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]

Good talk.
A fairy tale with fairy-tale evidence is comparable to geology, zoology and the study of migration patterns and so on.

Now what about the other events in the Bible that didn't occur? How do you dispute those fairy-tales?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 70 by 1213]

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.

Not only laughable suggestions, but baseless, unscientific claims and assumptions that show lack of knowledge of real world and physics.

The biblical flood did not happen despite the desperation of creationist think tanks to try and make it work.

[1213]

[Replying to post 70 by 1213]

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.

Not only laughable suggestions, but baseless, unscientific claims and assumptions that show lack of knowledge of real world and physics.

I would like to know why do you think so. There is no reason to assume there was no seafood.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 73 by 1213]

I would like to know why do you think so. There is no reason to assume there was no seafood.

If you read and studied the links I provided you would know why I think so. I find that your responses suggest a very superficial understanding of the issues involved.

Seafood? Have you heard of food chains and the food web? Are you aware of the very specific diets that many species require? Pandas only eat very fresh bamboo for example. Plants are very sensitive to pH, salinity, levels of moisture and numerous other conditions. A flooded earth would have devastated the world's vegetation and recovery would have taken decades. Many plants would never recover.

[1213]

Pandas only eat very fresh bamboo for example.

That is not true per WWF:

But they do branch out, with about 1% of their diet comprising other plants and even meat. While they are almost entirely vegetarian, pandas will sometimes hunt for pikas and other small rodents.

http://wwf.panda.org/knowledge_hub/enda ... _they_eat/

Also, it is possible that in the ark, there was about 4200 animals. For example there were one kind of bears and all modern bear species are offspring of those original bears. This means, it is possible that panda was not in the ark and is just differentiation from the original bear. Similarly, as we now have very many different looking people, all though all people are from small group. We have only one human species, I think the same is with bears and other animal groups.

Plants are very sensitive to pH, salinity, levels of moisture and numerous other conditions. A flooded earth would have devastated the world's vegetation and recovery would have taken decades. Many plants would never recover.

I agree, lot of vegetation would have drowned. But there is no scientific reason to think it would have taken decades to recover. There cant be scientific reason, because we have no accurate information of the conditions.

We dont have exact knowledge of the conditions, but we know that there was heavy rain, which means lot of non-saline water. We know also that saline water and non-saline water form layers, if they are not mixed. We have no reason to assume heavy mixing, therefore, it is very probably that there were water areas with different salinity levels, similarly as for example Baltic sea has areas with different salinity levels. Different salinity levels would have made it possible for different plants and animals to survive.

And for plants to survive, most of them need only seeds to survive. We have no scientific reason to assume they could not have survived to grow right after the water has decreased. Plants that live in water are obviously different matter and they easily could have survived and actually flourished. When the water level decreased, lot of flourishing water plants got on to dry land and then could have been suitable food for many animals.

Sorry, you and your sources fail, because they show lack of understanding and knowledge (like the false panda claim).

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 75 by 1213]

brunumb wrote: "Pandas only eat very fresh bamboo for example."
1213: "That is not true per WWF:"

But they do branch out, with about 1% of their diet comprising other plants and even meat. While they are almost entirely vegetarian, pandas will sometimes hunt for pikas and other small rodents.

http://wwf.panda.org/knowledge_hub/enda ... anda/panda

You will note that I was referring to very fresh bamboo. You also ignored the key part of the WWF article"

A panda's daily diet consists almost entirely of the leaves, stems and shoots of various bamboo species.
Bamboo contains very little nutritional value so pandas must eat 12-38kg every day to meet their energy needs.
This reliance on bamboo leaves them vulnerable to any loss of their habitat " currently the major threat to their survival.

Also, it is possible that in the ark, there was about 4200 animals. For example there were one kind of bears and all modern bear species are offspring of those original bears. This means, it is possible that panda was not in the ark and is just differentiation from the original bear.

So in a very short time bears rapidly multiplied and then some made it to China where they began to evolve into pandas. Laughable.

We dont have exact knowledge of the conditions, but we know that there was heavy rain, which means lot of non-saline water. We know also that saline water and non-saline water form layers, if they are not mixed. We have no reason to assume heavy mixing, therefore, it is very probably that there were water areas with different salinity levels, similarly as for example Baltic sea has areas with different salinity levels.

We have torrential rain, the fountains of the deep opening up, the great continent breaking up and collapsing into the ocean and you say we have no reason to assume heavy mixing. That, immediately after saying we dont have exact knowledge of the conditions. Good grief.

By the way, once the continent broke up, how did all the animals make it to the rest of the world? It would take time for vegetation to regrow and for animals to reproduce from single pairs to stable numbers. Specific plants, animals, insects and so on would be needed immediately to feed the survivors from the ark. Remember food chains and the food web? I suppose they could have fed on the rotting animal and human carcasses lying everywhere, but that also introduces the problem of disease rapidly spreading.

Everywhere you turn there is a massive problem with the logistics of the biblical flood. It was an impossible event. Science and history have proven it never happened. Every suggestion by creationists is just unsupported wishful thinking.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 76 by brunumb]

So in a very short time bears rapidly multiplied and then some made it to China where they began to evolve into pandas. Laughable.

It never ceases to amaze me how Noah-floodians+anti-evolutionists end up requiring evolution for their claims anyway, and at a far faster rate than is predicted by science.

[1213]

You will note that I was referring to very fresh bamboo. You also ignored the key part of the WWF article"

The point was to show that you were wrong about that Pandas eat only bamboo.

So in a very short time bears rapidly multiplied and then some made it to China where they began to evolve into pandas.

Panda is almost the same as regular bear. That the color is little different is about same as white and black people. We dont call white or black people different species, so it is interesting why we do that with panda and bears. Also, it is interesting, if panda would be forced to be in situation where it would have to eat other plants than bamboo, would it color change.

We have torrential rain, the fountains of the deep opening up, the great continent breaking up and collapsing into the ocean and you say we have no reason to assume heavy mixing. That, immediately after saying we dont have exact knowledge of the conditions. Good grief.

All those things could happen smoothly, when the plates are large as current continents. On the edges, there could be more violent action, but the other areas would go smoothly. I recommend you to make scientific tests how large plates sink. Would be eye opening for you.

By the way, once the continent broke up, how did all the animals make it to the rest of the world? It would take time for vegetation to regrow and for animals to reproduce from single pairs to stable numbers. Specific plants, animals, insects and so on would be needed immediately to feed the survivors from the ark. Remember food chains and the food web? I suppose they could have fed on the rotting animal and human carcasses lying everywhere, but that also introduces the problem of disease rapidly spreading.

Walking. Vegetation grows fast, if they have water, CO2 and sun, as it was after flood. Many insects can survive in water conditions. I think there is no scientific reason to assume disease spreading rapidly.

Science and history have proven it never happened.

People who dont even understand what happened, cant prove it didnt happen.

It never ceases to amaze me how Noah-floodians+anti-evolutionists end up requiring evolution for their claims anyway, and at a far faster rate than is predicted by science.

Different color is not huge change and I would not call it evolution. Small changes in offspring is obvious fact, but doesnt mean there is new species evolving.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 78 by 1213]

brunumb: You will note that I was referring to very fresh bamboo. You also ignored the key part of the WWF article"
1213: The point was to show that you were wrong about that Pandas eat only bamboo.

I was not wrong. Pandas only eat very fresh bamboo. If it is cut for them, as in zoos, they will not eat it if it is more than a few days old. What did they eat on the ark? If they were originally just ordinary bears (which?), what caused the bears to make their long journey to China, changing on the way into pandas that eat predominantly bamboo? What about the red panda?

Koalas eat mainly eucalyptus leaves (gum leaves). Occasionally they will eat the leaves from some other native Australian trees. What did they eat on the ark? How did they get to Australia after the flood? What did they eat before they got to Australia?

The distribution of the world's fauna, as well as flora, is testament to the fact that the great biblical flood story makes no sense. All the evidence and the knowledge we have about the earth contradicts everything about the scenario. Creationists attempt to contrive explanations, but they are no more than comic book fantasies with nothing to back them up.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 78 by 1213]

brunumb: We have torrential rain, the fountains of the deep opening up, the great continent breaking up and collapsing into the ocean and you say we have no reason to assume heavy mixing. That, immediately after saying we dont have exact knowledge of the conditions. Good grief.

1213: All those things could happen smoothly, when the plates are large as current continents. On the edges, there could be more violent action, but the other areas would go smoothly. I recommend you to make scientific tests how large plates sink. Would be eye opening for you.

Where is the evidence for the broken up, sunken continent? A massive continent standing on pillars over a great ocean is just comic book nonsense.

When plates slide against each other even by a few centimetres the result is catastrophic earthquakes. A massive continent breaking up and sinking would involve massive amounts of energy and the destruction would be unprecedented. Watching model plates sink in a fish tank is in no way indicative of something happening on the scale of the planet.

Ice cores are cylinders of ice drilled out of an ice sheet or glacier. Most ice core records come from Antarctica and Greenland, and the longest ice cores extend to 3km in depth. The oldest continuous ice core records to date extend 123,000 years in Greenland and 800,000 years in Antarctica. These ice cores provide strong evidence that there was no global flood any time in at least the last 110,000 years.