The Great Flood

Status
Not open for further replies.
The biblical account though, does not take it's information from other accounts, for the very reason that in the Genesis account it comes before seasons and ice ages. Noah was in the event that changed everything, and of course there were hundreds if not thousand of local floods after it.
There would be seasons and ice ages on this planet whether humans existed or not.

The question is not where did all that water go. It would be how did a molten super heated earth get water in the first place, given it's position in the solar system. There is evidence of pangea, and at face value, the writers said as much. Time is relative and perhaps at one point it was accelerated. How would we have decay and change if there was no time at all? Is living in a perfect world without change even possible and how would the writings even show such ideas that we ourselves barely grasp? I guess the default answer would be it is all made up fiction, unless it is not.
This paragraph has so many disjointed and unconnected comments that it's impossible to see what point you're actually trying to make here.

Yes, Pangaea existed. That has nothing to do with any floods.

To which writers are you referring?

I don't even know where to start with the rest of it.
 
The question is not where did all that water go. It would be how did a molten super heated earth get water in the first place, given it's position in the solar system.

FYI, water is present almost everywhere we look in the solar system, including Mercury. My question is: Where did all the water from a global flood go?
 
FYI, water is present almost everywhere we look in the solar system, including Mercury. My question is: Where did all the water from a global flood go?
It is still here.
 
It is still here.

hm

Ararat is more than 5 km high.
If the flood was global that would mean that we had more than the double amount of water as today.

But the water is not there anymore.
One could argue that the elements of water are still there.
but they would still cause a very huge volume, too high to be anything near plausible from my gut feeling.
 
It is still here.
Warpus recently traveled to Nepal and climbed to Everest Basecamp. He's been posting photos and commenting a bit about his trip, and I don't remember one syllable about encountering millennia-old floodwater. In fact, the water in his photos is all frozen.
 
hm

Ararat is more than 5 km high.
If the flood was global that would mean that we had more than the double amount of water as today.

But the water is not there anymore.
One could argue that the elements of water are still there.
but they would still cause a very huge volume, too high to be anything near plausible from my gut feeling.

The Mesopotamians (according to some in the ancient writing field) worked out that there was a collision of 2 planets. The result was the earth and a non rotating satellite, the moon. The earth once had less mass. That they are still looking for impact points is only the beginning. They still need to prove that two planet size bodies collided. There was still a lot of debris that may have "rained" down for hundreds of years after the initial impact.

The only difference in interpreting the data, is because the current model stretches out the time line to fill 4 billion years worth of activity. I do not think we can flat out say it took that long if there were suspensions of time and maturity was built into the model itself. Of course if we flat out say there was no outside influence, existence left all alone, cannot do what humans have claimed they actually experienced. To say they made it all up though, makes about as much sense to me, as me explaining there is more to existence than what we can observe with our current 5 senses, to those who do not accept that point.
 
The Mesopotamians (according to some in the ancient writing field) worked out that there was a collision of 2 planets. The result was the earth and a non rotating satellite, the moon. The earth once had less mass. That they are still looking for impact points is only the beginning. They still need to prove that two planet size bodies collided. There was still a lot of debris that may have "rained" down for hundreds of years after the initial impact.
How could the Mesopotamians have "worked out" something that happened billions of years before, when they had no means of "working it out" even if they realized there was something to be "worked out"?
 
How could the Mesopotamians have "worked out" something that happened billions of years before, when they had no means of "working it out" even if they realized there was something to be "worked out"?
How do scientist today know it happened? When it happened is guess work.
 
It is not a belief in radiocarbon dating. That is a series of test done in various ways. That is not a belief system. There are several variables and constants that connot be guaranteed that put the interpretation into a certain belief that I do not think has enough merit to stand on.

Since most do not think anything major has happened, pointing out that impacts within the last 35,000 years could have messed with those constants.

Sure, if there is no record of cataclysmic events, then we may agree, it takes millions of years. I am not ruling such events out, because they were written about, and now there may be evidence as mentioned in the OP.
It's one of many methods for dating rocks that you do not understand yet somehow feel qualified to make nonsense pronouncements on their efficacy. I'd be happy to educate you on the matter but every attempt anyone has ever made in the past ends up with you retreating to nonsense and faith which is why I'm not putting much effort into it now.

If we can't agree that the Earth is a few billion years old as the starting point of the conversation then there really is no conversation to be had in the first place. I cannot pierce the logic-armor of zombie jesus.

The Mesopotamians (according to some in the ancient writing field) worked out that there was a collision of 2 planets. The result was the earth and a non rotating satellite, the moon. The earth once had less mass. That they are still looking for impact points is only the beginning. They still need to prove that two planet size bodies collided. There was still a lot of debris that may have "rained" down for hundreds of years after the initial impact.

The only difference in interpreting the data, is because the current model stretches out the time line to fill 4 billion years worth of activity. I do not think we can flat out say it took that long if there were suspensions of time and maturity was built into the model itself. Of course if we flat out say there was no outside influence, existence left all alone, cannot do what humans have claimed they actually experienced. To say they made it all up though, makes about as much sense to me, as me explaining there is more to existence than what we can observe with our current 5 senses, to those who do not accept that point.
The Mesopotamians did no such thing. More nonsense.
The Wisdom of the Ancients (tm) is a trope that should stay within the confines of science fiction.
 
Last edited:
I had a young earth creationist argue that the speed of light changed over the life of the universe to make it look like the stars are really far away
 
Rates of radioactive decay also changed to make everything on the earth look old
 
And the devil put the fossils in the rocks, obviously.

One of my personal favorite lines of argumentation from creationists is that the fossil record is an attempt to test our faith. I get a kick of out the idea that a loving God would attempt to trick his children into eternal damnation.
 
While making fun of this guy is easy, and entertaining, I refer you to the Fred hypothesis:

The universe as we know it was created in the year 2000 by an omnipotent entity named Fred. In the process the mighty Fred placed all evidence of prior existence, including memories of previous life for the people living at the time.

The Fred hypothesis is useful because while it obviously cannot be proven, it also cannot be disproved. Ultimately, it demonstrates the folly of man displayed in debates about the existence of god...by both sides of the debate. In the end, the disciples of the non-god are operating on the same leap of faith as those who follow whatever other god, and can be just as absurdly self-righteous in their arrogant certainty that their unproven position is 'the truth' as anyone else.
 
The idea that young-earth creationism and the earth is 4.6 billion years old are equally faith-based propositions is...wrong, to say the least
 
While making fun of this guy is easy, and entertaining, I refer you to the Fred hypothesis:

The universe as we know it was created in the year 2000 by an omnipotent entity named Fred. In the process the mighty Fred placed all evidence of prior existence, including memories of previous life for the people living at the time.

The Fred hypothesis is useful because while it obviously cannot be proven, it also cannot be disproved. Ultimately, it demonstrates the folly of man displayed in debates about the existence of god...by both sides of the debate. In the end, the disciples of the non-god are operating on the same leap of faith as those who follow whatever other god, and can be just as absurdly self-righteous in their arrogant certainty that their unproven position is 'the truth' as anyone else.
The only thing constant on all sides of the debate is God.
 
Burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim.

Which extraordinary claim is that? If you want to defend "well, MY claim is not extraordinary," feel free to convince me that you are better suited to have struck upon "the truth of the matter" than I am. That should be easy enough, since I freely acknowledge that I am not capable of sussing out the origin of existence through experimentation.
 
The claim that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old is not a claim to have sussed out the origin of existence through experimentation.
 
You really don't get it. I mock because even though the scientific revolution began almost 400 years ago more of my fellow countrymen believe in angels than climate change. These people's ridiculous, childish fantasies are harmful and dangerous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom