Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The evidence of a Tigris Euphrates Noah flood about 2900 BCE

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    It might be safe to assume that no animal life would remain within a reasonable distance of the site where Noah and crew finished their voyage. There would be the matter of having sufficient supplies to eat (post flood, even assuming that they weren't part of the human diet prior to that time), and restocking for a reasonable chance of biodiversity.
    I think the most obvious answer is that the Bible clearly intends to give the impression that it was a worldwide flood that wiped out all land animals on the planet. That's what you get from a plain reading of the text. The question is whether or not the story was meant to be literal history, whether it was "true from a certain point of view", or if it was allegory.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      I think the most obvious answer is that the Bible clearly intends to give the impression that it was a worldwide flood that wiped out all land animals on the planet. That's what you get from a plain reading of the text. The question is whether or not the story was meant to be literal history, whether it was "true from a certain point of view", or if it was allegory.
      A plain reading of the text does give that impression. Whether a plain reading of the text in (say) 500 BC would lead to the same result is a matter of seeing whether comments were made about the record, and determining in other ways what the culture of that time might have seen. Not that I expect a whole lot of literal accuracy from the texts prior to Abraham - and maybe even as late as Joshua.
      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
      .
      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
      Scripture before Tradition:
      but that won't prevent others from
      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
      of the right to call yourself Christian.

      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        A plain reading of the text does give that impression. Whether a plain reading of the text in (say) 500 BC would lead to the same result is a matter of seeing whether comments were made about the record, and determining in other ways what the culture of that time might have seen. Not that I expect a whole lot of literal accuracy from the texts prior to Abraham - and maybe even as late as Joshua.
        Right, which is why we need to be careful about taking statements from the Bible to support scientific hypotheses.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • #19
          The world is much older than 12 000 years, and that there was no global flood within the past 200 000 years are not matters of mere hypothesis. No satisfactory squaring of the record of Noah with any events of the past 200 000 years is possible. Either the story is a fable, or it is far more ancient than is generally believed.
          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
          .
          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
          Scripture before Tradition:
          but that won't prevent others from
          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
          of the right to call yourself Christian.

          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            Right, which is why we need to be careful about taking statements from the Bible to support scientific hypotheses.
            Amen

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by tabibito View Post
              The world is much older than 12 000 years, and that there was no global flood within the past 200 000 years are not matters of mere hypothesis. No satisfactory squaring of the record of Noah with any events of the past 200 000 years is possible. Either the story is a fable, or it is far more ancient than is generally believed.
              And it's always possible that we are misinterpreting the evidence.
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                And it's always possible that we are misinterpreting the evidence.
                An adequate falsifiable hypothesis is necessary to support an alternative explanation that the present scientific view misinterprets the evidence. At present no such viable hypothesis has been presented.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #23
                  It depends on one's assumptions.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    The assumptions are that floods leave traces of their occurrence.
                    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                    .
                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                    Scripture before Tradition:
                    but that won't prevent others from
                    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                    of the right to call yourself Christian.

                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      It depends on one's assumptions.
                      That is given like the sky is Carolina Blue at noon on a clear day on the 4th of July, but simply assumptions do not provide the objective verifiable evidence needed for a falsifiable hypothesis that the current science misinterprets the evidence.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                        The assumptions are that floods leave traces of their occurrence.
                        Assuming we would recognize the traces of a one-time world wide catastrophe that happened an indeterminate time in the past through means that we don't entirely understand and has never been repeated.
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          Assuming we would recognize the traces of a one-time world wide catastrophe that happened an indeterminate time in the past through means that we don't entirely understand and has never been repeated.
                          The more reasonable hypothesis would be that any world wide flood that left only eight people living would be incompatible with verifiable evidence of cities which show no disruption to their existence at the time that the world wide flood occurred. The existence of that evidence leads to expanding the time frame specified by the Bible to roughly eleven thousand years instead of the six thousand which can be ascertained from the Biblical record. 11 000 years declares the Biblical time frame wrong anyway.
                          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                          .
                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                          Scripture before Tradition:
                          but that won't prevent others from
                          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                          of the right to call yourself Christian.

                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            Assuming we would recognize the traces of a one-time world wide catastrophe that happened an indeterminate time in the past through means that we don't entirely understand and has never been repeated.
                            If a global flood of that nature recently took place we couldn't help but trip over the evidence.

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              If a global flood of that nature recently took place we couldn't help but trip over the evidence.
                              The problem is, if the flood wasn't global then the story makes no sense. Why build a boat when Noah and his family could have simply moved to another part of the Earth that God wasn't planning to destroy? Why bring two of every land animal aboard when there would have been plenty of survivors in the unflooded regions? Is it plausible that Noah and his family could have spent a year on the water without ever seeing evidence of distant dry land?

                              I have trouble reconciling the details of the story with the premise that it wasn't a global flood.
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                The problem is, if the flood wasn't global then the story makes no sense. Why build a boat when Noah and his family could have simply moved to another part of the Earth that God wasn't planning to destroy?
                                If the flood wasn't global and the only humans (homo sap.sap.) in the world lived on a sizable island that got drowned, a boat would make perfect sense. The development of a radically different species on an isolated island would be a fairly normal event. Volcano, bolide strike, tsunami, earthquake could sink even a large island. Sizable areas of land have been known to wind up at the bottom of the sea in the past. Notably Doggerland - which 6 000 years ago formed the peninsula connecting Europe with the British Isles.
                                Why bring two of every land animal aboard when there would have been plenty of survivors in the unflooded regions?
                                Even assuming barely weaned animals when they were taken aboard the ark - it isn't big enough to accommodate every species in the world - nor even every genus. Again, the animals on an island could be accommodated. While some plant and animal life would survive a calamity, it would make sense to take known animals along for the ride rather than trying to go hunting in an unknown environment.
                                Is it plausible that Noah and his family could have spent a year on the water without ever seeing evidence of distant dry land?
                                Entirely - the ark was designed so as to not sink. It wasn't designed to manoeuvre.

                                I have trouble reconciling the details of the story with the premise that it wasn't a global flood.
                                In all probability the story is a fable. If it is a record of real events, they must have occurred more than 200 000 years ago. The Biblical story would then be a written record of a tale told down through the generations, with a patch to recent ancestors abutting a tale of ancient ancestors with nothing to show where the missing generations belonged. Epic tales of long-ago events tend to be preserved as they were after a few generations - they usually don't continue to get updated.
                                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                                .
                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                                Scripture before Tradition:
                                but that won't prevent others from
                                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                26 responses
                                94 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post alaskazimm  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                79 responses
                                415 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post alaskazimm  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X