Did the Flood Really Happen?

Page 9 of 13 [ 196 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Next

Did the flood actually happened?

Yes, it was global	16%	[ 9 ]
Yes, it was not global	18%	[ 10 ]
Yes, and it killed all the dinasours	2%	[ 1 ]
Yes, and the flood story falsifies evolution	0%	[ 0 ]
No, it's just a rip-off of older mythology	18%	[ 10 ]
Yes, and it's a rip-off of older mythology	4%	[ 2 ]
No, the world is younger than that	2%	[ 1 ]
No, the world is older than that	13%	[ 7 ]
No, it was something else	0%	[ 0 ]
The rainbow is the irrefutable proof that a flood happened	5%	[ 3 ]
I don't care	11%	[ 6 ]
I do care	0%	[ 0 ]
What's the question again?	0%	[ 0 ]
All of the above	0%	[ 0 ]
See the results	13%	[ 7 ]

Total votes : 56

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

28 Jun 2010, 3:08 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Gromit, why do you think speciation is what YEC's are opposed to?

n4mwd objected to speciation, so it seems like a legitimate challenge. Now granted, in that same post he also seemed to support extremely rapid speciation, so I can only speculate that he must use a rather bizarre definition of "species," probably akin to what you would call a "kind" or "baramin." But baraminology is bunk anyways and utterly unsupported by the data, so where do you go next?

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

28 Jun 2010, 3:17 pm

Mudboy wrote:

No. I think we need a better religion that teaches morality, and supports the search for truth, knowledge and wisdom.

The problem is that if the truth and our knowledge do not support a religion, then a religion that supports truth and knowledge will ultimately have to destroy itself with internal contradiction.

As it stands though, I do not think that there is a need for religion. I think most people are used to the idea that religions exist and can't see past them, but also that there is a way to function without religion.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

28 Jun 2010, 3:23 pm

Orwell wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Gromit, why do you think speciation is what YEC's are opposed to?

I could just go about calling everything bunk offhand and associating poorly thought out ideas with other ones which I disagree with so as to feel better due to the juxtaposition of connotations which I personally find amusing rather than seriously do more than just scoff and laugh at my own jokes.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

28 Jun 2010, 3:29 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sure, you could. Or you could start taking a better thought-out position, like Orwell's.

Jono
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,677
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

28 Jun 2010, 3:42 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Jono wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Jono wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

greenblue wrote:

ad hoc: Several written text over the world about a flood, proves it happened and proves my theology correct.

Greenblue: the ad hoc is actually the notion that the geographically ubiquitous flood legends spawn independently. That they cover the globe suggests, not proves, that there was a global flood; it merely lends credence. Why are you going so beyond what is actually said and mimicking and mocking also?

m
Where is the geological evidence that there was ever a global flood that covered the whole Earth? As ruveyn said, there was never enough water in the atmosphere to rain down a flood that could of covered the whole of the Earth's surface.

Do you have the ability to search on the internet? Try finding some of it out, I'm not your go-for boy to keep abusing.

Look up things such as polystratic fossils. Try to find out what scientists who are creationists actually claim, such as by perusing sites as

http://www.creationresearch.org/
http://www.globalflood.org/
http://creation.com/
http://christiananswers.net/creation/home.html
http://biblicalgeology.net/

etc. Try to find out what their actual claims are rather than just attempting to ask questions in opposition to straw men.

It's not a straw man. Most of what flood geologists put forward as evidence is bunk and it is generally not taken seriously by the scientific community. Mostly, this is because there is quite a lot of contradicting evidence as well as a lack of evidence for the mechanisms that flood geologists propose:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord.

The straw man that you presented is this, "As ruveyn said, there was never enough water in the atmosphere to rain down a flood that could of covered the whole of the Earth's surface." That is not a view that is held, but rather that the continental plates shifted rapidly due to a trigger event (such as an asteroid impact) causing some of the sea basins to raise while land form sink to the sea basin, along with tsunamis and volcanic activity. That is not entirely the view held, but a short paraphrase, but it is closer than the straw man that you and ruveyn presume we think.

Yes. However, if you want to interpret the flood story literally, you can only go with rain, fountains and a flood because that's all the bible mentions while it makes no mention of any of those other catastrophes that creationists often associate with the flood. So, not only are those things contradicted by geological evidence, there is no Biblical support for them either.

Also, the claims of creationists can even contradict the flood story. For instance, a lot of them claim that many extinctions were caused by the flood while in the story itself, Noah was ordered to take a male and female from every species to prevent extinction. Apparently, he did what he was told. It's funny how creationists are in such opposition to evolution because it contradicts what's in the bible, yet they can change the story to suit themselves. Don't you think?

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

28 Jun 2010, 4:01 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sure, you could. Or you could start taking a better thought-out position, like Orwell's.

Thought out by who? By Orwell or by those Orwell agrees with? I rather think for myself than blindly go with any crowd.

JetLag
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Aug 2008
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,762
Location: California

28 Jun 2010, 4:09 pm

As a creationist, another thing that leads me to believe that the flood really did happen is the worldwide prevalence of sedimentary rock. By definition, sedimentary rocks are made up of pieces of rock or other material that existed elsewhere, which are then laid down as sediments by moving water (liquids or fluids) and deposited in their present location. It's my understanding that about 70 % of the earth's surface is sedimentary rock. The rest of the earth's surface rock is I believe either volcanic igneous or metamorphic rock. And geologists have found many examples all over the globe of fossilized trees buried in very peculiar angles (including upside-down) in these sedimentary rock layers, which to me indicates a global flood.

_________________
Stung by the splendor of a sudden thought. ~ Robert Browning

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

28 Jun 2010, 4:10 pm

Jono wrote:

Yes. However, if you want to interpret the flood story literally, you can only go with rain, fountains and a flood because that's all the bible mentions

Fountains of the deep, if you consider the usage of the word 'deep' in the Bible it usually refers to the ocean. If the oceans are acting as "fountains", this would probably refer to tsunamis which are caused by underwater earthquakes. Et cetera.

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter12.pdf wrote:

IN telling us about the globe-covering Flood in the days of Noah,
the Bible gives us information about where the waters came from
and where they went. The sources of the water are given in Genesis
7:11 as ‘the fountains of the great deep’ and the ‘windows of heaven’.
The fountains of the great deep

The ‘fountains of the great deep’ are mentioned before the ‘windows of
heaven’, indicating either relative importance or the order of events.
What are the ‘fountains of the great deep’? This phrase is used only
in Genesis 7:11. ‘Fountains of the deep’ is used in Genesis 8:2, where it
clearly refers to the same thing, and Proverbs 8:28, where the precise
meaning is not clear. ‘The great deep’ is used three other times: Isaiah
51:10, where it clearly refers to the ocean, Amos 7:4, where God’s fire
of judgment is said to dry up the great deep, probably the oceans, and
Psalm 36:6 where it is used metaphorically of the depth of God’s justice/
judgment. ‘The deep’ is used more often, and usually refers to the oceans
(e.g. Gen. 1:2, Job 38:30, 41:32, Psalm 42:7, 104:6, Isa. 51:10, 63:13,
Eze. 26:19, Jon. 2:3), but sometimes to subterranean sources of water
(Eze. 31:4,15). The Hebrew word (mayan) translated ‘fountains’ means
‘fountain, spring, well’ (Strong’s Concordance).

So, the ‘fountains of the great deep’ are probably oceanic or possibly
subterranean sources of water. In the context of the Flood account, it
could mean both.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

28 Jun 2010, 4:21 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Thought out by who? By Orwell or by those Orwell agrees with? I rather think for myself than blindly go with any crowd.

Well, better one than neither. :roll:

01001011
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

28 Jun 2010, 5:22 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Thought out by who? By Orwell or by those Orwell agrees with? I rather think for myself than blindly go with any crowd.

You are just blindly going with a crowd of bronze age Jewish people who wrote the bible. You don't understand what the scientists know. Based on what do you think for yourself?
:lol:

01001011
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

28 Jun 2010, 5:24 pm

JetLag wrote:

Except any significant sedimentary rock takes thousands, if not millions of years to form. We know this because we find no sedimentary formed by modern local floods.

greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

28 Jun 2010, 5:54 pm

01001011 wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Thought out by who? By Orwell or by those Orwell agrees with? I rather think for myself than blindly go with any crowd.

You are just blindly going with a crowd of bronze age Jewish people who wrote the bible. You don't understand what the scientists know. Based on what do you think for yourself?
:lol:

You have a point, the "thinking for myself" doesn't seem to be this case. I mean, a creationist is actually going with a crowd, and that crowd is Creationism, if he adheres to it, that statement is somehow incorrect. Heck, If he rejected everything, including Creationism, then that would be more credible.

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Thought out by who? By Orwell or by those Orwell agrees with? I rather think for myself than blindly go with any crowd.

No one here is actually saying, "Evolution is truth because Orwell says so or Creationism is wrong because Orwell says so" however, Orwell is a biologist, so he knows better about the subject than anyone who isn't a biologist, and that's reasonable.

_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?

n4mwd
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Jun 2008
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 871
Location: Palm Beach, FL

28 Jun 2010, 7:16 pm

01001011 wrote:

This proves you know nothing about plate tectonics.
...
Flash floods are very localized. How can water suddenly move several thousand kilometer inland to places hundreds of meters above sea level, all round the Earth at the same time? You may well believe an invisible fire breathing dragon did this.
...
The old analogue again. Even a computer can generate new codes for its own, and based on what you say DNA is just a program? Your ignorance.

Dude, its your ignorance here that astonishes me. Read my words... Mid Atlantic Ridge Flood theory. That is what started plate tectonics. Clearly you haven't got a clue about that theory. It is a very solid theory that shows where the 'rain' came from and where it went. It explains why the plates are still moving. It explains the major mountain ranges and why they are parallel to the mid atlantic ridge.

Since you claim that computers can write their own programs that improve themselves without human intervention, please give a reference. You can sell it to Bill Gates for a fortune and he can fire all his programmers and get even richer. I am aware of numerous examples of programs writing other programs, I have written some of them, but that code is limited to what the original programmer designed it to do. It cannot improve itself beyond the original programming.

This only shows that not only do you know nothing of the Mid Atlantic Ridge Flood theory, but don't understand computers either. Clearly you are so fixated on your atheism that you refuse to accept the obvious.

A true scientist examines all theories and not just the ones that support his atheistic beliefs.

DeaconBlues
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,661
Location: Earth, mostly

28 Jun 2010, 7:49 pm

I take it you've never heard of heuristic algorithms or polymorphic viruses, n4.

You also seem to be unfamiliar with plate tectonic theory, except as a buzzword tossed out by those handing you this so-called "Mid-Atlantic Ridge hypothesis". The Mid-Atlantic ridge is a divergent plate boundary, caused by two plates moving away from each other. Magma tends to well up in the interstices, as was so dramatically demonstrated in Iceland recently, resulting in such structures as the Ridge.

Explosive (or "volcanic") ranges, like the Cascades along the North American west coast, tend to be abrupt, rather steep-sided and rough, not gradual, extending over a wide area side-to-side like the Ridge. Impact ranges, like the Himalayas, can appear similar, and are largely differentiated by the utter lack of volcanic activity there. The Alps and the Rockies are excellent examples of what an impact range looks like a few million years after the impact.

Further, if the Bible must be taken literally, YHVH did not appear before Noah and say, "I shall open a great rift in the Earth and pour waters into the heavens"; He said He would flood the entire world through rain alone (Gen 7:4). He required Noah to take aboard his Ark (measuring 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet tall, with three internal decks as well as the main deck) (Gen 6:15) one breeding pair of each land-dwelling or flying animal in the world (Gen 6:19-20) (nowhere near enough for breeding purposes - they'd be eliminated by the hazards of inbreeding soon enough) - although the very next chapter claims that it was supposed to be seven pair of every "clean" animal, two pair of every "unclean" animal, and seven pair of each breed of bird (Gen 7:2-3) (hey, didn't someone say the Bible is never self-contradictory?). Incidentally, this chapter was also the one that gave Noah exactly seven days to accomplish all this from a standing start (Gen 7:4 again), which for my money is an even bigger miracle than fitting all those creatures into such a small vessel.

If we can take that as hyperbole, of course, that opens the door to regarding the entire thing as a morality tale, applicable to the lives of the faithful but no more reflective of reality than, say, the Star Trek episode "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield".

_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.

Aimless
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Apr 2009
Age: 69
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,187

28 Jun 2010, 8:02 pm

I can't read through 10 pages but has anyone mentioned Gilgamesh? If there was a large flood it would have seemed global to the population at the time. Perhaps there was a devastating flood and the story grew from there.

http://www.historywiz.com/flood.htm

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

28 Jun 2010, 8:16 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Thought out by who? By Orwell or by those Orwell agrees with? I rather think for myself than blindly go with any crowd.

Well, better one than neither. :roll:

Yeah, going 0 for 2 here is not good. The whole creationist claim to independent thought is nonsense, as creationism is in every single case motivated by dogmatic adherence to a specific interpretation of Christianity. Essentially, iamnotaparakeet, what you are doing is saying "I distrust the sources you regard as trustworthy, and I instead regard these sources as more reliable" but you have not demonstrated any reason why we should accept your sources and reject our current ones. I know for damn sure that you (unlike me) have not actually gone through the genetic data that backs up modern phylogenies, so if either of us is "blindly going with a crowd" it is you.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Page 9 of 13 [ 196 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Next

Jump to:

Did the Flood Really Happen? Post Reply New Topic

Did the Flood Really Happen?