Noachian Flood discussion - Bible skeptics vs Lion IRC and friends :)

[Lion IRC]

First, except for megatsunami restricted to confined bodies of water (e.g. Lituya Bay and Icy Bay), can you cite any tsunami that was significantly higher than 30 metres?

LOL.
Now you're backpedalling from your original assertion and obfuscating about tsunamis not being the same as megatsunamis. Let's just call, them big waves. Swells. Storm surges.

Second, are you still saying that the flood included tsunami that were high enough to swamp mountains...

Yes. That's exactly the explanation I offer to those who claim the flood couldn't cover a mountain top.

that a single tsunami could swamp mountains on opposite sides of the globe...

YEP. Or multiple tsunamis at different points on the globe. Or a tidal swell. etc etc etc

and that they were much higher than the familiar tsunami produced by earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides and gravity slides of sea-bed sediments?

Yes. Most certainly I assert that the biblical flood was not the ordinary, garden variety flooding event that we are 'familiar' with. If you think it was, then you haven't read the bible.

If so, where does Genesis 6 describe these tsunami?

*sigh*
See the bits where it refers to mountains being covered.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

I dont say bible skeptics "have to accept" the existence of a supernatural entity.
I start out with the assumption that they don't/won't.

If your principal objection to the Noachian Flood is that..."there's no God, (premiss) therefore no Flood (conclusion)" just say so.

I would agree with you that IF God didn't do the supernatural heavy lifting, then the Noachian Flood is a non-starter. But that's precisely why I say Flood debates end in tears for bible skeptics

You literally can win your argument because it depends on you showing either that God doesn't exist. Or that God isn't able.

Do you assert either of those propositions?

It is impossible to prove that a God does not exist. Further, your assumption that the God you believe in exists and has the powers you claim is an unstated assumption that quickly becomes necessary for your argument. That you do not state this up front is irrelevant. There might well have been a flood that covered the earth etc. But, without the assumption of a supernatural entity to deceptively wipe out all of the contrary evidence, you are left with a story that has value, but cannot be taken as literal by educated human beings. Picking over individual sentences and coming up with Tsunamis has long since been a lost cause.

Finally, Fundies Say the Darndest Things. wow that is a blast from the past and I'm surprised you can even link to it. As for the tears, as someone said, tears of laughter.

 

[inquiring mind]

Who picked your forum name?

Don’t overlook the ‘associate with those you can learn from’ tag.

 

[Lion IRC]

Finally, Fundies Say the Darndest Things. wow that is a blast from the past and I'm surprised you can even link to it.

Is there unacceptable content in the link?
Oops.
Thanks.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Is there unacceptable content in the link?
Oops.
Thanks.

It was a banned link on a lot of Christian boards.

 

[Lion IRC]

The purpose of the thread was to provide bible skeptics an opportunity to present their objections to the biblical account.

Which isn't the purpose of this forum.

I disagree.

"What are the broad divisions of apologetics?"

Introduction to Apologetics | Reasonable Faith

 

[Lion IRC]

It was a banned link on a lot of Christian boards.

Thanks

 

[Speedwell]

I disagree.


Introduction to Apologetics | Reasonable Faith

Craig's apologetics are about convincing people of the existence of God and the truth of the Gospel of Christ. You seem to be more interested in convincing people of your interpretation of Genesis instead. I'm not sure that Craig's techniques will be of any use to you.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I disagree.


Introduction to Apologetics | Reasonable Faith

THis isn't the board for Apologetics.

Are you going to continue, you only got to 6:15. Do you have any more bits of the story you'd like to have challenged by history/science, or should we assume you think the rest of it can't make the mark.

 

[Lion IRC]

It is impossible to prove that a God does not exist.

Yeah. I know.
*wink*

Further, your assumption that the God you believe in exists and has the powers you claim is an unstated assumption that quickly becomes necessary for your argument.

To describe my relationship with God as an assumption is hand waving. Dismissive yet unsubstantiated hand waving.
I could just as easily say that your dogmatic disbelief is presuppositional.
In any case, I'm not merely defending my belief that the Flood actually happened. I'm defending the assertion made by the author of Genesis who also states that the event was a historical fact.
Youre arguing with him as much as you are with me.

There might well have been a flood that covered the earth etc. But, without the assumption of a supernatural entity to deceptively wipe out all of the contrary evidence, you are left with a story that has value, but cannot be taken as literal by educated human beings.

What EXACTLY do I need to be educated in to become educated about what actually happened in Genesis 6 thru 9?
Come on. I'm calling you out pal.
If you make an ad hominem argument like that, you had better be prepared to put your money where your mouth is.
What incontrovertible evidence do you have, and which I lack, that would make me an "educated human being"?
Do you have any idea how many educated human beings there are on this Forum whom you have insulted with the accusation that their religious conviction as to literal bible truths, disqualifies them from the "educated human being" club?

Picking over individual sentences and coming up with Tsunamis has long since been a lost cause...

Your unsupported assertion is noted.
Pity you dont practice what you preach.

 

[Lion IRC]

Craig's apologetics are about convincing people of the existence of God and the truth of the Gospel of Christ. You seem to be more interested in convincing people of your interpretation of Genesis instead. I'm not sure that Craig's techniques will be of any use to you.

@SelfSim was suggesting that the purpose of this forum was limited to only one form of apologetics.
...or that there is just one form of apologetics.

I am offering a defense of the bible.
That entails the obvious and conspicuous existence of non-theist bible skeptics who actively assert (proselytize) the errancy of scripture, internal contradictions within scripture, the mythology of scripture, the ungodly motives of alleged writers who wrote the bible for their own self-interest...etc etc.
If bible skeptics want to take their bat and ball and go home, you won't find me sitting here all alone talking to myself.
Otherwise, I can talk till the cows come home about why Gods Word is True, Relevant and Beneficial.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm defending the assertion made by the author of Genesis who also states that the event was a historical fact.

Does it actually say that?

 

[Lion IRC]

THis isn't the board for Apologetics.

I instigated the Defense of the Flood apologetics derail from another thread, and after seeking guidance, I was advised that this (sub) forum was an acceptable location for my Op.

Are you going to continue, you only got to 6:15. Do you have any more bits of the story you'd like to have challenged by history/science, or should we assume you think the rest of it can't make the mark.

I was politely waiting, allowing time for everyone/anyone to address the verses I have posted thus far with their skeptical rebuttal claims.
If you think there will be none, then great.

NEXT Genesis 6:19
6:16-18 aren't controversial or falsifiable so I wouldn't expect them to generate much objection. So its on to the great muster of animals wherein Genesis 6:19 says..."And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female."

Does anyone think animals can sense impending natural disasters?
An evolutionary sixth sense which prompts them to head for high ground, or hibernate for a few months inside a nice warm cozy Ark?
Does the gender-binary, heterosexist, male/female paradigm provoke Noah-phobia in bible skeptics and anti-patriarchy feminists?
Is there some difficulty with there being too few or too many animals on the floating biodome?

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Yeah. I know.
*wink*



To describe my relationship with God as an assumption is hand waving. Dismissive yet unsubstantiated hand waving.
I could just as easily say that your dogmatic disbelief is presuppositional.
In any case, I'm not merely defending my belief that the Flood actually happened. I'm defending the assertion made by the author of Genesis who also states that the event was a historical fact.
Youre arguing with him as much as you are with me.



What EXACTLY do I need to be educated in to become educated about what actually happened in Genesis 6 thru 9?
Come on. I'm calling you out pal.
If you make an ad hominem argument like that, you had better be prepared to put your money where your mouth is.
What incontrovertible evidence do you have, and which I lack, that would make me an "educated human being"?
Do you have any idea how many educated human beings there are on this Forum whom you have insulted with the accusation that their religious conviction as to literal bible truths, disqualifies them from the "educated human being" club?




Your unsupported assertion is noted.
Pity you dont practice what you preach.

It is not your belief that is being questioned, but that you brought a challenge on the Physical and life Sciences board with the intention of using miracles as your defense. The idea that the Noachian Flood was literal history was abandoned by the Christian geologists who were responsible for the scientific field of geology in the early 19th century. This hasn't changed except for a recent subset of primarily American protestants who have come up with a new idea that their reading of Genesis is the only appropriate reading.

At this point, we will try to explain the science that has brought the world to the conclusions it has about the history of the earth, but we are well beyond debunking Wacky Wally Hydropants and Galloping Glaciers and Sending the water to Jupiter etc.

Sorry, Flood geology is dead and miracles are not an appropriate argument in this section of the forum.

 

[Lion IRC]

Does it actually say that?

Yes. It says;
Noah was...
Noah did...
The earth was...
Noah's sons and their wives did...

These are self-asserting fact claims.
They don't need any disambiguation such as...."I kid you not" or "this really truly went down for real."

 

[Lion IRC]

you brought a challenge on the Physical and life Sciences board with the intention of using miracles as your defense.

No. I brought it to the creation and evolution board because I was advised that it was appropriate to do so.

Whats conspicuously absent is YOUR physical and life sciences refutation of the text of Genesis 6 thru 9

Miracles are merely something science doesn't understand yet.
To a stone age cave man, a cigarette lighter or a polaroid camera would be considered miracles.

 

[Lion IRC]

To the extent that the Noachian Flood was an evolutionary bottleneck, and the impact of such an event can rightly be viewed thru the lens of biology/geology, I think this thread is rightly positioned.

Moreover, I emphatically flagged the insurmountable problem for Flood deniers of God's intervention in those aspects of the Flood account which methodological skeptics and naturalists might find hard to otherwise accept. There's no bait and switch going on here.

If you debate intelligent design, theistic evolution, cosmology, abiogenesis, panspermia....whatever...you are going to confront the same sort of argument from fiat. That's not stacking the deck anymore than an atheist's special pleading that God isn't allowed in this forum.

 

[Kylie]

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth | National Center for Science Education

Not sure why our archeology must exactly correspond to the biblical record? These are two very different sources, both in time and genre. Archeology just guesses what it could look like in real life and what sediment is from what event.
Would archeological interpretation in 6000 AD correspond exactly with the stories written by people living in Hiroshima when the bomb fell?

So your argument is, "It matches, so long as you ignore the parts that don't match"? That's like saying, "M*A*S*H really happened, just not in the way depicted on screen."

 

[Kylie]

That is correct: God is both omnipotent and omniscient.

Glad we agree on that.

Here you go again. You try so hard not to understand, you end up causing more [repetitive] work for the person you're talking to.

Let me reiterate, this time with emphasis:

Those who repented and cried out for salvation in Noah's time went ahead and died, of course, because they had reached the point of no return.

Do you know what the "point of no return" is?

That means that they're going to die, no matter what standing they are in (saved or lost) at the time.

Again, doing it your way would have entailed God saving born again Nephilim and flesh-corrupted people alive, to continue to spread their germs; and would have defeated one of the purposes of the Flood.

Except since God is omniscient, then God would have known which ones would have cried out for repentance and salvation and so he could have saved them without needing to subject them to a horrific death.

I have to wonder why you don't seem to grasp this.

If your intent is to turn red litmus paper blue, you'll take the necessary steps, even if you already know the outcome.

And there's your problem. You assume the intent is to perform the test. If the intent is to act on information and I already have that information, then doing the test to find out that information is a waste of time. If I already know that the liquid is alkaline, then I don't need to conduct the litmus paper test in the first place.

God already had the information about who would have repented, so he knew beforehand who to save. Thus there was no need to conduct the test by drowning them. This is not a complicated idea.

I understand.

Again, glad we agree.

 

[Kylie]

Why would I start this thread if I had no interest in defending the historicity of Genesis 6 thru 9?

I didn't say that.

I said you have no interest in showing that it happened in reality. You can hold onto the Bible's claims all you want, but that doesn't show that it happened in reality.

You claim this biblical account isn't true. Why? Which verse? Where's your counter-evidence?

I'm not playing your games. You've already outrighted stated you will ignore reality if it suits you.

Do you claim that to be the case? That Battle of Wolf 359 really happened? If you did, and if I cared to refute your claim, I would consider myself obliged to provide some evidence as to why I thought your claim was false.
...commencing with the basic reasoning that Gene Roddenberry, the author of Startrek, and all subsequent writers of Startrek scripts acknowledge that this is science FICTION.

Of course, you have the benefit of those people being still alive, for the most part. What if they were all dead? How would you do it then?

You are completely wrong in claiming I have no interest in defending my beliefs.

I'm not interested in your beliefs. You can have whatever beliefs you want, makes no difference to me.

I'm interested in seeing how you can show your beliefs correspond to reality. Specifically: Show that the Flood actually happened.