"A FLOOD of NONSENSE! - Global Flood or Mass Extinctions?"

[Miles]

.


A delightful explanation of why the notion of a global flood---the Noachian Flood---doesn't make any sense.




................



Question: Is any of what Forrest Valkai, the host, said, wrong? If so, what and why?


.

[Clownboat]

.


A delightful explanation of why the notion of a global flood---the Noachian Flood---doesn't make any sense.




................



Question: Is any of what Forrest Valkai, the host, said, wrong? If so, what and why?


.

I did not notice anything wrong with what he said.
To be honest, discussing a global flood idea is to give it credit it doesn't deserve. Like discussing a flat earth. Sure, such a thing could be discussed, but why not just discuss the migration patterns of unicorns instead?

[boatsnguitars]

... why not just discuss the migration patterns of unicorns instead?

Are you suggesting unicorns are migratory? Do they have to distribute coconuts to warmer climes?

BTW, the Christian dude in the video is what I imagine is an archetypal Christian. Confused, ignorant, etc.
The woman is like every con artist I've known.

[Clownboat]

Are you suggesting unicorns are migratory? Do they have to distribute coconuts to warmer climes?

Which do you mean... African or European unicorn?

[boatsnguitars]

I don't know that! AAAahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Miles]

.


A delightful explanation of why the notion of a global flood---the Noachian Flood---doesn't make any sense.




................



Question: Is any of what Forrest Valkai, the host, said, wrong? If so, what and why?


.

I did not notice anything wrong with what he said.
To be honest, discussing a global flood idea is to give it credit it doesn't deserve. Like discussing a flat earth. Sure, such a thing could be discussed, but why not just discuss the migration patterns of unicorns instead?

Because no one is claiming that unicorns are real or that there's such a thing as migration patterns of unicorns; whereas, "An ABC News poll released Sunday [in 2004] found that . . . Sixty percent [of Americans and 73 percent of Christians] believe in the story of Noah’s ark and a global flood."* And when around 175 MILLION people (.60 X 292.8 million---the population of the USA in 2004), believe in a fable I think it merits correction.

*source

.

[Clownboat]

Because no one is claiming that unicorns are real or that there's such a thing as migration patterns of unicorns; whereas, "An ABC News poll released Sunday [in 2004] found that . . . Sixty percent [of Americans and 73 percent of Christians] believe in the story of Noah’s ark and a global flood."* And when around 175 MILLION people (.60 X 292.8 million---the population of the USA in 2004), believe in a fable I think it merits correction.

*source

.

You can't reason a person out of a position when they didn't use reason to arrive at it.
Again, debating the ark is like debating a flat earth, just more popular.

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ... - Planck's principle

[Miles]

Because no one is claiming that unicorns are real or that there's such a thing as migration patterns of unicorns; whereas, "An ABC News poll released Sunday [in 2004] found that . . . Sixty percent [of Americans and 73 percent of Christians] believe in the story of Noah’s ark and a global flood."* And when around 175 MILLION people (.60 X 292.8 million---the population of the USA in 2004), believe in a fable I think it merits correction.

*source

.

You can't reason a person out of a position when they didn't use reason to arrive at it.

Sure you can. The rational one used to believe in a falsehood need not have been correct or even logical, just something that is believed to be sensible. However, belief is by no means infallible. So, the approach then is to knock down what they believe to be sensible with good reasoning, which may include facts, better evidence, logic, or simply persuasive arguments. Not that everyone is capable of or willing to consider facts, better evidence, logic, or simply persuasive arguments, but a lot of people are---it's part of the reason I dumped Christianity. Simply consider all the people Christianity has lost over the years.

Steady switching
Movement into and out of Christianity remains stable at recently observed rates. That is, in each new generation, 31% of Christians become religiously unaffiliated before they turn 30 . . . ."
source: Pew

About 64% of Americans call themselves Christian today. That might sound like a lot, but 50 years ago that number was 90%, according to a 2020 Pew Research Center study. That same survey said the Christian majority in the US may disappear by 2070.
source:CNN

Granted, not all of the 31% who jumped ship were necessarily reasoned out of the fables of Christianity and the religion itself, but, as I see it, there had to be something that caused fables to loose their grip on former believers. Is it likely that they were shown to be unreasonable, false, or stupid? Sure it is.


.

[Eloi]

Believing that the Flood really happened is for me the same as believing in the ice ages that science talks about. If scientists find reason to believe in massive planetary flooding and melting ice... why do they find it so incredible that the Biblical Flood actually happened?

What is the problem for them:

1) that it was selective and there were survivors?
2) that God was the direct cause and for reasons that concern his sovereignty?
3) because it is associated with an ancient civilization about which very little is now known?
4) because the story includes "aliens" who came to the planet and had children with women?

The physical evidence for the Flood could be the same evidence used to prove the ice ages (just moving dating)... What seems implausible to atheists is not the lack of evidence, but that the Biblical account goes into details that they do not want to accept/believe.

By the way: the Flood is spoken of in dozens of ancient civilizations records and some of the accounts date back to close to the second millennium BC... The Biblical Flood occurred in 2370 BC.

King Ashurbanipal of Assyria, who established a library of 22,000 clay tablets and texts, claimed: “I had my joy in the reading of inscriptions on stone from the time before the flood.” (Light From the Ancient Past, by J. Finegan, 1959, pp. 216, 217) This may refer to some traditional accounts regarding the global Flood or else to Assyrian records predating some local flood. The only writings regarding a flood found in the ruins of Ashurbanipal’s palace were those of the Babylonian flood account, containing much mythology. Whether any genuine accounts or writings actually from before the global Flood were possessed by the pagan Assyrians cannot be determined now. (it-2 Reading)

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #9]

The physical evidence for the Flood could be the same evidence used to prove the ice ages (just moving dating)... What seems implausible to atheists is not the lack of evidence, but that the Biblical account goes into details that they do not want to accept/believe.

This is what happens when you don't run the numbers and just generalize things. First, the ice ages (at least since long before humans arrived) were not global flooding events or anything close. They were the polar ice caps extending much further south, then retreating again, etc. They don't involve the levels ot water needed for a global flood as described in Genesis by orders of magnitude. Second, there isn't nearly enough water on Earth to cover the entire planet to the tops of the highest mountains (as described in Genesis). This alone torpedoes the entire myth ... there is no source for all the water that is needed and you can find examples of the calculations all over the web, including some by religious people who realize the story is just that .. a story.

https://reasons.org/explore/publication ... y-possible

From the article:

"Without limiting what God can do, it seems more prudent to recognize that the Bible describes a flood that judged all humanity but did not cover the entire globe."

It didn't happen.