Was the Real Flood in Genesis or Gilgamesh?

[he_who_is_nobody]

I have time to kill.

We can also look to the Bible, where in 1 Corinthians 2:18-27 the modern situation regarding the Gospel is predicted and described.

I looked up 1 Corinthians 2:18-27 to see what featherwinglove was talking about. However, when I got there, I found out that 1 Corinthians 2 only goes up to verse 16.

 

[featherwinglove]

Oops. 1 Corinthians 1:18-27.

Thanks for the page on the mussels in the ear. I now better understand what my reflexes are doing when I'm suddenly exposed to loud noises. It would probably be interesting to have a conversation regarding them with an ear specialist. Too bad I don't know any.

As for the rest, it is quite clear to me that you guys are uninterested in actually refuting the evidence for Noah's Flood and are instead reliant upon confusion of terms and merely pretending that you know more than me (and abelcainsbrother) about the evidence. I figured the topic wasn't going to stick to the science, which is why I haven't been around much. I have since watched Wazooloo hilariously dismantle Bill Nye's rebuttal of the Flood (including an all-wood c.1400 Chinese treasure junk larger than the Ark superimposed on Nye's own slide.)



>> Fast Forward Button >>

 

[Rumraket]

Oops. 1 Corinthians 1:18-27.

Thanks for the page on the mussels in the ear. I now better understand what my reflexes are doing when I'm suddenly exposed to loud noises. It would probably be interesting to have a conversation regarding them with an ear specialist. Too bad I don't know any.

As for the rest, it is quite clear to me that you guys are uninterested in actually refuting the evidence for Noah's Flood and are instead reliant upon confusion of terms and merely pretending that you know more than me (and abelcainsbrother) about the evidence. I figured the topic wasn't going to stick to the science, which is why I haven't been around much. I have since watched Wazooloo hilariously dismantle Bill Nye's rebuttal of the Flood (including an all-wood c.1400 Chinese treasure junk larger than the Ark superimposed on Nye's own slide.)



>> Fast Forward Button >>

So, you have an explanation for why the curves agree? Backed up by evidence of course.

*crickets*

 

[ldmitruk]

Oops. 1 Corinthians 1:18-27.

Thanks for the page on the mussels in the ear. I now better understand what my reflexes are doing when I'm suddenly exposed to loud noises. It would probably be interesting to have a conversation regarding them with an ear specialist. Too bad I don't know any.

As for the rest, it is quite clear to me that you guys are uninterested in actually refuting the evidence for Noah's Flood and are instead reliant upon confusion of terms and merely pretending that you know more than me (and abelcainsbrother) about the evidence. I figured the topic wasn't going to stick to the science, which is why I haven't been around much. I have since watched Wazooloo hilariously dismantle Bill Nye's rebuttal of the Flood (including an all-wood c.1400 Chinese treasure junk larger than the Ark superimposed on Nye's own slide.)

Of course this rebuttal is brought to us by the same mastermind twit who believes dinosaurs layed the eggs while running away from the flood waters.
[showmore=Ian Juby Take Down][/showmore]

Ian Juby is Canada's answer to Hovind and Ham.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

As for the rest, it is quite clear to me that you guys are uninterested in actually refuting the evidence for Noah's Flood...

Uninterested? To be perfectly honest, the only thing you have offered up as evidence for the flood is mythology and “billions of dead things laid down by water in rock layers all over the Earth.” Mythology is not evidence; except that our ancestors had imaginations as vivid as ours. Furthermore, the fossil record does far more to justify evolutionary theory and deep time than it ever could to support young earth creationism. Thus, once you provide us with some evidence for Noah’s Flood, I would be more than happy to refute it for you.

... and are instead reliant upon confusion of terms and merely pretending that you know more than me (and abelcainsbrother) about the evidence.

I do not have to pretend to know more than you (and ablecainsbrother); I do know more than you do. Furthermore, I am not confusing terms, I am using correct terminology. With correct terminology established at the beginning, you cannot argue semantics down the road. Creationists play word games, not scientists and science advocates.

I figured the topic wasn't going to stick to the science, which is why I haven't been around much.

The reason this did not stick to science is that you brought up extraneous topic, such as Dawkins and atheism. I would love to stick to the science if you follow suit.

I have since watched Wazooloo hilariously dismantle Bill Nye's rebuttal of the Flood (including an all-wood c.1400 Chinese treasure junk larger than the Ark superimposed on Nye's own slide.)

I have dealt with Ian Juby several times before. He brings nothing new, only recycled Hovind arguments. Watching Juby’s video and seeing the citation he gives, his own citation says,

Answers in Genesis[/url]"]China built huge wooden ships in the 1400s that may have been as large as the Ark.

(Emphasis added.)

Juby claims that the Chinese built ships this large, yet his own citation does not go that far.

However, since AiG does not give a citation for their claim I looked it up on wikipedia.

Chinese treasure ship[/url]"]Some of the drydocks at Longjiang were 27 to 36 m (90 to 120 feet) wide, but two were 64 m (210 feet) wide, which is big enough to build a 50 m (166-foot) wide ship.

The article goes on to further say:

Some scholars argue that it is highly unlikely that Zheng He's ship was 140 metres (460 ft) in length, some estimating that it was 110–124 m (390–408 feet) long and 49–51 m (160–166 feet) wide instead [sup][12][/sup] while others put them as 61–76 m (200–250 feet) in length,[sup][14][15][/sup] since in later historical periods ships approaching the extreme sizes claimed for the treasure ships (such as HMS Orlando and the schooner Wyoming) were unwieldy and visibly undulated with the waves, even with steel braces.

Now, the picture Juby uses is nice, but it appears to be based on nothing but his hope that you will never actually research his claim. So, anymore evidence of that flood you would like me to refute?

• Edit: Fixed a few links and a spelling error pointed out by Mugnuts

 

[Mugnuts]

Juby claims that the Chinese built shits this large, yet his own citation does not go that far.

Amurica...Fuck ya

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Juby claims that the Chinese built shits this large, yet his own citation does not go that far.

Amurica...Fuck ya

:lol:

My dySlEXiA strikes again! This one was a good one too.

 

[Visaki]

On the chininese treasure junks; if you can't see the difference between a 15th century chinese shipbuilding professionals and a 20th century BC jewish... something (what was Noahs profession anyway?) building a ship there no hope for you.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

... what was Noahs profession anyway?

[sarcasm]I believe he was the village drunk.[/sarcasm]

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Greetings.

None of what any of you said refutes my evidence for a world wide flood like the bible teaches and you can't because it is scientifically sound,but you will ignore the biblical text and scientific evidence that proves a global flood very well is possible based on science and the evidence on and in this earth.Go back and review and Repent!. You act like it is impossible and a world wide flood is laughable and stupid but not according to the bible and science and the depth of the oceans that is deeper than any mountain on land is tall.The tallest mountains on the earth are under the oceans.

I've already shown that the Earth has never been completely flooded at any time in its history - here.

Kindest regards,

James

You saying it does not make it so.You can say no global flood happened but we could show on a computer simulation that if you level out the earth's surface that makes the oceans so deep the whole earth would be flooded over the tallest mountains on land.Now you may disregard this evidence but I've seen computer simulations that show the universe creating itself from nothing and planets forming themselves magically on their own and yet this cannot be demonstrated by any scientist like my computer simulation showing that if we leveled out the earth's surface the whole earth would be flooded world wide over the tallest mountains on land.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

e="SpecialFrog"]

The amount of water stored inside the earth is not greater than the amount on the surface. As you can see from the graphic below, over 96% of earths total water is stored in oceans, not inside the earth.

I suggest you at least read the following Wikipedia entries on hydrology and water distribution on earth. As before you're showing that you haven't even bothered to do the least bit of basic research on an area of science before spouting off your typical nonsense.

Also keep this discussion on track about the flood. There're plenty of other threads to discuss evolution in.

I assume Abel is going to bring up this artcile: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rare-diamond-confirms-that-earths-mantle-holds-an-oceans-worth-of-water/. Presumably he will also indicate that he doesn't actually understand the topic and will therefore be restrained in claiming it as evidence for his beliefs.

In which case he has to explain how water chemically fused to rock several kilometers into the mantle, somehow made it to the surface and rained for 40 days.

Oh wait:

[/quote]


None of that refutes what I said.I just pointed out there is more water inside the earth it is the deep trenches that hold all of the waters that make the oceans so deep.Also it did not just rain on the earth but the fountains of the deep were opened up and yet evidence of water inside the earth is ignored in order to claim it did not happen.Now I did not use AIG evidence,I used science to give evidence for a global flood.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

 

[leroy]

Aronra:
There are extenuating circumstances, environmental factors that we know can produce a variance, and these can be predicted and accounted for. As Rumraket illustrated, they can also be correlated, corrected, or cross-confirmed by multiple other methods –so that our combined dating systems are reliable. Whereas, the creationist counter-position cannot be substantiated in any way by any means

I challenge anyone to provide a single example where a sample was dated my MULTIPLE, INDEPENDENT, radiometric methods, all converging to the same result.

Please quote the paper where the dating of a sample was described.

 

[tuxbox]

I challenge anyone to provide a single example where a sample was dated my MULTIPLE, INDEPENDENT, radiometric methods, all converging to the same result.

Please quote the paper where the dating of a sample was described.

I would be interested in that example as well.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Dalrymple GB. The Age of the Earth. Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1991.

If you were really curious you could probably have found it on google like I did.

 

[leroy]

On the chininese treasure junks; if you can't see the difference between a 15th century chinese shipbuilding professionals and a 20th century BC jewish... something (what was Noahs profession anyway?) building a ship there no hope for you.

Obviously the answer is: “I don´t know” obviously no one knows how Noah build the ark, but that is not relevant, we don´t know how ancient men build the pyramids ether, it is obvious that ancient men had technology that we don´t understand today.

The fact that there are dozens independent legends from floods (with parallels with the biblical flood) prove that the flood was real. When independent sources report the same event, it always considered a historical fact, you seem to be making an arbitrary exception with the biblical flood.

 

[tuxbox]

If you were really curious you could probably have found it on google like I did.

It was not important enough for me to google, but thanks for finding an example.

 

[tuxbox]

Obviously the answer is: “I don´t know” obviously no one knows how Noah build the ark, but that is not relevant, we don´t know how ancient men build the pyramids ether, it is obvious that ancient men had technology that we don´t understand today.

http://news.discovery.com/history/ancient-egypt/how-the-ancient-egyptians-really-built-the-pyramids-140502.htm

The fact that there are dozens independent legends from floods (with parallels with the biblical flood) prove that the flood was real. When independent sources report the same event, it always considered a historical fact, you seem to be making an arbitrary exception with the biblical flood.

The legends of floods most likely due to people finding fossilized sea shells on mountains, but you called it correctly, they are just legends.

http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Seashells_on_mountains_are_evidence_of_a_flood

 

[leroy]

Dalrymple GB. The Age of the Earth. Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1991.

If you were really curious you could probably have found it on google like I did.

Would you care to provide a primary source that describes the dating procedures?

Just 1 sample that uses 2 or more independent radiometric methods.

 

[leroy]

Obviously the answer is: “I don´t know” obviously no one knows how Noah build the ark, but that is not relevant, we don´t know how ancient men build the pyramids ether, it is obvious that ancient men had technology that we don´t understand today.

http://news.discovery.com/history/ancient-egypt/how-the-ancient-egyptians-really-built-the-pyramids-140502.htm

The fact that there are dozens independent legends from floods (with parallels with the biblical flood) prove that the flood was real. When independent sources report the same event, it always considered a historical fact, you seem to be making an arbitrary exception with the biblical flood.

The legends of floods most likely due to people finding fossilized sea shells on mountains, but you called it correctly, they are just legends.

http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Seashells_on_mountains_are_evidence_of_a_flood

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Are you being sarcastic, or is that your actual answer?

Obviously events form ancient history can´t be confirmed with a certainty of 100%, but the fact that there are multiple indepdented sources reporting the same event proves that the event was real. This criteria is widely accepted in accepting facts from ancient history. You are making an arbitrary exception with the flood