Does the evidence support the Flood? (attn: DwarfishSquints)

Oh okay. I'll give you that.We can't forget, though, that The Flud^TM was probably inspired by multiple events as it was passed on down through the ages.

I agree. Before juddism became a written religion the stories were probably apt to changes either through personnel interpretation or changing world views. That being the case however, that means that the BSD isn't necessarily excluded from those same changes, inorder to draw it inline with the communities own beliefs.Edited by rueh, : No reason given.Edited by rueh, : No reason given.

In all likelihood, there was a flood, albeit, not quite of Biblical proportions, but huge enough to be written about by different people.We forget that myths don't generally spring out of thin air. There is almost always something actual that precipitates. It later synthesizes through embellishment.

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

quote:

---

In closing, I have a two part question geared towards theists and atheists alike. To the atheists, I ask, what does this information say to you about the validity of a considerable flood? Note that we do not, as of yet, know with certainty that this was a "global" flood. We know empirically that this was considered global to the inhabitants. Does this mean that such a Flood really did exist? If so, is this inconsequential to you?

​

The second question is geared towards biblicists. This study, conducted in 1993, has had virtually no coverage. And of that which is mentioned, it is routinely dumbed down in an apparent view of it being inconsequential. Do you find it disheartening that some people have divorced themselves from this discovery, and if so, do you attribute it to them denying it over its greater implications-- such as, the denial of the Bible's historicity?

---

I think over all it is a great example of how people on both sides of a debate, will ignore all the facts and implications of the evidence in order to hold true to their small understanding of something that can have greater implications. If the theist was able to treat this scenario as way to understand how people record their history and how legends develop. They would have a better grasp on why they believe what they believe, instead of having to fall back on faith for faith alone sake. The same holds true for the atheist. It would allow them to use what little written history from antiquity that we do have as a reference. i believe if this theory is indeed true, it perfectly demonstrates how slivers of truth can come through in all the stories and myths that man has created.

quote:

---

I think over all it is a great example of how people on both sides of a debate, will ignore all the facts and implications of the evidence in order to hold true to their small understanding of something that can have greater implications. If the theist was able to treat this scenario as way to understand how people record their history and how legends develop. They would have a better grasp on why they believe what they believe, instead of having to fall back on faith for faith alone sake. The same holds true for the atheist. It would allow them to use what little written history from antiquity that we do have as a reference. i believe if this theory is indeed true, it perfectly demonstrates how slivers of truth can come through in all the stories and myths that man has created.

---

Whoa, Rueh and NJ, wait a minute. In your eagerness to "treat both sides fairly" you both are muddying things up just a bit. Non young earth creationists (they aren't all atheists, by the way) do not deny history - whether oral or written. Nor do they deny that local floods may have occured that local people thought were world wide floods and that may have generated various flood myths. The Black Sea flood poses no "problem" for those opposing the YEC scenario. We do not deny that even the most fantastic stories in the Bible and other ancient texts may have some factual basis. But of course the key word there is "some." Stop trying to treat this as a civil dispute where everyone has certain rights. Everyone does NOT have the right to their own facts. In the Creationist/Evolutionist debate, the facts are not equal on both sides of the debate. In fact, the Evolutionists have the facts on their side, Creationists have only religious belief.Edited by deerbreh, : No reason given.

We're discussing the Flood, as presented in the Bible. I'm merely giving my take on it. I believe that there was a very large and catastrophic flood, based on the evidence, and that in the minds of the writers who wrote about it (Moses was not the only one) that it encompassed the whole world.I haven't made mention to anyone's rights or treated it as a civil dispute. I'm just throwing my opinion out there.

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

Your right in a sense, I do have a tendencey to over generalize. However we were not discussing the creation/evolution topic here. We were talking about what geological evidence may support a flood of a porpurtion described in antiquity. I was trying to assert that we all heve a tendencey to gloss over any evidence that may not fall directly in line with your chosen veiw point. Regardless of what that veiw point is that you have choosen.
In line with the topic I assert that the geology does not support a world wide flood as described in the bible, but it may indicate a very large local flood that has been imbellished through culture and the ages to what many today consider to be the noachian flood.

The difference in scope and plausibility between large local floods and a world wide flood is so great that it is quite silly to even suggest that confirmed geological evidence for a large local flood would present any kind of problem for naysayers of Noah's Flood. Of course the naysayers recognize that flood myths likely had some basis in reality. It really goes without saying and proves....actually, nothing of interest to a geologist. To someone who makes a study of myths and their origins, yes. But to a geologist, no, and this thread is about geological evidence for a global flood, is it not? Origins of flood myths is actually off topic.