Flood/no flood

[Aquagem]

If anyone has 'proof' (for lack of a better word) that the flood never happened, can they please post it?

Sorry you are indisposed.

 

Here's a site you can go to without moving that will show the pro and con of the whole debate.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html

 

This site has done more to collect the various arguments into one place than any other I've seen. They are definitely science oriented, but they stick with good studies and do a lot more than just calling names.

[Aquagem]

Does that happen to others... not realizing how many responses have been posted before you answer? Or posting a reply only to realize that 3 other people posted while you were typing your response up?

It's been happening all day to me. I think it's that everybody is online and we have all drunk way too much coffee!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I just came in to get some work done, but this is soooooo much more fun.

[IrishEyes]

Aquagem said:

You've probably seen my immediately previous post about reliable evidence AGAINST the flood, so I won't say any more about that.

 

But I haven't, so please DO say more about it. I have read a few remarks ffrom others, but I didn't see any direct evidence against the flood offered by you. And honestly, if YOU offered it, I would give it some very serious consideration. I have to tell you, that is really saying something, so please don't take that as a challenge, or be offended by that, as I mean it in the most sincere way possible. Because while I may not agree with everything that you post, I respect your attitude, and I appreciate the respect you show to others that do not share your views. Therefore, if you had actually posted evidence taht refuted the flood account, I would have noticed it immediatly.

 

 

This is not to imply that I value the insights or opinions of anyone else here less. Only that I appreciate it when people are willing to discuss a topic instead of assuming that they are right and trying to prove me worng. That is one of the things that I have really come to look forward to with Aquagem, as opposed to many of the other people here. It shouldn't always be about trying to prove someone else wrong, or convert their opinions to yours, but about a genuine exchange of ideas that *might* lead to a change of opinion.

[IrishEyes]

ugh, you did it again! lol

ok, i'll check out that talkorigins site. i've probably already seen that one, as i used to visit talk origins a LOT, but I will look again, and with fresh eyes, if you know what i mean...

[Aquagem]

But I haven't, so please DO say more about it.

I see what you're saying -- didn't come through the first time. Asked to recap the arguments against the Flood will take a bit of time to put together in a post that is short enough to pass the censors (you-know-who :hihi: ), and will take me to Talk Origins as a first line of inquiry, followed by notes I prepared for an evolution/creationism debate I was involved in (guess which side I argued...). I also have a huge textbook entitled Science and Earth History by Arthur Strahler, who is a pre-eminent stratigrapher. I don't say that to have you go find it -- I know you need something direct and to the point. I just say it so you'll understand it takes a bit to prepare an answer to what is a huge question.

 

From my perspective, it's great to be able to talk with someone willing to look at the evidence and withold judgment until it's in. This is a good challenge.

[Aquagem]

ugh, you did it again! lol

ok, i'll check out that talkorigins site. i've probably already seen that one, as i used to visit talk origins a LOT, but I will look again, and with fresh eyes, if you know what i mean...

Welcome to ping-pong!

[lindagarrette]

Does it have to be? All things discussed point against taking the biblical flood literally. I think that's the real issue here.

I think the flood is incidental to the moral of the story which is about the wrath of god. His creation didn't turn out the way he wanted so he trashed it and startoed over. Like he is supposed to do again someday with the Apocolypse. That has about an equal chance of occurring as the flood.

[maddog]

Ok, as usual, I'm a bit confused.

The flood is just a myth because there is no evidence to confirm it?

or

The flood is just a myth because the lack of evidence to confrim it is clearly evidence that it never happened?

or

The flood is just a myth because of the large amount of counter-evidence against it?

 

Is it that there is no evidence FOR the flood, or that there is direct evidence AGAINST the flood? Most people here seem to agree that the flood never happened, but have given differing reasons for their conclusion. Is there a general concensus?

 

The flood to me is seen as myth that is told and was done so orally for some time before

being written down. This can cause errors. Yet I do think something may have happened

in which to cause such a story. If it were a factual account, I have issue with age of Noah

before he sired children. Not to say I don't find value in reading it. What I find most

interesting is the story of Noah in the Koran is virtually the same as in the bible. Thus

Ishmael revered the story enough to teach his children and father Islam while Jacob

handed down the same story to the Israelites. There are different mythes/stories in

other cultures. The lesser impact do imply the phenominae may not have been so global.

 

Maddog

[maddog]

But...how did they procreate after the flood if it was global? :hihi:

 

Personally, I think it was a local phenominon. If it was global, there is not enough genetic

diversity to account in such a short time span. Doesn't say that something didn't happen in

which a story or legend could be told about until later some derivation of the story was

later writtend down. :rant:

 

Maddog

[Turtle]

As some biblical literature has revealed archeological evidence, such a flood is possible. To then suggest the rest of biblical literature is true is ludicrous. Entirely illogical. QED

[maddog]

I can't physically get to my notes right now, due to some unforeseen physical limitations, but I know I have stuff that indicates that a flood is very possible. I remember this as being one of my first discussions here. I wish this discussion were taking place in about a week, or a week ago :rant:

 

I think I mentioned it here earlier this post or something in Evolution about asteroids or

comets being the flood myth. A book the looked criticaly at the issue was "Enoch's

Machine (/Mirror) or something like that. My books are not all organized, I just two moves

in year last year and still sorting things out. :hihi:

 

Maddog

[IrishEyes]

Maddog,

You remind me of another member of Hypography, from when I first joined...rileyj. Anyone else remember rileyj? That's not a bad thing, Maddog. It just seems that you sit on the fence a bit, not really sure you want to commit yourself to one idea or another. At least that's how I see it. And you know what... that is just fine. It shows that you are willing to examine the evidence.

 

I think that the differences in the ideas are that there are roughly three groups of people that have spoken so far in this thread... one group believes the Flood happened, as described in Genesis; one group does not believe in any sort of flood account as described in the Bible; the last group seems to want to merge the Biblical account with the non-Biblical account, to make a flood possible, but not on the same scale as the one in the Bible. Does that about sum things up?

[maddog]

It shouldn't always be about trying to prove someone else wrong, or convert their opinions to yours, but about a genuine exchange of ideas that *might* lead to a change of opinion.

 

It was this that originally attracted me to your website. I prefer more the discussion of merit

than some jousting match. :hihi:

 

Maddog

[Turtle]

Many accounts of "a flood" exist worldwide in diverse cultures. What will people know in 6,00 years of the Suamtra Tsunami? It still has no bearing on god(s) :hihi:

[maddog]

Maddog,

You remind me of another member of Hypography, from when I first joined...rileyj. Anyone else remember rileyj? That's not a bad thing, Maddog. It just seems that you sit on the fence a bit, not really sure you want to commit yourself to one idea or another. At least that's how I see it. And you know what... that is just fine. It shows that you are willing to examine the evidence.

 

Never met him. Two things. I see the would as never finished so often a soulution is

the same, never quite comple. There is just one more touch. Second, I will speak more

carefully when I get lambasted about something personal as beliefs. You have some

confirmed atheist, who I am OK that they are so. However, I take issue when it is their

"belief" that everybody must be so. You don't prove/disprove a belief... :hihi:

 

I think that the differences in the ideas are that there are roughly three groups of people that have spoken so far in this thread... one group believes the Flood happened, as described in Genesis; one group does not believe in any sort of flood account as described in the Bible; the last group seems to want to merge the Biblical account with the non-Biblical account, to make a flood possible, but not on the same scale as the one in the Bible. Does that about sum things up?

 

I haven't met any of the first group. I am more in the third group as you enumerate them.

For myself, my belief in God is derived from personal experience and is experiential in

Nature. I don't ask others to subscribe to that view. It is always a personal journey. :rant:

 

Maddog

[IrishEyes]

I haven't met any of the first group.

 

You have now. :hihi:

 

I'm still willing to listen to the evidence from the other side though. I really enjoy going through talk origins and other sites like it. I guess part of me is just tired of having the same discussions here, knowing how they usually end. However, I have to say that it is still interesting for me, regardless of the outcome of the thread. And honestly, I seem to learn more and more each time, if not about the specific topic of conversation (in this instance - the Flood), then more importantly about human nature, and how different people view the same topic of discussion.

 

Quite honestly, this has been one of the more educational discussions, and I always appreciate that. I really just love to read what you guys come up with.

[IrishEyes]

But...how did they procreate after the flood if it was global? :hihi:

 

Come on now, Tormod... You DO have two beautiful girls. Do we really need to cover procreation with you? How did they procreate after the flood? Well...um... the same way they did BEFORE the flood.

DUH!! :rant: