Well, you may have thought I demolished the flood in my last post, but I'm back with more. And this time we aren't going to look at the scientific evidence against a flood, but historical evidence. First off, I'm going to need your full attention. I am going to explain some historical facts which lead to a monumental proof against the flood.
First off: If you read the genealogy in genesis, you can calculate that the flood began 1,656 years after the beginning of the world. Now, in the Biblical Year 3155, the temple was built (although Josephus recorded it as 3102). Now, the biblical year 3155 corresponds with the year 1000 B.C. Using that, we can trace when the flood happened by our mainstream timeline:
Bible Year: 1656-------------3155
B.C. Year: 2501-------------1000
Now, what could we possibly do to disprove this? Well, if we found cultures that existed before and after 2500 B.C., we can know that there was no global flood. We can know this because Noah and his family would have belonged to a single culture, and cultures springing back up using the same traditions they had before, with the exact same language, would be impossible. So do we have this? Yes. The Egyptian Pyramids were built about 2560 B.C. So apparently, the Egyptians weren't affected by the global flood! Assyria wasn't either, and neither was China or Sumer.
So we have historical documents attesting to the fact that there was no global flood, not to mention the evidence that the flood was borrowed from earlier myths.
[An interesting side note: Robert G. Ingersoll hypothesized that the flood legend originated from a story about how the earth began(See pages 57-58 in the link). The Babylonian creation myth tells of 8 people coming out of the waters and starting humanity. Thus, the story of the world's birth became the story of the world's rebirth.]
In Conclusion, I'd like to rebutt some of the supposed evidences of the Flood, and leave you with a few outstanding questions creation scientists need to answer.
Marine Fossils on Mountains
Fossils that go through millions of years worth of Rock
Noah's Ark has been found!
Fossils that show evidence of Rapid Burial
Questions for Creationists:
* If you were to take two of each kind, what would you do with colonial animals like ants and termites?
* Why doesn't mitochondrial DNA show that our population dwindled down to a few people several thousand years ago?
* How do you explain Plate Tectonics (The current creationist model would boil the ocean off)?
* Why do strata date to different ages?
20 comments:
The only problem with your argument is that it does not account for the claim that languages arose suddenly as a result of devine intervention during the construction of the Tower of Babel. Maybe cultures that had existed before also sprang up suddenly at that same time.
The Exact same cultures, with the exact same languages, worshipping the exact same gods all suddenly sprang up again in this event? All of them made up the gods that were originally worshipped in the area? All the cultures I mentioned have an unbroken history from about 3000 B.C. onward to at least 1000 B.C.
Your hypothesis would be downright unplausible.
Of course it is! Creationism itself is implausible, but that does not stop those hypocrites from pushing it on the gullible with lame excuses like that I offered. We all know from history that languages themselves EVOLVE. LOL!
Well, if someone who believes this stumbles onto this page they should find out why it's wrong. Make sure you spread my site around so that can happen!
This is a compelling argument against Noah and his flood! Well done as usual!
I have tried to find a section in your blog that explains why a global flood could not have taken place, as your e-mail states. All you seem to write about is objections to the biblical account of Noah and the flood in Genesis 6, supposedly wihin the last 4,000 or 6,000 years. I find nothing that tells us why at some point in the past several million years the entire earth could not have been covered by rainwater for a time. Do you have evidence that this never could have taken place, or are you content to limit your assertion to refuting the claims that Answers in Genesis is making?
Mr. Anonymous, A flood could not having taken place any time in the past few hundred million years because of the order the fossil record is in. The land animals would all have died. Modern Humans have been around no longer than 250,000 years, at most. Not to mention the fact that there is no evidence and not enough water on earth for the job anyway.
I'm sorry. I had been under the impression that at some point in the past there were no land animals.
As far as there being enough water, it depends on how flat the earth may have been. If we have a "level" land surface (surface equidistant from the center), then all the water would be on top. If the surface were slightly uneven, then it is possible that there could be times with land exposed, and times when rainwater would cover that land. Such a scenario would constitute a worldwide flood, even if the water were only a few feet deeper than normal.
What you need to disprove, then, is whether or not there have always been radical differences in land surface altitudes, or whether the earth could have once hand more uniform land surface altitudes at a time when it also could have rained.
The issue of land animals being present at the same time is irrelevant to the discussion.
Mr. Anonymous, what exactly are you saying? Sure, the whole earth might've been covered with water long ago and far away, but Noah's flood, as taught by the bible, would be impossible. Now, if this flood happened while there was life on earth, what impression did it leave? Just what sort of scenario are you suggesting?
I guess I answered my own question when I revisited the title of this website. I was reading your invitation too literally when you said you had evidence that no global flood ever took place. You are limiting your scope to refuting the particular type of flood and time of flooding that Answers in Genesis discusses. Of course. My bad.
It is actually the time frame and type of event most bible literalists cling to. What sort of flood do you mean? I don't know if I could prove that there never ever could have been any global flood.
Here's one for the Noah literalists.
Before the Flood, the book of Genesis specifically mentions the Euphrates River. A worldwide flood that buried not only Mesopotamia but the mountains from which its rivers flowed would have erased the rivers. I would be interested to hear what experts in geology have to say about that. It would seem though that a new river might eventually form, but it would not be the same river that was there before.
The flood story was made up by Jewish theologist when they were writing the bible. They found inspiration for the story in an old egyptian tale about a flood of the nile that destroyed a whole town except one family which was preparing for a boat trip. You should all recognized by now that the bible was made up. Every single story is a rip off of some other older religion. nothing claim in the bible can be proven because it have never hapen, but the point of the bible was never to tell the facts. Specially the old testament. Who can tell me who lilath was and why is not part of my new bible anymore?
Now, about the new testament and Jesus. If he did ever existed, you have to stop seeing him as a carpenter and learn the fact that, if he was real, he study theology for many years before he decided he was the son of God.
Civilizations with the higher level of blind believed in a higher power or good, the higher the success of that civilization. I wonder why the Roman empire was so successfull before they accepted the catholic religion as their own.
If you blindly belived that something is real, in your world it will be. In this world of blind people I feel bad for the one who can see, there's a long and hard path ahead of you.
When I meet a Christian who believes in the flood, I always ask him: "Why do you believe that an omnipotent god who created the universe and the galaxies and everything else out of nothing would use rain (!!!) to kill off the bad people on Earth? Why not make them disappear (like in the Rapture)?"
The fact is the Greeks believed in the flood, but in their mythology, the flood was caused by Zeus. You see, Zeus was the god of the sky and as such, he used the tools that the sky offered him, namely lightning and precipitation. So in view of this, it makes sense that Zeus would have used rain. But an omnipotent god? The means just doesn't fit that kind of a god.
The Greeks also believed that one of their gods, when he learned of Zeus' intention to drown the world, told his son and his son's wife to build a wooden crate and hide in it until the waters recede. Hmm, what does it remind me of?
The fact is the so-called flood was merely borrowed from older mythologies. It is pure myth just like everything else in the Old Testament.
A few examples:
- The giants in the Earth: the Greeks' Titans (as big as mountains);
- The idea of a god impregnating a woman whose offspring is a demigod (a mortal with powers - Hercules/Jesus);
- The demigod dies horribly and reunites with his father and becomes wholly divine (again, Hercules/Jesus);
- Expressions in the OT like "We made men in our image" (the Greeks believed that the gods looked like us - a head, 2 arms, etc... In Greek mythology, it makes sense, but try asking a Christian what it means to be made in the image of God, and you'll have a meaningless response like "in spirit" - What in the hell does that even mean??
Marc
Okay, so AIG has hundreds of arguments disproving evolution while you have a couple. That must mean you've won! not. Since God is an all powerful God, and earth is under his control, he can alter and change anything he wants, including rock ages, fossil ages, and other things. There is so much stuff that the scientific community hides from you. They've also found proof of the Red Sea Crossing by Moses and the Israelites
I am in the process of looking at the flood from a common sense point of view. With what I have found and deduced, I can say with conviction that the Biblical account as well as not being the original account is also not 100% accurate.
aigbusted,
Just one caveat with your otherwise well written post, and this is something that I notice too often. I assume this is because scientists understand very little about near eastern history or, in a wider since, global mythology.
When you say that the flood account in Genesis is a 'borrowing' you seem to be implying, and in an vindicative manner, that the Biblical flood account is a 'rip-off' of an older original work. This is not true necessarily. The Near East in particular was home to numerous cultures who too some extent share a common geographical identity. Included in this identity is a common mythology, of which the 'deluvian' story is particularly important.
Basically, your facts are right, but your tone and treatment of the material leads me to believe you are making an unfair assessment of the material.
Dr. A. A. S.
Graduate of Near Eastern History and Archaeology, University of Toronto.
Having just read the posts above mine, by nick and anonymous respectively, I hope these two views (one of which is completely flawed, not too mention illiterate), illustrate my previous point.
Dr. A. A. S.
Graduate of Near Eastern History and Archaeology, University of Toronto.
Hi Dr. A,
I did not mean for my post to sound condescending. I may revise it to try and sound a little more friendly. Anyway, thank you for affirming that I was correct about most of the things which I had written. You're right, the flood story may have been written independently. It seems to me, however, that a flood story with so many parallels to other, older stories is most likely derived from the older stories. Of course I could be wrong; I just view this as the most parsimonious interpretation.
Thank you, and if you have a webpage feel free to leave a link.
-AigB
Post a Comment