The Noachian Flood

[catfish]

So you're supporting a young Earth creationist's view? Where do you get 6000 from?
.

Ok how long ago was the flood myth set?

it was supposedly during early civilisation so roughly 6000 years would be about right wouldn't you say.

It's not about what I say, it's about what you say... So if you are claiming 6000 years, Id like to know the reasoning behind it?
.

[Minimalist]

As our knowledge increases we discover new ways of explaining these things, such as plate tectonics and related geological process like uplift

Yeah, we do.... the jesus freaks seem stuck in a time warp with their holy horseshit, though.

[catfish]

So, you make a conclusion for me? I "figured" nothing, I gave an alternative interpretation.
I recognise the possibility of the flood being global, nothing else.

An alternative explanation that is equally as ludicrous as the dry reading you're hoping to reconcile (for the exact same reasons- no less). It never happened at all Cat, not global or local, and it is not possible. It's possible that the narrative could mean either- but the narrative and reality are irreconcilable- so it doesn't matter which reading you prefer. You're "figuring" a great many ignorant things in "recognizing this possibility" - so no Cat, I'm not making conclusions for you, I'm reminding you that the conclusion you've come to (and all of it's unspoken miracles) is garbage.

Well at least I got you to recognise that the narrative could be either. The question then becomes, Why would you deny the possibility of even a local flood as stated above? Or are you saying that the narrative isn't 100% accurate?

And for the record so that I know what the fuck you're talking about... WHAT FUCKING CONCLUSION HAVE I COME TO????

I believe in continental drift and I do not believe our mountain ranges have always been mountains... I also read the Genesis story and I believe in underground springs...

All things which do not require belief. All things which do not require a reading of genesis. All things which are not explained by or elaborated upon by genesis. All things which offer no support for genesis.

You implied that the rain couldn't fall and drop "that much" water to earth. I merely pointed out that things which you know to be real should not discount the possibility of a global flood. But I'm sure you'll find some other reason now...

Out of curiosity, do you believe marine fossils were found in mountain-top ranges?

Yet another thing that requires no belief. I live in an area that used to be a warm, shallow sea all the way up until the cenozoic. It's now part of the Appalachians. There are marine fossils in my fencewall.

Since you're deadset on keeping this narrative, I'll ask again, why cherry pick your way through the others? How is the decision to keep or toss narratives made? Throwing darts? Consult the Ouija board? Magic 8-ball?

@the timeline of the flood myth - it happened in dreamtime, obviously. A big roo jumped up and cracked open the sky or some-such.

I couldn't care less if the narrative was kept or not. Especially if you are going to dictate how it should be read.
But here we go again, you'll admit scientific fact yet deny the possibility of the earth being entirely submerged in water? Really, you would deny that?
.

[downbeatplumb]

Ok how long ago was the flood myth set?

it was supposedly during early civilisation so roughly 6000 years would be about right wouldn't you say.

It's not about what I say, it's about what you say... So if you are claiming 6000 years, Id like to know the reasoning behind it?
.

Are you insane?

[The Grand Nudger]

Well at least I got you to recognise that the narrative could be either. The question then becomes, Why would you deny the possibility of even a local flood as stated above? Or are you saying that the narrative isn't 100% accurate?

And for the record so that I know what the fuck you're talking about... WHAT FUCKING CONCLUSION HAVE I COME TO????

A fictional narrative can be whatever it likes. In it, elves lord over kingdoms and fight off hordes of trolls. This has never been and will never be a point of contention with me.

I'm not saying that the narrative isn't 100% accurate, but that it is 100% wrong. Nothing in it, not a single particular, is reconcilable with reality. Are we clear?

You've come to the conclusion that a local flood even remotely resembling the description in the narrative is possible. It is not. End of story.

You implied that the rain couldn't fall and drop "that much" water to earth.

I'm not implying it, I'm stating it as it is a fact.

I merely pointed out that things which you know to be real should not discount the possibility of a global flood.

Right, magic, I already gave you my opinion on invoking magic, and my confusion as to why you would invoke magic to begin with.

But I'm sure you'll find some other reason now...

I don't need to, the narrative, and your excuses for it are unchanged, as is my mocking disapproval for your conclusions. Again, we're not talking about filling swimming pool here Cat.

I couldn't care less if the narrative was kept or not. Especially if you are going to dictate how it should be read.

Good, ditch it, because it didn't happen. Not a global flood, not a local flood. Nothing. Not even if -you- dictate how it is to be read. That's what "irreconcilable" means.

But here we go again, you'll admit scientific fact yet deny the possibility of the earth being entirely submerged in water? Really, you would deny that?
.

-That- would have nothing to do with the flood narrative. You'd be aware of that, had you invested even five minutes time into the subject before declaring it a possibility. But to address this directly, no, Cat, the earth has never been and could never be submerged in water. Sorry to burst that bubble. There simply isn't enough water - nor has there ever been- nor could there ever have been- ignoring all the rest of the bullshit involved in even considering this. This isn't just a fictional narrative, it's a fictional narrative that is entirely impossible (from the angle of water alone - we could address the other impossibilities in the narrative if you like...but how many should it take?).

Never happened, never could have happened. Not even remotely possible, not by any retelling. Is there something I've failed to convey to you here? This narrative further tarnishes an already sullied faith. Resisting it's complete and utter abandonment makes any and all cherry picking beyond it patently ludicrous.

[catfish]

You press issues that I do not assert as true... I merely admitted that I believe a global flood is/was possible. Just as I believe the entire Earth was covered in ice... You deny those/that thing(s), not I.

And you still deny the possibility of both a local AND a global flood? What kind of moron are you exactly?
.

[Zen Badger]

You press issues that I do not assert as true... I merely admitted that I believe a global flood is/was possible. Just as I believe the entire Earth was covered in ice... You deny those/that thing(s), not I.

And you still deny the possibility of both a local AND a global flood? What kind of moron are you exactly?
.

Exactly what you advocating?

A global flood is clearly impossible A/ because of the physical impossibility of
such an event occurring and B/ the total lack of evidence for said event having occurred.

Some interesting theories have been advanced that the Black sea might undergone such an event which I for one consider much more likely.

[The Grand Nudger]

You press issues that I do not assert as true... I merely admitted that I believe a global flood is/was possible.

A brave admission, mostly because neither is( or ever was) possible.

Just as I believe the entire Earth was covered in ice... You deny those/that thing(s), not I.

Again you show a careless and indifferent sort of ignorance to fact. Would you care to take a crack at why it might be possible for the earth to be covered in ice while it remains simultaneously impossible for it to be covered in water? The answer is so simple I'm confident it'll come to you.

And you still deny the possibility of both a local AND a global flood? What kind of moron are you exactly?
.

Neither a local or global noachian flood ever occurred (or could have occurred). It isn't an issue of what kind of moron I might be Cat.

@ Zen
As a vastly more interesting aside (since my conversation with Cat seems to be entirely composed of Cat repeatedly asserting a belief in fairy tales). I'd love to see how that whole Black Sea business works out (both sides of that case seem to have equally compelling evidence). Even this though, is not a candidate for any sort of validation of the deluge myth. It might be the well from which the notion of a flood in antiquity flows, but the event (if it occurred) would have nothing in common with the deluge narrative (save for both talking about "lots of water"). Much in the same way, we credit fossils in service of the myth of dragons, which is seductive (desiring to explain things like we do), but ultimately not very convincing.

[Zen Badger]

@ Zen
As a vastly more interesting aside (since my conversation with Cat seems to be entirely composed of Cat repeatedly asserting a belief in fairy tales). I'd love to see how that whole Black Sea business works out (both sides of that case seem to have equally compelling evidence). Even this though, is not a candidate for any sort of validation of the deluge myth. It might be the well from which the notion of a flood in antiquity flows, but the event (if it occurred) would have nothing in common with the deluge narrative (save for both talking about "lots of water"). Much in the same way, we credit fossils in service of the myth of dragons, which is seductive (desiring to explain things like we do), but ultimately not very convincing.

The Black sea event, (if indeed it occurred, and there is some evidence to suggest it did.) would be a good candidate for the great flood myth.

To a person of that time it would seem like the whole world was flooding . And given the human propensity for embroidering the tale as it was told and retold.... well.

The wikepedia article on the subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_d...hypothesis

Also on flood mythology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth

[Lachrymose]

Maybe the word for "Earth" does indeed have multiple meanings; then we'd have to consider the appropriate meaning that fits with the word "mountains", which we are led to believe were completely covered. Are there multiple meanings for that word too? Any that rescue the nice 'n' fluffy non-genocidal version of the story?

They should have just used "smurf" for every verb:

"In the beginning, God smurfed the heavens and the earth."

"Jesus smurfed."

"The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not smurf."