Thin layer of silt proves flood

Subduction Zone · Mar 29, 2020

essentialsaltes said:
That is illogical. Utnapishtim and his family passed the stories on generation to generation. Nothing unusual about that. Other cultures picked up on the flood stories. As happens still, a bit of mythology got mixed in with some accounts. Ea ensured that we have a record of what really happened. It's called the Gilgamesh Epic.

Like many myths the stories that inspired the Noah's Ark story were probably based upon a real event. There was a very large flood in the Tigris/Euphrates system. Though nowhere near covering the whole world it would have been large enough that it was possible for someone on a boat in the middle of it would not be able to see the land. In other words to the person on the boat it would look as if all of the land was covered:

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth | National Center for Science Education

"Effects of the Curvature of the Earth
Because of the curvature of the earth, the horizon drops from where the viewer is standing. However, the drop is proportional to the square of the distance between the viewer and an object on the horizon (Young nd). From these relationships, it can be seen that a tribal chief (or Noah) standing on the deck of a large boat (Ark), perhaps 7.8 meters above the water,would not be able to see the tops of any hills as high as 15 m from as little as 24 km away across flood plains covered with water because the curvature of the earth prevents it (See the Appendix for examples of calculations). Most hills in this region that are as much as 15 m high are more than 95 km away from the river levees. Therefore, the survivors of the Flood could see only water in all directions while they were floating down the Tigris River and over the flood plains. Many of these hills would also be partly covered with water which would make their tops project less above the water level, and therefore, the curvature of the earth would make them disappear from the line of sight in even a shorter distance than 24 km.

Northeast and southwest of the nearly flat surface that contains the two rivers, the topography rises to more than 455 m in Saudi Arabia and in Iran. Calculations show that elevations of 455 m high cannot be seen beyond 86 km away, and these places are more than 160 km from the Euphrates or Tigris Rivers. Therefore, none of the high country in Saudi Arabia or Iran would be visible to a tribal chief (or Noah). On that basis, the "whole world" would definitely appear to be covered with water during the Flood, and that was the "whole world" for the people in this part of southeastern Mesopotamia at that time."

Subduction Zone · Mar 29, 2020

ZNP said:
The only claim I have made is that to fulfill the requirements of the Noah flood you need several criteria filled, nowhere did I claim there could not have been other floods similar in magnitude. So stating that the Missoula floods were a number of floods over a tens of thousands of years does not in any way dispute any of that.

There are 3 key components

1. Worldwide flood -- there are no meteorological events that are worldwide. Instead hurricanes, typhoons, tsunamis are all localized. However, the meteorite striking the Indian ocean, vaporizing water that then goes into the stratosphere, circling the earth and then returning as rain would be a truly worldwide event.

Yes, but it would only be rain. There is no reason think it would be a "flood".

2. Flood coming over the top of the highest mountains 40 feet deep. This has been confirmed.

Where?

3. A boat that holds lots of animals preventing them from becoming extinct. I am not aware of any physical evidence of this boat yet though I have seen various claims to evidence including photographs. There is also significant evidence of some event that caused massive extinctions on 6 continents virtually simultaneously.

The problem is that we know this did not happen. Let's see if you answered my question.

Now I am not aware of any mathematical models that can be used to predict how much water went into the stratosphere or how long it would take for this water to return as precipitation.

I am also not aware of any techniques that we have that could predict these events to a precise year, even to a precise decade. Requiring this proof is bogus because scientists don't have the ability to do that.

At the moment the evidence we have is that the description given in Noah's account or many other accounts is plausible.

No, there is no evidence that it is plausible. None at all. And I see that you did not answer my question. You should have. The "missing a kidney" story if understood refutes the flood story as well.

ZNP · Mar 29, 2020

Subduction Zone said:
No, there is no evidence that it is plausible. None at all. And I see that you did not answer my question. You should have. The "missing a kidney" story if understood refutes the flood story as well.

This is the issue I have with the Deniars of the flood. There are hundreds of independent accounts, yet they are so smug and arrogant as to dismiss all of them.

There are questions that no one has yet answered about the extinction event that caused hundreds of species on 6 continents to go extinct. Yet these deniers will guarantee it wasn't due to the flood even though it is clearly part of the story. So even though they don't know what caused it they know for a fact it wasn't what all the witnesses to the event tell us it was.

The deniers come up with logical arguments, no meteorological event that is worldwide, no flood that covered the highest mountains, etc. When these arguments are proven false it doesn't cause them to reassess which is what any honest scientist would do, no they just bring up new and even less scientific arguments like you have to prove that all of these events happened the same year even though scientists have no tool at their disposal which could do that.

Subduction Zone · Mar 29, 2020

ZNP said:
This is the issue I have with the Deniars of the flood. There are hundreds of independent accounts, yet they are so smug and arrogant as to dismiss all of them.

No, there are hundreds of different myths. That is to be expected. Floods happen. Cultures have myths about significant events that happen. They are very weak evidence for the flood.

There are questions that no one has yet answered about the extinction event that caused hundreds of species on 6 continents to go extinct. Yet these deniers will guarantee it wasn't due to the flood even though it is clearly part of the story. So even though they don't know what caused it they know for a fact it wasn't what all the witnesses to the event tell us it was.

So what? Unanswered questions are not evidence. And again, they are extinction events that occurred at different times. That is actually evidence against the flood since the flood would predict that all extinctions would have occurred simultaneously.

The deniers come up with logical arguments, no meteorological event that is worldwide, no flood that covered the highest mountains, etc. When these arguments are proven false it doesn't cause them to reassess which is what any honest scientist would do, no they just bring up new and even less scientific arguments like you have to prove that all of these events happened the same year even though scientists have no tool at their disposal which could do that.

Please, no name calling. If anything it is the flood believers that are deniers since they have to deny biology, geology, and physics. Probably chemistry as well. And none of the claims were shown to be false. That is an empty claim of yours. I asked how they were shown to be wrong and you never even came close to supporting your claim.

Lastly what arguments of mine are not scientific? That is your flaw, not mine.

Speedwell · Mar 29, 2020

ZNP said:
This is the issue I have with the Deniars of the flood. There are hundreds of independent accounts, yet they are so smug and arrogant as to dismiss all of them.

There are questions that no one has yet answered about the extinction event that caused hundreds of species on 6 continents to go extinct. Yet these deniers will guarantee it wasn't due to the flood even though it is clearly part of the story. So even though they don't know what caused it they know for a fact it wasn't what all the witnesses to the event tell us it was.

The deniers come up with logical arguments, no meteorological event that is worldwide, no flood that covered the highest mountains, etc. When these arguments are proven false it doesn't cause them to reassess which is what any honest scientist would do, no they just bring up new and even less scientific arguments like you have to prove that all of these events happened the same year even though scientists have no tool at their disposal which could do that.

I have lost track of what it is you are trying to demonstrate.

That there was a large regional flood of some kind (the Black Sea flood, for example, or the Persian Gulf flood) during which an individual built a barge or raft on which he saved his family, his domestic animals and perhaps a selection of local wild fauna; that this event was the basis of the Noah story in the Bible and of other ANE flood legends?

Or are you trying to demonstrate that the Noah story in the Bible is an accurate historical account of that event?

Those are two very different tasks and have to be approached differently. Demonstrating the first proposition will really bring you no closer to demonstrating the second.

ZNP · Mar 29, 2020

Speedwell said:
I have lost track of what it is you are trying to demonstrate.

"For as the days of Noah were so also shall the coming of the Son of Man be". Think about this, how impossible is this prophecy if Noah never happened in the first place. How can the end of the age be like the days of Noah if there never was a Noah? Yet 2,000 years later there is a very clear comparison, not with the age of Noah, but with the "Days of Noah".

What were the key days? Surely the day that Noah learned that there would be a flood and that he needed to build a boat. Then the day when they all entered the boat, the day when it started to rain, etc. We also have had that day where we realized we are in the midst of the 6th great extinction, and there was the day we began to build the ark, a seed bank to try and preserve all the creatures DNA, etc.

You can argue about whether or not there was a Noah's flood, but without the boat you will never conclusively prove this story was true. Likewise, no one can conclusively prove it was false. I see no harm in those who are actively searching for evidence of the flood, on the other hand I do see harm in those who assure everyone that it never happened. Wanting to see evidence is one thing, but assuring people that it never happened when time and time again your "logic" turns out wrong is just darkness. But what is most important to me is that it is a harbinger of the end of the age.

Aussie Pete · Mar 29, 2020

essentialsaltes said:
That is illogical. Utnapishtim and his family passed the stories on generation to generation. Nothing unusual about that. Other cultures picked up on the flood stories. As happens still, a bit of mythology got mixed in with some accounts. Ea ensured that we have a record of what really happened. It's called the Gilgamesh Epic.

I prefer to trust God's account. I've proven God to be faithful for nearly 50 years.

Subduction Zone · Mar 29, 2020

ZNP said:
"For as the days of Noah were so also shall the coming of the Son of Man be". Think about this, how impossible is this prophecy if Noah never happened in the first place. How can the end of the age be like the days of Noah if there never was a Noah? Yet 2,000 years later there is a very clear comparison, not with the age of Noah, but with the "Days of Noah".

What were the key days? Surely the day that Noah learned that there would be a flood and that he needed to build a boat. Then the day when they all entered the boat, the day when it started to rain, etc. We also have had that day where we realized we are in the midst of the 6th great extinction, and there was the day we began to build the ark, a seed bank to try and preserve all the creatures DNA, etc.

You can argue about whether or not there was a Noah's flood, but without the boat you will never conclusively prove this story was true. Likewise, no one can conclusively prove it was false. I see no harm in those who are actively searching for evidence of the flood, on the other hand I do see harm in those who assure everyone that it never happened. Wanting to see evidence is one thing, but assuring people that it never happened when time and time again your "logic" turns out wrong is just darkness. But what is most important to me is that it is a harbinger of the end of the age.

Jesus often used literary tools. If a person says "she is as old as the hills" and the woman clearly is not is the person lying? I would say not. Your argument appears to be one that Jesus was not the son of God since we know that there was no Noah.

Subduction Zone · Mar 29, 2020

Aussie Pete said:
I prefer to trust God's account. I've proven God to be faithful for nearly 50 years.

What makes you think that the Bible is "God's account". It was written by men. They may have been "inspired" by God but that in no way implies that the account would be perfect.

Aussie Pete · Mar 29, 2020

Subduction Zone said:
What makes you think that the Bible is "God's account". It was written by men. They may have been "inspired" by God but that in no way implies that the account would be perfect.

I don't "think". It's not my opinion. I know the Bible to be God's word. Men are fallible, God is not. He saw to it that His word was recorded and transmitted correctly, in the languages that were spoken at the time.

Subduction Zone · Mar 29, 2020

Aussie Pete said:
I don't "think". It's not my opinion. I know the Bible to be God's word. Men are fallible, God is not. He saw to it that His word was recorded and transmitted correctly, in the languages that were spoken at the time.

If you actually "know" you can support your claims. You probably have mere belief. I "know" that there was no Flood of Noah and can demonstrate that with evidence. Evidence beats mere belief.

How can you show that the Bible is God's word? How can you show that it was recorded correctly? If you "know" then you can support your claims. That is why understanding the concept of evidence is so important.

Strathos · Mar 30, 2020

Subduction Zone said:
Jesus often used literary tools. If a person says "she is as old as the hills" and the woman clearly is not is the person lying? I would say not. Your argument appears to be one that Jesus was not the son of God since we know that there was no Noah.

Why does the flood not literally covering the entire earth mean that there was no Noah? Noah was a real person who may have lived anywhere from 4000 - 20,000 years ago. Whichever flood he experienced (there are many possible candidates in the geological record) was definitely the end of the world from his perspective.

Subduction Zone · Mar 30, 2020

Strathos said:
Why does the flood not literally covering the entire earth mean that there was no Noah? Noah was a real person who may have lived anywhere from 4000 - 20,000 years ago. Whichever flood he experienced (there are many possible candidates in the geological record) was definitely the end of the world from his perspective.

Because for "Noah" to be at all real we have to shrink the story to the point where his existence does not matter at all. Mankind was never threatened with extinction, nor was all animal life.

What is the point of the Noah story? It is better to treat it as a morality tale and nothing more. To try to make it reality is both bad theology and refuted by the scientific evidence.

Strathos · Mar 30, 2020

Subduction Zone said:
Because for "Noah" to be at all real we have to shrink the story to the point where his existence does not matter at all. Mankind was never threatened with extinction, nor was all animal life.

What is the point of the Noah story? It is better to treat it as a morality tale and nothing more. To try to make it reality is both bad theology and refuted by the scientific evidence.

It is a morality tale. That doesn't mean that it wasn't based on a real event.

Subduction Zone · Mar 30, 2020

Strathos said:
It is a morality tale. That doesn't mean that it wasn't based on a real event.

I don't think you understand the point of a morality tale. Why would you believe that there was any reality to it?

Aussie Pete · Mar 30, 2020

Subduction Zone said:
If you actually "know" you can support your claims. You probably have mere belief. I "know" that there was no Flood of Noah and can demonstrate that with evidence. Evidence beats mere belief.

How can you show that the Bible is God's word? How can you show that it was recorded correctly? If you "know" then you can support your claims. That is why understanding the concept of evidence is so important.

To quote the former slave trader, John Newton, "I was blind but now I see". I was born again shortly before my 21st birthday. I'd never read the Bible. For reasons that you would not understand, I could not read it. How do you describe the stars to someone born totally blind? Those who are not born again are blind spiritually.

You live in the natural realm alone. There is a far higher realm, the spiritual realm. I live physically in the natural realm. I am now alive spiritually so I live in the spiritual realm also. A blind person demand proof that there are such things as stars. The fact that no one can prove it to them just not mean that stars do not exist. I have access to knowledge that you do not. It's available only to those who are spiritually alive.

VirOptimus · Mar 30, 2020

Aussie Pete said:
To quote the former slave trader, John Newton, "I was blind but now I see". I was born again shortly before my 21st birthday. I'd never read the Bible. For reasons that you would not understand, I could not read it. How do you describe the stars to someone born totally blind? Those who are not born again are blind spiritually.

You live in the natural realm alone. There is a far higher realm, the spiritual realm. I live physically in the natural realm. I am now alive spiritually so I live in the spiritual realm also. A blind person demand proof that there are such things as stars. The fact that no one can prove it to them just not mean that stars do not exist. I have access to knowledge that you do not. It's available only to those who are spiritually alive.

So, no support then just empty statements.

Aussie Pete · Mar 30, 2020

VirOptimus said:
So, no support then just empty statements.

If I am right then you are in a great deal of trouble. If I am wrong, so what? I have a wonderful life that I would trade for anything or with anyone. If there is no God, I'll never know. If there is a God, you will have some explaining to do. Many atheists have been converted. A comedian, Jeff Allen, testifies to the reality of God. He was an atheist, and God revealed Himself. Do yourself a favour. Look him up on youtube.

VirOptimus · Mar 30, 2020

Aussie Pete said:
If I am right then you are in a great deal of trouble. If I am wrong, so what? I have a wonderful life that I would trade for anything or with anyone. If there is no God, I'll never know. If there is a God, you will have some explaining to do. Many atheists have been converted. A comedian, Jeff Allen, testifies to the reality of God. He was an atheist, and God revealed Himself. Do yourself a favour. Look him up on youtube.

No I wont.

Pascals wager is a stupid proposition btw.

I dont care about your religious beliefs, but physical reality is what it is.

pitabread · Mar 30, 2020

Aussie Pete said:
If there is a God, you will have some explaining to do.

Not necessarily. Just the assumption of a supernatural being doesn't automatically imply any particular theological belief is correct.

In fact, statistically speaking any individual theological belief is most likely incorrect.

Thin layer of silt proves flood

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

No one important

Regular Member

No one important

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

A nihilist who cares.

Well-Known Member

A nihilist who cares.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads