Originally Posted by Minimalist

You are forgetting one key element, Reniaa.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF A SINGLE WORLD WIDE FLOOD.

Such an event would leave unmistakable traces and, alas, we have none. Repeated sightings of unexplained darkness, repeated in many cultures, would be interesting but short of a massive meteor strike or volcanic explosion (both of which would leave evidence, also) it is hard to see how something like that could be shown physically.

Originally Posted by reniaa

But you are using the final arguement which I pointed out but that there is no physical proof doesn't change the fact that a world wide flood is referenced in many different societies lands and people's and can't just be wiped out. There has to be a reason why it is so referred to. The flood stories exist and there needs to be a proper explanation for them.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Consider the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_...of_Flood_myths

Theories of origin of Flood myths

The publication of The First Fossil Hunters by Adrienne Mayor, followed by Fossil Legends of the First Americans, have caused the hypothesis that flood stories have been inspired by ancient observations of fossil seashells and fish inland and on mountains to gain ground. Indeed, there is much documentary evidence to support this view, as the Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, and Chinese all commented in ancient writings about seashells and/or impressions of fish that they found inland and/or in the mountains. The Greeks theorized that the earth had been covered by water several times, and noted the seashells and fish fossils that they found on mountain tops as the evidence for this belief. Native Americans also expressed this belief to early Europeans, though they had not written these idea down previously.

Some geologists believe that quite dramatic, greater than normal flooding of rivers in the distant past might have influenced the myths. One of the latest, and quite controversial, theories of this type is the Ryan-Pitman Theory, which argues for a catastrophic deluge about 5600 BC from the Mediterranean Sea into the Black Sea.

There has also been speculation that a large tsunami in the Mediterranean Sea caused by the Thera eruption dated ca. 1630-1600 BC geologically, but to ca. 1500 BC archaeologically, was the historical basis for folklore that evolved into the Deucalion myth. One might argue that although the tsunami hit the South Aegean Sea, and Crete, it did not affect cities in the mainland of Greece such as Mycenae, Athens, Thebes which continued to prosper, therefore it had a local rather than a regionwide effect.

Theories of origin of the Biblical Noah story

Flood geology

Proponents of flood geology contend that the Biblical account of the global Great Flood is to be taken literally in which most observed geological processes, like fossilization and sedimentary strata, are a later result of this perceived divine event.

While many people hold the belief there was a worldwide flood, flood geology itself has been unequivocally rejected by mainstream geologists, many of whom consider it a form of pseudoscience. Though at one time even prominent workers in Biblical archaeology were willing to argue support for flood geology, this view is no longer widely held.

Sumerian king list flood

The Sumerian king list mentions a flood which divides older, possibly mythic kingships from more recent and possibly historic kingships in Sumer. In the 1920's, archaeologists associated this historic flood with a layer of riverine deposits which interrupted Sumerian settlements over a wide area of southern Mesopotamia. This led to speculation at the time that "Noah's Flood" had been found, by trying to connect the Ancient Near East Flood myth tradition (beginning with the Sumerian Eridu Genesis and continuing with the later Atra-Hasis myth, the Utnapishtim episode in the Epic of Gilgamesh, and the Biblical story of Noah) with this historic flood. However, there is no evidence that the mythical Flood in the Eridu Genesis was the same as the historic flood mentioned in the king list, or that the Sumerians themselves ever linked them together.

Obviously, there are logical secular arguments that account for various flood stories.

Of particular note is "While many people hold the belief there was a worldwide flood, flood geology itself has been unequivocally rejected by mainstream geologists, many of whom consider it a form of pseudoscience. Though at one time even prominent workers in Biblical archaeology were willing to argue support for flood geology, this view is no longer widely held." One thing that accounts for that is that today, more Christians have become aware that the Bible is not inerrant, and/or that some stories that fundamentalist Christians interpret as being literal were not intended by the writers to be taken literally.

Originally Posted by reniaa

I wasn't trying to make the point that a flood did or didn't occur (that's another argument), but that there's enough evidence outside of Bible to show at very least a racial memory of the flood that Moses would have known about when he wrote the Bible on top of been told about it by God. your original statement denies this.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Wikipedia says that "Racial memory is a concept in Jungian psychology. Racial memories are posited memories, feelings and ideas inherited from our ancestors as part of a "collective unconscious". If a global flood did not occur, obviously, there would not have been any racial memories of it.

I never said that people do not have any memories that came from their ancestors. I fact, I believe that some people do have memories that came from their ancestors, and that there are logical scientific explanations for that. Every human being is the result of the genetics of their parents and other generations before their parents.

What evidence do you have that Moses wrote any of the Bible? If he did, what were his sources? There are a lot of disagreements even among Jewish scholars regarding whether or not Moses even existed, let alone what he did if he existed.

In my opinion, no sensible person would believe that Noah's group repopulated the entire earth. If they did, how do you account for the fact that there are not are credible records about Noah and the God of the Bible in Indian, Chinese, and Viking historical records? Wouldn't Noah's descendants have passed on news about the flood to many successive generations all over the world, not just to generations of Jews who lived in the Middle East? Would you have people believe that Jews who did not give up Judaism were mostly Jews who lived in the Middle East? If the flood did not occur, that explains why Judaism is not spread all over the world as a result of the repopulation of the world by Noah's group.

Originally Posted by reniaa

I was just pointing out a mistake in your original statement saying the writer had no knowledge of flood till God told him which isn't backed up by evidence we have, which itself points to most people having flood knowledge across the planet.

I think the "Inspired by God" comes in making the Bible the accurate real account of what happenned and what is left over is the racial memories permiating down from noah's sons through the races therefore a racial memory of the event, which moses would have had first. That some accounts are just like the flood account in the bible goes without saying as some accuracy would happen even without God's inspiration and inadvertantly backing up the bible account. I'm thinking of epic of gilgamesh.

I don't need evidence that Moses wrote the Bible other than the bible says he did, show some proof to me that he didn't! The arguments on his existence are probably the same ones that argue against Jesus existance which are ridiculous letting lack of evidence other than Bible be proof which it isn't at all because neither guy was in a position to have monuments built to them at the times they lived. Using lack of evidence as an arguement would have most people who ever lived non-existing before we were born.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

And I repeat, "If a global flood did not occur, obviously, there would not have been any racial memories of it."

I remind you that I did not say anything about what actually happened, only about what might have happened, just like your guess that the Bible might be true.

Originally Posted by reniaa

I think the "Inspired by God" comes in making the Bible the accurate real account.......

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

But there is not any credible evidence that the Bible is the real account.

Originally Posted by reniaa

I don't need evidence that Moses wrote the Bible other than the Bible says he did, show some proof to me that he didn't!

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Show me some proof that Deism is a false religion. The simple truth is that you do not know what the Bible is, or rather was. Inspring and preserving a book indicates that whoever inspired and preserved it intended for people to have access to it. Millions of people died without hearing the Gospel message because God refused to tell them about it. A better explanation is that if the God of the Bible does not exist, the only way that anyone could hear the Gospel message would be if another person told them about it.

Do Christians consider the spread of the Gospel message to be more important than the spread of a cure for cancer? If so, why doesn't God? If God had invented a cure for a disease in 50 A.D., would he have told Christians to take thousands of years to give the cure to everyone in the world who had the disease?

The Bible is much too confusing and contradictory to be trusted. First of all, if a God wanted to use written records as a primary source of communicating with people, he most certainly would not have written a book like the Bible. The Bible promotes slavery and the subjugation of women. If a God inspired the Bible, he could easily have inspired the Bible writers write more clearly about slavery and the subjugation of women.

Originally Posted by talkorigins.org

Does a global flood make the whole Bible less credible? Davis Young, an Evangelical and geologist, wrote [p. 163]:

"The maintenance of modern creationism and Flood geology not only is useless apologetically with unbelieving scientists, it is harmful. Although many who have no scientific training have been swayed by creationist arguments, the unbelieving scientist will reason that a Christianity that believes in such nonsense must be a religion not worthy of his interest.......Modern creationism in this sense is apologetically and evangelistically ineffective. It could even be a hindrance to the gospel.

"Another possible danger is that in presenting the gospel to the lost and in defending God's truth we ourselves will seem to be false. It is time for Christian people to recognize that the defense of this modern, young-Earth, Flood-geology creationism is simply not truthful. It is simply not in accord with the facts that God has given. Creationism must be abandoned by Christians before harm is done......."

Originally Posted by reasons.org

Dr. Hugh Ross, Ph.D., physics

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Genesis Flood is its geographical extent. Part of the basis for the controversy is that Genesis addresses the geophysics, geology, and geography of the flood only secondarily. Its main message is that God was compelled to cleanse the earth of the wickedness of man. The message of God's judgment against rampant evil is very clearly stated and understood in any translation. However, in order to comprehend the geological details concerning the flood, it is helpful, perhaps in this case essential, to read the Genesis text in the original Hebrew, and even then the text is not always as specific as one might like.

Originally Posted by reasons.org

A good rule of Biblical interpretation is to analyze that which is less specific in the light of that which is more specific. As I mentioned in part seven of this series, the Bible is very specific about the extent of the defilement of man's sin and about God's response. The defilement is limited to the sinners, their progeny for several generations, birds and mammals which are part of their livelihood, their material possessions, and their agricultural land. Nowhere in the Bible do we see God's meting out judgment beyond those limits. Hence, we can expect that if mankind had never visited Antarctica, God would not have struck that territory. The extent of the Genesis flood would be limited to the extent of the defilement of man's sin. This interpretation is supported by the Genesis author's choice of the Hebrew words for creatures" destroyed by the flood, namely basar and nephesh. Part seven gives further details.

In Genesis 7:4-12 we are told that the flood arose from the earth's troposphere and from underground aquifers (not from some unknown place in outer space). These water resources are considerable, to be sure, but fall short of what verse 19 seems to require. According to Genesis 7:19, the waters "rose greatly ... and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered." The English translation seems to imply that even Mt. Everest was submerged under the flood waters. The Hebrew word for "high," however, simply means elevated" and for "mountain," means anything from "a small hillock" to "a towering peak." The Hebrew verb for "covered" allows three alternatives: (1) inundated, (2) rained upon, or (3) washed over as by a rush of water. In any of these cases, 15 cubits of standing water, 15 cubits of sudden rainfall, or a 15-cubit rush of water, there would be no human or animal survivors.

Genesis 8 gives us the most significant evidence for a universal (with respect to man and his animals and lands), but not global, flood. The four different Hebrew verbs used in Genesis 8:1-8 to describe the receding of the flood waters indicate that these waters returned to their original sources. In other words, the waters of the flood are still to be found within the aquifers and troposphere and oceans of planet Earth. Since the total water content of the earth is only 22 percent of what would be needed for a global flood, it appears that the Genesis flood could not have been global.

The argument I have heard most frequently against this conclusion is that before the flood, there were no high mountains or deep oceans. The present day relief of the earth's surface is said to have been generated in a period of just a few months. I see several major problems with such a suggestion:

it contradicts a vast body of geological data;
it contradicts a vast body of geophysical data, at the same time requiring such cataclysmic effects as to render highly unlikely Noah's survival in an ark;
it overlooks the geophysical difficulties of a planet with a smooth surface; and
it contradicts our observations of the tectonics. The mechanisms that drive tectonic plate movements have extremely long time constants, so long that the effects of such a catastrophe would easily be measurable to this day. Since they are not, I conclude that the flood cannot be global.
As for the reference, "under the entire heavens," such expressions must always be understood in their context. What would constitute under the entire heavens for the people of Noah's time? The extent of their view from the entire region in which they existed or operated. Perhaps a verse from the New Testament will clarify my point. In Romans 1:8 the Apostle Paul declares that the faith of the Christians in Rome was being "reported all over the world." Since "all over the world" to the Romans meant the entire Roman Empire (and not the entire globe), we would not interpret Paul's words as an indication that the Eskimos and Incas were familiar at that time with the activities of the church at Rome.

Further support for a regional, rather than global, cataclysm comes from consideration of God's command to Noah after the flood, the same command He had given to Adam and later gave to the people who built the tower of Babel: "Fill the earth." The fact that God repeated this command to Noah (and intervened dramatically to disperse the people of Babel's day) implies that the people of Noah's generation had not filled the earth. This view is consistent with the geographical place names recorded in the first nine chapters of Genesis. They all refer to localities either in or very close to Mesopotamia.

What does the geological data tell us about massive floods in the earth's history? The evidence shows that the only place in the world where massive flooding has occurred since the advent of modem man is the region of Mesopotamia.

The Genesis account of the great flood is not an embarrassment for the Christian. We are not saddled with a contradiction between the established facts of science and the words of the Bible. Rather, we have one more set of objective evidences that the Bible is indeed inerrant, not oust in matters of faith and practice, but in all disciplines including geology and history.

Does all this evidence for a regional flood mean that the Genesis flood was not universal? Not at all. Let me reiterate: the Genesis flood certainly was universal in that it destroyed all mankind and the animals associated with his livelihood except those on board Noah's ark. Only in the twentieth century has "universal" been synonymous with "global." Global citizens, global corporations, and global wars are unique to this century.

Originally Posted by reniaa

but you are using the final arguement which I pointed out but that there is no physical proof doesn't change the fact that a world wide flood is referenced in many different societies lands and people's and can't just be wiped out.

Originally Posted by reniaa

There has to be a reason why it is so refered to?

Originally Posted by reniaa

The flood stories exist and there needs to be a proper explanation for them?

Originally Posted by reniaa

if you can't exept that it did happen and the evidence has just not been seen for what it is.

Originally Posted by reniaa

Although 3 days of darkness would be harder for them to explain away they would do it, and as you can see are already at the discredit/dismiss the source stage.

Originally Posted by Half-Life

I don't know the mind of God. How would I?

I don't know WHY he does what he does. I just KNOW he does what he does.

Perhaps I will ask him in Heaven.

However, let's say for the sake of argument God telepathically communicated to every human that he exists.

This would VIOLATE free will of either WANTING to receive God's will or being FORCED to obey God's will.

Originally Posted by Starr

What makes you think you will be able to ask him this in Heaven (you realize of course that people going to Heaven when they die is un-Biblical right?)

Originally Posted by reniaa

i'm getting used to the way skepticism works now when applied to history and events

Originally Posted by Donn10

I'm glad to hear that you're seeing how skeptics separate fact from fiction.

You should try applying the lessons you're learning :Cheeky:

Originally Posted by reniaa

From one of our current threads on here, that he can seriously argue and believe that a group of people are less intelligent because they believe something different to him means we have come full circle and man hasn't changed much at all! that whole thread makes a mockery of skeptics trying to make themselves anyway different from their biblical counterparts falling into the same thought patterns of superiority and arrogance thinking another group is lesser because they don't agree with them.