Why a Global Flood is Impossible

Punchy said:

Did you read the article by Hugh Ross?

Click to expand...

I read what was posted. It's the same "translational error" excuse that has failed every other time I've heard it. But I'll try to take the time to read the article from the link.

Punchy said:

Even if we aren't able to explain all the details, the historical record at least shows that the flood occurred.

Click to expand...

The recorded accounts by people show that a flood occurred -- but not a global flood as is clearly set forth in the Bible. We can also find a written historical record of sea monsters, ships falling off the edge of the Earth and the existence of a monster in Loch Ness. That doesn't quite close the case on those matters.

But as concerns the flood, we are able to explain the details. We just can't explain them credibly and retain the belief that God caused the flood and then caused men to write about it. What you can or can't retain depends upon your agenda. If you're insistent that God does exist, did cause the flood and inspired men to write about the flood, then you must give up the credibility and the details. If you're insistent that the account and evidence must all come together cohesively, then you must give up the idea that God caused the flood and caused men to write about it.

Punchy said:

On a related note, we may not be able to prove who shot John F. Kennedy, but we know that he was assassinated.

Click to expand...

And if we move back to step one and remove some rather flawed assumptions in the investigation process, we'd find some far more plausible scenarios than that officially provided.

Punchy said:

God can, after all, do anything. If He can give sight to the blind, God can flood the earth. If He can turn water into wine, God can flood the earth. If He can conquer death, you guessed it, God can flood the earth.

Click to expand...

And of course, God has not been demonstrated to have done any of these things or anything else, for that matter.

But you do exemplify my point. You springboard from an assumption which is not only without evidence, but quite contrary to much of the evidence. You're attempting to demonstrate validity to the Bible by using the Bible. I can demonstrate validity to Superman by using a Superman Comic Book. For credible validity, you have to go beyond the source you're investigating. Any written document can do nothing but proclaim it's accounts to be correct.

When we look to reality for confirmation of the Bible, we find confirmation that the Bible is what we know it to be -- the writing of men who were unaware of the operation of much or the world around them. This lack of understanding caused them to believe things which we today, can know aren't true. But for any of this to occur, we must first be ready to accept the truth even if we don't like the truth.

Beastt said:

Which exemplifies my point. You springboard from an assumption which is not only without evidence, but quite contrary to much of the evidence. You're attempting to demonstrate validity to the Bible by using the Bible. I can demonstrate validity to Superman by using a Superman Comic Book. For credible validity, you have to go beyond the source you're investigating. Any written document can do nothing but proclaim it's accounts to be correct.

Click to expand...

The preponderance of evidence shows that Jesus of Nazareth is more likely than not the Son of God. And as God incarnate, His words on the authority of Scripture are trustworthy and true.

Articles: Historical Jesus
Writings from William Lane Craig on the Historical Jesus.
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html

Peace.

Punchy said:

The preponderance of evidence shows that Jesus of Nazareth is more likely than not the Son of God. And as God incarnate, His words on the authority of Scripture are trustworthy and true.

Articles: Historical Jesus
Writings from William Lane Craig on the Historical Jesus.
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html

Peace.

Click to expand...

Interesting link. I am going to definitely read through this as time permits. I will make the major caveat to point I have barely skimmed this link, but the first thing I noted is that in the link is a link from Dr. Wm.Lane Craig's Evidence for Jesus.

I like the part where he says:

Craig said:

This doesn’t mean that there aren’t sources outside the Bible which refer to Jesus. There are. He’s referred to in pagan, Jewish, and Christian writings outside the New Testament. The Jewish historian Josephus is especially interesting.

Click to expand...

Wow, Dr. Craig is going against what many theologians and historians think, apparently. Many people believe the Josephus comments were actually forgeries added in much later. Certainly the representation of Jesus as messiah.

Then Dr. Craig goes on to say that the tomb of Caiphus has been found and some archaeological evidence of Pilate! Wow!

So if I find Joseph Smith's grave will you agree that Mormonism the ONLY TRUE version of Christianity? Hey, wait, what if I find a house that used to be home of L. Ron Hubbard! Are you a scientologist???

If not, why not?

Then there's this gem in Dr. Craig's article:

Dr. Craig said:

Sceptical scholars almost always assume that the gospels are guilty until proven innocent, that is, they assume that the gospels are unreliable unless and until they are proven to be correct concerning some particular fact. I’m not exaggerating here: this really is the procedure of sceptical critics.

Click to expand...

WOW! Whoulda thunk that people would use the NULL HYPOTHESIS?

How DARE they! It's irrational! It's always best to assume amazing miracles and incredible stories are true until disproven!

Clearly Dr. Craig earned his doctorate the hard way...by avoiding anything like "learning", "philosphy classes" and "science". Maybe "Logic" wasn't required in the core curriculum for his D.Theol.

BUT, to be fair, I will have to digest this and other parts of this link. Thanks for passing it along.

Punchy said:

The preponderance of evidence shows that Jesus of Nazareth is more likely than not the Son of God.

Click to expand...

The preponderance of evidence, last time I checked, was a few letters and some biographies. All of which could have been written by people under the misguided impression that Jesus was the son of God. Given that miracles are never observed, what is more likely: that they were made up, or rather, written down from rumours, or that they actually happened?

Punchy said:

The preponderance of evidence shows that Jesus of Nazareth is more likely than not the Son of God. And as God incarnate, His words on the authority of Scripture are trustworthy and true.

Click to expand...

That's a bit like saying that the preponderance of evidence shows that rainbows are more likely than not the markings left by Leprechauns so they won't forget where they've hidden their pots of gold. And I apologize for anyone who takes offense at the comparison but it is necessary to illustrate how completely incorrect the statement concerning Jesus actually is.

Can we demonstrate that Leprechauns actually exist? Can we demonstrate a link between Leprechauns and rainbows? Can we show that pots of gold can be found hidden at the end points of rainbows? If the answer to all of these things is no, then there can be no credible claim that the objective evidence even attempts to support the original assertion.

Likewise; can we demonstrate that God actually exists? Can we demonstrate that Jesus, the supposed son of God actually existed and wasn't a conglomeration of several historical characters with some pagan god-myths mixed in? Can we demonstrate conclusively that the Bible is anything more than the writings of the ancient men thought to have recorded the words and not simply another among the large collection of books all purporting exactly the same claim of having been the inspired word of a supreme entity?

If the answer to these questions is no (and it's fairly obvious that it is), then there is no rational or credible claim to be made that the evidence even lightly insinuates that Jesus may have been the son of the Christian God who may or may not exist. You can't assert that Jesus is shown by the preponderance of evidence, to be the son of God when you can't yet demonstrate that the preponderance of evidence even allows for the existence of God.

As a rather distant comparison; you can't proclaim that the evidence speaks more heavily for Rudolph being one of Santa's reindeer until you can first demonstrate that Santa actually exists. That's not a belittlement, it's just a comparison.

Simply stating things are a certain way is easy but of no value. You have to explain why they are as you state that they are. If things worked the way it seems to be suggested here, judicial proceedings would be very quick and tidy affairs. The defense counsel would enter the court room, address the judge and simply tell him that the preponderance of evidence shows very clearly a greater likelihood that their client is innocent than guilt. Done! Gavel bangs down on the desk and the accused is acquitted. No comparing of testimonies. No aligning the testimony against the physical evidence to test for discontinuity. Just one statement and the whole thing is brushed off the desk and into the pages of judicial history. It doesn't work that way for very good reason.

The topic is the flood, I believe. I'm more than willing to work through the rest of this point by point, but perhaps we should keep that for another thread.

AV1611VET said:

I don't know if this will answer your question, as I really didn't quite understand it, but as has been pointed out, the animals themselves would have died in groups.

Probably the first to die would be the large lumbersome animals that couldn't escape to high ground fast enough.

Click to expand...

So is that why ground sloths outran velociraptors and flying reptiles?

On the other side of the coin would be the more intelligent and fast animals that could make it to higher ground.

Click to expand...

I guess that explains why Oak trees outran dimetrodon.

Genesis says

6:19 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.

6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
So all the kinds of animals that God had created should have been on the ark to keep them alive.
Let's look at Glenn's point again.

On the genus level the numbers of members of extant mammalian genera in the various geological epochs is:
oldest
Triassic there are 4 genera--no living members
Jurassic 43 genera-no living members
Cretaceous 36 genera-no living members
Paleocene 213 genera-no living members
Eocene 569 genera-3 extant genera
Oligocene 494 genera 11 extant genera
Miocene 749 genera 57 extant genera
Pliocene 762 genera 133 extant genera
Pleistocene 830 genera 417 extant genera
youngest

Above is the list again ordered from oldest to youngest layers. When we look at Triassic sedimentary layers in addtion to dinosaurs specific to the Triassic we find the remains of 4 mammalian genera. When we look at Jurassic deposits we the remains of 43 mammalian genera. When we look at Cretaceous sediments we look at Cretaceous layers we find the fossil remains of 36 mammalian genera. Supposedly pairs of all these mammalian genera were saved on the ark but not a single one of them is alive today. Why is that?

When we look at Paleocene deposits we find fossils of more than 200 distinct Paleocene Mammals. Their kinds should have been saved on the ark but not a single one of them exists today. Why is that?

When we look at the Eocene we see fossil remains of more than 500 genera of mammals. Their kinds should have been saved on the ark but only 3 are extant today. Why is that? As we get to later epochs we begin to see more survival.

To summarize here the the surviving genera as the number of animals and the percentage of known animals that survived. The percentages are undoubtably much smaller for the Eocene on as there are far more likely to be undiscovered extinct genera compared to undiscovered extant genera.

Epoch Number - % Surviving mammals
Triassic - 0 - 0
Jurassic - 0 - 0
Cretaceous -0 - 0
Paleocene 0 - 0
Eocene 3 - 0.5%
Oligocene 11 - 2.2%
Miocene 57 - 7.5%
Pliocene 133 - 17%
Pleistocene 417 - 50%

So how is that post ark surival is so strongly correlated with where the animals are found in the fossil record?? If they were all on the ark together and all came off together why is that none of the mammalian genera that got buried in Triassic-Paleocene sediments are still around while 50% of Pleistocene mammals are still extant? Is it just a big coincidence that mammalian genera that happened to be buried in lower layers by the flood all happened to die out after the flood while those in layers above the Paleocene show a survival pattern that correlates with where their fossils are found? How do you explain this pattern if all the mammalian "kinds' came off the ark together just 4,500 years ago?

This is just one of a huge number of facts about the world that simply don't fit with a global flood. This why I say that God would had to not only erase all evidence of the flood but also create a massive amount of evidence that it didn't happen.

F.B.

It would appear that the pro-flood argument has run a'ground. I trust it will soon drop anchor, carrying the same tired cargo, in yet another port.

Beastt said:

It would appear that the pro-flood argument has run a'ground. I trust it will soon drop anchor, carrying the same tired cargo, in yet another port.

Click to expand...

Beastt,


Would like to continue very soon as my daughter came down and im spending what little time i have with her whilst she is down.

But if this thread closes off, that`s ok im sure there will plenty of other opportunities and gives you some time rest your tired soul LOL

FishFace said:

Given that miracles are never observed, what is more likely: that they were made up, or rather, written down from rumours, or that they actually happened?

Click to expand...

If you begin with the presupposition that miracles are never observed, how will you ever find the truth? Perhaps you should consider the historical evidence on its own merits, rather than jumping to such undeserved conclusions.

Gentileone said:

Beastt,


Would like to continue very soon as my daughter came down and im spending what little time i have with her whilst she is down.

But if this thread closes off, that`s ok im sure there will plenty of other opportunities and gives you some time rest your tired soul LOL

Click to expand...

Well then, enjoy your visit. As you say, there is rarely a shortage of flood threads.

Punchy said:

If you begin with the presupposition that miracles are never observed, how will you ever find the truth? Perhaps you should consider the historical evidence on its own merits, rather than jumping to such undeserved conclusions.

Click to expand...

What is your evidence that miracles are observed?

Well miracles are observed. And there is just about every scientific explanation for every miracle in the Bible just as well as other religions.

KTatis said:

Well miracles are observed. And there is just about every scientific explanation for every miracle in the Bible just as well as other religions.

Click to expand...

If there's a scientific explanation, they wouldn't be miracles, wouldn't they?

KTatis said:

Well miracles are observed. And there is just about every scientific explanation for every miracle in the Bible just as well as other religions.

Click to expand...

Okay...

I asked what your evidence is that miracles are observed. You responded by saying that they are observed. Does that mean you don't have any evidence to support your assertion?

I was watching a documentary called The Exodus Decoded and they explained the 10 pleages of Egypt including the parting of the red see. OBSERVED!!

KTatis said:

I was watching a documentary called The Exodus Decoded and they explained the 10 pleages of Egypt including the parting of the red see. OBSERVED!!

Click to expand...

Then link us, please. There must be entire journals dedicated to the Exodus, now that it's official.

MrGoodBytes said:

Then link us, please. There must be entire journals dedicated to the Exodus, now that it's official.

Click to expand...

http://theexodusdecoded.com/index1.jsp

The Exodus Decoded is a 2006 documentary created by Jewish Canadian filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici, in which new evidence regarding the alleged escape of Hebrew slaves from Egypt is explored. It is partially narrated by film director James Cameron, and also features input by Charles Pellegrino, author of Unearthing Atlantis. Jacobovici suggests that the Exodus took place around 1500 BCE during the reign of pharaoh Ahmose I, and coincided with the eruption of Santorini that most scholars believe ended the Minoan civilization, although this is usually dated to 1623 BCE (+/-30). In the documentary, the plagues that ravaged Egypt in the Bible are explained as having resulted from that volcanic eruption, and a related limnic eruption in the Nile Delta. While much of Jacobovici's archaeological evidence for the Exodus comes from Egypt, a surprising quantity comes from Mycenae, on mainland Greece.
The documentary made extensive use of computer animation and visual effects made by Gravity visual effects from Toronto. It ran for two hours and was first aired in Canada on April 16, (Easter Day) 2006 (Discovery Channel Canada). Shown in the US on August 20, 2006 (History Channel US), UK on December 23, 2006 (Discovery Channel UK) and Spain on December 25, 2006 (Cuatro).

Egyptian archaeological evidence

• The Hyksos Expulsion, contemporaneous Egyptian records of the departure of the mysterious Semitic Hyksos people. Jacobovici suggests that the Hyksos and the Hebrews were one and the same, a thesis he supports with Egyptian-style signet rings uncovered in the Hyksos capital of Avaris (30°47'14.71"N, 31°49'16.92"E) that read "Yakov/Yakub ," (from Yaqub-her) similar to the Hebrew name of the Biblical patriarch Jacob (Ya'aqov).

• The Ahmose stele, a stone tablet unearthed in Karnak by Henri Chevalier at an unknown exact date over 100 years ago.[1]In it, a god incurs one of the same plagues described in the Biblical account (darkness, also described as "a great storm"). The Exodus Decoded official website quotes the stele, "How much greater is this the impressive manifestation of the great God, than the plans of the gods!" This translation was, however, based on a note taken by Chevalier when the stele was found, in the early stages of hieroglyphic translation. They also state that they saw, on a copy of the stele, a section that refers to "parting water". This was shown, however, to be pronounced "mee", an alternate spelling of an ancient word for wine.[2]

• Ahmose I. Jacobovici suggests that the name of the Pharaoh at the time of the Exodus may have been a pun(paronomasia). Jacobovici states that in Hebrew, the Egyptian name Ahmose would mean "Brother of Moses." The documentary also examines the mummy of Ahmose's son, Sapair, who appears to have died at the age of twelve. In the Bible, the pharaoh loses a son to the Plague of the Firstborn, although Jewish tradition says that the son of Pharaoh survived. Also, the name of Ahmose I was mispronounced in the documentary. In the documentary it was pronounced "ĀḤKH-mōsay", when it is actually pronounced "Ā-mōs". Also, while the Egyptian mos can become Mošə in Hebrew, it cannot happen in the reverse.[citation needed] The Egyptian "s" corresponds to the Hebrew "š" ("sh") when transliterating from Egyptian, however, in the reverse, "š" stays the same.[3]

• Serabit el-Khadim turquoise mine, a labor camp in the Sinai with a Semitic alphabetic inscription that reads "O El, save me from these mines." The use of "El" suggests that it was written before the revelation at Sinai, supporting the thesis that Hebrews were enslaved in Egypt, although this inscription was undated. It has been noted, however, that Hebrews were never used in the mines, and that the labor force was solely Egyptian.

Does Exodus decoded account for the fact that thousands of Jews wandering around in a desert left behind no trace? Or was that a miracle?

FishFace said:

Does Exodus decoded account for the fact that thousands of Jews wandering around in a desert left behind no trace? Or was that a miracle?

Click to expand...

Lol... no not really but it wasn't a miracle.