My Research Challenge Re Noah's Flood

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Or omnipotent God cleaned it up.

So there's no point in trying to look for evidence of a global flood then. Because there is no evidence for one.

 

[AV1611VET]

So there's no point in trying to look for evidence of a global flood then. Because there is no evidence for one.

(Note: there are a couple of "left behinds," but that's a different story. For the sake of arguing, let's just say He cleaned up the mess for safety and sanitary reasons).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

(Note: there are a couple of "left behinds," but that's a different story. For the sake of arguing, let's just say He cleaned up the mess for safety and sanitary reasons).

But you're claim that God cleaned it up for 'safety and sanitary reasons' is bunk because a global flood would still leave signs that would say "Here's a global flood!" while all we're left is a claim that only exists on paper...

 

[AV1611VET]

But you're claim that God cleaned it up for 'safety and sanitary reasons' is bunk because a global flood would still leave signs that would say "Here's a global flood!" while all we're left is a claim that only exists on paper...

Has a global ever been investigated?

I think this thread points out that scientists wouldn't even know what to look for.

Not to mention there's no way they can investigate the full story.

(For example, how would they investigate God's interactions with Noah?)

 

[sjastro]

But you're claim that God cleaned it up for 'safety and sanitary reasons' is bunk because a global flood would still leave signs that would say "Here's a global flood!" while all we're left is a claim that only exists on paper...

AV has altered his story somewhat probably because God missed a few spots in the cleanup.

 

[Chris35]

If God is omniscient, wouldn't he have known from the get-go that mankind would be wicked? To me, it's totally illogical that an all-knowing God would be grieved and sorry at how his creation turned out. Is there a sensible explanation for this?

We can say, that you know your parents are going to die one day, that does mean your not going to grieve when it happens.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Has a global ever been investigated?

I think this thread points out that scientists wouldn't even know what to look for.

Not to mention there's no way they can investigate the full story.

(For example, how would they investigate God's interactions with Noah?)

No, a flood is an easy thing to look for, especially a global flood with enough water to reach the highest points on the Earth. This has been explained to you time and time again. Scientists, specifically geologists would and do know what to look for.

There is no need to investigate the 'full story' since that's not something that science needs to concern itself with, especially when you limit the search to physical evidence, which in this case is (pun intended) the most damning evidence for there being no global flood.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, a flood is an easy thing to look for, especially a global flood with enough water to reach the highest points on the Earth. This has been explained to you time and time again.

Only from the viewpoint that Mother Nature orchestrated the cleanup -- (as well as the onset; in fact, the whole shebang).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Only from the viewpoint that Mother Nature orchestrated the cleanup -- (as well as the onset; in fact, the whole shebang).

But to do otherwise would put God out to be a deceiver.

 

[LightLoveHope]

Hi, Woseley!

Thank you, my friend, for the kind words and the suggestion, but I already know the Flood happened as documented in the Bible.

I started this thread because I believe science leaves out a lot of what the Bible says about the Flood, then claims the Flood was properly researched and found wanting.

That, to me, is bologna.

Science wants to claim the Flood didn't happen as documented, because Mother Nature couldn't possibly have reduced the population down to bottleneck size and have it recover in so short a time -- (let alone recover at all).

But science only looks at the volume of rain generated, and ignores the rest: such as God telling Noah to build an Ark, God bringing the animals to the Ark, God sending the rain, God cleaning up the mess afterwards, etc.

So when science says they don't see any evidence for a worldwide flood as documented in the Bible, what they're really saying is they aren't taking the whole story into consideration.

If they did, they would have to admit that the Flood was a series of miracles -- (not Mother Nature) -- orchestrated by God.

The Flood

In all cultures there are records of disasters that wipe out civilisations because that happens all the time.
If one is going to be scientifically serious about the flood, you need to look for sedimentary evidence of large movements of water
occurring with similar remains in different locations. There are some of tsunamis in Australia and elsewhere.

If you hold that all land life only survived through the ark, animals in South America must be related to ones in Europe, Africa, Asia, Far East.
And the primary source animals must have changed enough to create the variation we see.

If one defends time frames the 500m thick chalk deposits made from the skeletons of living creatures has to come about because of a short localised affect, which was also worldwide, and caused calcium to be made and laid down within months. These deposits are found the world over.

Tectonic plates can be shown by similar geology between Africa and South America the ocean floor at one point was not there. The distance between the two continents means the timeframes do not fit a 6,000 timeframe.

Birds though they can stay aloft for a short period, many would not survive a worldwide flood of months. So all the bird life we see has to have come from the ark, as well as all the insect life, beetles, bugs etc.

If one takes the flood as the flooding of the known world around the middle east, then all these issues go away.
It was the evilness of society that offended the Lord, because only man was responsible for their immorality.

One interesting model would be how much water would the world have to have to cover Everest?
Average depth of oceans 12,100 ft covering 70% of the earths surface
To cover Everest 29,035ft you would need 3 times + water to flood the world and it would also have to disappear again
with 2 months.

That would be some stunning shift. Now that is a static view, but one needs a scientific stab at how it happened to stand up.

Some have suggested water is held in the mantle which could have welled up and then gone back. But I have yet to hear
of such discoveries to confirm this idea.

As a scientist doing an undergraduate degree such ideas were laughed at, but I was happy to look at them, but to date
I have not see a convincing model produced on a massive flood 5,000 years ago.

God bless you

 

[Halbhh]

But to do otherwise would put God out to be a deceiver.

Ah, actually, it's far more interesting and good than that, and more logical you'll see -- please see post #152.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ah, actually, it's far more interesting and good than that, and more logical you'll see -- please see post #152.

But faith is not research. Faith is not science. Faith is not evidence. Faith is faith, faith is religion.

When you immediately want to talk about researching an event, faith does not take the driver's seat. Faith is left behind in garage as the car drives down the road.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Where are the step by step arguments which leads to your theory; where is your evidence the data collected is based on a belief system?

Do you have the foggiest clue as to what this conversation is actually about?

Your “theory” is nothing more than an illogical opinion piece which starts off with your conclusion and ignores the counterarguments given in this thread as it doesn’t fit your own belief system of deliberate ignorance.
You can then loop back to the conclusion which is the starting point of your argument not the end point where the conclusion belongs.
This is the circular argument fallacy.

Do you know what a presupposition is? (I'll let Hans Blaster explain that to you.)

Regularity and based on the natural laws are technically presuppositions, but (and it is a very important BUT), repeated measurements and observations show that everything observed is consistent with those presuppositions and are so to the extent that it is perfectly consistent with everything measured to assume that violations of regularity do not happen.

And about presuppositions and belief systems; Hans Blaster has said this: which he is correct - belief systems and presuppositions can not be proven.

Science is based on the examination of natural phenomena under the assumption of regularity. If you want to call that a "belief system" you can, but I wouldn't. In either case, neither belief systems nor presuppositions can be "proven".

So @sjastro I will now ask you this question:
Can you admit there are things you don't know?

 

[The Righterzpen]

Of course there are things I do nit know and there is always the chance that anything I know to be right could be wrong. I hold no illusions about that.

Well I'm glad that you are at least able to admit this.

But I know for a certainty that your claims that scientific theories are just assumptions and guesses are baseless nonsense.

Do you agree with what Hans Blaster has said here:

Regularity and based on the natural laws are technically presuppositions, but (and it is a very important BUT), repeated measurements and observations show that everything observed is consistent with those presuppositions and are so to the extent that it is perfectly consistent with everything measured to assume that violations of regularity do not happen.

And here:

Science is based on the examination of natural phenomena under the assumption of regularity. If you want to call that a "belief system" you can, but I wouldn't. In either case, neither belief systems nor presuppositions can be "proven".

 

[The Righterzpen]

It's the lack of evidence of a Genesis flood that is the evidence that said flood never happened. The Earth itself that is showing us that truth.

One group of people say the evidence says "X" and another group says the evidence says "Y". It's the same evidence. If Earth itself is showing us the truth; than who's theory is correct?

 

[The Righterzpen]

If God is omniscient, wouldn't he have known from the get-go that mankind would be wicked? To me, it's totally illogical that an all-knowing God would be grieved and sorry at how his creation turned out. Is there a sensible explanation for this?

You raise valid questions here; although this is a subject for a totally different thread.

There are some explanations; but just as with many subjects, the explanations usually aren't complete. And in regards to your questions here specifically; the answers are incomplete because the totality of them is actually unknowable to us; because we are not omniscient.

You can message me about this subject if you'd like and I will give you as best of an explanation as I'm capable of.

 

[AV1611VET]

But to do otherwise would put God out to be a deceiver.

Ya ... I deceived my mom once.

I cleaned my room up so spic & span, she never new it was tore up.

But I left a note detailing what I did, when I did it, what order I did it in, why I did it, and who the eyewitnesses were.

When she got home, I got a spanking for lying to her.

 

[dlamberth]

One group of people say the evidence says "X" and another group says the evidence says "Y". It's the same evidence. If Earth itself is showing us the truth; than who's theory is correct?

When it comes to the Genesis Flood, there is NO evidence of said flood. That's not a theory. It's what the Earth is actually showing us. Some say the Earth is flat. The evidence says otherwise. It's the same with the Genesis Flood.

 

[sjastro]

Do you have the foggiest clue as to what this conversation is actually about?

Do you know what a presupposition is? (I'll let Hans Blaster explain that to you.)

And about presuppositions and belief systems; Hans Blaster has said this: which he is correct - belief systems and presuppositions can not be proven.

So @sjastro I will now ask you this question:
Can you admit there are things you don't know?

The only person who doesn't have foggiest clue here is yourself.
My post involved theories, Hans Blaster was referring to scientific laws.
Theories and scientific laws are not the same.

Why don't you try learn something instead of being blissfully ignorant.
For a start this video will explain the differences between theories and scientific laws and hopefully you will understand why theories are not based on presuppositions.

 

[The Righterzpen]

When it comes to the Genesis Flood, there is NO evidence of said flood. That's not a theory. It's what the Earth is actually showing us. Some say the Earth is flat. The evidence says otherwise. It's the same with the Genesis Flood.

Do you know how fossils are formed?