Big Floods

If I'm not mistaken, it was YOU who made all the claims about undeniable evidence and the way all that oppose your view of the world (people like me, I guess) are on the defenseive and are "plea bargaining."

I, on the other hand, haven't made any claims

Funny, I could say the same about you...

 

A Great flood DID occur. There is evidence on all regions of the world. When a major flood occurs it leaves behind soil residue that indicates a flood. As you dig down into the Earth there are layers of soil from different time periods. In the time period in which the Flood was said to occur a layer of this flood residue has been found, in all areas of the Earth. This is proven scientific fact, look it up for yourself. Now every single culture of this world has a story/myth of a great flood and a rightouess man that survived it. Asain cultures have these stories, Native Americans have these stories, African cultures have these stories, every major culture has this story. Now let me ask you, what makes more sense? Every ancient culture by chance has the same story with the same character and the same meaning in it despite the fact that most of these culture never meet eachother until relative recent history. Or that there was a sinful generation that ruled the Earth, as in Noah's time, and then was destoryed by a great flood, like Atlantis, and resulted in scattering the survivers into different regions of the Earth. Leaving with them the story, and nothing else. People also claim that this could not happen because there is not enough water. Many forget that today's oceans are very deep. If the Atlantic plate was to rise, so would all the water. It would be easy to cover this planet a few times over with the amount of water that exists. You have to take in account the depth of water and location/height of land masses. If this Great Flood was also the one that destoryed Atlantis, then it is easy for the world to be covered in water. If a large land mass, such as the one Atlantis rested on, was to suddenly go under the sea the water levels would rise GREATLY.
A easy to understand example would be if there was a glass 7/10 full over water (like the ratio of water to land on Earth). The water by itself can not overflow the glass, but if you stick your hand into the glass the water will rise and overflow. This is displacement and is how volume of objects was first figured out. This same idea works for a Great Flood, which did indeed occur.

 

Its hilarious when people are so blissfully unaware of just about every kind of discovery in the last twenty five years that they can post a comment claiming 'they dont know of any worldwide cataclysmic floods'
Errr.. well then I suppose you need to realise its not 1910 anymore.
Actually, its been well understood all along but its the last few decades that its being fully understood.
Guys... in case you dont know, we are WAYYYY beyond 'Did Massive Global Flooding occur?' and everyone is now farrrrr into the debate about whether it was on global catastrophe OR was it the 'Plea Bargain' version of thousands of regional ones at different places at different times.
BTW.. for those still in 1910, I just want to assure you this is not something all 'hazy' and/or complicated with all sorts of hypotheticals.
Its easy stuff like: Sedimentary Layers which are HUGE and ALL OVER THE PLANET or Fossilised Beachs and Dwellings WAYYYYY beneath the the New Sea Level.
Also things like: That IS how these formations are carved.
Or
That is a ring of Sea Shells at the top of that Mountain.
Real Blatant stuff.
I mean - there are all kinds of more complicated details and arguable theories and whatnot but just because some DETAILS are debateable doesnt somehow cancel out what we DO know.

Incidently: That thing you heard once "There is not enough water to do it" is actually what is called a sort of 'Social Rumour'.
Its just said and passed around to prevent a certain type of easily-accepting persons stop asking too many questions.
Its not actually a 'real' thing.

Thx

 

World flood, and sea changes, are different. I have no doubt that the
entire Southeast US was part of the ocean once, does not mean there
was a flood.

 

Thank you for that completely useless diatribe. Here's an intro to plate tectonics.

 

Thanks. I had to do a lot of research on Plate Tectonics for school.
Its always good to revist sciences which confirm the biblical account of Genesis - even if they are then 'plea bargained' down with ridiculously long time periods.
I seriously hope you dont think that was some kind of 'Topper' because it definately is not.
I guess you just think it is.. well.. because you dont know why really. You just sorta think it is.
Probably someone told you that.
Here you can enjoy the Hydroplate Theory.
http://www.creationscience.com/HydroplateOverview.html
It has less critisisms than other theories but its still early.

 

Wow, I always thought that the flood myths were related to our primordial routes within the womb, the eggs that are washed away monthly during a womens menstration. Sometimes I think they relate to the one sperm riding out the flood.

You guys have all these silly theories when the truth is right in your face.

 

LOL ~ not all of 'em, though.

 

Erasmus, are you a young-earther? If you are I'd appreciate knowing so I don't waste my time posting anymore to this thread than I already have.

Kharakov, that's an interesting thought. I also often see tribal myths less as literal history and more as parables and allegory regarding the human condition and the way to peace. Like, for example, the whole 'end of the world/advent of a new earth' thing in Revelations really talking about the death of the ego and the beginning of life as an enlightened person.

 

How does the fact that the Earth was flooded at one point prove the veracity of Creationism?

 

Why is it the Genesis account that is confirmed? why cant it be
the Gilgemesh account, which is older than the noah account,
or the one where the fish told the man about it and he built an
ark too?

Why cant the Indian ones be true?

Why do christians automatically think its their myths that are
the one proven by science?

Noah is a rehash of an old story man. World flood or not,
it wasnt the one written about with Noah.

 

Actually, the overwhelming evidence of global flooding really confirms the hundreds of cultural traditions of civilisation emerging after a deluge.
The wide and far accounts (found nearly everywhere) are, in themselves that something like this happened for it to be so prevalent in widespread cultural 'memory'.

..and there would be accounts older than Gilgamesh too.
If it happened - it happened, and it doesnt work that whichever oldest found copy is found is somehow the 'most accurate' either.

The Fish and the Ark is the Indian one isnt it?

South Park episode fresh in mind, "I think you mean Native American?"

There are some fantastic oral traditions.
Skeptics simply refute these using the 'scientific reasoning' of 'Denying' and suggest that the traditions (i.e. Haida 'Noah' account') is simply Native peoples making it up to match the Genesis account.

Well first of all, YOU have decided its a 'Myth' when Genesis does in fact record itself very plainly as a literal historical account.
I dont doubt for a minute that Moses was well aware of all the accounts and stories from his region but whatever the case - Moses sets forward a clearly intended description.
Christians do not 'Automatically' think Plate tectonics prove out the accuracy of Genesis.
They simply acknowledge that Genesis records the literal Earth 'being divided' and the account of tremendous cataclysm.
Then scientific research reveals the earth has been divided (you can deny that but the pieces fit together if retrofitted backwards).
Further more - evidence of mass calamity including tremendous extinctions of lifeforms is revealed through science.
So - you really have to see where scientific revelation, at the very least confirms and coincides with these accounts.

Hey.. if that also confirms parts of Gilgameshs conversation with Noah then terrific.

There is no reason for you to assert that other than you just 'feel like' saying it.
Do you get how 'logically' there is no reason for Moses account to be derived from any other account.
This does not change if there are 200 accounts running around the Mediteranean or 2,000.
I bet Shem, Ham and Japeth each had some pretty great accounts before anyone was born.
This does not make Moses account any less of what it is (or not).
Its stands or falls on its own.

For some reason this Gilgamesh account seems to really get people confused and I suppose its because they start with the prejudice that the story must be entirely based on nothing.
It doesnt work that way.

....... Someone asked me if I was a 'Young Earther'.
Two things on that:
Im actually a 'Fact Facter' and I dont 'start' with a preconcieved 'camp' I think suits my fancy and then 'argue for it' like its gonna be true or not because of how much I want my 'camp' to win.
Did the Earth stay without form and void for a billion years.. go ahead and believe that if you want but I dont see it.

Second thing on that: Nice job demonstrating why you are not fit to be wasting anyones time flapping your piehole about being 'Scientific' when you think you will accept or not accept reason based on 'what camp are you in'.
If that is how UNscientific you plan to be then please, by all means dont interupt me anymore and I will thank you for it.

Kharakov joked about the Flood Account being a 'parable' or an 'allegory'.
In all seriousness, Genesis does not give us that option.
Its a literal story.
Not just because it clearly presents itself as such, with no reason given in the text itself to suggest you are hearing an allegory - but also because it lists specific place names, ages, measurments, time periods and personal names.
One of the ways I would like to put this would be to give you an example (if this was possible) of a perfectly learned Literature professor who had never heard of 'Genesis' but was still (somehow lol) an expert on every other book in the OT.
Now he is given the book of Genesis - Duh! It would immediately be obvious this book was presenting itself as a literal, historical and actual account.
He would not even think twice.
If you suggested it was an 'allegory' or a 'poem' you would be instantly failed and told not to come back.
The ONLY reason any scholar (or layman) is even trying to pretend this is a 'allegory' is because it is Genesis and they are under the mistaken belief that there is something to the 'Magic Soup' hypothesis being touted as 'science' by religious naturalists trying to monopolise schoolboards and tv channels.

Do you realllllyyyyy need to believe that there was a billion year span of time before Adam and Eve?
Well go ahead I suppose.
If it really makes you happy then fine, ok, there was a billion (lol!) years before Genesis picks up.
Enjoy that.

 

So to back up your Noah account, you reference another Semitic myth?
Adam and Eve? Please man, get outside of the Old Testement box for a second.

The Gilgamesh version, Noah version, and the Hindu Version, along with
all the other Middle Eastern versions all came from the Black Sea Deluge,
not some god-on-high punishment.
And that wasnt a global flood, but a very large regional one, that, to the
ancients, would have been the whole world to them.

Another flood may have happened a long time ago that did infact flood
the entire planet MAYBE , but that wasnt the wrath of your desert god
either, and surely wasnt the one Noah got caught up in.

AND if there were a global flood for all the other cultures to tell about,
the Moses was full of shit to assume that Noah and his family were all
that survived it.

AND the god that supposedly sent the flood would be either El-Shidai, or
Yahweh, neither of which are capable of causing a global flood.

Oh yeah, and LOL@genisis having literal historical accuracy.

I like the parts where one of adams decendants came up with the
Iron Age was it? i dont know, but funny stuff in there.

 

Yup, before this generation is gone, these things will come to pass.

 

Heron- Isn't it about everyone?

 

For what its worth.. Noah and his wife are not 'Jews' and the people that repopulate the planet are Shem, Ham, Japeth and their better-halfs of course.
Interestingly, there are three 'branches' of peoples to this day (physical appearance I mean) in the Asian, Caucasion and Negroid familiar looks.

By no means is that the story here but I always thought that was interesting that you can still see three distinct 'faces' on the planet.
Of course a whole pile of us are somewhere in between or part of some mix of course.

 

So Shem Ham and Japeth all looked completly different?

Noah should talk to his woman about all that!

Besides, Noahs wife was Negroid, and I am sure Noah was of a darker race
too.

And please dont get into the whole black people came from Noahs
cursed son. If that were the case, every man who had sex with
his drunken father would have black children.

 

had sex with? Dude, all he did was SEE Noah passed out naked in his tent. I don't remember any sex...

 

Latino...Aborigine, however that's spelled...American Indian...South American natives... There aren't three races of people.

The older is closer to the event. The more recent one is either from someone's perception and memory, or a secondary source.

Genesis recording itself as a historical account means nothing, because it isn't. Nobody was standing around taking notes. There are many more myths that could have been firsthand accounts, and were recorded as historical accounts, but not genesis. There are two possibilities for a source for genesis: Human imagination, and god's word filtered through human interpretation.

In the bible, god decides to wipe out humanity, except for Noah and his family. If that happened, there would be no other accounts. 'Cause everyone else would be dead.

Further problems with worldwide flood-
Plants and soil would not survive. No olive leaves. Nothing to eat when they got back. They couldn't plant anything, because the soil would be swept away.

Not enough water. If the ice caps melted, and all the water contained within the earth was brought to the surface, it would raise the sea level, but not quite enough to cover the earth. If the ice caps melted, the sea level would rise about 200 feet.

Fossils. The water drowned the people and the dinosaurs and the elephants and stuff, right? Where are all those fossils alongside each other?

The question on your young earthiness is a valid one. It offers a clue as to your scientific conclusions. If you take the position that the earth is 6000 years old, then the story of Noah is from about 2000 BC, if I remember right. Fossils (from the flood, right?) don't form in 4000 years.

So if a story includes specifics like that it's true? I don't follow your logic.

 

Read the Hebrew version, or ask your local Rabbi.

I promise its in there, I was shocked as well.

Others propose he had sex with Noahs wife also,
but all that is far too much for the puritanical Christian
book.