Where has Noah’s deluge water gone?

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The poetry of the bible is powerful stuff, but only if the events it uses as imagery aren't make believe:

The Power of God in His Deliverance of Israel
Psalm 114

1 When Israel went out of Egypt,
The house of Jacob from a people of strange language,
2 Judah became His sanctuary,
And Israel His dominion.
3 The sea saw it and fled;
Jordan turned back.
4 The mountains skipped like rams,
The little hills like lambs.
5 What ails you, O sea, that you fled?
O Jordan, that you turned back?
6 O mountains, that you skipped like rams?
O little hills, like lambs?
7 Tremble, O earth, at the presence of the Lord,
At the presence of the God of Jacob,
8 Who turned the rock into a pool of water,
The flint into a fountain of waters.
 

Dr.Watson

New member
I read a journal article the other day (a scientific study) on the effects of presenting solid contrary evidence to those with strong convictions not supported by evidence. Interestingly, those with strong convictions not supported by evidence don't change their minds even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, rather, they dig their heels in in resistance to the evidence (essentially plugs their fingers in their ears and shout "I can't hear you!"). I will try to find that article and post it if anyone is interested.

Town Heretic said:
No, it's childish to begin a discussion of an event that could only be described as or occur by way of the miraculous and then suggest the end game fit neatly within the natural order.

Arm-waving and declarations of miracles are less and less convincing to those that are increasingly better educated. It's the reason why there is a decreasing percentage of people identifying themselves as religious, and increasing percentage of people identifying themselves as non-religious, every year.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Praise to the Sovereign Lord for His Creation and Providence
Psalm 104

1 Bless the Lord, O my soul!
O Lord my God, You are very great:
You are clothed with honor and majesty,
2 Who cover Yourself with light as with a garment,
Who stretch out the heavens like a curtain.
3 He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters,
Who makes the clouds His chariot,
Who walks on the wings of the wind,
4 Who makes His angels spirits,
His ministers a flame of fire.
5 You who laid the foundations of the earth,
So that it should not be moved forever,
6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
The waters stood above the mountains.
7 At Your rebuke they fled;
At the voice of Your thunder they hastened away.
8 They went up over the mountains;
They went down into the valleys,
To the place which You founded for them.
9 You have set a boundary that they may not pass over,
That they may not return to cover the earth.
10 He sends the springs into the valleys;
They flow among the hills.
11 They give drink to every beast of the field;
The wild donkeys quench their thirst.
12 By them the birds of the heavens have their home;
They sing among the branches.
13 He waters the hills from His upper chambers;
The earth is satisfied with the fruit of Your works.
14 He causes the grass to grow for the cattle,
And vegetation for the service of man,
That he may bring forth food from the earth,
15 And wine that makes glad the heart of man,
Oil to make his face shine,
And bread which strengthens man’s heart.
16 The trees of the Lord are full of sap,
The cedars of Lebanon which He planted,
17 Where the birds make their nests;
The stork has her home in the fir trees.
18 The high hills are for the wild goats;
The cliffs are a refuge for the rock badgers.
19 He appointed the moon for seasons;
The sun knows its going down.
20 You make darkness, and it is night,
In which all the beasts of the forest creep about.
21 The young lions roar after their prey,
And seek their food from God.
22 When the sun rises, they gather together
And lie down in their dens.
23 Man goes out to his work
And to his labor until the evening.
24 O Lord, how manifold are Your works!
In wisdom You have made them all.
The earth is full of Your possessions—
25 This great and wide sea,
In which are innumerable teeming things,
Living things both small and great.
26 There the ships sail about;
There is that Leviathan
Which You have made to play there.
27 These all wait for You,
That You may give them their food in due season.
28 What You give them they gather in;
You open Your hand, they are filled with good.
29 You hide Your face, they are troubled;
You take away their breath, they die and return to their dust.
30 You send forth Your Spirit, they are created;
And You renew the face of the earth.
31 May the glory of the Lord endure forever;
May the Lord rejoice in His works.
32 He looks on the earth, and it trembles;
He touches the hills, and they smoke.
33 I will sing to the Lord as long as I live;
I will sing praise to my God while I have my being.
34 May my meditation be sweet to Him;
I will be glad in the Lord.
35 May sinners be consumed from the earth,
And the wicked be no more.
Bless the Lord, O my soul!
Praise the Lord!
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I read a journal article the other day (a scientific study) on the effects of presenting solid contrary evidence to those with strong convictions not supported by evidence. Interestingly, those with strong convictions not supported by evidence don't change their minds even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, rather, they dig their heels in in resistance to the evidence (essentially plugs their fingers in their ears and shout "I can't hear you!"). I will try to find that article and post it if anyone is interested.

Ah, Watties. Figured out how an aquifer could go 2 million years without collapse yet?
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
I read a journal article the other day (a scientific study) on the effects of presenting solid contrary evidence to those with strong convictions not supported by evidence. Interestingly, those with strong convictions not supported by evidence don't change their minds even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, rather, they dig their heels in in resistance to the evidence (essentially plugs their fingers in their ears and shout "I can't hear you!"). I will try to find that article and post it if anyone is interested.
Sounds like an interesting principle/study. Those tend to break down the moment you need them for a particular point though. Care to try one? :D

Arm-waving and declarations of miracles are less and less convincing to those that are increasingly better educated.
I possess a doctorate, an IQ that would afford me entry into a fairly select grouping and almost never go about waiving my arms. :plain: Unless, of course, I'm trying to hail a cab or helping to land an airplane, but then who wouldn't?

It's the reason why there is a decreasing percentage of people identifying themselves as religious,
There's a decrease in traditional religious life, not an exodus en mass to the bleak shores of atheism. And that's almost entirely in the West. So I'm not sure what's being met there other than a rejection of traditional approach.

You'll find any number of the faithful here who wouldn't describe themselves as being religious.

:e4e:
 

voltaire

BANNED
Banned
I read a journal article the other day (a scientific study) on the effects of presenting solid contrary evidence to those with strong convictions not supported by evidence. Interestingly, those with strong convictions not supported by evidence don't change their minds even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, rather, they dig their heels in in resistance to the evidence (essentially plugs their fingers in their ears and shout "I can't hear you!"). I will try to find that article and post it if anyone is interested.

I haven't seen any solid contrary evidence posted here by the troll who made the OP. Like so many atheists, he has a strawman version of what the flood was really like. There is no scientific contradiction with the real flood. The biggest problem he has is that he just declares, carte blanche, that the flood story was plagiarized from the gilgamesh tale. He doesn't bother to prove it. He just waves his hands at circumstantial evidence, and says " hey, look here! Can't you see it was plagiarized?!!!".
 

some other dude

New member
I read a journal article the other day (a scientific study) on the effects of presenting solid contrary evidence to those with strong convictions not supported by evidence.

Unfortunately, what passes for "solid contrary evidence" often becomes "my interpretation of evidence".

Interestingly, those with strong convictions not supported by evidence...

I would wager that virtually all strong convictions are based on evidence of some sort.

Arm-waving and declarations of miracles are less and less convincing to those that are increasingly better educated. It's the reason why there is a decreasing percentage of people identifying themselves as religious, and increasing percentage of people identifying themselves as non-religious, every year.

That seems like a strong conviction of yours. Can you support it with any evidence? :)
 

Dr.Watson

New member
Sounds like an interesting principle/study. Those tend to break down the moment you need them for a particular point though. Care to try one? :D

The message was actually targeted to the OP. A suggestion that his arguing with reason and science against a global flood (the calculations he provided showing the necessary atmospheric pressures in order to literally achieve the torrential rainfall alluded to in Genesis) is futile for those that don't possess either a kindergarten level education; or, are unwilling to apply any critical thinking to their cherished religious beliefs (ie: those who believe, without doubt, in a world wide deluge designed to terminate all existence on earth by an all-knowing and all-powerful, deity).

I possess a doctorate, an IQ that would afford me entry into a fairly select grouping and almost never go about waiving my arms. :plain: Unless, of course, I'm trying to hail a cab or helping to land an airplane, but then who wouldn't?

I didn't say that is was formula without exception. I asserted that it was a trend. If you wish, I can and will provide the evidence for it.

There's a decrease in traditional religious life, not an exodus en mass to the bleak shores of atheism. And that's almost entirely in the West.

You mean, almost entirely where public education systems are successful and accessible (which is almost entirely in the west). Agreed. And, it's important to note, that the trend is also only in education systems which aren't run in theocratic countries where apostasy is punishable by death. Where would you get the data if those being educated are too scared to admit that they didn't believe in a god?

So I'm not sure what's being met there other than a rejection of traditional approach.

It's not just a "rejection" of a "traditional approach". Whatever that means...(?) Do you mean to say "rejection" of horrific biblical teachings (like the murder of children for disobedience/dishonor)?

You'll find any number of the faithful here who wouldn't describe themselves as being religious.
:e4e:

A very queer notion to someone who truly isn't religious.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
The message was actually targeted to the OP. A suggestion that his arguing with reason and science against a global flood (the calculations he provided showing the necessary atmospheric pressures in order to literally achieve the torrential rainfall alluded to in Genesis) is futile for those that don't possess either a kindergarten level education; or, are unwilling to apply any critical thinking to their cherished religious beliefs (ie: those who believe, without doubt, in a world wide deluge designed to terminate all existence on earth by an all-knowing and all-powerful, deity).
I got that.

I didn't say that is was formula without exception. I asserted that it was a trend. If you wish, I can and will provide the evidence for it.
I'd take exception to your attempt to indicate anything more than a relative social snapshot. That is to say that if you mean to advance the notion that the more educated in this day and age tend to be among the least likely to possess strong or any religious notion relative to the wider population I'd say it's a valid observation--unless you mean to suggest causality. And if you don't what are you really noting?

You mean, almost entirely where public education systems are successful and accessible (which is almost entirely in the west). Agreed.
Again, you appear to be conflating a particular and recent expression of Western bias with something more that strangles on exception and context.

It's not just a "rejection" of a "traditional approach". Whatever that means...(?) Do you mean to say "rejection" of horrific biblical teachings (like the murder of children for disobedience/dishonor)?
Most of the studies I've seen involve people rejecting the established practices and wholesale acceptance of particular dogma, to be more precise and not a rejection of the belief in God.

A very queer notion to someone who truly isn't religious.
Only if you confuse religion as it's popularly considered with something more fundamental.
 

Dr.Watson

New member
I'd take exception to your attempt to indicate anything more than a relative social snapshot. That is to say that if you mean to advance the notion that the more educated in this day and age tend to be among the least likely to possess strong or any religious notion relative to the wider population I'd say it's a valid observation--unless you mean to suggest causality. And if you don't what are you really noting?

I would argue that it's both (the cause and a relative social effect). The reason is that secular education encourages and stimulates independent critical thinking and reflection (which is counter to our evolved, yet more primitive, social habits) . Raised in an environment which is increasingly outwardly secular (non-religious), critical thinking and reflection is easier to apply to areas historically deemed taboo of its application (religion). For those that are intelligent, well educated and strongly devoted to religion (like you), it seems they are simply unwilling or unable to apply the same critical thinking and reasoning to their own religious ideas that they would to, say, their neighbor telling them that they poses supernatural powers of flight and telekinesis. These people, who despite being well educated and highly-intelligent, refuse (or are unable) to acknowledge that the biblical flood, as described in genesis, is not literal history (it didn't happen), but instead, they're happy to slap a label over the problem that reads: "Miracle". Or, they dismiss evidence en mass and cherry pick the data that agrees with them in order to make the story work to their own desires.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
I would argue that it's both (the cause and a relative social effect). The reason is that secular education encourages and stimulates independent critical thinking and reflection (which is counter to our evolved, yet more primitive, social habits)...
I'd respond that this idea is more reflective of culturally ingrained bias than objective causality and in the not too distant past and for large parts of history the greater lights of the ages were men who not only possessed faith but were driven in part by it and found it both compatible and supportive of their examinations. If God is then His work is a sort of truth and its exploration is a celebration of faith, not a challenge to it.


For those that are intelligent, well educated and strongly devoted to religion (like you),
I'm devoted to God, to the highest truth I've discovered. If that's what you mean by religion, fine. If not...

it seems they are simply unwilling or unable to apply the same critical thinking and reasoning to their own religious ideas that they would to, say, their neighbor telling them that they poses supernatural powers of flight and telekinesis.
Broadly assumptive and unsupportable. But it does come to context.
 

Random

New member
Here is the spirit of this thread in a nutshell:

I come up with a bunch of arbitrary mathematical equations that no one can really respond to so as to make me look intelligent and my argument superior. Likewise I use the epic of Gilgamesh to substantiate my false presupposition that the flood story in the Genesis narrative is plagiarized. I'm not really going to respond to anyone directly, just keep making long-winded condescending post after long-winded condescending post to make it seem I actually know what I'm talking about. I have no real interest in having a rational discussion, I'm just using this topic as a device to mask the fact that I believe Christians are idiots, the Bible is a joke, and that I hate God. I only make it look like I want a rational discussion by using obscure data because I am so condescending to the point that I think people won't see through this ploy. However, I have failed to realized that by my logic that everything would be considered plagiarism because the basic concept came from somewhere else and was molded to fit the culture ( process known as syncretism); even though that happens with everything else. Regardless of this fact, I use the pejorative term "plagiarism" because I despise the Bible and think everyone should think like me because I am so super smart.

Zed Bee, get over yourself.
 
Last edited:

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
What makes you think that version is the original? Nearly every culture on Earth has a flood legend. There are hundreds of these stories floating around out there.

And they are all descended from the same event, Genesis 6-9.
 
Top