|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,483 Year: 3,740/9,624 Month: 611/974 Week: 224/276 Day: 64/34 Hour: 1/2 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence for a recent flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
You should embark on a 10 volume telehone sized set of books listing the factors in the Hebrew bible which are not myth. This will give a percentage by ratio of the stats which cannot be questioned and were introduced to humanity for the first time as no other writings can or do. Then question if I am twisting things when listing actual verses and aligning them with independent historical and logical factors. I say, all writings and scriptures are not equal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
More irrelevant nonsense from you.
Where is the evidence of the local flood you now claim? What specific physical geological evidence do you have? What are the sites where this evidence can be found? Do you plan on presenting any evidence?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
You agree it is a factual flood by default by questioning its dating as well.
Nonsense. I spent many hours as an undergraduate engaging in literary criticism, while getting a degree in English. That didn't make any of the fiction or poems "factual" or any of the events they described necessarily real. You need to start learning the difference between myths, wishes, tribal tales, and reality. What I have been trying to do is get creationists to pin down a date for the flood so scientific evidence can be brought to bear on the question of whether it occurred in any particular area or globally; or at all. So far you have retreated from the claim of a massive "global" flood with waters higher than Mt. Everest, and are down to a small local or maybe even regional flood. This actually fits with some post-glacial events in the Black Sea area that have been discovered by archaeologists. The details are still being worked out, and more information is needed, but at least we have something that could be the "genesis" of the flood myth. That's a good start, eh?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Its still the first recording of that mount in correct location; Armenia yet never existed or made such a recording in line with Genesis. The fundamental things apply; you ignore the fundamental and give no credit where it is due.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4444 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
Its still the first recording of that mount in correct location; Armenia yet never existed or made such a recording in line with Genesis. The fundamental things apply; you ignore the fundamental and give no credit where it is due. This has been explained to you in great detail. It is the first recording of this name because they RENAMED it Mount Ararat. Great. I will send the Jews a gold star for renaming a mountain. Also, no geographical location is given in the Old Testament. How can you claim the correct location is given when no location is given? You still have not provided the two pieces of information that you claim to posses and have been asked for repeatedly. 1. The time period this flood occured in. The start date and the date the floodwaters receded. 2. The boundaries of the flooded region. This is information you have said you have. Provide it. Stop deflecting and wasting everyones time. Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot "Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson 2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
There is no credence in the call to prove a flood occured here. The issue gained momentum only because of its mis-reading of a global flood. Anti-creationists have a field day here, even making more ubsurd extensions of it. The Hebrew bible is the most authentic and reliable ancient writings of humanity's early history - this is unchanged.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wollysaurus Member (Idle past 4513 days) Posts: 52 From: US Joined:
|
For the sake of simplicity, could you address the following:
1. To what time period do you assign the flood described in Genesis? 2. Please define the boundaries of this flood, based upon whatever evidence you have. For example: Global or Regional. If regional, where and to what extent? 3. What physical evidence do you have for this flood, outside the reference in written texts? I don't necessarily have a problem with a regional, devastating flood giving rise to Babylonian and Hebraic flood myths (possibly including the mythology of even European peoples), but what evidence do you have -- again, outside of the fact that Genesis describes a flood -- showing that the event you accept actually happened? I think the OP had the traditional "global" flood of Noah in mind, but I'd be interested in anything specific you have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4444 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
Is this a request for information from me or IMJ?
I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot "Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson 2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
There is no credence in the call to prove a flood occured here. The issue gained momentum only because of its mis-reading of a global flood.
You creationists really have to get your stories straight. It does none of you any good, nor does it enhance your credibility, to come up with dozens or hundreds of different interpretations of the bible, all of which are the one true interpretation. And none of which are confirmed by empirical evidence.
Anti-creationists have a field day here, even making more ubsurd extensions of it. By "anti-creationists" do you mean scientists, and others who rely on empirical and testable evidence instead of ancient tribal myths?
The Hebrew bible is the most authentic and reliable ancient writings of humanity's early history - this is unchanged.
Off topic. Reserve your catechism for another thread maybe?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Portillo Member (Idle past 4183 days) Posts: 258 Joined: |
quote: Have you ever considered that those that believe in a flood about 4000 years ago are young earth creationists and those that believe in millions of years are old earth? Creationist organisations like Answers in Genesis believe in a recent flood and never "move the goalposts". Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Have you ever considered that those that believe in a flood about 4000 years ago are young earth creationists and those that believe in millions of years are old earth? Creationists organisations like Answers in Genesis believe in a recent flood and never "move the goalposts".
Yes, I am aware of that. But that's not something to be proud of. There are an estimated 4,000 different world religions, with an estimated 40,000 different versions of Christianity alone. Those who are proposing a global flood should first work out their disagreements among themselves and then try to convince others of the accuracy of their claims. Having so many different claims really ruins any credibility creationists in toto may aspire to. No sooner does one creationist group proclaim the absolute TRVTH of one date and characteristic for the flood that another group decries that as heresy and proclaims their version of the TRVTH. Of course, dozens or hundreds of other groups all have their own versions. This is what I mean by moving the goalposts; creationists as a whole just can't agree on much of anything, let alone the date and nature of the global/regional/local/mythical flood.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
creationists as a whole just can't agree on much of anything, let alone the date and nature of the global/regional/local/mythical flood. I think the above sentiment is absurd. For one thing, the term creationist does not refer to all people who believe that God created the universe. The term specifically refers to a specific type of Genesis literalist who believes that the entire universe was created during one seven day week, about 6000 years ago. IMO, that particular group of people are deluded, and this particular Christian does not accept even the smallest responsibility for any nonsense they spout. Even if you expand the term creationist to include YEC literalists, I don't feel any responsibility to defend their take on Genesis either. They are wrong. Two different people, each of whom steadfastly maintains a constant position should not be accused of shifting the goal posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Your post shows that what I claimed is pretty accurate.
But that's fine, let creationists all espouse different beliefs; let each one espouse a different belief. But until creationists can come up with some kind of evidence to evaluate these competing claims, why should scientists and others who rely on evidence not just summarily reject them all? Really, discussing things with creationists is a case of moving goalposts. No sooner does one claim the flood was ca. 4,350 years ago but another interjects that the K-T boundary represents the flood, and then another chimes in with the Cambrian explosion. It doesn't matter that any particular creationist or group sticks to their own TRVTH. In the aggregate, they can't agree on much of anything. Why should those who rely on evidence pay any attention to any of them?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
But until creationists can come up with some kind of evidence to evaluate these competing claims, why should scientists and others who rely on evidence not just summarily reject them all? I didn't say that scientist shouldn't summarily reject them.
Really, discussing things with creationists is a case of moving goalposts. No sooner does one claim the flood was ca. 4,350 years ago but another interjects that the K-T boundary represents the flood, and then another chimes in with the Cambrian explosion. It doesn't matter that any particular creationist or group sticks to their own TRVTH. In the aggregate, they can't agree on much of anything. Yeah, you earthmen are an inconsistent bunch. You can't seem to agree on whether there is heaven above you or just sky. Why should we Frizbatans believe anything you say?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Yeah, you earthmen are an inconsistent bunch. You can't seem to agree on whether there is heaven above you or just sky. Why should we Frizbatans believe anything you say? Now that's a good point! Humans certainly have a lot of learning to do, and perhaps a lot of unlearning as well. "To stay young requires unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn old falsehoods." Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024