|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Flood Stories | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RedVento Inactive Member |
I always find it amazing to see Creationists proclaim the Flood story as a "truth" that helps proves creationism. I find this amazing because the Biblical Flood story is taken from the Gilgamesh story of the flood. Which predates the Cananites by more than 500 years. In fact there are 4 known tablets that are KNOWN to be at least 500-600 years OLDER than any known Old Testimant writings that tell an almost identical story.
The simple fact of the matter is that the Flood story, I would say all of the bible for that matter, is nothing more than a story early Jews used to explain THEIR god, and how they fit into the world. It is not meant to be a historical retelling of an actual worldwide event. In fact there is no evidence of any such even ever taking place. The best they can come up with is Mt. Ararat, when the bible itself doesnt say that is where the Arc ended up... rather being purposly vauge with "the mountains of Ar'arat" The only flood evidence we have is at the Black Sea, however there is no evidence that the survivors of that flood fled to the mesopatanian areas where the tablets, and the old testament came from. The flood story is just that a story, not a history lesson.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
--Welcome to the forum edVento.
"I always find it amazing to see Creationists proclaim the Flood story as a "truth" that helps proves creationism."--Your missunderstood when you use the word 'proves', there can be no proof on any historical implication accept on the fact of existance in all technicallity. "I find this amazing because the Biblical Flood story is taken from the Gilgamesh story of the flood. Which predates the Cananites by more than 500 years. In fact there are 4 known tablets that are KNOWN to be at least 500-600 years OLDER than any known Old Testimant writings that tell an almost identical story."--Well thats nice, you can continue if you like? We are either parroting or we should be ready to show support and reason. "The simple fact of the matter is that the Flood story, I would say all of the bible for that matter, is nothing more than a story early Jews used to explain THEIR god, and how they fit into the world. It is not meant to be a historical retelling of an actual worldwide event."--Personal opinions are always fine, though don't assert is as if it is so confidently true. "In fact there is no evidence of any such even ever taking place."--And your support or basis for your assertion? What is it lacking evidence for, what do you think should be found? "The best they can come up with is Mt. Ararat, when the bible itself doesnt say that is where the Arc ended up... rather being purposly vauge with "the mountains of Ar'arat""--I really am not sure what you are attempting to get at here. I don't know what support the Mountains of Arrarat will give to Flood Geology accept that they are volcanic and thus may have engulfed the Ark later after settlement. "The only flood evidence we have is at the Black Sea, however there is no evidence that the survivors of that flood fled to the mesopatanian areas where the tablets, and the old testament came from."--Under your pre-conceived information of Geologic deposition and uniformitarian processes, sure you would be right, but otherwize, nothing more than a major missconception. "The flood story is just that a story, not a history lesson."--I could exclaim the same for any Evolutionary idea, but it means nothing untill I give support, which you must do for your post to be relevent. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
Creationists argue that the Sumerians borrowed from them
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-285.htm Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: For someone chiding people about providing details, we are still waiting for your explanation of your flood model. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: It should be clear to you that the word "prove" is being used in the creationist context. Just trying to make things easier for you to understand... I think you are reaching for arguments. Now, how about some evidence for your assertions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
Ah I was wondering if anyone else had watched that program on TLC last night......
Oh and TC the lack of evidence refers to the lack of any geological evidence for a GLOBAL flood...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7577 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote: You misunderstand if you think you can prove the historical existence of something without resorting to implication. Unless, of course, when you say "in all technicallity" you mean that you are working with a specialist definition of "proof" which distinguishes in some way between implied historical existence and other historical implications. If so, let's have it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
quote: I really don't see how geologic depositional models and the concept of uniforitarianism has any bearing on the discussion of a migration of people. You seem to be dropping some random "big words" into your reply, to give it extra (albeit irrelevant) weight. Care to bring your thoughts on uniformitarianism to the uniformitarianism topic I started? It's at:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=54&p=5 Moose ------------------BS degree, geology, '83 Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Old Earth evolution - Yes Godly creation - Maybe [This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 04-24-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RedVento Inactive Member |
Yes, that program on TLC was very interesting. And seemed quite unbiased. Which is the kind of information I like to see.
There is no geologic evidence of any worldwide flood event. However if you take into consideration that to the early civilizations the "world" consisted of the places they knew about I am sure there were localized floods all the time. As to the argument that the story of Gilgamesh and the other stories were taken from the early Jews that would be fine except that there is no historical or archeoligal evidence of that. The earliest known Old Testament was written at the earliest 500 years after these tablets were created. That is fact, not conjecture. You can have the opinion that they infact borrowed and wrote down the story after hearing it from cananites, but that opinion is just that opinion. I will have to go with what has been shown to be true rather than hold out on a possible truth. A truth that is needed to validate an opinion on the purpose of the Bible. I mentioned Mt. Ararat because that is the supposed resting place of the Arc. The place that holds the "evidence" of the validity of the story as told by the Bible. In fact the bible never states that is where it is, it is purposly vauge. Why I would ask is that? If they were recording literal history would they not want to be as exact as possible? That is what I was alluding to. Basically what I have seen from creationists is an attempt to validate the historical nature of the bible using the bible as a reference. I can make my own bible and accomplish the same feat and you would be powerless to refute my claims. The circular reasoning I have witnessed is astonishing. The bible is right because the bible says its right, that is the crux of the arguments I have seen. I HAVE seen the supposed use of scientific reasoning to disprove evolution however. Yet whenever that same logic is applied to the bible it doesn't seem to fly. Odd.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"JM: For someone chiding people about providing details, we are still waiting for your explanation of your flood model."
--Sertaintly, and I would doubt that I will have the ability to come up with a conclusive model to explain what is seen in geology for some time, though it is well under way and progressing. Also, I believe there were some points we were getting into that were deleted out of some topics? ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"It should be clear to you that the word "prove" is being used in the creationist context. Just trying to make things easier for you to understand... I think you are reaching for arguments."
--I have shown (though it may have not been up to sufficient clarity) that the word 'proof' should not be used in almost any scenario when discussing past events, why do you think we have so many theories on various events in mainstream paleography and earth history? They are all possible though they are given various degrees of plausability, possibility and plausability are, on the contary to 'proof', well able to be used in these types of arguments. "Now, how about some evidence for your assertions?"--I have not made any assertions yet that are not self evident, my assertions assert simply that RedVento has not given me information to rebutte. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Ah I was wondering if anyone else had watched that program on TLC last night......
Oh and TC the lack of evidence refers to the lack of any geological evidence for a GLOBAL flood..." --If you can tell me that strengthened turbity currents would not form massive subterranean canyons in the continental shelf assuming the framework of the flood (a young earth), or that global impact strikes would not produce any form of nuclear winter, etc. then you can say there is a lack of an ioda of evidence. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"You misunderstand if you think you can prove the historical existence of something without resorting to implication."
--Assumption would be more appropriate, and that assumption would be that your mind is actually observing an existing universe. "Unless, of course, when you say "in all technicallity" you mean that you are working with a specialist definition of "proof" which distinguishes in some way between implied historical existence and other historical implications. If so, let's have it."--I think were missunderstood here. See my last comment and my post on another critique of this statment. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"I really don't see how geologic depositional models and the concept of uniforitarianism has any bearing on the discussion of a migration of people."
--Yes, I was more refering to the segment of his statement that said 'The only flood evidence we have is at the Black Sea'. "You seem to be dropping some random "big words" into your reply, to give it extra (albeit irrelevant) weight."--Either that, or I just say in response to his whole post 'what is your support'. "Care to bring your thoughts on uniformitarianism to the uniformitarianism topic I started? It's at:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=54&p=5 --Sure, would you just like me to reply to your first post? -----------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Yes, that program on TLC was very interesting. And seemed quite unbiased. Which is the kind of information I like to see."
--Wish I saw it, might there be a re-run and whats the topic the program discusses? "There is no geologic evidence of any worldwide flood event."--Strong claim there, lets see if you give any support. "However if you take into consideration that to the early civilizations the "world" consisted of the places they knew about I am sure there were localized floods all the time."--If infact the earth is old, sure I could agree with you. "As to the argument that the story of Gilgamesh and the other stories were taken from the early Jews that would be fine except that there is no historical or archeoligal evidence of that."--Looks like I would be in trouble if this was my view. "The earliest known Old Testament was written at the earliest 500 years after these tablets were created.--Don't know too much bible history, mabye w_fortenberry would have some incite on this one, he seems very knowledgable on bible history. Also, what was the means of obtaining this date? "That is fact, not conjecture. You can have the opinion that they infact borrowed and wrote down the story after hearing it from cananites, but that opinion is just that opinion. I will have to go with what has been shown to be true rather than hold out on a possible truth. A truth that is needed to validate an opinion on the purpose of the Bible."--I don't hold this view. "I mentioned Mt. Ararat because that is the supposed resting place of the Arc. The place that holds the "evidence" of the validity of the story as told by the Bible."--I find nothing that can be found for such a validation accept what can be found in any other mountain range of the world. "In fact the bible never states that is where it is, it is purposly vauge."--The mountains of Arrarat, purposefully vague sure, I see no problem in this however. "Why I would ask is that? If they were recording literal history would they not want to be as exact as possible?"--Obviously it was irrlevent at the time, your lucky to get such a resting place either way. "That is what I was alluding to. Basically what I have seen from creationists is an attempt to validate the historical nature of the bible using the bible as a reference. I can make my own bible and accomplish the same feat and you would be powerless to refute my claims."--If you resort to all supernatural explinations, however, in my many hundreds of posts on this board, not once have I illuded to the bible being my evidence. "The circular reasoning I have witnessed is astonishing."--I see the same in an abundance of Evolutionists I have spoken to, luckly I have found intelligence in this forum. "The bible is right because the bible says its right, that is the crux of the arguments I have seen."--I guess its time for a new one then isn't it? "I HAVE seen the supposed use of scientific reasoning to disprove evolution however."--Personally, I would take a good momment to chuckle at anyone 'dis"proving"' Evolution (theres that word 'proof' again). Though someone to argue against its plausability or whether it is the right explination for observed geologic and paleontological findings, I am willing to listen and argue the same. "Yet whenever that same logic is applied to the bible it doesn't seem to fly. Odd."--Yes it is odd, I pitty them, but now back to your assertion of a complete lack of evidence. Now what would you expect to be found? ------------------
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024