Does The Flood Add up?

quote:

---

:AlgolagniaVolcae

​

1) I've always been under the impression that the Aborigine Dreamtime is the oldest religion.

​

2) Once again I reference the Aborigines whose culture is estimated to be sixty thousand years old, how can they be explained away to make room for the biblical flood? If memory serves me correctly though, they have a local flood story.

---

This is a very important point, because when this story was first written, they would have had no idea Aborigines existed. But what difference does it make if they knew about them or not if the flood was real? Should their knowledge of the world around them have affected the stories in any way? No, it should not have, because we are told the author was writing about facts. Yet, despite the fact that the author had no idea there were Aborigines when he wrote his story, God didn't seem to either. And when talking about how many animals there were in the world, God seemed to only know about as many animals in the world as the authors at that time. If I didn't know any better, I would say someone just made it up based on what they knew of the world at the timeIt reminds me of the group that believes there is a race of people at the centre of the earth, an idea that came around the early 17th century. To quote from SkepDics.com:

quote:

---

In the late 17th century, British astronomer Edmund Halley proposed that Earth consists of four concentric spheres and "also suggested that the interior of the Earth was populated with life and lit by a luminous atmosphere. He thought the aurora borealis, or northern lights, was caused by the escape of this gas through a thin crust at the poles."

---

He spent most of his life gathering believers, and one of them being John Symmes :

quote:

---

One of the most ardent supporters of hollow-earth was the American John Symmes. Symmes was an ex-army officer and a business man. Symmes believed that the Earth was hollow and at the north and south poles there were entrances, 4,000 and 6,000 miles wide, respectively, that led to the interior.

---

After all this time, follower after follower put their own spin on the tale, some changing their names and starting cults based around it (Cyrus Read Teed for example).Finally, after all this time, after all these believers, after stories of people actually GOING to the center of the earth and confirming it was real:

quote:

---

United States Navy Admiral Richard Byrd flew across the North Pole in 1926 and the South Pole in 1929 without seeing any holes leading to inner-earth. Photographs taken by astronauts in space show no entrances either. Modern geology indicates the Earth is mostly a solid mass.

---

The myths never matched up with what we knew about the world today, and those who believe in this story have suddenly become very few. This is just another case where the story created by the original author was based purely on the fact that nobody could DISPROVE the story at the time, and when we have the technology and the evidence to show their claims are false, there are still some out there who believe the government is hiding the truth, or that they missed it (despite the entrances being 4,000 and 6,000 miles wide)So is the power of refusing to believe you were wrong.

I think part of the reason this thread is not getting much activity is because the thread title is quite broad. So far we have been focusing on the discussion of other cultures who lived at the time of the flood who should have been wiped out, and I think that the thread title should reflect that. (it might get a bit more traffic then). I propose that, should the OP or the staff have the ability to edit the thread title, that we change it to something more fitting like:*Cultures who survived the flood*A world wide flood that Australia never heard of?*Underwater Aborigines? =P

quote:

---

--Posit
It seems that in coming up with a secular explanation, they're shooting themselves in the foot. After all, if the story is feasible without resorting to the supernatural, then one need not invoke the supernatural to explain it.

---

HA! Good point =)This thread seems to be very quite from the Creationist side. Anyone care to have a swipe at some of the posts so far?

HAHA! So it's true. We have underwater Aborigines in Australia ^_^I also like how that quote says the water was covering "all the high mountains under the entire heavens", and then in the next passage Genesis 7:20 it says

quote:

---

Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

---

Man, we must have had some small hills back then

quote:

---

--Brokenpride
First of all if you can accept that God is capable of creating the universe and life itself, why is the story of the ark so impossible?

---

God creating the universe and Noah making the ark are two completely different matters. And is the ark impossible? According to the evidence put forth this in this thread, YES

quote:

---

--Brokenpride
Is turning water into wine any less of a miracle?

---

1) In some ways, it could be a miracle, as long as you can prove it happened outside the reason 'because the bible said so'
2) I can do this at home as a party trick

quote:

---

--Brokenpride
How about rising from the dead?

---

1) yes, it is a miracle, as long as you can prove it happened outside the reason 'because the bible said so'

quote:

---

--Brokenpride
Gods ways are his own but if you really want to understand you have to first believe then look for answers. If God was proven to exist everyone would believe in him. How could you reward the faithful then?

---

Well since you HAVE found him, then you must have answers, at least according to your theory. Care to debunk the evidence put forth in this thread then?

You mean you can't, or you don’t want to?If you can't explain it, why is that?If you don't want to explain, I suggest not posting in this thread unless you have something to contribute, lest it wander off topic.----So, back on topic - I looked up some information on how long Aborigines are to have lived in Australia, and even at the most conservative widely-accepted timeline found that the first arrival to Australia is between 40,000 - 50,000 years ago, with the average falling around near 30,000 years. Even assuming they got the facts wrong, and we divide that number in two, they were still most defiantly alive at the time of the flood. We can even assume that they were so horribly off the mark, that we divide that number in half again, giving us 7500 years, defiantly still around at the time of the flood.The most important early sites in Australia are:
Nauwalabila (55,000 - 60,000 years old)
Malakanunja (45,000 - 61,000 years old)
Devil's Lair (45,000 years old)
Lake Mungo (61,000 or 40,000 years old)Lake Mungo is the only site which has come under suggestions that the date may not be accurate; it is suggested that it should be 40,000 years old, not 61,000 years old. Hardly anywhere the suggestion that all sites would have to be a mere 4000 years old.So how do flood supporters account for this?I asked a Christian friend of mine today how he could account for the Aborigines living at the same time as the flood, and in fact before God was even supposed to have created man (but that’s another thread for another day), and he replied ”well we can’t be sure they were alive more than 4000 years ago’. I told him that these dates were achieved using Thermoluminescence, which despite only being around 15% accurate for a single sample, can be used as definite means to get an idea within a few thousand years of a date with enough samples. So far, even under the heaviest of criticism, the dates of the Aborigines migration to Australia lands absolutely no where near 4000 years.At this point he said “yeah look, I have no idea”.