We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Archeological evidence for the flood: real or no?
| 36 | 5367 |
I believe that the flood did happen if anyone has an objection to this, please feel free to question.
- 36 Replies
I have always thought of the great flood as something quite limited and local. Mostly because that entire branch of religion is quite young and also quite limited. I does make sense to me that it was just that. Noah's world was flooded, Noah collected two of the animals in his world (penguins not included), and went on sailing on his boat, which would not actually have had to be that big. Obviously it would not have made the greatest impact on the entire world, but where he lived, it was quite devastating.
And thus God hi5'd him, and told him to please ignore all the other people still alive, because they were not his people anyway.
This seem to be plausible to the story and the evidence that both Avorne's evidence show, and what Walker is mentioning (if you kindly ignore the hi5 part with God, of course).
I would also like to point out how this is what's called mental gymnastics. See video example for comparison.
The Story of X
One question, most scientists agree that there was a global flood on Mars, yet Mars presently has no surface water. The Earth, however, which is covered in water never had a global flood. Anyone else see the irony?
Can you provide a link to a scientifically credible source stating this, because I've only seen this stated on creationist websites.
the problems w/ books is that you need to know which context you should read it.
alexander the great conquered the world.... but then again it was only a small part of the world
I would just like to bring something up. We all know about whales. We know they live in the ocean. Well, this, courtesy of earthage.org, seems to be just a wee bit odd if you ask me:
A "Whale" of a Fossil:
Or should we say "a fossil of a whale? It's true, but what is most interesting about it is how it was buried. In 1976, workers from the Dicalite division of Grefco inc. found the remains of a baleen whale entombed vertically in a diatomaceous earth quarry.
"They've found fossils there before; in fact the machinery operators have learned a good deal about them and carefully annotate any they find with the name of the collector, the date, and the exact place found. Each discovery is turned over to Lawrence G. Barnes at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. The Whale, however, is one of the largest fossils ever collected anywhere... (It) is standing on end.. and is being exposed gradually as the diatomite is mined. Only the head and a small part of the body are visible as yet.
"The modern baleen whale is 80 to 90 feet long and has a head of similar size, indicating that the fossil may be close to 80 feet long. 46,47
More Fossil Whales:
"In bogs covering glacial deposits in Michigan, skeletons of two whales were discovered ... How did they come to Michigan in the post-glacial epoch? Glaciers do not carry whales, and the ice sheet would not have brought them to the middle of a continent... Was there a sea in Michigan after the glacial epoch, only a few thousand years ago?" 48
"Bones of Whale have been found 440 feet above sea level, north of Lake Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont, more than 500 feet above sea level; and still another in the Montreal-Quebec area, about 600 feet above sea level..." 48
the problems w/ books is that you need to know which context you should read it.
And how do we figure out the context when it isn't given for us by a credible source? We deduce it based on testing the claims of the book. If the book makes claims which we can test and they are tested and demonstrated to be false we understand that either the book is inaccurate, or it was not intended to make factual statements.
If the book does not make any claims which can be tested then it has no truth value, as truth is "that which conforms with reality and observation". If a claim cannot be tested then it does not fall within the realm of truth or fact. In such instances it would be folly to present such a book as fact or as making claims about the observable world. (The Bible, and indeed all religious texts, fall into both of these categories)
alexander the great conquered the world.... but then again it was only a small part of the world
Umm... no. Alexander conquered more of the world which was known to people in his area at his time than any other warlord/conqueror. No honest historian or anyone else with an understanding of history and the historical method would ever claim that Alexander (or anyone) "conquered the world". This is why, as you stated, we must understand the context in which claims are being made. Fortunately we do understand the context in which it is claimed that Alexander conquered the world and we can place it in its proper perspective and make an accurate and factually correct observation of the accounts of his life.
Sorry for double posting, but I just saw the post from Legion and wish to address it.
The information that you are not being given on that site, Legion, is that we find stuff like this all the time. Not because of a global flood, or oceans in places we know there weren't, but because of plate tectonics. These creatures were fossilized millions of years ago, back when the continents were not where they are now.
As the continents drift along the liquid layers under the Earth's crust they collide and create mountains. This thrusts low lying layers of rock upward. The fossils within these rocks, obviously, are thrust upward within the layers of rock in which they were formed. This is how we find fossilized coral reefs in the highlands of Ireland and whale fossils in Michigan and other such similarities.
Funnily enough I just watched a program on BBC iPlayer called - Men of Rock : Deep Time, which explained how rocks can in fact end up in vertical layers. Sediments dont layer vertically do they and I dont see omnipotent god having a sense of humour that stretches to the bounds of creating vertically sedimented rock formations then layering horizontal rock formations directly on top. A much better explanation would be that they were horizontal and were "ushed" into a vertical position like hils and were then eroded and has new sediment layered over the top...
This is not a 5 minute job by the way... takes millions of years to do this. If god is anywhere in that equation I would love to see where it fits in?
You must be logged in to post a reply!