Jump to content

Welcome to Ain't No God
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

The Great Flood

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1
TopHat

TopHat

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 395 posts
  • LocationSouthern Canada
Does anyone have any good links to the scientific evidence of Noah's Flood? I have a fundy on me, and they keep saying stuff like

"I would say that you can immediately discount the finding as 'scientific.'

If they are being scientific; then which part of science, history, anthropology, and other divisions of science is it okay to ignore in order to remain scientific?

I would discount those calling themselves scientific and dismissing the flood as having 'no proof' on the basis that they chose to ignore any evidence. It's a shame when the objective reason for any report called, 'scientific' is strewn with bias."


Constantly only saying that the answer to every mistake is a translation error, or something of the like.

#2
Ungodly

Ungodly

    Has Equal Rights

  • Administrators
  • 20,722 posts
  • LocationInland Empire, California
There is a natural and unavoidable dichotomy here. The story of Noah is 100% pure fiction from beginning to end. Science is 100% fact and 0% fiction.

There may be some people who talk about flooding that occurred in the past, and some may choose to suggest that the story of Noah is based in part on some actual flood that did occur. But the story of Noah is about a delusional schizophrenic man that hears voices that are not there telling him to do things that can not be done for reasons that make no sense.

Keep in mind that it is the person who makes a preposterous claim who bears the burden of proof. Don't be put on the defensive by fools.

When one piece of Science seems to contradict some other bit of Science, that is when we see the true beauty of Science. A true man of Science gives up his current position in the blink of an eye when verifiable evidence indicates he has been mistaken. Science seeks to constantly add to the body of knowledge, correcting previous errors. By comparison a dogmatic religious approach ignores reality in favor of perpetuating delusional belief systems.

Some ideas are so far removed from reality that they deserve no response except ridicule.

#3
The White Coyote

The White Coyote

    Advanced Member

  • Global Moderators
  • 3,363 posts
  • LocationThe Great Northwest

Keep in mind that it is the person who makes a preposterous claim who bears the burden of proof. Don't be put on the defensive by fools.

This is the best advice to follow when confronted with stupid ideas like "The Flood" or other as equally silly childrens stories from the Bible. Turn the tide on your adversary and make them "prove" the flood happened. Force them to show indisputable proof. There is tons of evidence to the contrary but why should you put yourself on the defensive.

Finding sea shell fossils on a mountain top does not prove the world was covered in water. It only proves geological plate movement. I have never lost an argument about the flood but I learned that you will never change a fundies mind either so why try?

#4
Frozenwolf150

Frozenwolf150

    Formerly Silentknight

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 999 posts
  • LocationDivided States of America
Try this:

http://www.nationalg...a/ax/frame.html

Of course that immediately refutes the idea that the flood was global, but then again, so does a little common sense.

#5
Ungodly

Ungodly

    Has Equal Rights

  • Administrators
  • 20,722 posts
  • LocationInland Empire, California
Well these Satanists make it sound as if the story of Noah is not literally true in every detail.  It's almost as if they think it is some sort of a legend or a myth or something.

#6
The White Coyote

The White Coyote

    Advanced Member

  • Global Moderators
  • 3,363 posts
  • LocationThe Great Northwest
I saw a clam shell once that was in a glass bottle. The shell was much larger than the neck of the bottle and there were no seams or openings on the bottle to allow the shell to be placed inside. The only conclusion I could come to was the clam was actually introduced into the bottle when it was very small, then over time it was furnished the proper nutrients and conditions to grow larger. There was no other explanation. Except that the bottle was formed around the clam shell as was the case. My point is that there are many things which may point to an all encompassing flood of the world, however with just a bit more education and study all of them have been proven wrong. I also have a piece of tile which contains fossils from two entirely different eras. Seperated by millions of years the animals were never on earth at the same time, yet here they are in a single fossil. Now your standard Bible thumper would say that is conclusive proof that the animals were both present at the same time and probably less than 6 thousand years old. Anybody wanna guess how it happened?

#7
Unbeliever

Unbeliever

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,494 posts
  • LocationCalifornia
Well, let's see...one of them could've been uncoverd by running water, then washed downhill to lodge close to the other, then both could've been subsequently buried by sediment.

#8
The White Coyote

The White Coyote

    Advanced Member

  • Global Moderators
  • 3,363 posts
  • LocationThe Great Northwest
Strike ONE!

Hint: Think verticle.

#9
TopHat

TopHat

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 395 posts
  • LocationSouthern Canada
Maybe one died on the same spot as the other, causing it to slowly be buried on top of the other. Eventully the rocks combined together?

#10
The White Coyote

The White Coyote

    Advanced Member

  • Global Moderators
  • 3,363 posts
  • LocationThe Great Northwest
BINGO! TopHat wins the prize! We tend to think of fossils as flat sedimentary rock type situations but this particular fossil was cut vertically to expose different eras in the strata. TopHat wins 2 big Karma points!

#11
Seti

Seti

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
Ask for the answers to these three questions:
1) How did Pandas get to China from Mount Arrarat, when they only eat bamboo, which doesn't grow on the way.
2) How did Kangaroos get to Australia, but nowhere else?
3) We are told that before the flood, carnivores were all vegetarian, but after the flood became carnivorous because of sin. But this can't have happened immediately, or when the two lions came off the ark they would have eaten the two antelopes.

If the answer was along the lines of "it was a miracle" I suggest you just give up on the discussion. There are some people who are too scared to think.
:farao:

#12
The White Coyote

The White Coyote

    Advanced Member

  • Global Moderators
  • 3,363 posts
  • LocationThe Great Northwest
Now Seti everyone knows the answers:

1. The Pandas could fly. Thank God for evolution weeding out that gene.
2. Kangaroos are excellent jumpers.
3. Lions ate all the dinosaurs coming off the Ark and that's why there aren't any left!

SEE? GODDIDIT! :snork_lach:

#13
TopHat

TopHat

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 395 posts
  • LocationSouthern Canada
Well his argument is a translation, that the whole world, really means Region, and that not every animal was on the ark only animalso f that region where it flooded. But that third one is very good.

#14
Frozenwolf150

Frozenwolf150

    Formerly Silentknight

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 999 posts
  • LocationDivided States of America
It's not a matter of translation, but of perspective and hyperbole.  If your home and the entire river valley around it were washed away in a flood, it would be tantamount to having your whole world changed.  Also the animals loaded onto the ship were very likely livestock, so that they would be protected from the flood, and could be sold off afterwards to compensate for any financial losses.  In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Utnapishtim built a fleet of ships for just this purpose, to ride out the flood and shelter the livestock.  Keep in mind that in biblical times, domesticated animals were among the most prized possessions one could have (i.e. their recurrence in sacrificial rituals) so it makes sense to want to save them.


Aside from that, even the Jews interpret the story of Noah as a fable, not a literal account.  God may have given Noah the instructions, but it was Noah who built the ark, not Yahweh.  The moral of the story is that if you believe in yourself, you can overcome any challenge.  That is the important part of the story, not the literal details.

#15
Ungodly

Ungodly

    Has Equal Rights

  • Administrators
  • 20,722 posts
  • LocationInland Empire, California
I think that the takeaway point here is: People who believe that the BuyBull is literal fact are fucking morons.

#16
The White Coyote

The White Coyote

    Advanced Member

  • Global Moderators
  • 3,363 posts
  • LocationThe Great Northwest
I was cutting the next door neighbors hair today, (Pastor of the church) and we talked about the flood. He is a firm believer that the flood story is just that, a story and that it, like so many other bible stories, were basically fables and tall tales passed down from generation to generation. He was quite amused that so many people take such nonsense as the literal truth and quite aggravated at it's consequences throughout the christian community. We talked about how many people God had put to death in the old testament and he laughed at the numbers. He also laughed at the ages of some of the patriarchs and all the other wild exagerations, as he called them, that were mostly in the old testament. It was interesting to hear a pastor speak so candidly about it and I think that's why he and I get along so well. He admits even promotes the idea that the old testament has to be read like you are watching a movie based on a true story. He used the Pirates of the Carribean as an example. Yes there were Pirates and they did sail ships and plunder and steal. Is the movie factual? Hardly, but it's great entertainment and may teach a moral lesson as well.

#17
lady

lady

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 820 posts

I was cutting the next door neighbors hair today, (Pastor of the church) and we talked about the flood. He is a firm believer that the flood story is just that, a story and that it, like so many other bible stories, were basically fables and tall tales passed down from generation to generation.


Give that man a free haircut.  :snork_tanz:

#18
Seti

Seti

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 122 posts
I was talking to my lady vicar friend over Christmas. She doesn't take very much of the Bible literally at all. None of the nativity story, and so far as I could tell not a lot of the resurrection story either! And she says a lot of theologians think the same, in private - she has an MA in Theology from Oxford. She thinks the mainstream of Christians have let the evangelical and literalist wing get away with claiming to have a monopoly on the "truth" for far too long, and it's time to reclaim it.

In fact it seems that like me she's an allegoricalists - except she thinks it's "out there" and I think it's "in here." I wouldn't want to convert her - bless her, she needs to keep some of her illusions, not to mention her job! But I suspect she's beginning to move towards the position of the Christian Atheists, which I came across a while ago. Basically they don't beleive in an external "god" but they hold to the message of Christianity - which they recognise as a codification of the "golden rule."
:farao:

#19
Ungodly

Ungodly

    Has Equal Rights

  • Administrators
  • 20,722 posts
  • LocationInland Empire, California

the Christian Atheists, which I came across a while ago. Basically they don't beleive in an external "god" but they hold to the message of Christianity - which they recognise as a codification of the "golden rule."
:farao:

I guess it would be conceivable that there could be  a religion based on the golden rule, but in practice there are soon a set of extra rules that include things not consistent with the golden rule, then you get the punishing misbehavers. And the ow it hurts  me.

#20
The White Coyote

The White Coyote

    Advanced Member

  • Global Moderators
  • 3,363 posts
  • LocationThe Great Northwest
That's the problem I have always had with any "religion" there are so many rules and regulations, commandments and "don't do its" that it just doesn't seem possible to live within the guidelines. The pick and choose religion, more commonly called Christianity, if followed, would be as strict if not more strict, than Islam. Fortunately you can shop around the different denominations, Catholic, Lutheran, Methodists, Baptists etc. etc. and find one that suits your lifestyle the best. I think that's why it's so popular. It's kind of like a kit where you can put it together anyway you want and still come out a winner . . except to the others outside of your group. They of course are all going to hell. :snork_lach:


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users