Is There Scientific Evidence Supporting the Floor of Noah?

[Capri]

There does seem to be overwhelming evidence that certain proofs are being systematically ignored or redefined or hidden, in order to eliminate possible "confusion".

All ancient cultures in the Mesopotamian region tell a Great Flood story.

The conclusion, there was a great flood. Just saying the term "flood" implies they are familiar with flooding.

So the question is not if there was a great flood, the question is how far did it extend? Was it global?

When the ice age ended 10,000 years ago (give or take a lot, it was a slow process), the melting ice raised the global sea level enough to flood vast expanses of land, land occupied by people that had to move/fight/adapt. It wouldn't surprise me that these stories got passed down from generation to generation as a global flood by an angry god.

That can't be right...the earth is only 6,000 years old after all.

That depends on from where in the universe one is measuring its age.

 

[idb]

If The faithful truly had Faith they wouldn't feel the need to try to argue their case with evidence.
That's the definition of Faith...you just know it's true...case closed.
Trying to argue science shows an absence of Faith.



Go to Church you heathens!!!

 

[Capri]

If The faithful truly had Faith they wouldn't feel the need to try to argue their case with evidence.
That's the definition of Faith...you just know it's true...case closed.
Trying to argue science shows an absence of Faith.

That's a good point but, imo, having faith doesn't preclude asking questions.

Also, science resonates with more people today than faith. If science might reinforce faith, it's not a bad thing to bring it up.

 

[idb]

If The faithful truly had Faith they wouldn't feel the need to try to argue their case with evidence.
That's the definition of Faith...you just know it's true...case closed.
Trying to argue science shows an absence of Faith.

That's a good point but, imo, having faith doesn't preclude asking questions.

Also, science resonates with more people today than faith. If science might reinforce faith, it's not a bad thing to bring it up.

Science demands proof.
Faith only requires...well..faith.
They can't debate on the same basis.
Faith can always retreat to "Well, whatever, that's what I believe".
Science doesn't have that luxury.
Faith has certainty.
Science never has certainty and in fact is always searching for proof that its Laws/Theories/Hypotheses are wrong.

 

[Capri]

If The faithful truly had Faith they wouldn't feel the need to try to argue their case with evidence.
That's the definition of Faith...you just know it's true...case closed.
Trying to argue science shows an absence of Faith.

That's a good point but, imo, having faith doesn't preclude asking questions.

Also, science resonates with more people today than faith. If science might reinforce faith, it's not a bad thing to bring it up.

Science demands proof.
Faith only requires...well..faith.
They can't debate on the same basis.
Faith can always retreat to "Well, whatever, that's what I believe".
Science doesn't have that luxury.
Faith has certainty.
Science never has certainty and in fact is always searching for proof that its Laws/Theories/Hypotheses are wrong.

I don't disagree with any of that.
However, faith may sometimes be in need of reinforcement, sometimes of adjustment. If science can help, then why not include it?

 

[alang1216]

The most likely reason for the world wide flood stories are that there was a real global flood -- Noah's Flood. It would be one of the most effective ways to kill off everybody on the planet. The evidence for it is found throughout the geology of the world. Just look at the bent rock layers. That could not happen any other way.

How exactly did the rock layer bend? Was it the flood waters or the continents scooting all over the place?

 

[Votto]

If The faithful truly had Faith they wouldn't feel the need to try to argue their case with evidence.
That's the definition of Faith...you just know it's true...case closed.
Trying to argue science shows an absence of Faith.

That's a good point but, imo, having faith doesn't preclude asking questions.

Also, science resonates with more people today than faith. If science might reinforce faith, it's not a bad thing to bring it up.

Science demands proof.
Faith only requires...well..faith.
They can't debate on the same basis.
Faith can always retreat to "Well, whatever, that's what I believe".
Science doesn't have that luxury.
Faith has certainty.
Science never has certainty and in fact is always searching for proof that its Laws/Theories/Hypotheses are wrong.

Try telling that to Einstein who made fun of the priest for his Big Bang theory.

LOL.

Tell that to the woman who came up with the theory that stars were mostly hydrogen and was laughed at, so much so, she later recanted even though she was right. Problem is, in the scientific world at that time, it was believed that women were not as smart, much like the upstart priest that was laughed at for his theory that was also later proven correct.

Belief causes you to snub your nose at the truth, but it is necessary because belief helps us make sense of a world in which we have no way of proving everything.

 

[Hollie]

If The faithful truly had Faith they wouldn't feel the need to try to argue their case with evidence.
That's the definition of Faith...you just know it's true...case closed.
Trying to argue science shows an absence of Faith.

That's a good point but, imo, having faith doesn't preclude asking questions.

Also, science resonates with more people today than faith. If science might reinforce faith, it's not a bad thing to bring it up.

Science demands proof.
Faith only requires...well..faith.
They can't debate on the same basis.
Faith can always retreat to "Well, whatever, that's what I believe".
Science doesn't have that luxury.
Faith has certainty.
Science never has certainty and in fact is always searching for proof that its Laws/Theories/Hypotheses are wrong.

I don't disagree with any of that.
However, faith may sometimes be in need of reinforcement, sometimes of adjustment. If science can help, then why not include it?

My perception of the more excitable religionists in these threads is a true revulsion for science. They will choose to exclude science and to ridicule it because there are many irreconcilable difcerences between "faith" and science.

 

[Marion Morrison]

If The faithful truly had Faith they wouldn't feel the need to try to argue their case with evidence.
That's the definition of Faith...you just know it's true...case closed.
Trying to argue science shows an absence of Faith.

That's a good point but, imo, having faith doesn't preclude asking questions.

Also, science resonates with more people today than faith. If science might reinforce faith, it's not a bad thing to bring it up.

Science demands proof.
Faith only requires...well..faith.
They can't debate on the same basis.
Faith can always retreat to "Well, whatever, that's what I believe".
Science doesn't have that luxury.
Faith has certainty.
Science never has certainty and in fact is always searching for proof that its Laws/Theories/Hypotheses are wrong.

I don't disagree with any of that.
However, faith may sometimes be in need of reinforcement, sometimes of adjustment. If science can help, then why not include it?

My perception of the more excitable religionists in these threads is a true revulsion for science. They will choose to exclude science and to ridicule it because there are many irreconcilable difcerences between "faith" and science.

How often does that happen? I know like ..7 Engineers and they're all more religious than me? I'm related to 4 of them. TBH, I haven't met an Engineer yet that doesn't believe in God.

 

[rightwinger]

Strange question

How did fish and aquatic animals and plants survive the flood?

A flood of that magnitude would have destroyed their ecosystem
How could they have survived?

who said all of them survived???

most likely not every single part of their ecosystem was destroyed and all that needed to survive was 2 of them,,,

Simple things like a change in alkalinity will kill tens of thousands of fish

Torrential rain of the magnitude to raise ocean levels ten thousand feet in 40 days would block out all plant life that fish depend on. Once the oceans retracted, it would take years for that plant life to recover

 

[rightwinger]

If The faithful truly had Faith they wouldn't feel the need to try to argue their case with evidence.
That's the definition of Faith...you just know it's true...case closed.
Trying to argue science shows an absence of Faith.

That's a good point but, imo, having faith doesn't preclude asking questions.

Also, science resonates with more people today than faith. If science might reinforce faith, it's not a bad thing to bring it up.

Science demands proof.
Faith only requires...well..faith.
They can't debate on the same basis.
Faith can always retreat to "Well, whatever, that's what I believe".
Science doesn't have that luxury.
Faith has certainty.
Science never has certainty and in fact is always searching for proof that its Laws/Theories/Hypotheses are wrong.

I don't disagree with any of that.
However, faith may sometimes be in need of reinforcement, sometimes of adjustment. If science can help, then why not include it?

My perception of the more excitable religionists in these threads is a true revulsion for science. They will choose to exclude science and to ridicule it because there are many irreconcilable difcerences between "faith" and science.

How often does that happen? I know like ..7 Engineers and they're all more religious than me? I'm related to 4 of them. TBH, I haven't met an Engineer yet that doesn't believe in God.

I’m an engineer and I stopped believing when I was 12

 

[rightwinger]

Nowhere in the relevant science community is there evidence of a global flood 6,000 years ago.

Who is relevant and who determines that ?

I think the objectivity of peer reviewed science answers your question. I do think that there will always be an unbridgeable divide between science and religion. This is because of the standards of proof in the realm of science are so different than the predefined bias of partisan religious belief

Science is amenable only to investigations of repeatable phenomena in the natural world. This is the essence of the scientific method. Religion is amenable only to expression of personal “feelings”. This is the hidden philosophical bias of religion. Trapped by its own subjectivity.

But insofar as the world around us is natural, science remains our best tool for investigating it. The methodology used by investigators employing science is presently the best that life on earth has yet devised. In contrast, any attempt to see the origin of our natural selves through the theistic accounts is doomed to fail due to its scripturally bounded nature.

“Peer Reviewed” anything is driven by donors.

The major teaching and research universities would disagree.

How many people do you know who work for these universities and do peer review?

They all have PhDs in a relevant field.

 

[Marion Morrison]

That's a good point but, imo, having faith doesn't preclude asking questions.

Also, science resonates with more people today than faith. If science might reinforce faith, it's not a bad thing to bring it up.

Science demands proof.
Faith only requires...well..faith.
They can't debate on the same basis.
Faith can always retreat to "Well, whatever, that's what I believe".
Science doesn't have that luxury.
Faith has certainty.
Science never has certainty and in fact is always searching for proof that its Laws/Theories/Hypotheses are wrong.

I don't disagree with any of that.
However, faith may sometimes be in need of reinforcement, sometimes of adjustment. If science can help, then why not include it?

My perception of the more excitable religionists in these threads is a true revulsion for science. They will choose to exclude science and to ridicule it because there are many irreconcilable difcerences between "faith" and science.

How often does that happen? I know like ..7 Engineers and they're all more religious than me? I'm related to 4 of them. TBH, I haven't met an Engineer yet that doesn't believe in God.

I’m an engineer and I stopped believing when I was 12

I consider you an idiot and liar, and leftist shill, though.

 

[TNHarley]

Floods happen. However there is no evidence the story of Noah and his flood happened.
Obviously.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Floods happen. However there is no evidence the story of Noah and his flood happened.
Obviously.

Bullshit! Every civilization with documented history has writings about a great flood.

South Americans, Indians, Chinese, all of them, your last post was derp!

How does that make you feel?

 

[TNHarley]

Floods happen. However there is no evidence the story of Noah and his flood happened.
Obviously.

Bullshit! Every civilization with documented history has writings about a great flood.

South Americans, Indians, Chinese, all of them, your last post was derp!

That does not prove one man and his family gathered 2 of every species, survived the flood then them and the animals repopulated the planet.
Kangaroos? What about all those species in Madagascar? Did he row them in a boat back to their island? Did they swim?
Floods happen. They even happen all over the planet. That doesn't prove the story of Noah in any way.

 

[Indeependent]

Who is relevant and who determines that ?

I think the objectivity of peer reviewed science answers your question. I do think that there will always be an unbridgeable divide between science and religion. This is because of the standards of proof in the realm of science are so different than the predefined bias of partisan religious belief

Science is amenable only to investigations of repeatable phenomena in the natural world. This is the essence of the scientific method. Religion is amenable only to expression of personal “feelings”. This is the hidden philosophical bias of religion. Trapped by its own subjectivity.

But insofar as the world around us is natural, science remains our best tool for investigating it. The methodology used by investigators employing science is presently the best that life on earth has yet devised. In contrast, any attempt to see the origin of our natural selves through the theistic accounts is doomed to fail due to its scripturally bounded nature.

“Peer Reviewed” anything is driven by donors.

The major teaching and research universities would disagree.

How many people do you know who work for these universities and do peer review?

They all have PhDs in a relevant field.

Not based on the responses I get.
For instance, Fort Fun Indiana has an Internet PhD.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Floods happen. However there is no evidence the story of Noah and his flood happened.
Obviously.

Bullshit! Every civilization with documented history has writings about a great flood.

South Americans, Indians, Chinese, all of them, your last post was derp!

That does not prove one man and his family gathered 2 of every species, survived the flood then them and the animals repopulated the planet.
Kangaroos? What about all those species in Madagascar? Did he row them in a boat back to their island? Did they swim?
Floods happen. They even happen all over the planet. That doesn't prove the story of Noah in any way.

Yoar denial is duly noted.

 

[alang1216]

There does seem to be overwhelming evidence that certain proofs are being systematically ignored or redefined or hidden, in order to eliminate possible "confusion".

All ancient cultures in the Mesopotamian region tell a Great Flood story.

The conclusion, there was a great flood. Just saying the term "flood" implies they are familiar with flooding.

So the question is not if there was a great flood, the question is how far did it extend? Was it global?

When the ice age ended 10,000 years ago (give or take a lot, it was a slow process), the melting ice raised the global sea level enough to flood vast expanses of land, land occupied by people that had to move/fight/adapt. It wouldn't surprise me that these stories got passed down from generation to generation as a global flood by an angry god.

That can't be right...the earth is only 6,000 years old after all.

Good point. Maybe the years were a lot longer back then. I do keep seeing people take issue with uniformitarianism.

 

[TNHarley]

Floods happen. However there is no evidence the story of Noah and his flood happened.
Obviously.

Bullshit! Every civilization with documented history has writings about a great flood.

South Americans, Indians, Chinese, all of them, your last post was derp!

That does not prove one man and his family gathered 2 of every species, survived the flood then them and the animals repopulated the planet.
Kangaroos? What about all those species in Madagascar? Did he row them in a boat back to their island? Did they swim?
Floods happen. They even happen all over the planet. That doesn't prove the story of Noah in any way.

Yoar denial is duly noted.

Denial because of absolutely no evidence?
I rest my case