a response to objections about flood plausibility actually weakens your case in the eyes of non-christians who will see this as a lack of ability to rationally defend your argument.

In any case, all forests were created by a magic leprechaun who planted trees for one day at a rate of one an hour. You cannot disprove this by saying he was planting too slowly or asking how he moved between the continents, as he is magic and doesn't have to fit in to your determined scientific algorithms.

That idea sounds crazy to you doesn't it? Like the flood idea sounds to non-believers. And your 'God did it, he is not constrained by your science, he is the almighty God' counterargument sounds like the 'he is magic' argument, to me at least.

Answer to each paragraph:

How did Jesus feed 5000 & 7000 people with 7 fishes and 2 loaves of bread? It is not rational to us but through God's power he can do it and have left overs.

Bible doesn't mention leprechans. Pagans might.

You saying God can't do what he wants? If you are all ready a non believer then you already made up your mind.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 01:56 PM Zadok001 said this in Post #29  I am curious how you go about explaining the Grand Canyon,

I never did a study on the Grand Canyon. I have never even seen it. I was within 100 miles once, but for whatever reason I did not go there to see it. That is a very beautiful part of the country though. It is very colorful. Even in Colorado the mountains there are very colorful.

Here in the Great Lakes area we have Niagra Falls. Sense this part of the country was under ice about 10,000 years ago, there is no question that the Great Lakes and the Falls were created very recently, in the last 8 to 10 thousand years.

Anyways, creation and the generations is two totally different things. The flood story involved the decendants of Adam and Eve that we read about in Ch 2 of Genesis. I do not think that the flood had any real effect on the male and female we read about in the first chapter of Genesis.

 

 

[Arikay]

IMHO saying godidit, doesnt weaken the bibles claims that god can do amazing things. It does however weaken any claim that the bible should be taken literally as a scientific book.

If you asked ancient pagans how lightning was created they might have said "the lightning god did it" of course, that would sound stupid to us now if it was used as scientific evidence.
So it weakens the bibles ability to be used as a science reference.

Not only that, but by putting words into the bible, by saying godidit when it obviously doesnt say that he did in the bible, shows that many "literal biblists" arent really interested in the literal translation of the bible, but they are interested in winning. Anyone who literally translates the bible, cant add words, or else its not the literal bible anymore.

 

[PhantomLlama]

Today at 07:19 PM webboffin said this in Post #30 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=685289#post685289)

Answer to each paragraph:

How did Jesus feed 5000 & 7000 people with 7 fishes and 2 loaves of bread? It is not rational to us but through God's power he can do it and have left overs.

I fail to see how this refutes the fact that relying on miracles by God to explain a problem constitutes a failiure to defend your position for a nonbeliever like me.

Bible doesn't mention leprechans. Pagans might.

But the point is they are similar stories (in that they are both apparently impossible events) with almost identical expalnations (He's God! He can break physical laws/He's magic! He can break physical laws)

You saying God can't do what he wants? If you are all ready a non believer then you already made up your mind.

My mind is open to the possibility of god existing. I was trying to point out that 'God did it' is a poor argument to use when debating with someone who does not believe in his existence in the first place.

P.S. It was the scientific text bible interpretation I was referring to Arikay. Sorry if I was unclear.

 

[Cantuar]

Presumeably the trees growing on high mountains would be covered last, and uncovered first. How long can an olive bush survive underwater before it is completely killed?

There weren't any high mountain, though, were there? They were created during the flood, remember? Otherwise you're looking at far more water than could ever be accounted for after the flood. So all these high mountains were created during and after the flood, the highest mountains being created last, I assume, which means that the geologic column was laid down before the highest mountains were formed. Which means that the olive tree (which isn't a high-altitude native to start with) would be buried under a large amount of sediment as well as a whole lot of water.

 

[Cantuar]

And yes God as real as he is - then why not? Or is he constrained to your determined scientific algorithims?

If he isn't constrained to using the laws of nature in his creative work, then descriptions of his creative work need to stay out of the science class and the science lab. The whole point of creationism is to say that God's miracles are actually explainable by science and should be taught as such. If you're prepared to say that God used miracles that can't be explained by science and therefore aren't science and therefore don't get taught in science class, that's fine by scientists.

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 08:06 AM Cantuar said this in Post #34 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=685855#post685855)

There weren't any high mountain, though, were there? They were created during the flood, remember? Otherwise you're looking at far more water than could ever be accounted for after the flood. So all these high mountains were created during and after the flood, the highest mountains being created last, I assume, which means that the geologic column was laid down before the highest mountains were formed. Which means that the olive tree (which isn't a high-altitude native to start with) would be buried under a large amount of sediment as well as a whole lot of water.

A quick read of the text would indicate your error. The scientific method requires you to be sure of your facts before making inferences.

 

[Cantuar]

A quick read of the text would indicate your error. The scientific method requires you to be sure of your facts before making inferences.

Look, I'm just repeating what other creationists have said about the flood. There were no high mountains befroe the flood; they were caused during the flood. That's the standard creationist line. However, if you're saying that 30,000 foot mountains existed before the flood and were convered by the water, then where did all that water go afterwards?

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 11:59 AM Cantuar said this in Post #37 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=686301#post686301)

Look, I'm just repeating what other creationists have said about the flood. There were no high mountains befroe the flood; they were caused during the flood. That's the standard creationist line. However, if you're saying that 30,000 foot mountains existed before the flood and were convered by the water, then where did all that water go afterwards?

You are giving a wrong caricature of what Scripture, and those who believe Scripture assert. Show me evidence of where this has been asserted!

 

[Arikay]

Unfortunatly I cant give a reference but I have heard this argument from a creationist. That all the lands were connected, thats how the animals got to ark, the water that flowed from the ground moved the continents and pushed up all the mountains.

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 11:59 AM Cantuar said this in Post #37 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=686301#post686301)

Look, I'm just repeating what other creationists have said about the flood. There were no high mountains befroe the flood; they were caused during the flood. That's the standard creationist line. However, if you're saying that 30,000 foot mountains existed before the flood and were convered by the water, then where did all that water go afterwards?

Two options I guess - back under the earth or evaporated into the clouds. There is a lot of underground water, so perhaps that is where it went.