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?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 60 by 1213]

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.

Oh dear Zeus! Tell me you don't really believe that explains the distribution of fossils on the earth. Have you watched any of the footage of devastating tsunamis lately? The great flood would have been many thousands of times worse in severity. There is no way that animals could be sorted into layers based on their abilities or their own way of drowning, whatever the latter might mean. Why are there no modern animals in the fossil records 1213?

[1213]

... Have you watched any of the footage of devastating tsunamis lately? The great flood would have been many thousands of times worse in severity.

I dont think it was like Zunami. It was relatively slow proses and there is no reason to assume any zunami.

...Why are there no modern animals in the fossil records 1213?

Is that really true? How can we know there is not? Please give name of one animal that you believe have no fossil ancestor?

But anyway, modern animals are agile and when they drown, they usually float. Floating prevents them to get trapped into sediments where they could become fossilized. Another thing is, modern animals may live areas where fossilization would not happen. For example, dinosaurs probably live in different environment than for example lion.

[brunumb]

... Have you watched any of the footage of devastating tsunamis lately? The great flood would have been many thousands of times worse in severity.

I dont think it was like Zunami. It was relatively slow proses and there is no reason to assume any zunami.

...Why are there no modern animals in the fossil records 1213?

Is that really true? How can we know there is not? Please give name of one animal that you believe have no fossil ancestor?

But anyway, modern animals are agile and when they drown, they usually float. Floating prevents them to get trapped into sediments where they could become fossilized. Another thing is, modern animals may live areas where fossilization would not happen. For example, dinosaurs probably live in different environment than for example lion.

I did not say that the great flood was like a tsunami. I asked if you had seen the devastation caused by tsunamis and to consider that the flood would have been thousands of times more catastrophic. The great flood was not a slow process. In fact, for rainfall to flood the entire planet in just over a month the rate of fall would be enough to destroy a modern battleship let alone a homemade wooden craft. The turmoil in the water would have torn living creatures apart. No scurrying about by agile creatures, or any creatures for that matter. The order seen in the fossil record would have been an impossible outcome.

No animal fossil has yet been discovered out of place in the fossil record. Such a discovery would be enough to discredit the theory of evolution. There are no modern animals in the older sediments. The dinosaurs became extinct around 65 million years ago. Modern lions appeared less than 1 million years ago. The counter arguments to your claims are endless. The facts tell us that the biblical flood did not occur and could not have occurred.

[1213]

I did not say that the great flood was like a tsunami. I asked if you had seen the devastation caused by tsunamis and to consider that the flood would have been thousands of times more catastrophic.

If you understand how it happened really, you know it would not have been as violent. But it seems to me that I am not able to explain it so that you would understand it.

The great flood was not a slow process. In fact, for rainfall to flood the entire planet in just over a month the rate of fall would be enough to destroy a modern battleship let alone a homemade wooden craft.

All the water didnt come by rain. Bible tells lot of it came when the fountains of great deep were burst open. That seems to describe how the original continent was broken and sunk. Water level didnt really rise, it was the dry land that sunk, which looked like water was rising. Because the broken parts of original continent had great surface area, they slowly sunk and it was not violent event.

Here are some images of how it happened:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/geology.html

No animal fossil has yet been discovered out of place in the fossil record. Such a discovery would be enough to discredit the theory of evolution.

Some disagree with that.
https://creation.com/fossils-out-of-order

However, the order could be just because of the different attributes of animals. If the flood happened really, it would have drowned things in similar order than evolution theory expects.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 64 by 1213]

All the water didnt come by rain. Bible tells lot of it came when the fountains of great deep were burst open. That seems to describe how the original continent was broken and sunk. Water level didnt really rise, it was the dry land that sunk, which looked like water was rising. Because the broken parts of original continent had great surface area, they slowly sunk and it was not violent event.

There are no fountains of the deep.
The continents do not float on water. The continents actually float on molten rock.
The continents did not break up and sink.
The great worldwide biblical flood never happened.

[1213]

There are no fountains of the deep.

Not anymore. They happened as the trigger for the flood, when the original continent was still on top of the great deep. One place where there seems to be remains of the fountains is for example the mid-Atlantic ridge.

https://blog.geolsoc.org.uk/2014/04/09/ ... tic-ridge/

The continents do not float on water. The continents actually float on molten rock.

Yes, but the original single continent was on top of water. It was supported by pillars of earth and probably the water below the continent also supported, if it was like giant water bubble and water could not escape from sides.

The continents did not break up and sink.

Yes, not the continents, but the original single continent. All evidence that can be observed in nature indicates that it happened so. For example, the mid-Atlantic ridge.

https://blog.geolsoc.org.uk/2014/04/09/ ... tic-ridge/

The great worldwide biblical flood never happened.

I accept that as your opinion and I understand if you want to be denialist. I think there is too much evidence for the flood to deny it.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 66 by 1213]

I think there is too much evidence for the flood to deny it.

It is actually the exact opposite. The fantasy world invented by creationists of a continent standing on pillars over a vast ocean of water is too absurd for words. There is no evidence for that and much evidence to the contrary. It is a sign of desperation to shore up an idea that has been thoroughly debunked for a couple of centuries now. Beside that, there are all the issues associated with living things. Two is not a minimum viable population for animals to survive in the wild. A flood devastated world would not be able to sustain life for a very long time afterwards. Species are now going extinct every year in an environment that is nowhere near as bad as it would have been post flood.

From a logistics point of view, the flood as a means of eradicating the people God wanted to kill paints him as an inept and unintelligent doofus. It was a barbaric act, but even so you have to laugh at the choice made by God.

[1213]

There is no evidence for that and much evidence to the contrary. It is a sign of desperation to shore up an idea that has been thoroughly debunked for a couple of centuries now

Too bad, you cant really show anything reasonable to debunk it.

Beside that, there are all the issues associated with living things. Two is not a minimum viable population for animals to survive in the wild.

In the wild? Wild would not be very wild, if there is only few animals that have survived. Not much better situation to live, when competition is almost nonexistent.

A flood devastated world would not be able to sustain life for a very long time afterwards. Species are now going extinct every year in an environment that is nowhere near as bad as it would have been post flood.

Current situation is very different. But perhaps you can give one example of species that is going extinct. Then we could see what is the reason and the difference between modern time and time right after the flood.

From a logistics point of view, the flood as a means of eradicating the people God wanted to kill paints him as an inept and unintelligent doofus. It was a barbaric act, but even so you have to laugh at the choice made by God.

Some say that drowning is the most pleasant way to die. Everything got well cleaned. World was set up for this phase. I think it was very intelligent move.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 68 by 1213]

Too bad, you cant really show anything reasonable to debunk it.

I don't need to. A quick search of the available literature will provide more than enough evidence to debunk the story. You could start with these:

Twenty-One Reasons Noahs Worldwide Flood Never Happened
https://www.csicop.org/si/show/twenty-o ... r_happened

'The Rocks Don't Lie': Debunking Noah's flood
https://crosscut.com/2012/08/rocks-dont ... flood-book

Life and the global flood
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Life_and_the_global_flood

"After the flood, the animals on the ark would have faced extreme difficulties. Populations of less than 20 members are almost certainly doomed to extinction. After the ark, there would have been 2 of most animals and 7 of a few select mammals plus 14 of all birds. These animals would have faced some of the harshest conditions the world has ever known. A flood of 376 days would have killed all plant life, while ocean currents between 40 to 80 meters per second would have swept everything away and buried the earth under a layer of sediment."

There appears to be no point in continuing this discussion. Science has relegated the biblical flood story to the fiction section. Understandably, some creationists will not accept the evidence as it challenges the infallibility of the Bible. There is usually nothing that can be said to overcome such bias.

[1213]

Twenty-One Reasons Noahs Worldwide Flood Never Happened
https://www.csicop.org/si/show/twenty-o ... r_happened

Lot of claims that cannot be confirmed.

'The Rocks Don't Lie': Debunking Noah's flood
https://crosscut.com/2012/08/rocks-dont ... flood-book

I think there was nothing meaningful.

Life and the global flood
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Life_and_the_global_flood

Baseless, unscientific claims and assumptions that show lack of knowledge of real world and physics.

"After the flood, the animals on the ark would have faced extreme difficulties. Populations of less than 20 members are almost certainly doomed to extinction. After the ark, there would have been 2 of most animals and 7 of a few select mammals plus 14 of all birds. These animals would have faced some of the harshest conditions the world has ever known. A flood of 376 days would have killed all plant life, while ocean currents between 40 to 80 meters per second would have swept everything away and buried the earth under a layer of sediment."

Plants that live in water could have been eatable, when the level of water decreased. There could have easily been lot of sea food. Fast breeding animals could have quickly become food for other animals also.

And there is no intelligent reason to assume ocean currents between 40 to 80 meters per second.

Sorry, you failed. But dont worry, it is not because of you, but because truth cannot be debunked.