Noah's Flood...

[Guest]

Whose religeon Arch ?

don't forget the title to this topic--noah's flood--so if you want religion out of it, you are too late and barking up the wrong tree. since this topic belong's to the Bible in which i believe, i think it already has opened the door to my religion.

ryan's and pittman's book, noah's flood, has provided some clues to a pre-flood civilization which would provide enough proof for the actuality of the event.

there is no possible way we can dig up the whole earth to check for global flood evidence. if we missed a spot or didn't dig deep enough, you would dismiss it as a local flood and then justify your unbelief.

i do not think we will ever get enough flood evidence to convince skeptics because they can never be satisfied or convinced. sometimes you have to take a leap of faith and go with what you know.

If evolution goes against your beleifs , that doesn't make it wrong

evolution is wrong because it can not be proven to be true, not just because it is contrary to the Biblical record. there is no modern day transformations that display the change from ape to man, so with no real time observation it even fails in the science room. (this is a strict example of one claim made by evolutionists).

The days of the church controling all is in our past not our future

i would not limit your perception of the church because some decide that they must control every aspect of a member's life. i avoid those churches myself.

[Tech]

Ok the thread is noah's flood .
As stated before most cultures have a story or myth about a great flood,
and if such an event happened , what makes it "Noah's" flood .
The bible was written by men , so they wrote the story of the flood into their book with Noah as their main character , and also added a lot of unbelievable stuff about animals , this doesn't give them copyright.
There could have been many geological reasons for the flood but most culures seem to have shared in it (and had survivors to pass on the story). Also if other cultures had survivors then the biblical version is flawed as the people on their ark were supposed to be the only survivors.
As you have stated so often just because some one says a thing is fact it doesn't make it so .There is not one single fact or artifact supporting the Noah version, Dig up the Ark with a passenger manifest and I might be persuaded.

[Guest]

what makes it "Noah's" flood

it was the first account known by the western world.

this doesn't give them copyright

it was the first account known to man thus the rest are just perversions of the original.

Also if other cultures had survivors then the biblical version is flawed as the people on their ark were supposed to be the only survivors

why would the other cultures nullify the biblical account? the other accounts have less proof to offer than the Biblical record.

Dig up the Ark with a passenger manifest and I might be persuaded.

ryan and pittman have already done that with their black sea discovery. those villages and homes are probably pre-flood. now show me in the modern era where a gorilla has turned into a man.

[Rokcet Scientist]

[...]the change from ape to man[...]

Basic misrepresentation:
apes did not change to men.
Both apes and men evolved from the same original creatures.

[Tech]

Quote:
it was the first account known by the western world.

No its just known by the western world because of its inclusion in the bible

Quote:
it was the first account known to man thus the rest are just perversions of the original.

You have no proof of that whatsoever , and those myths were part of other cultures long before they met christians .


Quote:
why would the other cultures nullify the biblical account? the other accounts have less proof to offer than the Biblical record.

What proof do you have apart from a biblical story .......None

Quote:
ryan and pittman have already done that with their black sea discovery. those villages and homes are probably pre-flood. now show me in the modern era where a gorilla has turned into a man.

Because artifacts were found below a sea means nothing , do you know how many artifacts have been found beneath the seas of the world .
And how does a few submerged beams and tools support the existance of Noah , I asked for proof of his Ark
And what has a gorlla turning into man got to do with anything ???

I asked for proof and you hold up the bible .....I dont think so

[Guest]

At least he's holding up something tangible, which is more than you have managed so far.

[Tech]

Realist
I am not trying to prove anything , I am asking for proof .
So many times on this forum people make statements without proof,
if you want me to beleive something dont just point to a story in a book, that is not tangible evidence.
Show me a hull on the pinnacle of Ararat and Noah can have his flood

[Guest]

I haven't pointed at anything in a book. And so far, all you have done is regurgitate the standard spiel without giving any actual proof of why archaeologist is "wrong".

[Tech]

Thats what I'm trying to say..
There is no proof he is wrong
There is also no proof he is right

So maybe none of us should post without hard facts to back it up
I will keep my opinions to myself

[Guest]

Thats what I'm trying to say..
There is no proof he is wrong
There is also no proof he is right

At last, agreement on something.

[daybrown]

Ryan & Pitman's analysis is open to modification. Scriptural analysis is not. Thus, the proof of a single point of discrepancy, such as the discovery of the source of the Sodom & Gommora tale, or simply an internal analysis of the ways scripture contradicts itself is sufficient in rational discourse such as here, to discredit scripture.

That's not the case with R&P's description of the Great Flood. It does not *matter* to the thrust of their argument whether the C-14 dating is off by a couple hundred years. The land grasses are still there in the mud at the bottom of the Black sea- underneath the layers of marine life.

Ergo, the bottom was once dry land, and ergo it was covered so rapidly that the grasses did not biodegrade. The banks of the Danube are still seen in the sonar laying on the bottom, as are the rather modest village tels that were lived on for a few hundred years.

I spoze Fundamentalists may come up with explanations for each of these, but Occam's razor cuts thru the bullschitt with the simplest solution that is outlined in "Noah's Flood". I'm not offering this in the effort to convince a critic, but simply suggesting that we will hear more of this as Ballard and others explore the bottom of the Black Sea on the Discovery channel.

Bulgaria and Rumania are already winding up their tourism industry based on the Aryan civilization that was there before the flood *7000* years ago. You can surf online and find examples of script carved in rock and pottery from that area that is 7000 years old, so of course, I spoze the first account was *written* by the people who actually saw it happen, although I dont know that it still remains anywhere to be found, and if found, translated.

Although, "The Language of the Goddess" by Gimbutas is an opening shot at translating 7000 year old iconography. I disagree with a lot of what she has to say, but somebody hasta begin someplace.

[Guest]

I wasn't convinced by Ryan and Pitman's arguments about this being "The Great Flood", and neither was this reviewer www.lrb.co.uk/v21/n13/fort01_.html

[daybrown]

I'm not surprised if someone is not convinced, and even less surprised that there are authorities who make a good living out of debunking work which challenges long held assumptions.

Look at the data yourself. Not only in the book, but in the evolution of Proto-Indo-European. And look at the digs. There have been recent discoveries in Iran of several agrarian communities which suddenly sprung up in the era immediately after the Great Euxine flood that R&P knew nothing about.

As we just saw with Katrina, great disasters put people on the move, and this results in the sudden blending of cultures and rapid technological and artistic advances. Which is eggzactly what we see on the riverine floodplains that empty into the West end of the Black Sea. So- if not the Great Euxine flood, why did the Aryans suddenly emerge on the stage of history with so many new crafts?

How many coincidences do you need? how many trees make a forest?

Contrairily, when a culture is under the hegemony of an alpha male class, it rejects, as we see Islam does now, new ways of thinking, and thereby limits creativity, stuck in ancient artistic styles. So, it wasnt the emergence of alpha male Aryan warriors that led to their success, but the *discrediting* of such leaders who didnt see the Great Flood coming.

[Guest]

I am not trying to prove anything , I am asking for proof

and i asked for proof from you, yet you made excuses for not providing any and i at least tried to give you one from my perspective.

As we just saw with Katrina, great disasters put people on the move

the problem with this example is the limitation of the storm. it came from one direction and left escape routes for the people to move. the storm that created noah's flood came from at least two identifiable directions and went to a height where there was no escape. so moving was not an option, though i am sure they went to higher ground but to no avail.

And what has a gorlla turning into man got to do with anything ???

you asked for proof, i asked for proof. prove to me that the world started from nothing. i can give the evidence for my beliefs but i doubt if you would accept it, most people don't unless they have the artifact intheir hands, which in many cases i can't provide but neither can evolutionists provide the same type of evidence for their conjecture.

I asked for proof and you hold up the bible .....I dont think so

i didn't hold up the Bible, i held up ryan's and pittman's discoveries. i asked for proof and you gave me excuses, who is on the weaker ground now?

What proof do you have apart from a biblical story .......None

no, the archaeological and historical record. we know what language and what area these other stories were written in but we do not know their source material or when they were written (there is a good guess but that is all it is) nor do we know why all these cultures would have a flood story, if it was only a local flood or if it didn't happen the way the Bible said.

it was the first account known to man thus the rest are just perversions of the original.

at the moment you are right but i am working on it and am investigating an interesting pieceof information i came across in one of my books. i will get back to you on that later.

There is no proof he is wrong
There is also no proof he is right

actually if you look closely and with an open mind at all the discoveries that have been made, you will see that the evidence is more on my side than any other one presented. i.e. the fossils in the cambrian era, point more to noah's flood than they do evolution. in fact evolution can not explain why this is so except to put forth more fanciful theories.

at least i have a written record to go along with what has been discovered. evolutionists do not have anything recorded from history that backs up their claims. they have many excuses, like writing wasn't invented yet but that is all it is--an excuse. you do not really know if writing was invented earlier because all that archaeology can provide has not been discovered yet.

[FreeThinker]

In the bibical account of Noah's flood the whole of the earth was covered with water at least to the height of Mount Ararat. Where did all this water come from? Outer space? How did it get on the earth? Did it come down in comets? Water is solid in the cold vacuum of space so there would have had to be a series of horrendous bombardments that would have wiped out all life on earth (check out Comet P/Shoemaker-Levy 9 impact on Jupiter at: http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/sl9/) or at least all large complex species such as ourselves and most of the animals visable to human eyes. To bring all that water to the earth in 40 days would have been a disaster magnitudes worse than the disaster that wiped out the dinosaurs. The earth would still be recovering.

Some more stuff to consider about all that water. It would have affected the earth's rotational speed as well as the earth's orbit around the sun. These things depend on the mass of the earth and such an extreme volume of water would greatly altered the mass of the earth. There is no evidence that such a disruption in the rotation or orbit of the earth ever occurred.

I also would like to know where the water went. Evaporation could not account for it dissapearing. We all know that water that evaporates falls back to earth as rain so that cant be the explanation, so where did it go, how did all that water dissapear?

Once such a flood occurred there would have been tremendous scarring of the earth's surface due to this disaster. I have heard it argued that the grand canyon is an example of this scarring but this is proven false by the alignment of magnetic iron in the layers of the canyon. The evidence shows that the material of the canyon was laid down over millions of years as the polarity shifts of magnetic north-south have reversed many times in the earth's history and evidence of these shifts is recorded by the magnetic polarity locked in the rocks. So the grand canyon is out...where are the giant scars that would have been left all across the face of the earth?

Now, on to the question of the animals in the ark. How is it that the fauna of Australia as well as north and south America were saved? Are we to believe that Noah had them on his ark too? Animals from those continents were compleatly unknown to the inhabitants on the acient middle east as those continents themselves were not even known to exist in the time of Noah.

Still on the subject of the animals. In order to produce a viable population there needs to be genetic diversity or the problems associated with inbreeding will doom the species. The story of Noah's ark says that only a breeding pair of each animal was represented. This is not enough to continue a genetically viable species. Were there more than two of each type then and if so why is that not mentioned in the bibical account?

These are just a few of the most obvious questions surrounding the tale of Noah's flood. I have seen no convincing answers for any of the questions to date.