The debate "The flood described in the bible is a real event that really happened" was started by
July 10, 2019, 3:31 pm.
31 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 21 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Light posted 12 arguments, Nemiroff posted 1 argument, mwest0097 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 7 arguments, JDAWG9693 posted 4 arguments, Nemiroff posted 5 arguments to the disagreers part.
Light, TRUELOVE, fry, BakitGalit, Starlight, mwest0097, sk25 and 24 visitors agree.
historybuff, Communistguy, Nemiroff, Steelheart, mtbtheboss, kittrapper and 15 visitors disagree.
There have been lots of floods in world over the millennia, no one denies that. The story of Noah's ark very likely has a basis in reality, IE there was a flood the story was based on. But there has never been a flood that covered the world. So no, the flood described in the bible never happened. It is a myth.
I don't think the story of Noah verbatim actually happened, but I do think that this story and others like it from hundreds of various mythologies worldwide are reflections of a true event remembered by our ancestors from pre-history. In fact, I think the exact event described in all of these stories, while they mythologize a lot and the details change, is the cataclysm of the Younger Dryas period that occurred 12,800 years ago when a multiple meteor fragments from the Taurid meteor stream broke off and struck the Earth, causing first rapid heating then a deep freeze that killed off most of the megafauna on the planet.
you defined biblical Adam and eve, not chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial eve.
to bring this to a close, if you believe scientists think that chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial eve were the original humans who lived together and mated in a garden... you are 100% wrong about the concepts.
it is a title given to the *most recent* person from whom all modern people descended from. as more people are born and die, and some lineages are broken, a more recent chromosomal Adam gets the title. same thing with mitochondrial eve. according to science, there were many many many men and women during the time of, and before these Adams and Eves.
so in summary, y chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial eve are title, not names, that are passed on (like a championship belt) and dont refer to a static couple that originated the species. your argument about Adam and Eve has absolutely zero to do with these scientific concepts that in no way support anything related to a biblical eden.
Do you have extra-biblical evidence of that?
And, the mitochondrial eve and y chromosomal adam that were discovered probably did not live during the same period, nor the same place, and were not a couple.
Yes I believe they were both created by god in the Garden of Eden and through them we have all of humanity.
sorry, I should have seen that response coming. what I'm trying to get at is whether or not you believe the scientific terms of "y chromosomal adam" and "mitochondrial eve" are related to anything biblical, and whether you think that scientists think they were a couple who lived together.
I'm just trying to elaborate on this post (responding to it) where you claimed scientists support the concept of Adam and eve. so to rephrase:
do you believe y chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial eve are supposed to be Adam and eve? and whether you think those 2 are believe to have even lived at the same time or are in any way related?
Yes I believe we all have 2 common ancestors at 2 different points Adam and Eve from when God first created humans as well as Noah and his wife from after the flood.
or elaborate on what you mean by 2 common ancestors? do you mean we were at one point just 2 individuals who mated and made humanity? I would not agree with that.
can you say anything about mitochondrial eve and y chromosomal? did they know each other? did they live at the same time?
I was thinking this over and realized that whether creation or evolution is true we are still most likely descended from 2 common ancestors so that claim is more neutral.
y chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve. if you are referencing these scientific labels, can you explain shat these scientific labels are and compare them to biblical Adam and eve?
Even you admit that you don't know who they are. And, no. They discovered that most current people have a common ancestor who lived about 200,000 years ago. How convenient that you left out the time gap.
Actually scientists have managed to trace our genes back to two people Adam and Eve or Noah and his wife either way you look at it its two people.
can you elaborate on jesus clarifying what is and isnt a metaphor?
Genesis is obviously metaphorical. People weren't created and placed in garden. We evolved from other creatures. The human race is obviously not descended from 2 people. If it were the entire human race would have died from inbreeding. there are lots of thing that are just not true about genesis if you try to read it literally.
Yes there are parables but Jesus is quite clear about what is clear and what isn't. Are you claiming that Genesis is a metaphor?
There are many ways to interpret the bible. Are you saying fundamentalism, the literal interpretation of every word, is the only valid way to interpret the bible? Why did Jesus use parables for everything then? Maybe metaphors have their place as well.
Everything should be question and (in my opinion) nothing should be so sacred that it cannot be left
Yes but its hard to shake faith
Is that such a bad thing? If it happens that God isn't evident, isn't it better to know the truth rather than believe a delusion?
Part f the problem is that in accordance with my faith in God if one part of the bible is proven false (the flood) then the entirety is and there is no reason to have faith in God anymore.
The fact that you are willing to question you beliefs is a very good thing. There are some things facts can't change. Your faith in god, by it's very nature, does not need evidence. But the details of that faith you should continue to question. People have been twisting religious beliefs for their own personal goals for millennia. You should always keep an open mind and examine the facts.
That's good c: Everyone should question everything; that's how we grow
Your right I'm beginning to doubt the evidence I've taken all my life to be infallible and go back and do further questioning of it and I'm finding it doesn't seem all that probable any more.
It shouldn't matter how good a debater you are; if your claim is true it will withstand any and all criticism. The reason you should concede is because the flood didn't happen
I concede to the fact that I am way out of my league debating this topic with you.
The website has a character limit that I hit and I've gotten bored of reading this much stupidity. But in short, every bit of "evidence" they provide is incredibly stupid. None of it makes sense or shows what they claim it shows. This whole article is proof that incredibly biased people will try to twist anything to support what they want to believe. And that if you spend a few minutes looking at websites not written by creationists, you can see that none of it makes any sense.
Oh wow. This source is incredibly biased, but lets go through them.
Evidence 1 - There are fish fossils in mountains - this is because geography is not stable. What is a mountain today wasn't a mountain 500 million years ago. One of the ways mountains form is 2 tectonic plates colliding. This forces areas that were ocean floor up and creates a mountain. So that isn't evidence that the world flooded, it is evidence that geography is constantly shifting.
Evidence 2 - That there are fossil graveyards that prove the world flooded - Most of the areas they list as evidence were under water at some point in the last several hundred million years so I don't see any reason to think that this is evidence of a global flood. I mean they are claiming that fossils that are 200-500 million years old are evidence of Noah's flood. Homo Sapiens are less than a million years old. The stupidity of using something that happened hundreds of millions of years ago as evidence of something you claim happened thousands of years ago is staggering. And if this were noah's flood, why are there only chambered nautiloids in there? Where are the rabbits, horses, dogs, people? The reason those things aren't in there too is that they didn't exist when those fossils were formed.
Evidence 3 - That layers of sedimentary rock are evidence of a flood - This one is also stupid on the face of it. How would a layer of rock formed hundreds of millions of years ago be evidence of a flood a few thousand years ago? Also, noah's flood was supposed to last a matter of days, then receded. That would not form massive layers of sedimentary rock. This entire "evidence" makes no sense.
Evidence 4 - That specific types of minerals in layers of rock are evidence of worldwide flood - They are just building stupid on top of stupid. For example they are claiming that Coconino Sandstone in the grand canyon is evidence of noah's flood. That layer was deposited about 260 million years ago. This layer is actually evidence that the area was a desert. Hence "Sand" stone. You can actually see the dunes where the wind blew the sand in some places. So no it isn't evidence of a flood, it is actually evidence of the exact opposite.
Give a non apologetic source.
Here's a website that contains examples of things that are found all over the world that could only be possible by a worldwide flood.
There is the great unconformity exists all over the Earth.
What you just said didn't make any sense. A specific area was submerged under water, so that is somehow evidence that the entire world was submerged? If the entire world was submerged, there would be geographic evidence of that everywhere, across the entire planet. There isn't. Therefore it didn't happen. There is absolutely no chance that the entire earth was simultaneously covered by water.
The great unconformity and Grand Canyon contain evidence. How else can there be an upside down tree going through multiple rock layers that supposedly took millions of years to deposit. The answer is rapid sedimentation that could have been caused by something such as a world wide flood.
There is literally no chance that this is true. Geological records show it never happened. If it had happened we would see a massive species die off all over the world, since the entire world was supposedly drowned, but that never happened either.
Other than the bible, there is no evidence at all that a global flood has ever occurred. And the bible is just a book of stories.