The Deluge

[Hokulele]

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?

Quoted, just in case Meadmaker is one of the four on Ignore.

 

[Delvo]

6,800 ft. In the central east west valley of Jezreel it starts at about 300 and goes to 390 ft. Are you suggesting a flood needed to be 300 - to 6,800 ft in order to be possible? What evidence is there that those elevations might have been much lower in ancient times?

You're the one asserting that they were; you're supposed to tell us about your evidence, not ask us for it.

But the whole idea of the world having once been flat enough to be covered by a 15-cubit flood isn't necessary anyway. The Bible verse you named doesn't say a 15-cubit flooded the world; it says the water was 15 cubits above the highest mountains, which makes it a lot more cubits deep over lower ground. You seem to have gone out of your way to claim an especially weird, common-sense-defying, and rare even among Flood-believers, alternative version that's much more troublesome for yourself, instead of the more obvious, simple, relatively believable, standard version.

Now can we all get off of the water-depth issue, please? It's a non-issue. This is like objecting to a tale about dragons on the grounds that lizards' scales don't come in the variety of colors that are attributed to dragons; not only is the objection itself relatively easy to get around, but it gets in the way when there's a bunch of much more serious stuff to get to. For example, I really want to hear a Flood-believer's response to the things I brought up in my last post in this thread (which DH did say was what this thread was for, right?):

Let's just focus on the mammals for now. There are 29 orders, so the Biblical kinds can contain one or two orders apiece {corrected because I wrote it backward from what I was thinking the first time: the 29 orders can contain one or two of the 43 "kinds" that DH had mentioned before, apiece; still close enough, not far off from a 1:1 ratio of mammalian orders to kinds}. Some orders contain only one species, but others contain a bunch. One order contains all canines (including bears), felines, weaseles/martens/badgers/minks/mongooses/ferrets/wolverines {I left out civets!}, raccoons, pandas, otters, and seals & sea lions & walruses; another order contains the horses and all horse-like critters plus tapirs and rhinoceroses; and another order contains deer, antelope including giraffes, cattle, sheep/goats, pigs/boars, camels... peccaries, and hippopotamuses. (It could be argued that it should also include whales, porpoises, and dolphins, but not manatees, but I'll leave them out for now.)

OK, so that last list of animals I made all came from one kind, consisting of two (or possibly seven, depending on which Bible verse you accept and which one you discard) individuals a few thousand years ago. That's the amount of diversity that can come from such a small group in such a short time. That leads to some really odd things, though:

1. The rate of evolution that you're telling us must have happened there is EXTREMELY fast, but has now stopped, because we can see that it's not happening at anything like that rate now. Actually, it had already stopped by a few centuries ago, when reliable records of the exact, detailed traits of different species of a wide variety of animal groups started getting recorded. So, why did evolution go so fast at first (producing both pigs and giraffes from a single source in a few thousand years), and then freeze, all over the world?

2. Why did some of the kinds on the Ark, including us, not evolve so much right afterward while others did?

3. Some of these species were mentioned as separate entities from each other, before {the end of} the flood, in the Bible. Abel is described as raising and sacrificing sheep, not something that would later evolve into cattle and sheep and pigs and so on. Noah is described as taking "cattle" aboard, not something that would later evolve into cattle and sheep and pigs and so on. And he has slightly different instructions for "ritually clean" and "ritually unclean" species, even though clean and unclean species (such as cattle and pigs) descend from what was just one kind back then. Also, ravens and doves are two distinct species aboard the ship. How is it possible to have different species counted and handled separately like this, when they were not yet actually separate kinds of animals from each other? How could the people even have had concepts and names for them when they didn't even exist as separate things yet?

4. Similarly, Genesis describes some human cultures existing before the flood in a way that indicates that those cultures are familiar to the book's post-flood readers. (Jabal was the ancestor of the "herdsmen who live in tents"; Jubal was the ancestor of "those who play the harp and pipe".) But these cultures had no representatives aboard the ship. How did the same cultures, separate from each other and from the culture whose book this was, exist both before and after a flood that wiped out all but one family?

*

I'd just like to know who among Noah's family had the clap.

The problem isn't just with some diseases & parasites having certain sociological issues related to them; it's that there are so many of them that for only 2 (or 7) animals of each kind to have carried ALL of them would mean that each individual was somehow infested with lots and lots of them simultaneously. And no animal would have survived having half (or even just a seventh) of all possible diseases & parasites simultaneously.

There isn't now, but what do you think would have caused Moses to write that there was and then thousands of years later Peter to write that it was gone now because of the global deluge?

The author(s) of Genesis wrote nothing about vapors in the thermosphere, and the author(s) of the Second Book of Peter wrote nothing about the water from the flood being gone. (And just where are you saying it went, anyway? And why did God put it there instead of putting it back where he had put it in the first place?)

 

[David Henson]

Quoted, just in case Meadmaker is one of the four on Ignore.

Meadmaker isn't one of the four. Anyway, I'm removing the 4 from ignore as I go through this thread.

 

[Delvo]

If the forging of iron tools and making of musical instruments predated the flood isn't it reasonable to conclude that people knew how to write?

No. Not that I'm sure what the relevance is anyway, but no.

Musical instruments have been made by people who had no written language, all over the world. It's been going on for multiple times as long as any written language has existed anywhere.

Iron forging was apparently invented by a literate culture (or two), but just barely (barely literate, and with writing barely developed any sooner than iron forging), and by coincidence, not because it had to be so. For that matter, writing itself was so recent and primitive and limited in use at the time, that a relatively small fraction of the population even in a culture that had written language would have known how to read and write, and those who did would generally not have been smiths, so iron forging was probably developed by individuals who didn't know how to read or write, even if they lived in cities where somebody else did. And after iron forging began, it was also spread to other cultures that didn't have written language yet and wouldn't for hundreds or thousands of years to come.

Iron forging is an extension of basic metallurgical practices that were already known from softer metals before, such as copper, gold, silver, and tin: you get the rocks that have the metal in it, and heat it/them up until the metals either melt or at least soften up significantly. The hotter they get, the more you can manipulate their shapes, but at least some shaping can be done cold, which is probably how metals were discovered in the first place. Getting more advanced control over the metals they were already familiar with was just a matter of making hotter fires. And the hotter the fire they could make, the less they needed the metals they were working with to be inherently soft. Iron, being less soft than the first metals to be put to use, simply took more heat, but that was the only obstacle. Iron work could take off as soon as people could get high enough temperatures, and that's all there was to it.

There were no complex research projects requiring piles of detailed lab records to be kept. This is not the kind of development that needs writing in order to happen. It just happened in big advanced cities first because that's where there were relatively large concentrations of people to work on such things supported by nearby farmers, and those just happened to be the same places where writing also got invented.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

A few pages back in the thread you said you were going to awnser all the questions you hadn't awnsered.
Before this whole derail thing happened. I'll be clear. I care neither for your sexuality nor what religion you adhere to. I joined this thread because you claimed to have evidence for the flood and I find such things interesting.

So far your evidence comes down to: The bible says its true and all science is false/lying/changed by god/altered by satan.
As I scientist myself I find the first two as offensive as you being told you are a delusional fool for following a religion. Current scientific methods might have errors in them, but they are rigorously tested and re-tested and the errors found are currently either none or on scales so small as not to be significant 10 million years plus or minus 10000 years is still a long time.
AS for the god/satan did it, well, that is unprovable unless either are proven to exist and then admit to doing such a thing and even the bible never mentions altering the whole framework of the universe to lead astray the scientists of the future.

You have not adressed why genetics cannot find any form of bottleneck in speciation several millennia ago. Nor why genetic analysis of mammals consistently finds common ancestors far older than the supposed flood.
You have not adressed why geology and myth do not find the remains of animals radiating out of the middle east, nor why every other culture on earth within two centuries suddenly had decided to completely forget god and start worshipping others (after they had magically reappeared of course). While you're at that, could you also explain why the people repopulating the americas decided to forget iron working, leave behind such useful herd animals as cows and horses and not take grain with them?
You have also not adressed why the geological layers of the world either contain no evidence for a flood at all, or evidence for floods at distinctly different times.
You have not adressed how all the host specific parasites and diseases survived, nor what the animals actually ate until sustainable breeding populations were re-established, which would have taken several years.


You have either ignored these questions, sent links to sites that use the 'the bible says so, so we can ignore science, or gone off on rants about utterly unrelated subjects.

This would lead me to conclude that you have no real evidence and that the flood story, like most of genesis, is a myth written as a form of warning to believers. Part of the 'We have the best god, but don't make him angry' bit that all religions have.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Actually. I do have one other question if you'll indulge me.
Why do you have such a NEED for every part of the bible to be literally true?
Most christians I know accept genesis as a series of myths more to establish the nature of god and his interactions with humans rather than literal truth.
They believe that god made the universe and then was willing to wait 13 billion years for us to appear so he could care about how they live their lives and tell them what to do.
They have no problem with parts of the bible being allegories rather than literal truth.
Why is that different for you?

 

[Trent Wray]

I wish David would take me off ignore because his last post is EXACTLY the kind of thing I keep hoping he discusses more. And although I don't agree with bashing this man over his personal life, he did bring it up and mention it in regards to his personal beliefs earlier. It's no excuse to crap on him .... but it shouldn't be on the "stay away" list either, because he brought it up.

David:
This is what I don't understand. There is a disconnect somewhere that you're not "telling us about" yet. On the one hand you want to discuss the bible. Okay. On the other hand, though, you claim the bible is the word of god and that you believe it as such. So you're dealing with two separate things ---- a book from history and the concept of God. I keep wanting to discuss the "god" aspect, but you say, "no" and think I'm attacking you. You claim it's personal. You mention certain personal aspects ... but then you ignore me and some others who are trying to delve into that angle. I want to hear the "why"s and how it works personally for you, despite this difficult road you are traveling. To me .... the link to your god isn't an old manuscript ... it's you who are living and breathing here and now and I want to meet this god whom you cling to in the here and now.

Others are more interested in the historical accuracy of the bible and such ... and that seems to be what you wish to focus on as well. That's cool and all .... BUT .... you also mention god/etc and so forth. If you really want to keep them separate, then can you please be more specific in the opening of your threads what you will tolerate and not tolerate and how you wish them to go, because you are trying to tackle two camps and place limitations on both of them while still hinting at them yourself. You do not deserve to be attacked .... but at the same time, you're tossing things out there.

Can you please create a thread, at some point, to discuss your god, and why you believe in your god, and the evidence you have, etc and so forth. I am fascinated and interested in your anecdotes, personal life, psyche, etc, as much as you are willing to put it on display. I am not interested in bashing you or attacking you, but I want to understand someone who claims to believe in god or some aspect of god 100%. I understand it's nobody's business ... but you keep going there anyway. If you are willing to share it, please start a thread at some point.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Very well then.

David, I apologize for dragging your sexuality and personal life into this matter. I won't let it happen again. Furthermore, I take back my comments calling you a coward.

 

[lionking]

When it is wildly off-topic, yes.

As Simon suggested, if you want to discuss morality and the bible, another thread would be appropriate.

Mind you (the general "you", not you specifically), I have no confidence in the bible as a stand-alone source for, well, much of anything, but I don't think that the last page or so has been productive on either side of the debate, other than Lukraak_Sisser's comments.

Fair enough. I didn't bring up homosexuality in the first place, and was following what became a derail. Apologies to David.

 

[Hokulele]

Very well then.

David, I apologize for dragging your sexuality and personal life into this matter. I won't let it happen again. Furthermore, I take back my comments calling you a coward.

Fair enough. I didn't bring up homosexuality in the first place, and was following what became a derail. Apologies to David.

Well done, both of you.

 

[Trent Wray]

Cue special effect:

(ice breaking)

 

[Simon39759]

Group hug!!!!!!


Ok now let's get back to the original cretinous claim.
It seems to me like David is a Biblical literalist and believes that, when the Biblical accounts and the facts seem to be in contradiction, it must be because the fact are wrong (or, more accurately, because the fact we have are incomplete or we are misreading them).

Am I correct in my summary David?

 

[Moss]

Ugh, I got a warm fuzz feeling from the exchange on this page. Yay reason!

And now back to something wet.

 

[Ladewig]

I wish David would take me off ignore because his last post is EXACTLY the kind of thing I keep hoping he discusses more.

from earlier on the same page

Meadmaker isn't one of the four. Anyway, I'm removing the 4 from ignore as I go through this thread.

 

[Ladewig]

Getting back on topic.
I found this previous post to be a very important argument against the idea that mountains have formed in the past 5000 years.

The Indian plate is moving north relative to the Eurasian plate at about 1.2 inches per year. This is sufficient to cause events like the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake that caused tsunamis that killed 230,000 people, the 2005 Kashmir earthquake that killed 80,000 and injured over 100,000, and the 2008 Sichuan earthquake that killed 70,000 and injured 375,000.

As a result of this tectonic activity, the Himalayas are rising by about 5mm a year, or about 70 feet since 2300BC - though that doesn't account for erosion, which can exceed 5mm per year.

Even ignoring erosion, for the Himalayas to have formed in the past 4300 years, this would have had to happen over 400 times faster. Rather than one major earthquake killing tens to hundreds of thousands of people every few years in this region, this would be happening once a week, with annual death tolls in the tens of millions.

Taking observed rates of erosion into account, these immense earthquakes would be happening several times a day.

No part of the planet would be habitable.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

This thread came up in another thread started by David. I posted my notes on this thread pointing out that Daivd has not yet provided any evidence (even questionable evidence that we might discuss) to support a global flood.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5785794&postcount=101

I would like to see some evidenec that we might discuss. Otherwise, the evidence for the flood story being a myth is the absence of evidence that it really happened.

 

[Ladewig]

Would someone with a stronger background in biology explain how nuclear DNA studies show that at no time in the past 9000 years has human population never dropped below 10,000? Or that tracing mitochondrial DNA shows no bottleneck in the past 70,000 years?

 

[Paulhoff]

Wave Rock in Western Australia.



I love the time he gives, 2,600,000,000 years ago, way way way before that so-called Deluge.

What a limited and small world David Henson lives in.

Paul



Did I say way way way before..............

 

[devnull]

When I was a boy I ran up Wave Rock. From memory its down in Hyden (?)

There's a caravan park there, or there was, with a friendly kangaroo that would hang around

 

[Foster Zygote]

There isn't now, but what do you think would have caused Moses to write that there was

Moses didn't write it. That's itself a myth.

and then thousands of years later Peter to write that it was gone now because of the global deluge?

Even if he did write it (its authorship is disputed) he was simply repeating his own cultural mythology.

What sort of primitive curiosity or superstition would have inspired it?

What sort of real catastrophic event might have inspired it? Did you look at that link I posted about the flooding of the Black Sea? If you would study outside your own sect's narrow interpretation of the Bible you might learn something about how real events and people come to be greatly exaggerated through the generational telling of oral traditions.

What do the other myth legends or other legends, traditions and histories have to say that sort of thing?

Why don't you read about it? You are, after all, sitting in front of a computer with internet access and I assume you have a local library.