Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-25-2019 10:08 AM
22 online now:
AZPaul3, edge, PaulK, Sarah Bellum, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 852,021 Year: 7,057/19,786 Month: 1,598/1,581 Week: 420/393 Day: 11/43 Hour: 1/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Was there a worldwide flood?
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 633 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 7 of 372 (411091)
07-18-2007 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Repzion
07-18-2007 2:59 PM


One more thing about floods...
In fact, more than 200 ancient and present civilizations have reported different cultural accounts of a worldwide flood.

The assumption here is that because ancient cultures share a Flood myth, this must be a shared mythology which has passed down from earlier civilizations.

Well, there are several problems with this. Here's one simple example, by the time line given for the flood, the Aborigenies were already in Australia, which means either a) they were all killed off and replaced by Noah's decendants who then subsequently also became aborigenies, or b) they were spared by the Flood (which can't be true).

So, how could this be? What could these societies share in common that makes a world wide flood a common myth?

Well, for starters, all of these societies are populated by humans.

Look at the flood myths and you will find that they are nearly universally about the birth or re-birth of the world.

Have you heard the expression "my water broke"? The birthing process which would be same for all of these human societies, and which is perhaps the most significant event these people would witness, involves a release of water prior to the emergence of the child.

Water is a universal symbol for birth/rebirth largely due to this.

So, mythologies involving birth / rebirth are largely going to rely on water as a metaphor.

I find it interesting that Flood proponents will point to flood myths as evidence of God's role, but ignore the pantheon of other Gods which come along with plunging a society for it's myths.

Are we to think that these cultures, upon witnessing God's most devistating wrath, the total destruction of virtually all life on the planet, took away from it a memory of a flood but not of the God who caused it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Repzion, posted 07-18-2007 2:59 PM Repzion has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 633 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 33 of 372 (411207)
07-19-2007 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Theagle
07-19-2007 2:05 AM


One little piece...
I'm going to ignore most of your post as it's just a giant cut & paste from AiG which has been universal refuted in at least 100 threads and 1000 posts.

Here's what I'm going to discuss and leave the rest to the other posters...

It's scientifically impossible for a animal to just die from old age or a heart attack or something an turn into a fossil (which, I can explain if you want me to). Fossils can only be made in the presence of a lot of mud and pressure (a flood?)(I can also explain that if you want me to) So how else would you sugust that a fossil made it to the top of a mountain?

There are several things wrong with this statement.

First, what is "scientifically impossible"? And, how would you determine if a fossilized animal died of old age or a heart attack? How do you know that the fossil of a T-Rex didn't die of old age?

Second, "Fossils can only be made in the presence of a lot of mud and pressure", this is false on it's face. Many of the best fossils, particularly the ones out of China displaying the development of feathers, come from volcanic ash beds. There is no mud present whatsoever. "fossils can ONLY be made..." - false

Lastly, "So how else would you sugust that a fossil made it to the top of a mountain?", you are assuming that what is currently the top of a mountain was always the top of a mountain. This is naive. You are aware of plate tectonics I assume, the process by which the Earth's surface shifts. Earthquakes are a side-effect. Another side effect is called uplift. This is when one plate is forced above the other.

If uplift is occuring, we'd expect to see a couple of things. Mountain ranges along a line - for example, like they are.

We'd also expect to find that "young" mountains, those formed due to ongoing processies would continue to rise.

Hence, Everest rises about 4mm a year. Not very much, but then again, the Earth isn't 6000 years old, so 4mm a year really adds up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Theagle, posted 07-19-2007 2:05 AM Theagle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Repzion, posted 07-19-2007 1:29 PM Nuggin has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Repzion, posted 07-19-2007 1:31 PM Nuggin has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 633 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 44 of 372 (411252)
07-19-2007 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Repzion
07-19-2007 1:31 PM


Re: One little piece...
I don't know if you are replying to the wrong person, but you've basically given a pretty good explaination of uplift - which is what I was saying.

I don't understand the last part of your post, as you seem to be in total agreement with me on the geology and geography


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Repzion, posted 07-19-2007 1:31 PM Repzion has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 633 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 51 of 372 (411339)
07-20-2007 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Repzion
07-18-2007 2:59 PM


"naturally"
Didn't see this the first time though, but I think it requires special attention.

Naturally, the only true flood account is recorded in the Bible.

Why would the account in the Bible be "naturally, the only true flood account"?

I know you BELIEVE it is, but do you have any reason other than your personal belief that indicates taht the Biblical account of the Flood is any more accurate than, say, the Babylonia account which predates it? Or for that matter the Navajo account which has virtually nothing in common with it.

Upon what basis do you determine that this on particular myth or more likely to be accurate than any of the other myths you've cited?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Repzion, posted 07-18-2007 2:59 PM Repzion has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 633 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 69 of 372 (411466)
07-20-2007 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Repzion
07-20-2007 1:20 PM


Forget the facts
I know everyone is pouncing all over you using pictures and facts and stuff, this is largely because you are sourcing your material from tired sources which have already been countlessly refuted.

I want to back everything up a step and ask a few simple questions-

1) Do you honestly believe that there was a massive worldwide flood in which waters covered the world in it's entirety? That there was one man, his family and a boat full of animals which survived it? And that prior to this man and dinosaurs walked the earth together?

2) Why? Given what you see around you, why do you feel that a Flood best describes what you see? (And I don't mean because the Bible says so - I mean, "I witness flooding in my neighborhood and it killed all my local dinosaurs")


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Repzion, posted 07-20-2007 1:20 PM Repzion has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 633 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 109 of 372 (411813)
07-22-2007 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Repzion
07-22-2007 12:19 AM


I don't have all day
you haven't shown me that they're all wrong yet.

I don't get paid to do this. When you link a 100 point webpage and ask that I refuse ALL of it, you are asking for an immense amount of time and effort on my part.

You and I both can agree that "The Hobbit" is a work of fiction. However, if I asked you to refute EVERYTHING in the "The Hobbit" it would take you an incredible amount of time to do so.

Further, we've seen a particular line of behavior from YECs. Maybe you are different but I'll demonstrate how it goes.

-New teenage YEC shows up at EVC.
-Teen YEC links "Answersingenesis" and demands that we refute the points.
-We point to the thousands and thousands of posts in the EVC library which do just that.
-Teen YEC doesn't bother to go read them and instead wants us to repeat ourselves.
-Someone bothers to redo the work yet again.
-Teen YEC vanishes without a response.
-Time passes, the work becomes part of the EVC library.
-New Teenage YEC shows up and the whole thing starts again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Repzion, posted 07-22-2007 12:19 AM Repzion has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 633 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 110 of 372 (411815)
07-22-2007 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Dr Adequate
07-22-2007 1:10 PM


Re: Here's more Stuff.
* "Authorities on biological taxonomy estimate there are less than 18,000 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians living in the world today. This number might be doubled to 36,000 species to allow for known and possible unknown extinct land animals."

I'd love to meet these biologist and introduce them to a little thing called math.

Here's Wiki on Ants

Ants are eusocial insects of the family Formicidae and, along with the related families of wasps and bees, belong to the order Hymenoptera. They are a diverse group of more than 12,000 species,

And Beetles

Forty percent of all described insect species are beetles (about 350,000 species), and new species are frequently discovered. Estimates put the total number of species, described and undescribed, at between 5 and 8 million.

So biologists believe there could be as many as 8,000,000 species of beetles, but that there are only a total of 18,000 species alive today...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2007 1:10 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by bluegenes, posted 07-22-2007 5:36 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 633 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 115 of 372 (411850)
07-22-2007 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Repzion
07-22-2007 5:58 PM


Water water everywhere
Noah didn't have to take sea creatures because they would not necessarily be threatened with extinction by a flood.

Well, youve got yourself a bit of a problem here for a number of reasons.

1) The "flood" did cause the extinction of lots of "sea creatures" specifically the aquatic dinosaurs didn't fare so well. Why is it that the hardiest dinos couldn't make it through the flood while the wimpiest of manatees skated by?

2) Another problem is that both trout and tuna made it through the flood. But here's the thing, if you drop a trout in the ocean, it's gonna belly up. Why? Too much salt in the water. If you drop a tuna in Lake Erie, same result for opposite reason - not enough salt. So how is it that all these animals were swimming together in the same body of water?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Repzion, posted 07-22-2007 5:58 PM Repzion has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 633 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 122 of 372 (411995)
07-23-2007 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Repzion
07-22-2007 5:58 PM


Not to start a whole other line of argument but...
It was Noah, his wife and his kids and their wives...

The BEST you could hope for in the next generation is 1st cousin marriage. Everyone has Noah as a father or a grandfather. How much inbreeding are we talking about here.

And, how many generations has it been since then? How do we get Nigerians, Aboriginese, Japanese, Swedes, Egyptians, Navajo, etc etc etc in so few generations?

The harder you look at the Flood myth, the less stuff makes sense - because it's a myth. It's a story used to impart moralistic information not historical information.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Repzion, posted 07-22-2007 5:58 PM Repzion has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 633 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 356 of 372 (511545)
06-10-2009 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by Peg
06-10-2009 4:47 AM


Re: Genetics and Pigs
I questioned using the sediment layers as a marker because as is seen in the layers of sediment from the Omo and Lake Rudolf areas, they are not always consistent with each other. In the example i gave, the pigs are in the same sediment layer, are dated to the same time but are a different types of pig.

Do you understand that there can be multiple types of an animal alive at the same time? For example, there are probably more than 100 breeds of dog.

50,000 years from now, analysis will be able to date dog remains to this time period. Are we going to assume some sort of bizarre magical global catastrophe simply because there is a chihuahua buried in one person's backyard and a poodle buried in another person's backyard?

There are (and were in the past) multiple types of pigs. It's no more unusual to find different kinds of pig fossils in the same layer in different locations than it would be to find multiple types of dog fossils in the same layer in different (or even the same!) locations.

Edited by Nuggin, : typos


This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Peg, posted 06-10-2009 4:47 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019