^^
Pretty true. As far as I know, the big Greek flood story also explains the creation of frogs. Zeus and some lesser god (Apollo, Hermes...?) disguised themselves as weary travelers coming to a small village. Everyone turned them down until they reached an old couple on the edge of town, who treated them like their own kids had come to visit, offering them the best of everything. The gods told them to leave home for a day, during which they flooded the village and turned all the assholes who pissed them off into frogs.

35% Good Samaritan fable (being kind to strangers in need; 65% Sodom and Gomorrah fable (city destroyed for its sin). A good example of how Christianity copied from previous religions.

I'm just going to go ahead and say anyone who believes the Bible is 100% accurate needs to have their head examined. The same could probably be said for those who think the Bible is 0% accurate.

The story of Noah isn't about proving or disproving God. I believe in God. But I also believe the majority of these Old Testament stories are laughable, and people that don't agree aren't using the brain that their God gave them.

Wait, let's backtrack here for a minute. Since when did Christians believe in evolution?

Because that's the only way the 'kind' argument works when it comes to the various subspecies of animals that apparrently all evolved from a singular point in the evolutionary tree all around the same time.

Amazing. Using the one thing I think Christians hate the most to try and explain their own farflung beliefs.


As for flood stories being present throughout history. We also have wide reports of dragons, unicorns, leprachauns, and mermaids in history. Yet, most will agree that they were probably a work of fiction that snowballed, rather than reality.

Sykotyk

tk421 wrote: Besides the very real problems of the science of the idea of a "great" world wide flood, there is even more proof that it never happened. The ancient Egyptians, who kept very detailed records hundreds of years before and after, make no mention of any flood. The pyramids, which were built some 200 or so years before this supposed "flood" show absolutely no signs of every being submerged under water. The fact of the matter is, besides the completely illogical belief in "God", there is no evidence at all of any flood happening like in the Bible

There may have very well been localized floods in the regions mentioned in the Bible, but the idea of a flood covering the Earth over the mountains is completely crazy. No one would ever believe it if it weren't a part of the Bible. It's as crazy as believing in Santa or the Tooth Fairy.

National Geographic and Robert Ballard disagree with you.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2000/12/122800blacksea.html

NNN wrote:

tk421 wrote: Besides the very real problems of the science of the idea of a "great" world wide flood, there is even more proof that it never happened. The ancient Egyptians, who kept very detailed records hundreds of years before and after, make no mention of any flood. The pyramids, which were built some 200 or so years before this supposed "flood" show absolutely no signs of every being submerged under water. The fact of the matter is, besides the completely illogical belief in "God", there is no evidence at all of any flood happening like in the Bible

There may have very well been localized floods in the regions mentioned in the Bible, but the idea of a flood covering the Earth over the mountains is completely crazy. No one would ever believe it if it weren't a part of the Bible. It's as crazy as believing in Santa or the Tooth Fairy.

National Geographic and Robert Ballard disagree with you.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2000/12/122800blacksea.html

There is a huge huge difference between the Black Sea flooding and a flood covering the entire Earth. Anyone who doesn't understand that is moronic.

I Wear Pants wrote: Dude's an idiot but what he was trying to point out remains true. There ain't no fuggin' way a guy got all of the species (or genus if that's the translation you want to use) on Earth onto one boat. I don't care if they all came to him or not. Shit isn't happening.

That's an opinion, and his opinion, that he "backed up" with a bunch of bogus material.

dwccrew wrote:

My question is, because I don't know the answer, is how long ago, according to the Bible did Noah and his ark adventure happen? I have to assume that the continent Pangea existed much, MUCH earlier than when Noah was around, but I don't know how long ago Noah was around.

Also, isn't the continent Pangea a theory? Not saying I dispute it, just asking if some scientists don't believe in the theory.

1. The theory that all of Earth's land was once in one spot (pangea) is pretty widely accepted.

2. According to the Bible the Flood would have happened around 2800-3000 (can't remember exact time frame off the top of my head) BC.

3. One of the leading plate tectonics scientists in the world, Dr. John Baumgarten, who has created what is widely known as the best plate tectonic model in the world, has shown with his model, that plate tectonics can happen very rapidly (aka 100s/1000s of years instead of millions) given a cataclismic event such as a world wide flood. So, the leading plate tectonic scientist in the world's model says that yes, if continents have always drifted at the slow rate they do now (just over 1 inch/year) then yeah it would take millions of years. However, given a cataclismic event like a flood, plate movements happen in centuries, not millions of years.

Google his name, he has won many awards for his plate tectonic models.

NNN,

You also quoted an interpretation of 2 of EVERY KIND of animal. Not expecting you too, but if you knew Hebrew, you'd know the original story in Hebrew & from other stories, i.e. Gilgamesh, etc. the story says two of every species or types.

tk421 wrote:

Ha, this coming from someone who believes that a 600 year old man built a boat that had two of every "kind" of animal on Earth? Please.

If, as the Bible "claims", water rose 15 cubits or around 30 - 45 feet over the highest point on this planet, where exactly did all that water go? There would be water at a depth of 29K+ feet over the entire surface of the planet? Are we to believe that "God" made that water disappear?

Also, what about his point about the ecosystems of the Earth and its oceans? If we have enough fresh water to flood the Earth over the mountains, everything on the planet, including bacteria would die. What exactly did those animals that Noah had in his ark eat after those 40 days? Did "God" magically repopulate the Earth's ecosystems so that those lifeforms could survive? What about the predators on the Ark? Are we supposed to believe that they didn't eat a single animal for 40 days?

Secondly, you do realize that Pangea was 250 million years or so ago? I thought this flood was supposed to have taken place around 4800 years ago? Are you trying to tell us that the continents were stilled formed together only less than 5,000 years ago?

1. You do realize that there are millions/billions of gallons of water under the ground right? The water "abaded" according to the Bible, went under ground, formed the underground rivers/wells we have today. Not to mention that who's to say the oceans weren't much lower before the flood than they are now?

2. Ecosystems got replenished the same way the animal populations did. Plus, not all plant life, bacteria, etc would die in the flood waters. And who said it had to be all fresh water? You have to remember that in the flood story it wasn't all rain, the "fountains of the deep" rose up as well.

3. The Bible clearly describes Noah taking food/provisions on the ark, so I'm sure why that is even a question.

4. The predators could have easily been in "pins" or compartments. I mean how do we keep lions from eating the deer at a zoo? Its not really that hard of a concept to figure out.

5. I already answered the pangea age question above.

tk421 wrote: Besides the very real problems of the science of the idea of a "great" world wide flood, there is even more proof that it never happened. The ancient Egyptians, who kept very detailed records hundreds of years before and after, make no mention of any flood. The pyramids, which were built some 200 or so years before this supposed "flood" show absolutely no signs of every being submerged under water. The fact of the matter is, besides the completely illogical belief in "God", there is no evidence at all of any flood happening like in the Bible

There may have very well been localized floods in the regions mentioned in the Bible, but the idea of a flood covering the Earth over the mountains is completely crazy. No one would ever believe it if it weren't a part of the Bible. It's as crazy as believing in Santa or the Tooth Fairy.

Actually, the pyramids have been dated to around 2400-2500 BC.

Nice try though.

Sykotyk wrote: Wait, let's backtrack here for a minute. Since when did Christians believe in evolution?

Because that's the only way the 'kind' argument works when it comes to the various subspecies of animals that apparrently all evolved from a singular point in the evolutionary tree all around the same time.

Amazing. Using the one thing I think Christians hate the most to try and explain their own farflung beliefs.


As for flood stories being present throughout history. We also have wide reports of dragons, unicorns, leprachauns, and mermaids in history. Yet, most will agree that they were probably a work of fiction that snowballed, rather than reality.

Sykotyk

There is a difference between micro and macro evolution. Any Christian who knows anything about science and even about the Bible, will agree that microevolution is real (aka adapting within a "kind" of animal like canines, etc). Its the proteins to humans macroevolution that Christians don't believe is true.

Guys, guys, guys ... why all the bickering? Perhaps a relevant rap song can bring harmony to this thread:

"Come bust a move where the games are played ... It's chill, it's fresh, it's Noah's Arcade"

They are talking about this on Foxnews right now. They are interviewing some guy saying this research team refuses to release any of their data including their carbon dating claims to 4800 yrs old. I guess this group just expects to take everyone at their word and just assume that is what it is from their pictures.

Fab1b wrote: They are talking about this on Foxnews right now. They are interviewing some guy saying this research team refuses to release any of their data including their carbon dating claims to 4800 yrs old. I guess this group just expects to take everyone at their word and just assume that is what it is from their pictures.

Which is why I believe they didn't really find "it".

jmog wrote:
1. You do realize that there are millions/billions of gallons of water under the ground right? The water "abaded" according to the Bible, went under ground, formed the underground rivers/wells we have today. Not to mention that who's to say the oceans weren't much lower before the flood than they are now?

2. Ecosystems got replenished the same way the animal populations did. Plus, not all plant life, bacteria, etc would die in the flood waters. And who said it had to be all fresh water? You have to remember that in the flood story it wasn't all rain, the "fountains of the deep" rose up as well.

3. The Bible clearly describes Noah taking food/provisions on the ark, so I'm sure why that is even a question.

4. The predators could have easily been in "pins" or compartments. I mean how do we keep lions from eating the deer at a zoo? Its not really that hard of a concept to figure out.

5. I already answered the pangea age question above.

jmog,
my good buddy! I'm going out of town for a long golf trip and won't be able to get back to you until Tuesday, but I'd like for you to do something for me! It concerns the part I have in bold in your quote above, since you like to do math (I'm still waiting on that model by the way), I'd like you to actually take the time to do some to back up that ridiculous statement you made. Don't worry I'll help you out!

First, I'd like for you to roughly calculate about how much water it would have taken to cover the earth 10 cubits above the highest mountain.

[size=xx-small]Hint: all you have to do is calculate the volume of water to fill a sphere with a radius of the Earth + (mt everest + 10 cubits); then subtract the volume of a sphere with a radius of the Earth (I know the earth isn't a perfect sphere thats why I said roughly). [/size]

Once you have that number, compare it to Earth's hydrosphere
[size=xx-small](Hint: Earth's hydrosphere is about 1.4 × 1018 tonne)[/size]

Once you answer that then we'll discuss the effects that much water would have had on the Earth!

If you don't feel like doing this, i'd understand and i'll have the numbers when I get back on Tuesday!

Until then, have a good weekend!

Bigred1995 wrote:

jmog wrote:
1. You do realize that there are millions/billions of gallons of water under the ground right? The water "abaded" according to the Bible, went under ground, formed the underground rivers/wells we have today. Not to mention that who's to say the oceans weren't much lower before the flood than they are now?

2. Ecosystems got replenished the same way the animal populations did. Plus, not all plant life, bacteria, etc would die in the flood waters. And who said it had to be all fresh water? You have to remember that in the flood story it wasn't all rain, the "fountains of the deep" rose up as well.

3. The Bible clearly describes Noah taking food/provisions on the ark, so I'm sure why that is even a question.

4. The predators could have easily been in "pins" or compartments. I mean how do we keep lions from eating the deer at a zoo? Its not really that hard of a concept to figure out.

5. I already answered the pangea age question above.

jmog,
my good buddy! I'm going out of town for a long golf trip and won't be able to get back to you until Tuesday, but I'd like for you to do something for me! It concerns the part I have in bold in your quote above, since you like to do math (I'm still waiting on that model by the way), I'd like you to actually take the time to do some to back up that ridiculous statement you made. Don't worry I'll help you out!

First, I'd like for you to roughly calculate about how much water it would have taken to cover the earth 10 cubits above the highest mountain.

[size=xx-small]Hint: all you have to do is calculate the volume of water to fill a sphere with a radius of the Earth + (mt everest + 10 cubits); then subtract the volume of a sphere with a radius of the Earth (I know the earth isn't a perfect sphere thats why I said roughly). [/size]

Once you have that number, compare it to Earth's hydrosphere
[size=xx-small](Hint: Earth's hydrosphere is about 1.4 × 1018 tonne)[/size]

Once you answer that then we'll discuss the effects that much water would have had on the Earth!

If you don't feel like doing this, i'd understand and i'll have the numbers when I get back on Tuesday!

Until then, have a good weekend!

Notice I didn't say ALL of the water from the flood formed the underground rivers/wells. I also included the possibility that the oceans are higher now than before.

Also, if the flood is "correct" and the plates shifted after the flood, the tallest mountains in the world (Himalayas, etc) wouldn't have existed yet since they were caused by the plates crashing into each other.

So, the water wouldn't have to be 10-15 cubits above modern day Mount Everest. Just a thought to throw in there.


Edit: Your demeaning sarcasm isn't like you. I understand how to calculate a simple volume, but like I just said above, Mt. Everest, and most of the world's tallest mountains wouldn't have existed yet at the flood due to plate tectonics.

I also found my one population model that is a logarithmic style growth with population maxes and growth rates included, I'm still trying to find the one where I added pred/prey into that model. Its probably on a thumb drive somewhere since I can't find it on the PC. I will PM you the constants I used for the log growth without pred/prey ASAP if you like in the mean time.

jmog wrote:

Bigred1995 wrote:

jmog wrote:
1. You do realize that there are millions/billions of gallons of water under the ground right? The water "abaded" according to the Bible, went under ground, formed the underground rivers/wells we have today. Not to mention that who's to say the oceans weren't much lower before the flood than they are now?

2. Ecosystems got replenished the same way the animal populations did. Plus, not all plant life, bacteria, etc would die in the flood waters. And who said it had to be all fresh water? You have to remember that in the flood story it wasn't all rain, the "fountains of the deep" rose up as well.

3. The Bible clearly describes Noah taking food/provisions on the ark, so I'm sure why that is even a question.

4. The predators could have easily been in "pins" or compartments. I mean how do we keep lions from eating the deer at a zoo? Its not really that hard of a concept to figure out.

5. I already answered the pangea age question above.

jmog,
my good buddy! I'm going out of town for a long golf trip and won't be able to get back to you until Tuesday, but I'd like for you to do something for me! It concerns the part I have in bold in your quote above, since you like to do math (I'm still waiting on that model by the way), I'd like you to actually take the time to do some to back up that ridiculous statement you made. Don't worry I'll help you out!

First, I'd like for you to roughly calculate about how much water it would have taken to cover the earth 10 cubits above the highest mountain.

[size=xx-small]Hint: all you have to do is calculate the volume of water to fill a sphere with a radius of the Earth + (mt everest + 10 cubits); then subtract the volume of a sphere with a radius of the Earth (I know the earth isn't a perfect sphere thats why I said roughly). [/size]

Once you have that number, compare it to Earth's hydrosphere
[size=xx-small](Hint: Earth's hydrosphere is about 1.4 × 1018 tonne)[/size]

Once you answer that then we'll discuss the effects that much water would have had on the Earth!

If you don't feel like doing this, i'd understand and i'll have the numbers when I get back on Tuesday!

Until then, have a good weekend!

Notice I didn't say ALL of the water from the flood formed the underground rivers/wells. I also included the possibility that the oceans are higher now than before.

Also, if the flood is "correct" and the plates shifted after the flood, the tallest mountains in the world (Himalayas, etc) wouldn't have existed yet since they were caused by the plates crashing into each other.

So, the water wouldn't have to be 10-15 cubits above modern day Mount Everest. Just a thought to throw in there.


Edit: Your demeaning sarcasm isn't like you. I understand how to calculate a simple volume, but like I just said above, Mt. Everest, and most of the world's tallest mountains wouldn't have existed yet at the flood due to plate tectonics.

I also found my one population model that is a logarithmic style growth with population maxes and growth rates included, I'm still trying to find the one where I added pred/prey into that model. Its probably on a thumb drive somewhere since I can't find it on the PC. I will PM you the constants I used for the log growth without pred/prey ASAP if you like in the mean time.

This is from my iPhone so forgive any misspelled words, but are you telling me that Mt Everest was created in the last 4,000 years and there is no historical record of it happening? In terms of biblical events, the creation of a moutain within that time frame would exceed the global flood!

Bigred1995 wrote: [

This is from my iPhone so forgive any misspelled words, but are you telling me that Mt Everest was created in the last 4,000 years and there is no historical record of it happening? In terms of biblical events, the creation of a moutain within that time frame would exceed the global flood!

I don't want to rehash it all, but come on...

1. It is a well researched and thought out theory/belief that the Himalayas were caused by plate tectonics when the "Indian" plate slammed into the "Asian" plate (I put quotes in because they obviously have tecnical names).

2. I already talked above about Dr. John Baumgarten, the most well respected plate tectonic scientist on the planet and his model that says a global flood would cause rapid plate movements in centuries or less instead of millions of years.

So, you put those two together and yes, if one assumes the flood to be true, the the Himalayas were formed after the flood.

Why no "Biblical record"? Use the logic and the story. If the flood is true the boat came to rest on a mountain somewhere in the middle east believed to be in modern day Turkey and specifically Mt. Ararat.

So, if just a hundred of so years later the Himalayas were formed, its quite possible that the world's population hadn't spread past there yet, or if they had it wasn't the group of people who the Bible focused around (Jews).

A quick calculation says that in 100 years, 8 people can become 500,000 people given a baby born per year per couple (I actually got about 700k, but listed a more conservative figure), and then when the kids get to about 15 years old they start having kids too.

It wouldn't take that "long" to get a population going if the people mate like rabits so to speak.

They were also told to spread out to repopulate the world (if you believe the story) so given pangea, traveling, etc its conceivable that they could have easily moved the 4 familes to vastly separate regions quickly and started the repopulation.

I'm not saying anything I've said proves the flood scientifically, I'm just saying that science doesn't also disprove it.

FYI, what most people don't know, is that the idea of "pangea" or a supercontinent was actually first introduced by a creationist due to his understanding of Genesis 1 when it says that God made all the waters (oceans) in one place, when he read that he thought it also meant that the land had to be in one place and given the visual look at the maps of specifically Africa/South America he concluded that at one point in history the land was all in one spot.

He was laughed at by scientists of the day, was told that land doesn't move, its stationary, etc.

It wasn't until really the middle of this century that plate tectonics was widely accepted.

So, a modern science theory that is commonly use to give a long/old age of the Earth (many plate tectonic models say about 100 million years since pangea), that was started by someone who just read the Bible and took a look at a map to verify what the Bible said.

The very fact that some of you are so eager to disprove anything about this actually being the slightest bit true (which I doubt as well) shows me that you are kind of afraid of it being proven.

I mean, if anything could come along and validate stories of the Bible or other myth, you'd almost have to start believing that other things might be true.

Heck, if they found the Garden of Eden, you'd all have your panties in a bunch in fear.

buckeyefalls wrote: The very fact that some of you are so eager to disprove anything about this actually being the slightest bit true (which I doubt as well) shows me that you are kind of afraid of it being proven.

I mean, if anything could come along and validate stories of the Bible or other myth, you'd almost have to start believing that other things might be true.

Heck, if they found the Garden of Eden, you'd all have your panties in a bunch in fear.

That is definitely part of it and the Bible describes these people many times, as those that could have 100% fool proof evidence right in front of them and still not believe.

I also don't believe this story to be factual (aka I don't believe these people found the ark), but at the same time am interested in the story obviously and wouldn't mind being proven wrong.

The ark would be probably the single most (or 2nd most) important archeological find in Biblical terms.

The other "in contention" would be the Ark of the Covenant, which housed the stone tablets of the 10 Commandments.

Oh, and about the Garden of Eden, if one believes the Bible, it will never be found, not until after the whole rapture/tribulation period thing is over anyway. According to the Bible the Garden of Eden is guarded by angels with flaming swords as man is not allowed back in.

jmog wrote:
I don't want to rehash it all, but come on...

1. It is a well researched and thought out theory/belief that the Himalayas were caused by plate tectonics when the "Indian" plate slammed into the "Asian" plate (I put quotes in because they obviously have tecnical names).

2. I already talked above about Dr. John Baumgarten, the most well respected plate tectonic scientist on the planet and his model that says a global flood would cause rapid plate movements in centuries or less instead of millions of years.

So, you put those two together and yes, if one assumes the flood to be true, the the Himalayas were formed after the flood.

Why no "Biblical record"? Use the logic and the story. If the flood is true the boat came to rest on a mountain somewhere in the middle east believed to be in modern day Turkey and specifically Mt. Ararat.

So, if just a hundred of so years later the Himalayas were formed, its quite possible that the world's population hadn't spread past there yet, or if they had it wasn't the group of people who the Bible focused around (Jews).

A quick calculation says that in 100 years, 8 people can become 500,000 people given a baby born per year per couple (I actually got about 700k, but listed a more conservative figure), and then when the kids get to about 15 years old they start having kids too.

It wouldn't take that "long" to get a population going if the people mate like rabits so to speak.

They were also told to spread out to repopulate the world (if you believe the story) so given pangea, traveling, etc its conceivable that they could have easily moved the 4 familes to vastly separate regions quickly and started the repopulation.

I'm not saying anything I've said proves the flood scientifically, I'm just saying that science doesn't also disprove it.

I know what plate tectonics is and I understand their origins, but I don't think you understand what you're posting, Dr. John Baumgarten's Catastrophic Plate Tectonics theory pretty much states that Catastrophic Plate Tectonics would have created the mountains, but would have also been the cause of the the flood not as yo stated the flood causing the rapid plate movement!

The rapidly sinking ocean-floor slabs cause large-scale convection currents, producing a circular flow throughout the mantle. The hot mantle rock displaced by these subducting slabs wells up to the mid-ocean rift zones where it melts and forms new ocean floor. Here, the liquid rock vaporizes huge volumes of ocean water to produce a linear curtain of supersonic steam jets along the entire 43,500 mi (70,000 km) of the seafloor rift zones. Perhaps this is what is meant by the “fountains of the great deep” in Genesis 7:11. These supersonic steam jets capture large amounts of water as they “shoot” up through the ocean into the atmosphere. Water is catapulted high above the earth and then falls back to the surface as intense global rain, which is perhaps the source for the “floodgates of heaven” in Genesis 7:11.

http://www.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=3463

According to that theory coupled with the Bible the mountains were created in 40 days!

Actually Baumgartner's model says its much more than 40 days before modern day India crashes into Asia.

Even his one picture from the model that shows 70 days, the Indian plate hadn't crashed into the Asian plate yet.

So, the rains only lasted for 40 days, and at that point the water was over the highest mountains that existed, and according to the model the Himalayas didn't exist yet...just like I said.

Its quite possible that the Himilayas came surging up out of the water while the flood waters were still around, but at the time the rain stopped (40 days) they hadn't been formed yet.

I'm sorry, I don't care what supposed experts you pull out or anything, there is no way the continents were formed together less than 5,000 years ago. Also, there is no way there was a flood that covered the Earth. The very fact that you actually believe in a literal interpretation of this is ludicrous. I'm done arguing about it. You go right on believing whatever you like. This is why I don't talk/associate at all with religious people.

tk421 wrote: I'm sorry, I don't care what supposed experts you pull out or anything, there is no way the continents were formed together less than 5,000 years ago. Also, there is no way there was a flood that covered the Earth. The very fact that you actually believe in a literal interpretation of this is ludicrous. I'm done arguing about it. You go right on believing whatever you like. This is why I don't talk/associate at all with religious people.

So, you say there's "no way" but the guy who wrote what is considered the best plate tectonics model in the history of the science says its possible...and we are to believe your opinion over his scientific research?

And you wonder why so many people are blinded today by just blindly believing what they are told is "fact" instead of looking at all possibilities.