Noah’s Flood Confirmed...?

[Doveaman]

If a global flood occur why aren't there global canyons? Why does it only have to be one or two canyons in different states? Hmm? Just checking..

This assumes that all the land masses and topography that exit today existed in Noah’s day.

This also assumes that much of the land mass of Noah's day is not now buried under the ocean.

This also assumes that old canyons are not now filled in by the movements of tectonic plates over time.

 

[Doveaman]

Just for some numbers: The Sumatra Earthquake of 2004 had a net slip on the fault of about 1.5 meters over an area of 210,000 square kilometers. This translates into about 315 cubic kilometers of displaced water. The volume of water on the Earth is roughly 1,358,263,000 cubic kilometers.

I don’t assume to know the earth past conditions based on our present conditions. But you are free to make such assumptions if you like.

Japan does not confirm Noah's flood. If you want a mechanism, just keep saying "Goddidit" but don't try and use ANY physical evidence to prove it because no physical evidence lends to creationism.

A number of earth quakes occurring around the world accompanied tsunamis, and days of very heavy rainfall, and throw in a few geysers into the mix, and I think you would have a recipe for a flooded earth.

“On that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the floodgates of heaven were opened.” - Gen 7:1.1

Everything deep in the ocean and deep in the ground and everything in the sky that could generate water was unleashed on the earth.

 

[TheReasoner]

That's pretty low, don't you think?

I think it's pretty low of YOU GUYS, yes. You're twisting the message. A LOT!

I have heard - MANY TIMES - people say things along the line of "Christianity can't be real. I mean, Jesus is great and all, but this whole 'anti-evolution' thing is just stupid". Or - and this one is more pertinent I think "Christians SAY they are all about love, but they are rude, and even hateful at times. Ever met a creationist?"
In fact, like driewerf says I, too, have been pushed to really really think through my belief due to creationists. I have never ever seen a more convincing argument for atheism and indeed anti-christianity than creationism consistently offers. Unlike driewerf I am no atheist, but I was very close to rejecting my faith due to creationists. If not for my friends who are theologians, and very very good Christians in terms of subservience, loving others, compassion and mercy - who also consider creationism nonsensical I might have done so. Thankfully I must admit the best Christians I know are NOT creationists. Actually, they accept evolution and worship God regardless. Creationism is weak here, but it is present. Diffusing in from the states. I wish it had not. It's a tragic deceit.

Look at "dad" for pete's sake. This guy claims to be a christian and as such he calls other people devil worshippers if they accept evolution. Look at Kent Hovind. That guy is despicable. He mocks and makes fun of other people - in God's name - and not only that, the guy's a swindler, liar and a cheat as well. His degree wasn't even strictly speaking real. Good thing he's in jail now.

I mean, I have met people who travel around from church to church teaching people to behave like jerks, to verbally attack other people and mock them in the name of Jesus and creationism as if the two were one! Do you want to know something that's anti-Christian? THAT is! Right there! Not in creationism, nor in evolution. In the use of derision and mockery - at times even outright lies (as in: Knowingly telling untruth with intention to deceive) - by "Christians" to promote something the world cannot believe in at all.

So yeah, I'd say it's low. VERY low.

 

[driewerf]

That's pretty low, don't you think?

That's not low, AV. It's true. I wrote earlier to you that sincfe I joined this forum, and I read your rantings I have been moving constantly more to strong atheism.

I was at university when I first read about creationism. It was in "The panda's thumb", by Stephen Jay Gould. I couldn't believe people be so stupid, so I checked it on the internet. (It were the early days of the www). I couldn't believe my eyes. It was such a pile of nonsens, lies and dishonesty. But above all: it was unbelievable shallow.

Later in my life I dropped the subject. I don't know why, but since nearly a year and a half I feel the need to investigate biblical literalism again. Well, AV1611VET, in the time I have been spending on creationist websites, I haven't seen one single article that isn't loaded with fallacies, lies, gross distortions and hoaxes. Not a single biblical literalist pass the test. And yes, AV1611VET, you and dad fit in that mould.

 

[TheReasoner]

Seen this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE6Y-HMOPXs

It outlines creationism as sectarian, false, contrary to Christianity and anti-faith. By a bishop in one of the oldest, most conservative parts of Christianity no less.

I agree with him. Wholeheartedly.

 

[sandwiches]

Seen this?

YouTube - DANCING WITH UNICORNS: Creationism

It outlines creationism as sectarian, false, contrary to Christianity and anti-faith. By a bishop in one of the oldest, most conservative parts of Christianity no less.

I agree with him. Wholeheartedly.

Great video! Thanks for posting it. It's encouraging that some religious leaders understand that if their interpretation of the holy book contradicts observable reality, then their interpretation is wrong.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

i read an interesting piece in the New Yorker involving if a large comet hitt in the Atlantic. The author had a tsunami building over the grand banks and hitting Manhatten, 500 ft high.

i wonder,is there a theoretical limit to how high a wave could be?

A significant asteroid or comet could surely produce a wave to flood a considerable area!

But then, the story is about rain, and events about 3000 years ago.

An asteroid would in fact create a large tsunami but, if it was large enough, it would also liquefy a large part of the crust and send not just a wave of water, but a wave of earth as well. And I'm not sure that an ark would survive a wave of crustal debris and liquefied rock and magma.

 

[Nathan Poe]

An asteroid would in fact create a large tsunami but, if it was large enough, it would also liquefy a large part of the crust and send not just a wave of water, but a wave of earth as well. And I'm not sure that an ark would survive a wave of crustal debris and liquefied rock and magma.

Not without a heavy dose of magical thinking -- of course, if one invokes enough miracles, the whole ark project becomes little more than a waste of effort.

 

[corvus_corax]

I would imagine, if the Bible we as cut and dry as you say it is, then there would be no debate...

Look at this verse:
1 John 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
That's the main message of the Bible in 19 one-syllable words; yet the 'educated' cannot understand it, because they will not understand it.

(bold emphasis mine)

So, you're saying, that god delivered us the Bible in it's current state, in order that we will not understand it? Brilliant.

That's not what AV1611Vet said at all.
Gee and us non-Christians accuse Christians of purposefully twisting words in a debate.

Well, this only raises more questions for me, but something tells me you don't want me to pursue. So be it.

Well, seeing as how you completely misinterpreted a bible verse, I can see why AV1611VET said what he did.
I'm not saying that said bible verse is factual, but you completely misunderstood it. And, as AV pointed out, it is a VERY simple verse with a VERY simple message.
Yet you conflate it with the Christian Deity purposefully making it so we are incapable of understanding it.
You completely missed AV's point.

As much as I disagree with AV1611VET, and I'm not even a Christian, I have to rather agree with him here, as you rather proved his point by your own statements.

 

[Doveaman]

Even so. It's clear this flood was not global. It isn't mirrored in biodiversity, geology, there's not enough water around... It was local.

I find it curious that you are so quick to dismiss a global flood story simply because scientific investigation suggests this not to be possible, but yet you readily accept a 2000 year old story of a dead man being restored to life despite the fact that scientific investigation shows this not to be possible.

Is there a double standard here, or what?

Do you have empirical evidence that a dead man can be restored to life?

If not, then why do you believe it happened?

 

[Hespera]

Science has done a whole lot more than show that a global flood is impossible,
Its also shown that it absolutely did not happen.

the theory that there was a great continent in the southern ocean was also disproved, as was the "huyperborea" idea, of an open arctic.

Of course, some really have not caught up with even the 19th century yet and, are determined not to.

 

[Doveaman]

Science has done a whole lot more than show that a global flood is impossible,
Its also shown that it absolutely did not happen.

Science has done a whole lot more than show that a dead man being restored to life is impossible, it's shown that it absolutely cannot happen.

 

[Supernaut]

Science has done a whole lot more than show that a dead man being restored to life is impossible, it's shown that it absolutely cannot happen.

Yes you are right. Dead people cannot rise as our technology cannot bring anyone back. Though many people have been found "dead" but in fact were not. Through the skill of sages, healers, and doctors these folks were "brought back" from the brink of death.

 

[Hespera]

Science has done a whole lot more than show that a dead man being restored to life is impossible, it's shown that it absolutely cannot happen.

Good grief. You say the silliest things.

Science nor anything else can prove a negative. That had been figured out long before the 19th century.


Honestly you do no credit to your "faith" when you try to support it with such facile nonsense.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science nor anything else can prove a negative. That had been figured out long before the 19th century.

Yes, you can prove a negative.

Ever heard of DNA testing?

 

[sandwiches]

Yes, you can prove a negative.

Ever heard of DNA testing?

AV is correct about this. We can prove certain negatives. However, we won't ever see science find evidence that you cannot bring a person back from death under any circumstance. In fact, we know it's possible to do so in specific cases.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Science has done a whole lot more than show that a dead man being restored to life is impossible, it's shown that it absolutely cannot happen.

And nobody's shown them wrong yet -- as long as the man hasn't been dead for more than a few minutes.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV is correct about this. We can prove certain negatives. However, we won't ever see science find evidence that you cannot bring a person back from death under any circumstance. In fact, we know it's possible to do so in specific cases.

Well, in her defense, she did say 'long before the 19th century' -- and that would have been a time when they didn't have DNA testing.

Kinda like the time I was talking about evidence for the Flood being global, and I said to a poster, 'keep looking', and he came back with: 'We stopped looking 200 years ago.'

 

[TheReasoner]

Well, in her defense, she did say 'long before the 19th century' -- and that would have been a time when they didn't have DNA testing.

Kinda like the time I was talking about evidence for the Flood being global, and I said to a poster, 'keep looking', and he came back with: 'We stopped looking 200 years ago.'

If I told you 'there is a giant pink dinosaur-rabbit cyborg in your basement!' how long would you look before you stopped looking? However long it is, I could always tell you to "keep looking" and insist it's real.

Your position is thoroughly falsified. To keep looking would make no sense. It's like continuing looking for evidence of - say - the hard dome above the earth Job describes. We KNOW it's wrong. Why keep looking?

 

[AV1611VET]

If I told you 'there is a giant pink dinosaur-rabbit cyborg in your basement!' how long would you look before you stopped looking?

You're not the Bible, so I'm not obligated to look anywhere.

However long it is, I could always tell you to "keep looking" and insist it's real.

You wouldn't have to tell me to 'keep looking'; I wouldn't look in the first place.

Your position is thoroughly falsified.

It's not my position -- I didn't write it.

To keep looking would make no sense.

To look at all makes no sense.

God said it -- it happened -- case closed.

It's like continuing looking for evidence of - say - the hard dome above the earth Job describes.

Go for it, if that's your interpretation. It's your money.

We KNOW it's wrong.

And we KNOW it's right.

Let's just let God break the tie in His time and stop with the arguing, shall we?

Why keep looking?

If you stop looking, then don't tell us it didn't happen; or 'keep looking' is an appropriate response.