Debunking Christianity? It's actually quite as simple as asking "why?"

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, answered it perfectly, just wanted to get some intel before I put any effort into a discussion. I suppose a local flood seems easier to swallow. (You know for me it wasn't the flood that was amazing in its scope, it was the boat...lol). Congrats on leaving YEC behind you. On the fence about about god using evolution to develop humanity, or on the fence about evolution actually occurring?

optimus prime = red
red exists
ergo optimus prime exists.

[Emanuel]

(You know for me it wasn't the flood that was amazing in its scope, it was the boat...lol)

Well, given that the flood was local, he would have not take only local animals. It's easier to see it this way. So, no dinos, elephants, giraffes, and other things.

On the fence about about god using evolution to develop humanity, or on the fence about evolution actually occurring?

Both. I haven't studied this very much. I need to read research a bit in biology (whether it occurred or not) and into theology (it's compatibility with God). This can take some time.

optimus prime = red
red exists
ergo optimus prime exists.

I'm sorry, but I do not understand. What is the point of this fallacious argument?

[Ace Otana]

Well, given that the flood was local, he would have not take only local animals. It's easier to see it this way. So, no dinos, elephants, giraffes, and other things.

Well of course no dinos. They died out 65 million years ago.
Now the idiot must of known that there was going to be a flood. Somehow. Since you can't build a large boat in the middle of a fucking flood. Next - He probably used wood from a barn or some other wooden structure since producing boards would take longer. Also, the only animals a farmer would take would be his livestock. Since they are most important to him, they are his lively hood. So a boat big enough to hold his farm animals to save them from a local flood that he knew would happen, perhaps because he knows the land well and saw his environment changing rapidly.
No running around saving every animal in the area shit. No global flood. A farmer who may of had help, just saving his farm animals.

Religion likes to twist events to make it seem god had something to do with it. Just a local flood and a normal farmer saving his animals. That's about it.

[The Grand Nudger]

The bronze age farmer able to predict a flood is a stretch in any case..lol. Better yet, the bronze age desert dweller capable of making a boat that can shelter his farm and ride out a flood..that's even worse. Any old pile of wood will float..but once you start loading it with cargo...different story. Takes a bit of engineering, the kind of engineering a desert dweller would be unfamiliar with. Even an inland waterways type farmer on the banks of a river would have trouble engineering and producing a boat capable of this. You cant just take a boat design you know (say a canoe or catboat), size it up, load it down, and assume it will float...because it wont.

Brigit = Fire
Fire exists
ergo Brigit exists

(These are parodies of Spacek's god exists logic Emanuel, I really want to drive it into absurdity on the hopes that he never uses it again)

[Ace Otana]

Indeed. For a farmer to know there is going to be a flood, build a large enough boat to carry them and to do all this before the flood hits. Not very probable. Even less probable for him to rescue every animal in the area which would mean more time to build an even bigger boat. It's far more improbable.
Way way way more improbable for him to rescue every animal on the planet which means a whopping huge amount of time and resources to build a giant boat to save them all.

The more assumptions made, the less probable it becomes.

[The Grand Nudger]

I've seen some great work on bronze age (and earlier) reed barges. Some even capable of open sea travel. Bit of a tied bundle of reeds that everyone sits on top of. I could imagine an ark made of reeds, with a farmer, a couple of cows and some chickens on it, but that's not exactly biblical is it. Some farmer clinging desperately to whats left of his thatched roof..lol.

Emanuel, when you made the decision that the flood was not global, and that "2 of every kind" weren't loaded, how did you reach that conclusion? How do you apply that process on the rest of the narratives in the bible? Can you be sure that your interpretation is accurate?

[Emanuel]

Emanuel, when you made the decision that the flood was not global, and that "2 of every kind" weren't loaded, how did you reach that conclusion? How do you apply that process on the rest of the narratives in the bible? Can you be sure that your interpretation is accurate?

Well, I was trough a Christian Website, and I read this article. Of course, it took a while for me to accept it, but I did in the end.

How do I apply this to the rest of the Bible? Well, I dunno what you mean. It is a straight-forward reading of the original text, so I cannot be accused of making an unjustified exception (was it called special pleading?). Given that geology supports it and that the biblical hebrew text supports it, the reasonable thing to do is to accept that the Flood was local in extent.

And yes, I'm pretty certain that I'm accurate in this interpretation, given what I said.

[The Grand Nudger]

Read the article, the guy bends the text but does not break it. A local flood is born. I have to ask though. The flood covered all of the land in the region, yes? Mt. Ararat is what, 16,000ft above sea lvl? I'm imagining a wall of water standing straight up, with an exposed edge on the boundaries of "the region" with god holding it back as the people below continue their daily farming and herding. The evidence definitely doesn't support such a theory. (The evidence is called gravity)

An interesting side note in this discussion. The regional flood is not a new idea or interpretation. The Eighth Edition of Encyclopedia Britannica (circa 1853-1860) takes the stance of Bishop Stillingfleet, approved by Matthew Poole...and others, of a regional flood. By the Ninth Edition (circa 1875) there is absolutely no attempt made to reconcile the flood narrative with scientific data or observations. So, a "regional flood" is not a new idea, but it is one that has not been pursued in about 136 years. That's how long we've had to accept the narrative as fiction, or metaphor due not to the improbability, but the impossibility of the premise, in addition to direct contradiction by scientific observation, backed up by a wealth of information on flood narratives in general, and the cultures they spread from and to.



I really do love flood mythology. "The Deluge" makes predictions that can be (and have been) tested. Some of these predictions are relatively new. Take for example the statement of even a regional flood, ark, etc. This would tell us that we should see find deluvium in the area, with a direct connection or correlation to genetic bottle-necking, and that a boat of these dimensions would be feasable. We might also want to see a drastic change in nautical engineering in the same time-frame. After all, this flood happened and so it left evidence like any large flood, all animals and people (however you wish to define all in both cases) would have 2 of a small subset of ancestors at this time, after which, the only people that are left would all know how to build arks. The uses and advantages of such a craft in the time-frame that the deluge narrative is supposed to have occurred within are obvious, the ark, if it were possible, would have been a plainly superior design, and we would expect to see it everywhere in short order.

We would want to find things like this to attempt to "prove" the deluge narrative to be truthful. We have done this, it is not.

[Killman]

Each day I create new questions beginning with 'Why?'. Not a single one has been answered

[fr0d0]

Pardon me for laughing.