Where are the current ripples from Noah's Flood?

[BCP1928]

Regarding flood, the Bible is presented as the ( inerrant) word of
God, and given unto mankind for specified purposes.

That being the case, it’s quite legitimate to as about the role of the floods story.

Some say literal other Christian’s say allegory, others that it’s true in that it’s loosely
based on actual events.

The Bible is presumed to inform and instruct on matters
of importance to the creator of everything. Like, not merely literature.

Im asking what the takeaway is supposed to be.

Take a look at the last post into the Myths about the Bible--Busted thread. ViaCrucis gives a lucid summary of the Christian takeaway. You can't tell anything from what the biblical literalists and YECs have to say about the story. I don't think they even care what it's about, they just want to use it to work a political agenda.

Re China, various beliefs / traditions / superstitions are
widespread. I’m not necessarily a fan, though Ive always
loved our dragon.s

Our annual dragon boat races are great fun.

Check YouTube!

Chinese communities race them here, too.

 

[Zaha Torte]

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

The prophets spoke as well as wrote. They were commanded by God to both speak and write. Their speaking is what led to so many of them being hated by their peers.

 

[Zaha Torte]

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

Not necessarily - for all faith has its modicum of doubt.

I would claim that any idea that the Holy Spirit has witnessed to your mind and heart - after having covenanted with God and submitted to His authority - is true and that nothing can disabuse you of it.

 

[CoreyD]

Are you trying to tell me that no one settled WEST of the Garden of Eden?

The Bible tells us that.

In 1656 years of replenishing the earth, not one person moved west?

If they did, you and I would not be here, because the ground was cursed, and they had to work hard to get food out of it.
According to Genesis 5:28, 29 When Lamech was 182 years old, he had a son. And he named him Noah, saying, “May this one comfort us in the labor and toil of our hands caused by the ground that the LORD has cursed.”

Noah was their hope, and sure enough, he was our hope.
However, according to the Bible, during those 1656 years of filling the earth, everyone moved East of the Garden of Eden... unless there is another Bible you are using. Is there?

And what's this "4767 miles" you mentioned?

That's from India to the United Kingdom.

Currently it is 5400 miles from New Jersey to Turkey.

Wow. That's what I call "cutting corners"
Why did you choose the distance from New Jersey to Istanbul?

The land of Nod was somewhere, in Iran, or West of it.
So, I started from India, and took a straight path to the UK... not considering mountains, and there are no seas in between.

We could cut 4767 in half, which would be about the distance from Iran to the UK - 2,524 miles.

Currently the Atlantic Ocean is 3000 miles wide from New Jersey to North Africa.

But remember, the Atlantic Ocean didn't exist in Noah's time.

5400 miles - 3000 miles = 1400 miles.

Noah only lived 1400 miles away from the Garden of Eden.

I did not cross the Atlantic.
I didn't even get to New Jersey yet, so more mileage needs to be added, since I stopped in the UK.
It doesn't make much difference, but from the land of Nod, East of the Garden of Eden, to Hew Jersey would have been close to 3,000 miles.

Yes, they would have died, from not having enough food to travel that distance, and not be able to stop along the way and raid someone's garden - there were none.

R.I.P

And getting back to that Caspian sea, and Mediterranean sea, and those other bodies of water on that map you used, I contend you're using the wrong map.

I used your map... with no water.
It would not get us anything under 2,000 miles. Even so, they would still die from lack of food.

You can recalculate, to be sure. Just don't cross the sea.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can recalculate, to be sure. Just don't cross the sea.

Have a nice day.

 

[CoreyD]

I'll leave this video for you. It will give you a full education on the Ice Age Floods.
Nick Zentner talks are always interesting.

I thought this was a discussion.
Posting a nearly one and a half hour video, is having a discussion, to you?
Do you accept persons doing that to you?

 

[Gene2memE]

You are asserting that the Biblical Noah's flood is not true. I understand that is what you believe, but simply asserting it doesn't add additional information to the discussion.

If the Biblical flood was "true", it would leave ripples (as the OP puts it). You could make testable predictions about what you'd expect to find.

For instance, a truly global flood would leave a telltale layer of sedimen, which would be of uniform age and have a global distribution. If no such layer can be discovered, then that's strong evidence against such an event having occurred.

If the flood occurred within the last 25,000 years, you'd expect a simultaneous global collapse of all extant human cultures. Or if within the last 10,000 years, all human civilizations. If there is no evidence of such a collapse, then that's strong evidence against a global flood within that period.

If the flood occurred within the last ~300,000 years, you'd expect evidence of extreme and simultaneous genetic bottlenecks across all plant and animal species. If there is no evidence of such, then that's strong evidence against a global flood within that period.

There are dozens of predictions and tests you could make for a global flood.

Here's the thing though.

Believers in a global flood aren't out there making predictions or performing tests. Because they don't want to - because they're afraid of the actual evidence and its implications. Instead, they're just sitting back and being reactive. All they are doing is critiquing the actual work as collective effort to maintain a particular view of the world.

That's because creationsim isn't a positive movement on its own. It's a reactive movement, a response to the progress that the sciences have made in describing the natural world. Progress which has ruled out any 'global flood' at any time within the existence of homo sapiens as a species.

This has been going on for centuries. Geology as a science was pioneered in the 18th and early 19th centurey by people who largely believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible. And, they went out to look for the evidence of such in nature. But, what they ended up doing was just confirming that the evidence from nature didn't support the Biblical account. And so theologians dreamt up excuses and rebuttals and new intrepations of the Bible. And, that same work is what modern creationists are doing now.

I understand that you come from an atheist position, so there is no reason to believe writings from the Bible. I don't believe in Hindu scriptures for the same reason. I also did not believe there was anything special about the Bible when I was younger. But for various reasons, I now do feel that there is something special there. And as result I am trying to see if there is any way possible to fit what is written there into what I seen in the physical world. If I were in your shoes, I would see this as needless fact stretching. But nevertheless, this is where I am and perhaps you can at least see (though likely not understand) my motivation.

This is the problem - you're putting the horse before the cart.

You're starting with an unfounded presupposition (the Biblical flood story is true) and then seeking to select 'evidence' that confirms only that presupposition. All the while ignoring counter-factuals and attempting to explain away the confounding variables and evidence that contradicts the position.

It's fundamentally a dishonest approach. A conclusion should follow the evidence. Instead, you're torturing the evidence to fit a presupposition.

 

[AV1611VET]

Believers in a global flood aren't out there making predictions or performing tests.

Why would they?

They already believe it.

The Bible says it, and that settles it.

What if I told you our family diary says my great-grandfather was an engineer for B & O railroad.

Then, years later, you find me searching for my great-grandfather's name in the B & O personnel files?

Furthermore, what if I don't find his file, because it was removed for some reason the day he retired?

What would that do to my credibility?

 

[dlamberth]

I thought this was a discussion.
Posting a nearly one and a half hour video, is having a discussion, to you?
Do you accept persons doing that to you?

Actually, I sometimes do. I've learned quite a lot from videos others have posted.
But also I was hoping that you actually and honestly wanted to learn something about both the dating of the Ice Age Floods as well as the dating of the end of the Ice Age itself. Than there's the video itself where a person can learn how real geologist work rather than the pseudo-geologist that one finds in AIG.

So to give a quick answer. It was ash from Mt. St. Helen of an eruption that happened 16,300 years ago found between layers of sediment that helped with dating. Also the ash from Glacier Peak in Washington which has been dated to 16,000 years ago has also been found between layers. Then we have a location where a stick buried in one of the layers dated to 14,900 years ago. And then we have the surface exposure dating (geochronological) techniques that estimate the length of time an erratic s have been exposed to the rays of the sun. Some erratic's have been dated to as young as 10,000 years ago since being dopped by the floods using this technique. And because there were many floods, other erratics have been dated as old as 20,000 year ago sitting in the sun after deposited by the floods. And other erratics fall inbetween those two dates. This is all explained in detail in the video.

 

[Astrid]

If the Biblical flood was "true", it would leave ripples (as the OP puts it). You could make testable predictions about what you'd expect to find.

For instance, a truly global flood would leave a telltale layer of sedimen, which would be of uniform age and have a global distribution. If no such layer can be discovered, then that's strong evidence against such an event having occurred.

If the flood occurred within the last 25,000 years, you'd expect a simultaneous global collapse of all extant human cultures. Or if within the last 10,000 years, all human civilizations. If there is no evidence of such a collapse, then that's strong evidence against a global flood within that period.

If the flood occurred within the last ~300,000 years, you'd expect evidence of extreme and simultaneous genetic bottlenecks across all plant and animal species. If there is no evidence of such, then that's strong evidence against a global flood within that period.

There are dozens of predictions and tests you could make for a global flood.

Here's the thing though.

Believers in a global flood aren't out there making predictions or performing tests. Because they don't want to - because they're afraid of the actual evidence and its implications. Instead, they're just sitting back and being reactive. All they are doing is critiquing the actual work as collective effort to maintain a particular view of the world.

That's because creationsim isn't a positive movement on its own. It's a reactive movement, a response to the progress that the sciences have made in describing the natural world. Progress which has ruled out any 'global flood' at any time within the existence of homo sapiens as a species.

This has been going on for centuries. Geology as a science was pioneered in the 18th and early 19th centurey by people who largely believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible. And, they went out to look for the evidence of such in nature. But, what they ended up doing was just confirming that the evidence from nature didn't support the Biblical account. And so theologians dreamt up excuses and rebuttals and new intrepations of the Bible. And, that same work is what modern creationists are doing now.



This is the problem - you're putting the horse before the cart.

You're starting with an unfounded presupposition (the Biblical flood story is true) and then seeking to select 'evidence' that confirms only that presupposition. All the while ignoring counter-factuals and attempting to explain away the confounding variables and evidence that contradicts the position.

It's fundamentally a dishonest approach. A conclusion should follow the evidence. Instead, you're torturing the evidence to fit a presupposition.

Re your last Lines, yes. Pretty much defines intellectual dishonesty.
As I said earlier, anyone can claim they studied all this science.

The truth comes out in what a person does.

Blithely describing how one’s own approach is anti scientific,
scientifically bankrupt and self deceptive…that’s such a giveaway.

 

[Astrid]

I thought this was a discussion.
Posting a nearly one and a half hour video, is having a discussion, to you?
Do you accept persons doing that to you?

I very often take advantage a good chance to learn something.

Then there’s your reaction.

That makes all the difference.

 

[Gene2memE]

Why would they?

They already believe it.

The Bible says it, and that settles it.

What if I told you our family diary says my great-grandfather was an engineer for B & O railroad.

Then, years later, you find me searching for my great-grandfather's name in the B & O personnel files?

Furthermore, what if I don't find his file, because it was removed for some reason the day he retired?

What would that do to my credibility?

I would improve your credibility (you looked at a claim and couldn't verify it). It would reduce the credibility of the diary (a claim was made that is, at best, unsupported).

Similarly, if you investigate the claims of the Bible and find evidence either way, that supports your personal credibility. Such an investigation could either improve or diminish the credibility of the Bible.

Here's some questions for you. Are you willing to test your beliefs to see if they correspond with reality? And, if they don't what would your response be?

 

[Panthers]

From four men , you get four races.
This ripples throughout the bloodlines.
Coincidence? Hardly.
Noah = RED
Japheth = Pale/Yellow
Ham = Black
Shem = White

Ironically, the four horsemen who also like to race, match and resemble the same colours.

 

[Astrid]

Perhaps not. Perhaps another meteor struck in a location we have not found yet. I recall a time before Chicxulum was discovered. My point I have made over and over is that it is almost impossible to say what did NOT happen. You weren't there. How can you say what did not happen?


You are asserting that the Biblical Noah's flood is not true. I understand that is what you believe, but simply asserting it doesn't add additional information to the discussion.


I'm not following you. Is this another autocorrect hiccup? ETA = Estimated Time to Arrival in my book.
And did you mean to say "You Did change flood story"? If so, I asked you to point out details.


I'm having a hard time understanding which way you intended this sentence.

"A radical rewrite couldn't make it credible, though still fictitious." ?
"A radical rewrite could at least make it credible, though still fictitious." ?

I suspect it is the later. I don't think any rewrite would have to be that radical. But it is OK that we disagree.

I understand that you come from an atheist position, so there is no reason to believe writings from the Bible. I don't believe in Hindu scriptures for the same reason. I also did not believe there was anything special about the Bible when I was younger. But for various reasons, I now do feel that there is something special there. And as result I am trying to see if there is any way possible to fit what is written there into what I seen in the physical world. If I were in your shoes, I would see this as needless fact stretching. But nevertheless, this is where I am and perhaps you can at least see (though likely not understand) my motivation.

Best wishes,

KT

I dont just assert things.
Theres ten thousand ways to disprove
Noahs ark/ world wide flood.

As you really ought to know.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you willing to test your beliefs to see if they correspond with reality?

Wellll ... let's put it this way.

I'm willing to have others test any beliefs of mine that is testworthy.

I'm not scientific minded, myself.

And, if they don't what would your response be?

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

 

[Astrid]

From four men , you get four races.
This ripples throughout the bloodlines.
Coincidence? Hardly.
Noah = RED
Japheth = Pale/Yellow
Ham = Black
Shem = White

Ironically, the four horsemen who also like to race, match and resemble the same colours.

View attachment 356194

True. Making things up is not coincidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

There's ten thousand ways to disprove Noah's ark / world wide flood.

Just give us 450 of them, and we'll counter them with just one of our New Testament prophets (preachers),

 

[dlamberth]

Why would they?

They already believe it.

The Bible says it, and that settles it.

What if I told you our family diary says my great-grandfather was an engineer for B & O railroad.

Then, years later, you find me searching for my great-grandfather's name in the B & O personnel files?

Furthermore, what if I don't find his file, because it was removed for some reason the day he retired?

What would that do to my credibility?

I grew up being told that I was related to John Adams. That's a true story of my childhood that I grew up with and have told others. I think my parents truly believed the story and passed it on to their children. Moving forward in time, a family member who is into genealogy found out that John Adams is not a relative. So following your question, the only way that new information would hurt my credibility is my knowing the truth of the matter, but I still kept telling everyone that John Adams was a relative anyway.

When I look at myself, to be quite honest that's sometimes how I feel about those who claim global flood. There's no evidence of it happening, none at all. Yet there they are ignoring what the Earth itself is showing us about no Global Flood and still telling others it happened.

 

[AV1611VET]

Moving forward in time, a family member who is into genealogy found out that John Adams is not a relative.

Here's my example again:

What if I told you our family diary says my great-grandfather was an engineer for B & O railroad.
Then, years later, you find me searching for my great-grandfather's name in the B & O personnel files?
Furthermore, what if I don't find his file, because it was removed for some reason the day he retired?

In my example, my great-grandfather was an engineer for B & O railroad, whose file was removed.

The diary is correct.

But in your example, the story is wrong from the git-go.

 

[Astrid]

I grew up being told that I was related to John Adams. That's a true story of my childhood that I grew up with and have told others. I think my parents truly believed the story and passed it on to their children. Moving forward in time, a family member who is into genealogy found out that John Adams is not a relative. So following your question, the only way that new information would hurt my credibility is my knowing the truth of the matter, but I still kept telling everyone that John Adams was a relative anyway.

When I look at myself, to be quite honest that's sometimes how I feel about those who claim global flood. There's no evidence of it happening, none at all. Yet there they are ignoring what the Earth itself is showing us about no Global Flood and still telling others it happened.

AND presenting that the God of Love is a mass killer.

Note btw that there’s not merely no positive evidence
but also many lines of enquiry that provide disproof of any global flood.