Did the Flood really happen?

quote:

---

You still talk toooo much. The quote above is the only meat in your reply

---

So you don’t even care that I have strong reasons for considering the Flood story a myth. And you obviously can’t answer them.And the fact that you can’t write decent posts - that you deliberately curtail them to avoid making your ideas clear is no reason for me to emulate you. If I did that constructive discussion would be impossible.

quote:

---

We do think the year on the earth could become longer and longer when the earth went away from the sun farther and farther.

---

It could do but so what? Where is the relevance?

quote:

---

Would that be enough to count for the longevity of Noah and other patriarchs? Why not?

---

Because you need a - much - shorter year to account for the supposed longevity. A longer year is no good at all. If the years of Noah’s age are even longer than our years the problem gets worse, not better (and if they are our years then the problem remains).Of course the whole idea that the Earth’s orbit has changed that much in the relatively short period of time available is daft anyway. How could it happen? Where is the evidence?So let me be clear again. If you want to be scientific about this you need to construct a sufficiently detailed scenario that we can examine it. Your vagueness doesn’t even rise to the level of inventing fiction.

quote:

---

That is quite simple. In a scientific argument, one does not dismiss the problem as a myth or a faith

---

Only if there is an actual problem. An assertion in a story written long after the supposed events isn’t even as good as anecdotal evidence - and anecdotal evidence is too weak to be worth anything.

quote:

---

If the issue sounds like a myth, then give logic or scientific reasons to show its very very low possibility.

---

That there was a world-wide flood in recent geological history has already been examined and dismissed by science. The practical problems of getting pairs of all the species on the Ark, with the necessary supplies, and of keeping them alive for a year is equally implausible. Then there is the problem of accounting for the observed biogeographic diversity. And we can throw in Noah’s age which you yourself claim to be biologically impossible for a normal human and the origin of the Rainbow. Hey, we can even throw in the Curse of Ham, the mythical justification for the Hebrews ens,a night their fellow Canaanites, too.If an implausible element occurs in an obvious myth why should it not be considered part of the myth? That is the sensible way to treat it - unless you have other evidence. And you don’t.

quote:

---

I thought you want to talk about Noah, not the Flood. I have talked about the Flood (without Noah) since the beginning of my post.

---

You wanted to know why why I considered Noah’s age a feature of the myth. It was necessary to talk about the rest of the story to explain that. Again, the fact that you don’t like what I am saying - and cannot answer it - does not render it useless or irrelevant.

quote:

---

Where was you response to my arguments about the Flood?

---

My answers to your vague assertions - they do not deserve to be called arguments - is in an earlier series of posts I made to this thread.

quote:

---

This question is an improvement. So we can move forward a little bit. (I said, if you do not improve, I will just stop).

---

By which you mean I am too good, and you are threatening to run away because of it.

quote:

---

Post in this forum gives you a very bad habit: can't help yourself to insult others.

---

Given that you started doing that very quickly I think it was already your habit.

quote:

---

I am very sorry for that. Please try to talk in a more civilized way.

---

There is nothing uncivilised about my posts.

quote:

---

There are some ways that the earth could change its orbit suddenly.

---

That is untrue.

quote:

---

One possibility is that the earth could be attracted (or pushed) by another passing by celestial body in the solar system, for example, the moon or another planet/comet.

---

The moon is not massive enough, and a comet certainly is not.
Other planets might be, but again their orbits would also need to be changed and in ways that lead to the current orbit.Also, there would be evidence. Not only would the forces involved cause devastation on the surface, the orbital change would also considerably change the solar energy reaching the Earth. Which would have serious effects on earthly conditions.

quote:

---

We are try to evaluate the description in a few chapters of the Bible by science. Do not forget this root purpose. Don't jump to the "myth" conclusion until you reasoned about it in a scientific way.

---

As you know I’ve done that.

quote:

---

If you think it is a myth, i.e. scientifically unreasonable, then you can quit (no need to reason any more). If I talk about it in science, and you do not, then I can quit. The talk won't continue unless both sides can talk in science.

---

You are the one refusing to talk in science. In science the existence of a story is nowhere near sufficient to take that story as fact. Actual empirical evidence is needed. Remember the motto of the Royal Society - an organisation hugely involved in the development of science: Nullius in verba or in English take nobody’s word for it.You have not yet talked scientifically about the Flood in this thread at all.

quote:

---

Science is data plus reason. Only rootlessly yell evidence, evidence won't make any science discussion.

---

If you don’t have evidence you have no relevant data. And - aside from the fact that you cannot reason without data - you haven’t been producing much in the way of reasoning either. Inventing excuses you only half-understand is not valid reasoning.

quote:

---

Without a solid theoretical background, no one can recognize any evidence.

---

I can say that you lack a strong theoretical background, so maybe that is your problem.

quote:

---

Started from my first post, I said the strongest evidence of the Flood is the ocean of the earth. Can you understand the evidence?

---

Yes, I can say that it is not significant evidence of the Flood and the fact that you tried to move the Flood back to the Hadean is further evidence of that. If that is the best you have - and you are unwilling to even try to adequately support the assertions - then you may as well be honest and admit that you have no viable case.

quote:

---

What I was doing is to explain to you why is that a strong evidence.

---

No, that is not what you have been doing. It is what you have refused to do. You prefer insults and a pretence to expertise that you lack in the hope of being blindly believed. Which again only shows that you lack any scientific case.

quote:

---

The interaction could be collision, or a very close fly by. In either case, if the angle of interaction is correct, even a comet might be enough to suddenly change the orbit of the earth.

---

Not by any amount worth considering.

quote:

---

Of course it would have some dramatic effect on the earth. The one hit the earth in late Cretaceous caused the termination of dinosaurs. However, it did not terminate lives on the earth.

---

Nor did it have any noticeable effect on the orbit.

quote:

---

As long as the orbit of the earth suddenly changed, the longevity question may have an answer.

---

What question? Besides, the orbit of the Earth did not change to reduce the year by that much, not while humans have existed. We know that because humans still exist.

quote:

---

May be you did not. But I did. I hate to go back to find them. But if you do, I bet they are there.
Anyway, for your sake, I can do it again. It won't take much trouble.

---

You should quote my post so the readers can know what you are talking about.

quote:

---

Are we finished with Noah and time? If not, we could continue until you feel tired of it

---

As soon as you have the honesty to admit that you are only making uninformed speculations to try and insist that Bible is correct,despite the many reasons to doubt it.

quote:

---

If yes, we may start to think about the seawater as a strong evidence the global flood.

---

I’ve given it sufficient thought. It isn’t.

quote:

---

My goal is to show the possibility of Biblical longevity.

---

Well that would require a lot more work than you’ve done.

quote:

---

I present a model. That is all we have now.

---

Calling a wild guess a model is straining the truth a bit, don’t you think?

quote:

---

If you do not agree with the idea, I like to know why

---

Because there is no evidence that the Earth’s orbit has changed significantly in the relevant period, because anything that could do that would cause drastic effects that would leave evidence and because humans couldn’t live on Earth if it were that close to the Sun.

quote:

---

Just give the strongest point of opposition, and see how could I deal with it.

---

You’ve had the opportunity and you didn’t.

quote:

---

It will change the time counting significantly. A year on the Mercury is only about 1/4 year of the earth.

---

But you need more than that. And just how habitable is Mercury, anyway? How habitable would the Earth be if it were even closer to the Sun than Mercury is?

quote:

---

The orbit change of the earth could take place and not be detected by life on the earth.

---

Because it would all be wiped out? There is no other reason.

quote:

---

You are talking about the details of the longevity model.

---

No, because you haven’t produced a model yet. Just another wildly implausible speculation.

quote:

---

Does that mean if your questions above could be dealt with, then the model becomes a possibility?

​

1. amount of change?
2. timing and duration of change?
3. effect to the life on the earth?

---

So long as all those answers are plausible possibilities given the evidence we have. And so long as you produce an actual model with the necessary details rather than just making wild guesses.Of course if you knew enough to do that you would never have suggested the idea in the first place.

quote:

---

The Mercury today is inhabitable. BUT, if put the earth there and a lot of the seawater evaporated into the atmosphere, plus if the earth rotated faster than the Mercury does, then the earth at that orbit may have a habitable environment.

---

No. Venus was a lot like the Earth. And - unless you want to propose another drastic change in orbit - the Earth would have been in the close orbit for practically all it’s existence. So, like Venus only worse.

quote:

---

Suppose the earth is moving away from the sun at a speed 3 miles per year, how would be the environment change from what it is today? It would have some difference.

---

Virtually none, because it’s so slow. The Earth is 584,000,000 miles from the Sun. . But you were talking about a sudden change of orbit from inside the orbit of Mercury - which is only 35,000,000 miles from the Sun - to the present orbit. So how suddenly does the Earth traverse more than 500,000,000 miles?You obviously haven’t thought this through.

quote:

---

No way. I learned enough from people like you.
Unless we agreed on something, I won't go to the next step. I won't be so stupid to waste my time.

---

The next step is absolutely necessary if we ARE to agree with your claim. On the face of it your idea is - to put it politely - highly implausible. Unless you can show otherwise it should be rejected.If you won’t do the next step - whether out of laziness or fear that it will not go the way you want - we will not and should not agree with your idea.

quote:

---

We do not know when was the time of the Patriarchs time.

---

If you believe the Bible is entirely accurate you should have a good idea of the number of years.

quote:

---

So, let's assume the earth moved away from the sun 500 million miles from the time of Adam to the time of Abraham.

---

So, only a few thousand years at most. And most of those would be youR shorter years.

quote:

---

If the average speed was 100 miles per year, it would only take 5 million years.

---

Which is obviously far too long. Even 5 thousand (of our years) would be pushing the Biblical chronology - and certainly goes back well before the existence of human beings.

quote:

---

These ball park estimations suggest a true possibility of the model.

---

Obviously incorrect estimates that do not address the major problems of the idea (it is still not a model) do nothing to suggest that it is truly possible. Indeed the choice of incorrect estimates suggests that even you don’t believe it is possible.

quote:

---

If so, don't talk about the age of Noah. That is perfectly fine with me

---

You seem to think that you have the authority to dictate what other people may or may not say. You are wrong.The fact that I am not gullible enough to believe your assertions without very strong evidence is not a reason why I should avoid discussion of the issue. It is just a reason why you want me to avoid the discussion.

quote:

---

So, talk as you like to. It would only confuse you more.

---

I think the confused person is the one who is suggesting that Noah lived at a time when the Earth was uninhabitable and had no liquid water on the surface (so no Flood). All in a desperate attempt to explain the age attributed to Noah by the Biblical myth.I guess that’s what happens when you desperately flail around making up excuses instead of employing reason.

quote:

---

WHERE did I dodged the question? I gave MORE than it is needed.

---

I take it then, that your answer was simply unclear, and absolutely nothing is what you meant. Because your answer says nothing relevant at all.