Where are the current ripples from Noah's Flood?

[AV1611VET]

Thank you.
Why did you relocate Noah to North America, rather than Eurasia?

Two reasons:

1. Adam was told to replenish the earth, and he would not have hung around the area they were expelled from. Thus Adam's progeny would have moved outward in an ever-growing circle; which leads me to my second point.

2. The U.S. showed us that we can go a distance of 3,000 miles in only 150 years. Adam's progeny had over ten times that amount of time. If you do the math, they went the equivalent of 30,000 miles, or around the earth and then some.

I can't begin to fathom Noah living in the Mesopotamian region.

 

[KevinT]

Do you know any advanced biochemistry / organic chemistry?

Yes, I have a degree in chemistry and a subsequent doctoral degree. I have studied organic and advanced biochemistry as part of my training.

Do you knows there are non living molecules that cannot
possibly be made except by living things?

I think this statement is too vague. I think any molecule can be synthesized in a lab. Are you referring to what is found in nature?

Do you know how to exactly identify the boundary between
life, and non- life?

The distinction is man-made. For example, is a virus alive? Is a prion?

Unless you have a Yes to each of those your view is clearly one of ignorance multiplied by religious ideology.

You seem pretty convinced that I am an idiot. I'm sorry you feel that way.

KT

 

[KevinT]

That’s not evidence though. That’s a random statement that is inapplicable to this subject. To clarify: what is the hammer in your scenario?

I said that I was not convinced. I am not trying to convince you, so I am not going to set up all the data I have used in my decision so that you can punch holes in them. I see no point in going back and forth with you on this subject.

KT

 

[BCP1928]

Just think if God would have written it!

Oh, wait!

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

And they spoke? Don't you mean as they wrote it down? Otherwise the passage doesn't support your case.

 

[BCP1928]

The Word of God claims that the Earth and all things upon it were different than today both before and after the Fall.

A miracle of God. No reason to assume it was like any other flood or that the Earth then operated as it does now.

If God could be proven to anyone - regardless of their level of faith or alignment with God's will - then coming to know of Him without a shadow of any doubt would damn them forever because they would have no justification when they commit sin.

To sin is to knowingly and willfully violate God's Law - in mortality we are behind the veil - commanded to live by faith not sure knowledge - to protect us from the effects of the Law.

Mortality is a period of Time given us to live and operate without knowledge of the Truth - to see what we will decide to do with what we are given - to test our integrity - and the effects of the Law are suspended - allowing us this probationary state.

Think of it as a childhood - a period when we can learn and grow and come into our own - a period when we can make mistakes without being held to the highest standards of accountability.

Coming to know God means that we are fully accountable - that there would be no justification for sin - because there is no doubt mingled with our faith - we live by a sure knowledge - we would know - and unless you are prepared to live a life without sin - you would be damned forever by that knowledge.

The moment you committed a sin after having receive this knowledge would bring the full effects of the Law upon you - no means of forgiveness.

The witness of the Holy Spirit is surer than the witnesses recounted in the Bible. You can come to know for yourself.

The Bible is a useful source of certain matters in history - like the Fall and the Flood.

There is nothing wrong with studying the Earth - without or without faith in God.

However - if you have no faith in God - then nothing on Earth will convince you that God exists at all. Only the witness of the Holy Spirit can do that.

And if you have faith in God, then nothing science has discovered or potentially could discover can disabuse you of it.

 

[Astrid]

Yes, I have a degree in chemistry and a subsequent doctoral degree. I have studied organic and advanced biochemistry as part of my training.



I think this statement is too vague. I think any molecules can be synthesized in a lab. Are you referring to what is found in nature?



The distinction is man-made. For example, is a virus alive? Is a prion?



You seem pretty convinced that I am an idiot. I'm sorry you feel that wpay.

You’ve said things to give one pause, but good
youve that background. its very rare.

My observation is that it’s impossible to be a yec who is well informed, and intellectually honest.

OEC is probably honest, tho as there is no evidence for it, seems frivilous to me.

Denying the reality of evolution is an insensible position,
for various reasons that could be detailed.


We seem to agree in the non definability of life.
Maybe some major differences on the implications of the
fuzzy boundary beteeen living and non living.

 

[KevinT]

You’ve said things to give one pause, but good youve that background. its very rare.

If I may ask, what is your background and training?

My observation is that it’s impossible to be a yec who is well informed, and intellectually honest.

OEC is probably honest, tho as there is no evidence for it, seems frivilous to me.

Do you think I am YEC or OEC? Be careful with externalizing what seems silly to you onto others.

Denying the reality of evolution is an insensible position, for various reasons that could be detailed.

Do you believe in an active God? You are here on "Christian" forums, so I assume you do. Do you see God as the blind watchmaker? How do you fit traditional evolution (i.e. abiogenesis-type macroevolution, not microevolution) into your theology? If you see the creation account and the flood account in the Bible to be just human fables, how do you know which parts of scriptures you can trust?

We seem to agree in the non definability of life.
Maybe some major differences on the implications of the
fuzzy boundary beteeen living and non living.

I'm not sure of the significance you are getting at here.

The longer I live, the more I realize that I don't know as much as I thought I did. I look at what the world's best thinkers believed a few hundred years ago, and I image what will change in the next hundreds of years (if the world survives). I realize that no matter how sound my logic may be for a particular belief -- it is statistically most likely to be wrong.

The truth is stranger than fiction, as the saying goes.

Best wishes,

KT

 

[Larniavc]

I said that I was not convinced. I am not trying to convince you, so I am not going to set up all the data I have used in my decision so that you can punch holes in them. I see no point in going back and forth with you on this subject.

KT

Seems odd to post in the debate and discussion sub fora then.

 

[BCP1928]

If I may ask, what is your background and training?



Do you think I am YEC or OEC? Be careful with externalizing what seems silly to you onto others.



Do you believe in an active God? You are here on "Christian" forums, so I assume you do. Do you see God as the blind watchmaker? How do you fit traditional evolution (i.e. abiogenesis-type macroevolution, not microevolution) into your theology? If you see the creation account and the flood account in the Bible to be just human fables, how do you know which parts of scriptures you can trust?

This forum is open to all, Biblical Christians, Traditional Christians, non-Christian theists, agnostics and atheists. You shouldn't make assumptions about our beliefs. You should also try to avoid false dichotomies. You seem to be implying that if we don't agree with what you think the Bible is we must believe that it is just human fables.

 

[KevinT]

This forum is open to all, Biblical Christians, Traditional Christians, non-Christian theists, agnostics and atheists. You shouldn't make assumptions about our beliefs.

This was my misunderstanding. I thought that the forum had guidelines that set it up as a discussion place for Christians.

I just looked up the forum guidelines found here:

Non-Christians

• Keep in mind that this IS a Christian website and as such CF reserves the right to choose what content is appropriate.
• All discussions with the intent of belittling or mocking Christians or Christianity will be promptly removed.
• All discussions belittling Christians by calling them mentally inferior, ignorant, bigoted, etc. will be promptly removed.
• All discussions blaspheming the Christian God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit will be promptly removed.

So you are correct, non-Christians are welcome to post on the forum with the above guidelines. Please accept my apology.

You should also try to avoid false dichotomies. You seem to be implying that if we don't agree with what you think the Bible is we must believe that it is just human fables.

Can you help me see the other shades of gray? In my mind, the origin is from God or it is not from God. But I am sure there is another way of thinking about this that I am not considering. EDIT: I personally don't believe the Bible was a download from the hand of God, so I do understand that reality is complicated.

KT

 

[BCP1928]

This was my misunderstanding. I thought that the forum had guidelines that set it up as a discussion place for Christians.

I just looked up the forum guidelines found here:



So you are correct, non-Christians are welcome to post on the forum with the above guidelines. Please accept my apology.



Can you help me see the other shades of gray? In my mind, the origin is from God or it is not from God. But I am sure there is another way of thinking about this that I am not considering. EDIT: I personally don't believe the Bible was a download from the hand of God, so I do understand that reality is complicated.

KT

Of course, but as you point out amongst those who believe that Scripture is divinely inspired there are a variety of views as regards the nature of that inspiration. Further, there is the question of whether the exact same hermenuetic should be applied to all the books.* And, of those who reject divine inspiration, many agree that there is actual history behind many of the biblical accounts and are not all entirely fabulous..

*I recently had the honor, over in the creationism forum, of being admonished that if I did not accept the literal inerrancy of Genesis I must of necessity reject the Gospel of John. The admonishment was rather heated, but the reasoning behind it escapes me entirely.

 

[dlamberth]

If you see the creation account and the flood account in the Bible to be just human fables, how do you know which parts of scriptures you can trust?

I apologize for jumping in and helping to side tract my own thread, but your question is in my opinion the crux of the matter. For myself it's crystal clear where I stand. There are two things I look out for in any sacred scrip, and actually this describes the essence of my spiritual path. The first are those scriptures that help make me into a more human, Human Being. The second are scriptures that help me have God as my absolute reality in life such that everywhere I look, there God is. Those are the scriptures that I absolutely trust with all of my being.

 

[KevinT]

Seems odd to post in the debate and discussion sub fora then.

Yes, I can see where you are coming from. If this was a thread about evolution, I would be more inclined to get into that.

My initial intent when I joined this thread about a lack of ripple’s ruling out a global worldwide (“Noah’s”) flood, was to consider the Chicxulub impact and the inevitable secondary worldwide tsunami waves that would follow— all of which has not left any ripples today.

It was during the back-and-forth follow up of that comment that evolution was brought up, and I commented that I wasn’t convinced.

So while I did say that on a public forum, I still don’t want to get into a debate about evolution. I have done this before, and it is very time-consuming, exhausting, and generally unfruitful. I have reached an age where I am comfortable with my world view. And I no desire to try to change your worldview.

Maybe on another day, in another thread, I may have more energy to get into this issue with you if you would like.

Best wishes

KT

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, I can see where you are coming from. If this was a thread about evolution, I would be more inclined to get into that.

My initial intent when I joined this thread about a lack of ripple’s ruling out a global worldwide (“Noah’s”) flood, was to consider the Chicxulub impact and the inevitable secondary worldwide tsunami waves that would follow— all of which has not left any ripples today.

It was during the back-and-forth follow up of that comment that evolution was brought up, and I commented that I wasn’t convinced.

So while I did say that on a public forum, I still don’t want to get into a debate about evolution. I have done this before, and it is very time-consuming, exhausting, and generally unfruitful. I have reached an age where I am comfortable with my world view. And I no desire to try to change your worldview.

Maybe on another day, in another thread, I may have more energy to get into this issue with you if you would like.

Best wishes

KT

A tsunami is a very different thing to a flood.

 

[KevinT]

A tsunami is a very different thing to a flood.

I live in eastern Tennessee, and recently hurricane Helene dumped a lot of water in western North Carolina. We live in the drainage path of that, and we had a huge volume of water come our way. The water took out the majority of bridges covering the drainage river. The previous high watermark had been something like 24 feet above normal. And I was told that this flood had a high watermark of 50-60 feet above normal. We have a local dam that had twice as much water going over it as Niagara Falls. Luckily the damn held, but it was Touch and Go for a while.

My point is that any massive amount of water that comes along and causes terrible destruction is easily understood as a “flood”. The writers of the biblical account accounts were likely not following some technical definition. I think a simplistic description of the flood of Noah is that it started raining and kept raining until the mountains were covered. That would obviously be physically improbable, if not impossible. So I am trying to think of other ways that this situation could be true and still match physical reality.

Best wishes
KT

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I live in eastern Tennessee, and recently hurricane Helene dumped a lot of water in western North Carolina. We live in the drainage path of that, and we had a huge volume of water come our way. The water took out the majority of bridges covering the drainage river. The previous high watermark had been something like 24 feet above normal. And I was told that this flood had a high watermark of 50-60 feet above normal. We have a local dam that had twice as much water going over it as Niagara Falls. Luckily the damn held, but it was Touch and Go for a while.

My point is that any massive amount of water that comes along and causes terrible destruction is easily understood as a “flood”. The writers of the biblical account accounts were likely not following some technical definition. I think a simplistic description of the flood of Noah is that it started raining and kept raining until the mountains were covered. That would obviously be physically improbable, if not impossible. So I am trying to think of other ways that this situation could be true and still match physical reality.

Best wishes
KT

Okay, but again: a tsunami is a very different occurrence to a flood. The mechanics are incredibly different, especially the time frame of both. Tsunamis are incredibly quick waves that go then recede with the tide. The type of flood as mentioned in the OP is a massive build up of water from a higher location that is then allowed to burst forth when the glacial dam broke.

Just because they both deal with water does not mean they are the same thing. And again, since this is a bugbear topic for me now, using the KT-extinction event as some precedent for the Noahic Flood story is just incredibly and outlandishly bizarre that it probably belongs in the true realm of science-fiction.

 

[BCP1928]

I live in eastern Tennessee, and recently hurricane Helene dumped a lot of water in western North Carolina. We live in the drainage path of that, and we had a huge volume of water come our way. The water took out the majority of bridges covering the drainage river. The previous high watermark had been something like 24 feet above normal. And I was told that this flood had a high watermark of 50-60 feet above normal. We have a local dam that had twice as much water going over it as Niagara Falls. Luckily the damn held, but it was Touch and Go for a while.

My point is that any massive amount of water that comes along and causes terrible destruction is easily understood as a “flood”. The writers of the biblical account accounts were likely not following some technical definition. I think a simplistic description of the flood of Noah is that it started raining and kept raining until the mountains were covered. That would obviously be physically improbable, if not impossible. So I am trying to think of other ways that this situation could be true and still match physical reality.

Best wishes
KT

The thing is, that unless you are proposing that the entire terrestrial globe was covered in water in 2350 BC, then the search for a flood which could have been a legendary basis for the Noah story is nothing but a mildly amusing speculation which will be rejected by biblical creationists anway.

 

[Astrid]

If I may ask, what is your background and training?



Do you think I am YEC or OEC? Be careful with externalizing what seems silly to you onto others.



Do you believe in an active God? You are here on "Christian" forums, so I assume you do. Do you see God as the blind watchmaker? How do you fit traditional evolution (i.e. abiogenesis-type macroevolution, not microevolution) into your theology? If you see the creation account and the flood account in the Bible to be just human fables, how do you know which parts of scriptures you can trust?


I'm not sure of the significance you are getting at here.

The longer I live, the more I realize that I don't know as much as I thought I did. I look at what the world's best thinkers believed a few hundred years ago, and I image what will change in the next hundreds of years (if the world survives). I realize that no matter how sound my logic may be for a particular belief -- it is statistically most likely to be wrong.

The truth is stranger than fiction, as the saying goes.

Best wishes,

KT

Anyone can claim anything they wish about their background.

I am Chinese, and atheist. Obviously.

My education can be unferred by what I say,
and how I say it. That can’t be faked.

Catch me talking nonsense if you can.

Your attempt to connect events of 65,000,000 years ago
with a bible story of boat building, animal rescue and Gods wrath
struck me as indicative of something.

Doubts about the validity of evolution, with not a single datum point
to furl doubt is similarly sketchy.

So I wondered if you have any science background at all.

Ask me again for a full accounting, if I put on a comparable display.

 

[Astrid]

I live in eastern Tennessee, and recently hurricane Helene dumped a lot of water in western North Carolina. We live in the drainage path of that, and we had a huge volume of water come our way. The water took out the majority of bridges covering the drainage river. The previous high watermark had been something like 24 feet above normal. And I was told that this flood had a high watermark of 50-60 feet above normal. We have a local dam that had twice as much water going over it as Niagara Falls. Luckily the damn held, but it was Touch and Go for a while.

My point is that any massive amount of water that comes along and causes terrible destruction is easily understood as a “flood”. The writers of the biblical account accounts were likely not following some technical definition. I think a simplistic description of the flood of Noah is that it started raining and kept raining until the mountains were covered. That would obviously be physically improbable, if not impossible. So I am trying to think of other ways that this situation could be true and still match physical reality.

Best wishes
KT

Ezekiel peezy. Change all the words in the story.

 

[KevinT]

The thing is, that unless you are proposing that the entire terrestrial globe was covered in water in 2350 BC, then the search for a flood which could have been a legendary basis for the Noah story is nothing but a mildly amusing speculation which will be rejected by biblical creationists anway.

If you read my original post on this topic, I specifically did NOT say this occurred in the past 10,000 yrs.

KT