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

[Bradskii]

@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.

It's not a technicality. It literally does not say that it's meant to be treated as an actual historic event (and you implied that it was). So unless the bible uses the Allegory Font for stories that are not meant to be taken literally and Historic Font for those that are, there is no way of knowing.

Consequently, anyone who takes the story to be historically accurate is making an assumption. That is all. As long as everyone accepts that fact, then we can move on.

And Bradskii has very little interest in the story whether taken allegorically or literally. Except where it exhibits people's acceptance of God's willingness to kill innocent people. There are implications to that that need to be brought out into the sunlight (even if for no other reason than to watch the pretzel like arguments re STDs and coke addled pregnant women that try to justify it).

 

[Kylie]

I was thinking maybe the encounter with the Paxans(?)
Ie: complete erasure of other collective event memories as well as consistent supporting evidence ultimately convinces(?)

The problem with that was Data's claim that it had just been thirty seconds, when there was a wealth of other information - the moss growth, Worf's healed arm - that indicated otherwise. And they never did anything to make that consistent with Data's story. Now, of course, Data could have said they were out for the full day, and he was the one who healed Worf's arm, and everything would have been fine. But it was precisely the fact that the available evidence from the real world did not match the story that was told that caused the problems.

And that's what's happening here. We have evidence from the real world that is inconsistent with the Biblical claim that the flood took place, and so we conclude that there's a problem.

 

[inquiring mind]

It's not a technicality. It literally does not say that it's meant to be treated as an actual historic event (and you implied that it was). So unless the bible uses the Allegory Font for stories that are not meant to be taken literally and Historic Font for those that are, there is no way of knowing.

Consequently, anyone who takes the story to be historically accurate is making an assumption. That is all. As long as everyone accepts that fact, then we can move on.

And Bradskii has very little interest in the story whether taken allegorically or literally. Except where it exhibits people's acceptance of God's willingness to kill innocent people. There are implications to that that need to be brought out into the sunlight (even if for no other reason than to watch the pretzel like arguments re STDs and coke addled pregnant women that try to justify it).

The problem with that was Data's claim that it had just been thirty seconds, when there was a wealth of other information - the moss growth, Worf's healed arm - that indicated otherwise. And they never did anything to make that consistent with Data's story. Now, of course, Data could have said they were out for the full day, and he was the one who healed Worf's arm, and everything would have been fine. But it was precisely the fact that the available evidence from the real world did not match the story that was told that caused the problems.

And that's what's happening here. We have evidence from the real world that is inconsistent with the Biblical claim that the flood took place, and so we conclude that there's a problem.

Who today can answer this question either way in a 100% convincingly way? The only question that can be answered is ‘why do you believe one way or the other?’ You guys believe there is evidence to the contrary. I believe the story is true because Jesus apparently did, or why would He have even referenced it, while quoting and teaching from the entire OT continually as the Truth? Another reason I believe it is true is because there are no other untruths in the Bible, so why should I not trust in the Flood story as well?

 

[Kylie]

Who today can answer this question either way in a 100% convincingly way? The only question that can be answered is ‘why do you believe one way or the other?’ You guys believe there is evidence to the contrary. I believe the story is true because Jesus apparently did, or why would He have even referenced it, while quoting and teaching from the entire OT continually as the Truth? Another reason I believe it is true is because there are no other untruths in the Bible, so why should I not trust in the Flood story as well?

There are plenty of ways in which the flood story in the Bible is inconsistent with what we see in the real world. For a start, that much water in such a short time would leave traces, yet these traces simply do not exist in reality. What is the explanation for this?

 

[inquiring mind]

There are plenty of ways in which the flood story in the Bible is inconsistent with what we see in the real world. For a start, that much water in such a short time would leave traces, yet these traces simply do not exist in reality. What is the explanation for this?

There are scientists who believe there are such traces.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are scientists who believe there are such traces.

People have all sorts of strange beliefs. Flood believers cannot ever seem to find any scientific evidence for the flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who today can answer this question either way in a 100% convincingly way? The only question that can be answered is ‘why do you believe one way or the other?’ You guys believe there is evidence to the contrary. I believe the story is true because Jesus apparently did, or why would He have even referenced it, while quoting and teaching from the entire OT continually as the Truth? Another reason I believe it is true is because there are no other untruths in the Bible, so why should I not trust in the Flood story as well?

Are you sure that there are not other untruths in the Bible? You might want to Google search "scientific errors in the Bible".

 

[dlamberth]

There are scientists who believe there are such traces.

Where are those traces?

 

[Gene2memE]

There are scientists who believe there are such traces.

There are scientists who believe all sorts of stuff. It doesn't matter what they believe.

What matters is what evidence they can provide, and then how they test it to rule out other interpretations of the evidence.

You want a skeptic to believe the Noachian flood occurred? Provide them with a concordance of lines of evidence that unambiguously support the inference that a global flood occurred, that such a flood resulted in an extreme bottlenecking of extant animal and plant species and also wiped out all human civilisations.

Given the supposed impact the Noachian flood had, it should be a trivial matter to provide evidence for it as least as strong as say evolution by natural selection, plate tectonics or anthropogenic climate change.

 

[inquiring mind]

People have all sorts of strange beliefs. Flood believers cannot ever seem to find any scientific evidence for the flood.

Here's the first article I googled. Interesting article by a noted scientist mostly about the Black Sea but hints at the likelihood of global floods due to melting ice.
Evidence Noah's Biblical Flood Happened, Says Robert Ballard

 

[inquiring mind]

Are you sure that there are not other untruths in the Bible? You might want to Google search "scientific errors in the Bible".

Don't equate perceived discrepancies or inconsistencies with untruths.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's the first article I googled. Interesting article by a noted scientist mostly about the Black Sea but hints at the likelihood of global floods due to melting ice.
Evidence Noah's Biblical Flood Happened, Says Robert Ballard

Did you read it? That is not evidence that Noah's Flood happened. That is evidence that there was flooding of the Black Sea. At one point it was much smaller than it is now. It is likely that a flood occurred that filled it to its current levels. It is hardly the Flood of Noah. That flood was relatively slow. A person could have crawled away from it. Cities and villages unfortunately cannot crawl. They were covered with water even though everyone would have been able to walk away. Does that sound like the Biblical flood?

I think that you might want to learn what scientific evidence is:

"Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis."

Hey! That looks familiar!

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia.

To even have scientific evidence one must have a way of testing one's idea. Creationists hate being force to think of a test that could refute their beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't equate perceived discrepancies or inconsistencies with untruths.

Then perhaps you might want to define "discrepancies". There are quite a few events in the Bible that we know did not happen. The Flood of Noah is only one of them.

 

[inquiring mind]

Where are those traces?

There are scientists who believe all sorts of stuff. It doesn't matter what they believe.

What matters is what evidence they can provide, and then how they test it to rule out other interpretations of the evidence.

You want a skeptic to believe the Noachian flood occurred? Provide them with a concordance of lines of evidence that unambiguously support the inference that a global flood occurred, that such a flood resulted in an extreme bottlenecking of extant animal and plant species and also wiped out all human civilisations.

Given the supposed impact the Noachian flood had, it should be a trivial matter to provide evidence for it as least as strong as say evolution by natural selection, plate tectonics or anthropogenic climate change.

Most of the scientists I have seen present such reasoning and rationale at various locations. I hope I don't have to name them all. They are all over the internet.

 

[inquiring mind]

Then perhaps you might want to define "discrepancies". There are quite a few events in the Bible that we know did not happen. The Flood of Noah is only one of them.

After considerable time has passed, we generally just think we know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Most of the scientists I have seen present such reasoning and rationale at various locations. I hope I don't have to name them all. They are all over the internet.

Do you understand that they do not have evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

After considerable time has passed, we generally just think we know.

Knowledge is demonstrable. Errors in the Bible are known to be errors because we can explain and show why.

 

[inquiring mind]

Do you understand that they do not have evidence?

Are they alone?

 

[Gene2memE]

Here's the first article I googled. Interesting article by a noted scientist mostly about the Black Sea but hints at the likelihood of global floods due to melting ice.
Evidence Noah's Biblical Flood Happened, Says Robert Ballard

That's not evidence for the Noachian flood as described in the biblical story though. (Covers the world, wipes out all civilizations, kills 99.999% of all living creatures).

That's just evidence for a large flood in the Black Sea region that occurred around 7000 years ago. If anything, its evidence against the biblical account being literal.

The rest is just journalistic hyperbole and using a well known story as a touchstone. If Gilgamesh or Atra-Hasis were better know, the journalist could have used those as the hangar for the cloth of the story.

Most of the scientists I have seen present such reasoning and rationale at various locations. I hope I don't have to name them all. They are all over the internet.

You do. Or at least, you can replicate their arguments as it pertains to evidence and the testing of that evidence to discount alternate hypotheses.

 

[inquiring mind]

Knowledge is demonstrable. Errors in the Bible are known to be errors because we can explain and show why.

My point is that an error is not always an untruth. I could give you the wrong sequence of events, but that doesn't mean they are untrue.