The Flood of Noah's Day

[sjastro]

What?

Again, demonstrate this.

Hahahaha. NO. The Moon is dry. People have been there. No water on the surface.

Which means exactly nothing.

You may be dealing with a Poe, if not the standard reply is "My hovercraft if full of eels."

 

[David Lamb]

Sounds like you never calculated where water actually came from.

The bible tells us that what it calls the fountains of the deep were broken, and the windows of heaven were opened. The Creationist viewpoint I have seen is that when God first created the earth, it was surrounded with an invisible water vapour canopy, which would have kept out harmful rays from the sun, and ensured an even temperature around the earth. With the Flood, God caused that canopy to fall as rain. I have never heard anyone suggest that it was an inter-stellar flood.

 

[Grafted In]

I don't rule out, nor do I believe Scripture rules out the possibility that this planet has been destroyed and restored perhaps countless times.
One portion of Scripture is part of the reason I think this is true.
John 10:16:
'And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."

That's just one small piece of why I suspect this has been done perhaps and infinite number of times.
Therefore, we find burried evidence of the existence of life on earth long before the number of years Scripture tells gives us from Adam to Christ.
After all, He is God and can do as he pleases.

 

[David Lamb]

I don't rule out, nor do I believe Scripture rules out the possibility that this planet has been destroyed and restored perhaps countless times.
One portion of Scripture is part of the reason I think this is true.
John 10:16:
'And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."

That's just one small piece of why I suspect this has been done perhaps and infinite number of times.
Therefore, we find burried evidence of the existence of life on earth long before the number of years Scripture tells gives us from Adam to Christ.
After all, He is God and can do as he pleases.

I don't think the other sheep which Jesus said He has which are not of this fold says anything about "this planet having been destroyed and restored perhaps countless times." All the commentaries I have referred to (including Calvin, Clarke, Gill, Jamison Fausset & Brown, Poole, and Trapp) say that He was referring to Gentiles.

 

[Grafted In]

I don't think the other sheep which Jesus said He has which are not of this fold says anything about "this planet having been destroyed and restored perhaps countless times." All the commentaries I have referred to (including Calvin, Clarke, Gill, Jamison Fausset & Brown, Poole, and Trapp) say that He was referring to Gentiles.

His plan for mankind has always included salvation of the gentiles.
He chose the Hebrew people to reveal Himself to all the world.

But I understand your strong skepticism.

Did He not tell Adam and his wife to replenish the earth?

I don't see anything yet in scripture that rules out my observation.

 

[Grafted In]

His plan for mankind has always included salvation of the gentiles.
He chose the Hebrew people to reveal Himself to all the world.

But I understand your strong skepticism.

Did He not tell Adam and his wife to replenish the earth?

I don't see anything yet in scripture that rules out my observation.

Also, a multitude which no man could count:

Rev. 7:9

"After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;"

Possibly further reference to my thoughts.
Note that Scripture states "that no man could count."

David, I am not offering this with any proof whatsoever.
That verse "Other sheep have i..." has always made me consider the possibility that, along with much scientific evidence, and our God being eternal, I can't rule out anything. Nor does Scripture, as best I can tell.

 

[David Lamb]

His plan for mankind has always included salvation of the gentiles.
He chose the Hebrew people to reveal Himself to all the world.

But I understand your strong skepticism.

Did He not tell Adam and his wife to replenish the earth?

I don't see anything yet in scripture that rules out my observation.

Where did God tell Adam and Eve to replenish the earth? He told them to be fruitful, to fill the earth, but not replenish it. It wasn't that the earth had once been filled with people before Adam, and was now empty, and God was telling him and Eve to refill it.

 

[Grafted In]

Where did God tell Adam and Eve to replenish the earth? He told them to be fruitful, to fill the earth, but not replenish it. It wasn't that the earth had once been filled with people before Adam, and was now empty, and God was telling him and Eve to refill it.

Genesis 1:28 kjv
"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

 

[Grafted In]

Genesis 1:28 kjv
"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

Granted, only a handful of translations use the term "replenish". But there are some.
I have always read KJV only...easier to remember.

 

[Grafted In]

Granted, only a handful of translations use the term "replenish". But there are some.
I have always read KJV only...easier to remember.

I hope my post does not come between us. I am just trying to "consider" God's creation and with eternity in mind. That's a long time.

 

[David Lamb]

Genesis 1:28 kjv
"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

Thank you. I was using the NKJV, which has "fill". In fact the bible dictionary I use gives these definitions for the word:

1) to fill, be full
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to be full
1a1a) fulness, abundance (participle)
1a1b) to be full, be accomplished, be ended
1a2) to consecrate, fill the hand
1b) (Niphal)

As you see, "replenish" is not included.

 

[CoreyD]

That still leaves the possibility that the flood was not global.

It's not possible for the Biblical account of the flood of Noah's day to be geographically local. These scriptures cannot be changed to support "the possibility that the flood was not global".
It is possible for persons to discard what the Bible says, and claim that the flood of Noah's day was not global... which is what many are doing, in order to avoid ridicule, and try to fit in with philosophical claims.

Let me ask you something, how old is the earth?

The Bible does not say how old the earth is.
Scientists believe the earth is 4.54 billion years old - give or take a few hundred million years.
However, this idea is based on using radiometric dating on an old zircon rock from Australia.

The method [of radiometric dating, radioactive dating or radioisotope dating] compares the abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope within the material to the abundance of its decay products, which form at a known constant rate of decay.

Of course, while it is believed that the measurement is accurate, it is not necessarily the case. See here.
I do not know how old the earth is, but if your reason for asking, is with respects to the Genesis account, the earth is thousands of years older than Adam was.

 

[Panthers]

The bible tells us that what it calls the fountains of the deep were broken, and the windows of heaven were opened. The Creationist viewpoint I have seen is that when God first created the earth, it was surrounded with an invisible water vapour canopy, which would have kept out harmful rays from the sun, and ensured an even temperature around the earth. With the Flood, God caused that canopy to fall as rain. I have never heard anyone suggest that it was an inter-stellar flood.

If oceans of water were to enter the system from one side of the earth, all the water will push up from the other side.
Therefore you will get the fountains of the depth pushing up.
just like in any flood.

I am talking about a celestial wave coming from somewhere in space and hitting the solar system.
How else does rain fall from the sky for 40 days and 40 nights?
How else does an existing world with water, flood to the mountains?

 

[Panthers]

It's not possible for the Biblical account of the flood of Noah's day to be geographically local. These scriptures cannot be changed to support "the possibility that the flood was not global".
It is possible for persons to discard what the Bible says, and claim that the flood of Noah's day was not global... which is what many are doing, in order to avoid ridicule, and try to fit in with philosophical claims.


The Bible does not say how old the earth is.
Scientists believe the earth is 4.54 billion years old - give or take a few hundred million years.
However, this idea is based on using radiometric dating on an old zircon rock from Australia.

The method [of radiometric dating, radioactive dating or radioisotope dating] compares the abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope within the material to the abundance of its decay products, which form at a known constant rate of decay.

Of course, while it is believed that the measurement is accurate, it is not necessarily the case. See here.
I do not know how old the earth is, but if your reason for asking, is with respects to the Genesis account, the earth is thousands of years older than Adam was.

The 6 days of creation were not all 24 hour days, as the Sun was not created till day 4.
The sun as we all know, is responsible for 24 hour timing.
hence the first 3 - 3.5 days were not timeable, or at least were not 24 hours
In fact these 3 -3.5 days are near eternal and are experienced again by the Lord in his descension, and the 2 witnesses.

 

[dlamberth]

and try to fit in with philosophical claims.

I think more along the lines of geological showings than philosophical.

 

[CoreyD]

To me, this is the core of your response.

Science doesn't know everything, therefore I can dismiss everything known to science. Scientific evidence is not factual, because scientists are viewpoint biased.

To you, and other opposes, yes.
However that conclusion has no merit, and is certainly not accurate.

What is the core of your response?
That religion or religious knowledge is based on beliefs, because it deals with faith and not evidence?
Or is your core response something else, though similar?

My response is precisely this:
People who do not recognize the true nature of science, in their haughtiness, try to elevate science above the level it can reach.
I reject such, and only say what it is. Which is, that what can be verified is a scientific fact. What cannot be verified is not. Therefore, if one presents a hypothesis, or theory as a scientific fact, I have every right to dismiss it as such.

For example, one who claims that a measurement is accurate, and no other measurement is acceptable, is making an absurd claim, and I reject it, yes.

Inaccuracies in radiocarbon dating

Radiocarbon dating is a key tool archaeologists use to determine the age of plants and objects made with organic material. But new research shows that commonly accepted radiocarbon dating standards can miss the mark -- calling into question historical timelines.​

A Crucial Archaeological Dating Tool Is Wrong, And It Could Change History as We Know It

One of the most important dating tools used in archaeology may sometimes give misleading data, new study shows - and it could change whole historical timelines as a result.​

​

The discrepancy is due to significant fluctuations in the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere, and it could force scientists to rethink how they use ancient organic remains to measure the passing of time.​

​

A comparison of radiocarbon ages across the Northern Hemisphere suggests we might have been a little too hasty in assuming how the isotope - also known as radiocarbon - diffuses, potentially shaking up controversial conversations on the timing of events in history.​

Scientific knowledge is built as people come up with hypotheses and theories, repeatedly test them against observations of the natural world, and continue to refine those explanations based on new ideas and observations. Observations are essential to the process of science, but they are only part of the picture.

I think this renders and hope of an honest discussion with you null and void. You're taking a position where any evidence that is contrary to your position (or you can't misconstrue/distort to support it) is wrong. Why is it wrong? Because it doesn't support your position.

You're pre-supposing the answer (the Bible is accurate and a global flood happened) and ignoring any countervailing data that refutes these points.

Note. This is not me saying this:
Scientists analyze and interpret data in order to figure out how those data inform their hypotheses and theories.
Do you agree with it, or disagree?

Regarding honest discussion.
This is not about me.
Why are their people who are quick to accuse others of dishonesty? Could it be that biased individuals with a closed mind, don't see themselves, but are always ready to point fingers?

Reliability is the wrong metric here. That's a bit like asking what flavour an inch is. Evidentiary support is the metric here, along with usefulness and verifiability/falsifiability.

So no, I don't think they'll ever "find an accurate answer that is 99.9% reliable", because time is linear in one direction and all we have to go on are the fragmentary remains left to us.

But, we can look at the evidence and build useful, testable answers and then accept those provisionally as the best supported theories until something better comes along.

Science works by assuming the answer arrived at is WRONG, and then trying to prove that so. Only when you've failed to prove a hypothesis wrong do you then go publish it. And, the reason you publish it is so that other people can work out if you're wrong.

Okay. So it is not proven wrong, so it is right, until it is wrong?
What if someone knows it's wrong, but currently cannot prove it is wrong. An Example. Another Example.
In the meantime, is that person to say, "Oh, the science is right. Oh, I agree with it!"
Or are they to oppose it, and express their view as to why it is wrong? Is that person anti-science because they do so?

You've got that question backwards. What possible reason should I have to believe the Bible is reliable at all?

On an evidentiary basis, I find it no more credible than any other Near Eastern creation myth of the same time frame.

I asked because I wanted to know. Thank you.
What "evidentiary basis" please?

But, we have good evidence they didn't all go extinct 4000 years ago. And we have good evidence that mammoths didn't die out as the result of a sudden catastrophe.

The best evidence available to us shows the the inhabited range and population suze of mammoths declined over a period of at least 20,000 years. A combination of climactic change and predation are though to be responsible.

We also know that mammoths died out in different regions at different times. Evidence from preserved remains shows that mammoths disappeared from Northern Europe somewhere around 3000 to 5000 thousand years before those in North American. And Siberian populations didn't did out until about 1000-2000 years later still.

The final known population - an isolated reproductive group in Wangel Island - may have died out suddenly about ~3700 years ago. But, even then there's no good evidence to support the proposition that a global flood was responsible for their extinction.

So, there is no good evidence that mammoth went extinct around 4,000 years ago, as stated by www.nationalgeographic.com - Around 4,000 years ago, the very last woolly mammoths perished and forever relegated the species to extinction., and there is no good evidence of a global flood, but there is good evidence mammoth "may have died out about ~3700 years ago".

You do not realize how you just supported everything I said.
You are willing to accept one claim of evidence, that uses the phrase "may have", over another claim.
Thank you.

But, we have no evidence of a global flood.

Such an event would have produced distinct global population and genetic bottlenecks. There is no evidence of such.
Such an event would have produced a distinct interruptions in human cultures. There's no evidence of that within the last 25,000 years, all the way up to the epipaleolithic-paleolithic boundary. Any older than that and it's not really worth talking about 'cultures' in the same sense.

There is a long series of bottlenecks recognized by scientists.
Sorry archive.org is down, but you can search for "Heredity and Human Life - 1963 by Hampton L. Carson.

Why Do Genes Suggest Most Men Died Off 7,000 Years Ago?

Modern men's genes suggest that something peculiar happened 5,000 to 7,000 years ago: Most of the male population across Asia, Europe and Africa seems to have died off, leaving behind just one man for every 17 women.​

​

This so-called population "bottleneck" was first proposed in 2015, and since then, researchers have been trying to figure out what could've caused it. One hypothesis held that the drop-off in the male population occurred due to ecological or climatic factors that mainly affected male offspring, while another idea suggested that the die-off happened because some males had more power in society, and thus produced more children.​

​

Now, a new paper, published May 25 in the journal Nature Communications, offers yet another explanation: People living in patrilineal clans (consisting of males from the same descent) might have fought with each other, wiping out entire male lineages at a time. [Image Gallery: Our Closest Human Ancestor]​

Something Weird Happened to Men 7,000 Years Ago, And We Finally Know Why

Around 7,000 years ago - all the way back in the Neolithic - something really peculiar happened to human genetic diversity. Over the next 2,000 years, and seen across Africa, Europe and Asia, the genetic diversity of the Y chromosome collapsed, becoming as though there was only one man for every 17 women.​

Once upon a time, 4,000 to 8,000 years after humanity invented agriculture, something very strange happened to human reproduction. Across the globe, for every 17 women who were reproducing, passing on genes that are still around today—only one man did the same.

Of course, these inferences, and again, assumptions leading to years in history, cannot be verified.
There is no reason to accept them as facts.
Notice, I do not accept one over the other, just because it does support my view.

I am certainly not dishonest, but simply showing why the view I accept is indeed feasible.

 

[CoreyD]

There's so much wrong here, I'm going to touch only an a few points.

I'm very much a Lover of God. And the Earth from my experience can not lie being made by the hand of God. So when stories from an ancient middle-eastern desert tribe are brought forward into today's world, I have to look at what the Earth itSelf, as created by God, is actually showing us. That doesn't take God out of the picture, but it sure questions those ancient stories in a major way.


Your quite wrong there. Geology of floods are well understood. If there is no evidence of a global flood, especially one that was suppose to happen only 4000 years ago, there was no global flood.


As I mentioned above, the geology of floods are well understood. There's not really much difference in interpretation these days. When it comes to floods geology, interpretation isn't a problem. The only difference geologist might have would be water rate and flow or how many times not unlike the Ice Age Floods in the Pacific Northwest. The depth is easy to interpret. The physical geology left behind tells the story. When it comes to the physical story of a global Noah flood...there simply is no physical evidence of said flood.

When going through the paper and as I read this part I was pretty blown away at his ignorance of glaciers and moraine rocks that the author exhibited. He clearly had not visited nor studied glaciers. His focus is archaeology which is the focus of most of the paper, but clearly not geology. Moraine's are only found at the edge of ice flows. Google "Foothills Erratic Train" for a 580 mile long example.


I'm also wondering how the author would approach the more than 350 lava flows of Columbia River Basalt groups, also here in the Pacific North West, with the same ignorance of geology as he's shown in the paper.

As I said, I am no geologist.
Any arguments against the geological evidence presented, you will need to take up with those presenting the evidence.
There is a way to do this, especially on www.academia.edu.
I've done that before.

 

[CoreyD]

This may be off topic, but the biblical account of Noah's flood is illogical. Here's Genesis 6:

5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. (RSV)

If God is omniscient--and knows everything that has or will happen--why would God be grieved by the wickedness of mankind? It makes no sense that--except for one man and his family-- an all-knowing, supreme God would be shocked by the bad behavior of his own creation. The only logical explanation as I see it, is that this is an origin myth like many others, in may other religious faiths.

That is a good question, which you will have to take up with those who believe that God "knows everything that has or will happen".
That is not the view of every person professing to believe the Bible.
I believe that while God has the ability to know everything, God exercises that ability according to his will. There are some things God has not chosen to know, and some things God chose to know.
This is supported by the fact that the Bible records things that God did not, and does not know.

So, what is your reason for saying the biblical account of the flood of Noah's day is illogical, to one who does not believe in God foreknowing everything?

 

[CoreyD]

The 6 days of creation were not all 24 hour days, as the Sun was not created till day 4.
The sun as we all know, is responsible for 24 hour timing.
hence the first 3 - 3.5 days were not timeable, or at least were not 24 hours
In fact these 3 -3.5 days are near eternal and are experienced again by the Lord in his descension, and the 2 witnesses.

Do you believe some of those six days were twenty-four (24) hours, while some were not?

 

[CoreyD]

I think more along the lines of geological showings than philosophical.

I just used a basic reference.

Observation beyond our eyes - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

Scientists analyze and interpret data in order to figure out how those data inform their hypotheses and theories. Do they support one idea over others, help refute an idea, or suggest an entirely new explanation? Though data may seem complex and be represented by detailed graphs or complex statistical analyses, it’s important to remember that, at the most basic level, they are simply observations.

Observations inspire, lend support to, and help refute scientific hypotheses and theories. However, theories and hypotheses (the fundamental structures of scientific knowledge) cannot be directly read off of nature. ...
Scientific knowledge is built as people come up with hypotheses and theories, repeatedly test them against observations of the natural world, and continue to refine those explanations based on new ideas and observations. Observations are essential to the process of science, but they are only part of the picture.

Can you explain, please, how you understand this?