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 100 by Clownboat]

To debate this nonsense is to give it credit it doesn't deserve.
Much like debating a flat earth with a flat earther.

I fear you are correct. All the solutions to the ark/flood problems that have been provided lack scientific verification and real world credibility. They are best suited to children's coloring books on the subject. There is nothing to be gained by questioning a belief that was not gained by reasoning and logic. Time to move on.

[1213]

...By rejecting the established science, flooders and flat earthers place themselves in a position of power. Suddenly, they feel like they're the experts and that's a good feeling. Why wouldn't they want to maintain that feeling?

Perhaps we shouldn't encourage such thinking by debating it as if it's credible?

Now that you derailed this topic, what do you think, do you feel the power when you act as expert? Does scientists feel the power, when they act as experts and rule and guide people as established authorities?

But anyway, I want to say, I think real science that is based on things that can be seen and observed, is good, I have nothing against it. The problem is with the established pseudoscientific beliefs (like theory of evolution) that all should accept just because the high priests of science say so. But yes, I understand that they feel themselves threated and are afraid of losing their power, if people dont blindly believe them.

[Clownboat]

...By rejecting the established science, flooders and flat earthers place themselves in a position of power. Suddenly, they feel like they're the experts and that's a good feeling. Why wouldn't they want to maintain that feeling?

Perhaps we shouldn't encourage such thinking by debating it as if it's credible?

Now that you derailed this topic, what do you think, do you feel the power when you act as expert? Does scientists feel the power, when they act as experts and rule and guide people as established authorities?

But anyway, I want to say, I think real science that is based on things that can be seen and observed, is good, I have nothing against it. The problem is with the established pseudoscientific beliefs (like theory of evolution) that all should accept just because the high priests of science say so. But yes, I understand that they feel themselves threated and are afraid of losing their power, if people dont blindly believe them.

And like before, now to acknowledge a silly claim like 'evolutionary high priests' would be to give such a notion credit it doesn't deserve.

Would you like to debate 'baby eating pastors'? Not until such a thing has been established should we give such a notion a credible thought I would think.

You need to deal with reality and stop treating science as if it is a competing religion. Science is a method of doing things, not a religion with pastors and faith based beliefs.

Back to discussing a flat earth and/or a global flood I assume...