Topic: The world-wide flood in Noah's day (Read 4454 times)

Tony N · « **on:** September 09, 2008, 10:08:45 AM »

The world-wide flood in Noah's day
What are some of your best arguments for and against it?

I believe it really occurred.

Copernicus · « **Reply #1 on:** September 09, 2008, 12:07:13 PM »

Quote from: Tony N on September 09, 2008, 10:08:45 AM

The world-wide flood in Noah's day
What are some of your best arguments for and against it?

There is no good argument for the flood. No scientific research has supported the theory since the 18th century, when James Hutton and Charles Lyell founded modern geological theory. If there had been a worldwide flood, one would expect to uncover evidence that it had happened. Instead, we find that the Earth is vastly older than our ancient ancestors ever conceived of, and water never covered all land mass. There are areas of the planet on which no sedimentary rock has been deposited by water.

Besides the scientific evidence against the flood myth, there is also the fact that the Noah myth is younger than some of the pagan versions of it. The very first flood myth came from the Sumerian creation myth, the Eridu Genesis. A better known version descended from it when the Semitic Akkadians took over, and it is found in the Utnapishtim story of the Epic of Gilgamesh. The Hebrew version of the flood myth is a less elaborate retelling of that tale, with some of the details modified by later generations of storytellers. By that time, the myth was centuries old.

Tony N · « **Reply #2 on:** September 09, 2008, 02:20:56 PM »

http://www.ancientdays.net/universalflood.htm
by Dr. David Livingston
Literary parallels to the biblical account
Which came first: the biblical narrative of the Flood, or the Mesopotamian epics? There are three choices:

the epics were written first, and the writers of Scripture used them;
the Bible was written first, and the epics copied them;
both the Bible and the epics were dependent on a primitive original.
Most scholars insist that the writer of Genesis used elements from local epics, but this is impossible to prove. On the other hand, the theory of a primitive original is based on no evidence whatsoever and is simply an opinion of those who hold to it. Although difficult to prove, the preferred choice is that the biblical record came first and inspired the others.

The Sumerian Deluge Story
One of the oldest extrabiblical versions of the Flood story featured the survivor of the Flood, Ziusudra. Found in the Nippur excavations early in the twentieth century, it dates to 1600 BC.

The Gilgamesh Epic-Tablet XI
A well-known tale, found in Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Hittite, and Hurrian literature. Even in the Holy Land, a clay tablet (date ca. 1200 BC) was found with this man's name on it. He was the most popular hero in the Ancient Near East. Using the version from Ashurbanipal's library, in 1872, George Smith published the eleventh tablet of the Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic as The Chaldean Account of the Deluge. Gilgamesh's name appears among the kings in the Sumerian Kinglist (below). He was of the first dynasty of Uruk (Erech), the earliest period of Mesopotamian history. The Gilgamesh Epic indicates a close link with events immediately following the Flood. Someone who had survived the Flood still lived, possibly Ham. Gilgamesh visited him seeking immortality.

Atrahasis Epic
It has astonishing parallels with the biblical account. But there are also great differences, which one can easily note by reading the account. (ANET, Second Edition 1955: 104-106)"

Also, for those interested, these scientists show proof that there was a world-wide flood: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGeysneNxg8

End Bringer · « **Reply #3 on:** September 09, 2008, 02:50:42 PM »

The fact that many rival beliefs hold to a world wide flood would seem to count as evidence. Cop shows this by sighting the Summarian's also knew of a global flood, but misses the implication that if so many cultures recall a massive Flood, then the event may have actually happend in order to be recalled.

Their is a vast amount of geological evidence that supports a global flood (the Grand Canyon being often sighted), but this is often dismissed by evolutionists as the implication destroys their belief. If rock erosion was caused very rapidly instead of "millions of years" than that undermines the evolutionits position when those millions of years are needed for evolution to occur. Like the issue of evolution in general it's really more a matter of interpretation rather than evidence.

Ragnar · « **Reply #4 on:** September 10, 2008, 11:22:28 AM »

One must consider the source when investigating varied accounts of a "world-wide" flood. Since these were primitive nations, the "world" for them likely consisted of the limited lands they knew of. Rather than pointing to the possibility of a world-wide flood, these accounts merely point to the fact that there were floods. Imagine if the tsunami that recently happened occurred 3500 years ago. You can bet that any survivors would have written of a global flood and the wrath of their local god(s).

There are theories that the Black Sea flooded at one time and that this is the reason for all the primitive flood stories, including Noah.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #5 on:** September 10, 2008, 12:20:12 PM »

"One must consider the source when investigating varied accounts of a "world-wide" flood. Since these were primitive nations,"

How do you know they were 'primitive nations'?

"the "world" for them likely consisted of the limited lands they knew of."

How do you know that? Doesn't this rest on your assumption that people 3,500 years ago were 'primitive' and what that meant?

"Imagine if the tsunami that recently happened occurred 3500 years ago. You can bet that any survivors would have written of a global flood and the wrath of their local god(s)."

Why? Do the majority of those who suffered through tsunami strike you as the most educated people? Is it your position that these people, largely very poor and uneducated, were more sophisticated than people 3500 years ago?

Your argument contains something even worse than an assumption about 'primitive nations' in that it is really an insult to the intellect of the human race itself. According to evolutionary thinking, the homo sapiens have been around for more than 100,000 years. That means that biologically speaking, 3,500 years ago, people were the same as they are today. Now, you would have us suppose that the survivors- ie, those who fled to high ground, could spread a story around that the entire world had been flooded, but somehow forget that they themselves were on high ground and those who they are telling the story to were unaware that they had just gone through a worldwide flood.

"Jed, I'm telling you. The whole world was under water."
"You're right, Bill. We've had a drought the last ten years but I'm too stupid not to realize that by 'whole world' that would include me, so I totally believe your story."

The idea that 'primitive' people would be unable to distinguish between a localized flood and a regional flood strikes me as absurd and pretty insulting.

Your argument has other flaws, too.

For example, there are hundreds of such accounts from all around the globe, dating from more or less the same time frame. There are not any other recorded 'confusions.' That is, global flood myths do not emerge from 100 AD, for example. The supposition requires us to believe that the human race- though biologically the same- nonetheless went through a transition, simultaneously, about 3,500 years ago (I'm using your numbers), so that after this no more global flood myths emerged. What happened to the human mind, in every population across the globe, so that just at that 'moment' humans went from being too stupid to distinguish between a local flood and a regional, perhaps global one, to being able to? Are you aware of any evolutionary theory that posits that the human brain went through an evolutionary change about 3,500 years ago?

Your argument can be tested in other ways. For example, since there were so many stories coming from about the same time from so many different sources, it should follow that there were 100s of 'tsunamis' correct? Can you point to any geologic data that reveals that there was a spat of earthquakes or some other source for big flooding at the time?

So, there are at least three big weaknesses here.

1. You have assumptions about 'primitivity' that need to be justified.
2. The discrete jump in apparent intelligence needs to be justified.
3. That there would be a source of all these 'tsunamis' should be tested.

Also, it should follow then that:

1. IF it were shown that people were as smart then as we are today- or smarter- than that should destroy your argument.
2. If no evidence of any biological change in the human race or a jump in intelligence independent of their perception of localized floods is detected, then this undermines the argument.
3. If there is no geologic evidence of any global phenomena that could explain why there were suddenly so many large floods, what does that do to your argument?

But #3 is a no win for you, for if you uncover geologic evidence for global phenomena, well, of course, that would be evidence for the flood.

Finally, your argument can be tested in yet another way. If you assert that there was no jump in intellect it should follow that you believe that there is a proportion of humans of various intellectual capacities- yesterday and today. So, we should be able to find some 'primitive' people today who are so friggin stupid that they confuse floods, small or tsunamis, as global.

I have very passing knowledge of anthropology, but from my observations primitive people have rock solid good sense about their natural habitats. They may be 'primitive' in the sense of not being able to construct an atom smasher, but on the other hand they know what is required to survive. Put Richard Dawkins in the bush and you can pretty much plan on going out two weeks later to collect his bones.

Do 'primitive' people today have this problem of confusing small, localized incidents, as being global in nature? If not, what does that say about your hypothesis?

Copernicus · « **Reply #6 on:** September 10, 2008, 03:05:39 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on September 10, 2008, 12:20:12 PM

"the "world" for them likely consisted of the limited lands they knew of."

How do you know that? Doesn't this rest on your assumption that people 3,500 years ago were 'primitive' and what that meant?

I cannot imagine why you have a problem with the belief that people 3.500 years ago were 'primitive'. They had far less access to information about their world than we do today. The activities that they engaged in--agriculture, building, manufacturing--were carried out with far more primitive methods and tools. Is this really something you want to dispute?

Quote

"Imagine if the tsunami that recently happened occurred 3500 years ago. You can bet that any survivors would have written of a global flood and the wrath of their local god(s)."

Why? Do the majority of those who suffered through tsunami strike you as the most educated people? Is it your position that these people, largely very poor and uneducated, were more sophisticated than people 3500 years ago?

Actually, there is archaeological evidence that a catastrophic flood hit the Sumerians 4,900 years ago. That might be a more likely source for their flood myth, and it probably did seem to them, lacking cell phones, satellite technology, televisions, radios, etc., that the entire world was being flooded by their gods. That was what the myth said--that the gods decided to kill everyone with a worldwide flood. Even in modern times, we have a few Christian preachers who think of catastrophic weather events as deliberate acts by their god.

Quote

Your argument contains something even worse than an assumption about 'primitive nations' in that it is really an insult to the intellect of the human race itself. According to evolutionary thinking, the homo sapiens have been around for more than 100,000 years. That means that biologically speaking, 3,500 years ago, people were the same as they are today. Now, you would have us suppose that the survivors- ie, those who fled to high ground, could spread a story around that the entire world had been flooded, but somehow forget that they themselves were on high ground and those who they are telling the story to were unaware that they had just gone through a worldwide flood.

Sntjohnny, you keep trying to make Ragnar's and my point sound ridiculous, but even you must realize that the Sumerians lacked our sophisticated systems of education and communication networks. We know that myths do arise and that stories told and retold over the generations get embellished with falsehoods. I suppose that you fear admitting the obvious here, and you feel some need to discredit it. It is quite possible that the Noah story really happened as recorded in the Bible, but the more mundane story that a catastrophic flood triggered a myth is more plausible. We both know that.

Quote

The idea that 'primitive' people would be unable to distinguish between a localized flood and a regional flood strikes me as absurd and pretty insulting.

Why? They had no telephones, TV, or radio. They believed that gods caused and controlled natural phenomena. How would they know that it was just their territory and not the entire world that was being flooded? They perceived the earth as a flat land surrounded by water with a "firmament" canopy over their heads. Their world and their universe was far smaller than ours. But, even if the locals who recorded the flood in their oral history knew that it had not happened everywhere, such an interpolation could easily occur across a few generations of storytellers embellishing the tale.

Quote

So, there are at least three big weaknesses here.

1. You have assumptions about 'primitivity' that need to be justified.
2. The discrete jump in apparent intelligence needs to be justified.
3. That there would be a source of all these 'tsunamis' should be tested.

1. Your attack on the idea that Sumerians and their ancestors had a primitive culture and knowledge of the world is too absurd to need refutation.
2. Straw man. You convinced yourself that Ragnar was making such a claim, which he did not.
3. The existence of a great flood catastrophe 4900 years ago in Sumeria is a plausible source for the myth, although we may never know for sure.

Quote

Also, it should follow then that:

1. IF it were shown that people were as smart then as we are today- or smarter- than that should destroy your argument.

No, because the primitive nature of that society had to do with ignorance and not inherent intellectual ability.

Quote

2. If no evidence of any biological change in the human race or a jump in intelligence independent of their perception of localized floods is detected, then this undermines the argument.

No, because ragnar made no such claim. You talked yourself into the false belief that it followed from what he actually did claim.

Quote

3. If there is no geologic evidence of any global phenomena that could explain why there were suddenly so many large floods, what does that do to your argument?

There is evidence of a catastrophic flood in Sumerian times, but we also know of the catastrophe in the Black Sea area during a time when humans occupied that area.

Quote

But #3 is a no win for you, for if you uncover geologic evidence for global phenomena, well, of course, that would be evidence for the flood.

There is no geologic evidence of a global flood historically. If they were. your argument would have a lot more credibility.

Quote

Finally, your argument can be tested in yet another way. If you assert that there was no jump in intellect it should follow that you believe that there is a proportion of humans of various intellectual capacities- yesterday and today. So, we should be able to find some 'primitive' people today who are so friggin stupid that they confuse floods, small or tsunamis, as global.

Again, you confuse ignorance and intelligent. There are certainly people in this world who believe some pretty stupid things, but that doesn't mean that they themselves are genetically deficient. Much of our knowledge of the world depends on our upbringing, not just how well our brains function.

Quote

I have very passing knowledge of anthropology, but from my observations primitive people have rock solid good sense about their natural habitats. They may be 'primitive' in the sense of not being able to construct an atom smasher, but on the other hand they know what is required to survive. Put Richard Dawkins in the bush and you can pretty much plan on going out two weeks later to collect his bones.

True, but irrelevant. BTW, Dawkins, being a pretty good zoologist, might actually have some skills that would make it easier to survive in the bush than you would.

Quote

Do 'primitive' people today have this problem of confusing small, localized incidents, as being global in nature? If not, what does that say about your hypothesis?

I think that the Cargo Cult religions prove that primitive people do confuse their local world with global conditions. It is a pretty natural thing to do.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #7 on:** September 10, 2008, 03:51:40 PM »

"Is this really something you want to dispute?"

Absolutely. They are also the same people who would have first established written language, legal codes, and structures like the pyramids which we still can't figure out how they constructed. These people laid down all the ground work that you take for granted, today.

"and it probably did seem to them,"

This is all supposition on your part. The idea that humans were 'primitive' is derivative from your evolutionary outlook on religion.

"Sntjohnny, you keep trying to make Ragnar's and my point sound ridiculous,"

Actually I didn't read your posts. Sorry.

It wasn't my point at all to make Ragnar's arguments sound ridiculous. If anything, the point was to show that his point was insulting to the human race.

"but even you must realize that the Sumerians lacked our sophisticated systems of education and communication networks."

I personally have no desire to limit the scope of this discussion to the Sumerians. I do not believe that if you don't have a public school system or the internet that you are primitive.

"but the more mundane story that a catastrophic flood triggered a myth is more plausible."

Again, I was responding to Ragnar, not you. I didn't even read yours. I don't even know why I'm bother to read it this time. He responded to the multiplicity of flood myths. So, the problem to be reckoned with in that context is that you need more than just one catastrophic flood, but hundreds, if not thousands.

"1. Your attack on the idea that Sumerians and their ancestors had a primitive culture and knowledge of the world is too absurd to need refutation."

Hopefully you see now that I could care less about the Sumerians or anything that you've said to this point. The idea that they are 'primitive' contains an assessment not of their technology, but their mental capacities. It is one thing to mistake a thunderclap for a god bowling. It is quite another to see a puddle and believe the whole world has flooded. This isn't 'primitive.' This is stark raving stupidity, and it is this which we are required to believe under his hypothesis.

"No, because the primitive nature of that society had to do with ignorance and not inherent intellectual ability."

Aha! This is a game of deception, then. Because of course if a person can't distinguish between a localized flood and a global flood, it is precisely the 'inherent intellectual ability' that is being attacked. Ignorance of what? The concept of volume and quantity?

They see one rabbit and because of their ignorance they think the world is covered with them, 40 deep?

"There is evidence of a catastrophic flood in Sumerian times, but we also know of the catastrophe in the Black Sea area during a time when humans occupied that area."

Again, in context, it isn't the 'evidence of a flood' we're interested in, but rather geologic conditions that could generate 'catastrophic floods' all around the world during the narrow time frame in which all of the flood myths emerged.

Shortly after this, the human ability to distinguish between 'a lot of water' and 'water covering the entire earth' emerged. One might say that this is proof of the evolutionary outlook after all. All the idiots died in the flood, leaving only those with the meme that helped them understand that they needed to get onto high ground, pronto: this was no mere puddle!

"There is no geologic evidence of a global flood historically. If they were. your argument would have a lot more credibility."

As EB said, the geologic evidence is of sedimentary rock all over the place. How is sedimentary rock formed? Through water action. It covers the earth and therefore is evidence of global water action. The only difference in our views here would be that you require there to be trillions of small floods to account for the sedimentary deposits while I posit just one. Here it is a question of interpretation of the evidence, not evidence itself.

"Again, you confuse ignorance and intelligent."

No, I really don't. The only way that people could confuse a local flood for a global flood is if they were all village idiots. And the people they relate the story to who propagate the story are dumber than dumb. This is a requirement of the argument. If we grant your main argument, that people were primitive because they ascribed natural phenomena to the gods, a cursory examination of people who believed that through the centuries will reveal people who can tell the difference between a little of something and a lot of something. But 3,500 years ago, for some reason, all around the world, this capacity was lacking. That isn't 'ignorance.' That is stupidity.

"There are certainly people in this world who believe some pretty stupid things, but that doesn't mean that they themselves are genetically deficient."

Find me even one that would confuse a localized flood with a global flood. Then find me the one that would listen to someone telling the tale of a global flood, and despite being on the globe that is the subject of the tale but not experiencing the flood, believes the tale anyway.

What with Katrina and the tsunami I reckon you should be able to find me some living examples of such 'primitive' thinking.

"True, but irrelevant."

How is it irrelevant? These 'primitive' people would know to get to high ground, don't you think? hmmmmmm? And if they are on high ground, do you think they'd understand that one can't say the whole world is under water? Find me a tribe in Africa who confuses the flooding of their river as a global event and I recant the whole argument.

"I think that the Cargo Cult religions prove that primitive people do confuse their local world with global conditions. It is a pretty natural thing to do."

This is your example? We have a very specific claim here- not a confusing of the 'local world' with 'global conditions' We have an incapacity to recognize amounts of water. Moreover, we have hundreds of stories to account for, not just one or two. One might imagine that an island community unaware of continents might imagine that his island is the world, but what about those on the continents?

Tony N · « **Reply #8 on:** September 10, 2008, 07:23:32 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus on September 10, 2008, 03:05:39 PM

Quote from: sntjohnny on September 10, 2008, 12:20:12 PM
"the "world" for them likely consisted of the limited lands they knew of."

Copernicus replied:
How do you know that? Doesn't this rest on your assumption that people 3,500 years ago were 'primitive' and what that meant?

I cannot imagine why you have a problem with the belief that people 3.500 years ago were 'primitive'. They had far less access to information about their world than we do today. The activities that they engaged in--agriculture, building, manufacturing--were carried out with far more primitive methods and tools. Is this really something you want to dispute?

Dear Copernicus,
It could be your thoughts on this topic is the result of history being re-written by those who are over us. But the world view is changing as to ancient history as evidenced here:
http://www.beforeus.com/

Be prepaired to be shocked that we may not be as advanced as that of the ancients who were before us.

We have no technology to move blocks of stone that are almost a city block long as the ancients did. Most likely they used vibrational frequencies to lift these stones. Go to youtube and look into coral castle. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amXsPcD7g5g

We aren't as smart as you might think.

Tony N · « **Reply #9 on:** September 11, 2008, 06:30:58 AM »

If the flood was just a local flood, why would God put a rainbow in the sky and tell Noah that it is a reminder that God will never flood the earth again where in fact, if it was to remind Noah God would never cause a local flood again then God lied. There have been thousands of local floods since Noah's day.

Also, the valley area Noah lived in was only about 500 miles long by about 200 some miles wide. Why would Noah take nearly 100 years to build a boat, collect animals from around the world just to float them out of the UR valley? He could have just taken a couple days and led them out of the valley across the mountains.

"The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day. Additionally, there are hundreds of Flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world. ⁵ M.E. Clark and Henry Voss have demonstrated the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering we see on every continent. ⁶ Secular scholars report very rapid sedimentation and periods of great carbonate deposition in earth's sedimentary layers..⁷ It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood.⁸"

5 Blick, Edward, A Scientific Analysis of Genesis (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone, 1991) p. 103
6 Clark, M.E. and Voss, H.D., "Fluid Mechanic Examination of the Tial Mechanism for Producing Mega-Sedimantary Layering" (Third International Conference on Creation, Pittsburg, July 1994)
7 Ager, Derek, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record (New York: John Wiley and Sons) p. 43 and p. 86
8 West, John Anthony, Serpent in the Sky: The High Wisdom of Ancient Egypt (New York: Julian Press, 1987) pp. 13-14

Sorry, I can't remember the source of the above quote.

Copernicus · « **Reply #10 on:** September 11, 2008, 11:28:33 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on September 10, 2008, 03:51:40 PM

"Is this really something you want to dispute?"

Absolutely. They are also the same people who would have first established written language, legal codes, and structures like the pyramids which we still can't figure out how they constructed. These people laid down all the ground work that you take for granted, today.

You can dig in your heels, if you like, but it won't save your argument. If they were not more "primitive" than us, then the word has no meaning at all. As for the pyramids, you are spreading an urban legend. We know a lot about how the pyramids were built, e.g. see Egyptian Pyramid Construction Techniques. They did not use magic or techniques from an advanced civilization.

Quote

This is all supposition on your part. The idea that humans were 'primitive' is derivative from your evolutionary outlook on religion.

It is derivative from the meaning of the word "primitive". It does not mean "biologically less evolved". It means "technologically less advanced". It refers to earlier stages of civilization and has nothing to do with anyone's views on religion.

Quote

Actually I didn't read your posts. Sorry. It wasn't my point at all to make Ragnar's arguments sound ridiculous. If anything, the point was to show that his point was insulting to the human race.

I understand perfectly well what you claimed. Your claim was simply wrong, and I have now explained to you how you misconstrued the word "primitive" to set up your straw man. Nobody here has claimed that the ancients were biologically less advanced than modern humans.

Quote

I personally have no desire to limit the scope of this discussion to the Sumerians. I do not believe that if you don't have a public school system or the internet that you are primitive.

Yes. Your living conditions are certainly more primitive than if you do have those things. That is obvious from the meaning of the word "primitive". Outhouses are more primitive than flush toilets. I've used both, and I can attest to that.

Quote

"but the more mundane story that a catastrophic flood triggered a myth is more plausible."

Again, I was responding to Ragnar, not you. I didn't even read yours. I don't even know why I'm bother to read it this time. He responded to the multiplicity of flood myths. So, the problem to be reckoned with in that context is that you need more than just one catastrophic flood, but hundreds, if not thousands.

It doesn't matter who you were responding. Ragnar and I agree on the essentials. A multiplicity of flood myths does not imply a multiplicity of floods, since many of the flood myths obviously descend from earlier versions of the same story. Floods were not uncommon among people who lived near the water, and most of humanity has always lived near water.

Quote

Hopefully you see now that I could care less about the Sumerians or anything that you've said to this point. The idea that they are 'primitive' contains an assessment not of their technology, but their mental capacities...

You are dead wrong on this. It is a false inference that you drew from what was said by Ragnar, not what he actually said. That is classic sntjohnny strawmansmanship.

Quote

...It is one thing to mistake a thunderclap for a god bowling. It is quite another to see a puddle and believe the whole world has flooded. This isn't 'primitive.' This is stark raving stupidity, and it is this which we are required to believe under his hypothesis.

OK, here's another rhetorical gambit. Ragnar referred to the flooding of the Black Sea basin, and I referred to the catastrophic flood suffered by Sumerian civilization thousands of years ago. Both events were apocalyptic from the viewpoint of people caught in them. Population centers were utterly destroyed.

Quote

Aha! This is a game of deception, then. Because of course if a person can't distinguish between a localized flood and a global flood, it is precisely the 'inherent intellectual ability' that is being attacked. Ignorance of what? The concept of volume and quantity? They see one rabbit and because of their ignorance they think the world is covered with them, 40 deep?

The only deception here is your blatant attempts to distort what was said. Catastrophic flood events would have left a lasting impact on an area, and they would certainly give rise to legends in which the events were attributed to deities. You are trying desperately to squirm out of admitting the obvious, and you really don't need to. You can still believe in God even if most of the events recorded in the Bible were nothing more than natural disasters. It is pretty obvious that the Hebrew bedouins shared many myths with their pagan cousins. They just customized those stories to fit their unique situation. The same was true of the pagan cultures. They also shared myths that they adapted to their needs over time.

Quote

Again, in context, it isn't the 'evidence of a flood' we're interested in, but rather geologic conditions that could generate 'catastrophic floods' all around the world during the narrow time frame in which all of the flood myths emerged.

I do not consider centuries to be a 'narrow time frame', and we know plenty about the geologic conditions of those times. There was nothing particularly unusual going on back then. We know that sea levels rose in both the Mediterranean and Black Sea basins as the Earth warmed.

Quote

"There is no geologic evidence of a global flood historically. If they were. your argument would have a lot more credibility."

As EB said, the geologic evidence is of sedimentary rock all over the place. How is sedimentary rock formed? Through water action. It covers the earth and therefore is evidence of global water action. The only difference in our views here would be that you require there to be trillions of small floods to account for the sedimentary deposits while I posit just one. Here it is a question of interpretation of the evidence, not evidence itself.

You take a kid like EB as more knowledgable than geologists? Suit yourself. I'll go with the geologists. There was never a time when water covered the entire Earth. There are still exposed land masses with no sedimentary rock on them. And, yes, there have been lots of sedimentary deposits over the last several billion years that the Earth has existed.

BTW, I want to highlight an exceptional distortion that you are making of Ragnar's and my claims: that people mistook small floods for catastrophic events. Nobody has claimed that but you, yet here you are putting words in our mouths again. Catastrophic flooding could easily have been perceived as a worldwide flood. Even if it weren't, embellishment of the historical memory could have easily have exaggerated the original accounts.

Quote

...The only way that people could confuse a local flood for a global flood is if they were all village idiots. And the people they relate the story to who propagate the story are dumber than dumb. This is a requirement of the argument. If we grant your main argument, that people were primitive because they ascribed natural phenomena to the gods, a cursory examination of people who believed that through the centuries will reveal people who can tell the difference between a little of something and a lot of something. But 3,500 years ago, for some reason, all around the world, this capacity was lacking. That isn't 'ignorance.' That is stupidity.

No, it is ignorance, but I will admit that your claim is stupid. We are talking about myths that existed in pagan cultures, not just your Bible. It never ceases to amaze me how literally you are willing to take ancient myths, which evolved over generations of storytelling. We know that stories changed, because different versions of the same story are found in different places. In the case of the Bible, we see some of the same stories in the literature uncovered in the northern city of pagan Ugarit--far from the Hebrews--but with some of the myths almost verbatim (e.g. much of Psalms). Instead of 'Yahweh', the Ugarits referred to 'El', who was the chief god of their pantheon. The obvious conclusion from comparison of the Bible with similar pagan myths is that the Bible contains versions of a common semitic folklore. But that obvious conclusion would not be drawn by those who wish to maintain the literal truth of the Bible.

Quote

Find me even one that would confuse a localized flood with a global flood. Then find me the one that would listen to someone telling the tale of a global flood, and despite being on the globe that is the subject of the tale but not experiencing the flood, believes the tale anyway.

You do know, don't you, that only the Hellenic Greeks had discovered that the Earth was a globe? The standard cosmology back then had humanity living on flat land that was circumscribed by water and the dome of a 'firmament' overhead.

Quote

What with Katrina and the tsunami I reckon you should be able to find me some living examples of such 'primitive' thinking.

Why? People do not have the same primitive cosmology that existed almost four millennia ago. We have global communications now. Back then, they did not.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #11 on:** September 11, 2008, 11:33:31 AM »

*yawn.*

End Bringer · « **Reply #12 on:** September 11, 2008, 12:16:00 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus on September 11, 2008, 11:28:33 AM

You take a kid like EB as more knowledgable than geologists?

Cop. given your constant claims of strawman as your only arguement tool one can consider a "kid" like me more knowledgable of English than a linguist like you.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #13 on:** September 11, 2008, 01:30:05 PM »

Oh, no, EB. Don't you understand? The only people allowed to issue arguments from authority without it being a fallacy are those who have an unqualified 'faith in science.' Even the dumbest brick, so long as he is a skeptic, can point to data and the conclusions of 'science.' For those of us who have the audacity to think for ourselves, if we employ arguments regarding 'scientific' data we must of course remind ourselves that we are not scientists. Who are we to question scientists? says Dr. Milgrim.

Hopefully Rag will return and this conversation might go somewhere again.

Copernicus · « **Reply #14 on:** September 11, 2008, 01:56:25 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on September 11, 2008, 11:33:31 AM

*yawn.*

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #15 on:** September 11, 2008, 02:01:03 PM »

End Bringer · « **Reply #16 on:** September 11, 2008, 02:48:03 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on September 11, 2008, 01:30:05 PM

Hopefully Rag will return and this conversation might go somewhere again.

True. An arguement, rather than reassertion, would be refreshing.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #17 on:** September 11, 2008, 03:21:08 PM »

I'm glad someone gets me. There ain't nothing more wasteful than dealing with mere reassertions.

Copernicus · « **Reply #18 on:** September 11, 2008, 03:41:21 PM »

You can't respond to my rebuttals, so you move to plan B. Just pretend that you weren't seriously smoked. I'm glad that you are content with the (s)lavish praise of your fan, EB. He can help you with other important scientific concepts, as he did with geology.

End Bringer · « **Reply #19 on:** September 11, 2008, 03:47:55 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus on September 11, 2008, 03:41:21 PM

You can't respond to my rebuttals, so you move to plan B. Just pretend that you weren't seriously smoked.

Well at least it's not plan A for a certain linguist.

Quote

I'm glad that you are content with the (s)lavish praise of your fan, EB. He can help you with other important scientific concepts, as he did with geology.

Dismissing remarks torwards you is suddenly praise for SJ? And you wonder why you aren't taken that seriously?

Author Topic: The world-wide flood in Noah's day (Read 4454 times)