the fact that there is a contradiction is evidence of it not being a 'world' flood.
I never said it was. I merely said the Hebrew version of that story (and every story they plagiarized) is FUBAR.
there were tons of scripts telling of great floods, what made it into the bible is just a minority report.
Yes, I know, I've read them all. The biblical account is not simply a "minority report." It contradicts all known Deluge accounts, and even that wouldn't be so bad, except that all other accounts are more realistic and credible than the biblical account. It is the outlier, and because it is, it can be readily dismissed.
i would think when one heard of a flood tale, they would assume it happened at the same time as the other flood tales.
No kidding. As I pointed out on another thread, those accounts originating in eastern Asia and the Americas reference a meteor strike and attribute the meteor strike as the precursor or event that was the direct cause of the Deluge. Simultaneously, none of the accounts originating in Mesopotamia, Africa or western Asia mention a meteor.
I also pointed out that in terms of science, if someone in Siberia saw a meteor, someone in Mesopotamia would never haven been able to see the meteor, for the same reason that if someone in Iraq is looking at the Sun, then someone in the US is looking at the Moon and cannot possibly see the Sun (it's called "spherical geometry").
um, it is a general agreement around here that atheist tend to know the bible more than the theist.
But of course. We don't arbitrarily reject something "just because." Many atheists spent years studying (real study not phony christian study) or in my case a decade or more, before coming to the conclusion that it was complete nonsense and that if it hadn't been for Emperor Theodosius, no one would have heard of it in this day and age.
the standing argument is that the theist tend to have more faith in it and so does not question it as much as atheist.
Well that's a character flaw on your part.
we are supposed to be comparing differences, not 'who is right'..
If you're going to post evidence, make sure it's relevant and applicable, and don't cherry-pick, which is a rather typical christian trait, in addition to seeing only what they want to see.
Here's another for you:
Genesis 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days (and also after this)...
After what? After the Deluge. So they did survive.
Apparently, you can't kill a Nephilim.
10000 years ago the glaciers in Europa were melting . Keep in mind the water level have risen 100 metes.
No, it's closer to 180 meters but some sources claim 240 meters (about 600 to 800 feet).
Glaciers world-wide were melting because the average global air temperature rose from 54°F to 61°F in the short span of 54 years, and the reason that happened was because the western ice sheet in Antarctica was totally obliterated.
..and the christian bible was written thousands of years after the actual events, from oral tradition carried out of Babylon by the Hebrew Semites. Those in turn were based on the Epic of Gilgamesh, the 'oldest story'. That is where the story of Utnaphishtum originated in written form.
There's a story several thousand years older than that even. It attributes the Deluge (flood is grotesquely incorrect -- a deluge can be a flood, but not all floods are deluges) to a naturally occurring event.
We know about the Ark fairy tale but it's sometimes fun to play with the story. Of course way back then due to lack of technology,lack of world wide communication,lack of visual evidence on a world wide scale etc no one living at the time of this supposed flood could have possibly known details.
That isn't entirely true.
It's incredibly aggravating that people would examine the Deluge
only from the perspective of the Hebrew account, which they also ridicule, and then totally ignore the more than 100 other accounts, many of which were written before the Hebrew account. Not only is that aggravating, it's illogical and inherently bad science.
The Hebrew account is garbage, but let's compare it with other accounts anyway. Only the Hebrew and two other accounts (both from the Middle East and one is the Babylonian account) claim it was caused by a "god" thing. The other 100+ accounts claim it was a naturally occurring event, and more than 60 of those specifically mention a meteor as being the agent of destruction (see the earlier comments on that for clarification).
The Hebrews and Babylonians claim it was a "punishment," but the other 100+ accounts reject that. The Hebrews are the only ones who claim it killed everyone on Earth.
The Hebrews claim it lasted either 120 days or 365 days and I guess one day Yahweh will get off of his lard arse and make a final determination (or maybe it was 120 days on this Earth and 365 days on the other Earth in the other universe -- Universe #42). All other accounts put it at 3-5 days (the Sumerians put it at 6 days but they also say it was over in 4 days and took 2 days for most of the water to drain off).
Less than 2 dozen accounts, all originating in the Middle East (Mesopotamia) claim animals were brought on board. Of those accounts, only the Hebrews claim to have brought animals aboard to save them. The other accounts claim enough animals were brought on board to eat. There are several accounts (I don't know the exact number) that claim their lords (these were not "gods") gave them the "seeds" of certain animals and plants to save. For all accounts outside of Mesopotamia, no attempt was made to save animals or use them for food.
The Hebrews claim they bumbled onto high-ground in Mt Ararat, but all other accounts the people intentionally headed to high-ground for safety (whatever that might have been -- typically mountains).
Obviously, the Hebrew version conflicts heavily and should be considered an outlier and thus properly rejected.
In other words pretending for a moment there was a global flood,people of that day could not have known it was global,to them 200-300 miles would have been global.
Only the Hebrew version claims it was a global flood, and that is only because they claim it covered the whole Earth. No one else makes those claims.
There simply was no way to size the flood to begin with.
Of course there is. Only the Hebrews call it a flood. The descriptions provided by the other 100+ accounts are very much akin to a tsunami. Many describe the waters as "coming and going" or "rising and falling," and several of the east Asian and American accounts mention large waves and a few of those describe the waves "as tall as mountains."
I imagine there was enough local flood events that happened and as a result people talked about em,past the stories down thru the generations.We know how stories change,grow in size etc once passed thru enough people.
That doesn't make any sense. If you exclude the absurd Hebrew account, every one is describing the same event. The Sumerians actually date the Deluge to the Age of Leo, which would have been 10,000 BCE - 8,000 BCE and that is consistent with the dates given for the destruction of the western ice sheet in Antarctica. We know that 10,000 years ago, western Antarctica was virtually ice free.
1. Only animals 'on the surface of the earth' were involved, therefore creatures living in water were exempt.
Only a pair of each kind were needed, since breeding could produce
the variations.
That's blasphemy.
Genesis 7:2 You must take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, the male and its mate, two of every kind of unclean animal, the male and its mate, 7:3 and also seven of every kind of bird in the sky, male and female, to preserve their offspring on the face of the earth.
Your claim that only a pair of each kind were needed quite clearly contradicts Yahweh's command to Noah to bring 7 pairs of every clean animal (eg 7 male sheep and 7 female sheep), and 2 pairs of every unclean animal (eg 2 hogs and 2 sows).
The only way to make it work is to blaspheme by disrespecting and ignoring the written word of Yahweh.
The largest land animals (elephant, rhino, etc.)
comprise only a small portion of all land animals. No explanation is
given why the dinosaurs were not included. We can speculate that the
vegetation after the flood would not be sufficient to sustain them
in a fully populated earth.
You can also speculate that lower elevations and depressions in the Earth would have acted as basins and held water for months, even years before it evaporated and not only would that kill the submerged plant-life, it would deny animals use of that plant-life for food.
Vegetation would have been very, very scarce.
3. The dove returned with a 'fresh' olive leaf as an indication of drained land surface, so all vegetation was not destroyed.
Never been to Turkey or Greece, have you. Nope. Olive trees can grow at high elevations. You can't automatically assume it was a tree growing at sea level.
4. Realistically some water species would not survive the turbulence of huge volumes of moving water, but this has to be taken in context. Flood damage results from fast moving masses of water from a single source or a restricted path. If the water source is global, that type of damage only occurs initially until the lower elevations
are filled. After sea level is uniform, the water level just rises
vertically, like filling a basin.
That also contradicts the texts:
Genesis 7:4 For in seven days I will cause it to rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the ground every living thing that I have made.”
Rain could cause the damage to occur at any elevation and especially those elevations above sea level.
The most convincing evidence is the remains of land animals. Some are groups of the same species composed of young and old. Mammoths found frozen near the Artic circle are preserved without deterioration. A quick death for all, and regardless of age.
That's very bad science. The mammoths died because they ate poisonous buttercups. Not all varieties of butter cups are poisonous, but quite a few are. Animals often die from eating poisonous fruits, berries or plant parts. Those mammoths did. They were not flash frozen, because the temperature was already below freezing. That's what mammoths do. They walk around frozen tundra areas eating grasses and such. And why, yes, there is a variety of buttercup that grows way up in the frozen cold of arctic circle in Siberia. Imagine that. That debunks claims that buttercups only grow in warm climes.
6. A better question, 'where did all the water come from?'. There was a canopy of water vapor around the earth similar to venus which provided a greenhouse effect.
If that were true then nothing could have survived on Earth, not to mention it would block light.
