What do you all think about this paper/article?

[AV1611VET]

I'll say this much:

For a man who has a one-syllable name (Noah), he sure turns the academic world upside down and inside out, doesn't he?

Even to the point where they give up and say he never existed.

Acadennis: What say we call it a fable, turn out the lights, and go home?
Stevence: Good idea! I'm already having nightmares over peanut butter!

 

[Hans Blaster]

One small problem:

The universe didn't exist in 9500 BC.

Perhaps not, but the claim isn't about the Universe, it is about Anatolia. Anatolia existed in 9500 BCE.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps not, but the claim isn't about the Universe, it is about Anatolia. Anatolia existed in 9500 BCE.

9500 BCE is only a term on paper.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

By "depicted," do you mean "as documented," or do you mean with a LOT of the story edited out?

Sure -- it's a no-brainer that Mother Nature cannot orchestrate a world-wide flood.

And science can certainly bear that out.

But science can't filter out God talking to Noah, Noah building the Ark, and so on and so forth.

Science edits all that out, then claims the Flood could not have occurred as documented.

And I call bologna on their attempts.

If you want to stick with your claim that "multiple fields of scientific study has findings that refute that such a flood could have taken place as depicted in the bible," then I challenge -- I double challenge -- you to show me.

But make sure it's the WHOLE STORY, not just half of it.

See. Just making stuff up on top of the fiction already written down. Not even sticking to the actual biblical narrative. I've said before that you guys really need to have a sit down and hash all this stuff out before you go around trying to tell all of us unbelievers we're wrong.

Go work it out.

 

[AV1611VET]

See. Just making stuff up on top of the fiction already written down. Not even sticking to the actual biblical narrative. I've said before that you guys really need to have a sit down and hash all this stuff out before you go around trying to tell all of us unbelievers we're wrong.

You unbelievers are wrong.

And I double challenge you to come up with a single scientific discipline that uses the whole story -- (not just part of the story) -- to say it couldn't have happened as documented.

Anyone can claim the Red Sea just doesn't part and allow people through it on dry land.

Show me it didn't happen as documented though.

And THAT is what science cannot do.

Go work it out.

Work what out?

You have enough information documented in Genesis 7-9 to make a judgement call.

Either show solid evidence to back up the whole story as documentd, or stop with the "multiple field" lies of science.

 

[Shemjaza]

I tend to think the flood took place even further in the past. They have dated Gobekli Tepe at around 9500 BC (I understand it's a moving target) and have discovered evidence of petrified sea life, sea shell tools and depictions of sea life at the site.

I think a more likely explanation is that catastrophic floods are a known quantity to any civilisation that exists in a river delta and flood survival is a mythological narrative that could be adopted independently.

Ibanezer, I have a challenge thread from years ago, showing how God overrode the bottleneck effect after the Flood.

Would you like me to hunt it up for you?

If one of the attributes of the situation is direct miraculous intervention then literally anything is possible and it's not really worth investigating in detail

If God is both all powerful and mysterious there's no reason he couldn't make a world 6000 years ago, destroy it with water 4500 years ago then rapidly repair the physical and genetic damage while leaving traces consistent with a world with 4.5 billion years of events... but it would be weird.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think a more likely explanation is that catastrophic floods are a known quantity to any civilisation that exists in a river delta and flood survival is a mythological narrative that could be adopted independently.

Do you mind taking a look at question #1 in Post 28?

You don't have to answer it; just take a look at it?

I think it's a good point.

Science tends to override miracles in the Bible by projecting uniformitarian values into the story.

You get an area with ten local floods.

Then suddenly a worldwide flood.

Then about ten more local floods.

And sure enough, academia will claim all twenty-one floods were local, and flood #11 was exaggerated.

 

[Shemjaza]

Do you mind taking a look at question #1 in Post 28?

You don't have to answer it; just take a look at it?

I think it's a good point.

Science tends to override miracles in the Bible by projecting uniformitarian values into the story.

You get an area with ten local floods.

Then suddenly a worldwide flood.

Then about ten more local floods.

And sure enough, academia will claim all twenty-one floods were local, and flood #11 was exaggerated.

Obviously any counter evidence can be over written by miracles, but personally I don't find the archaeological/historical narrative convincing.

Even with Babel to muddy the historical waters there strikes me as too many people in too many diverse cultures to have all come from one family who knew the truth sbout the flood in a few of centuries.

 

[Hans Blaster]

9500 BCE is only a term on paper.

I must say I don't get your hatred of paper. Somehow being associated with paper is an insult you like applying to ideas and facts you don't like.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Anyone can claim the Red Sea just doesn't part and allow people through it on dry land.

The Red Sea has been parting for 35 million years separating the dry land of Arabia from the dry land of Africa. And once it parted enough the sea rushed in flooding it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Even with Babel to muddy the historical waters there strikes me as too many people in too many diverse cultures to have all come from one family who knew the truth sbout the flood in a few of centuries.

I blame Nimrod for that.

Just like the Bible account of the Flood is the go-to Document for information; science has its go-to document as well.

It's called the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Favored by academia probably nine out of ten times.

Thus I put together a nice little [fake] conversation to clear this up:

Re: The Epic of Gilgamesh

Shem: What's this trash you wrote, Nimrod; are you okay!?
Nimrod: Don't start on me again, uncle; you've always looked down on us Hamites.
Shem: That's garbage too! You used to be a mighty hunter before the LORD, what went wrong?
Nimrod: You think you Shemites are so much better than us, just because my grandfather was cursed for what his father did to your mother in that tent that day.
Shem: I watched you grow up, Nimrod, and how you used to love the LORD so much; but somewhere along the line you went astray and broke away from the rest of us and went and formed your own little empire. Well ... you do what you want, but as long as I live, I'll make sure my eyewitness testimony trumps your lies.
Nimrod: And what makes you an authority on the Flood over me?
Shem: I was there! Remember??? I was on the Ark ... you weren't!
Nimrod: Oh, that's right ... somehow I forgot ... what with there being no evidence and all.
Shem: [facepalms]

 

[AV1611VET]

I must say I don't get your hatred of paper.

LOL

You can't see the forest for the treeware, can you?

 

[AV1611VET]

The Red Sea has been parting for 35 million years ...

No, it hasn't.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

You unbelievers are wrong.

And I double challenge you to come up with a single scientific discipline that uses the whole story -- (not just part of the story) -- to say it couldn't have happened as documented.

Anyone can claim the Red Sea just doesn't part and allow people through it on dry land.

Show me it didn't happen as documented though.

And THAT is what science cannot do.

LOL, nope. That's not how that works, AV. You haven't shown that what you're claiming happened, whatever miracles exactly they were, actually happened. You literally just say so with no evidence at all, and then smugly proclaim everyone else wrong, "myopic", can "take a hike." No.

Work what out?

Work it out with others who believe as you do, but not quite. There are plenty of Holy Spirit inspired Christians who understand that this story is a fable meant to impart some "truth" about the god they believe in, but not an actual representation of an actual event. As with Babel, the Garden of Eden, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Exodus, Jericho, etc. None of these events happened as depicted. We know this because... Reality. Go get your stories straight and come to a consensus as to what actually is "true" and then we can take a look at that.

You have enough information documented in Genesis 7-9 to make a judgement call.

Either show solid evidence to back up the whole story as documentd, or stop with the "multiple field" lies of science.

I don't believe Genesis to be factual. It's just words printed on a page where people who did not witness any such events talk about things that cannot be demonstrated as true and that plain common sense disputes based on our experience of reality. I don't accept it as a depiction of reality. It's fables.

I will continue to say that multiple fields of science dispute the flood story as being an accurate portrayal of any actual event, because it's true. Physics, geology, biology, genomics, engineering all dispute and can demonstrate that this fictional tale is just that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Go get your stories straight and come to a consensus as to what actually is "true" and then we can take a look at that.

With what?

Your myopic equipment?

You want consensus?

Fair enough.

100% -- (that's one hundred percent) -- of Christians who ever existed, in existence today, and will be in existence tomorrow believe: IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.

There's consensus for you.

Take a look at that, if you can, and let me know what you find.

Otherwise, your consensus challenge is nothing more than fluff.

 

[AV1611VET]

I will continue to say that multiple fields of science dispute the flood story as being an accurate portrayal of any actual event, because it's true.

And I'll continue to point out that multiple fields of science can take a hike.

Physics, geology, biology, genomics, engineering all dispute and can demonstrate that this fictional tale is just that.

No, they can't.

They only use about HALF THE STORY.

They take what happened, apply it to Mother Nature -- (not God) -- ignoring any conversations between the parties involved (such as God and man), then claim it didn't/couldn't happen as documented.

In short, science picks and chooses what they can foister on the public, and firewall the rest.

God took credit for the Flood.

But science says it didn't happen because Mother Nature doesn't work that way.

God cleaned up the mess.

But science says there's no evidence.

LOL -- of course there's no evidence.

God cleaned it up.

(Note: there is actually evidence, but it's over science's head and beyond their scope of understanding.)

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

And I'll continue to point out that multiple fields of science can take a hike.



No, they can't.

They only use about HALF THE STORY.

They take what happened, apply it to Mother Nature -- (not God) -- ignoring any conversations between the parties involved (such as God and man), then claim it didn't/couldn't happen as documented.

In short, science picks and chooses what they can foister on the public, and firewall the rest.

God took credit for the Flood.

But science says it didn't happen because Mother Nature doesn't work that way.

God cleaned up the mess.

But science says there's no evidence.

LOL -- of course there's no evidence.

God cleaned it up.

(Note: there is actually evidence, but it's over science's head and beyond their scope of understanding.)

You're just making things up that are not in evidence. You cant demonstrate anything that you're saying here to be true.

Dismissed.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

With what?

Your myopic equipment?

You want consensus?

Fair enough.

100% -- (that's one hundred percent) -- of Christians who ever existed, in existence today, and will be in existence tomorrow believe: IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.

There's consensus for you.

Take a look at that, if you can, and let me know what you find.

Otherwise, your consensus challenge is nothing more than fluff.

That's not what we're talking about and you know it.

Challenge failed.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're just making things up that are not in evidence.

It only looks like I'm making it up, because science is in the habit of removing it.

"Putting it back" and "making it up" are two different things.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not what we're talking about and you know it.

Either that, or it is what we're talking about.

Challenge failed.

More like I used consensus against you, now you want to tell it to take a hike.