Creationist Wolf in Cheap Clothing

Apparently, this may not be the case after all.

http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues00/apr00/phenom_apr00.html

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html

This is not to say that Noah had a boat that had all the animals in the world on it. It simply - once again - shows that historical evidence supports the Bible's events.

 

The parables that Jesus spoke of and the story of Noah are two completely different things. The parables that Jesus spoke of never gave specifics such as names of those involved, etc. But the account of Noah is very specific in nature. We know the exact size of the ship, we know that it was Noah and his family (not just one man as you mentioned) that built it, that it took 120 years to build, we know the type of wood, how many animals were taken aboard, how long the flood lasted, and numerous other actual facts regarding the story. So I and many others would disagree with you that the Noah story is meant to teach a lesson.

I find it amusing that a lot of your statements deal in absolutes, where you state: 100% certain, absolutely, completely impossible, etc. I would think a true scientist whether one on the evolutionist side or Biblical side would always keep there options open or at least be able to say, "I don't know." But to say that all possible evidence has been explored is ridiculous, when there is so much of the ocean floor we have yet to see.

 

regarding the mediterranian as a possible flood story basis:

from vp's link:

"Though the flooding of the Mediterranean happened long before any human being could observe it..."


so while, yes, the med seems to have been flooded from a dry basin -- it was before anybody was around to see it. 5.4 million years ago, they estimate.

 

I'm not saying that it was the flood. I am simply refuting Collin's arguments that it was A) gradual and B) that the Med was already full of water.

 

This thread has made me see something very clearly about the evolution process each of us goes through while creating our own set of beliefs. Simply put, it’s a process of addition and subtraction.


Some begin with a completely clean slate, considering any and every option, no matter how far-fetched or ridiculous. Some start with a narrowed field of options, based on what they’ve been taught as children, teens, or young adults. Everyone’s a little different in what they begin with.


As we become more aware of the world around us and more capable of higher brain function and deeper insight, the process of addition and subtraction begins. We see, hear, and learn, and judge for ourselves what it worthy of consideration based on standards we set for ourselves. Sometimes we’re right, sometimes we’re wrong. The one thing we can pretty much all agree on is that we are imperfect, so nobody really has the “complete” picture, meaning there will always be a measure of the unknown.


The problem is we don’t know what we don’t know. And what we don’t know has the potential to change everything or nothing.


How we each go about the construction of our beliefs varies from one end of the spectrum to the other – from subjectivity to objectivity and everywhere in between. And that can even vary from issue to issue or topic to topic. But we can only choose for ourselves how wide that window of receptive learning is and what we let through it.


Mankind will continue to hunt down the answers to the questions, and each answer will be ‘flavored’ to some degree by the perceptions of those who discover them – sometimes intentionally, sometimes unintentionally, but pristine objectivity is something very rare in the grand scheme of life.


Nevertheless, those answers will continue to surface, and many will continue to change as new information is discovered and added to the context of the whole. The question each of us must ask is, “How willing am I to consider new information that may be contrary to what I believe now?” Each choice we make will bring consequences –- good and bad, fair and unfair. It can mean the difference between truth and a lie, acceptance or rejection, hope or despair. So in addition to asking ourselves what we’re willing to accept, we also must ask ourselves if we’re willing to pay the price for acceptance. And those are questions only we can answer for ourselves.

 

DAMN...that's good!!

 

You don't seem to realize that the Strait of Gilbraltar is over 3000 feet deep. It didn't just "break," it formed over millenia thanks to the aforementioned gradual water flow. You're consistently making the mistake of thinking that there was a big hole between Europe and Africa, which was then filled by water. That's not what happened at all. Europe and Africa were connected as one landmass, but they separated over millenia by tectonic shifts which gradually created the area now known as the Mediterranean, and continues to make it broader and deeper as the plates continue to spread apart. Subsequent changes in the world's water level caused repeated receding and filling, but there was never a "break" at the Strait of Gilbraltar after which water came "rushing through."

*sigh* I realize this is a complete waste of my time, but did I or did I not say from the very beginning of my participation in this thread that there have always been regional floods? Did I or did I not say that this may have had something to do with the original creation of the flood story? And for the record, your links support exactly what I said, that the Noah story specifically is so preposterous as to make a fool out of anyone who pretends that it could possibly have been true. It was never meant to be taken literally, people, it was allegory. It's meant to teach a lesson about divine wrath and how we can be spared from it.

But for the record, the reason you couldn't find any more recent links on the Black Sea re-flooding is that it has been scientifically discredited. Ryan and Pitman's supposed findings have been disproved by the discovery of archaeological sites suggesting that the shorelines were established long before Ryan and Pitman claim, and geologists have proven that water was flowing back and forth between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean far longer than what Ryan and Pitman claim (they suggested that there was no contact until that flooding).

And how many would that be?



hasbeen99:
The essential difference between people on my side and people on your side is that people in my side are actually interested in truth. We ask questions, explore, challenge our assumptions, gain more facts; and in the process we formulate opinions about what actually happened in the past. The people on your side just want to justify a belief you already came through in a way that had absolutely nothing to do with research. That's why no one can successfully argue with creationists or anti-evolutionists or pro-deluvials. Those people already have their positions staked on the basis of faith, not reason, and therefore no amount of reason can ever dissuade them.

 

I've seen what passes as reason for you Mr. Missing Link and I have to say, I'm not impressed.

 

Dude. Because of the forum we are in, I shall refrain from poking too much fun at you, but I have to tell you something. For someone who is so critical of others' thinking and the basis of their arguments, you make some of the DUMBEST mistakes/statemnts I have ever seen.

 

Again, you are taking the Bible to its 100% extreme, meaning that the entirity of Earth as we know it flooded, which I agree we have no proof of. I posted that to show that the "fact" that the Bible's account of Noah is simply a retelling of Gilgamesh or other flood stories may simply not be the case.

Do you have a link where all of this was disproven? I have seen that some people have theories of the fresh water mixing continually, but no definitive conclusion either way. Ballard's latest expedition was 2003, so that shows me that up until very recently he was still exploring the theory.