Did a World-Wide Flood in Noah's day Happen? (genesis, myths, ghost)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Right now on History Channel they are talking about Egypt and the Sahara and they just found whale bones there showing that this place was once under water. I'd bet it was Noah's flood and when the waters abated off the earth the whales and all those baby whales there got land locked and died as the water went away in the Sahara.
The driest desert on earth is in South America. It has not rained hardly there in that desert for they said 11,000 years. They said it was once under ocean. Today it is 2 miles above sea level. They just showed on t.v. arrowheads and they dated those and dated dried grasses in a small cave at 10 to 11,000 years. I bet too it was Noah's world-wide flood that was the last waters that desert had.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman
There are lots of ancient ocean beds all over this earth. That in no way proves any sort of global inundating flood. Btw, the driest desert on the planet is, in fact, the central plains of the Antarctic. Get your facts right, OK?
Maybe you should get your facts straight bubba. You just got burned. Google "driest desert in the world."
Quote:
And stop assuming things that are only qualified by your hyper-astute"I'll bet that...". This is hardly how any logical scientist or honest individual would go about proving anything. Suggestion: try reading up on a few things before you open your sushi hole!
Yea, sure, kind of like your scientists saying evolution is a fact. LOL.
Quote:
Hmmm... here's one! I'll bet that you just don't get it! I'm thinking you don't have a vrey good academic educaiton. I'll just figure that you don't like to read much either. And finally, I think that you are beyond any intellectual redemption.
Wow! That was remarkably easy. And, since I'm assuming all of it, why... it must be true, huh, Eusebius? I mean, by your distorted and mis-guided standards of course...
Go for it, man! You continue to troll-amuse us all!
I have found that people who must resort to tactics such as you display in your last two paragraphs above are the direct result of someone who feels threatened and is definitely out of their league with me. All they can do is act like a little child and strike out rather than have a rational, adult dialogue with real substance. You have proven yourself over and over again not capable of an adult conversation on even the most simple level. So, please, in the future, don't waste my time with your puerile tiro banter. O.K.?
P.S. "educaiton" should be should be "education." Learn to spell.
Originally Posted by Eusebius It is all just historic fact, not a myth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuixoticHobbit
Right.. and so is Gandalf, Bilbo and Frodo.
Coming from you, and your current level of unrealized maturity, you probably really do think that story of Lord of the Rings is historic fact and not a myth.
Lord of the Rings was meant to be make-believe. The flood of Noah's day was never meant to be taken as make-believe.
The scientists on the History Channel doing research on the deserts of South America and Sahara were saying that there must be something to the flood of Noah's day because every culture on the earth has the same flood story. The show was "How the Earth Was Made."
Genesis 1-11 is not history, nor was it intended to be.
Many Christians, Muslims and others would disagree with your statement above.
Prior to the 19th century the majority view was that it was historic fact.
Of course it is a strawman. You were arguing from the point that it is as if I actually believed all the trees and grasses were under mud in the world. If you were not setting up a strawman (as if I really believed that) then why even state it? You stated it because you could easily knock it over. That is, after all, what a straw man fallacious argument is.
The argument was from what the Bible said, plus (as if I was obliged to do that) giving serious consideration to your speculations about 500 foot long Redwood trees, freeze- dried Eucalyptus leaves and unhistoricaly early metalworking. Your attempt to present my evidence to support the consequences of the scenario as you presented it (which was just what you did with your tosh about the Spruce goose and Incan refrigerators) as a strawman shows not only that you do not understand what a strawman argument is but confirms the old dictum that religion makes an honest man look dishonest.
Quote:
I don't believe the floods came from a thimbleful of water. I said God could have flooded the earth with a thimbleful of water if that is all He had to work with. I don't believe in a flat earth. I believe the mountains were on the earth at the time of the flood. I don't believe the flood waters were "magicked out of the ground." If you have continental sublimation the forces of the down pressure would cause the water to water spout out of the earth. My point is that trees and grasses growing on slopes of mountains need not be covered in mud.
Yes, I argued that the archaeologist have found verticle trees in layers of earth and that, according to modern *theories* it took millions of years for each layer to be laid down. But that does not work with these latest findings. And just because SOME trees around the world were discovered this way does not mean (and I never implied it meant) that EVERY TREE in the world was this way from the world-wide flood.
Now I am quite happy to discuss this stuff. Again you can see what I was getting at with YOUR thimbleful of water remark. of course there was more than that but the point is that, if you can't feasibly get enough water for a flood then you have God magic it, and you know what I mean by that, too.
"If you have continental sublimation the forces of the down pressure would cause the water to water spout out of the earth." Nonsense. And there is not the slightest evidence that there were ever such large underground bodies of water to be squirted out by continental squeezing - which is not what it does anyway. Your speculations become even more risible.
Quote:
Who said the trees could not absorb sunlight after the flood while still under water? Who has done experiments as to the flood of Noah's day where they have water, water temp, same water depth, water pressure, water salinity, water opaqueness etc. etc. as it would have been in the world-wide flood to see if the trees could survive? Until that has been done your argument is not one from facts. My ancient, historical account is that Noah flipped the bird and the bird came back with an olive leaf in its beak. For anyone to say that is impossible they must first PROVE it is impossible by DUPLICATING THE EXACT SAME CONDITIONS IN THE WORLD WIDE FLOOD. Until that is done all pontificating grandstanding to the opposite of the historic account in the Bible is useless.
Where you can set up whatever conditions you like you can make individual claims about this condition and the posts I made should have made it clear to any reasonable person that, in a year long flood deep enough to cover mountains and a deluge which will do what deluges do - wash away tons of topsoil and on a global scale, (and using you own argument that polystrates are evidence of a depth of flood - mud), the general effect on the flora is going to be devastating. Even if trees survive, they are not going to produce anything edible until another growing season. Even if the trees are not 1,000 plus feet of water which will cut out sunlight even if months of submersion did not already stop photosynthesis and simply defoliate the trees.
Quote:
I didn't know we were talking about modern farm crops. How on earth did that get in this argument? We are talking about TREES and GRASSES.
You are not stupid. I have presented a lot of information on the effect of prolonged flooding on soil and what is rooted in it. Crops by the way are grasses. Bred, true and more susceptible to bad weather than grass, but then the flood was exceedingly bad weather.
Quote:
No, it is perfectly reasonable. He must have found plenty of food because they survived. Again, the only way you can PROVE it is not possible is you will have to EXACTLY DUPLICATE the conditions found in the world-wide flood. Until that is done all such statements to the contrary are useless.
This is not reasonable. It is denying all the evidence and insisting that nothing can be known or surmised unless an exact duplicate of the flood can be produced. Well, I don't doubt that, one day, someone will flood a valley for a year with scaled down hosepipe rainfall to flood the valley for a tenmonth and see what effect it has on the bushes and trees there. And then Bible-literalists can argue that just because it kills off the flora NOW doesn't mean that it had the same effect on the plants THEN. Theist denial knows no limits.
But anyone who can read and reason must see that the evidence is that collecting and housing and feeding the animals is enough to render the whole Ark -thing unfeasible and to that you have add the evidence that you had several months more afterwards where there was plenty of room to move around and hunt down the pairs of roebucks and cows rather than dig carcasses out of the mud, but there was nothing to eat.
Your specious reasoning is amusing but the obvious answer is not that food must have come from somewhere or there would be no animals, but that since, with the conclusions of the scenario set up by the Bible, interpreted by Eusebius, there would be no animals alive today, that scenario could not have happened. Which together with nothing but the doubtful polystrates and flood legends to support a global flood, is the conclusion at which any reasonable person should arrive.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-19-2012 at 04:48 AM..
Coming from you, and your current level of unrealized maturity, you probably really do think that story of Lord of the Rings is historic fact and not a myth.
Lord of the Rings was meant to be make-believe. The flood of Noah's day was never meant to be taken as make-believe.
The scientists on the History Channel doing research on the deserts of South America and Sahara were saying that there must be something to the flood of Noah's day because every culture on the earth has the same flood story. The show was "How the Earth Was Made."
Eusebius - how do YOU know that the various editors and authors of the Flood Tradition meant it to be taken as true history? Why are you so certain of their intentions? Why are you so certain that the ancients idea of history was the same as ours? Even when actual historians arose, their stories were told to entertain, and not to be entirely factual. The idea of history has changed, especially since the time of the various Genesis traditions.
I hate to seem to encourage a goalpost shifting discussion about Saharan whales and unexplained carvings which of course must have been done by Noah's family (scientists? Hah! Christian show or not) but I'll bet that the 'Whale bones' are Basilosauraus (actually a mammal) which was a prehistoric whale in a prehistoric sea and is nothing to do with a flood, Biblical or otherwise.
Many Christians, Muslims and others would disagree with your statement above.
Prior to the 19th century the majority view was that it was historic fact.
Yes - prior to our modern understanding of how to best determine whether an account is historical or not, many people did believe it to be historical. Now, however, we have evidence that the story is not historical, and that if there WAS a historical flood - it had been written about previously by older writers, thus making the biblical flood dependent on those older texts. This is why those silly fellows who claim they have found a piece of the Ark on Mount Ararat are immediately dismissed - for if an ark existed, it would have come to rest on a different mountain (besides the fact that the Bible doesn't say it was the Mountain called Ararat, but that is was just one of the mountains in the Ararat region), according to older texts. They are looking in the wrong place (assuming a flood happened, and an ark existed).
You summed it up in your very own post. Welcome to the 19th Century. Prior to the 19th Century, many people believed that when one sneezed, a devil went up their nose - and so they said "God Bless You". I GUESS the majority view prior to the 19th Century is correct!
Achoo!
Gesundheit!
And... citing a majority view doesn't quite cut it - Especially if one is citing a majority view prior to the 19th century, and entirely ignoring the majority view of the 21st century. That's a pretty bad logical move.
Besides that, you still didn't tell me how you're so sure that THE AUTHORS of the Genesis story intended it to be historical. You only told me about the majority opinion of THE READERS of the story prior to the 19th century.
You summed it up in your very own post. Welcome to the 19th Century. Prior to the 19th Century, many people believed that when one sneezed, a devil went up their nose - and so they said "God Bless You". I GUESS the majority view prior to the 19th Century is correct!
And... citing a majority view doesn't quite cut it - Especially if one is citing a majority view prior to the 19th century, and entirely ignoring the majority view of the 21st century. That's a pretty bad logical move.
They knew it really existed because historians from before Christ to the present day wrote about it as factual.
Quote:
Besides that, you still didn't tell me how you're so sure that THE AUTHORS of the Genesis story intended it to be historical. You only told me about the majority opinion of THE READERS of the story prior to the 19th century.
I am sure the story of Noah and the flood is intended to be historical because every writer in the Bible who wrote about Noah wrote about him as a real person and the event as real. Even Jesus, Who did not lie, spoke of Noah and the flood as an historic event. The genealogies from Adam to Christ are not made up. The genealogies in Genesis were not just made up. Christ's genealogy goes back to Noah and from Noah to Adam. Noah's name is mentioned 60 times in the Bible, never once as a fictitious character.
I'm willing to bet that if they do open it up as a tourist attraction that the naysayers will just poo poo it and say: "that ship was probably built there by early Christians to try to sway people to believe there really was a Noah and a world-wide flood."
They knew it really existed because historians from before Christ to the present day wrote about it as factual.
[b]
I am sure the story of Noah and the flood is intended to be historical because every writer in the Bible who wrote about Noah wrote about him as a real person and the event as real. Even Jesus, Who did not lie, spoke of Noah and the flood as an historic event. The genealogies from Adam to Christ are not made up. The genealogies in Genesis were not just made up. Christ's genealogy goes back to Noah and from Noah to Adam. Noah's name is mentioned 60 times in the Bible, never once as a fictitious character.
That's why its religion rather than myth - because people still think its true. The old greeks thought that the characters in the old myths were true and who can prove they weren't? We just don't believe the mythical element anymore even if we think Troy was a real place, which is more than we need believe about Eden.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
These people are 99.9 % sure they found Noah's ark:
I'm willing to bet that if they do open it up as a tourist attraction that the naysayers will just poo poo it and say: "that ship was probably built there by early Christians to try to sway people to believe there really was a Noah and a world-wide flood."
Oh my giddy aunt. Are we going to have C34 and the NAMI hoax all over again? Rifleman...are you up to it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and the bird came back with an olive leaf in its beak. For anyone to say that is impossible they must first PROVE it is impossible by DUPLICATING THE EXACT SAME CONDITIONS IN THE WORLD WIDE FLOOD. Until that is done all pontificating grandstanding to the opposite of the historic account in the Bible is useless.
Christian show or not) but I'll bet that the 'Whale bones' are Basilosauraus (actually a mammal) which was a prehistoric whale in a prehistoric sea and is nothing to do with a flood, Biblical or otherwise.