Noah's Flood: Local or global
1) First there's the uncanny coincidence that many other religions and cultures, even older ones, had this story of a global flood.
2) Science has turned up evidence of a local event in and around Mesopotamia. Hey, I can believe something happened, I just don't believe it was worldwide.
3) Even if God can accomplish anything the description of the event as stated in the Bible is impossible. Clouds could not carry and dump enough rain to flood the earth in that period of time. And if they did, that volume of deluge would have destroyed pretty much any ship. Plus if the whole earth were flooded there would be absolutely nowhere to which that water could recede.
4) The rest of the story, including collecting two of every kind of animal so species wouldn't be extinct, also doesn't hold up when you consider the immense diversity of life all over the globe. Noah would have had no way to collect two from every corner of the world, nor could some of those animals have travelled the great distance to volunteer themselves to get on the ark.
5) There is a problem believing the survivors had enough provisions to make it when nature recovered from the flood. Seriously, the first land exposed as water receded would not have been farm land, and the farm land would basically have been ruined for a while, and then planted crops would have to fully grown. Basically everyone would have starved. This problem goes away, however, if indeed it was a local event. Food from outside the disaster zone could have been obtained.
6) Indeed there is the same problem with tiny gene pool among the survivors that we also question when Adam and Eve and their children are held up as the sole origins of where everyone came from.
The reason virtually all cultures and religions have a global flood story is because all people are descended from Noah's three sons. As people spread out and developed different religions and cultures, the meaning of the flood was changed to fit the religions, and the story was modified but remains a global flood story. It's not hard to figure this out.
There is evidence of the global flood all around the world, but of course you prefer to ignore it. Just google "evidences of the Great Flood and Noah"
The description of the events before, during, and after the flood are accurate. Things were different before the flood than they are now, mountains like the Himalayas rose from the sea bed and have the sea shells on top of them to prove it. The fountains of the deep were broken up, water gushed from under the ground and rain fell when it had never fallen on Earth before. The crust and continents shifted, the mountains rose, and all of the water on the planet was rearranged.
The diversity of life is no proof that the Ark did not carry the animals to preserve them during the flood. Just google "how did the Ark of Noah carry all of the animals we have today", and don't settle for ignorant websites that agree with your ignorant statement and ignore facts. If you don't look honestly at both sides of an argument, you will be brainwashed into believing whatever makes you feel good......and don't bother telling me to look at the evolutionary/atheist side, had it pumped down my throat from as far back as I can remember in public schools and on TV....today I still read a lot of the material from the dark side just so be familiar with what they are saying and get some kicks from the way they often discover things that point to a young earth designed intelligently by an independent Creator, make statements in that direction, then backtrack and recant as quickly as they can when they realize they were talking in support of the Creator's work in creation.
You think Noah and seven people could not carry enough food to get them through until they could harvest animals and plants? Really? I have enough food on hand now for two years for my family, and many of the people I know have the same supply.....and it does not take a lot of space. Water can be obtained from the atmosphere if not from the ground. If you don't believe a man has the brains to provide for his family, you probably are a dead beat daddy yourself.
The "tiny gene pool" was much less corroded than our genes are today. The gene pool is constantly declining even while medical advances may prolong life. New genetic defects appear all the time, as well as new viruses which always cause damage in the gene pool. There is no reason to think genetics limited the ability of the eight people on the Ark to repopulate the Earth.
I added the link at the bottom to help you see the scientific fact which are not open to beliefs, and how some beliefs are held to be facts when they are contrary to concrete evidence. Do yourself a favor and quit being a parrot for evolutionists, and question their motives for leading you in the dark.
Ok serious question now. How do you suppose that Australia has kangaroos and nowhere else in the world? And also the fact that we have never found fossils of kangaroos anywhere else in the world. Did Noah do a round the world tour dropping each species off at its correct location?
First there's the uncanny coincidence that many other religions and cultures, even older ones, had this story of a global flood.
I'd argue this is due to the flooding from melt-water at the end of the last Glacial period. It occurred recent enough that many modern humans across the globe would have experienced it, but long enough ago that it would have been preserved only in oral traditions, that became the basis of later fables and myths.
Interesting. Can you share those from your 1st and 2nd point.
And thank you for sharing that.
As far as you 3rd point, possibly there was enough water.
If the Bible is true, then in Genesis 1 on the 2nd Day says,
God put in an Expanse and separated Water from Water, and called it Heaven.
If God separated water and there was a blanket of water held back, it had never rained, then when God let out the "flood gate" and it also speaks of the "fountains of the deep" opening up, so there were geysers and possibly psumamis.
So it is possible to cover the whole earth.
As for the blanket of water, it would explain the oxygen content or other factors that could have contributed to size of animals like the wooly mammoth, and the extended age of life expectancy prior to the "flood"
So it makes sense if it never rained before that there was a release of 1 massive dumping of water, then after, since God promised not to flood with water again, that it would be rain as we know it after the one big flood.
And there were animals found even in the Arctic with food in their mouth like they were caught quickly by a cataclysmic all of a sudden event.
First, stories and histories of great floods before the Bible story…
Then in terms of whether or not there was enough water, your explanation is basically oceans of water were somewhere outside the globe of earth and then unleashed upon it as rain. Not only is that basic magical explanation but ignores the fact that entry of enormous quantities of water into our stratosphere would have played out more as a giant collision then as universal rain clouds all around the globe.
And in terms of animals found with food in their mouths, animals die all the time with food in their mouths for any number of reasons ranging from temperature, respiration, poison, even dumb luck. And why would an ocean of water covering the poles result in dead animals to be found either on the surface or burried in the ice? They'd instead have washed out into the ocean.
I find the subject of a great flood fascinating. In terms of local or global I tend to question just how much "global" knowledge the ancients of our time understood.
We know that time after time there have been glaciers receding and growing over and over again. I tend to believe that the global portion of the bible is really mainly referring to what was seen, not necessarily the entire world but the land that they saw and knew.
This is a pretty interesting article if you or anyone is interested in it.
The whole Flood and the Ark with all the animals in the world is pure Hebrew Bronze Age Mythology.
It never happened.
At least not as set forth in Genesis.
Most religions have some sort of flood mythos. Including the ancient Sumerians, with a tale called The Epic of Gilgamesh. Which, btw, predated the Noah story by hundreds of years.
How do the believers of the Genesis account explain that?
A lot of the Earth was underwater at one time. But all this happened long long before the Bible writers came around.
There is no evidence at all for Noah and the flood and the Ark with all those animals. And there is tons of proof, both Geolgical and biological, as to why such an absurd tale is impossible.
Noah and the flood is as real as the idea that the earth is a flat disk sitting on the shell of a giant tortoise.
Here I present you a great link that tells you many of the reasons the Genesis flood fable is, well, just that.
Thanks...as always, I hope this helps anybody who is confused enough to believe in the biblical flood account.
Wait a minute!
I aint done!
Need more proof that just like most of the Bible, Noah and his Ark and the flood is pure drizzly shit?
Here is a very well written and extensive article on it.
Do yourself a favor and take only ten minutes to read!
Come out of the dark and info the Light!
The Epic of Gilgamesh is just one of the pieces of evidence suggesting that, indeed, a devastating flood existed within the collective social memory of the people of the region of Mesopotamia. The Old Testament is a hackney'd collection of myths, legends, and oral histories of the various peoples of the region with whom the Israelites came into contact. Most of the events of the Old Testament can be traced with some certainty to precursors in the mythologies which have been deciphered in the huge assortment of tablets which have survived the thousands of years since the Hittites, Sumerians, and other ancient peoples of the region.
Just another thought:
While the reasons that those Germans (Cimbri, Teutones, etc.) whom Gaius Marius defeated at Aquae Sextiae and Vercellae following the devastating destruction of some 100,000 Roman legionaries at Arausio and at Burdigala left their homeland in the area around Jutland is unknown, it has been hypothesized that the cause was weather-related. It could have been that the low plains of northern Germany - Schleswig-Holstein, and Danish Jutland - were overrun by water, forcing the Germanic tribes to flee from their homes and look for a new land to settle, setting into motion decades of migration throughout the whole of Europe. Such an event is certain to leave a trace on the collective consciousness of the people as a whole. Indeed, the Norse myth of the giant Bergelmir, who with his family were the only giants to survive a deluge of blood, could be the child of such an event; though another possibility is that the fimbulvetr originated out of this migration, or even that the event was forgotten from the Germanic consciousness between the migration of ca. 110 BC and the beginnings of narrative writing in the Germanic world some 1200 years later.
Most scholars believe that the Babylonian account of the Deluge antedates that of the Hebrew narrative, and the fact that the geological conditions of Mesopotamia give greater credence to such an event than those of Palestine, it would give greater credence to my previous claim that the Israelites plagiarized Babylonian myth to give themselves a comparable social tradition.
The Atra-Hasis Epic is another ancient work, Akkadian, tentatively dated to around 1500 BC, which provides evidence of an ancient belief in a devastating deluge; the Epic of Gilgamesh is around 750 years older even then this, placing it around 2200 BC. By comparison, the Hebrew Torah dates to around 700 BC. It seems quite likely that the far more ancient Mesopotamian narratives - mythological, chronographical, astronomic, didactic, administrative, literary, magical, lexical and hymnal - were at least a distant source for what turned into the commonly known Biblical deluge of Noah.
The Bible clearly states, in numerous ways, that the flood was supposed to be global.
1. If water went over the tops of the highest mountains, even if it was just local mountains in the Middle East, the flood would clearly spread over the rest of the Earth, except maybe the Himalayas and a few peaks elsewhere.
2. If the flood was local, why build an ark and fill it with animals? God could just have the local animals move to safety and all the rest would be safe right where they are. Noah just needed a boat big enough for him and his family.
3. Supposedly, the flood wiped out all humans that weren't aboard the ark. That would not be possible if it was local, because by the time humans lived in the middle east, there were also people pretty much everywhere else.
4. If it was local, why stay in the Ark for 53 weeks. Surely they could find land before then.
So yeah, the whole story points to a global flood, and was almost certainly based on the Epic of Gilgamesh.
But, of course, the Bible is wrong about most things. Global Flood never happened.
I got some bad news for ya!
We debunked that Turkey bogus finding several years ago.
Some Cal State Anthropology and Geology guys.
Radiometric dating revealed it to be a common structure only a few hundred years old.
I even know one of those guys. He is now at Michigan State as a Anthropology professor.
Well, not really.
Check this out. I watched your video, now please read mine.
Let me know if you need more refutation.
I saw the stuff you are referencing before. It's skewed, ignoring facts. I always study both sides of things, unlike atheists who depend on ignoring many facts which indicate the Big Bang is impossible and the universe cannot be billions of years old.
The video I gave here was one of the lesser informative on the subject, yet the accredited institutions who analyzed data and materials is strong enough to withstand "debunkers" who cannot debunk anything unless they ignore facts. Your debunkers are debunked. Sorry, I know it's not easy to take, but thanks for trying!!!
Again, I have read many sites and all arguments of people who insist the structure is naturally occurring.......and all of them ignore the facts which show it is man made. There are dozens of artifacts and geographic evidences which are left out of the video I gave. All civilization can be traced back to Noah, the ancient names of cities and nations fanning out from the area are completely in line with the Biblical account. The reason that virtually all cultures and religions have a global flood story is that they all are descendants of Noah.
Your schooling is good for science, but it's a campaign of disinformation conducted by people who hate God and make themselves feel better about the guilt of their sins by telling each other God cannot rule over them.
Again, pardon me, but I'm way ahead on viewing videos and reading studies and commentaries which were designed to "debunk" Noah's Ark National Park in Turkey. It is vital to world governments to cast confusion and doubt on the discovery because if too many people believe the Biblical account, the power of corrupt governments is feared to be challenged. It would also over turn your entire power structure of money grubbing educators who teach beliefs as science.....an embarrassment to be avoided at all costs.
I must have looked at ten or so different videos and many pages of commentary designed to "debunk".......I read them carefully and compared them to facts which nobody denies around the site.....and the debunkers only debunk their own reliability because they ignore the facts.
Radiometric dating is a much misunderstood phenomenon. Evolutionists often misunderstand the method, assuming it gives a definite age for tested samples. Creationists also often misunderstand it, claiming that the process is inaccurate.
Radiometric Dating Is Not Inaccurate
Perhaps a good place to start this article would be to affirm that radiometric dating is not inaccurate. It is certainly incorrect, and it is certainly based on wrong assumptions, but it is not inaccurate.
What do I mean? How can something be accurate and yet wrong? To understand this point, we need to understand what exactly is being measured during a radiometric dating test. One thing that is not being directly measured is the actual age of the sample.
There is no “age-meter” that you can plug into a rock, giving an immediate read-out of the rock’s age. It needs to be remembered that observational science can only measure things in the here-and-now, in a manner which can be repeated. Historical science is concerned with trying to work out what may have happened in a one-off event in the past. Historical science is not capable of repetition, checking or peer—˜review. The age of a rock sample falls under the heading of historical science, not observational science. So what do the observational scientists in the radiometric dating lab do?
Radioactive isotopes are unstable and will decay into more stable isotopes of other elements. One common radiometric dating method is the Uranium-Lead method. This involves uranium isotopes with an atomic mass of 238. This is the most common form of uranium. It decays by a 14-step process into lead-206, which is stable. Each step involves the elimination of either an alpha or a beta particle. Therefore the process is:
Uranium Decay Equation...............................
Each individual atom has a chance of decaying by this process. If you were able to examine just one atom, you would not know whether or not it would decay. The chance of it decaying is not definite, by human standards, and is similar to the chance of rolling a particular number on a dice. Although we cannot determine what will happen to an individual atom, we can determine what will happen to a few million atoms. This is similar to our dice analogy. We cannot tell what number we will roll in any one shake, but if we rolled 6,000 dice, the chances are very high that 1,000 of them would have landed on a six. One dice is unpredictable. Many dice follow a statistically predictable pattern. In the same way, one U-238 atom is unpredictable, but a sample containing many millions of U-238 atoms will be very predictable.
What happens statistically is that half of the available atoms will have decayed in a given period, specific to each radioactive species, called the half-life. For example, if element Aa had a half-life of 1 day and we had 1,000 lbs. of it on Monday, then we would have 500 lbs. on Tuesday, 250 lbs. (half of 500) on Wednesday and 125 lbs. on Thursday.
By observing how fast U-238 decays into lead-206, we can calculate the half-life of U-238. This is a theoretical calculation, and we can therefore determine that the half-life of U-238 is 4.5 billion years. Remember that the half-life is a statistical measure. Granting that U-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years in no way negates the idea that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
A very common rock that contains U-238 is granite. If we look at some of the very small zircon crystals in granite, we can accurately measure how much U-238 and Pb-206 the crystal contains. In order to calculate the age of the rock, we need three other pieces of information:
1.We need to know how fast the U-238 turns into Pb-206. The half-life gives us this value, provided the half-life has never altered during the lifetime of the zircon crystal.
2.We need to know how much Pb-206 there was in the original rock. This is clearly impossible. It is usually assumed, without justification, that the original quantity of Pb-206 in the rock was zero.
3.We need to be sure that no lead compounds have been added to or taken away from the rock. Given that lead compounds are fairly soluble in water, this is something that we cannot be very sure of.
Using the above assumptions, it is calculated that the zircon crystals have an age of about 1.5 billion years.
Based Upon Assumptions
The radioactive decay process above can be seen to produce 8 alpha-particles for each one atom of U-238. Each ÃŽÂ±-particle could gain new electrons and become an atom of helium. The rate of diffusion of helium from a zircon crustal can be measured. It turns out that this rate of diffusion of helium is compatible with the crystals being about 5,000 years old, not 1.5 billion years old. Although assumptions 2 and 3 are not provable, they actually seem very likely in this particular example. Therefore, it seems that the first assumption must be wrong1. Remember that we have already said that these experimenters are highly skilled. It is therefore unlikely that the laboratory technicians have made a mistake in their measurements of U-238 or Pb-206. The only possible conclusion, therefore, is that the half-life of U-238 has not been constant throughout the lifetime of the granite and its zircon crystals.
Other radiometric dating methods are based on similar assumptions. If the assumptions cannot be trusted, then the calculations based on them are unsound. It is for this reason that creationists question radiometric dating methods and do not accept their results.
More proof that the Alleged Ark discovery in Turkey was bogus!!!
This....from one of the best and most reliable sources.
BTW..National Geographic even ran a cover story on the fraud.
Check this out.....it is a very easy to read and compelling article...
your sources claiming the Ark discover in Turkey is bogus are biased and ignore the facts, twist the facts. There are dozens of indisputable findings which show the structure is a boat, had multiple floors, and carried animals as well as many evidences of the survivors of the flood settling in and spreading out from the area where the Ark came to rest. Just look at the names and origins of the cities around the site, and from that site the progression of names and origins of cities and nations completely in line with history and the Biblical account.
I've read and watched countless videos and commentaries trying to disprove the flood.......they are all biased and ignore facts. Unlike most atheists, I always thoroughly study both sides of issues which are debated. I don't have a problem listening to evolutionary hypothesis and claims of scientific support and explanations, and it's usually the same old worn out stuff.....inserting beliefs and declaring them to be facts based on insufficient evidence which does not hold up to observable scientific facts, so the things that contradict ungodly feelings are thrown out while atheists declare they have the god of science to believe in so contradictory facts do not matter to them.
Here's some good science for you. The stuff on this page should be easy for you to understand as "a scientist". I'm a hobbyist (only took a few college biology classes and one or two chemistry classes...been a long time, just took the classes because I enjoy learning how nature and mechanics word and am on the gifted side in comprehension in those kind of things)..... in science and I can understand it, so it should be much easier for you to get. I'm glad you are working in the sciences, I don't care for all that discipline myself, going to heaven with my sins forgiven so I don't feel the need to try to prolong my life by science, I'll leave that up to guys like you and thank you for it......and yes, of course, I know there are many Hitlers in your ranks who have no problem eliminating people like me in the name of survival of the fittest...that's ok. All they can do is send me on my way to Heaven to be with the Lord who will be their Judge if not their Savior.
I researched both sides regarding the Ark in Turkey. Those who set out from the start to fabricate doubt fail miserably to address the facts. I suggest you look at both sides thoroughly, instead of just throwing out stuff put together by people who want to keep the facts buried.
Yeah, I've looked at both sides, I read all of the stuff you presented as "debunking" before, but that argument is ignoring a lot of stuff not mentioned in the "debunking", and it seems pretty obvious that they are afraid to discuss those things because they can't be "debunked". Creation.com has done a disservice by not including those facts. Because of the things ignored, I lean toward believing it is the remains of Noah's Ark though i could be wrong on that point and still hold to the Biblical account of the flood with many geological evidences which can be explained no other way. I think there has been an orchestrated disinformation campaign to discredit the Ark because if they admit they have found it, that could threaten government establishments because far more people would believe the Bible and politics would have to change.
That's my theory........but again, even if it is not actually the remains of the Ark, I still believe the Biblical account. But you have to give credit where credit is due, the debunkers you cite get their stuff from creation.com which teaches young earth...6000 yrs. Snopes links to creation.com as his source, and his stuff is taken pretty much verbatim from creation.com.......just some deletions, shortenings of paragraphs, and maybe a few phrases added.......I didn't see anything oringinal in snopes, looked like he copy and pasted it all from creation.com with a little abridging editing.
I have no problem with believing than the remnants of an ancient Bronze Age wooden vessel was discovered in the mountains of Eastern Turkey. Big deal.
But I DO have a huge problem in believing that this ark back in its heydey ever carried ALL species of animals during a 40-day flood (which many religions use for fables) that a malevolent sky god orchestrated as punishment.
Proving some sort of petrified wooden ship was discovered in the Middle East and that the Genesis Flood Fable was true are two totally different things. And you should know this.
It's akin to saying that just because an empty cave was found near Golgotha that some rabbi/carpenter actually rose from the dead after three days.
Or that because there really IS a Red Sea that Yahweh once magically parted it to allow his Chosen people to escape from Pharaoh's army.
Or that, just because there might be a garden area near the Fertile Crescent area at the juncture of the Tigris and the Euphrates, that in that old garden a talking serpent once seduced a woman into eating a forbidden fruit, and thus cast all of humankind into a state of sin.
You can do better than this, Saint.
I present to you, for your edification, perhaps the most thorough and exhaustive debunking of the Genesis Flood myth.
We have no less than 100 Reasons why that story doesn't float. All of them were comprised and researched over a period of decades by literally dozens of Archaeologists, Earth Scientists, Hydrologists; as well as us humble Biologists.
I hazard to offer that if any believer in the Flood mythos were to simply take a scant 30 minutes to read this article, he would think twice about trying to uphold such a fantasy as the Flood.
Hey new meat!
Consulting your Bible or believing in something just because your Bible tells ya so, and then going back to it when somebody like me, an atheist, debates you with a ton of science facts is called Circular Logic.
It's kinda like a guy saying that the planet Mars is a war god who ate his children because Greek Mythology tells him so. Even after a Cosmologist explains that mars is the fourth planet from the sun.
See how silly?
Never go to the Bible for anything science based. You go to the Bible for myths and fables and philosophy and poetry and Hebrew proverbs.
Make sure you check out my links. You will learn. You will be on your way from getting out of the choke hold of ignorance that religion throttles you with.
Let me know if you have any questions on Evolution or how the Genesis Creation account is also a fable and not to be confused with reality.
Didja know Genesis was really one of the last written books in the OT? And it was written when the Hebrews were in Babylonian captivity.
See, they were afraid of losing all their culture and customs. Especially the importance of resting on the Sabbath.
So that's why the whole Six Day creation and God rested on the seventh!
It was only a fable to teach religion with what we call metaphor.
Not to be taken seriously.
The Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Not six thousand..
We have a lot of proof for that too!
And it took eons to come into being. Not a week!
The first form of life was little amoebas. Bacteria! In the hot ocean.
That was our earliest ancestors!
This happened about 3 billion years ago.
Ask me anything!!
I am trying to help.
My name is SlapShot. I'm the local science freak! LOL.
See ya around.
Thanks for listening.
Don't forget to read my links!
Remember how I said the Noah Flood fable was not only woo, that is was not even original woo?
Here is a link from Time Magazine that explains how many religions have their own flood myths.
But it was University Anthropology guys who made the findings and did the dating!
Time simply conveyed their findings to the public readership.
History and Discovery channel evil purveyors of Satanist propaganda?
I was gonna offer another link that confirmed the bogus Ark. From another source. As there are several.
But now I really am beginning to think you're a troll. I defended you for a long time on this...opining that you were a true believer.
I dunno, man.
Either egregiously deluded on such a level so as to qualify as borderline psychotic, or a very clever and convincing troll.
Only time will tell!
Hey! Get it? TIME!