Was the Noah flood real ? Did Noah put all living things in his boat?

  • Thread starter Thread starter John10
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest211 said:
Ken Ham was not the only one. There is a difference between a display model and one tested in the ocean.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Ham’s was the best that modern technology could build. Not just a small stone age family with basic tools. But a large organisation with everything tbey needed to make the best they possibly could. 3d technology. Modern computer aided technology. The best materials. No time limit. Money no option.

And then when there was some light drizzle, they had to call in the insurers. Because it was rain damaged.

Is everyone getting that? The best arc that money could buy couldn’t cope with the rain.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
Is everyone getting that? The best arc that money could buy couldn’t cope with the rain.
Click to expand...
Should have used gopher wood and pitch. Tsk Tsk! 😀
Click to expand...
“the ark, which was constructed by Amish builders using traditional timber framingtechniques.[23][43] In total, over 1,000 craftsmen were employed in the ark’s construction.”

You guys crack me up.
 
whatistrue said:
issues as you state is a sign of a Gish Gallop
Click to expand...
That only applies if all of the arguments given are wrong, that is not the case here.

This is in addition to what the Bible says, which for me seems to be a major catastrophic natural event that killed most if not all of living things. Reading through the passages it is clear the Earth overall was evil, except for Noah.

The Catholic Church allows us to interpret the passage as a global flooding, so we are free to go either way.
 
For anyone who is saying it was local flood, the story in the Bible said that God regretted creating man and was going to wipe them out (apart from Noah’s crew) and start again. It wouldn’t make sense for God to flood only a small portion of the world leaving numerous humans alive.
 
John10 said:
That only applies if all of the arguments given are wrong
Click to expand...
Nope.

The Gish gallop is a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming an opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments (emphasis mine).

I did suggest you research it.
 
Last edited:
Yes it does, because the gish gallop method what it does is provide a lot of very weak or unsubstantiated arguments and then expect the opponent to answer all of them in a short period of time.

However the evidences provided specifically the fossil records found in Himalayas is from a geologist with a PhD.

From the article “We must remember that the rock layers in the Himalayas and other mountain ranges around the globe were deposited during the Flood, well before these mountains were formed.”

I do not have a geology Phd to counter what he says.
 
Last edited:
Well, to be honest, men have been building boats for thousands of years. Just because Ham’s didn’t work doesn’t mean that ancient mariners’ couldn’t.
 
JimmyTolder said:
Find me a Church Fathher who said the Flood was a metaphor.

Btw, a metaphor for what?
Click to expand...
I don’t know of any fathers claiming this. Truthfully, I haven’t investigated the Catholic teachings about the flood too deeply at all. But from what I can tell, the Church hasn’t spoken authoritatively about it. You’re the one who claims it has, so the burden is on you to show that.

And it doesn’t have to be metaphor. Hyperbole works much better. How about this: A righteous man is warned of a coming cataclysm and given instructions to save himself and many animals. The cataclysm is the massive Near East flood geologist have evidence for. Given the limited time between Adam and Noah, it’s very possible that all rational humans lived in the flood zone and were wiped out. Given their small territory, it’s likely they considered this area “the world”.

I’m not saying that’s totally right, so don’t pick it apart. But it satisfies science and my rough memory of the flood story (I haven’t read it through in a while). What I’m saying is you don’t understand the culture or context the author of that story lived in. It might not be communicating exactly what you think. If the Church was confident it taught what you think, then it would say so definitively. It hasn’t. This is because the Church is Christ’s ark of truth on the earth and isn’t going to commit to error. It’s either unsure of the proper reading or it’s never found it that important. Probably both.
 
I don’t know what part of that was too difficult to process, and it doesn’t really matter. The fact is that all of the arguments on answersingenisis are weak, whether on this or any other topic I have seen. If you want to hang your entire argument on one web site with an obvious bias, then fine. I don’t have a geology PhD either, but there are many other geologists with all the credentials anyone could hope for that laugh at such as this. But you do you; I am done.
 
It’s not only what answer in genesis says, reading the Bible it seems reasonable to conclude this was a major global catastrophic event, that most likely killed every living thing.

As I said before the Church has not ruled out a global flooding so we are free to believe that.

Lastly but not least, it’s not only Answers in Genesis, I found these two articles


https://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c005.html

Both provide reasons to believe this was a global flooding, not just a local or minor event.

God Bless
 
As someone said already, the flood legend is spread across cultures with disparate origin myths, from the ancient Sumerians to the Incas. If we accept an out-of-Africa model of human origins, this could very well have been a regional flood, the memory of which passed down through generations by oral narrative and spread across the world as people migrated.
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
For anyone who is saying it was local flood, the story in the Bible said that God regretted creating man and was going to wipe them out (apart from Noah’s crew) and start again. It wouldn’t make sense for God to flood only a small portion of the world leaving numerous humans alive.
Click to expand...
Then why does the Church allow us to believe in a local/regional flood?
 
John10 said:
It’s not only what answer in genesis says, reading the Bible it seems reasonable to conclude this was a major global catastrophic event, that most likely killed every living thing.
Click to expand...
Except fish I guess.
 
Neithan said:
As someone said already, the flood legend is spread across cultures with disparate origin myths, from the ancient Sumerians to the Incas. If we accept an out-of-Africa model of human origins, this could very well have been a regional flood, the memory of which passed down through generations by oral narrative and spread across the world as people migrated.
Click to expand...
I completely agree that the origin of the story in the Bible about the flood could have derived from a legend that came from elsewhere. The thing I’m focusing on is if this is the case then the story is riddled with false elements, which can cause problems for believers.
 
thistle said:
Then why does the Church allow us to believe in a local/regional flood?
Click to expand...
I’ve said before that the Church should consult me on these things, similar to how movies have a continuity advisor to prevent incongruous things from appearing together 🙂

How would you square a regional flood that would only kill some people with a God that wants to wipe out all of humanity?
 
John10 said:
As I said before the Church has not ruled out a global flooding so we are free to believe that.
Click to expand...
You say that as if I have disputed it. I never did, I explicitly said essentially the same thing more than once.

The HowStuffWorks article is very big on speculation and very light on actual facts and references. In other words, weak.

Issue with christiananswers.net is again obvious bias.

Before I say this, please understand that the following diatribe is not directed at you, but rather the people who manage these biased sites:

I have a lot more respect for and believe more in the integrity of people who just come right out and say something like “I don’t care what any so-called scientist says, I believe what is written in the Bible and that’s it for me” than someone who twists, cherry-picks, and in extreme cases fabricates evidence to try and make science support the narrative when real science done by real scientists who know their field overwhelmingly dispute the same narrative. If you believe in a completely literalistic reading of Genesis, more power to you. Just say it and own it; don’t try to convince other people that it is scientific.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top