The Deluge

[Mirrorglass]

I was referring more to the repopulation of fauna, particularly those unique to the regions.

Oh right, silly me. I forgot we were talking about the animals.

 

[dafydd]

Hmmph.



Well, first of all, what is good is subjective. To me God is good but he has had to do some things that I wouldn't want to have had the authority to do, even some things that, like the David of Bible times, I didn't agree with or at least wasn't very happy with.

Some of the "bad" things he had to do I understand and I would have had to do the same. The flood, for example. The Bible doesn't say this so it is my own speculation, but I believe the flood had to have taken place or mankind would have destroyed itself.

The examples you used above . . . you have to give me scriptural citations, buddy, at least go that far.

I thought that your sky daddy was a good shepherd and your loving father.Some shepherd!

 

[I Am The Scum]

Let us also try this:

Can you point to evidence of a global flood, a bottleneck in human population, and the diversity of animal species from a single point on the globe that does not use the bible?

This is certainly a step in the right direction.

I'm finding the discussion to be fairly unproductive. Let's take a step back and take a philosophical perspective on it (bear with me, here.)

At question is a fairly specific claim. The claim is that a global flood occurred roughly 5,000 years ago, and that a man and his family created a large wooden vessel that floated upon the waters, and contained within that vessel were two of every animal (either species or "kind"), and that after the waters receded, the organisms in the vessel procreated and repopulated the planet. The whole of this phenomenon will henceforth be referred to as "the flood."

In addition, there is the issue of cause, namely, was all of this the product of a divine being? I will not be addressing that, however, because it would be more prudent to establish whether or not this thing has happened. After all, if we cannot establish that, we need not focus on cause.

So, let's investigate.

We can treat the flood as a dichotomy. Either it did happen, or it did not. We will be seeking the best explanation of the facts. That will be a recurring theme. Keep it in mind.

We begin by looking at facts. In the pursuit of knowledge in regards to the outside world, we must focus on observations of that world. The atheists here have brought up many in support of their case (though they could do themselves a great service by explaining how this ties into their conclusion). Namely, a lack of a genetic bottleneck, geology, history, geography, etc.

On the flip side, we have David Henson arguing in favor of the flood. To support his case he has established the facts of... Well, I honestly don't think he's made it this far, yet (and it's only step #1). If I am wrong on this point, by all means, correct me.

Now, we might disagree on which facts are true and which are false, and that's fine. But we need something to start with, a foundation, upon which we support our conclusion. Which leads us to the most important part.

We are seeking explanations. We take our facts, and tie them together to form a concise, coherent, informative view. There are a number of ways to judge how an explanation is good or bad, and I will briefly summarize them here:

Does it increase our knowledge, or does it essentially state that things happened "just because?"
Is it supported by what has been established, rather than asking that we assume that its premises are true?
Does it coincide with the facts, rather than contradict them?

The flood explanation fails miserably. It argues by dogma and bare assertion. Its facts are baseless and unsupported. And to top it all off, it begs the question as a means to dismiss all evidence to the contrary.

I propose that we take a more structured approach. Let's have each side pick their very best facts that support their case (but no more than five). Then, we will determine the truth of these facts. At this point, we will not worry about how they tie into the conclusion, just whether or not the facts are true.

Afterwards, each side will form an explanation supported by their facts, and will show how their opponent's evidence is coherent with their case.

Anyone unwilling to take up this challenge is either unable to meet it, or unworthy of debate.

Thoughts?

 

[dio]

There is nothing to debate.

The water just isn't there.

If you use all the water available on Earth (poles, glaciers, clouds, everything), you will get a 70m sea level increase. That is not a global flood.

The pro-flooders will say that god brought the water and then took it away. Again, nothing to debate.

 

[devnull]

The pro-flooders will say that god brought the water and then took it away.

Otherwise known as the "magicmandidit" defense.

 

[I Am The Scum]

All the more reason to put them in a position where they have to justify their claims.

 

[Marduk]

All the more reason to put them in a position where they have to justify their claims.

You may not be aware of it but theres 4 pages full of facts which David has ignored
calling for evidence now which has already been posted and ignored is a little moot

 

[Elizabeth I]

One thing I love about flood apologists, is that their theories eventually require not just evolution, but differentiation of species in a fantastically short period of time.

If you reduce each animal to "kinds" more broad than species, than they must evolve into the various species we've seen in the relatively modern era within less than 5000 years, when the very same people condemn evolution because they don't think the same thing would be possible over millions of years. To me, that's even weirder than the discussions of the water mechanics.

Yes, but you see, God is magic. To somebody who could flood the whole world, picking up animals and putting them down where they would need to be 5,000 years later is child's play, as is snapping the fingers to hustle up evolution.

I can't believe I have to explain this stuff.

 

[Athyrio]

The Bible uses the term "kinds" of animals, which differs from the biological term "species." The biological "kind" or "species" consists of any group of interfertile animals or plansts mutually possessing one or more distinctive characteristics. So there can be many such species of varieties within a single division of the Biblical "kinds."

The Biblical "kinds" are divisions of life forms in which each division allows for cross fertility within its limits. The boundry being, then, is the point where fertilization can no longer occur. In other words the Ark didn't need to have every species of dog or cat.

It's really too bad that the scribes for God couldn't have provided this sort of explanation in the original published work, that we had to wait until the 21st century for such CliffsNotes that could have convinced and saved so many throughout the years from damnation.

 

[Hokulele]

OK, back to the OP. Most of the following would not have survived being submerged for over 4 months^*.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees

It is also important to note that a few trees older than the alleged date of the Flood have been cut down and examined, and apparently there is nothing in the growth rings to suggest a major change in climate at the time of the flood, as one would expect if the earth suddenly lost a giant canopy of water vapor and remained flooded for months on end. The loss of the vast majority of the biomass on the planet would have had other effects on the ecosystem that would be reflected in the tree rings. Why isn't any evidence of a catastrophic flood shown in the trees that presumably survived this deluge?



* - Please note, the "40 days" reference it to the rain, not the length of time the water was supposed to have covered all of the earth.

 

[Mark6]

You know what, I think you may be on to something. I know nothing about the facts of history . . . I need a knowledgable fact finder like you who could help me out. Here is something I worked out a while back, maybe you can help me with it. You know . . . some constructive criticism . . .

I tell you what buddy. Lets do it this way. You do it. I will help you, of course, but you do it.

First step is to make sure you are aware of cardinal and ordinal numbers and how they differ. Cardinal numbers (1, 2, 3, 10, 100, etc) have full value but with ordinal numbers (3rd, 5th, 22nd, etc.) you have to subtract 1. So - for example the "18th year of Nebuchadrezzar" at Jeremiah 52:29 would actually be 17 full years and however many months, weeks or days elapsed from the end of the 17th year.

Also, when considering a number of years from B.C.E. to C.E. you have to keep in mind that from a date such as October 1, 1 B.C.E. to October 1, 1 C.E. is only 1 year, rather than 2. They are ordinal numbers. So, from October 1, 2 B.C.E. (about the time of Jesus' birth) to October 1 of 29 C.E. (about the time of his baptism) there is a total of 30 years. 1 full year plus 3 months in B.C.E. and 28 full years plus 9 months in the C.E.

Okay?

Now we need to set the pivotal date that both Biblical and secular history can pretty much agree upon. Uhhh, we could do 29 C.E.; the early months of 29 C.E. were in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar, named emperor by Roman Senate on September 15, 14 C.E. (Gregorian calendar) and the year that John the Baptizer started his preaching - six months later he baptized Jesus. Luke 3:1-3, 21, 23 / 1:36.

Or we could use 539 B.C.E. when Cyrus the Persian overthrew Babylon (See Diodorus, Afticanus, Eusebius, Ptolemy and the Babylonian tablets.

Cyrus gave the decree releasing the Jews from exile most likely in the winter of 538 B.C.E. or spring of 537 B.C.E. That would have given them enough time to make preparations and make the four month journey to Jerusalem, arriving by the seventh month (Tishri - October 1) of 537 B.C.E. Ezra 1:1-11 / 2:64-70 / 3:1.

Ready?!

The history of Babylon enters the Biblical chronology from Nebuchadnezzar II. His father, Nabapolassar marked the beginning of the Neo-Babylonian Empire which ended with Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar when Cyrus overthrew Babylon. Thus enters the destruction of Jerusalem and the 70 year exile.

Jeremiah 52:28 says that it was in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar (Nebuchanrezzar) when the first Jewish exiles were taken to Babylon. A cuneiform inscription of the Babylonian Chronicle (British Museum 21946) says: "The seventh year: In the month Kislev the king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Hattu. He encamped against the city of Judah and on the second day of the month Adar he captured the city (and) seized (its) king [Jehoiachin]. A king of his own choice [Zedekiah] he appointed in the city (and) taking the vast tribute he brought it into Babylon." (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 102; compare 2 Kings 24:1-17 / 2 Chronicles 36:5-10.) For the final 32 years of Nebuchanezzar's reign there is no historical records of the chronicle except a fragmentary inscription of a campaign against Egypt in his 37th year.

Tablets dated up to the second year of the rule of Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach 2 Kings 25:27-28) have been found. Neriglissar is thought to have been his successor and there are tablets dated to his fourth year.

Astronomical information for the seventh year of Cambyses II son of Cyrus II say: "Year 7, Tammuz, night of the 14th, 1 2⁄3 double hours [three hours and twenty minutes] after night came, a lunar eclipse; visible in its full course; it reached over the northern half disc [of the moon]. Tebet, night of the 14th, two and a half double hours [five hours] at night before morning [in the latter part of the night], the disc of the moon was eclipsed; the whole course visible; over the southern and northern part the eclipse reached." (Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon, by J. N. Strassmaier, Leipzig, 1890, No. 400, lines 45-48; Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, by F. X. Kugler, Münster, 1907, Vol. I, pp. 70, 71)

Those two lunar eclipses can be identified as those that were visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E. and January 10, 522 B.C.E. (Oppolzer's Canon of Eclipses, translated by O. Gingerich, 1962, p. 335) This with the tablet puts the seventh year of Cambyses II as starting with the spring of 523 B.C.E. Which means his first year of rule was 529 B.C.E. his accession year, also the last year of Cyrus II of Babylon would have been 530 B.C.E. The last tablet of the reign of Cyrus II is dated from the fifth month, 23rd day of his ninth year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.-A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) Since the ninth year of Cyrus II was 530 his first year would have been 538 B.C.E. and accession year 539.

If the Exodus account can be questioned it is only because the Pharaohs of Egypt didn't make any record of it. That, is not unusual. They tended to record only their victories and not their defeats and they tried to erase anything historical that was contrary to their nationalistic image or idealogy. Thutmose III, for example, chiseled away inscriptions made of Queen Hatshepsut on a stone monumental record found at Deir al-Bahri in Egypt.

Manetho the Egyptian priest and historian hated the Jews and Josephus quotes Manetho as saying that the ancestors of the Jews "entered Egypt in their myriads and subdued the inhabitants," Josephus said that Manetho "goes on to admit that they were afterwards driven out of the country, occupied what is now Judaea, founded Jerusalem, and built the temple." - Against Apion, I, 228 (26).

Manetho's account is regarded as unhistorical the fact remains that he mentions them as being in Egypt, going out and in other writings identifies Moses with Osarsiph, an Egyptian priest. Josephus also mentions two other Egyptian historians; Chaeremon, and Lysimachus who said that Joseph and Moses were driven out of Egypt at the same time. - Against Apion, I, 228, 238 (26); 288, 290 (32); 299 (33); 304-311 (34).

It is interesting to me that above you criticise the Bible saying that it can't be true because the Exodus is myth, but only Egyptian history would have reported it while at the same time you seem blissfully ignorant of the mythical origins of Egyptian history itself. The very source you demand testimony is as mythical as you claim the account of the Exodus is and now you insist upon present archeology?

According to the Book of Daniel the last ruler in Babylon before it fell to the Persions was Belshazzar. (Daniel 5:1-30). Since there was no mention of Belshazzar outside the Bible his very existance was in doubt, but in the 19th century there was found several small cylinders inscribed in cuneiform in southern Iraq. A prayer to the health of Nabonidus, king of Babylon's eldest son - Belshazzar.

Nabonidus was the first king, his son Belshazzar was second and at Daniel 5:16 Belshazzar himself offered to make Daniel the third.

Wait for archeology. It usually catches up with the Bible.

Herod lived hard and fast, so not surprising Josephus said of his painful death: "an intolerable itching of the whole skin, continuous pains in the intestines, tumours in the feet as in dropsy, inflammation of the abdomen and gangrene of the privy parts, engendering worms, in addition to asthma, with great difficulty in breathing, and convulsions in all his limbs." - The Jewish War, I, 656 (xxxiii, 5).

The problem with the dating of his death when considering Bible chronology is that some put his death in the year 5 or 4 B.C.E. based primarily upon Josephus' history. In dating Herod's being appointed as king by Rome Josephus uses a consular dating, which is a location of events occurring during the rule of certain Roman consuls. According to this method Herod was appointed as king in 40 B.C.E., but another historian Appianos placed the event at 39 B.C.E.

Josephus places Herod's capture of Jerusalem at 37 B.C.E. but he also says that this occurred 27 years after the capture of the city by Pompey which was in 63 B.C.E. (Jewish Antiquities, XIV, 487, 488 [xvi, 4]) So in that case the date of Herod taking the city of Jerusalem would be 36 B.C.E. so 37 years from the time that he was appointed king by the Romans and 34 years after he took Jerusalem (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 190, 191 [viii, 1]) would indicate the date of his death as 2 or 1 B.C.E.

It might be that Josephus counted the reigns of the kings of Judea by the accession year method which was the case with the kings of the line of David.

If Herod's was appointed king by in 40 B.C.E. his first regnal year would probably begin at Nisan 39 to Nisan 38 B.C.E. and if counted from the capture of Jerusalem in 37 or 36 B.C.E. his first regnal year would have started in Nisan 36 or 35 B.C.E. so if Herod died 37 years after his appointment by Rome and 34 years after his capture of Jerusalem and those years are counted both according to his regnal year his death would have been 1 B.C.E.

In The Journal of Theological Studies (Edited by H. Chadwick and H. Sparks, Oxford, 1966, Vol. XVII, p. 284), W. E. Filmer indicates that Jewish tradition says that Herod's death occurred on Shebat (January - February) 2

Josephus stated that Herod died not long after an eclipse of the moon and before a Passover (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 167 [vi, 4]; 213 [ix, 3]). There was a partial eclipse on March 11, 4 B.C.E. (March 13, Julian) and so some conclude that this was the eclipse mentioned by Josephus, but there was a total eclipse of the moon in 1 B.C.E. about three months before Passover on January 8 (January 10, Julian) 18 days before Shebat 2 the traditional day of Herod's death.

There was also another partial eclipse on December 27 (December 29, Julian).

Most scholars date Herod's death as 4 B.C.E. citing the March 11 eclipse as proof and so place the birth of Jesus as early as 5 B.C.E., but that eclipse was only 36 percent magnitude and early in the morning. The other two taking place in 1 B.C.E. would both fit the requirement of having taken place not long before the Passover. The one of December 27 would have been observable in Jerusalem but not as a conspicuous event. Oppolzer's Canon of Eclipses (p. 343), says the moon was passing out of the earth's shadow as twilight fell in Jerusalem so by the time it was dark the moon was shining full. That particular one isn't included in the Manfred Kudlek and Erich Mickler listing. I personally think you can rule that one out because it is uncertain that it was visible in Jerusalem.

The January 8, 1 B.C.E. was a total eclipse where the moon was blacked out for 1 hour and 41 minutes and would have been noticed. (Solar and Lunar Eclipses of the Ancient Near East From 3000 B.C. to 0 With Maps, by M. Kudlek and E. H. Mickler; Neukirchen-Vluyn, Germany; 1971, Vol. I, p. 156.)

Also the calculation of Herod's age at the time of death is thought to be about 70, according to Josephus and he received his appointment as governor of Galilee (generally dated 47 B.C.E.) when he was 15, though scholars think that to be an error that should read 25. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 148 [vi, 1]; XIV, 158 [ix, 2]) Though Herod has many inconsistencies in his dating of events and not the most reliable source. The most reliable source is the Bible itself.
The evidence is pretty clear that Herod likely died in the year 1 B.C.E. as Luke (don't give me no **** about Luke!) says that John began baptizing in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar. (Luke 3:1-3) Augustus died on August 17, 14 C.E. On September 15, Tiberius was named emperor by the Roman Senate. They (the Romans) didn't use the accession year method os the 15th year would have run from the latter part of 28 C.E. to the latter part of 29 C.E.

John was six months older than Jesus and began his ministry in the spring of that year (Luke 1:35-36) Jesus was born in the fall of the year and was about 30 years old when he came to John to be baptized (Luke 3:21-23) putting his baptism in the fall - about October of 29 C.E. Counting back about 30 years would put us at the fall of 2 B.C.E., the birth of Jesus. Daniel's prophecy of "70 weeks" points to the same time (Daniel 9:24-27 From the year 455 B.C.E. when King Artaxerxes of Persia, in the 20th year of his rule, in the month of Nisan, gave the order to rebuild the wall of the city of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2:1-8) to 29 C.E. when Jesus was baptized was 69 weeks or 483 years.

Egyptologist Dr. Hans Goedicke of Johns Hopkins University has a nonsensical theory that the Biblical record of the events at the Red Sea and the Exodus coincided with a 1477 B.C.E. volcanic eruption at Thera resulting in a tsunami or tidal wave that drowned the Egyptian forces, but his theory doesn't pay much attention to the Biblical account which mentions no wave.

The Hyksos period of Egyptian history warrants the same degree of caution and suspicion. Some believe that the Hyksos were a foreign people that gained control of Egypt and place Joseph's and then his family's entry into Egypt as being during that period of the Hyksos rulers, but only on the premise that it would have been more likely for a foreign ruler to have given a non Egyptian the position of second ruler.

But that theory disagrees with the Bible. Potiphar the court official was an Egyptian (Genesis 39:1) and Joseph was surrounded by native Egyptians. (Genesis 43:32)

Josephus, the source of the name Hyksos, accepted some connection between them and the Israelites but argued against many of the details found in Manetho's account. He (Josephus) preferred the term Hyksos as Captive Shepherds rather than Shepherd Kings.

Manetho presented the Hyksos as gaining control of Egypt without a battle and then destroying their cities and temples. Many years later the Egyptians supposedly rose up and fought a long and terrible war against them. Finally an Egyptian force of 480,000 men besieged them at their chief city, Avaris, and then, oddly enough, an agreement was reached that allowed the Hyksos to leave the country unharmed and they went to Judea and built Jerusalem. (Against Apion, Book I, par. 14)
Manetho adds to the account in what Josephus labels a fictitious addition of a large group of 80,000 leprous and diseased persons being allowed to settle in Avaris after the shepherds had left. Those persons later revolted and called back the "shepherds" (Hyksos?) who destroyed the cities and villages etc. (Against Apion, Book I, pars. 26, 28)
Though modern historians agree with the idea of a Hyksos conquest, they believe Josephus quotations as inaccurate in associating the Hyksos with the Israelites. They can't find much information from ancient Egyptian sources to fill in the records of the "Thirteenth to the Seventeenth Dynasties." Since they can't find it, they assume that some disintegration of power occurred in the "Thirteenth and Fourteenth Dynasties" based upon not much information, Egyptian folklore, and conjecture they conclude that it was the "Fifteenth and Sixteenth Dynasties" that Egypt was under the domination of the Hyksos.
Some archaeologists depict the Hyksos as "northern hordes . . . Sweeping through Palestine and Egypt with swift chariots." Others present them moving as a 'creeping conquest,' a gradual infiltration of migrating nomads or semi nomads who slowly took control or as a swift coup d'etat . In The World of the Past, 1963, p. 444) archaeologist Jaquetta Hawkes says: "It is no longer thought that the Hyksos rulers . . . represent the invasion of a conquering horde of Asiatics. The name seems to mean Rulers of the Uplands, and they were wandering groups of Semites who had long come to Egypt for trade and other peaceful purposes."
If that were true how would these wandering groups have gained control of Egypt gained control in the "Twelfth Dynasty" which was about the time of Egypt's peek of power. It indicates to me a considerable amount of confusion on the parts of not only ancient Egyptian history but modern interpreters as well. No validity of the Hyksos Period can be achieved.
Another point of consideration is the fact that Egypt, like many Near Eastern lands, was heavily linked with the priesthood and the scribes were well trained under their tutelage leaving the very possible fact that propagandistic explanations were invented to account for the Egyptian gods to deal with Jehovah and the exodus.

Amasis (Ahmose II) was the successor of Hophra which would put him at a much later date. Thutmosis? You mean Thutmose?

That may be Sheshonk I? From Egyptian records, the founder of the "Libyan Dynasty," he ruled for about 21 years. His son, who succeeded him, was Osorkon I.

Jeroboam fled to Egypt to escape Solomon when Shishak ruled (1 Kings 11:40). Later, in the fifth year of Solomon's successor Rehoboam's (933 B.C.E.) Shishak invaded Judah but didn't bring Jerusalem to ruin. (2 Chronicles 12:1-12)
Archaeological evidence of Shishak's invading the area of Palestine was found on a fragment of stele at Megiddo and mentions Sheshonk as a victory of his. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, pp. 263, 264) A relief on a temple wall at Karnak, the north part of the ancient Egyptian city of Thebes, lists numerous cities and villages that Shishak conquered. (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Leiden, 1957, Vol. IV, pp. 59-60) It is likely that his campaign was not so much to assist the ten tribe kingdom but to gain control of the trade routes located in the territory of that kingdom, thus extending Egypt's power and influence.

Necho[h] was a pharaoh of Egypt, who, according to Herodotus (II, 158, 159; IV, 42) was the son of Psammetichus (Psammetichos, Psamtik I) and succeeded his father as ruler of Egypt. He began construction on a canal linking the Nile with the Red Sea but didn't complete the project, though he did send a Phoenician fleet on a voyage around Africa in three years.

At the close of Josiah's 31 year reign (659 - 629 B.C.E.) he was on his way to help the Assyrians at the river Euphrates. Josiah disregarded "the words of Necho from the mouth of God" and was killed while attempting to turn the Egyptians back at Megiddo. Three months later Necho took Jehoahaz, Josiah's successor, captive and made 25 year old Eliakim his vassal, changing his name to Jehoiakim. He (Necho) also put a heavy fine on Judah. (2 Chronicles 35:20 - 36:4 / 2 Kings 23:29 - 35 About 3 or 4 years later Necho's forces were defeated at Charchemish at the hands of the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar. (Jeremiah 46:2)

Robert Schram's Kalendariographische und Chronologische Tafeln, published in Leipsig in 1908, and Karl Schoch's Planeten Tafeln Für Jedermann, published in Berlin in 1927 presented tables that also appear in the English book entitled The Venus Tablets of Ammizaduga, by S. Langdon and J. K. Fotheringham, published in London. Dr. Schoch's tables appear in the appendix of this English publication.

For example: The Spring Equinox in the year 607 B.C. was on March 28th (Julian Calendar). Gregorian dates are behind Julian dates for the identical events prior to the third century A.D. actually 7 days behind for the 7th century B.C. according to the Gregorian Calendar because it has a uniform date for the equinoxes. So 45 B.C. when the Julian Calendar began the Julian date for the Spring Equinox that year was March 23. For first century B.C. the conversion factor is a - 2, so the Spring Equinox is March 21 B.C. 45 Gregorian Calendar. When the Nicean Council of A.D. 325 the Spring Equinox occurred on March 20 Julian. The conversion factor for the fourth century A.D. is a + 1. This brings the Spring Equinox back to March 21 Gregorian A.D. 325.

And your point is...?

I read your entire post, very carefully. Some things in it were new to me, and I have no reason to disagree with them, but that's of no importance. Nowhere do you have ANYTHING that indicates when Egyptian civilization began. Particularly on some after-flood date. The most you have is "doubt". Which puts you in disagreement with pretty much all modern archaelogists -- even if you assume Egyptian priests were deliberately inflating their ancstral line.

And you STILL did not answer to my previous post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5770512#post5770512

 

[Foster Zygote]

There is nothing to debate.

The water just isn't there.

If you use all the water available on Earth (poles, glaciers, clouds, everything), you will get a 70m sea level increase. That is not a global flood.

The pro-flooders will say that god brought the water and then took it away. Again, nothing to debate.

Just as damning, the evidence of water just isn't there. A global deluge would leave clear geological evidence of such an event and it just isn't there.

 

[GeeMack]

I'm going to try a different method than I have ever tried. I'm going to open a thread on the flood by simply asking anyone who cares to to ask me whatever they want to ask me about the flood. This could potentially save a great deal of time.

Maybe it could. But you've ignored the vast majority of legitimate questions so far. On the other hand, if your objective was to offer evidence that you are ignorant, then you've succeeded marvelously!

 

[Meadmaker]

I have a question related to the OP.


If an oil company were interviewing a geologist to help them search for potential new sources of oil, and that geologist identified himself as someone who believed a worldwide deluge occurred approximately 5,000 years ago, how do you think it would affect his chances of being hired? If it would have an effect, why do you think it would?

 

[Ralph]

So how did a WOODEN boat the size of the Titanic manage to keep from leaking in rough stormy waters?

I'm not a nautical engineer but I believe there are structural reasons why a wooden boat the size of the Titanic was never built.

A little rough water and the seams between the planks are going to have some pretty big gaps in them.....not to mention the fact that it would probably fall apart under it's own weight in rough water....

Still waiting to hear why the boat didn't leak or just fall apart.

 

[Moss]

Well, maybe god was doing what every other massmurderer with fear of getting caught did: he hid all the evidence.

 

[VonKleist]

According to the Book of Daniel the last ruler in Babylon before it fell to the Persions was Belshazzar. (Daniel 5:1-30). Since there was no mention of Belshazzar outside the Bible his very existance was in doubt, but in the 19th century there was found several small cylinders inscribed in cuneiform in southern Iraq. A prayer to the health of Nabonidus, king of Babylon's eldest son - Belshazzar.

Nabonidus was the first king, his son Belshazzar was second and at Daniel 5:16 Belshazzar himself offered to make Daniel the third.

Wait for archeology. It usually catches up with the Bible.

Belshazzar was never King of Babylon, he acted as regent for his father, Nabonidus, during the latter's absence on his religious retreat. Nowhere in the Nabonidus Cylinder is Belshazzar referred to as 'king of Babylon'. Daniel 5:2 states that Belshazzar's father was Nebuchadnezzar, which is clearly wrong. Daniel 5:18 has Daniel himself make the same mistake.

 

[Trantor]

The ark was 437 ft 6 in. x 72 ft 11 in x 43 ft 9 in. (135.5 m x 22.3 m x 13.4 m) which is about the size of the Titanic. It had about 1,400,000 cu ft (40,000 cu m) in gross volume. More than enough room for the people, animals and food for the journey. Keep in mind that the animals may have been in hibernation for at least a portion of the time as well.

For your information, the Titanic was much bigger than the ark. The Titanic mesasured 882 ft x 92 ft x 175 ft. The interior volume was about 10 times greater than the ark. Of course, the Titanic was huge for it's time, but many modern cruise ships, tankers, and military ships, are much bigger than the Titanic. Just recently, one of the major cruise lines, came out with a cruise ship that has 5 times the volume of the Titanic.

This thread reminded me of some of the things that caused me to start thinking critically when I was a church goer and believer in the Bible. Once I started thinking critically when reading my Bible, the stories fell apart completely. God had nothing to do with the content or writing of the book. It's amazing that so many people believe it's true, but I guess that is the nature of faith. I lost my faith(willful ignorance) in the book, many years ago, and I feel better for it.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Well, first of all, what is good is subjective.

Ah, the "moral relativism" that

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility.

keep screaming about whenever confronted with the issues of gay rights, abortion, erotica, women voting, non-whites walking down the street in broad daylight, and anything else that offends their backward sensibilities.

So which is it? Is morality situational? Or is it absolute and written in stone as Christians often claim?

To me God is good but he has had to do some things that I wouldn't want to have had the authority to do, even some things that, like the David of Bible times, I didn't agree with or at least wasn't very happy with

Your god is omnipotent. He shouldn't have to make "hard choices." There is "sin" in the world. POOF! There, everyone will never do evil ever again. No global genocide by drowning needed.

And don't give me this "free will" crap either. First of all, your god's alleged omniscience blows the concept of "free will" out of the water. Secondly, your god stopping an evil act should be no more a negation of our supposed "free will" than a police officer stopping an evil act, like rape:

"Sorry ma'am, I'd love to stop this man from violating you, but that would violate his God-give free will to choose between right and wrong."

Some of the "bad" things he had to do I understand and I would have had to do the same.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility.

The examples you used above . . . you have to give me scriptural citations, buddy, at least go that far.

No, we don't. The facts don't match your book of fairy tales

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility.

Beyond its questionable literary value, The Bible is worthless.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I have a question related to the OP.

If an oil company were interviewing a geologist to help them search for potential new sources of oil, and that geologist identified himself as someone who believed a worldwide deluge occurred approximately 5,000 years ago, how do you think it would affect his chances of being hired? If it would have an effect, why do you think it would?

...and this leads to an interesting, though off-topic, question:

What would the good Christian do? Lie and say he/she believed in the scientific principles of geology to get the job, or launch into a lecture on reasons the flood occurred, as supported by "facts" in the Bible, and fail to become employed, thus leaving his/her family without support?