Bible vs History

[Willum]

Noah was supposed to live around 4000 years ago, and his flood.

Which means that the entire population of the globe should have begun repopulating about then.
Why is there no evidence of this?

I mean we have great historic not only evidence, but histories of peoples living before, during and after the flood. Even the Americas.

And though dramatic, this is true of other Biblical events. We have the Sumerians positively ignoring Biblical events as if they didn't occur. The Egyptians not seeming to notice plagues and genocide and so on.

One could go through and notice all manner of things that didn't happen from the Bible, Sodom and Gomorrah, and so on. We can even get good dates for when these things were supposed to occur, by how long people lived for these occurrences.

We can also note that these stories did occur in other people's fairy tales.

How do we rectify these three elements - no one noticed these epic events, the dates they failed to occur and they are other people's fairy tales, together with the truth?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 50 by BeHereNow]

Sorry, I can't be held responsible for which myths individual theist respect and which ones they don't.

I expect the dialog will be one- way.

Christians saying, Moses wandered the desert for 40 years.
Judaists acknowledging the myth, and scientists agreeing with them.

In fact this has happened.

[1213]

[Replying to post 46 by 1213]

So the (in)ability to calculate a mythical event, is your defence that a mythical might have occurred?

Actually it was only about can some claim it didnt happen.

Interesting thing is that in many parts of the world, there Is ruins of civilizations that are relatively unknown. And on the other hand, we have civilizations that have traceable history, written history, or writings or told history. For example, we know about Egyptians till some point, we know about native Americans till some point, but in all many areas there seems to be ruins of lost civilization without any trace. I think between those is the line when the flood occurred. I think Mohenjo-daro is one example of this kind of place with unknown history.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 52 by 1213]

You think...X, Y, Z.
Thoughts are nice.
Thoughts allow anyone to justify whatever they want to believe.

But when you stop thinking and realize you need to investigate to see if what you are thinking aligns to reality, that is where the belief in God disappears.

[Kenisaw]

Two thousand three hundred and forty-eight years before Jesus burst through the hymen of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

At just about the beginning of the Sixth Egyptian Dynasty.

That calculation may be wrong. And then there is also the possibility that the dating of other ancient nations is also wrong. You have really nothing to prove the dates are right, so the whole point kind of collapses on its own, if one doesnt blindly believe it as many gullible people does.

You may very well be right about the archaeological dating of various civilizations. They could be off.

But geology isn't. And there is zero evidence for the existence of a worldwide flood. As the geological evidence has been presented numerous times in many previous threads at this website, I refer any interested parties to discover and read those threads at their leisure.

[1213]

You think...X, Y, Z.
Thoughts are nice.
Thoughts allow anyone to justify whatever they want to believe.

Please explain, how would you justify atheism with them?

[1213]

But geology isn't. And there is zero evidence for the existence of a worldwide flood.

I think that is not true. We have marine fossils on high mountains. We have vast sediment formations like orogenic mountains and the Grand Canyon, which are evidence of great flood. We have also oil and gas fields that are evidence for vast amount of drowned organic material. The geological evidence for worldwide flood is overwhelming.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 55 by 1213]

How would I justify atheism?
Easily.
Assume nothing.
Begin with what you observe.
Build data from observation, information from data, and knowledge from information.



[Replying to post 56 by 1213]

Marine fossils on mountains -
It takes tens of thousands of years to fossilize. So the time line is wrong.
Fossils on mountains are from when plate tectonics have pushed the land into mountains from being lowlands. That takes tens of thousands of years.

[Kenisaw]

But geology isn't. And there is zero evidence for the existence of a worldwide flood.

I think that is not true. We have marine fossils on high mountains. We have vast sediment formations like orogenic mountains and the Grand Canyon, which are evidence of great flood. We have also oil and gas fields that are evidence for vast amount of drowned organic material. The geological evidence for worldwide flood is overwhelming.

Marine fossils on high mountains do not prove a worldwide flood. You can't create an unconfined sediment layer into rock. The mechanics of silt deposition make that impossible

Orogenic mountains (which are basically how mountains ranges are built that aren't primarily volcanic in nature) come from plate tectonic interactions. Orogenic mountains are not always sedimentary rock, so I'm confused why they would be proof of a worldwide flood event in your opinion.

As far as vast sediment layers, there are certainly many of those. Which is proof that there wasn't a worldwide flood (or a young Earth), because you can't get dozens or hundreds of layers of rock from one flood event. Hydraulically impossible. You can't get sedimentary deposits with smaller particle sizes underneath sediment layers with larger particle sizes. Again hydraulically impossible. Yet all over the planet you find distinct layers of sediment with distinct particle sizes, distinct chemical makeup, and layers with certain animal fossils found in just one layer without any of that animal in layers above or below it. These things don't happen in one large flood event. It's not even remotely possible.

The Grand Canyon also could not have happened from one flood event. First of all you can't get so many sedimentary layers from one event as we've already mentioned, but then to think that freshly deposited silt still full of water could be cut through by draining waters and form sheer cliffs that hardened over time is just nonsense. The layers below being squeezed from the layers above would squeeze out of the now unconfined side at the Grand Canyon edge, refilling the canyon. And that action would warp and deform the layers, yet the layers at the GC are all horizontal. You really have to ignore soil mechanics, hydraulics, and physics in order to think the GC was formed from a worldwide flood event.

[1213]

It takes tens of thousands of years to fossilize.

But we have no means to confirm that belief?

[1213]

Marine fossils on high mountains do not prove a worldwide flood. You can't create an unconfined sediment layer into rock. The mechanics of silt deposition make that impossible

That would mean that sedimentary rock could not exist, which is obviously not true. But I can agree, no proof, but evidence. If marine fossils are on high mountains, it means that area has some time been covered with water, very probably. Or maybe they walked up hill?

Orogenic mountains (which are basically how mountains ranges are built that aren't primarily volcanic in nature) come from plate tectonic interactions. Orogenic mountains are not always sedimentary rock, so I'm confused why they would be proof of a worldwide flood event in your opinion.

Yes, and plate tectonic interactions to form mountains happened when the original continent was broken collapsed and sunk. in the edges, the parts of the original continent pushed sedimentary rock and the mountains were formed. Here are some pictures that show the principle:

http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/Kuvat/Flood.jpg

I am sorry that they are not as good as they should be, but I hope you can understand the point.

As far as vast sediment layers, there are certainly many of those. Which is proof that there wasn't a worldwide flood (or a young Earth), because you can't get dozens or hundreds of layers of rock from one flood event. Hydraulically impossible. You can't get sedimentary deposits with smaller particle sizes underneath sediment layers with larger particle sizes. Again hydraulically impossible. Yet all over the planet you find distinct layers of sediment with distinct particle sizes, distinct chemical makeup, and layers with certain animal fossils found in just one layer without any of that animal in layers above or below it. These things don't happen in one large flood event. It's not even remotely possible.

Why couldnt there be many layers in great flood? By what the Bible tells, the original continent was covered with dust. dust can mean fine material that mixed with water would make many layers of sedimentary rock.

The reason why different animals are in their own layers is that they have own way to drown, own habitat and own abilities. For example, more advanced animals can run, while simple organisms are stuck more easily. Different areas have also different environments and there can be variation in what kind of sediments there was in certain areas, which results in different sedimentary rocks.

The Grand Canyon also could not have happened from one flood event. First of all you can't get so many sedimentary layers from one event as we've already mentioned, but then to think that freshly deposited silt still full of water could be cut through by draining waters and form sheer cliffs that hardened over time is just nonsense. The layers below being squeezed from the layers above would squeeze out of the now unconfined side at the Grand Canyon edge, refilling the canyon. And that action would warp and deform the layers, yet the layers at the GC are all horizontal. You really have to ignore soil mechanics, hydraulics, and physics in order to think the GC was formed from a worldwide flood event.

I think your sayings contradict the reality that can be observed and make unnecessary baseless assumptions. Firstly, it could be that most of the area of Grand Canyon was originally sea floor. Before and when the original continent collapsed, sediments flowed towards Grand Canyon area. And when the water begun to sink, because the original continent sunk deeper in time the water begin to flow in direction of newly formed Atlantic Ocean, now on top of the original continent. Proof for rapid water flow in the beginning of the Grand Canyon is that it is wide and it has steep sharp top edges. Water must have flown fast and in large area to from that kind of formation. After the amount of water decreased, the flow and river got smaller and the effect is what can be seen in lover level of the Canyon. And this can be seen by looking in nature how flooding water acts in situations where there is easily eroding material. By what I have seen in nature, I think it is impossible that orogenic mountains or the Grand Canyon would have been formed in slow process.