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 for proof, you link to a highly prejudicial religious site. How about a scientific site?
It does not inspire confidence that the site begins with the shellfish on mountains argument which is not only long -debunked but - because it is often fossil sea floor with worm burrows in situ, it proves that the strata were raised up and it is not shellfish swept by a flood onto mountain -tops.
They surely have been told this several times and I am sure I told Eusebius, but we still get the same false claims presented. The other claims about no erosion, perfectly preserved fossils and sediment being transported also sounds very feeble evidence for a global (Biblical) flood. The one about the strata being bent, not broken is very poor. The strata can be seen to be folded over and inverted and I don't see how a flood accounts for that. The noted dinosaur beach tracks is tilted at a crazy angle, but not a hint of being broken. This is the result of gradual shifting of strata over geological ages, not a flood. I suppose we could look at each claim, but with evidence this thin and a first claim being debunked, is there any point?
Please do me the honor of having a look at the sight. It's a short read. Well, fairly short but very interesting so it seems short.
Some excerpts;
Quote:
The concept of a global Genesis flood can be easily eliminated from a plain reading of Psalm 104,1 which is known as the "creation psalm." Psalm 104 describes the creation of the earth in the same order as that seen in Genesis 1
Quote:
... the Bible nearly always refers to local geography. You may not be able to determine this fact from our English translations, so we will look at the original Hebrew, which is the word of God.
Quote:
The Hebrew words which are translated as "whole earth" or "all the earth" are kol (Strong's number H3605), which means "all," and erets (Strong's number H776), which means "earth," "land," "country," or "ground."4 We don't need to look very far in Genesis (Genesis 2) before we find the Hebrew words kol erets.
Quote:
The name of the first (river) is Pishon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Havilah, where there is gold. (Genesis 2:11)
And the name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Cush. (Genesis 2:13)
Quote:
There is a Hebrew word that always refers to the entire earth or the entire inhabited earth. The word is tebel (Strong's H8398), which is found 37 times in the Old Testament. Curiously, this word is never used to describe the flood, although it is used extensively to describe the creation of the earth and the judgment of the peoples of the earth.
Well, I had a look and (Noting that it an 'evidence for God' site) I am not sure what point it is trying to make.
The suggestion is that the flood story in Mesopotamia relates to the world they knew, which to them was all the world there was, and when written in the Bible was all the world they knew which was a lot bigger but still not the world we know it is today.
So, given that they can't possibly expect us to believe that the world has expanded from the middle east and a bit of Africa to its present extent, the flood has to be limited to that area, either because it was all the world they knew of (which I find perfectly satisfactory) or because it was a purely local flood limited, would you believe, to the extent of the world the ancient Hebrews knew of. Convenient, eh?
Now, while this cleverly manages to make a purely local flood on the Middle east fit in with God's plan to exterminate all mankind...just in that area .. it is one of those funny arguments of the 'Come, let us reinterpret Genesis to agree with science, and then claim the Bible is true and science somehow wrong." kink.
It rather falls under same question of how the sun was created after the daylight.
It was there, but cloud covered it.
So the thing is written from the point of view of human perception, not some divinely dictated account.
Which brings us back to where we came in. If it is purely the human view, why should we credit the flood as anything more than myth at best based on a local flood? It is the old problem. A local flood really tends to disprove God, if not as a wiper out of the entire globe, as a source of the information in the Bible.
And, if they can't even get that accepted as God -inspired truth, then why should the dubious story of the exodus and conquest, the failed prophecies of Tyre and Babylon and the debunkable stories of the Nativity and resurrection be taken as anything more than the writings of men, of which their tall tales really collapse under scrutiny?
God never said that after He separated the water from the land in Genesis 1 that the earth would never be flooded again.
As the continental plate of Pangea submerged it put pressure on the waters under the earth causing great water spouts to erupt.
I didn't say God said that in Genesis 1. He said it in Psalm 104.
Pangea didn't submerge. It formed and then broke apart but there were large areas under shallow seas but these were formed during the formation of Pangea, not by any submergence.
You cannot use Pangea as part of your argument because doing so negates Noah's flood, Adam and Eve and the whole of creation. Pangea existed 300 million years ago and broke apart some 200 million years ago. the middle east was formed some 50 million years ago. All of which was way before the creation of 10,000 years ago (even if you make the creation 100,000 years ago). Besides, the bible makes no mention of Pangea.
That ocean partially surrounded by land is the Paleo-Tethys Ocean. The Tethys Sea was pretty much where the middle east is now and is why there are oil fields there today.
Well, I had a look and (Noting that it an 'evidence for God' site) I am not sure what point it is trying to make.
The suggestion is that the flood story in Mesopotamia relates to the world they knew, which to them was all the world there was, and when written in the Bible was all the world they knew which was a lot bigger but still not the world we know it is today.
So, given that they can't possibly expect us to believe that the world has expanded from the middle east and a bit of Africa to its present extent, the flood has to be limited to that area, either because it was all the world they knew of (which I find perfectly satisfactory) or because it was a purely local flood limited, would you believe, to the extent of the world the ancient Hebrews knew of. Convenient, eh?
Now, while this cleverly manages to make a purely local flood on the Middle east fit in with God's plan to exterminate all mankind...just in that area .. it is one of those funny arguments of the 'Come, let us reinterpret Genesis to agree with science, and then claim the Bible is true and science somehow wrong." kink.
It rather falls under same question of how the sun was created after the daylight.
It was there, but cloud covered it.
So the thing is written from the point of view of human perception, not some divinely dictated account.
Which brings us back to where we came in. If it is purely the human view, why should we credit the flood as anything more than myth at best based on a local flood? It is the old problem. A local flood really tends to disprove God, if not as a wiper out of the entire globe, as a source of the information in the Bible.
And, if they can't even get that accepted as God -inspired truth, then why should the dubious story of the exodus and conquest, the failed prophecies of Tyre and Babylon and the debunkable stories of the Nativity and resurrection be taken as anything more than the writings of men, of which their tall tales really collapse under scrutiny?
My point is the bible itself says it wasn't a world wide flood and yes exactly, it was written (or told really) from a human perspective. The details of the flood in question have been reasonable pieced together by scholars and Noah himself has been identified.
There was cloud covering the newly lit up sun. First the sun lit up causing the cloud to glow with light then the solar wind blew the cloud outward exposing the sun to the planets.
The 'dubious' story of the exodus has been arguably confirmed by science. Apparently there actually was an exodus and the pharaoh in question has been more or less identified. The details are in question though. I found an interesting read on it. If you are interested, I can look for it again.
The 'debunkable' Nativity story can be traced right back to the ancient Egyptians - more evidence of the Israelite stay in Egypt.
God's plant to exterminate all of mankind? Just an embellishment of the flood tale. God or god's wrath was blamed for every natural disaster in those days (maybe even now)
There is geological and historical evidence that a flood event did actually take place in the middle east around 2800 BC. There is evidence that this is the flood that the Genesis flood legend is based on. It was a local or regional flood and not a global flood.
I'm just saying that "The Flood/Ark story is an actual occurrence, and not allegorical" and not just "based upon the dogma/teaching of some theology" although it is usually presented as such.
I am wondering whether the flood in question was one of many such regional floods that occurred at the same time with a common cause or whether it is human nature to create such myths based on such occurrences?
I'm not talking about some local flood so bad it was assumed to cover the world.
I'm talking about the story of Noah, and the barge he supposedly built, and all the animals, and Jehovah closing the door on the boat, etc, etc, etc.
I won't debate the veracity of that with those that think it actually happened exactly as written...rather than a metaphorical story. Or anything about Ark discoveries...I don't waste my time debating that blowhole spew either.
I'm not talking about some local flood so bad it was assumed to cover the world.
I'm talking about the story of Noah, and the barge he supposedly built, and all the animals, and Jehovah closing the door on the boat, etc, etc, etc.
I won't debate the veracity of that with those that think it actually happened exactly as written...rather than a metaphorical story. Or anything about Ark discoveries...I don't waste my time debating that blowhole spew either.
There is evidence to suggest that there was a raft or number of rafts tied together and that it/they did survive the flood. It was a merchant raft carrying animals and goods for sale. The man on the raft with some of his family (his sons?) was a local king. He was unaware if the impending flood which is why he was caught out on the rising waters. Just a little different to the Genesis account.
There is evidence to suggest that there was a raft or number of rafts tied together and that it/they did survive the flood. It was a merchant raft carrying animals and goods for sale. The man on the raft with some of his family (his sons?) was a local king. He was unaware if the impending flood which is why he was caught out on the rising waters. Just a little different to the Genesis account.
Show us the evidence and not from some religious site.
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.
