There is an appalling lack of historical evidence backing the Bible's veracity

quote:

---

I'm sorry, but there's plenty of precedent to say that a day is simply a unit of time

---

I'm not sure what you are syaing here. But there are good reason to think that the days of Genesis 1 are literal days (e.g. the formula of evening followed by morning introducing each).

quote:

---

clearly it couldn't have meant 24 earth hours since there was no earth

---

As I pointed out, it's pretty clear that the Earth exists, right at the beginning, covered by the primordial ocean (typical of Middle Eastern creation myths).

quote:

---

We are talking about relatively crude language trying to explain a complex thought.

---

No, you are ASSUMING that it is attempting to explain something like modern cosmology. But you have yet to offer any real support for that claim.

quote:

---

Remember we are talking for the most part about iron-age nomads.

---

No, we are talking about the educated elite of a settled people.

quote:

---

If you're looking for a modern scientific treatise and nothing less, I guess there's no convincing you.

---

I'm not and nothing I have said suggests that I am.

quote:

---

I would think that any reasonable person would have to admit that it is very much in tune with modern "big bang" theories.

---

It isn't, and you're not even trying to show that it is. Just because you keep repeating an assertion doens't make it true.

quote:

---

You're simply ignoring the fact that for the most part, early man somehow had real knowledge they couldn't possibly have known first hand.

---

It isn't a fact. And if it was, then why are you avoiding discussion of that issue ?

quote:

---

Then...we agree

---

By which you mean that you concede that the "mitochondrial Eve" is a red herring that does nothing to support your case ?

quote:

---

I will say that in the Noah story it states that before the flood, there was no such thing as rain. A mist covered the earth instead

---

No, it does not. The passage you were thinking of is in Genesis 2, and nothing states that it represens a state that continued up to the Flood.

quote:

---

So we are talking about a time very long ago, before any other recorded history. Apparently the atmosphere was quite different. Gravity too may have been different. It could actually have been before the continents divided.

---

Given the evidence of fossilised raindrop impressions and the other items, it seems that you are suggesting that Noah's story is set in the Precambrian. Before there was any land life at all, let alone human beings. Not very likely is it ?

I will look for my bible to point out that passage. It also states that before the days of Noah, the "sons of God" were mating with human women and creating offspring. They were Nephalim (giants, or men of great stature... intelligence?) Theoretically one reason for the cleansing of the earth. Extra biblical sources say that Noah's father suspected that Noah himself was the result of such a union. In any case these passages would indicate that it was a time long before the date you set, if indeed there ever were such a time.As for man appearing after the continental divide, there is a school of thought that this is not true. bananas need to be cultivated and are found in both South America and Africa from the earliest times. there's other problems with the conventional wisdom as well.As for gravity remaining the same, how could that be proven. A lighter gravity could account for the size and agility of the dinosaurs and the pterodactyl which would not be capable of flight today, yet obviously was a flying creature.I realize that all this is outside any conventional science. The point is that anything is possible. there are holes in all theories and we aren't at the point where we can be sure of anything. A global flood at some point in the earth's formation is a probability, given that it is 70% water and shows evidence of expansion. So to say that at some point it was 100% water doesn't sound improbable.The problem... as you demonstrate, for there to have been a Noah, or Gilgamesh.. is that this has to have happened at a time when some form of modern humans, in however scant numbers are also found. Right now, science and the best evidence seems to discount this but I wouldn't say it's not possible. I myself just shy away from insisting that the Noah or Gilgamesh story is absolutely to be taken literally, There's quite a bit there to swallow if taken in it's entirety and I'm afraid that the whole truth might be lost to time and we will never understand it.

Stupid double post. Ignore.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

So you admit that the evidence for the veracity of Bible form extra biblical sources is scant? This is very rich from the person who said: You appear to be contradicting yourself. Aside from being grossly off topic, what on earth makes you think a pterosaur could not fly today?Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

Genetic evidence contradicts this, there is no sign of ANY intermingling of other species with the Homo Sapiens genes. Again, the EARLIEST estimates for Homo Sapiens is around 200.000 years ago, any earlier is not found credible at all. Again, the earliest estimates for Homo sapiens are 200.0000 years ago. The continents separated LONG before that. There is evidence for this, please provide your evidence that this is not the case. ABE: As for bananas, see Asgara's explanation further down. (Thanks Asgara, you learn something everyday ) How could that be proven? Because gravity is dependant on the mass of an object, if its mass changes its gravitational pull changes, thus the earth’s mass had to change significantly for ANY effect to be felt. Please provide evidence the earth’s mass changed greatly in the past. If everything is possible, everything is just as likely and thus nothing can be claimed to be right. There is NO evidence for such a flood whatsoever, do you have ANY idea how much water is needed to flood the earth? There isn’t enough water BY FAR on this planet to do so. It’s not a question of adding another 30% of water either, you see the SURFACE is 70% water, however, to flood the earth you need to cover Mt. Everest, and that requires a whole lot of water. Yes, this places the story from anywhere between 200.000 years ago and today. Again, this is not about what’s possible, this is about what the evidence shows, and so far NO evidence supports the flood. Good, at least you are more realistic then some others I have encountered here. Would it be a great problem for you to see the flood story as a morality lesson, with a big, but local, flood used to make it more impressive to people?Edited by Huntard, : changed the bit about bananas

---

I hunt for the truth

Going to play "Its over there!" eh? Any date that scientists check is always the wrong date because--"Its over there!"Sorry, that doesn't work. The approximate date I cited for the flood is not from some "unnamed 'scientists'" but from biblical scholars. Here is what I base the approximately 4,350 year date on:

2252 BC -- layevangelism.com

​

2304 BC -- Answers in Genesis (+/- 11 years).

​

2350 BC -- Morris, H. Biblical Creationism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993.

​

2370 BC -- TalkOrigins.com

​

2500 BC -- Biblical Chronology

​

2522 BC -- Dr. Gerhard Hasel

​

2978-3128 BC -- http://www.asa3.org/archive/ASA/199605/0162.html

​

3537 BC -- Setterfield (1999)

​

As for the rest of your comments, all you are suggesting is that we rewrite all of the laws of nature so you can shoehorn your supposed flood in there somewhere.How about coming up with some positive evidence for all of these claims, instead of just playing "Its over there" whenever scientists disprove one claim after the other?Or you could just admit that the idea of a global flood as contained in the bible is a religious belief and didn't actually happen that way.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Actually bananas are native to Malaysia, New Guinea, Indonesia and the Philippines. Wild banana types have many large hard seeds. Commercial cultivation of bananas has produced the varieties we are use to. These have no seed and need man to propagate. Any bananas in other parts of the world were brought and cultivated by man.Bananas didn't reach the New World until the 1500. For some of the history of bananas in the New World you might want to look into the United Fruit CompanyEdited by Asgara, : added link to UFCEdited by Asgara, : No reason given.

I'd say that's as good a summation of this thread as any. Cavediver asked for extra-Biblical evidence for Biblical characters and here we are talking about bananas.There most certainly is a lack of evidence to back up the Bible, which is why it's apologists are reduced to making bizarre claims about fruit.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Actually, I think that at the time the flood happened it probably would have meant the known world. i don't think it was intentionally distorted.But yes, the Gilgamesh story and the Noah story are similar enough to presume that they came from the same source, yet different enough that obviously the details were adapted for religions sake. Certainly, it is intended to be a morality teaching story.Again it could very well have been a regional flood and that would not change the value of the story to the faith.

Well I must concede that most of you have certainly researched the subject far more than I have. My belief in the flood is based on religion and little more, so I can't pretend to be able to offer hard evidence such a you have presented.As for me, a worldwide flood is not all all a prerequisite for believing the important parts of the Noah story, so it doesn't shake my faith.You are free to believe there was never such an event and I will stay with what I believe, but I have to say you have presented far more quality evidence for your belief than I can for my position.

Following the astounding deluge of idiocy EvC has played host to recently, this is a real breath of fresh air. Thank you, olletrap, for your honesty here. It is almost enough to restore to me some faith in Christianity (apologies if my presumption that you are a Christian is incorrect)

You never know what somebody's gonna bust out....But this place is awesome because of that. Stick around and you'll learn a lot. Surprisingly, there's some tards out there who would stop believing in god altogether if even one part of the Bible is shown to not be inerrant. I don't think that anybody really expects your beliefs to be changed.They do expect for people to not continue to claim refuted assertions, which you seem to be willing to do. So stick around and learn a lot.Welcome to EvC.

This post: Together with this one: Really put a smile on my face. I think you're absolutely right. The point of the bible is not to be an accurate depiction of the world's history, it is meant to be a moral guide to the people who have faith in it's god. Thank you for this debate, I enjoyed it very much and I hope we see you around some more here.

---

I hunt for the truth