Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for a recent flood
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 241 of 404 (642135)
11-25-2011 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by jar
11-25-2011 9:45 PM


Re: Details, details, details
quote:
Lat and lon for Mt Ararat or more precise locating information would be a start but only a start.
The term 'or' is not credible here; more precise infrmation is already contained in the texts - namely surrounding nations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by jar, posted 11-25-2011 9:45 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by jar, posted 11-25-2011 10:02 PM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 255 by edge, posted 11-26-2011 12:11 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 242 of 404 (642136)
11-25-2011 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by IamJoseph
11-25-2011 9:54 PM


Re: Details, details, details
Sorry but that is simply bullshit, and tells us nothing. To say that Mt Ararat is between Babylon and Egypt is simply nonsense if it is meant to give us a location. It is also impossible to have a flood that would cover Babylon and Egypt that is not a world wide flood.
Details. Give us some details.
In addition:
When was this supposed flood?
Where was it?
What was the duration?
What was the extent?
Where are the sites where evidence of this alleged flood can be found?
What is the evidence of this asserted flood?
Sorry but if it existed then it exists now and can be identified by lat lon.
So far you have presented NO evidence that there was a flood, a local flood, regional flood, world wide flood, recent flood, ancient flood, no evidence at all. All you have provided is word salad and irrelevant crap.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by IamJoseph, posted 11-25-2011 9:54 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 243 of 404 (642137)
11-25-2011 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by IamJoseph
11-25-2011 9:30 PM


Re: Lets take the initiative
Every one of such claims have been found as bogus.
So debunk it.
Did you not wonder why no transit imprints between 8600 and 6000 are seen? If what you say is true, why do we not have alphabetical Chinese books listing 1000's of years of ancient history?
I didn't say it was written in modern Chinese (lots of dialects, btw) I said it was found in China. Whatever the case, it completely debunks your claim. Either illustrate why it's false or concede.
You bring up a one only 'CONJURED" myth, yet dispute tangible evidenced writings with factually evidenced historical landmarks!?
Factually evidenced historical landmarks mean what exactly? How is that relevant to the point where indisputable evidence exists of documents with names that predate Adam?
Correction. Genesis does not list any 'first' day: it says DAY ONE [for the first], then goes on to say SECOND, THIRD, day, etc. This is astutely correct: a first means first of previous and other days!
Wow, semantics much?!?! My translation says first, second, third, etc, not that it matters. You said that Genesis indicates that the universe is millions of years old. I disputed that using the very source you claim corroborates your assertion. Explain why Moses' language explicitly denotes literal days and not long epochs of time if what you say is true.
The listing of the actions mentioned before life emerged do account for billions of years; it cannot be after the fact because the premise of billions was as yet not in the human vocab or mindset; this is in fact the first alluding to such a time scale of a finite universe's age, well before the term science was coined.
It alludes to nothing of the such. It flat out gives literal days. You are making the assumption based on what you have luxury of knowing -- that the universe is in fact billions of years old. But the bible is at odds with that fact.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by IamJoseph, posted 11-25-2011 9:30 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by IamJoseph, posted 11-25-2011 10:30 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 250 by IamJoseph, posted 11-25-2011 10:36 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 252 by ICANT, posted 11-25-2011 11:27 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 244 of 404 (642138)
11-25-2011 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by IamJoseph
11-25-2011 9:35 PM


Re: Mt. Ararat
The point is Mount Ararat shows the general vicinity of the flood - backed by listing of other nations and regions of its surrounds; it cannot be retrospective if it is the first such listing of that mount.
But who cares? Why does it matter? If the Enuma Elish talks about Ur and Babylon (places known to exist) does that mean it's version of the Flood story is therefore necessarily accurate because of it?
No, it doesn't. So please explain to me again the relevance, cuz I'm not seeing it.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by IamJoseph, posted 11-25-2011 9:35 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by IamJoseph, posted 11-25-2011 10:20 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 245 of 404 (642140)
11-25-2011 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by IamJoseph
11-25-2011 9:39 PM


Does everyone agree, at the very least, the Noah story stands up to historical scrutiny based on a regional flood?
No, absolutely not. It's a fact that a big flood occured in that region, sure. That doesn't mean, however, there was a guy named Noah who built a wooden aircraft carrier full of every known species of animal on the planet, nor does it mean that only 7 people survived and then re-populated the earth.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by IamJoseph, posted 11-25-2011 9:39 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by IamJoseph, posted 11-25-2011 10:22 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 246 of 404 (642142)
11-25-2011 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Hyroglyphx
11-25-2011 10:09 PM


Re: Mt. Ararat
quote:
If the Enuma Elish talks about Ur and Babylon (places known to exist) does that mean it's version of the Flood story is therefore necessarily accurate because of it?
If a report includes many factual stats it does not mean it is true of being contemporary; it can still be retrospective reporting. But if those stats are mentioned for the first time - the situation alters dramatically.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-25-2011 10:09 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-26-2011 11:46 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 247 of 404 (642143)
11-25-2011 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Hyroglyphx
11-25-2011 10:13 PM


quote:
It's a fact that a big flood occured in that region, sure. That doesn't mean, however, there was a guy named Noah who built a wooden aircraft carrier full of every known species of animal on the planet, nor does it mean that only 7 people survived and then re-populated the earth.
What makes it a fact? Who says Noah's household [domestic animals] and a person by the name Noah, makes it non-factual?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-25-2011 10:13 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-26-2011 11:48 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 248 of 404 (642145)
11-25-2011 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Hyroglyphx
11-25-2011 10:06 PM


Re: Lets take the initiative
quote:
I didn't say it was written in modern Chinese (lots of dialects, btw) I said it was found in China. Whatever the case, it completely debunks your claim. Either illustrate why it's false or concede.
It has no impact on the Noah story.
quote:
Factually evidenced historical landmarks mean what exactly? How is that relevant to the point where indisputable evidence exists of documents with names that predate Adam?
We have no older names than Adam; factual landmarks affirm historical credibility; your chinese writings does not show the same.
Correction. Genesis does not list any 'first' day: it says DAY ONE [for the first], then goes on to say SECOND, THIRD, day, etc. This is astutely correct: a first means first of previous and other days!
Wow, semantics much?!?! My translation says first, second, third, etc, not that it matters. You said that Genesis indicates that the universe is millions of years old. I disputed that using the very source you claim corroborates your assertion. Explain why Moses' language explicitly denotes literal days and not long epochs of time if what you say is true.
quote:
The listing of the actions mentioned before life emerged do account for billions of years; it cannot be after the fact because the premise of billions was as yet not in the human vocab or mindset; this is in fact the first alluding to such a time scale of a finite universe's age, well before the term science was coined.
It alludes to nothing of the such. It flat out gives literal days.
Do you understand that first is not one, but many others preceding it? Analogy: is the sprinter who comes first the first or one of many sprinters? Genesis is astutely correct - and its no typo! Of note, Genesis goes on to correctly state the following days as SECOND; THIRD; etc. Why so?
quote:
You are making the assumption based on what you have luxury of knowing -- that the universe is in fact billions of years old. But the bible is at odds with that fact.
I am making no assumptions; I am listing the text! The text does not have the luxury of knowing what we know today!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-25-2011 10:06 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-26-2011 12:00 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 249 of 404 (642146)
11-25-2011 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by IamJoseph
11-25-2011 6:19 PM


Re: lack of agenda as evidence
This is a seasonal factor; the dates change as more relics pop up.
But nevertheless, there is no evidence that is known that dates the story to before any religions, as you claimed.
Do you have any evidence anything in the Noah story which can be disproved is disproved - such as historical factors? If not, the report is generally credible aside from a global flood.
I don't think the default position for the claims of a religious document should be 'generally credible' when they are talking about such incredible things.
You inferred special treatment as the agenda here?
No I didn't. I implied that the agenda was to propose the origins of the Israelites were from a family that was close to Yahweh, that the story glorifies Yahweh as a powerful figure and other such things.
'whatever that is' is the point here. You may reject the premise of a God - but not that the text is incorrect of a regional flood.
This thread is not a discussion about whether the flood was global or regional. I couldn't care less about that issue right at this moment. If we accept that it was a regional flood, we are still left with the issue of evidence for this flood.
The evidence I've seen you present, that I specifically take issue with, is that there is no agenda to the flood story which is somehow an indicator of its truth and the claim that the story predates religion, which is an unevidenced claim.
Moral superiority? A host of bad deeds are also listed
quote:
This is the history of the generations of Noach. Noach was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time. Noach walked with God.
nor do the moral laws apply to Jews: the term Jews do not appear in the laws.
That's why I was talking about the Israelites, not the Jews.
Are you not confusing your bibles here about chosen by example [be a light'] and the chosen of 'exclusive kingdom keys' and 'no god but allah'?
No I'm not confusing my bibles.
Choose your facorite chosen and agenda before making such a claim as your reason of proof.
I was just pointing out that there are many possible agendas that can be inferred from the existence of the text. It is not free of agenda.
The report is fantastically and astonishingly accurate aside from a global flood view; no ancient writings quite measure up here.
How do you know it is fantastically and astonishingly accurate? This is not a claim that can be made for historical documents, except in the cases where there happens to be physical evidence to back them up.
So far you've mentioned no physical evidence, just the documents. How do you know these documents are reliable? It seems clear to me the authors had an agenda, and there is no reason to think that agenda is to tell the complete truth.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by IamJoseph, posted 11-25-2011 6:19 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by IamJoseph, posted 11-25-2011 10:46 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 250 of 404 (642147)
11-25-2011 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Hyroglyphx
11-25-2011 10:06 PM


Re: Lets take the initiative
quote:
Wow, semantics much?!?! My translation says first, second, third, etc, not that it matters.
It does matter. You reading a European, Christian edition, which is hardly a credible source.
quote:
You said that Genesis indicates that the universe is millions of years old. I disputed that using the very source you claim corroborates your assertion. Explain why Moses' language explicitly denotes literal days and not long epochs of time if what you say is true.
Wrong again. The actions of depicting the universe's age is not in days because DAY and WEEK were introduced in Genesis; billions was not yet in the human vocab. This is the mark of authentic writings true to its time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-25-2011 10:06 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Butterflytyrant, posted 11-26-2011 12:29 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 251 of 404 (642148)
11-25-2011 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Modulous
11-25-2011 10:32 PM


Re: lack of agenda as evidence
quote:
How do you know it is fantastically and astonishingly accurate? This is not a claim that can be made for historical documents, except in the cases where there happens to be physical evidence to back them up.
Agreed. That is why this writings is mysterious. Its an anomaly on manifold levels, including that its the first alphabetical book [a multi-page continueing narrative], way ahead of its time even as of today. Genesis is astounding more so than if its scientifically correct [which it is!] - because it even thinks in the mode that it does: where have we seen a description of the universe as finite, containing unaccountable and inumerable stars, the introduction of the DAY, the seperation of water from land, followed by the first listing of life form categories in their correct order and subsequent to a seed which acts as a directive program chip as the factor for reproduction?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Modulous, posted 11-25-2011 10:32 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Butterflytyrant, posted 11-26-2011 12:42 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 252 of 404 (642149)
11-25-2011 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Hyroglyphx
11-25-2011 10:06 PM


Re: Lets take the initiative
Hi Hyroglyphx,
Hyroglyphx writes:
Wow, semantics much?!?! My translation says first, second, third, etc, not that it matters. You said that Genesis indicates that the universe is millions of years old. I disputed that using the very source you claim corroborates your assertion. Explain why Moses' language explicitly denotes literal days and not long epochs of time if what you say is true.
It seems odd for me to support IAJ but in this he is correct the text says 'day one' using the Cardinal number which means there was no day before that day. All the rest use the Ordinal numbers.
The Hebrew text: יום אחד Hebrew reads from right to left thus the first word יום is day.
The second word which is the last word in the sentence אחד is the Cardinal number 'one'
Had the author intended for the Ordinal number to be used (first) he would have used the Hebrew word ראשון which means first.
Now as to the definition of day which you question.
God gives the definition of a day in Genesis 1:5.
God called the light period day and He called the darkness night. He then combined the light period that had ended with the eveining in Genesis 1:2 and the dark period that ended with the light period of the morning as day one.
He then declared the end of each light period with evening and the end of the dark period at morning as the second day, the third day, the fourth day, the fifth day, the sixth day and the seventh day.
Day 2-7 ended with an evening the close of a light period and a morning the close of a dark period.
Since that takes place with every rotation of the Earth it makes those days a 24 hour day or thereabouts.
That first light period is something else though there is no limit to how long it lasted.
Therefore the Earth is just as old as it is as it was created in the beginning.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-25-2011 10:06 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Coyote, posted 11-25-2011 11:54 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 258 by IamJoseph, posted 11-26-2011 1:45 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 271 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-26-2011 12:11 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 253 of 404 (642150)
11-25-2011 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by ICANT
11-25-2011 11:27 PM


Re: Lets take the initiative
And since you stopped by, what's your take on the date and magnitude of the flood?
IAJ feels it was recent, maybe in the order of 4,500 years ago, and local or at most regional.
Is he right or wrong, and why?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by ICANT, posted 11-25-2011 11:27 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by ICANT, posted 11-26-2011 10:31 AM Coyote has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 254 of 404 (642151)
11-25-2011 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by IamJoseph
11-25-2011 9:35 PM


Re: Mt. Ararat
quote:
The point is Mount Ararat shows the general vicinity of the flood - backed by listing of other nations and regions of its surrounds; it cannot be retrospective if it is the first such listing of that mount.
BTW, I hope everyone here realizes that the biblical account of the Flood never mentions Mount Ararat. It mentions the mountains (plural) of Ararat. I.e. it is speaking of a region, not of a particular mountain.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by IamJoseph, posted 11-25-2011 9:35 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by IamJoseph, posted 11-26-2011 1:34 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 255 of 404 (642152)
11-26-2011 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by IamJoseph
11-25-2011 9:54 PM


Re: Details, details, details
The term 'or' is not credible here;...
Why not?
... more precise infrmation is already contained in the texts - namely surrounding nations.
How is that more precise than a geographic location down to the minutes/seconds?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by IamJoseph, posted 11-25-2011 9:54 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by IamJoseph, posted 11-26-2011 1:31 AM edge has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024