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

AV1611VET said:

In the case of the aftermath of the Flood:

P1. There was a genetic bottle neck 4K years ago.
P2. God blessed them and told them to replenish the earth.
P3. The earth is populous today.
C. Modus tollens can take a hike.​

Click to expand...

Sorry, that does not explain it. Your story did not happen. That is if God cannot lie.

AV1611VET said:

Key phrase: all of the evidence.

Do you really think you have all of the evidence?

(This is a YES or NO question please.)

Click to expand...

Can I play?

AV: All the evidence indicates that Jesus rose from the dead/earth is the third planet from the sun/Everest is the tallest mountain/The vice president is a woman etc etc
B: Do you really think you have all of the evidence?

(This is a silly question so a YES or NO isn't required).

AV1611VET said:

Key phrase: all of the evidence.

Do you really think you have all of the evidence?

(This is a YES or NO question please.)

Click to expand...

When one reasons rationally one follows the evidence. I do not believe in Bigfoot due to a lack of evidence. Of course we do not have all of the evidence but there is missing evidence that should be there if the flood is true.

Here is an example. Your friend calls you and says that there was a major explosion in your city and that a whole block was leveled. You drive past the block he said was leveled. No sign of explosion. No sign of damage. His claim would have left massive evidence if true. You do not see any. Was your friend telling the truth?

inquiring mind said:

Sure, I understand. I just wanted to see if you have any actual evidence (indisputable) that the Flood didn't happen.

Click to expand...

The fact that we have uninterrupted records from human civilizations during the commonly cited time periods for the flood is one piece of evidence.

The fact that such a large amount of water would leave very particular traces in the environment, and these traces have never been found is another.

The fact that there would be genetic bottlenecks in every species, yet these bottlenecks have never been found is a third.

Kylie said:

The fact that we have uninterrupted records from human civilizations during the commonly cited time periods for the flood is one piece of evidence.

The fact that such a large amount of water would leave very particular traces in the environment, and these traces have never been found is another.

The fact that there would be genetic bottlenecks in every species, yet these bottlenecks have never been found is a third.

Click to expand...

Modus Tollens for the win, baby!

Kylie said:

The fact that we have uninterrupted records from human civilizations during the commonly cited time periods for the flood is one piece of evidence.

Click to expand...

Yes, but I don't really trust timeframes, neither the pro or con ones.

Kylie said:

The fact that such a large amount of water would leave very particular traces in the environment, and these traces have never been found is another.

Click to expand...

Yes, but like I said earlier, this was a cataclysm like no other and we can't imagine the dynamics involved.

Kylie said:

The fact that there would be genetic bottlenecks in every species, yet these bottlenecks have never been found is a third.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm not going to discuss bottle necks any more. Every time I do, I'm asked if I know what they are.

inquiring mind said:

Yes, but I don't really trust timeframes, neither the pro or con ones.

Click to expand...

It does not matter if you trust them or not. That does not stop others from knowing that the flood never happened. You may choose to remain in self inflicted ignorance or you could try to find out how we know that those time frames are reliable.

Yes, but like I said earlier, this was a cataclysm like no other and we can't imagine the dynamics involved.

Click to expand...

This is just nonsensical handwaving using terms that you do not understand. The "dynamics" would not affect radiometric dating for example. Not unless you killed Noah and family first. The conditions needed to affect radiometric dating are beyond "cataclysmic".

Sorry, I'm not going to discuss bottle necks any more. Every time I do, I'm asked if I know what they are.

Click to expand...

You could try to learn what they are. Your posts tell us that you do not understand the concept.

A simple question:

Why are tales of waking up in a seedy hotel bathtub filled with ice and missing a kidney a myth?

Tinker Grey said:

Modus Tollens for the win, baby!

Click to expand...

They say absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I say that absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence if that evidence should be there.

inquiring mind said:

Yes, but I don't really trust timeframes, neither the pro or con ones.

Click to expand...

However, if we are to take the position that there was a global flood, then it must have happened at some point in time.

Yes, but like I said earlier, this was a cataclysm like no other and we can't imagine the dynamics involved.

Click to expand...

There's no reason to think that what we know about large flooding events would not also apply to a global flood.

Sorry, I'm not going to discuss bottle necks any more. Every time I do, I'm asked if I know what they are.

Click to expand...

Why are you asked this?

inquiring mind said:

Can the Flood actually be disproved, or is it just generally accepted scientific reasoning?

Click to expand...

In the sciences, your hypothesis needs evidence to support it along with being potentially falsifiable via testing (if X occurred, then you'd expect to find Y). Otherwise there's no reason to accept it, even if there are no other candidate explanations.

In the case of the Noachian flood, much of the early history of geology involved individuals trying to find evidence that earth's landscapes and geologic strata were the result of such an event. This was the underlying assumption that geology worked on the pretty much all of the 18th century and the early part of the 19th.

However, as research continued, it became apparent that there evidence presented by nature didn't support a single, massive event shaping the surface of the earth and the geological column. The Noachian Flood became untenable as a hypothesis sometime around the 1830s/1840s because the evidence being found didn't support it, and other hypotheses had better support.

There were a range of competing theories that began to be developed over the second half of the 18th century to try and better explain what was being observed. Neptunism, plutonism, gradualism, catastrophism, diluvialsim, gap creationism, glaciation and so on. Some of these were efforts to keep God's end in (so to speak), but even these were progressively abandoned by academic/professional geologists through the latter half of the 19th century.

However, it's important to remember that there remained a strong overlap between religion and the sciences during the first half of the 19th century. So the 'naturalist clergy' and 'scriptural geologists' (religious ministers with some scientific credentials) made a real push in the 1820s through 1830s to try and resurrect a literalist view. By the 1850s though, this had been pretty much abandoned, even in the popular scientific press of the time.

Kylie said:

However, if we are to take the position that there was a global flood, then it must have happened at some point in time.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm hoping to learn that from Subduction Zone.

Kylie said:

There's no reason to think that what we know about large flooding events would not also apply to a global flood.

Click to expand...

My goodness, the earth was torn apart... what do we know?

Kylie said:

Why are you asked this?

Click to expand...

I don't know, but I've added it to my 'do not discuss' list. So far, it includes quantum physics and genetic bottlenecks.

inquiring mind said:

I don't know, but I've added it to my 'do not discuss' list. So far, it includes quantum physics and genetic bottlenecks.

Click to expand...

What's wrong with discussing Quantum Physics?
It's a delightful subject and helps keep families together.

inquiring mind said:

My goodness, the earth was torn apart... what do we know?

Click to expand...

This is not exactly a statement that supports your position, it it...

You're right. It's meant to have been a cataclysmic event that flooded the whole planet in a matter of days, just a few thousand years ago. And there's no evidence?

Bradskii said:

This is not exactly a statement that supports your position, it it...

Click to expand...

Ha, but you know what I meant.

Bradskii said:

You're right. It's meant to have been a cataclysmic event that flooded the whole planet in a matter of days, just a few thousand years ago. And there's no evidence?

Click to expand...

I get the feeling you guys have me catagorized as a YEC.

driewerf said:

Sodium acetate?

Click to expand...

Sodium acetate.

Bradskii said:

View attachment 298446

Click to expand...

I love that picture. I always have.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and that one is a winner.

I wish I had a framed one; I would put it on my wall, next to my framed printout of Psalm 19.

Subduction Zone said:

Here is an example. Your friend calls you and says that there was a major explosion in your city and that a whole block was leveled. You drive past the block he said was leveled. No sign of explosion. No sign of damage. His claim would have left massive evidence if true. You do not see any. Was your friend telling the truth?

Click to expand...

If the block was missing, I don't need to see rubble.

In the example you gave though, the block is still there -- so no, my friend wasn't telling the truth.

The point I'm getting at in mentioning evidence you don't have, is that I believe it is on Neptune.

So no, you don't have all the evidence: it is on Neptune.

Or thereabouts.

myst33 said:

Exactly, my point. They did not have the word, because they did not have even the concept of it. For them, the whole world was "from sea to sea". And outside of their known world were "lions" or "dragons" or, said less mythologically, chaos. Some uncivilized, unknown areas they were not interested in.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what their personal understanding was, this is God's word to us not a man's word to us. When the Bible says all life under the heavens it means all life on the earth. The land was one landmass at that time.

Earth scientists are showing ever increasing interest in Australian indigenous oral traditions.
One of the oldest examples of oral tradition on the planet is from the Riratjingu people from the Northern Territory.
If accurate it may refer the initial population of Australia via island hopping in the geologically unstable region of Wallacea 60,000+ years ago when sea levels were low.

At the other end of the scale there are oral traditions pertaining to floods.
Answers in Genesis attempts to claim 'similarities' between the flood and indigenous oral traditions.
There is a glaring problem; the oral traditions do not refer to a single flood but a number of floods dating 7500 to 13,400 years ago.

sjastro said:

There is a glaring problem; the oral traditions do not refer to a single flood but a number of floods dating 7500 to 13,400 years ago.

Click to expand...

Don't worry. I don't believe them either.