the flood.

Originally posted by Churlant
I believe you can't disprove the Flood because you can't prove a negative.

Noah's Ark - if you find it, it existed. If you don't find it, you can't "prove" it didn't exist, all you can say is you didn't find it.

No I do not believe the flood happened. I do believe that there was intense flooding in many areas due to natural disaster which served as a foundation for the Flood myth.

-JC

You could say this for the atheists as well. If you did find the darn boat, none of them would be converted. They would either try to discredit the findings and/or come up with various theories as to its origins that is devoid of devine intervention.

Originally posted by 7ate9
lol, i just had a little peep at some noah's ark website.

the christian one says 16000 animals on the ark

the evolutionary one said 50000 species on the ark. i guess this implies 100000 animals.

This is pure speculation. Who says that every animal alive today was on the ark? I always pictured God possibly providing the necessary animals needed by Noah and his family once the flood was over and possibly providing more afterwards.

Originally posted by whodey
You could say this for the atheists as well. If you did find the darn boat, none of them would be converted. They would either try to discredit the findings and/or come up with various theories as to its origins that is devoid of devine intervention.

Noah's flood requires a lot more than a boat to prove that a literal reading of the Flood story in Genesis is true.

Besides the "boat" over on Mt. Ararat is most likely just a rock outcrop that happens to look a bit like a boat from a photo taken by a satellite many thousands of feet in the air.

Originally posted by Churlant
Faith cannot be proved "wrong".

-JC

The facts can, but whether people have ears to listen (and a brain to process) is an entirely different thing.

Originally posted by Churlant
You can't disprove Noah's Ark. You can't disprove the Flood.

You can stop or start believing in both, but you can't prove they didn't happen.

-JC

You can't prove that the flood did happen, either. We can simply say "there is absolutely no evidence for a global flood 4,500 years ago". You're the one making the spurious claim, so you'd better start backing it up.

Originally posted by 7ate9
seven meters above the highest mountain is NOT referring to large flooding. so for someone who believes in the Bible you would KNOW that those floods has no relevance. it is black or white.

come on, if it's possible to prove i lie about a broken leg 4500 years down the track, then it should be easy to prove if the whole earth did/didn't get annihilated 4500 years ago. this is science, not faith.

the evidence is in consistant with a global flood 4,500 years ago. Flowering plants might be okay, but probably not, because flooding is exceptionally bad for many seeds. Asexual plants would be screwed though (what about this, that wouldd have had to have lived through the flood underwater? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristlecone_pine). Also, the rate of recolonisation of land by plants and animals would have to be huge, I'm guessing way too high to actually repopulate the earth between the flood and the time of Jebus. Likewise, the atmosphere would probably becomes toxic, and global warming would be a huge problem, what with roughly 10^15 tonnes of vegetation rotting anaerobically, producing methane, etc. When the flood water drained the rotting vegetation would still be there, and it'd still be evident in peat bogs, etc. But, of course, it isn't. Is that enough?

Originally posted by Churlant
If God made the Flood, He also ended it. How are you to know He didn't simply clean up after himself - removing debris, bodies, etc?

The flood was meant as a means of cleansing, after all. It only makes sense that He would remove the wreckage afterward so that Noah and his family (and the animals, of course) wouldn't have to pick through dead bodies.

-JC

Thanks chrilant,

Your providing a wonderful example of how ludicrious the christian perspective truely is.

Originally posted by telerion
Noah's flood requires a lot more than a boat to prove that a literal reading of the Flood story in Genesis is true.

Besides the "boat" over on Mt. Ararat is most likely just a rock outcrop that happens to look a bit like a boat from a photo taken by a satellite many thousands of feet in the air.

This is my case in point. Think about this a second before refuting the Genesis account. You find an ancient boat that was built on such a massive scale as to hold the animals it proported to hold and continue to deny that Noah's account is true? Why would such a boat have been built? The boat would have taken years to build. How did the builders have insight that far ahead to begin to build the boat? How did they even have the technology that long ago to build such a boat? Many argue they could not have had the technology. Most importantly, however, how did it get there. How did the boat wind up that far up on mount Arat if this was only a regional flood? You may want to begin formulating your theology before it possibly is discovered.

Originally posted by 7ate9
yes, but it has not happened to me. i don't know a vast amount of science, and given that it looks more likely to be true to me. answers need to be simplified IF it didn't happen, so ALL PEOPLE can know it did/didn't happen.

all I', saying is that it is possible to prove/disprove. Deluding yourself with faith is counter-productive to your question.

Originally posted by whodey
This is my case in point. Think about this a second before refuting the Genesis account. You find an ancient boat that was built on such a massive scale as to hold the animals it proported to hold and continue to deny that Noah's account is true? Why would such a boat have been built? The boat would have taken years to build. How did the builders have in ...[text shortened]... ional flood? You may want to begin formulating your theology before it possibly is discovered.

Have you never heard of time-travel?

EDIT: Isn't is amazing that when it suits you creationists, you suddenly accept radioactive-dating.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Have you never heard of time-travel?

EDIT: Isn't is amazing that when it suits you creationists, you suddenly accept radioactive-dating.

You assume that all creationists reject radioactive-dating. If you have read my other posts you will see that I am an old earth creationist. If you would like to see my theory, you can look at the thread on evolution.

Originally posted by whodey
You assume that all creationists reject radioactive-dating. If you have read my other posts you will see that I am an old earth creationist. If you would like to see my theory, you can look at the thread on evolution.

Point taken.

But again, time-travel will prove or disprove Noah's ark. I think that would constitute the most compelling proof.

Originally posted by Churlant
You can't disprove Noah's Ark. You can't disprove the Flood.

You can stop or start believing in both, but you can't prove they didn't happen.

-JC

yes i can. there is not enought water on earth to cover all the land. therefore there can't have been a flood that did cover all the land. (unless there was much much less land (height wise), but geology proves this isn't the case).
a localised massive flood however is entirely possible. there is in fact a candidate flood on historical record. it just wasn't global killing off virtually all mankind.