Link to home
Start Free TrialLog in
Avatar of viki2000
viki2000Flag for Germany

asked on

The Flood

If the flood was for real and Noah (with his family) was the only survivor on entire Earth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology 
then how come we have the "myth" of flood in so many parts of the world?
Are all descends of Noah and the links bellow strengthen the Biblical truth?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
Avatar of happysunny
happysunny
Flag of United States of America image

The Bible is said to be God's word, but is written by man.  I personally believe it's very likely to have inaccuracies, because it's written by different points of view.  I can turn on Fox News and then CNN and see that people think and see things differently.  I believe there may have been a flood, but only a local one.
I agree with happysunny. The Bible was written by men. Men you make mistakes. If you go looking for inconsistencies in The Bible, you will find many.
Avatar of viki2000

ASKER

@happysunny
" I believe there may have been a flood, but only a local one."

Then how come the "myth" is all over the world in different cultures without any apparent relation one each other?
Perhaps it was such a huge flood that news traveled.  Or maybe there have been floods in different areas of the world.  I don't think floods only happen in one place.
Avatar of Mujtaba_Alam_Khan
Mujtaba_Alam_Khan

>> Then how come the "myth" is all over the world in different cultures without any apparent relation one each other? << 

There are many reasons for this:
1. There have been many floods around the world. Even if you look at recent times.
2. Each myth has its own story and none of them are linked together.
3. There is no proof of a global flood. There is however evidence of major floods after the last ice age.
4. Noah's story is just like an other myth story.

-Muj ;-/
OK, but then we have to take into account the fact that "that flood" was so strong that mountains are described to be under the water.
Which flood from known recorded history was so big?
I don't know of any.  I believe the largest recorded flood was in China.  Who said the mountains were underwater?  The Bible?  Again, humans do have the capability of stretching the truth.  A little exaggeration, perhaps?
>>OK, but then we have to take into account the fact that "that flood" was so strong that mountains are described to be under the water.

Who says it is "fact."
If one has the view that the supernatural does not exist, one will accept any explanation that excludes the supernatural.

If one has the view that the supernatural is possible, then it is not possible to find physical evidence of supernatural events, since the cause will not be traceable.

I find that many of those who claim there are contradictions in the Bible have never attempted to resolve the supposed contradictions, leaving it as a statement assumed to be true.  After all, they have no stake in it.
>>If one has the view that the supernatural does not exist, one will accept any explanation that excludes the supernatural.

The burden of proof is on the supernatural though. The natural we know exists as we experience it everyday.
Ok, so how does one provide evidence of 11 dimensions in string theory?  Not everything in science has proof for it.
>>Ok, so how does one provide evidence of 11 dimensions in string theory?  Not everything in science has proof for it.

I agree. Not everything in science is proven. That is why they are called theories. However they are based on facts and evidence and not just stories told from one to another.

I have yet to see any facts or evidence of anything supernatural.

(Personally I'm skeptical of string theory as well.)
This reminds me of a conversation with Jason210 - he also adheres to the requirement of facts and evidence, before he will believe it.

The problem is, the supernatural is defined as that which operates outside of nature.  If it isn't constrained by the normal everyday laws of physics, how can there be any guarantee that we will find hard evidence of it?  The only thing we have are people's experiences, which are real enough to the one experiencing it, but not transferable to others.  The foundation of evidence cannot be the one defined for science, but one that applies to people's experiences.  We do have those in use every day in our legal systems.
>>The foundation of evidence cannot be the one defined for science, but one that applies to people's experiences.  We do have those in use every day in our legal systems.

Peoples experience can never be accepted to be as strong an argument for something as evidence or facts. People have motives and agendas whether knowingly or not. Evidence and facts do not. The foundation of evidence has to be the same as applied for science, otherwise it may be altered for motives and agendas.

People mistake science for a thing. It is not. It is a method. It is a process to evaluate something that is concrete and recordable, and reproducible. Good case in point is the recent news about neutrinos traveling faster than light. No credible scientist has claimed they have done this yet. They claim they have evidence to support it and are having other scientists validate that.

Good science is a collaborative effort. Crackpots work solo.

Supernatural claims are often made solo and are not often recorded and are most never reproducible.

>Peoples experience can never be accepted to be as strong an argument for something as evidence or facts.

If you have ever served on a jury, you will know that the judge and the lawyers charge you with the admonition that you make your decision based on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.  This is not the same as scientific evidence, they will be quick to add, and includes the testimony of witnesses.  People's lives do depend on this kind of evidence, regardless whether one prefers the scientific kind.  Ignoring the testimony of witnesses means ignoring a fundamental component of most of the world's legal systems.
>>Ignoring the testimony of witnesses means ignoring a fundamental component of most of the world's legal systems.

I would never ignore someones word. I would have to consider it and base that then against facts and possible motives and agendas.

Testimony never proves something. Only evidence and facts do. Unfortunately in the legal system, sometimes testimony is the best we have so it must hold as the standard for justice. Testimony contradicting with facts or evidence though will always fall short, or should outside of attorney manipulation.
>>The problem is, the supernatural is defined as that which operates outside of nature.  If it isn't constrained by the normal everyday laws of physics, how can there be any guarantee that we will find hard evidence of it?

Belief in the supernatural requires faith.  Specifically in reference to this question, IMO, it requires faith in a God who gave his words to man in the form of the Bible.  If one has faith in this God and Bible then one can accept the flood story.  Without that faith, one is not likely to believe the flood story.  
IMO, it becomes a futile discussion.  On one hand you have the believers, those with faith, arguing for an event that is by its nature supernatural, and therefore not provable.  On the other hand, those without faith in the supernatural, or a God engaged in the supernatural, will argue that these events are impossible and could never have happened. It becomes a never ending discussion where neither can see the others side due to the faith/lack faith issue.  IMO
I think you have summarized the situation, sbdt8631.  It takes faith to believe, and without it, there is no convincing.  That doesn't mean one can't see the other point of view, though; just that it is not one's personal point of view.
>> Ok, so how does one provide evidence of 11 dimensions in string theory?  Not everything in science has proof for it. <<

Science is not faith based and it is not the absolute word of God. If we get things wrong is Science we can always go back and change them. If you take religion or religious belief quite literally than you need to provide evidence.

Even recently there is evidence that there could be a particle faster than the speed of light. It is not fully proven yet but if it is, it while change alot of science and how we understand the universe and we will have to accept the change whether we like it or not. For people who believe in religion quite literally that is not an option.

-Muj ;-/
>> That doesn't mean one can't see the other point of view, though; just that it is not one's personal point of view.

Point taken.  How about agree to disagree.

>>and we will have to accept the change whether we like it or not. For people who believe in religion quite literally that is not an option.

Unfortunately, some people seem quite inflexible in their beliefs sometimes, whether they be religious, political or some other philosophy.

>>It becomes a never ending discussion where neither can see the others side due to the faith/lack faith issue.

I disagree. I would gladly accept anything in the Bible if evidence was given to support it. Case in point would be Moses and the Pharaoh. Many of the 'miracles' that occurred in that story are explainable scientifically. I fully believe they happened and since the people at the time did not understand them, they were believed to be miracles.

Today we have the knowledge and technology to understand the science of how the sea parted, water turned red, fire from the sky, frogs, locusts, first born son dies. These were events that occurred naturally. The belief that God put this cycle of effect in motion is also something I can fully understand. The belief that God specifically parted the sea, released the locusts, killed the oldest sons, etc by someone of faith after the scientific evidence that explains it is shown is an issue to me.
If CERN would definitely prove that neutrino is faster than light then I have to believe them because would be impossible for me to repeat the experiment.
A lot of scientists will look at the data and would analyze and probably a second experiment in the same place will be repeated. More data will be collected and presented to more scientists.

What about the common person?
He has to believe what others say.

Is it not the same with the flood?
>>Today we have the knowledge and technology to understand the science of how the sea parted, water turned red, fire from the sky, frogs, locusts, first born son dies. These were events that occurred naturally. The belief that God put this cycle of effect in motion is also something I can fully understand.

We have theories that attempt to explain how it could have happened but we don't know them to be fact.  But these theories don't address other portions of the bible like Jonah in the belly of the fish, the flood story, Jesus walking on water, ascending to heaven and being the son of God.  It takes faith in the supernatural and faith in a God who has a personal interest in mankind to explain these events from the bible, IMO.  If you have the faith you can believe.  If you don't, you are not likely to.
>> If CERN would definitely prove that neutrino is faster than light then I have to believe them because would be impossible for me to repeat the experiment. <<

Actually they are repeating the experiment many times over and at a different location also.

>> He has to believe what others say. <<

No he doesn't. Doubt everything! Beside something travelling faster than the speed of light doesn't change the common person. Even if it changes Science.

-Muj ;-)
>>What about the common person?
>>He has to believe what others say.
>>Is it not the same with the flood?

Not to me anyway.  Among other reasons there are more reputable, IMO, scientists who explain why the flood would be impossible than there are those who say possible.  But, more importantly, there are common sense reasons why I don't believe the flood story.  My common sense says it is impossible. I understand that if one has the faith that God can do anything, then anything is possible.  But I lack that faith so I depend on my reasoning abilities and those abilities say the flood never happened as described in the bible.  My opinion, yours may differ.
>>No he doesn't. Doubt everything! Beside something travelling faster than the speed of light doesn't change the common person. Even if it changes Science.

I agree.  Besides I never truly believed that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light and will continue to do so even if these results don't bear out.  It seems to me that history has shown that absolute statements, when it comes to science, eventually prove to be not quite as absolute as they once were.
The CERN experiment in a different location verified, and still under scientific scrutiny.

http://www.npr.org/2011/11/18/142518953/scientists-claim-neutrinos-are-faster-than-light

>>Is it not the same with the flood?

No it isn't the same with the flood. The CERN experiment was recorded and can (and has been) reproduced. Maybe not from you or me, but from others with the right qualifications and equipment. The worldwide flood, the fitting of the animals on an ark of the dimensions given in the bible, and many other supernatural claims cannot be reproduced.

There needs to be more than just a passed on story.
 
>>We have theories that attempt to explain how it could have happened but we don't know them to be fact.  But these theories don't address other portions of the bible like Jonah in the belly of the fish, the flood story, Jesus walking on water, ascending to heaven and being the son of God.  It takes faith in the supernatural and faith in a God who has a personal interest in mankind to explain these events from the bible, IMO.  If you have the faith you can believe.  If you don't, you are not likely to.

Actually many of these things have been proven as fact. I don't have the specifics nor the time to look them up but I will go off of memory on the example I gave of Moses and the Pharaoh.

Meteorites falling were the rain of fire. This caused a chemical reaction in the water that turned it red. This got the livestock killed from drinking the water. This got the frogs to move upon the city. This got the locusts to swarm. etc. (I assure you this is very out of order and incorrectly portrayed, ,but there are specifics that are more accurate than my memory of something years ago.)

The water turning red was experienced in South America as well. Locusts swarm often. Odd animal migrations happen occasionally but with reason. All are fact based.

The parting of the sea was also explained as a great volcanic eruption off the coast of Crete was powerful enough to move the waters of the Red Sea.

All of these things explained by the people of the time and told over and over will be skewed and sound like miracles. I believe these events happened and now we know how. It has nothing to do with faith to believe it. It is evidence. Denying it is not acceptable because of faith, it is incorrect.

The ancient Greeks believed the sun went across the sky due to being drawn by magical horses by the Gods. We now know that is not the case. Why is learning the truth about how the sun goes across the sky accepted, but this is not? Because it is based on facts that you are aware of compared to ones that you are not yet aware of.

Religion in the past was the best way to understand what we did not understand. Today we understand more and also understand that what we don't understand something, it doesn't mean it is not able to be understood, we just don't understand it yet, and we may never, but it doesn't mean it is supernatural.

Understand?  ;)
>>Religion in the past was the best way to understand what we did not understand. Today we understand more and also understand that what we don't understand something, it doesn't mean it is not able to be understood, we just don't understand it yet, and we may never, but it doesn't mean it is supernatural.

I agree.  I believe that in the past religion was a person's science.  It was their way of explaining the natural occurrences that they did not understand.
But all I am trying to say, is that this is my opinion because I do not believe in things that are supernatural and I do not believe in a God that takes a personal interest in mankind.  But others do.  And, IMO, a person who does believe in a God that is all powerful does not need scientific explanations for what is written in the bible.  An all powerful God can do anything, therefore anything is possible.  All I am trying to say, probably badly, so believers please don't beat me up too much,   is that it is a different way of interpreting the world.  If you believe you see it one way, if you don't another.

As for your Red Sea, plagues explanations I too have seen documentaries that presented these as theories, but I have never seen them presented as fact.  I will add to the theories that some speculate that Red Sea is an incorrect translation that is more correct as a shallow body of water near the sea that could have drained as a result of a tidal wave caused by the eruption you mention.  But I have only ever seen these presented as theories of what may have happened.  
Then how come the "myth" is all over the world in different cultures without any apparent relation one each other?

About all that is known is that at least some of the myths are from prehistoric times. After a few thousand years, big exciting stories tend to get told often to anyone wanting to be entertained. Any travelers would want to carry stories as part of being accepted in far away places.

And actual 'megafloods' have apparently happened in widely separated places around the Earth. One or more glacial outburst floods could easily have been experienced in North America by some of the earliest inhabitants. And a Mediterranean break into the Black Sea was almost certainly witnessed by many inhabitants there. In those and probably others, the stories would have quickly carried to continental scales at least.

With what has been learned in the past century, perhaps it would be more surprising if there were no 'flood' myths.

Tom
As tliotta points out above, floods have always occurred. , "...actual 'megafloods' have apparently happened in widely separated places around the Earth. And as tliotta also points out, the flooding of the black sea was an event likely to have been witnessed by humans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory

We also need to bear in imind that people's idea of the world 4000 years ago was very limited. World does not mean the Earth. World is the concept, it is everything that is in consciousness, and is subjective. Their world back then was their immediate environment that did not extend for more than a few miles. They did not know even know what shape the earth was back then, or how big it was.

So there is plenty of material for the writer(s) of the story to use to convey the message.  The message of the story is what is important. The message is, in a biblical sesne, that God punishes the Godless but provides an escape route to those who believe and follow God. Translated into secular meaning, this is like saying that if you are not attentive and focused on the now, but instead are distracted by your own worldly occupations, then you will not be ready for catastophy when it strikes.

In modern day parable, it means listening to your conscience, instead of burying you head in the sand.

Whether the Bible story was written with allegory in mind, or was based on a dream or vision, or was meant literally, is irrelevant. The message found a way to express itself, and that is what is important.
OK, let‘s go into details and make the story more „incredible“:
When we read here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%209:8-17&version=NIV 
we see that the rainbow was established as a sign of covenant between God and earth that life will never be destructed in the same manner again. So it is a sign for that flood.
Does that imply that was no rainbow before that moment?
If yes, then what kind of climate may have been on earth at that time? What atmosphere structure does not allow the presence of a rainbow?
>>Does that imply that was no rainbow before that moment?
Maybe the typical person was color blind prior to the flood and only Noah and his sons had the mutation that allowed them to see a rainbow.  The rainbow may have always been there but no one could see it.
Rainbows are caused by the presence of water droplets in the air acting as prisms to scatter sunlight.  Air without water droplets will not display a rainbow, and you need a strong source of light, like the sun.  You can create your own rainbow on a sunny day by spraying a garden hose in the air.

I don't know if it didn't rain before the flood, but it is possible that rainbows existed before and only after the flood was it associated with the covenant, much like God turning other mundane things into things with meaning (eg, bread, wine).  I found this an interesting read: http://www.one-gospel.org/thebible/i_thebible_02.htm
>> I found this an interesting read: http://www.one-gospel.org/thebible/i_thebible_02.htm

Personally, I prefer the explanation that God is all powerful and therefore could flood the earth if he chose to do so over stretching to try to find some pseudo-scientific explanation for events that defy the laws of physics.
>>Personally, I prefer the explanation that God is all powerful and therefore could flood the earth if he chose to do so over stretching to try to find some pseudo-scientific explanation for events that defy the laws of physics.

So a comfortable, easy explanation over a more harsher, complicated one. There is evidence to back the scientific explanations. There are stories backing the God explanation.

If I drop an egg on the floor and it breaks with nobody there and then clean it up poorly, there is evidence that it is broken (the cracked shell pieces and messy residue). I can say over and over that the egg did not break to anyone that comes in the room but that is just a story. If you never thought of looking at the floor you can believe the story, but when you learn to look at the floor and see the evidence, the story is obviously not true. Denying the evidence and believing the story does not mean that the egg did not break. It just means that you are choosing to ignore it.

I'd rather know the truth.
OK, let‘s go into details and make the story more „incredible“:
When we read here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%209:8-17&version=NIV 
we see that the rainbow was established as a sign of covenant between God and earth that life will never be destructed in the same manner again. So it is a sign for that flood.
Does that imply that was no rainbow before that moment?
If yes, then what kind of climate may have been on earth at that time? What atmosphere structure does not allow the presence of a rainbow?

That's interesting Viki. I hadn't heard of the rainbow symbol in connection with Noah and the flood before.

4000 years ago, the rainbow, like flooding, would have been a well observed phenomenon. Rainbows would have been understood as something that mysteriously appeared when the sun shone while it was raining. As such, would have easily come to symbolise something. Beautiful, colourful, and rare, and unreachabble...indeed the rainbow has many attributes that make it other worldy, like a sign from heaven, may be?

>>So a comfortable, easy explanation over a more harsher, complicated one. There is evidence to back the scientific explanations. There are stories backing the God explanation.

Not at all.  Did you read the article cited above?  I don't have the meteorological or geophysical background to properly debunk it, but it set off my BS meter.  I don't believe any of it.  All I am saying is that it is unnecessary to try to stretch science to fit a story from the bible if you are a believer.  God, by definition, is all powerful.  If God wants to flood the earth, God merely needs to create enough water to do so.  Flood the earth and when done remove the excess water.  Keep it simple.
What about next view:
- Science implies to repeat the experiment and have the same results.
- How do you expect to have a similar flood experiment?
- If you are a believer then you know that God promised that such kind of event will not happen again.
- If you are a non-believer then doing such kind of experiment will make you a “god” because you have to be able to control the planet and also to live on another planet (except if you want to suicide yourself beside the genocide that you will make).
I don't believe that science either. One of the problems with it is that you have to look at the source. One-gospel.org is pretty much a bible website. From their home page:

Welcome to the ‘Gospel of Your Salvation’ online resource! This website preaches the Good News of Jesus Christ and the coming Kingdom of God. This is the Gospel message, proclaimed in the Bible, for the glory of God and the salvation of all who will hear Him.

This would not be a good source for scientific fact. This is not disputing the story of the flood, but "cherry picking" science to validate it. You don't get to "cherry pick" science to just use the parts that make your case. You take into account all of it and when something goes against your case, your case is wrong.

What is needed is a site that is not disputing or validating the flood but just presenting facts based on evidence.

Some possibilities:

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1207/features/noah.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm

>>God, by definition, is all powerful.  If God wants to flood the earth, God merely needs to create enough water to do so.  Flood the earth and when done remove the excess water.  Keep it simple.

This is blind acceptance of a story. I cannot accept that just because I don't understand something, I'll never understand it, and neither will anyone else...ever. So don't bother to look or question the story, just accept it as supernatural.



...the explanation that God is all powerful and therefore could flood the earth...

A big problem with such explanations is that they carry exactly as much weight and have exactly as much validity as "God is not all powerful and therefore could not flood the earth".

God, by definition, is all powerful.

Definitions don't cause floods.

Tom
>>A big problem with such explanations is that they carry as much weight and have as much validity as "God is not all powerful and therefore could not flood the earth."

I agree completely.  This was exactly my point when I said such arguments are futile.  Might as well say God does not exist, or God does, or God might.  None of the postulates upon which the arguments are formed are provable and therefore all arguments fail in the end. None of us knows the answer.  We just all have our own opinion  
As I said eariler, Noah's flood means staying aware instead and using your mind rightly, instead of burying you head in the sand. Perhaps it does not matter so much if the story was as an allegory, or was a transcription of a dream or vision, or was meant literally, or was a combination all these things.

The interesting question is what is the source or inspiration of the message? Did it come from outside everyday consciouness, or was it pure invention, like Shakespeare? It seems to the former; that a lot of religious knowlegde comes from beyond ordinary consciousness, from beyond the channel of its expression. Moses, for example, went "up a mountain" and so did Muhammed. Jesus went into the desert.  Unless you want to call them liars, then you have to accept that at least some of their knowledge was coming from a source that they did not identify with, that was outside their oridinary consciousness. This is probably true of many Bible stories, including most of Genesis.

Dreams show us that part of the mind is capable of communicating with consciousness in the form of symbols. What is the source of those dreams? It must be something we are not aware of, that operates outside ordinary consciousness. The pychologist CG Jung called this source the collective unconscious that predates individual consciousness.

In his autobiographical work, Jung suggested that for many people, God was to be found in the unconscious. However, it he seemed to suggest that God was never in one place, but rather that the direction towards God was always clear. However Jung did not attempt to define God nor speculate on the metaphysical or cosmological origin of God or the unconscious, being focused instead on the practical understanding of how it worked on a practical basis.
Two adjacent questions:
1) What kind of proofs do we need in order to accept "that flood" was a real one and not a myth?
2) If we prove that was for real then what kind of consequences arise from that?
SOLUTION
Avatar of hdhondt
hdhondt
Flag of Australia image

Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
Two adjacent questions:
1) What kind of proofs do we need in order to accept "that flood" was a real one and not a myth?
2) If we prove that was for real then what kind of consequences arise from that?


Firstly, we are not talking about proof in these matters, but rather evidence. Evidence to support a claim in a single book.

In the days that the old testament were written, no-one knew the size of the world. There would have been no communication between the different continents to confirm that the "world" was flooded. There was little communincation between different lands. So how could anyone claim that the world had been flooded? No-one had access to "world" information. And as HdHondt points out above, from a scientific point of view, it's impossible for so much rain to occur.

Since there is no empirical basis for this claim, it's not even worth looking for evidence to support it. A claim in a book is not enough to warrant an investigation.

The bible is not a science or history book. However, the story may be anecdotal considered evidence that floods did occur.


> flood story  <

We don't meet flood story we meet flood stories all over the world.
Floods happen all the times around the world.
Not only that, the stories have nothing in common but water.

-Muj ;-)
But they are not an "extinct event".
>> But they are not an "extinct event". <<

No flood in the world is. If people were extinct than how is that they recorded the flood.

-Muj ;-|
Noah with his family
> Noah with his family <

I meant in other places and even about the floods before Noah.

-Muj ;-|
"If people were extinct than how is that they recorded the flood."
What about! was only one flood of such dimensions and all others are descends of Noah.
In fact we do not know about the Noah flood from him, somehow recorded.
The information is coming from Moses and he had the information directly revealed from God.
viki2000

All of your points to validate the flood are just based on stories. You have laid out not one piece of evidence other than people in the distant past talking about the flood.

Every link presented in this discussion to validate any of the points for the flood all have either the word myth, bible, or gospel in the URL. This means they are story based and not fact based.

On the other side, multiple points that are negating the possibility of the flood are based on facts and evidence, along with some just pointing out one of the many impossibilities of this flood ever having happened on this scale.

If there is one fact or evidence that might be credible to validate the worldwide flood, then I would consider it possible, but otherwise it is still just a story.

Anthony
Anthony,

My points were only suggestions and not solid arguments for a scientific view.
Please tell me what could we consider as facts or evidences credible in order to accept that flood as a true event?
@hdhondt , ID: 37189886
Does that imply that a flood of such extent can never take place on earth and then to have survivors of any kind?
>>Please tell me what could we consider as facts or evidences credible in order to accept that flood as a true event?

This just off the top of my head at about 1AM so take it with a grain of salt. Possibly some evidence of mineral deposits that are all similar around the world excavated dating the same time period which would support a flood. Maybe fossilized remains of many creatures that apparently all drowned in a flood around the world. Something tying this mega event together.

>>Does that imply that a flood of such extent can never take place on earth and then to have survivors of any kind?

A flood of the scale in the Bible in the time period of 40 days or something similar with no supporting evidence left behind? No.

(Great discussion BTW)   :)

> Does that imply that a flood of such extent can never take place on earth and then to have survivors of any kind?

If you read what I posted, that's about it: nobody could survive a flood like that.
Every one knows that very long time ago on earth existed dinosaurs and arrived a moment when they disappeared. And I believe together with them many other species.
That was another extinction event.

Why they disappeared? What was the cause?
There are theories (speculative) and we can read some for example some here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur#Extinction_of_major_groups
http://www.calvinwlew.com/issuepapers/dinosaurextinctiontheories.htm
http://www.unmuseum.org/deaddino.htm 

We rather tend to accept easier any of these theories related with dinosaurs than the flood story.
Why?
Because the "stories" told by scientists tend to male sense. The stories by creationists about a flood do not, it's as simple as that.

For example:

Why is there no fossil evidence that people lived at the same time as dinosaurs?
The first egyptian civilisations occurred at about the same time as the flood, according to creationists. Why did they not record it? They had writing that we can read.

On a more practical level, let's assume that creationists are correct and the universe is really less than 10,000 years old. What would that imply? For starters, our theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity have to be wrong, as those are the theories used to prove that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. In that case our computers can't work (they rely on quantum mechanics). GPS units can't work either as they rely on both quantum mechanics and relativity. And that's just the beginning. Essentially, just about everything we know from science would be wrong in some way.

I do not think scientists are that deluded.
Scientists arent deluded but they are on a journey like all of us. The global flood is a historical fact, whether you ascribe that to God or not isnt an issue. Personally I believe that bible account. I also believe that this refers back to a point in time that isnt documented fully in the current bible (Take the book of Enoch for example which is now missing from the canon). Nephilim and all the stories around them make alot of sense to me.

The flood was an historical event and all the stories point us back to Genesis. Its true that early scientists would often look to the bible to help them find answers and come with new theories/explanations  .. God does not throw dice.
@ viki2000

You see the problem is with that this kind of flood there is no evidence of it on earth.
Such a big flood at a Global level, covering Mountains should have been discovered by now but there is nothing.

What we have is different myth stories of floods happening at different times there is no evidence of those and its the same for the Bible story.

-Muj ;-)
@ hdhondt

-      Regarding the ye
-      ars count view: the Creation in Bible is said to be done in 6 days and then our history started.
-      The information above was revealed by God to Moeses but we do not know in what way.
-      According with relativity theory the way how the time is perceived by an external observer depends by the reference system. The time is not absolute.
-      When we say 6 days or 6000 years or whatever why are we stuck with our “old” understanding about time?

“I do not think scientists are that deluded.”

Sometimes they are, because they are simple human beings like us, with their limitations.

Our civilization and scientifically knowledge is not absolute. At a specific moment in time we know/understand at a certain level.
The laws of the universe that we discover, the understanding of the things are not the same.
What we know now will not be the same in the next let’s say 2000 years or maybe next 200 years.
The interpretation of universe laws are not necessarily denied, but we realize they apply only at certain situations, they have limits – because they are models of understanding the universe.

There are moments in our evolution when we cannot explain all the things that we would like to explain.

Let’s imagine somebody from our time to go back 500-1000 years ago and try to explain CERN experiment to people from that time. Or if you want imagine another civilization from another planet less evolved technological. There are very low chances to make them understand our present “truth”. What can they do? Only to believe.

@Muj

 - Regarding the doubts: totally agree for our daily business, jobs.
But there are situations when that does not apply or better said is not recommended to be used: - when our civilization does not have the proper scientifically knowledge to prove some stories as true stories AND when there is not a second chance.

Now we look back at that flood as a story.
What about if we look into the future: the next extinction event?
>>Let’s imagine somebody from our time to go back 500-1000 years ago and try to explain CERN experiment to people from that time.

Arthur C. Clarke - "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

The reason religion is so prevelant in the past and atheists are growing in numbers is because we are understanding things that show that what we thought of as "magic" is really explainable and not so mysterious.. (Example from my post above "The ancient Greeks believed the sun went across the sky due to being drawn by magical horses by the Gods. We now know that is not the case.")

>>What we know now will not be the same in the next let’s say 2000 years or maybe next 200 years.

Exactly! Every scientist that is worth their salt will tell you the same thing. We understand that we don't know everything and will continue to learn and strive to learn. If left to religion and just believe the stories, we wouldn't learn and would stay stagnant believing the sun is drawn across the sky by magical horses.



> According with relativity theory the way how the time is perceived by an external observer depends by the reference system. The time is not absolute.

Let me spell it out one last time:

Scientists use their understanding of the theories of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to determine how old the universe is.

They use those exact same theories to develop computers and GPS systems.

Hence, if you think the scientific age of the universe is wrong by a factor of more than a million, why on earth would you think that computers and GPS systems actually work?
Could you provide some info to sustain what you said above?
Meaning: when a computer or a GPS system was/is developed/designed how the theories of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are used?
I don’t know if you understand my point:
- when scientists people design/develop a computer or a GPS they use many technical knowledge and laws from physics but I personally believe they not even look at General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics because they do not need that.
- I agree that these laws apply as models in understanding our Universe but that does not imply they use them somehow in their design.


When you look on http://www.pbs.org/ website or some of the books/lectures written by Hawking http://www.hawking.org.uk/ then few new things are opened in front of our eyes: more dimensions, traveling time (or better said no need for only direction in physics time), consequences of unified fields and many other things that  seem more related with SF than science – but that is nice.

I see no problem with the factor that you mentioned.
With the twin paradox example here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox the Lorenz factor is 100 – quite big, but all these limits are given in the view of the present known laws.

What would you say that beyond unified fields are more forces than we know now?
That will change again little bit our perspective.
@viki2000

>> when our civilization does not have the proper scientifically knowledge to prove some stories as true stories <<

We do have enough Science to prove that there was "No Global Flood".

The main problem with religious belief is that they still refuse to accept Science.
Some fundamental people believe the earth is only 10,000 years old, despite there being so much evidence to prove that isn't the case.  

Religions only tend to accept Science that doesn't go against their beliefs, for everything else either Science is wrong or Science doesn't have enough knowledge.

If religious people don't have an answer to Science and can't dismiss Science, that part of belief becomes a matter of Faith!

-Muj ;-|
@viki2000

Let me be quite clear about this:

1. Engineers and scientists designing computer chips do use quantum mechanics. The people who design the actual computers do not.

2. Every single GPS unit in existence has to use General Relativity to correct the timing of the GPS satellite signals (to allow for the relativistic effects of the speed and altitude of the satellites). Without that correction it would not be able to give you your correct location.

So I'm afraid you can't wriggle out of it. Either you accept that the universe is extremely old; or you stop using GPS, computers, mobile, TV sets and just about any piece of high-tech equipment, as they obviously cannot work.

Regarding your last point: Yes, I do accept that we will need to change our scientific theories in the future. We already know that, for example, we need a completely new theory to merge Special Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. But, whatever the new theory turns out to be, you will find that it incorporates the current theories. Exactly the same happened when Relativity superceded Newton's theory of gravitation. Under ordinary circumstances (e.g. when sending a spacecraft to Mars), we still use Newton. It's only in extreme circumstances, when speed and/or gravity are very high, or the required precision is extreme, that we need to use Relativity.

Remember that both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics agree with all measurements so far, with precision up to 13 digits. They may be wrong at the 14th or 15th decimal place, and that's where future theories will come in.
@hdhondt:
1)      I know that scientists try and have prototypes for: quantum chips, chips working with light instead of electrons – where you need quantum mechanics (and personally I believe that would be the future of computers), apply quantum mechanics in their trials with some flash memories in future developments, but for the normal production of chips used in our daily computers: CPU or basic logic IC circuits you do not need that. I can bet, and we can ask Intel and AMD: they work for special chips designs where they apply quantum mechanics – but not for the last decade chips until today in normal series production.
2)      And regarding the GPS you mentioned the proper word: ”correction”. In order to have the GPS systems working, and their initial design you need the basics of triangulation and nothing from General Relativity. They did not even thought about it. That came later only for a better precision of 7 microseconds. It is a offset correction and not a design about the functionality of the entire system:
@Muj:
“We do have enough Science to prove that there was "No Global Flood””
Except the points mentioned by hdhondt in ID: 37189886, could you mention more?
@viki2000

The points mentioned only point to an event that left "No Trace" of it except a biblical story.
Science only deals with the natural not the super-natural.

If we are to believe such stories than any myth stories in any religion are possible by any God or Gods.
Which of course we don't because there isn't any evidence for them.

-Muj ;-/
This is a problem for religion.

People tend to mix up science and religion and take events and narratives in the Bible as descriptions of empirical events. One needs to undertsand that God, and spiritual events and descriptions cre based on a reality beyond ordinary consciousness, instead of projecting these things onto the empirical world.

Believing in stroies like Noah's flood is like believing in fantasy, like Lord of the Rings. There may be some moral behind the story but the belief itself is based on something imagined, rather than something real.

A better approach would be to start with what science tells, and look for God in the that. For example, science does not have any asnwers regarding the origin of life, nor what consciousness is. It all gets blurry at that level.

I think part of the problem in Christianity (although it is true also fior other religions) is that Biblical canon removed much of the mysticsm from Christianity, reducing it to a number of concrete beliefs that were palatable to the mediaeval mind. From like 350 AD onwards, societies were concerned with security and survival - not meditation or spiritual knowledge. Therefore a simple code that they could follow, based on a few simple beliefs, was good enough. But for those prepared to look a bit deeper, the truth has always been there. As Jesus is quoted to have said in Mathew 7:7  "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you". You should study John more:

Jesus himself used allegory a lot. He was conscious of this also, as we see in this:

These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.
John 16:25
Here he speaks of overcoming the world:

These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world
John 16:33
Here very clearly put:
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
John 17:3

While this thread might seem to be about Noah, it's actually about how we interpret spiritual text. If you interpret it empirically it leads to problems. Interpret it  spiritually and the meanings apply to another, inner dimension. Unless we interpret it spiritually we may get stuck in a dissatisfied, resteless state where we are looking for "proofs" for the biblical stories and trying to actuate them as empircal realities.

Jesus, in those above quotes, seems to be telling us that if you look hard enough you'll find what you are looking for, and that he doesn't always use proverbs, and that he has "overcome" the world and finally that eternal life means knowing God.

I don't think he's using proverbs when he says that eternal life comes from knowing God, but the language can be misleading. If I were to strip that language of its Biblical language and use present day concepts and terminology, I would rewrite that as meaning "Once you know reality, and know your true identity, you will see that there can be no death, that death happens but you remain unaffected by it. However you need to know who this "you" is. There are many aspects to our worldy existence, but only on that is timeless and changeless.






>People tend to mix up science and religion

On the contrary, the fact is historically, scientists have had no problem believing in God and believing in science - it is only in the last century that people have tried to insist that the two are incompatible.  You can find plenty of examples of world-renown scientists in history who were believers.  From a theoretical perspective, there should be no conflict - science reveals what God has put in place and how the universe operates as his creation.
>> it is only in the last century that people have tried to insist that the two are incompatible. <<

The two were never compatible. Everything in the past had to go according to the Chruch.
If there was no separating, we still would believe that the earth was flat.

-Muj :-/
Are we going back to that "Roman Catholic Church determined everything" argument again?
England did not submit to the pope, and the United States didn't either.
And I would also add the event called the "Reformation", which changed the concept of a single church authority.
If science and religion would be 100% incompatible then we would see no scientists believing in God.
Do you know some? I know some.
>>If religious people don't have an answer to Science and can't dismiss Science, that part of belief becomes a matter of Faith!

I agree completely. IMO,  If you are going to accept the entire bible as the literal word of God given to man and all of it as true, then the only plausible reasoning you can use is that you do so because of faith.  Trying to construct evidence based arguments to support such parts of the bible as the flood story is futile because the evidence will eventually be against such stories being true. IMO

I also agree with most of what Jason210 said above.  Certain stories told in the bible and elsewhere endure because they resonate with something fundamental in most people.
@Muj
“Science only deals with the natural not the super-natural.”

This is not totally true. Depends how you see the things.
Just consider what Anthony mentioned above:
Arthur C. Clarke - "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Beyond the SF writings and interesting quotes from A.C.Clarke, I think we can look seriously at the present science/technology and compare with our civilization 1000 years ago. If a scientist from our time would be somehow placed 1000 years ago and will try to describe some of our realizations then the people from that time will probably say “super-natural” to what is for us now “natural.

How else can we see/describe the “cutting edge science research and technology” other than close to “super-natural”? even if sometimes the consequences appear later.
Many “dreams” of today and yesterday become the reality of tomorrow.
viki2000, I'm afraid you're wrong again.

Intel will most definitely use quantum mechanics to design the transistors and diodes in the next generation of chips. Transistors, diodes, lasers etc are intrinsically quantum mechanical devices and quantum mechanics must be used to design them. This is even more obvious in devices like tunnel diodes (used in the receivers of mobile phones & GPS units). Tunnel diodes use a quantum feature that makes no sense whatsoever in classical mechanics: the ability of electrons to escape from a trap, even if they do not have the energy required to do so.

As for you statement that relativity is only used to "correct" the position, of course that's correct. However, without the correction the positioning accuracy would be so bad as to be completely useless. Your 7 microseconds is the error per day, and it is cumulative. To get enough precision (say 6 meters) you need a timing accuracy of about 20 nanoseconds. At 7 microseconds/day you would be 6 km out after just 3 days. After a month you could be in the next country!
On the contrary, the fact is historically, scientists have had no problem believing in God and believing in science - it is only in the last century that people have tried to insist that the two are incompatible.  You can find plenty of examples of world-renown scientists in history who were believers.  From a theoretical perspective, there should be no conflict - science reveals what God has put in place and how the universe operates as his creation.

Well, that's not really got anything to do with my argument. My point was that you cannot mix the two interpertative frameworks of science and religion. Empiricism is not the basis of spirituality, and if you go looking for proofs of bible stories as historical, empirical events then you're mixing two different frameworks up. I think this is what Muj was getting at.
I was wrong about the 7 microsecond error: that is only the error caused by the speed of the satellite. The altitude gives an opposite error of 45 microseconds, and both are per day. The difference is the actual error, or 38 microseconds per day, 11 km per day, 330 km per month. The calculations are here:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1061/why-does-gps-depend-on-relativity
Indeed a lot of scientists believed in God and still do, but they don't believe in Noah's ark the world flood. They don't consider that the Bible is a history book, and I don't think you do either Callandor. Also you'll find that many of these scientists have a universal sense of God rather than a restricted Christian sense. Hawking is a good example.
Ah, but I do believe that the Bible is true in what it says about history; it just does not lay it out in a nice, scientific way.  There are only selected portions that are captured, and it describes events which are clearly supernatural.  I don't expect that supernatural events are going to be captured in normal processes that we can see today.  On top of it all, we have human minds trying to describe something which language might have difficulty conveying.  The past cannot be merely measured by what we see and hear in the world today.
@Callandor

Ah, but I do believe that the Bible is true in what it says about history; it just does not lay it out in a nice, scientific way.  There are only selected portions that are captured, and it describes events which are clearly supernatural.  I don't expect that supernatural events are going to be captured in normal processes that we can see today.  On top of it all, we have human minds trying to describe something which language might have difficulty conveying.  The past cannot be merely measured by what we see and hear in the world today.

And what does that mean exactly???

Are you saying you believe the flood happened as reported in the bible? If you do, read my comments about relativity and quantum mechanics - and stop using high-tech gear like your computer, as it cannot possibly work.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
@Callandor

Your supernatural event certainly caused a mass of (impossible) physical effects. You're closing your eyes to the things you don't want to see. In effect, you're saying: "I'll believe in science, unless I'm told not to".
Impossible physical effects - isn't that by definition what the supernatural is?  Things may seem impossible from a scientific view, but it's not as if science has the only explanation for everything.  And try providing evidence for an 11-dimensional universe.
@hdhondt
Regarding the technical discussion above as parenthesis to the present topic:  you are right!

If we look at how the transistors are working and take in consideration the flow of electrons through junctions then the laws involved are parts of quantum mechanics.
I knew a part of them and also a functionality of the transistor but I considered always a part of physics laws learned in school. I did not classify them in my mind. The words “quantum mechanics” sounded to “bombastic” and flowing electrons, currents were for me rather close to electricity laws.
I expected only for the new chip designs (with higher integration) to use some laws from quantum mechanics, but is not like that: even from beginning the knowledge from quantum mechanics was used to design transistors.
Easy readings:
http://www.pbs.org/transistor/science/info/quantum.html 
http://www.pbs.org/transistor/science/info/qmsemi.html
http://101science.com/transistor.htm 

Deeper knowledge:  http://bwrc.eecs.berkeley.edu/icbook/AdditionalMaterial/bipolar.pdf

As a side question: do you know which laws (name/definition) from quantum mechanics are used in designing semiconductors?

As for GPS, another explanations/calculation here:
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html 

Sorry for deviation from "flood"
@Callandor

Reformation didn't help Science.

>>The flood was a supernatural event, so the questions of how it happened, when, and how it passed away are not likely to be answered by science. <<

If it happened on earth there should be a trace of it. There isn't! Never mind the time or how it happened and passed away. We can't find a global flood. It might as well have happened on Mars.

---
@viki

That is a silly statement. Something we don't understand, we don't call it magic or super-natural.
We simply say that we "Don't understand" like many things. Over thousands of years we have understood clearly that when "Human beings" who lacked knowledge and understanding of things have called them magic or super-natural. Just go back and see, People use to believe the "Sun" as a supernatural being. We don't have such beliefs today, why not?

-Muj ;-/
To design semiconductors, compute the result of chemical reactions, design quantum computers, and a host of other things you need to describe the behaviour of electrons and photons. This is achieved by the theory known as QED (quantum electro-dynamics):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics

It started with Schrodinger's equations, was enhanced by Paul Dirac and finally formulated by Richard Feynman and others. Since then, the weak nuclear force has also been merged into it, and a related theory (QCD or quantum chromo-dynamics) has been formulated for the strong nuclear force.
>Reformation didn't help Science.

It was addressing your point: "Everything in the past had to go according to the Chruch."
Which is such a generally incorrect statement that it was easily refuted.

>If it happened on earth there should be a trace of it. There isn't! Never mind the time or how it happened and passed away. We can't find a global flood. It might as well have happened on Mars.

You seem to be stuck on the premise that if there is no physical evidence, it didn't happen.  Following that logic, you can say that miracles don't happen, because there's no physical evidence.  Are you really going to take that stand?
>>You seem to be stuck on the premise that if there is no physical evidence, it didn't happen.  Following that logic, you can say that miracles don't happen, because there's no physical evidence.  Are you really going to take that stand?

I would, but then again, I don't believe in the supernatural.  When you believe in the supernatural, anything is possible.
>>Ok, so how does one provide evidence of 11 dimensions in string theory?
>> And try providing evidence for an 11-dimensional universe.

If String Theory is to be held as a scientific truth, it must predict observed events, and better, it must predict events which will be observed. The theory has deveoped so far in 11 dimensional tensors. Since three of the dimensions are ones which we know the others are supposed to exist but are wrapped up, which is nothing more than tensorial contraction. When ST shows that it can derive Maxwells equations, Special and General Relativity and the Glashow, Salam and Weinberg theory, then we'd be getting somewhere,. But as it is, it doesn't. There is considerable hype about it, but most, if not all, in the scientific community hold it for a theory and nothing more. Or does the church still follow bishop Berkely's arguments about the number of angels on a pin head?

>>The flood was a supernatural event

This claim is based on what? That somebody said it happened yet there is no evidence for it?

>>we have a text which may have left out details not germane to the theme.

This is a true story, only the facts have been changed to protect the innocent.
> Which is such a generally incorrect statement that it was easily refuted. < 
This is going off-topic a bit but wasn't the reformation against the Chruch ( run by the Pope ).

> You seem to be stuck on the premise that if there is no physical evidence, it didn't happen.  Following that logic, you can say that miracles don't happen, because there's no physical evidence.  Are you really going to take that stand? < 

Yes I will. If we allow such statements as true or even as facts than any story no matter how ridicule it is becomes true. Not only that any ridicule belief or ideology also becomes true.

-Muj ;-/
>>If a scientist from our time would be somehow placed 1000 years ago and will try to describe some of our realizations then the people from that time will probably say “super-natural” to what is for us now “natural.

Exactly the point I was making viki2000. What you today believe is supernatural is just a matter of us not yet understanding it. The problem with religion is in believing it is something we will never understand, and worse that nobody ever will understand.
>>Yes I will. If we allow such statements as true or even as facts than any story no matter how ridicule it is becomes true. Not only that any ridicule belief or ideology also becomes true.

But that is exactly how it works, MUj.  God is all powerful and can do anything.  Once that postulate is accepted, the supernatural is possible and anything can be true, regardless of how ridiculous anyone who does not believe thinks it is.
I do not know if we can prove that flood happened, but I asked myself what kind of heavy rain was that.
Is it at least close to reality or not?
I made some calculation and if I am wrong please make the proper correction.
Our highest mountain in Himalaya is around 8500m.
The rain duration was 40 days = 960 hours.
These numbers imply 8.85m/1h or 34.8in/1h. That is quite a lot. Is it possible?
I found the next file, unfortunately old but seem serious source:
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/093/mwr-093-05-0331.pdf 
If you look at the last page (5) with Table5 “World’s greatest observed point rainfalls” we can see that the above numbers are not out of reality.
Please make your comments.
>>Please make your comments.

Where did all the water come from?
It doesn't pay to try to explain these things from an evidence based rationality.  Go with Callandor.  Admit it is supernatural and can't be explained.
I do not know where the water came from, I just made one more step in understanding to see if at least is possible to rain like that. The question is if the calculation is wrong or not.
>>I do not know where the water came from, I just made one more step in understanding to see if at least is possible to rain like that. The question is if the calculation is wrong or not.

Answer, it is possible if God wanted it to be.  Assuming one postulates an all powerful God that can do anything.
SOLUTION
Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
>>Frankly, when one goes through the physics of the event, ist simply just didn't happen.

Aww, BigRat, don't go introducing physics into this.  Next you will be telling me that Santa Clause couldn't fly around the entire earth in one night and visit every boy and girl. :)
 If you postulate an omniscient and omnipotent God that willed it to happen, then it is possible. Otherwise obviously not.
>>Admit it is supernatural and can't be explained.

This is the basis for believing most of the impossible (often referred to as miracles) in religion. This is also the part of religion that frustrates me the most. As I stated above "The problem with religion is in believing it is something we will never understand, and worse that nobody ever will understand."

This does nothing but hinder advancement and learning.

>>Frankly, when one goes through the physics of the event, ist simply just didn't happen.
>>If you postulate an omniscient and omnipotent God that willed it to happen, then it is possible. Otherwise obviously not.

Actually I was going to suggest a Q like being who could simply change the constant of gravity or something. In fact that's not very far fetched, considering how mischievious Q is.
Callandor:
Your argument is this: The flood happened, but it had no scientific cause that we can determine, and there is no evidence that survives it. Agreed? If so, I would add that so far we haven't found any evidence of any other miracle ever having occurred, either. Supernatural events have never been observed. Many claimants to supernatural power, like Yuri Geller, have been proven to be false or fake.

The view you hold is based on a story in book - nothing else. The scientific view is based on 1000 years or so of accumulated knowledge, evidence and theories in is the most rational, probable explanation of how the laws of nature operate. As Bigrat and HdHondt have pointed out, according to this body of knowledge, it didn't happen. It didn't happen because there is no cause, and no evidence. And it does not make sense. We live in world that pretty much makes sense. Also, science is able to offer explanations as to why people might have thought there had been a global flood, when it really was only a local one. We can also explain it in allegorical terms, and distill the message of the story and identify the message as being what is valuable and important. As I said eariler, perhaps it does not matter so much if the story was as an allegory, or was a transcription of a dream or vision, or was meant literally, or was a combination all these things. The message is the vital thing.

The interesting question is what is the source or inspiration of the message? It seems to tme that it comes from beyond ordinary consciousness. Moses, for example, went "up a mountain" where he entered som e kind of altered state of consciousness and so did Muhammed. Jesus went into the desert with simialr experiences, or so it's claimed.  Unless you want to call them liars, then you have to accept that at least some of their knowledge was coming from a source that they did not identify with, that was outside their oridinary consciousness

But back to the flood, and miracles in general. The religious counter-argument to "it simply did not happen" because sciences says so, is that science doesn't know everything, and that it is arrogant to assume that unexplained events can't happen.

But the question is...

WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE IN AN ANCIENT DESCRIPTION AS AN EMPIRCAL EVENT WHEN THERE IS:

NO KNOWN CAUSE
NO KNOWN THEORETICAL BASIS
NO KNOWN EVIDENCE

I don't operate that way. To me, that's a dead-end, bordering on stupidity.  That's the way people who cause problems between the world's religions operate. They embrace some old piece of text, without understanding the real meaning, then galvanise by the idea that they are right and that others are wrong, proceed to kill those who don't agree with them (in extreme cases).

We have these discussions on this TA for years, and we never get anywhere. All we do is repeat ourselves over and over again. And the reason it happens is because we are mixing scientific and religious frameworks. They don't mix.
 


>This does nothing but hinder advancement and learning.

How is that, when we know that some of the scientists in the past were believers?  One needs to understand what qualifies as science (repeatable experiments and prediction of future events, for example) and what qualifies as belief.  The flood does not seem to fit science, so I conclude it is a matter of faith.  I don't try to make it into what it isn't, so how does it hinder advancement and learning?  It is still perfectly acceptable as a true event, as I accept the resurrection as well.

>any story no matter how ridicule it is becomes true

This is not the case.  It is difficult to explain it to someone who is not a believer, but there are qualifiers that evangelical Christians hold, as far as miracles go (I don't speak for other faiths or creeds).
>>This is not the case.  It is difficult to explain it to someone who is not a believer, but there are qualifiers that evangelical Christians hold, as far as miracles go (I don't speak for other faiths or creeds).

I am assuming that means if it is in the Christian Bible it is true, Correct?
>>In fact that's not very far fetched, considering how mischievious Q is.

Except at the last minute Picard or Riker would have figured out how to make him stop before everyone drowned.
You are correct.  It also means the literary style must be taken into account - if it is worded as an allegory, one does not take it as literal.
@sbdt8631

>> God is all powerful and can do anything.  Once that postulate is accepted, the supernatural is possible and anything can be true, regardless of how ridiculous anyone who does not believe thinks it is. <<

I am not saying he can't. The problem with Noah's flood and other stories that they happened right here on earth and what we are made to believe: God made the flood, destroyed all of the people on earth, cleaned up after him so no one would think that there was a flood and also put more people back on earth so humanity can grow again (not in the bible though) and than told the story to Moses. God leaves no evidence for Science to find or anyone else, just have to believe the story on a Faith based.

People will probably say the God didn't leave any clues, to test people faith.

-Muj ;-|
@Muj

Yes that pretty well sums it up.  Anyone who postulates an omniscient and omnipotent God can explain it just like that and no one can effectively refute it without proving the postulate, God, does not exist.  If you can prove that write a book and make millions.
I don't believe any of it myself.  I just don't see the point in fruitless argument.
Now, if someone wants to start claiming pseudoscience to back up how it might have rationally happened that is a different story.
>> Now, if someone wants to start claiming pseudoscience to back up how it might have rationally happened that is a different story. <<

Actually that is the main problem here. People use pseudoscience to promote their religion.
Personal beliefs or faith, I got no problem with. Just keep it to yourself.

Religious people in some sense should be learning morality, spirituality and even humanity if nothing else from these stories but instead they try and impose their beliefs and faith on others.

-Muj ;-|
>> How is that, when we know that some of the scientists in the past were believers

Galileo and Newton were ostracized from the church for their findings as were many others. Darwin had multiple death threats for his findings. How many potential scientists did not explore their potential because they were too wrapped up in their 'faith' to question, or held their findings for fear of the church or the religious zealots?

>>It is still perfectly acceptable as a true event,

No it isn't. If I drop an egg and it breaks on the kitchen floor. It doesn't matter if I or anyone believes it or not...the egg is broken. It happened. That is reality.

Religion falls apart without belief. Reality does not. It does not need belief. Science is the investigation of reality. Religion is people telling stories.




You ask: from where came all that flood water?
Then maybe is also interesting to look a step further and assuming that was no flood and is just a story:
-      From where came the water that we see now?
-      From where came the water in the beginning?
-      How come from so many planets “we” have so much water? Is not this a “miracle”?
I red next article: http://www.ozh2o.com/h2solar.html 
>>      From where came the water that we see now?
-      From where came the water in the beginning?

Scientifically explained:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_water_on_Earth

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question157.htm

>>How come from so many planets “we” have so much water? Is not this a “miracle”?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_earth_have_water_and_other_planets_don't


Muj
Religious people in some sense should be learning morality, spirituality and even humanity if nothing else from these stories but instead they try and impose their beliefs and faith on others.
Well said Muj! That is exactly the problem I think.
@Jason
@Muj
 Well said Muj! That is exactly the problem I think.

Challenge is good and its not a problem (At least it shouldnt be). A religious person sharing their beliefs is no different to schools and universities imposing their theories/beliefs on society, even when established theories start to crumble they keep on preaching because they have no other explanation. Scientists protect their theories just as passionately as atheists/religious people protect their beliefs, something argued to death here on EE, yet it remains true.

So why on earth should we be quiet? The bible is a law book with many practical implications its not all spiritual stories, as Science is attempt to understand various laws at work then religion and science will always be interconnected, the bible talks about physical, social and supernatural laws so its all relevant. This TA encourages open discussion, if people dont want to hear it then they can unsubscribe.

Moving on .. didnt they find the Ark in Turkey or something lol? I seem to remember a news article or something on National Geographic?
@vbellis-rdy

So why on earth should we be quiet? The bible is a law book with many practical implications its not all spiritual stories, as Science is attempt to understand various laws at work then religion and science will always be interconnected, the bible talks about physical, social and supernatural laws so its all relevant. This TA encourages open discussion, if people dont want to hear it then they can unsubscribe.

The Bible is not a "Law" book. It's a collection of some of the religious writings from Judaism and Christianity. It has nothing to do with science or scientific laws. And there is no such thing as "supernatural laws".

even when established theories start to crumble they keep on preaching because they have no other explanation. Scientists protect their theories just as passionately as atheists/religious people protect their beliefs, something argued to death here on EE, yet it remains true.

Individual scientists who have spent their whole life developing a theory may cling to it when challenged, and sometimes rightly so. Einstein is one example. But science does evolve, and the theory does eventually get replaced by a new one, even if that process happens slowly at times. The slowness is probably a good thing - it means stability.  The evolution of theories is the continuous process we see in science. But we do not see any change in mainstream religion. People are still believing in words written for a human consciousness of thousands of years ago, and claiming that their religion is right, and others wrong, instead of "learning morality, spirituality and even humanity" as Muj wrote. There is no place for that in this world.

Moving on .. didnt they find the Ark in Turkey or something lol? I seem to remember a news article or something on National Geographic?
Which one? There's been a few. They all ignore the facts that (a) any wooden structure stuck in a mountain would likely have rotted away after 4000 years, and (b)If we did find one, how could we know it was that Ark? There would be no-one way to prove anything. Here again, we see the absurd mixing of science with religion - people lost spiritually, pathetically seeking that the think will be proof of God.



Science = What we can observe with the senses and the models and theories constructed to explain those observations.
Religion = A set of beliefs and doctrines laid down by a church, based on the teachings of one who had first hand spiritual knowledge.
Spirituality = Knowledge of the Self.
>Galileo and Newton were ostracized from the church for their findings as were many others. Darwin had multiple death threats for his findings. How many potential scientists did not explore their potential because they were too wrapped up in their 'faith' to question, or held their findings for fear of the church or the religious zealots?

A few questions in response:
- Does a small sample size qualify to become a general statement?  Do you judge a race based on what your personal experiences were with people of that race?
- Who says that church represented everyone who believed?  It didn't represent me, nor my beliefs.
- How about the past?  Should we condemn the US government because it had condoned slavery in the past?
There's no answer to your question, because there's no way to know.

>Religion falls apart without belief. Reality does not. It does not need belief. Science is the investigation of reality. Religion is people telling stories.

Reality is a lot more than what you see in front of you.  Hearts and minds are changed by what can't be measured or touched.  And Jesus himself gave support to everything that was written in the Bible, so it's going to be a matter of believing him as the expert on reality or taking someone else's word.
Muj
Religious people in some sense should be learning morality, spirituality and even humanity if nothing else from these stories but instead they try and impose their beliefs and faith on others.

I like too how it sounds, especially having strong arguments from the reality of the past history: no matter if that is Christianity trough Inquisition, Muslims with forced conversions from beginning or other religious fights and wars.
But one word is very important in Muj sentence: impose.
I speak now about Christianity: part of the core of the Christianity belief is sharing and not imposing.
When is imposing is not Christianity – it is anything else that you want to call.
If is not sharing – meaning speaking about it loud, so the other will know the message – then again is not Christianity.
Jesus Christ commanded to the His disciples to go worldwide and share the Good News=Gospel.
So you see, when we speak about religion, particular Christianity, I agree totally with Muj when he use the word impose, but that does not imply that Christians should stay in silence, because then they are not Christians.
To reiterate that which is important about Noah's Ark - it is the message, not the channel. The message is, in a biblical sense, that God punishes the Godless but provides an escape route to those who believe and follow God.

Translated into secular meaning, we could say that it means staying attentive and aware and doing what is right in life instead getting distracted by worldly desires and occupations, in which case you will not be ready for catastophy when it strikes.

@Viki
Jesus asked his disciples to spread the word 2000 years ago, when Christianity was largely unknown and such action was beneficial. How do you know it still applies today? If anything, I would say it is no longer valid in todays multi-religious and multi-cultural world to choose one particular religion. This applies not only to Christianity but that other religion also. While the killing of "infidels" might have served a purpose in a war torn region 1000 or more ago, it doesn't help at all today.

This is why religions are dangerous. They don't evolve. We evolve, but religions remain firmly stuck in the prehistoric age, along with the majority of those who follow them.
@viki2000

I have nothing against sharing. You can go door to door spreading the word of Jesus Christ.

The problem I have is that whatever belief you have and whatever stories you might believe you impose it on others and call it science, history, fact, absolute word of God and even then I wouldn't have a problem if you believed it or even all Chritians believed it but then you try and bring that belief into education, science and even politics.

Christian aren't the only one who do that, other religions do it too.

-Muj ;-/
>>Einstein is one example.

Just to be fair here: Einstein is not an example. Einstein held the belief that Quantum Mechanics was not inherently random, lie a lot of other scientists, but it was only after Bell formulated his test - some thirteen years after Einstein's death! and then until the mid 1980s when the technology allowed - that the hidden variable theory could be laid to ground.

A much better example is of Fred Hoyle, who clung to his continuous creation universe theory inspite of all the evidence of the Big Bang and had many clashes with Stephen Hawkings, who was his student at that time.
The reason I mentioned Einstein was that he was unable to accept Bohrs idea that we cannot know or imagine nature, only describe it. Einstein's deeply rooted conviction was that there was a reality independant of perception. And it was from that conviction that Einstein continued to challenge the Bohr for the rest of his life, and never fully accepted the Bohrs ideas.

However, Bell's theorem does not disprove that there is a reality independant of perception.

My favourite example of physicists clinging to their beliefs is actually quite appropriate for this thread. The Scablands valley, in the USA, were long thought to have been created by a process of slow, but continual, erosion. This is usually how erosion happens. In the 1920s, a young geologist (J.Harlan Bretz) studying the erosion saw a pattern that was indicative of a catastrophic flood. He wrote a paper about it and submitted it to the Geological Society and was at once ridiculed and discredited because the theory went against the prevailing idea of gradualism and uniformitarianism. Bretz's evidence was not considered. It took forty years for it to be taken seriously, and today it's Bretz's theory that is the accepted one. The Scablands were caused by a glacial lake whose damn broke and flooded the Scablands.

The interesting thing is in sceince, that is testable, the truth does come out eventually, even in cases like this after half a century. But note that Brezt began with evidence, not with a story.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Harlen_Bretz
>>. Einstein's deeply rooted conviction was that there was a reality independant of perception

Not of perception, but of observation, there is a subtle difference. But still the same, your statement was about Einstein clinging to disproven theories, which was not the case.

The example you quote is not the same, since you are discribing the conservatism of established science, ie: the Establishment. A very good example of this is Sir Arthur Eddington and Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar. Eddington, who was the Astromoner Royal refused to accept the ideas of Chandrasekhar although many other scientists confirmed bit by bit his theories (Fowler, Anderson, Stoner). Eddington severely criticised Chandrasekhar's work although his own ideas were outdated. Other physicists silently backed Chandrasekhar but did not publicly discredit the great Eddington.
Einstein is famous because he is often quoted as saying "God does not play dice" and is usually as an opponent of quantum theory. I wanted to use an example of that people might related to, but you are right, it was a bad example!

Regarding conservatism of sceince, not it isn't the same but for the purposes of this discussion it doesn't matter, does it? Vbellis-rdy's quote on 37210733 was: "A religious person sharing their beliefs is no different to schools and universities imposing their theories/beliefs on society, even when established theories start to crumble they keep on preaching because they have no other explanation". Both examples apply.
>>So why on earth should we be quiet? The bible is a law book with many practical implications its not all spiritual stories, as Science is attempt to understand various laws at work then religion and science will always be interconnected, the bible talks about physical, social and supernatural laws so its all relevant. <<

You shouldn't be quiet.  Who requested that you do so?
I'm not too sure about considering the bible a law book.

Which social laws should we follow?
Love thy neighbor?
Turn the other cheek?
Don't eat shellfish?
Stone a man who lies with another man?
Keep the Sabbath holy?(Most people I know do some work on the sabbath)
I don't mean to turn this in a bible contradicts itself or not debate.  Please don't go there.  It is just that it is my understanding that the bible as law stopped being in effect when the temple burned and the Jews dispersed to other lands.  

Physical laws I will skip as I don't understand what is meant

As Jason210 already mentioned, what exactly is a supernatural law?  Supernatural implies outside any physical, known law.
>>"A religious person sharing their beliefs is no different to schools and universities imposing their theories/beliefs on society, even when established theories start to crumble they keep on preaching because they have no other explanation".

I'm afraid there is a GREAT deal of difference. A religious person claiming that God exists is a definitive non-retractable, non-questionable statement. Schools and Universities do not IMPOSE their theories on society - at least if religious people do not IMPOSE them, then neither do the others. Although in junior schools the information may be presented as irrefutable, it is certainly clear in higher schools and universities that the information is THEORY backed up with experiment and fact, whereas in church the infomation presented is NOT theory at all. And that is a GREAT difference.
Referring to the initial question:
-      The fact that are so many “myths” worldwide about the flood does it mean most probably from scientific point if view that:
o      There were only local floods?
o       There is nothing special with them and not necessarily any relation with Noah’ flood or a global flood?

Then why they speak about the fact that the entire population perished except few persons?

If will be any proofs that all those floods (or most of them) happened in the same time, then make any sense to think that might be a relation between them and we speak about the same flood?
>>If will be any proofs that all those floods (or most of them) happened in the same time

All what floods?  Please be more specific. And how do you know they all happened at the same time?
The floods:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

I mean if not all at least a good percentage of them.
I do not know they happened in the same time. It was a question "what if".
Viki
Then why they speak about the fact that the entire population perished except few persons?

As I stated way back in post 37191006:

"In the days that the old testament were written, no-one knew the size of the world. There would have been no communication between the different continents to confirm that the "world" was flooded. There was little communincation between different lands. So how could anyone claim that the world had been flooded? No-one had access to "world" information".

And as HdHondt points out above, from a scientific point of view, it's impossible for so much rain to occur.

Shall we just keep repeating ourselves? Please make an effort.
I understand that but I speak about thze other sources of information which has nothing to do with the Bible.
You mean that we can put together all the sources claiming flooding, and conclude that there must have been one big flood?

It has already been stated that such flooding is impossible because there was nowhere for all the water to be stored prior to the flood. There is no evidence of such a big flood either.

The story is lesson the consequences of keeping to the will of God or following worldly pursuits and desires.
I understand that.
I am just curios if many of the claims date their flood in similar period of time. Then worth to have second thoughts no matter what we can prove/calculate now.
Anecdotal sources of early floods is virtually non existant and is
unreliable. There is little to go on. Science and geology tell us what we can know.
The people that had a minimum contact with religion, no matter from what part of the world and what religion, know that life on earth, particular human life is considered to have a spiritual dimension.
Things like soul, spirit, God(s), heaven(s) are common.
Spiritual world is considered as real as our material world and they can influence each other.


Scientifically we did not prove that such things exist and therefore we consider they don’t exist.

Because we are on P&R, let’s neglect the above sentence and look at the flood subject also from spiritual dimension point of view.

First, the main question here: from where came all the water?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%207:11&version=KJV

Genesis 7:11
King James Version (KJV)
 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Here is important to notice “fountains of the great deep” as one of the source.
This does not necessary mean something physical from our world. Can be the spiritual dimension which once was activated an effect on real world was present.

The flood wiped the people from earth and because of that is related as meaning and importance with the next event apocalyptic from Revelation.
Important to notice that is something similar regarding one source of apocalyptic event: the bottomless pit.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation%209:1&version=KJV

Revelation 9:1
King James Version (KJV)
And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation%209:11&version=KJV

Revelation 9:11
King James Version (KJV)
 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation%2020:1&version=KJV

Revelation 20:1
King James Version (KJV)
And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
So, there is a spiritual being, an angel that releases the plagues.
Something similar happened during the flood too.
Good post viki2000 but again you are relying on nothing but a story.

That's just not enough, no matter how many times it is told or how many others believe it.

Without some kind of evidence, I cannot justify that it happened.
The Christian idea of the apocalypse is mostly the invention of the Christian Church. Revelation was written by an exiled Greek - John of Patmos - and it was written as an early warning about the threat of the Roman Empire to early Christianity, and intended for that audience.
Spiritual world is considered as real as our material world and they can influence each other.

In sense they were right, but not in the sense of epic miracles! Jesus, Mohammed and Gandhi are all examples of spritual world affect the material world, but those influence were through the ordinary actions of oridnary men. Yet they still managed to transform the world.

The bottomless pit is a disturbing image, and has taken on many meanings but for me the origin of this image seems to be the description to the space you would find yourself in should you happen to fall out of your normal field of awareness, usually accompanied by what sounds like clang of a church bell.

Interestingly, the theme crops up regularly in literature also, most in Edgar Allen Poe's "The Pit and the Pendulum" and in some William Hope Hodgeson's works, most notably in  "The House on the Borderland" and also in one of his short stories from the Carnacki series.
Jason210:
“The Christian idea of the apocalypse is mostly the invention of the Christian Church.
Revelation was written by an exiled Greek - John of Patmos - and it was written as an early warning about the threat of the Roman Empire to early Christianity, and intended for that audience.”

Then why Jesus in all the Gospels is quoted to speak about “the end”?...no matter if will happen as in Revelation or not.

For example:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:14&version=KJV
Matthew 24:14
 “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.”
Then why Jesus in all the Gospels is quoted to speak about “the end”?...no matter if will happen as in Revelation or not.

We all die don't we?
The reference was not related with the end of each individual.
I disagree.
If you read the entire chapter then you can see is not about the fact that you and I and everyone else will just dye and we should be prepared for that.
It is about the entire humanity, it is about the Judgment Day and the events prior to that moment: the apocalyptic times.

This is only Matthew, but we can read that also in the other Gospels.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024&version=KJV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2013&version=KJV


Starting with the 24:37 we can read that Jesus is making reference to the Noah sustaining that flood happened.
>The Christian idea of the apocalypse is mostly the invention of the Christian Church.

The Judgment Day, or Day of the Lord, is supported in the Old Testament in Daniel and Isaiah

After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.
Dan 9:26 (NIV)


1 "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people--everyone whose name is found written in the book--will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.
Dan 12:1-2 (NIV)


2 In the last days
the mountain of the Lord's temple will be established
as chief among the mountains;
it will be raised above the hills,
and all nations will stream to it.
Isaiah 2:2 (NIV)


6 Wail, for the day of the Lord is near;
it will come like destruction from the Almighty.
 
7 Because of this, all hands will go limp,
every man's heart will melt.
 
8 Terror will seize them,
pain and anguish will grip them;
they will writhe like a woman in labor.
They will look aghast at each other,
their faces aflame.
 
9 See, the day of the Lord is coming
--a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger--
to make the land desolate
and destroy the sinners within it.
 
10 The stars of heaven and their constellations
will not show their light.
The rising sun will be darkened
and the moon will not give its light.
 
11 I will punish the world for its evil,
the wicked for their sins.
I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty
and will humble the pride of the ruthless.
 
12 I will make man scarcer than pure gold,
more rare than the gold of Ophir.
 
13 Therefore I will make the heavens tremble;
and the earth will shake from its place
at the wrath of the Lord Almighty,
in the day of his burning anger.
Isaiah 13:6-13 (NIV)


Wikipedia provides some good background on it as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Judgment
Yes, the idea crops up frequently - it's not nonsense. But it's not about Earth coming to a catastophic end as in 2012 either (or whatever). It's about the "death" of the mind, which normally occurs as you die - or before. The famous valley of the shadow of death, were all the things we have suppressed in our life come out, and if this overcomes us, we might say we went to hell.

What you're both doing is making same mistake again as with the flood. Projecting the inner onto the outer, empircal world. This is what the church has reinforced in us for the last 500 years or so.



Then why it is written that Christ will come again on Earth by that "end" time?
He said that.
Jason210,

The church wasn't around when Isaiah and Daniel were written.  I notice that you frequently avoid the Jewish perspective when trying to interpret the Bible, which is strange, since that was the context in which it was written.  The people were looking for a real, physical kingdom in which the Messiah would rule.
Viki2000
Have you ever heard the saying that time is in the mind?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR3kEx53IaY

Callandor
The thing that is interesting for me is where these stories come from, their source -- not what the people were looking for. What are people looking for today? It hasn't changed much.
If that means a real, physical kingdom in which the Messiah would rule, then right on!
I watched the youtube link, interesting, remembered me of a known book written for public by Stephan Hawking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Brief_History_of_Time ) in which he describes types of time.
If I remember right among them there were some enumerated: time from physics, from astronomy, biological time, psychological time, historical time.

In the video above we can identify easy that we speak about the psychological time.
It is about our inner perception about the outside world.
A much simpler example than in the video above would be:
- when in our life happen things, events that we like a lot and make us happy then the time seems that pass fast and when bad things happen that we dislike then we have the impression that time is longer than ever. And that is very obviously when we are in extreme, limit situations.
The time form our mind is a psychological time.

For example, the twin paradox or the GPS correction discussed above has nothing to do with the psychological time. It is related with the time measured with clocks, no matter if they are mechanical, with photons, atomic clocks. This is physical time.

The time that we refer in the discussion with “end” time from Bible is a historical time because is described as a series of events that describes the society in future, similar as we can do it for the past events/societies.

To say that historical “end” time is in our mind implies a common/global and simultaneous alteration of our reality perceptions which I is a lot less probable than a global flood.
Thanks for looking at it.

However, I'm afraid your missing an important point. The pyschological procesess is also a "clock", the same as any other, also obeys the same laws of physics. Consciousness ticks, and it is this ticking that gives rise to our experience of time.

As with flooding, and other miracles and supernatural events, there is no evidence for it other than a story in the book. That the world will come to a sudden, apocalyptical end is an idea that needs interpreting differently if it is to be valid at all.

I mentioned earlier that back in the days that Genesis was written, peoples' ideas of the "world" was not the same as we have today. They did not know what the Earth was, what shape it was, or anything. They may well have thought that it continued forever. Thus their reality, their "world" was a mental construction, as it is today. This mental construction begins with a persons birth, and is built up during our life. The more we look, the more there is to see - this is how the mind works. And it starts to break down again when the person approaches death. This breaking down is the apocalypse, and it is an apocalypse of the mind. That is why it is not a good idea to identify with material things, or with the imagination, which is what you are doing when you imagine that the apocalypse is an exteranl event.

If the apocalypse (from the New Testament in Jesus words) before the second coming of Jesus and before the Judgment Day would be an apocalypse of mind then how can we match the description of such apocalypse with the events that will take place in the world at that time?
Do you think those events will be only in our minds?
Jesus refers to Daniel for those “end” time events – and that was not metaphorical and not something that will take place in our minds; cannot be.

Read by yourself these 2 Chapters:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024&version=KJV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2013&version=KJV
>>Jesus refers to Daniel for those “end” time events – and that was not metaphorical and not something that will take place in our minds; cannot be.

I will agree with the last two words, cannot be.

Viki, you can no more convince a person who does not believe the bible to be the absolute word of God brought to man that the stories are true than I can convince you that they are just stories.  You believe them to be true.  Others believe them to be stories.  Trying to convince a non-believer that the flood story or revelations are true is futile.
>>Viki, you can no more convince a person who does not believe the bible to be the absolute word of God brought to man that the stories are true than I can convince you that they are just stories.  You believe them to be true.  Others believe them to be stories.  Trying to convince a non-believer that the flood story or revelations are true is futile.

I'd have to disagree with this statement. I have seen people who were believers of the Bible be convinced that it is just stories. They may still model their life after the teachings of those stories, but they accept that they are just words written by man and not the word of God. These are people that previously believed they were the word of God. .Some have even went on to become atheist.

I also have witnessed people who were atheist and have 'found God' and transformed their life, some say for the better, others say not. In many of these cases though it actually was for the better as this usually happens when someone has hit rock bottom in their own life and are trying to restart, and need the religion as a crutch to keep them straight and narrow.

I would agree that it isn't true that a non-believer can't become convinced that the Bible is true - that is how some people became believers.  Whether it is because they hit rock bottom or something happened in their lives to convince them, it happens.  What some call a "crutch", others call a "source of strength".
I would point out that not believing the stories of Bible were empirical events does not automtically make you an aethesist or a "non-believer". It can mean that you accept the possibility of God or similar but only on the condition that God operates through the laws of nature. It can mean that you accept that the bible is an attempt to express spiriutal experiences. That to me seems to be a reasonable approach, because it does not conflict with our scientific knowledge. It allows evolution, for example, instead of the absurd idea of creationism.

One difference I often note between myself and Christians, is that I am not comfortable when I contemplate spiritual matters. I am full of uncertainty and ignorance, and utterly alone. And yet, there is no doubt in my mind that I am being totally honest and facing reality as squarely as I can. It is not a question of choice, but it is rather where I find myself. Christians, on the other hand, seem to be very secure and believe they know what's going to happen, and are united in that common belief. Very nice and cosy.
I would just like to clarify that in the case of my previous post I was referring to a non-believer as one who does not believe in the bible to be the absolute, literal word of God given to man.   Not necessarily connect to a person's spiritual beliefs.
>>It can mean that you accept the possibility of God or similar but only on the condition that God operates through the laws of nature. It can mean that you accept that the bible is an attempt to express spiriutal experiences. That to me seems to be a reasonable approach, because it does not conflict with our scientific knowledge. It allows evolution, for example, instead of the absurd idea of creationism.

Agree.

There are a lot of things said for which we can bring arguments pro/cons, even against the last statement that creationism is absurd.

The fact is that trough these discussions people are not necessarily converted or changed but are ideas circulated that make people think and that is good.

Before I will close the present question I would like to challenge to one more question related with the initial subject. Then I intend to open few more questions that will produce (hopefully) some brainstorming.

Regarding the idea of the extinction events we can say few things:
- Such event is seen (scientific) in a very distant future when our sun will die. This is one option and we live with the hope that until then we will evolve enough to be able to find another planet or, why not, to control the energy of the sun. So, what we have now is only the hope and a long time that does not stress us in anyway.
- Another possibility of extinction is other astronomic events similar with what was propose for dinosaur extinction: a collision with another big object.
- Not to mention that are threats on the planet, from social conflicts in which many years atomic power was seen as end of the world, or epidemic disease to super-volcano  or any other ideas…

Now, no matter if the extinction events from Bible (the flood or the apocalypse) are seen as stories or not, one more question arises:

- What an individual should do when he/she is informed about an extinction event (= global threat to the life) even if is coming from Bible, knowing that there is no chance to verify with the knowledge/science of the time veracity of the story and realizing that such event does not give a second chance?

Please consider for the above question similar situations from our daily life such as:
- You receive some phone calls (from a bandit, criminal or…you do not know, could be a joke) in which you and your family are threaten that you will die tomorrow for no matter what reason.
- A blind man wants to cross the zebra and he hears a voice telling him to not cross because a car with high speed (let’s say electrical with low noise) is coming.
Of course, these are just simple examples in which the idea is to be unable to verify if the threat is real or not, but could be.
I think people are at least in alert if not more.
In the same view I asked the question above.
>>What an individual should do when he/she is informed about an extinction event

Assuming there is no way to escape,

throw the mother of all parties.
>>What an individual should do when he/she is informed about an extinction event.

Whatever makes the person happy without harming others. The party idea may be it, or it may be just spending time with loved ones.

>>knowing that there is no chance to verify with the knowledge/science of the time veracity of the story and realizing that such event does not give a second chance?

This is the part that doesn't work for me. Why would any event not be able to be verified. Sun burning out (5 billion years from now it will be) or asteroid coming, or plague spreading, or whatever. All CAN be verified. This is the fundamental difference between religion and science. Religion is the story and there is nothing you can do to find out more. Just accept it. In science you can always investigate further. In this day and age we have mass communication with the internet to verify coming from a number of reputable sources and find info. Also I can get a Telescope and point it at the sky to find the asteroid myself to verify it.

Once again:

story vs evidence
do nothing vs learn more
helpless vs hopeful

OK, we can develop and adapt the idea very specific.
If you think that we can verify all with science, then I can reformulate:
- We cannot verify the information now because will happen in a future and the cause of the events are not yet detectable with the known technology.
- When  the cause is detectable is too late – we cannot do anything to escape with the technology of  that time.
>>Whatever makes the person happy without harming others. The party idea may be it, or it may be just spending time with loved ones.

You can have a party with loved ones :)

>>Why would any event not be able to be verified.

If the event is not verified then there are plenty of ways to escape.  Chief method being, ignore the unverified end of world story and continue with life as always.  With of course some good natured sniggering at the fools on the mountain praying to be spared from the end of the world.
>>When  the cause is detectable is too late – we cannot do anything to escape with the technology of  that time.

The f-- it.  There is obviously nothing we can do about it, given your rules.
To help your point along, say there is a gamma ray burst in a neighboring Galaxy and it will wipe us out. We wont have any clues about it until it happens and we also wouldn't have a chance to stop it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst

Sounds like party with the loved ones would be in order.  :)

I am sure many will go to pray and I would totally understand that response and while I wouldn't likely join in it, I would not look negatively upon them either.


The question was "what should AN INDIVIDUAL do, when ....", there is no qualification on the individual, only the inevitability of the "extinction event". It's like being told you have six months to live after being diagosed with cancer. There just isn't any way, given the multitude of types of individuals that one can give a postive advice - ie: one should do this. The only possibiliyty is in giving negative advice, and that applies generally. I'd say "Don't panic" would be the best advice on what an individual should do.

I don't see how all of this is relevant to the original question, regarding flood myths, unless the general advice is to build a boat.
>>I don't see how all of this is relevant to the original question, regarding flood myths, unless the general advice is to build a boat.

I like that!  If we are all going to die from a gamma ray burst from another galaxy, we can get together and have a boat building party.  Makes as much sense as anything else. :)
“I don't see how all of this is relevant to the original question, regarding flood myths, unless the general advice is to build a boat.”

I will point to the connection. It is about our future.

During Noah’ time the people were informed that an extinction event, a big flood will come.
According with the science of that time the threat was not detectable and they laughed at him.

I know that we can say at that time was not too much of a science, but we should take in consideration that the science at a certain moment in our evolution is not absolute and therefore we can think in similar manner about a possible non-detectable threat regarding the future.

The new extinction event, the apocalypse is told to happen in the same manner, meaning that science and technology of that time will be unable to help us, people will neglect all the warnings and will laugh about it, but then will be too late.

Matthew 24:37-39
37But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
 38For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark,
 39And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

This time make no sense to build a boat, will be helpless.
The next extinction event will be not with water, but will be with fire. Everything will burn.

What an individual can do for such fatalistic event?
Technical speaking seems nothing that we can do. The shields and isolation will be not good enough, beside the limited resources. We will not be in a position to leave the planet and to find another place for living.
We cannot save ourselves and not everyone will be saved.

The salvation is coming from Jesus Christ, no matter if you heard that so many times and sounds as cliché.
The interesting fact is who is saved and why. If you are only smart then you do not have too many chances, because is about an inheritance and a new beginning. These are people that the Savior may trust.

It is similar with a story of a wealthy businessman that has a fortune and wants to share it with others trough an adoption. He needs somebody he can trust to make sure the bossiness will go well. It is not a problem of education because he has enough resources to provide the proper education, but is always a problem of trust. He needs to make sure he can rely on them.

These are good news because gives equal opportunity to everyone, not only to smart people or to those that had a chance for a good education.
What really is the point, viki2000, in asking a question and answering it yourself?

But the real point here is your reference to "salvation", which means nothing more that being saved. And I'd ask being saved from what? And since, according to your beliefs (not according to fact), not everybody will be saved, then I'd ask myself whether I'd really like to belong to this "exclusive bunch", those who somehow managed to get god's approval for salvation. For my image of god is one of FORGIVENESS and not one of callous disregard for those who do not kow-tow to him. If I get up there and find out it is like you seem to think, I shall ask to go to the other place, since down here I'm doing MY level best to FORGIVE the trepsasses against me.
"What really is the point, viki2000, in asking a question and answering it yourself?"

The point is:

Regarding the next extinction event we know that during the following days many on earth will remember that a chance was given to the people and the Christmas is celebrated.

No matter if you are a believer or not, if you take the Bible info as bed time stories or in serious, I would like to close the present question and wish you:

Merry Christmas! A Savior was born.
Merry Christmas viki2000.

And to all.
Regarding the next extinction event [some will believe that] a chance was given to the people...

...and neither they nor those who don't believe will be be able to do a thing about it, and all will reach the same end.

Tom
Because it is NOT a myth. The fact that so many cultures have recorded it, the evidence is there to support it, suggest that it really happened.

I have heard that there was a body that was decomposed and sent for carbon dating and it came back millions of years old. It was in fact only a known short duration in age. I wish I had the link on that, but can't remember where I saw it.  Carbon dating is in fact flawed. The problem with science is that many scientists reject the Bible and the flood and so by ruling out a possible answer, do many gyrations--whatever necessary--to try to make sure the findings to support the flood or the Bible. Honest science--asking questions, observing facts, would support the flood.  These fossils and buried animals were part of the flood. It didn't take millions of years.  The flood came drastically and left. Most likely the icebergs were one way that the waters were dried up.  On high mountain tops where FISH have been found in the rocks, are another fact that points to global flooding.

The Bible (in Job around chapters 38-42, mentions many things that were not known at the time and could not be known--other than by the Creator. Example: The trenches in the depths of the sea. No one could go that deep at that time to see them.  

Also Large dinosaur beasts like the Leviathan and the Behemoth are mentioned there with legs like cedars.  Many other interesting things...oh like the "circle of the earth." So when many believed the earth was flat, the Bible stated it was round.

There won't be another global flood. The rainbow is a promise of that. The next time will be with fire. Isn't that comforting?  Judgement day is coming.
One more thing on the rainbow...I think it had never rained before Noah.  A mist came up from the ground and watered everything.  I'll have to double check--but I think I am right on that.
Questions to BigRat:

I just have an idea and I remade your calculations.
If I am not wrong then I think you made a mistake. The calculation results show a 1000 times more water than you calculated. So instead of 4 million cubic kilometers is in fact 4 billion cubic kilometers.
So this would be even worse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere


Then you said “That is an enormous amount of water, which would make the planet go out of orbit.” which I tend to believe. Can you backup that with some scientific facts/figures? In other words, what is the minimum necessary mass (as water in this case) which added “slowly” to the earth will make the earth to go out of its orbit?

Now the idea:
- Why do we consider that the water was 8km high all over the earth? Juts because is a simple calculation/imagination for us?
- Why not to consider that only where the man kind and leaving creatures existed was some level over the earth? Or in other words: in the region of mountains was a bit over the mountains but at the valleys was just 10-50m or 100m over – that would be enough to destroy the life when the water is coming with dirt, additional materials similar with what we can see in a Tsunami devastation.
- Having this in mind we can answer 2 questions:
      1) Maybe the (complex) calculation (related with the various surfaces of the earth) will show that was not so much water that may make the planet go out of orbit
      2) Maybe in the end is not so much water as we tend to imagine/think and the source is write here on the earth.
We just have to imagine the earth covered with water in a different manner not just a simple sphere with a certain altitude given by the height of the highest mountain.

What do you say?
Do you know any good software to simulate and calculate the water volume with the idea presented above?
Flood---water-volume---simple-ca.jpg
User generated image
I find it amusing to try to limit the God who created the universe to a small area of the earth.  IF he wanted to dip the entire globe in chocolate syrup it wouldn't cause Him to even break a sweat.  I believe it flooded the entire globe. That explains the fish and fossils found on high mountains and the walls of the Grand Canyon, etc. It is wide spread and not "millions and millions of years ago."
I agree with the idea that entire globe was in water, but not necessary 8km high all over the globe - that was the idea of a new calculation.
Well the Bible teaches that God opened the springs in the oceans...In other words rain was coming down and water was coming up from underground and raising the height.  Obviously there was no mountain top that was not under water. or some people, other than Noah would have survived.
"Obviously there was no mountain top that was not under water" - agree, but that does not imply necessary that the water level was the same all over the earth - that was my point.
>>"Obviously there was no mountain top that was not under water" - agree, but that does not imply necessary that the water level was the same all over the earth - that was my point.

Actually those two statements are contradicting.

Once the highest mountaintop is under water, then that would mean the entire Earth is under water.

If you had a regular fish tank with mountains of different sizes in it, you cannot fill it with water so that the highest mountaintop is under water, but there is still dry land? Carefully placed water maybe, but since the biblical flood was in rains, that would not be possible.

Either the entire Earth was under water (requiring the same level of water throughout), or Everest was dry. It cannot be both.
Disagree.
You have a static image over the event.
Dynamic is different.
>>Disagree. You have a static image over the event. Dynamic is different.

So in your situation it was like a roving flood moving around the planet? How do you mean dynamic?
I guess my real question is, if you believe in a God who can do anything and He chose to flood the entire Earth, why is there any difficulty in believing in that much water?
Also if you calculate the size of the polar ice caps and melted them, would that explain part--in a natural phenomenon, how God may have chosen to dissipate some of that water?
Going back to the original discussion with regards to Noah and his family being the only survivors, there is an obvious contradiction (as mentioned by a number of people) with other stories within the Bible.

According to the Bible we are all descended from Adam & Eve. Depending on your point of view as to whether to interpret literally that Adam & Eve were multiplying like rabbits and incest was abound to create even more or as an allegory that we all came from the same origin, it still begs the question: If all people were destroyed by the flood apart from Noah and his family how come the story has not been rewritten to say that we are descended from Noah?

Looking at the entries from a number of people saying that the flood cannot have happened because there is no eveidence that it did happen, there is a word from missing from their objections - there is no KNOWN evidence, by known we could say scientific and we have already read that using scientific evidence the flood would not be possible. But as many people have said, there is no evidence to prove that the flood did happen but likewise there is no evidence to prove that it did not happen.

Scientists have been able to get back to within nanoseconds of the Big Bang but are still stumped by what actually caused it. There is as yet still no scientific evidence of the cause yet we all know that the Earth and all of its inhabitants, current or past, and the rest of the known (there's that word again) universe are the result. If there is no scientific evidence of the cause of the Big Bang does that mean it did not happen? If so we are figments of our own imagination because we cannot and therefore do not exist.

Looking at whether things were possible such as the amount of rain needed to flood the Earth. Would it have been possible to build the Ark with its immense size and technology that Noah had at his disposal in the timescale quoted?
The difference in the big bang and story of Noah is not in the fact that there is unknown evidence. The difference is in the fact that the evidence that we do have for Noah does not add up to be sound. The Big Bang evidence that we do have all does add up to be sound.

Does this mean there was no worldwide flood? Perhaps or perhaps not, but what is known, through known evidence of zoology is that there was no way that all the animals in the world today were on one ark. Despite the space concerns, good luck getting 2 zebras to stand next to two lion, and two kangaroos that were from a completely different part of the world hanging out next to two grizzly bears.

The story of Noah is just a story as any reality to it is utterly impossible with what we know to be true today. The story of The Flood may be just a story, but there is more possibility that it has it's basis in greatly exaggerated fact (thought I doubt it).

The story of the Big Bang is most likely fact as all signs point to it being true, but we do not have the evidence to state that it is.
Don't worry, I agree with the concept of it being a allegorical story. I was asking the question if it were true why has the origin of mankind not been rewritten to match the truth.

I also see it as a story that has been vastly exaggerated over time. I went off on a bit of a tangent talking about the big bang and scientific evidence for and against.

The moral of the story being to look after what we have otherwise those that giveth can just as easily take away. However, the giver may give us chance to redeem ourselves,  hence the recreation after the flood and the rainbow as a warning that it could happen again.

There are plenty of allegorical stories in the bible as mentioned by other participants in this discussion, for example there is no way the earth could have been created in 6 of what we now know as days. For it to be created in 6 phases is entirely possible and early writers have interpreted those 6 phases as days.

Those true believers out there would say that the animals stood 2 x 2 in such combinations because God made it so because he has command over all his creation.
And it all goes back to that it is all just stories. There are morals and lessons in there, but few facts.
Interesting. Actually it is a fact that the world was flooded. It is record in many books other than the Bible.  It is the most logical excuse for fish and fossils in high mountain tops. It could also explain how some men and animals got so buried under sediment--without the need of "millions and millions of years."
“for example there is no way the earth could have been created in 6 of what we now know as days”
The above statement is founded on the hypothesis that time is absolute – which is wrong.
>>Actually it is a fact that the world was flooded. It is record in many books other than the Bible.

Yes I believe there was excessive flooding, but not on the scale of the Bible's account.

>> It is the most logical excuse for fish and fossils in high mountain tops.

Agreed. Area flooding would account for this. It does not mean it was a worldwide flood that ended most land based animal life.

>>It could also explain how some men and animals got so buried under sediment--without the need of "millions and millions of years."

But there were millions of years, unless you believe in the "young-earth" theory proclaimed in the Bible which is completely false.

>>The above statement is founded on the hypothesis that time is absolute – which is wrong.

How is it wrong? Time is moving forward unwavering always. With the exception of travel near the speed of light, the forward movement of time, apart from virtually indistinguishable variances, is  constant.
The perception of time, events can be different, measured different - depending by reference system.
Do not forget - the man who wrote that text had a revelation in spirit, as a vivid vision - he did not participated with his body directly to the events.
>>The perception of time, events can be different, measured different - depending by reference system.

A person's perception becomes "their" reality. It does not become "the" reality. If I am watching The Three Stooges and perceive Moe poke Larry in the eyes, that becomes the reality 'I' have seen. Larry however is fine as his eyes were never really poked. That is 'the' reality that actually happened.

>>Do not forget - the man who wrote that text had a revelation in spirit, as a vivid vision - he did not participated with his body directly to the events.

If the text you are referencing is The Bible, I don't believe that has ever been claimed to have been written by one man. Copied over multiple times by one scribe in the church perhaps, but not actually written by one man.

As for the revelation of a person impacting the events that actually happened, that would go back to perception. If I have a vision of a horse flying through the air as a winged unicorn for whatever reason, that does not mean it actually happened that way.
It's takes a lot of faith to believe a such story, while at the same time covering your eyes and ears. As far is reality is concerned a Global Flood never took place.


-Muj ;-/
“A person's perception becomes "their" reality. It does not become "the" reality. If I am watching The Three Stooges and perceive Moe poke Larry in the eyes, that becomes the reality 'I' have seen. Larry however is fine as his eyes were never really poked. That is 'the' reality that actually happened. “

In our daily life is as you said, but that is not a general rule that can apply to all situations in universe.
The moment of creation is a special moment and has not the same rules as our daily life. Things that we do not observe in generations of history happen during creation.

For our state of existence there is one thing that we have to take in account: the twin paradox.
The reality of one is not the same reality for the second. They do not measure the time in the same way.
In that case the time is affected by a relativistic speed.

Now, I do not say that Moses spun as a bee around the creation or Creator during the moment of creation with relativistic speed. But what we know now is that time is affected by speed and that’s it for the moment.
There are also other undiscovered laws and forces of the universe which may have also impact over time.
Beside the spiritual world have different laws.

2 Peter 3:8
“But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.”

Just remember what people on NDE (near death experience) say: about light, fantastic speed through a tunnel, new laws of reality…

If you think at your spirit inside you: if you do not use your body as reference nor the history events from your life, do you perceive yourself younger or older? I mean, except the problems created by the body, illness, sickness, not enough strength or power as 30 years before – did you or not hear people over 60-70 saying that they feel the same in their spirit as before, as always? Of course they have a reach life of experience, but except that…

The spirit inside you is not limited by time.
Everybody lives forever.
There is only one thing which should concern each of us: where (after the body dies)?


The Genesis is written in the actual form by Moses – that is a general consensus, no matter if was a revelation or the compilation of the previous writings.
Different translation over the time did not change the original.


Your example “If I have a vision of a horse flying through the air as a winged unicorn for whatever reason, that does not mean it actually happened that way.” does not reflect the truths of the Bible. It was the same with prophets and their prophecies – some believed some not. Unfortunately for some of them it was too late to act later.

What would you need to believe now that Jesus Christ existed and is who said He is?


Muj, your statement seems based on the conviction that we are now in the top of the knowledge and anything that may come in future cannot change what we know. Maybe we jump too high? Again we rely on the fact that what we know is enough and nothing can change our present truths?
How about that?:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/184564-scientists-discover-an-ocean-400-miles-beneath-our-feet-that-could-fill-our-oceans-three-times-over
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140612142309.htm
http://www.weather.com/science/news/oceans-water-discovered-deep-beneath-north-america-20140613

Could that be:?
Genesis 7:11
King James Version (KJV)
 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
It should be noted that no such 'ocean' has been discovered. What was discovered is a theoretical potential for a miles-thick layer of essentially damp sand around 500km down. The dampness would come from moisture being more or less squeezed out of some particular minerals as convection moved rock from upper layers downward into hotter regions with much higher pressures. As the 500km or so depth is reached, the minerals can longer keep H2O in its molecular structure.

The uses of the term 'ocean' in the more popular articles is for its spectacular effect.

And, of course, the theoretical evidence requires that no such concept as a 'young Earth' could be true. The basic model of billions of years of planet forming is part of the whole picture.

Tom
>How is it wrong? Time is moving forward unwavering always. With the exception of travel near the speed of light, the >forward movement of time, apart from virtually indistinguishable variances, is  constant.

You know it is a "constant" that man walking on top of water sinks. But it is only so because God established some of what we call natural "laws". Jesus, in proving that He was God walked on water and raised the dead and was raised from the dead, proving that God is not bound by the "constants" that we know of and have studied.  The One who created time is not bound by time for example.  The One who created the universe by His spoken word can easily change anything He wants to change.  And He plans on changing a lot of things, including the fallen nature of this world brought on by sin.  There is coming a day when it will be no more.