Local flood, not all humanity killed?

[abelcainsbrother]

It is wrong to claim there is not enough water on the earth for a global flood.If the earth's surface was a lot more level the whole earth would be covered over the tallest mountains on land,so just because the earth's surface has deep trenches that go down for miles,level them out or fill them in and we would have a world wide flood over the tallest mountains on land..People forget how deep the ocean around the earth is.

[Audie]

Nobody knows the actual area. One theory is that the Mesopotamian basin was the area.

Others think it was where the Caspian Sea is today.
http://www.oldearth.org/articles/flood_location.htm

Wherein I find this bit of weirdness..

1. The basin has no geological deposits which would qualify as flood deposits.5 Morton himself answers this in another of his articles. In critiquing the Mesopotamian flood scenario, Morton states that "To completely erode flood sediments takes more than 20,000 years. In the progressive creationist time frame for the flood, it could not have occurred prior to 35,000 years ago. Most likely it was about 50,000 years ago. Thus, we have twice the amount of time that Morton allows for completely eroding away any flood sediments. Given this vast amount of time, we cannot expect to find any flood sediments from Noah's Flood. -

Anything you notice about that?

Considering that I have no idea how long it takes for flood deposits to erode, no.

Recognizing you've had no geology, you can still use a little thought.
"Flood deposits" could dry to a fine film of dust that blows away in minutes,
or it could involve boulders, and potentially last more or less forever.

The flood deposits along the Tibris Euphrates valley that have been cited as
evidence for a Noah flood are layered deposits, from successive floods. The
deeper they get buried, the less they seem inclined to erode away.

There are to be found various sorts of "flood deposits" in strata many tens of millions of years old.

The 20K figure has no basis.

ALSO, as the flood deposit in question would be at the bottom of a lake, how
could it erode away?

Saying we cannot expect to find sediments from the flood is correct, but not for the reason given. Well, I guess some do expect to find them. But they never do.

For those who like a world wide flood, there is no world wide "flood" marker.

Sure it would disappear in some places, others it would be there like it was yesterday.

There is no indication that the Caspian Sea suddenly flooded at any appropriate date.

I'd imagine people have done sediment cores aplenty there, as it is an oil producing area.

The Black Sea would have shown a fairly rapid rise in level at the end of the last ice age, but not at any dramatic rate. As the Mediterranean rose, it
overtopped the high point on the channel, and water would have poured over at high tide, then steadily, months or years later.

There are buried houses from the old lake shore. But one scarcely could have needed a boat to get away from such a leisurely flood.

Audie,

Why debate something that never happened? Could I ever convince you that a flood happened that fits any biblical interpretation of Noah's flood?

The first q has so many layers!

So does the second.

There is some reason for the story. There are common themes in mythology around the world. Big flood is one; mermaids are another.
Who knows what is behind it. I thinkJung had some ideas.

A study of compacrative mythology would turn up a great many themes found 'round the world. Astrology, too, butits no more true for
all that peopld tried to make sense that way.

Now, if a coherent reading of the story could be matched to external,
non-biblical sources, sure, I'd say it looked like a good theory.

Interpretations are all over the map, as is the guessed-at geography.

Non serious work by Noah's ark hunters like Ken Ham, like the person
you quoted with that nonsensical 20k yr. erosion, etc and ad naus
is not good theorizing, it is silly.

It would be extraordinary and improbable that any interpretation based solely on the bible, no outside corroboration would convince me of much.

Why is it different for you?

[Philip]

I see it that the Jesus story cannot be tested, so is in no way subject to falsification.

Any version of the flood story can be put to the test. It always fails.

NO, pure rationalism or naturalism can explain the the events of Noah, the ark, the animals, the eradication of all humans of the time period - WHATEVER/WHENEVER that time was. But add in an all-powerful God to that equation, and it explains HOW any of it is possible, because the everyday/cyclical things were superseded, with so many elements of Noah's story. From his advanced and great age during the building the ark, his provided ability to collect the animals of the area, the "mother of all rainstorms," ALL of that is ridiculous UNLESS there is an all powerful God for what would otherwise be an impossible fairy tale.

Ah, but Audie DOE believe in the inexplicable and non-falsifiable teachings that 1) there is no God necessary, and 2) that evermore sophisticated "randomness" or rather some incredibly intelligent and immensely powerful ETERNAL things must have existed, AS IF SUCH THINGS DID NOT/AND WERE NOT ETERNAL, then otherwise there would be no universe. So, Audie and others insist there was something with unfathomable abilities, intelligence and untold power, that explains the universe. The only problem is, what they speculate on is - wait for it... IS NOT testable/ not FALSIFIABLE!. Many times Audie has finally admitted that 1) she has no idea how or why the universe formed so awesomely, on such a grand scale, and she's admitted 2) that no science can give us the answers as to whether what she believes is even possible - especially as she doesn't know what that could possibly be. And WHATEVER that Great "Mechanism" was, it functioned in amazing God-like ways.

All scientists are amazed at both how the universe began and how it continues to function with great specificity. And while non-theists are amazed at what they see, theists, especially Christians, are just as amazed. So, whatever THAT thing was, the Mechanism that caused the universe, NO science can discern what that was, or how it did this. But the fact that non-theists cannot falsify or test what they think MIGHT be possible, does not concern them - just as long as one doesn't start up with any of this silly "God talk." And assertions of Western thinking vs. Eastern thinking (see, mysticism), or "clueless/simple" binary thinking," are anything but scientific. So, if you are going to be so critical towards theists because they can't prove something, when neither can a non-theist, when it comes to the origins of the universe, then don't be so hypocritical with a superior, sarcastically dismissive attitude. Wild speculation, upon which there is no ability to apply the scientific method to replicating, testing, falsifying - well, just don't call it science, because it is NOT - however couched in spouting speculative theories filled with scientific-sounding JARGON that, in reality, proves nothing.

[Jac3510]

I'm loving the fact the the scientifically feasible local flood interpretation that isn't driven by scientific concerns at all but is just driven by an honest reading of the text but is so much better than the stupid global flood interpretation that the church has always held but that we shouldn't adopt because non-believers think it is stupid even though we aren't adopting any reading because of science or non-believers . . .

. . . so glad the local flood story is convincing skeptics.

Waiting on mass conversions now.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaany time now.

Almost there! Just a few more posts should do it! Really, you guys almost have them convinced. Keep it up!

[Nicki]

Audie,

Just curious...

If you see the flood story as rediculous, what do you think of the story about God who took on human form, was born of a virgin, died for the sins of the world, and was resurrected on the third day?

Does that seem in any way, believable to you? Or is it just logically and scientifically rediculous?

Rediculous? Is that like the opposite of greeniculous? Good point though. Sorry if I'm way behind - I'm still catching up on this thread.

Edit: getting the spelling of my spelling send-up right

[hughfarey]

NO, [misplaced comma?] pure rationalism or naturalism can explain the the events of Noah, the ark, the animals, the eradication of all humans of the time period - WHATEVER/WHENEVER that time was. But add in an all-powerful God to that equation, and it explains HOW any of it is possible, because the everyday/cyclical things were superseded, with so many elements of Noah's story. From his advanced and great age during the building the ark, his provided ability to collect the animals of the area, the "mother of all rainstorms," ALL of that is ridiculous UNLESS there is an all powerful God for what would otherwise be an impossible fairy tale.

Absolutely true. And good for you for sticking to a logical proposition.

So, Audie and others insist there was something with unfathomable abilities, intelligence and untold power, that explains the universe. The only problem is, what they speculate on is - wait for it... IS NOT testable/ not FALSIFIABLE!

Nearly true. I can't speak for Audie, but if I'm 'others' I speak for them. We do not 'insist' on all that power and stuff precisely because it is not testable. It is a coherent speculation.

Many times Audie has finally admitted that 1) she has no idea how or why the universe formed so awesomely, on such a grand scale, and she's admitted 2) that no science can give us the answers as to whether what she believes is even possible - especially as she doesn't know what that could possibly be. And WHATEVER that Great "Mechanism" was, it functioned in amazing God-like ways.

With the corollary, of course, that the 'amazing God-like ways' function as if they were a 'Great Mechanism.' (And for pedants, you can't admit something finally many times...)

All scientists are amazed at both how the universe began and how it continues to function with great specificity. And while non-theists are amazed at what they see, theists, especially Christians, are just as amazed. So, whatever THAT thing was, the Mechanism that caused the universe, NO science can discern what that was, or how it did this. But the fact that non-theists cannot falsify or test what they think MIGHT be possible, does not concern them - just as long as one doesn't start up with any of this silly "God talk."

There are, of course, naive atheists, just as there are naive theists. More sophisticated ones, especially those with scientific or philosophical frames of mind, consider the matter deeply.

And assertions of Western thinking vs. Eastern thinking (see, mysticism), or "clueless/simple" binary thinking," are anything but scientific.

True.

So, if you are going to be so critical towards theists because they can't prove something, when neither can a non-theist, when it comes to the origins of the universe, then don't be so hypocritical with a superior, sarcastically dismissive attitude. Wild speculation, upon which there is no ability to apply the scientific method to replicating, testing, falsifying - well, just don't call it science, because it is NOT - however couched in spouting speculative theories filled with scientific-sounding JARGON that, in reality, proves nothing.

No. Wild speculation is often how science starts. Then comes rationalisation - how might the wild speculation cohere with the rest of science - followed by observation and all the more formal paraphernalia. However, to assert that wild speculation is 'fact, or somehow 'proved', without all that paraphernalia, then it's true; that's not science at all.

[Audie]

I see it that the Jesus story cannot be tested, so is in no way subject to falsification.

Any version of the flood story can be put to the test. It always fails.

NO, pure rationalism or naturalism can explain the the events of Noah, the ark, the animals, the eradication of all humans of the time period - WHATEVER/WHENEVER that time was. But add in an all-powerful God to that equation, and it explains HOW any of it is possible, because the everyday/cyclical things were superseded, with so many elements of Noah's story. From his advanced and great age during the building the ark, his provided ability to collect the animals of the area, the "mother of all rainstorms," ALL of that is ridiculous UNLESS there is an all powerful God for what would otherwise be an impossible fairy tale.

and immensely powerful ETERNAL things must have existed, AS IF SUCH THINGS DID NOT/AND WERE NOT ETERNAL, then otherwise there would be no universe. So, Audie and others insist there was something with unfathomable abilities, intelligence and untold power, that explains the universe. The only problem is, what they speculate on is - wait for it... IS NOT testable/ not FALSIFIABLE!. Many times Audie has finally admitted that 1) she has no idea how or why the universe formed so awesomely, on such a grand scale, and she's admitted 2) that no science can give us the answers as to whether what she believes is even possible - especially as she doesn't know what that could possibly be. And WHATEVER that Great "Mechanism" was, it functioned in amazing God-like ways.

All scientists are amazed at both how the universe began and how it continues to function with great specificity. And while non-theists are amazed at what they see, theists, especially Christians, are just as amazed. So, whatever THAT thing was, the Mechanism that caused the universe, NO science can discern what that was, or how it did this. But the fact that non-theists cannot falsify or test what they think MIGHT be possible, does not concern them - just as long as one doesn't start up with any of this silly "God talk." And assertions of Western thinking vs. Eastern thinking (see, mysticism), or "clueless/simple" binary thinking," are anything but scientific. So, if you are going to be so critical towards theists because they can't prove something, when neither can a non-theist, when it comes to the origins of the universe, then don't be so hypocritical with a superior, sarcastically dismissive attitude. Wild speculation, upon which there is no ability to apply the scientific method to replicating, testing, falsifying - well, just don't call it science, because it is NOT - however couched in spouting speculative theories filled with scientific-sounding JARGON that, in reality, proves nothing.

Note of course that I have never and would never say anything as spiteful and full of crap about you or anyone else here, as you do about me. I expect someone would modulate me right out of here if I did.

As for me criticizing "theists" you guys criticize eachother all the time, but whhhooo let a outsider to it? We have people here, in a forum with the name science, making statements about matters that involve science that are just bonkers. If what you want is a closed circle of sycophants who just agree with eachother and say yes yes to any stupidity, then why dont you just
close membership?

Regardless of your dreadful style, lets check for content.

Ah, but Audie DOE believe in the inexplicable and non-falsifiable teachings that 1) there is no God necessary, and 2) that evermore sophisticated "randomness" or rather some incredibly intelligent..

A good example of how you have to lie about me to think of something to criticize. Shame on you.

What else..
I said any version (should have added some qualifier like "reasonable" or,
"coherent") version of the "flood story" always fails if it is put to the test.

You respond with a long rather hysterical personal attack, that appears to say that if I cant answer the deepest mysteries of the universe, then i have nothing to say about the 'flood".


I do see a lot of what you called, yes, Wild speculation, upon which there is no ability to apply the scientific method to replicating, testing, falsifying - well, just don't call it science, because it is NOT - concerning this "flood".

You wont see it from me; any such claim is another lie about me.

I sort of thought the idea of this forum involved the words "evidence" and "science' but the real thing seems to get a reaction like holding a garlic wrapped cross up to a werewolf. Note the blowback from my simple statement, and your utter inability to address it.

The "world wide" version (speaking of hysterical ) is so wildly absurd, so childish that it is really shocking to see an adult promoting it.


Why no evidence?

Them jargon-jargon scientists pretend the dont see it.
Or they interpret it thro' an "evolution perspective". Or they are all part of the world wide conspiracy against god. Satan runs it.
Or its because god cleaned up all the evidence and gave us embedded age.
Where is all the water? Oh, "hydroplate" or, the wind wafted it to Neptune
where it shines today as a warning beacon against incoming rogue angels.



And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get (from) people who insist on biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

And your discursive attack on me is the kind of foolishness we get from people with indefensible ideas. The very intensity of it hints broadly at the desperation of one bitterly clinging to the indefensible and the absurd.


So tell me, gentle modulator, what "version' of the flood, in what geographical area and at what date you choose as Truth, and let us see what sort of evidence you can provide. "Evidence for god from science"?

My guess as to your response? Zero of substance, probably some threat.

[Jac3510]

So tell me, gentle modulator, what "version' of the flood, in what geographical area and at what date you choose as Truth, and let us see what sort of evidence you can provide. "Evidence for god from science"?

In fairness to Audie, this seems rather close to the question K (rightly) likes to put to non-theists to put some positive belief on the table so it can be analyzed. I, for one, would be very interested in a rigorous analysis of a local flood model. It's trumpted as so very scientifically reasonable. I tend to doubt it, but it would be rather interesting if you local-flood folk would actually demonstrate your claim . . .

[Audie]

So tell me, gentle modulator, what "version' of the flood, in what geographical area and at what date you choose as Truth, and let us see what sort of evidence you can provide. "Evidence for god from science"?

In fairness to Audie, this seems rather close to the question K (rightly) likes to put to non-theists to put some positive belief on the table so it can be analyzed. I, for one, would be very interested in a rigorous analysis of a local flood model. It's trumpted as so very scientifically reasonable. I tend to doubt it, but it would be rather interesting if you local-flood folk would actually demonstrate your claim . . .

Thanks J.

Something I do is to ask, say, for some evidence that ToE is false. Provide some reliable data. It if is so wrong, that should not be hard.

It may be false but nobody has risen to that challenge.

Same with a flood model. There is an account, with a lot of very specific details that to my eyes says "global". But others say local. No matter, lets have a date and some physical evidence.

There is the science of geology that is really good at what it does.

I'd like someone, if they can, to put the story and the geology together.

[PaulSacramento]

Some scientific issues with the flood of it is global:

Scientific Problems with a Universal Flood
There are a number of practical problems that conflict with the idea of a global flood.

First, a universal flood would have changed the topography of the land. For example, in the event of a worldwide flood, the Hidekkel, or Tigris, and Euphrates rivers of Genesis 2:14 would have disappeared under layers of flood-laid sedimentary rock.12 Instead, the Euphrates is mentioned again in Genesis 15:18, and the Hidekkel is alluded to in Daniel 10:4. This suggests that the rivers’ integrity was maintained.13

Second, it would require an inordinate amount of water to flood the entire Earth. One popular explanation for this problem is that prior to the flood, the world was watered by mist from a global canopy of water vapor which then condensed, causing the first rains to flood the Earth (Gen. 2:5-6). However, this explanation is incongruent with archaeological evidence that concludes ancient Mesopotamia — the land of the Tigris and Euphrates — was “an extremely arid environment that necessitated the use of irrigation for successful agriculture.”14 Furthermore, the pressure necessary for the condensation of such a large quantity of water would have been fatal for all living creatures. In fact, a closer look at the Septuagint version of the Old Testament shows that the word for fountain was used in place of the word for mist. Some modern translations have used similar words like stream and spring.15 In either case, the water is said to have risen from the Earth, which makes it more likely that these terms were referring to irrigation canals.16 A similar terminology is used in reference to the flood (Genesis 7:11), where “fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.” But when we look closely at the original Hebrew text and consider the use of the words fountains and deep in other passages, it is more likely that the fountains of the deep were also irrigation canals.17

Another supposition is that all animals and humans are derived from the survivors on Noah’s Ark. There are several problems with this idea. First of all, there is no way that the 2 million known species of animals could have fit onto the ark — not to mention the estimated 10 to 100 million species yet to be discovered. The dimensions of the Ark were 300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits (Gen. 6:15). At 18 inches per cubit, the Ark would have been 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet tall. This was indeed a large ship by the standards of the time, but not nearly large enough to carry such a vast and varied cargo. Getting all of the animals to fit on the ark, along with the necessary food would not have been feasible. Some have argued that not all species were included, but only representatives of each type. Not only would this still represent an improbably great number of creatures, it would also require that the evolution of related species be drastically accelerated after the flood, in order to account for current diversity of species.

Finally, the migration of animals across mountains and oceans is quite difficult to explain. To make matters worse, there are no traces of animal ancestors along the proposed courses of migration. These are just a few of the many scientific problems with interpreting Genesis 6-9 as a truly universal flood. Efforts to find physical evidence of a global flood have failed. Even some of the most capable Christian researchers, including John Woodward, George Frederick Wright, William Buckland and Joseph Prestwich, all failed in their searches. Young states, “It is clear now that the evidence they were searching for simply does not exist.”18 -

See more at: http://biologos.org/common-questions/bi ... VeOOU.dpuf

[PaulSacramento]

ANE writing care less about WHEN and more about WHY of an event.
Add to that the fact that any chronology in the account would be aimed at the direct audience of the account and would have references that THEY would understand.

There is not enough in the biblical account of the flood from which to surmise a definite date.

Any attempt must go OUTSIDE the bible for more information.

[Audie]

ANE writing care less about WHEN and more about WHY of an event.
Add to that the fact that any chronology in the account would be aimed at the direct audience of the account and would have references that THEY would understand.

There is not enough in the biblical account of the flood from which to surmise a definite date.

Any attempt must go OUTSIDE the bible for more information.

Interesting to see someone even allow outside sources to be considered!

So anyhow, no date. What info do we have from the bible?

Outside sources show unequivocably that there was no world wide flood,
nothing resembling a reasonable argument can be made that there was.

What could one say for certain about the story other than that it is about how
God does not like sin and will punish it?

[PaulSacramento]

ANE writing care less about WHEN and more about WHY of an event.
Add to that the fact that any chronology in the account would be aimed at the direct audience of the account and would have references that THEY would understand.

There is not enough in the biblical account of the flood from which to surmise a definite date.

Any attempt must go OUTSIDE the bible for more information.

Interesting to see someone even allow outside sources to be considered!

So anyhow, no date. What info do we have from the bible?

Outside sources show unequivocably that there was no world wide flood,
nothing resembling a reasonable argument can be made that there was.

What could one say for certain about the story other than that it is about how
God does not like sin and will punish it?

We must always start at WHY a story was written.
But that aside, we have the month and day and the very general area of where the flood was centred on.

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the [j]floodgates of the sky were opened. 12 The rain [k]fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.

Of course we can NOT use that to date the flood for obvious reasons.
It ended:

24 The water prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days.

And the Ark rested on a mount:

4 In the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat. 5 The water decreased steadily until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible.

So we have some time span for how long the flood was but no specific information that can lead us to WHEN it happened.

Again, IF we want to nail down a time frame ( and it won't be very narrow, probably in the 100's to 1000's of years) we need to go outside the bible for similar stories.

Of course, one needs to ask themselves WHAT exactly they are looking for when doing this research, what are the goals that one is seeking.

[hughfarey]

We must always start at WHY a story was written.

Absolutely, and very important. The bible is not an arbitrary collection, but the result of several hundred years of selection. The theology behind the flood story would be a worthwhile exploration. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem easy to determine:

"I don't think there is any doctrine that is based on the flood being a global event...
Or any doctrine based on the flood at all ( other than the covenant with Noah)."

Hmmm.

[PaulSacramento]

If you feel there is a doctrine that needs the flood to be a GLOBAL event to be correct, please share.