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

[tas8831]

I'm sorry for trying to find an alternative explanation from "the water rose to the height of the highest mountain" to having a viscous smear of water clinging to all the mountains.

If all we can discuss is the text, then all you will get is word games.

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

Don't care that there are no gods. I do care about evidence. And there is none.

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.

So... you admit that you RELY on deity magic for your beliefs? How sad.

Because you are disingenuous and engage in begging the question?

IOW - you play games and are disingenuous and then claim victory.
Typical 'Christian' creationist - unable to defend his ancient tales, plays word games and pats himself on the head.

 

[Frank Robert]

There's a solid one in Kentucky.

Isn't that where Christianity meets Jurassic Park?

 

[inquiring mind]

The one made with modern equipment, steel, etc.? Are you a Poe? Because it very often seems that way.

“… the ark, which was constructed by Amish builders using traditional timber framing techniques…

Steel nails were used to conform with building code regulations.[1] While the builders originally planned to hold the ark together with wooden pegs, modern building codes required the builders to use steel fasteners, thus 95 tons of metal plates and bolts were used to connect the wood together.[48] The electric lighting inside was designed to look like oil lamps.[8] According to AiG, the Ark Encounter is the largest timber frame structure in the United States.[2]“

 

[inquiring mind]

I already failed your predictions here ... several times ... by explaining more than once how the problem with food, water, and room to house all those animals was nicely handled by God.

But since you have me on IGNORE, I'm not going to explain it again.

This is what happens when you make a goofy prediction, while at the same time have someone on IGNORE that can, and has, answered your enigmas.

You make yourself look bad.

He's really good at that.

 

[Speedwell]

“… the ark, which was constructed by Amish builders using traditional timber framing techniques…

Steel nails were used to conform with building code regulations.[1] While the builders originally planned to hold the ark together with wooden pegs, modern building codes required the builders to use steel fasteners, thus 95 tons of metal plates and bolts were used to connect the wood together.[48] The electric lighting inside was designed to look like oil lamps.[8] According to AiG, the Ark Encounter is the largest timber frame structure in the United States.[2]“

How does it perform at sea? Oh, wait...

 

[inquiring mind]

Isn't that where Christianity meets Jurassic Park?

How does it perform at sea? Oh, wait...

They may be building another one in New Jersey... using wooden pegs.

 

[Speedwell]

They may be building another one in New Jersey... using wooden pegs.

And that is important how?

 

[inquiring mind]

And that is important how?

For all the skeptics that wouldn't go see the one with steel nails in it.

 

[Speedwell]

For all the skeptics that wouldn't go see the one with steel nails in it.

That's not what we were skeptical about.

 

[Job 33:6]

Even if we disregard the absolute timing issues, it is clear that while the K-T boundary exhibits lots and lots and lots of killing, it is *not* the flood of Noah. In Noah's flood there are many people before the flood and only a few survivors.

There are no people (or apes, or primates) in the layers just below K-T, nor even in the ones immediately above it. K-T is clearly much earlier than Noah, if there even was such a flood.

Well, one step at a time. We can start with the obvious and if the obvious gets anywhere, then we could look at technical details later.

The goal is to keep things as simple as possible.

 

[Lion IRC]

no such seagoing vessel of that size was possible without the industrial advances of that era.

Noah had time and materials.
What specifically was he lacking?
Note that he wasn't building a "seagoing vessel".
All the Ark had to do was float.

the vast majority had never heard of the gods of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic complex.
They had their own gods.

They thought they had 'their own god(s) but.....
[picture of blind men feeling elephant goes here]
Note that I said "theists" not Judeo Christians

 

[Frank Robert]

They may be building another one in New Jersey... using wooden pegs.

Advice for NJ:
How Ham fleeced a town that gave him his Ark Encounter

 

[Lion IRC]

For example, the Bible does not say that Switzerland and Austria, Nepal and Tibet, Alaska, California, Mexico, Ecuador, Peru and Chile, or even Bangladesh, the Netherlands and the Gulf States of the USA, were covered by Noah's Flood, therefore you do not have to refute my claim that these countries were not flooded.

The bible says the flood was worldwide and those country names were non-existent when the flood occurred. If that's the best you've got then, as a Flood Denier, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel.

 

[Bradskii]

Well the talking bush isnt really a talking bush, it's a burning bush and that voice isn't the bush, its the Lord.

Still, a literal bush. A literal flame. A real, literal, audible sound.

Judges 9:8. It's a talking tree. And the point still stands. Simply reading a passage literally doesn't mean it was meant to have happened literally. Nowhere does it say 'take this metaphorically but this actually happened as written'. You're making an assumption and you need to acknowledge that.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The bible says the flood was worldwide and those country names were non-existent when the flood occurred. If that's the best you've got then, as a Flood Denier, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Ooh, "Flood Denier", got anything but invective, or do you plan to expose more of the text to challenge. You claim science/history can't refute it. Let's find out.

 

[Speedwell]

The bible says the flood was worldwide and those country names were non-existent when the flood occurred. If that's the best you've got then, as a Flood Denier, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Astrophile forgot to include "/caricature" at the end of the post. Maybe it will make more sense to you now.

 

[SelfSim]

Ooh, "Flood Denier", got anything but invective, or do you plan to expose more of the text to challenge. You claim science/history can't refute it. Let's find out.

Thus far, that particular claim, is a spectacular fail .. of epic proportions!

 

[sjastro]

Ooh, "Flood Denier", got anything but invective, or do you plan to expose more of the text to challenge. You claim science/history can't refute it. Let's find out.

And I thought a flood denier was someone who didn't own up to bladder problems......

 

[Paul4JC]

[Luk 17:26-27 NIV] 26 "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.

Get in the ark people! God bless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As stated previously, an allegorical/symbolic 'version' doesn't need defending because bible skeptics only ever challenge the literal reading. Seriously, why would science and mythical allegory be at odds?

@Bradskii contends that (on a technicality) the writer of the Flood account doesn't emphatically declare themself to be a journalist and the work to be intended as history. But so what? That doesn't mean the author intended it as allegory. And Bradskii wouldnt care about it if it WAS meant as allegory.

In terms of AvT Flood apologetics, this is the only game in town - a literal meaning of the words intended to be understood as...global flood...mountain tops, 8 survivors, wooden ark, birds, cattle, dry land, gopher wood.

True, if you treat it as allegory it cannot be refuted since it never happened. It is merely a teaching tool on the order of Aesop's Fables.