Talk:Global flood/Archive2

fairies

All this argument over something as ridiculous as Noah's flood! You might as well discuss the fairies at the bottom of my garden - they don't exist and neither did the flood. I'd taken this off my watchlist but seeing grown persons arguing about it is just too much. IT'S ALL A LOAD OF HOGWASH - why bother contesting something so ridiculous? Susan Jayne Garlick^talk 22:09, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Apparently it interests some people - mostly taiwan boi and icewedge, although ice should really turn up on the talk page if he doesn't wanted to see his baby circumsized with a rusty razor blade. human^{be in} 22:12, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

You forgot to say "bloody fairies" ;) human^{be in} 22:13, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

So how do fairies get along with cats? Locke ^{Always Watching......} 22:17, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Cats bite off their wings thus turning them into elves. Bloody fairies! Susan Jayne Garlick^talk 22:21, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Zing! Where is our concise, trusworthy, fact-based artikal on fairies??? human^{be in} 22:30, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Sorry for the outburst above but it makes me so mad seeing people arguing about such rubbish. Re. Fairies: see my alter ego the shaan for that. Susan Jayne Garlick^talk 22:34, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

It might help if your posts came complete with relevant facts from appropriately referenced authoritative sources, rather than sounding unfortunately like a Young Earth Creationist drive by shooting. There's plenty of scope in this article for a proper scientific assessment of the Genesis flood narrative. It would be great if someone started that any time soon. --Taiwan boi 22:58, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

So no human-translated versions of the bible story are permitted, right? We have to channel God directly? Or, if not, which, if any, translations are "authoritative sources"? I think mine might be better than any other, since it says it was "corrected" in the 40's or 50's - for errors. human^{be in} 00:16, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

I have never said that 'no human-translated versions of the bible story are permitted', or that we 'have to channel God directly'. I have absolutely no idea how you could derive that from what I wrote, especially as I have expressed an explicit preference for mainstream modern Bible translations. When I referred to 'appropriately referenced authoritative sources', I had in mind SJG actually making a rational argument as to why she believes the entire story is 'ALL A LOAD OF HOGWASH', which would involve addressing the various elements of the narrative (geographical, geological, hydrological, nautical, historical, text critical), and analyzing them using authoritative sources appropriate to each topic. Although I will acknowledge that drive by rantings are a lot easier than proper research.

Your reference to the Bible you say was 'corrected' in the 40s and 50s 'for errors' demonstrates an unfortunate lack of awareness and comprehension of the subject of Bible translation. --Taiwan boi 19:55, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

As far as the hogwash re""global" flood, I'd defer to TalkOrigina.org who have done the work. As far local floods, heck, we had one here this spring and last, SJG is just getting back into her house, etc.

As you know, I don't believe in a global flood any more than you do. But that wasn't the issue I was addressing. I was addressing SJG's claim that the entire story is 'ALL A LOAD OF HOGWASH'. That's a claim which is completely unwarranted without serious research and evidence to support it. If she had even said 'The global interpretation of the Genesis flood narrative is A LOAD OF HOGWASH', I wouldn't have objected, since that is largely self-evident. But she didn't. --Taiwan boi 20:19, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

My "corrected" reference was from reading its preface. I am aware of the topic of Biblical translation, I just don't set much store by the contents (except that there's some cool stories and stuff) of the results. Anyway, perhaps you should put your head together with AKJeldsen, one of our editors who is deep into this biblical scholarship studies thing and see if you can put together a "different but far better" file? Or at least hang with him and think what you might be able to come up with that would make RW better? Oh, and, of course, as he said somewhere here, make this article better from the pedagogical perspective. human^{be in} 20:12, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

The fact that a particular Bible translation has been reprinted due to errors in the original printing is hardly relevant to this article, and that was my point. You made it sound as if the errors were in the Biblical text itself, and that 'The Bible' had been 'corrected' in the 40s and 50s. That's the kind of misrepresentation commonly made by people who don't understand anything about Bible translation. It's like saying a corrected reprint of Stephen Hawking's 'Brief History of Time' means that he doesn't know what he's talking about. --Taiwan boi 20:19, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

I've made a place for you to do the honours. Put down whatever you like & no-one will interfere with it (subject to rules of decency etc.) When It's done we'll all come & look @ it and maybe take some or all of it for the article. Essay:Global_flood Susan Jayne Garlick^talk 23:31, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

I fail to understand what you want me to do with this 'Essay'. Could you provide a few details? Thanks. --Taiwan boi 20:20, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Well, it would be a great place to "sandbox" a much better Global Flood article, which could then replace this one. I would highly recommend recruiting AKJeldson to work on it with you, as he studies the kind of biblical analysis as you. human^{be in} 20:29, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Well I could try that, but since the improvements I've suggested are all being rejected anyway, it's really just a great way to waste my time, isn't it? But hey, let's pretend I don't have a life, and let's pretend this isn't supposed to be a collaborative effort, and let's pretend it's ok for all the other article editors here to fill the article with poor reasoning, inaccurate statements, and unsubstantiated claims, and I'll just go and lose an hour or so of my life on something which is only going to be ignored as soon as I post it. Yeah. Good idea. --Taiwan boi 21:09, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Don't believe it. The more valid points you make, the more they will attack you like....ah, never you mind. CriticalMass 23:33, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Hi Heart! human^{be in} 00:16, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Who the fuck asked for your opinion? Susan Jayne Garlick^talk 23:39, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Aren't we in a good mood today? Anyway, it seems to me that Taiwan boi does have a pretty good idea what he's talking about, so maybe we should wait and see where he wants to go with this? The article could certainly do with the improvement, IMO. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 09:19, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Yes I was, but B*****n (as I mistakenly thought it was really pisses me off with his troll/vandalism. Mark you, I'm not apologising to HoG for the errror. I'm afraid that my intolerance of what I think of as rank stupidity (arguing about fairy tales) won't allow me to be even slightly constructive about the subject. Susan Jayne Garlick^talk 09:55, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Away with the fairies

I see that TaiwanBoi has amended his edit to ask me why I think it's all a load of hogwash. Why not use the essay link I've left to show why I should take the word of a long dead priest class for something with no independent evidence. Before you say something about accepting e.g. Euclid - his arguments are as good today as they were then unlike certain others Susan Jayne Garlick^talk 20:21, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

ps I'm afraid you've picked on a bit of a lightweight - I'm no good @ philosophical discourse but to quote myself: "You don't need to know the chemistry to know that durian fruit smells awful." SJG

On the contrary, I haven't asked you why you think it's all a lot of hogwash. I've simply suggested that if you want to make such a claim that you actually provide some rational argumentation for it. The fact that you believe the Genesis flood narrative has 'no independent evidence' demonstrates a complete ignorance of the subject. The Sumerian and Akkadian flood narratives are independent literary sources, and the 3rd millennium Jemdet Nasr flood layers at Shurrupak, Kish, and Uruk are independent archaeological sources. If you really want to know what I think about the Genesis flood narrative, you can read yourself silly here. --Taiwan boi 20:29, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

The only current ref I've heard to the middle eastern flood, which was presumably incorporated into the mythologies of the region, is the flooding of the Caspian sea when the Bosphorus opened. This has been shown to be quite possible but why there's any need for rational, educated beings to involve a juju from the sky baffles me. (I'm working entirely from my memory on this so mightn't be spot on) The link you gave me's a bit complex for my pda - sorry.Susan Jayne Garlick^talk 20:51, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

If the only current reference you've heard is to the flooding of the Caspian sea, then it's clear you don't have the background knowledge necessary to comment constructively on this subject. The Sumerian and Akkadian flood narratives have been known for around 100 years, and the the 3rd millennium Jemdet Nasr flood layers at Shurrupak, Kish, and Uruk have been known for around 70 years, and local flood interpretations based on this evidence have been around for at least that long. This is hardly news. The 'Caspian sea flooding' idea is a new kid on the block. Whether or not you believe that there's any need to 'involve a juju from the sky' is irrelevant to the issue I'm discussing, which is your sweeping statement that the entire story is 'A LOAD OF HOGWASH'. Clearly the entire story isn't 'A LOAD OF HOGWASH', even if the supernatural elements are. I'm sorry the link I gave is too much for your PDA. You can always read it on a desktop if you want to find out why I don't believe in a global flood, and why I do believe in a local flood. --Taiwan boi 21:13, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

You will note that I do not deny that there were floods, Anywhere with water & rain is likely to get flooded from time to time and in a story telling society these are likely to grow in size as they are chinese whispered down the generations. Consider modern legends e.g. King Arthur & Robin Hood. For years both of these were passed from generation to generation, being embelished along the way until the truth accepted by most of today's entertainment seeking masses is vastly different from actuallity. If this can happen in recorded history then how much more could it happen two thousand plus years ago? Susan Jayne Garlick^talk 21:17, 6 September 2007 (CDT) above written before reading your last - I'll be back SJG

Seems we're arguing @ cross purposes, sorry. You might have gathered that I'm a little bit atheistc (!) & my sole objectionn is to the involvement of a supernatural agency to "save all the animals" in a global flood. Susan Jayne Garlick^talk 21:23, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Of course I've gathered that you're 'a little atheistic'. That's fine by me. As I've pointed out, I'm not objecting to your belief in the supernatural element of the Genesis narrative. What I'm objecting to is your previous sweeping statement that the entire Genesis flood narrative is 'A LOAD OF HOGWASH'. Clearly it isn't. The earliest records we have of the 3rd millennium flood date to within a few centuries of it taking place, which is remarkably close given the age of the event. Embellishments and supernatural explanations aside, there isn't any doubt that the flood took place. The article attempts to address the issue of whether or not it was global, not whether or not it had a supernatural cause. --Taiwan boi 21:54, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Question for TaiwanBoi

Hi TaiwanBoi. I followed the link you gave and had a quick look around. I found this quote in the introduction to the first article: here"The information in the Genesis flood record is reliable, and is proved so by archaeological findings. There was a real Noah, a real ark, and a real flood. There was a real judgment, sent by a real God." To be fair, the author later goes on to state the flood was local and not global. As you referred us to this site I'm sure you will not object to my quoting from it. But you could confirm that you wrote it and that it is your opinion? I ask just so that there is no misunderstanding of where you're coming from on this.--Bob^{bing up and down} 03:29, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Sure I wrote it, and sure that's where I'm coming from. But as I've said, my aim here is not to reduce this RationalWiki article to a mere Christian apologetic for a local flood. I'm entirely happy keeping all Christian apologetic material out of the article. I'm also entirely happy to contribute to arguments against the 'global flood' interpretation. What I'm concerned about is that as it stands the current article says very little against the global flood interpretation, spends most of its time attacking irrelevant YEC arguments and alleged 'contradictions' in the Bible, and those arguments which it does present are often extremely badly reasoned, badly expressed, badly researched, or all three. --Taiwan boi 04:34, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Well OK. I think many (perhaps most) of us would disagree with almost every statement in italics above - but if your interest is in making more cogent arguments against a global flood, then I'm sure that would be in keeping with the ethos of the site which includes "Analyzing and refuting the full range of crank ideas" :-) --Bob^{bing up and down} 06:40, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Well of course you would disagree with almost every statement in italics above. You're basically atheists, and that's your job - disagreeing with Christians. But of course, you shouldn't read an opening assertion in an article as the argument itself (I hope you didn't do that). My interest (as I've said), is not only in making more cogent arguments against a global flood (which seems in keeping with the ethos of the site), but also in correcting fallacious arguments and deleting utterly stupid arguments (which unfortunately does not seem in keeping with the ethos of the site). So you can see why I've already run into trouble. I couldn't even get the title of a Bible translation corrected. What hope is there for getting rational argument into the article, if even the most basic editorial blunders are defended? --Taiwan boi 07:25, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

On a couple of technical points I don't think that atheists have any special downer on Christianity. Atheists disagree with supernatural explanations in general. I, personally, would be as skeptical of a Hindu creation myth as I'd be of a Christian one. But I wouldn't wish to present myself a spokesman for this site, it's clear that not all (and perhaps not even the majority) of active contributors are atheists. With regard to your other points - well this is a rather non-hierarchical Wiki and you're an eloquent chap. I'm sure you can convince us of the force of your arguments.--Bob^{bing up and down} 08:26, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

I think most atheists have a special downer on Christianity because they tend to encounter it more frequently than other claims to the supernatural (though otherwise I agree with you that they disagree with the supernatural in general, and would be as quick to dismiss Hinduism as Christianity). I think it's also because most of them live in countries where there are a disproportionate number of extremely loud-mouthed and extremely ignorant Christians who are so incredibly obnoxious that they're almost enough to make me an atheist. I certainly sympathize with any atheist who has to live in the US, for example, where the average Christian appears to have a vendetta against anyone who isn't of their persuasion, preaches hell and damnation to anyone who disagrees with them, interferes in politics (which every Christian should stay well out of), and goes around making very stupid statements very loudly. As for being convincing, I've done my best so far but I can't even get a simple editorial error like the title of a Bible translation changed, even when the error is acknowledged. Not only that, but I'm up against people who don't believe that proper citations are necessary, who don't follow standard academic reference practices, who think that Googling randomly constitutes meaningful research, and who don't even stop to check their facts. It's clear to me that trying to improve this article is - for me at least - an exercise in futility. People are happy with it the way it is. --Taiwan boi 23:35, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

It's impossible for non-giants to give birth to giants

It's important that the article's claim that non-giants cannot give birth to giants be supported with evidence. Let's see it please. --Taiwan boi 20:29, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

The typical young earth creationists argument style. Throw somthing out there with no evidence at all and demand that the burden of evidence lies with your opponents. This aside the absurdity of "giants" comeing from ordinary humans is plainly obvious. 66.230.81.81 23:13, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Firstly, I am not a Young Earth Creationist (and even if I were, it has nothing to do with this issue). Secondly, I am perfectly justified in requesting evidence for the bizarre claim I have identified. Thirdly, I haven't made any claims myself at all. I haven't even claimed that these giants existed. I grant freely that there is no evidence they existed. But you seem to be completely misinformed about gigantism. Giants are typically born to non-giants. Gigantism is typically a pituitary disorder which does not require the parents to be giants. If you really think that 'the absurdity of "giants" comeing from ordinary humans is plainly obvious', I suggest you do some reading on gigantism. Come back and tell me what you learned. --Taiwan boi 02:34, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Lets first consider how big these giants were; pretty big. While I will not argue that the size ratio in the mentioned quote it certainly sugests that they were much larger. There are also numerous other instances in the bible where giants are referd to as many times taller than humans. We shall say 20 ft is about the minumum for the hight of these creatures. 66.230.81.81 23:13, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

How on earth do you get 20 feet for their minimum height? I need to see specific texts, specific units of measurement, and specific reasoning. This is totally weird. Of all the giants in the Bible, the specific height of only one is given (Goliath, 1 Kings 17:4), and even on the most exaggerated reading of the text here his height is just under 12 feet, nothing near 20 feet. The Hebrew places his height at 9 feet 9 inches, and the Septuagint records his height at 6 and 3/4 feet. How do you get 20 feet as the minimum height for the giants of the Bible? --Taiwan boi 02:34, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

No reply? How unsurprising. --Taiwan boi 19:14, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Now what is the highest human on record? 8 feet a few inches. Humans just cant get much taller then that. The human heart can only pump so much blood; it is not really able to handle tall people because it takes so much effort to force fluid uphill. To be able to sustain blood flow in a giant the human the heart would need a complete re-design. There is also the problem of human vertebre. They do not have the ability to strech any apreciable distance. 66.230.81.81 23:13, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

That's all wonderful, totally true, and completely irrelevant. The Bible doesn't speak of any 20 foot human beings. --Taiwan boi 02:34, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

To be honest, the article makes the claim, and TB asks that it be backed up - perfectly reasonable. And I don't know why you bring YEC into this particular discussion. The rest of your comment pretty much backs that claim up, I'd say, unless somehow these giants start from 8-12 pound babies and could pop out of a 'human' momma with all their improved DNA ready to go. human^{be in} 01:47, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

He hasn't provided any evidence that the Bible speaks of giants who were at least 20 feet tall, and he hasn't addressed my objection to the argument in the article, which is based on the premise that non-giants cannot give birth to giants. I find that argument so absurd I'm amazed anyone let it stay for more than 10 minutes. People with giagantism don't 'pop out' weighing 8-12 pounds. They are typically born looking perfectly normal, and only later experience extreme growth as a result of hormonal imbalances which develop over time. --Taiwan boi 02:34, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Mabey not 20 ft. merely 18.5. The giants are as tall as cedar trees! Also the kingdom of og is ruled by a giant with a bed 9 cubits long. The giant was probably ~13 ft. then still to tall to be human. - Icewedge 11:25, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

That's spectacularly inaccurate. You cite a website which claims a cubit is three feet. That's completely ridiculous. There is no evidence that the Hebrew cubit was ever as long as three feet. Instead of Googling randomly, you need to use authoritative sources. The standard ancient Hebrew cubit was a mere 17.5-18 inches. As I have already shown you, of all the giants in the Bible, the specific height of only one is given (Goliath, 1 Kings 17:4), and even on the most exaggerated reading of the text here his height is just under 12 feet, nothing near 20 feet. The Hebrew places his height at 9 feet 9 inches, and the Septuagint records his height at 6 and 3/4 feet. Even worse, the Website has also misled you on the matter of Og. He did not have a 9 cubit bed. You're relying on an ineptly written Website which is quoting a 400 year old English translation written by men who didn't understand the Hebrew word which they gratuitously translated 'bedstead'. It is actually a sarcophagus (see standard modern authorities and translations, which clearly you haven't bothered to read). Finally you uncritically accept this ridiculously inaccurate Website's claim that the reference to giants 'like the height of the cedars' in Amos 2:9 means that the prophet is referring to people who were literally as tall as cedar trees. This is totally absurd, as the phrase 'like the height of the cedars' is clearly a simile used here in a poetic judgment oracle. The next phrase says they were 'as strong as oaks', and the last two phrases of the verse say 'but I destroyed the fruit on their branches, and their roots on the ground', proving that the entire verse is a poetic description in metaphor and simile, not a literal description of their physical dimensions. This is unfortunately further evidence that this article is being edited by people who are unfamiliar with the subject, either don't know how to research a topic properly or can't be bothered, and are happy simply grabbing whatever they can find on Google and throwing it in here without applying any critical thought, analysis, or mental effort to assess the material in a remotely scholarly way. --Taiwan boi 18:49, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Please personal attacks are not helping, . Regardless the bible gives evidence of these giants being very large.

• The grasshopper simile - The size ratio here is probably not exact but it certainly states that these giants were gigantic.
• The cedar tree simile - It says they were as tall as ceder trees, this is probably just a ballpark figure but it states just as the grasshopper simile that they were extremely large. Would you call an average basket ball hoop as tall as a cedar tree(which can grow up to 120 ft.)?

I haven't made any personal attacks. I've simply identified your poor 'research' methodology. Do you have any explanation for it? Not only that, but you're quoting from Amos and claiming it's a reference to the giants in Genesis. This is simply bizarre. The book of Amos isn't talking about the giants in Genesis, it's not even talking about a race of giants, it's talking about the Amorites who were perfectly normally sized human beings. It does not say that they were literally as tall as cedar trees, it's a poetic simile which expresses how powerful they were, as does 'strong as oaks'. When it says that God 'destroyed the fruit on their branches and their roots in the ground', do you think it's saying they were literal trees? And again, the grasshopper reference is saying 'We appeared to them as grasshoppers', and 'We appeared to ourselves as grasshoppers', not 'They appeared to us as giants on a size ratio of grasshoppers to humans'. I want you to go to the Biblical Hebrew email list, an email list of professional Hebrew scholars, and tell me if they think either of these references are to be read as literal size and dimension references, or if they are hyperbolic imagery in the form of metaphor and simile. When you've done that, get back to me. Don't just go off to Google and try to find another wacky blog and present it as some kind of authority. You didn't even bother to check the information you posted here last time. Why not? --Taiwan boi 23:27, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

On a topic aside from giant height the bible makes many claims to whole races of giants. Humans giants do not reproduce more giants, the abnormality is not passed on to there offspring. - Icewedge 19:17, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Oh, it 'makes many claims to whole races of giants' does it? How very interesting. Let's have a list of those passages please - each and every single one. I can't wait to see how the Bible 'makes many claims to whole races of giants'. Do please teach me about the Bible! Have you actually read the Bible, or did you get this claim from another random Website? --Taiwan boi 23:27, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

The genetic disorders mentioned here are triggered normally around puberty, correct? I thought that the Bible read a lot like a certain comic book I know.--Edgerunner⁷⁶ 11:44, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

No they are not necessarily triggered around puberty. They can be triggered earlier. But of course that isn't the point. The point is that people who are giants are typically born to people who are not giants, exactly contrary to the claims made here. --Taiwan boi 18:49, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

There's a very simple reason why giants cannot exist, or be born to humans. The Oxygen levels haven't been that high on this planet for over 300 million years, which is why species like Meganeura don't evolve anymore; other then that, it would seem biologically impossible to be that large, even the talkest humans suffer from various problems--TheThinkingMan 19:32, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

It may surprise you to know that giants do exist today, and are born to humans. This has nothing to do with oxygen levels, and megafauna is a completely different subject. As I have already pointed out repeatedly, the Bible says absolutely nothing of giants 20 feet tall. Of all the giants in the Bible, the specific height of only one is given (Goliath, 1 Kings 17:4), and even on the most exaggerated reading of the text here his height is just under 12 feet, nothing near 20 feet. The Hebrew places his height at 9 feet 9 inches, and the Septuagint records his height at 6 and 3/4 feet. --Taiwan boi 23:27, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Final statement about Giants

Ok Taiwan boi I am tired of this debate. It is evident neither of us is going to convince the other. So this is may last say in the matter I will not spend more of my time arguing against something absurd. You can respond as much as you like (you seem to allways go for the last word. see above) but I will not bother to read it, the only thing that I ask of you is that you do not break appart my comment as I find it extreemly irritating.

Here is why I say that the giants could not come from humans (for what, the fifth time?).

The bible does not seem to describe human giants

Human giantism causes these problems among others.[1]

• Heart failure
• Kidney failure
• Headache
• Tumors
• Loss of vision
• swelling of the hands and feet

The Giants described in the bible were not specified as having health problem, they were in fact mighty wariors!

Human giants are also unable to pass on there giantism, if they even have kids, because giantism is not genetic.[2] The bible claims that the giants had tribes so they must, if you belive the bible, have been able to pass on there largeness. You deny the Bible describes giants as having groups though so I have dreged up some evidence:

1. The Emims were as tall as the Anakims who were giants (thats two tribes there).[3]
2. In the land of giants dwelt the Zamzummims a race of giants[4]
3. The bible mentions the land of giants a few more times.[5][6] Why would giants have a land to themselves if they had no tribe/group of there own. Did all the poor aflicted children from human parents just migrate there when they were grown up? No, I think not. - Icewedge 01:55, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Evidence for large giants in the Bible

The bible also says that the giants were very large. Way to large for humans (even in the most absurd dreams of a creationist). The bible gives us two similes:

One says that normal people appeard as grasshoppers to these giants.[7]

The other says that the giants were as tall as ceder trees.[8] (Yes taiwan boi. This is descibing a giant.[9])

The purpose of a smilie is to help describe somthing by painting a picture you might say. It is not to just throw out a random phrase that has a meaning other than it seems, that would confuse the issue. When I say the apple was small like a golf ball, I mean that the apple was about the size of a golf ball. So why oh why when the bible says the giants are as tall as ceaders why are they not around the height of ceaders?!? And when the bible says that the people appeard to them as grasshoppers why does that not mean the people were many times smaller than them?!?

That is all. Cheers and Goddspeed. - Icewedge 01:55, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

But there's no evidence in the Bible that the 'giants' spoken of had giagantism. Even Goliath, at just under 7 feet, didn't need to have gigantism in order to be tall (in Iron Age Mesopotamia, with average heights reaching less than 6', anyone over 6' would be remarkably tall). You may or may not be familiar with Sung Ming Ming, who stands at a towering 7' 9" (236 cm), and is a basketball player in the American Basketball Association. And he has giagantism. You may or may not be familiar with Andre the Giant, who stood at 6' 10" (209 cm), and was a professional wrestler for two decades. So yeah, tell me all about the alleged physical inadequacies of anyone with gigantism. You actually linked to acromegaly, not gigantism, unless you didn't notice (gigantism is not always the result of acromegaly, pituitary gigantism does not necessarily involve acromegaly). --Taiwan boi 04:06, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Well you've done it again. All your quotes are from the 400 year old King James translation, despite my warnings to you about quoting out of date translations. You are unaware that in modern Bible translations the word translated 'giants' in these passages in the KJV is actually rendered 'Rephaim', not 'giants', and is recognised as a reference to a particular ethnic group not a 'race of giants'. This ethnic group is recorded as being 'tall' (Hebrew 'ruwm'), but not 'giants'. Evidence that this is an ethnic group rather than a word meaning 'giants' can be found even in the KJV in the passages you quoted. In Deuteronomy 2:11 we read that the Israelites called them 'Rephaim', but the Moabites called them 'Emims' ('terrors'), and in Deuteronomy 2:20 we read that the Israelites called them 'Rephaim', but the Ammonites called them 'Zamzummims' ('plotters'). It is hardly unusual for a particular ethnic group to have an outstanding average height. The Masai tribe in Africa have an average height of 7.22 feet (2.2 metres), which is massive by anyone's standards (hey, taller than Goliath), and I defy you to claim that these people (well known for their physical endurance, as well as their hunting and fighting ability), suffer habitually from the chronic health problems of acromegaly (I'll save you the trouble - they don't). Nor is their great height due to gigantism or acromegaly of any kind (yes, it's genetic and hereditary). So yes, you can indeed have an ethnic group of people who are of unusually tall stature which is not related to gigantism or acromegaly, who are healthy and fit, who produce mighty warriors, and who pass on their stature to their children because their height is due to genetic inheritance, and they exist today. You were saying? --Taiwan boi 04:06, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Ok, so you've simply repeated what you said before and ignored every point I made. You still haven't found me a single passage referring to giants in the Bible who stood 20 feet tall at the minimum, you're grossly misinterpreting the textual data, and you're not even going to check your claims against professional scholarship. Yes, the purpose of a simile is to describe something by comparison ('painting a picture'). No, it's not a random phrase. Sure, when you say 'the apple was small like a golf ball', you might actually mean 'the apple was as small as a golf ball', but that is not actually a correct use of English. A simile is a comparative description, not a precise description. There's a difference between 'small, like a golf ball' (which just means 'It was small'), and 'as small as a golf ball' (which actually means 'The same size as a golf ball'). That aside, you're completely ignoring the context of the passage in Amos (a poetic judgment oracle), and you still haven't answered the question of whether or not Amos was saying they were trees (remember, he says they had branches and roots). So you accept that the references to branches and roots are metaphors, but you won't accept that the reference to their height is also poetic.

Then there's the outstanding matter of your 'research' methodology. You uncritically accepted the claim that the ancient Hebrew cubit was 3 feet long (because you didn't check your facts), you wrongly claimed that only giants could give birth to giants (because you didn't check your facts), then backflipped and claimed that giants could not give birth to giants (basically true, if we're only talking about gigantism), you wrongly claimed than an ethnic group could not possess outstanding stature without suffering acromegaly (because you didn't check your facts), you wrongly claimed that Og had a 9 cubit bed (because you didn't check your facts), you wrongly claimed that the Bible speaks of giants who are at least 20 feet tall (because you didn't check your facts), you wrongly claimed that the Bible speaks of a 'race of giants' whom you claimed had to be suffering from acromegaly (because you didn't check your facts), and you wrongly claimed that an ethnic group could not possess outstanding stature which is genetically hereditary (because you didn't check your facts). Doesn't this embarrass you? Why don't you check your facts? --Taiwan boi 04:06, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Just passing through but you don't seem to be checking your facts either, whatever his faults may be. You say it could be genetic, yes there are groups of humans who are unusually tall but you don't find populations with average heights of more then 6.5 ft. Genetic increase in stature to 10 or 11 feet would take thousands of years, so many bodily systems have to evolve to accommodate the change you just cant make it go much faster. For example human height is currently increase but it is doing so very slowly. Ancient Romans were about 6 inches shorter then contemporary Italians if I recall. The only real way for a dramatic increase in stature withing a short period is a disorder such as giantism or its adult form agromoly. NUMBER 11:10, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, but I have checked my facts and I have linked to the relevant material (do please read the links and contest the data if you will). I can provide more references if you require them. The issue under contention was whether or not an ethnic group could have an average height which is significantly tall, and due to a genetic inheritance. The answer is 'Yes'. Not only are the Masai one example, but the Masai are only one ethnic group of the larger Nilot population (around 7 million people), which comprises at least half a dozen ethnic groups. The average height within the Nilot population is seven feet (210 centimeters). This contradicts directly your claim that 'you don't find populations with average heights of more then 6.5 ft'. Yes we do find populations with average heights of more than 6.5 feet. There are 7 million members of them in Africa. Your comments on a genetic increase in stature to 10 or 11 feet are probably correct, but irrelevant to this discussion. No such increase is under view here. There are no giants in the Bible who are recorded as being anywhere near 10 or 11 feet, let alone more. Nor is there any record in the Bible of a genetic increase in stature in a short space of time. --Taiwan boi 12:05, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

My mistake about Nilot heigh. Still, Golith was 9ft 6in way to high to be acounted by for genetics. NUMBER 12:47, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for being honest about admitting a mistake. I respect that. Yes I agree that 9' 6" is too high for Goliath, certainly too high to be accounted for by genetics. But that doesn't concern me, because I don't believe that 9' 6" is the correct figure recorded in the Bible. As the article to which you linked helpfully pointed out, the 9' 6" figure is only found in the later Masoretic texts. The much earlier Qumran scrolls and the Septuagint (as well as the 1st century Jewish historian Josephus), all record Goliath's height as just under 7 feet. I have in fact made this point two or three times before. There's no reason to claim that the Bible says Goliath was over 9 feet tall, when in fact the oldest Biblical texts say that he was just under 7 feet tall, and only much later copies contain the exaggerated figure. Modern Bible translations such as the New English Translation contain the correct figure, whilst explaining the origin of the wrong figure. --Taiwan boi 22:16, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Global crustal displacement theory

Rand Flem-Ath makes the suggestion that for some reason there was a catastrophic total shift of the earth's crust in relation to the core about 10,000 yrs ago. While his books largely concern the Atlantis myth there are some good points to consider. For example the sudden demise of the mammoths; how these enormous animals could have existed on the sparse vegetation at those latitudes and then end up frozen in the Siberian tundra. If Siberia was further south it would have been warmer and supported more vegetation. Let's face it, an elephant eats an enormous amount of vegetation everyday yet conventional wisdom says that they used to grub around in the snow for stuff to eat. I know it is dangerous territory and borders onto pseudo-science but I believe it is worth serious investigation. I graduated in geology and have seen a lot of changes in my lieftime in the conventional wisdom, that's how science makes progress. Alfred Wegener was ridiculed for his ideas of drifting continents but continental drift has now become accepted in the form of plate tectonics. Some geological processes are incredibly long that it is difficult for us to see them, but just as gradual change was once held to be the order of things we now know that there have been catastrophic events in the earth's past. The earth's magnetic field has flipped an untold number of times - we haven't seen it happen and we don't know what strange things might occur when it does. So if there was some mechanism where the solid crust was caused to move w.r.t the core we could expect flooding by tsunamis and a great change in the weather patterns. Flood myths are a global phenomenon, so just rejecting the biblical version because it is presented as divine intervention is perhaps going to far. Ancient myths are often based on true events that are later embellished by the survivors and may be given a particular slant or interpretation that appears ridiculous to us with our greater knowledge of the way things work. Troy was once thought to be entirely mythological but we now know that it did exist and was destroyed several times. Homer's epic poems are likely to have been a elaborate dramatisation of what actually happened.

Now it's many years since I was a student and I don't have access to all the academic materials but I wouldn't be surprised to find some evidence for ancient flooding. If the scientific community rejects the flood theory solely because of it's Biblical connection but overwhelming proof to support it is then presented, it actually gives the Bible thumpers more power as they can say "we were right all along". On the other hand it might actually be just a load of bollocks anyway. Genghis Khant 05:47, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

I think you can safely ignore the '10,000 year ago' flood theory. Firstly it can't be fitted into the Biblical narrative as it stands. Secondly there wouldn't have been the technology necessary to build the Ark. Thirdly it would have been so catastrophic an event that the Ark would never have survived. Finally there's still the 'animals-go-home' problem.

Sure, flood myths are a global phenomenon. That's because floods are a global phenomenon. It doesn't necessarily mean that there have been any global floods. And don't forget that many flood myths aren't even 2,000 years old. We would expect them all to be roughly the same age if they had the same source. But they aren't. They spring up in different places at different times. A number of them are demonstrably the product of cultural assimilation from Christian missionary work. But yes, just rejecting the biblical version because it is presented as divine intervention is perhaps going to far.

There's plenty of independent evidence for a Mesopotamian mega-flood, on which the Genesis flood narrative is based. The Sumerian and Akkadian flood narratives are independent literary sources, and the 3rd millennium Jemdet Nasr flood layers at Shurrupak, Kish, and Uruk are independent archaeological sources. --Taiwan boi 07:31, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

My point is that the flood myth is independent of the Old Testament, just because it doesn't fit with the Biblical narrative is completely irrelevant and your dismissing of it shows that you're just pushing a literal POV. Any argument concerning the ark is patently flawed as it is a priori. Genghis Khant 07:09, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

I haven't disagreed that flood myths are independent of the Old Testament (if you really meant to refer to one specific flood myth, you'll have to be precise and name it). I made that very point myself. The fact that the Caspian sea flooding doesn't fit in with the Biblical narrative is not in the least irrelevant. It doesn't make any sense that humans would experience a catastrophic event like that, and then wait around for another 7,000 years before just one group of them finally decided to write a story about it. That doesn't make any sense at all. For the tale to have been transmitted over 7,000 years either some incredible oral tradition would have been necessary or it would have had to have been committed to writing. The fact is that there is no evidence that humans ever recorded any flood myths regarding the Caspian sea flooding. I don't dismiss the Caspian sea flooding as a source of the Biblical narrative because I'm 'just pushing a literal POV', I dismiss it because it isn't rational. By the way, it's wrong to say 'Any argument concerning the ark is patently flawed as it is a priori'. It's not only wrong grammatically speaking, it's wrong logically speaking. There are plenty of arguments regarding the Ark which can legitimately be made without begging the question, and do not rely on a prior assumptions. --Taiwan boi 07:31, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Dismissing oral tradition as being incredible shows a distinct ignorance of history and is similar to creationist disissal of evolution solely because it is beyond their comprehension. Genghis Khant 09:07, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

I didn't dismiss oral tradition as being incredible. I simply pointed out that in this particular case there is no evidence for an oral tradition recording the Caspian sea flooding, and I also pointed out that it is extremely unlikely that such an oral tradition would survive some 7,000 years, especially given the radical language changes which would take place over such time. --Taiwan boi 19:34, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

As writing only originated in about 6000 BC any previous story would of course have had to wait to be written down. Early writing was only developed as a means of recording trade and it was quite a while before the anecdotal stuff could be committed to paper (or stone). Other stories and histories have of course been handed down through oral tradition over millennia (native Americans and Australian aborigines for example). Genghis Khant 09:07, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Well you're helpfully proving my point. Writing in the form of narrative and religion predates the Sumerian and Akkadian flood narratives, so the question remains why they would wait for a couple of thousand years to record a 7,000 year old oral tradition of the Caspian sea flooding, but pay absolutely no attention to a catastrophic Mesopotamian mega-flood which took place within the last few centuries. Do you have any idea why they would do this? I'm not aware of any oral traditions which survived more than 7,000 years, radical language change, and massive demographic and ethnic changes. The oral traditions of the native Americans and the Australian Aborigines cannot be reliably dated back thousands of years - there is simply no evidence that they existed that long ago. We have no way of knowing when they emerged. --Taiwan boi 19:34, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Alleging transference of Biblical stories to native cultures in the past 2000 years by Christian missionaries is only a tactic to justify some sort of pre-eminence. Chinese, Indian and native American myths all predate this. Genghis Khant 09:07, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

No it is not a 'tactic to justify some sort of pre-eminence'. I'm not arguing any kind of 'pre-eminence'. I think it's clear that the earliest flood narratives predate the Biblical flood narrative. I did not argue that all non-Biblical flood narratives are the product of cultural transference. But it is a matter of record that a number of flood narratives are. They don't appear until after missionaries arrive in a certain area, and they are demonstrably linked to cultural transference. There is plenty of existing scholarship on this subject. --Taiwan boi 23:09, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Myths do get handed down from generation to generation and therefore CANNOT be accurately dated, it is highly likely that both the Epic of Gilgamesh and Noah's Flood came from an earlier source. Genghis Khant 09:07, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

It is very unlikely that they both came from an earlier source. The original Epic of Gilgamesh predates the Genesis flood narrative, and does not contain a flood narrative at all. The flood narrative in the Epic of Gilgamesh was only added much later, by 7th century Assyrian scribes, who borrowed it directly from the Akkadian Atrahasis Epic (even word for word, in places). The Genesis flood narrative demonstrably has a literary and oral background which is completely different to the Atrahasis Epic, since the story is radically different in a number of key ways, and clearly the product of an independent flood tradition. Certainly I know of no recognized scholarship which attributes the entire Epic of Gilgamesh and the Genesis flood narrative to the same source, nor which attributes the Genesis flood narrative to the Atrahasis Epic. --Taiwan boi 23:09, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

I did not accuse you of pushing a literal point of view regarding the Caspian Sea flooding but rather the way you needed to include the story of Noah's Ark as a basis for what is possible - if it doesn't fit in with the Biblical story then it can't be true. Genghis Khant 09:07, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

I never said that if the Caspian sea flooding doesn't fit in with the Biblical story then it can't be true. It is entirely probable that the Caspian sea flooded. What I argued was that it was extremely unlikely that the Caspian sea flooding was the event recorded in the Genesis flood narrative. That is what I argued. See the reasons I've already given. --Taiwan boi 23:09, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

I agree that my grammar wasn't entirely correct but there is no proof that the Ark ever existed, the only evidence being a story in a book written a couple of thousand years ago. So you are using the prior assumption of the truthfulness of the Ark story to decide whether any other explanations have merit. Genghis Khant 09:07, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

I agree that there is no proof that the Ark ever existed. I have not argued that there is any proof that the Ark ever existed. I have never said 'Well the Ark story is true, so the Ark obviously existed'. It seems you have misread what I wrote. --Taiwan boi 23:09, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Although this article is nominally about a Global Flood it is really about proving the ridiculousness that a bronze-age family could build a vessel out of wood big enough to hold all of the world's creatures and then keep them alive and well for such a long period, as well as deriding the literal interpretation that the whole world was inundated deep enough to cover the highest mountains. Genghis Khant 09:07, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

I agree that it is ridiculous that a bronze-age family could build a vessel out of wood big enough to hold all of the world's creatures and then keep them alive and well for such a long period, as well as deriding the literal interpretation that the whole world was inundated deep enough to cover the highest mountains. But it is not ridiculous that a Bronze Age family could build a vessel out of wood large enough to hold a representative number of the local fauna, then keep them alive and well for such a long period, during a local flood. --Taiwan boi 19:34, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Taiwan boi, if you are going to edit in the middle of people's comments, please copy their sig, at least, to the end of each of "their" sections. Please count this as an etiquitte warning. It becomes impossible to follow who is saying what later if you do this. By the way, what's your point? You know, we have other articles, have you read any, or are you some sort of "flood freak"? Shit, I forgot again! DFTT DFTT DFTT... human^{be in} 21:40, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Ok, sig copy corrected. Thanks for the warning. I think it's very important to give people warnings for inadequate etiquette, but not give warnings for including inaccurate material, lack of citations, and incorrect references................

Something you claim but have been unable to prove. - Icewedge 02:14, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

............It helps keep the standard high. You ask me what my point is. I find that incredible. I have made my point clear more than once. Please read what I write. Yes I know you have other articles. I haven't read them yet. I chose this article because I've seen it quoted online a few times, and thought I would look to see if it was really as poorly written as it appeared. Incredibly, it is. I thought I would do the equitable thing and contribute to improving the article,............

Really? seems to me the only thing you have done so far is delete every thing that contradicted you oh so precious bible. - Icewedge 02:14, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

....................even though as you know I have no self-interest in doing so, and it is in fact in my best interest if atheist sites contain poorly referenced, badly written, inadequately researched articles full of errors. I also chose this article because it's a subject on which I happen to be informed (unlike most here)................

You wonder why he called you a troll. I know the above isnt exatly highly offensive but it is still a slight. - Icewedge 02:14, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

......I have made a number of suggestions for improving the article.............

Most certainly something like "its all quote mineing! delete it!" if I remeber. - Icewedge 02:14, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

..................I have identified inadequate citations, incorrect references, bad arguments, and inaccurate claims.....................

None of which you have convinced us of. - Icewedge 02:14, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

.............I have offered to supply information improving the article..............

Where? You have offered to delete parts of it certainly. - Icewedge 02:14, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

...........To date all of my suggestions have been ignored or rejected,...........

Incorrect. I put back in the name change to the correct bible version, I did a bad revert. I apologize. - Icewedge 02:14, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

...............and you are now - incredibly - calling me a troll. Well thanks, that's very good of you. I see I've outstayed my welcome, and you're not the slightest bit interested in any improvements. So I'll leave you to it. --Taiwan boi 23:07, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

A message to Taiwan Boi

Taiwan Boi, you are welcome to contribute here at Rationalwiki where we like to have different points of view, even religious ones if they can either adhere to a rational line or be presented in a satirical or humourous fashion (we cover a broad range of topics). RW makes no claim to be a rival to Wikipedia, the example of Conservapedia has shown us how futile that would be. RW's aim is to debunk pseudo-science and irrational belief.

Many editors here have been scarred by their dealings with the predominantly Biblical literalism at Conservapedia, where the biblical text is held as inerrant and contains no contradictions. So the articles here frequently address that point of view. You have arrived here and started editing, perhaps a little overzealously, in an attempt to move this article's tone to the one portrayed at Bible Apologetics. This would defeat the purpose of the article. Now if you wish to submit a writing plan create your own article on a "rational Christian's" (or however you might like to describe yourself) interpretation of the biblical flood account then please go ahead. But do expect to be challenged on your evidence if you cite the Bible as proof of anything. (We do not give preferential treatment to one particular ancient text.) However, if you call into question one particular part of the Bible then the veracity of everything else cannot go unchallenged. Personally I have no doubt that many things in the Bible are based on historical events, some are allegories for a civilised existence (Jesus himself used parables to make a point), and many are for a distinctly uncivilised existence. Using the whole mish-mash as the basis on which to lead my life frankly is not on.

Before I finish, your dismissal of oral tradition cannot go unchallenged as it is crucial to your own arguments. I don't know how much at Bible Apologetics you are personallly responsible for but Genesis certainly gets a fair number of quotes. Excuse me if I take an anti-YEC line here but who was the secretary during creation? Was an early Vatican documentary team recording events in the Garden of Eden? Did Noah keep a diary, and if so in what form? (I can imagine it now on the ark "Keep the goats off the papyrus or no-one will ever know what really happened! Oh, I wish we had brought clay tablets.") There are great lists of begattting in the Bible, just how was all the previous stuff handed down? When did Moses write his autobiography or who thought it would be a good idea to write the early stuff down and then carry it about for all those years in the wilderness? Much of the early Bible was handed down through oral tradition whether you like it or not.

Your desire to present the "truth" is admirable, but there are often several versions of the truth when it comes to history. If you feel so strongly about the subject perhaps you could also help us out at Conservapedia where your credentials might carry greater weight than some of ours. Goatspeed (Oh, not on my diary!) Genghis Khant 04:30, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for these comments. I'd like to point out that I didn't at all come here and start editing in an attempt to move the article's tone to the one portrayed on my Website. I have not placed any apologetic material in this article whatsoever. None. None at all. Not only that, but I have stated more than once that I have no intention of doing so. I have also expressed my interest in assisting the arguments against a global flood. What I have done is identify bad arguments against the Genesis flood narrative. Some here have interpreted that as constituting Christian apologetic. I am not responsible if people are unable to distinguish between correcting a bad argument, and writing a counter-argument (I have done the former, not the latter). I haven't even suggested that I create an article on a 'rational Christian's' interpretation of the flood, and that hasn't been my aim here either. I don't have any interest in repeating here the material which is already on my Website. If you read my posts, you will see that I have not cited the Bible as proof of anything - nothing whatever - not even once. On more than one occasion I have specifically stated that the Bible cannot be cited as proof of the issues under discussion.

You still seem to be misreading my comments on oral tradition, so I will repeat them. I am not dismissing oral tradition as a viable medium for historical accounts, even over centuries. I simply pointed out that in this particular case (the Caspian sea flooding), there is no evidence for an oral tradition recording the Caspian sea flooding, and I also pointed out that it is extremely unlikely that such an oral tradition would survive some 7,000 years, especially given the radical language changes which would take place over such time. I also pointed out that it would be very strange for a culture to record in writing a narrative regarding a flood which took place 7,000 years ago, and yet completely ignore a massive flood which wiped out a civilization just a few centuries ago.

As to the means by which the events in Genesis were recorded, there are several theories. I'm not particularly tied to any one of them. Given that I believe a lot of the Genesis record wasn't written until Moses' date, and some of it written long after, I don't feel any need to claim that Genesis was recorded entirely (or even mostly), contemporary with the events it describes. I'm perfectly happy with the idea that it draws on a number of oral traditions, which only had to survive a few centuries before being grouped and recorded in text. I don't believe Moses wrote his autobiography, but given the fact that the Hebrews already had writing before they left Egypt, and given the amount of the Pentateuch which was written in the 10th century, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with that either. Please don't mistake me for the kind of hell and brimstone-YEC-blind faith only-unthinking-gun toting Evangelical with which you may be personally familiar.

As for presenting the 'truth', I have confined myself here to presenting not my version of truth, but the version presented by standard academic authorities and sources on the subjects on which I have chosen to write. You're completely welcome to contest those authorities and sources. I can even assist you contacting some of them by email (professional Greek and Hebrew linguists and translators).

I could help you out at Conservapedia, but having looked at it a few times I can tell you that I would be locked out pretty much the moment I set foot in the place. If there's one thing they hate more than atheists, it's Christians who agree in any way with atheists. And frankly I believe Conservapedia is a resource which doesn't deserve any of my time. I'd much prefer to edit RationalWiki and Wikipedia, which are more likely to be read by the majority of thinking people. --Taiwan boi 05:16, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

I'd just like to point out that it is the Black Sea not the Caspian which is proposed as an alternative explanation of the Biblical flood [10] and my brief investigation into flood deposits in Mesopotamia are that although Leonard Woolley claimed to have found evidence of the flood at Ur actually only irregular layers of silt exist (of which pottery, graves and buildings are present both above and below these layers), and none of the layers encompass a whole site but instead indicate regular localised flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates in Sumer and Akkad. - as might be expected from flood waters from the Turkish mountains breaking the levees in the agricultural plains. And I present this quote from National Geographic's Seventy Great Mysteries of the Ancient World: The Biblical Flood and Noah's Ark";

The oral traditions that underlie the written narrative in Genesis could easily have persisted in the hands of skilled story-tellers over many centuries, and it is clear from inconsistencies in the biblical text itself that these sources did not agree in every detail

I was aware of the 'Black Sea flooding' theory, but I thought Genghis Khant was suggesting a new theory. A little looking around indicates that there's a theory which has both flooding thousands of years ago. Your comments about Woolley's findings are partly accurate, but Woolley's findings are only part of the picture. There are other flood layer findings which were discovered later, which contribute to a more complete understanding of the event:

‘At Shuruppak, and also at Uruk, the last Jemdet Nasr remains are separated from the subsequent Early Dynastic I Period by clean, water-lain clay deposited by a flood. This clay is nearly five feet thick at Uruk [60] and two feet thick at Shuruppak. [61] Since the Sumerian King List mentions that Noah (Ziusudra) lived in Shuruppak (today the archaeological mound of Fara), and since Noah is believed to have lived during the Jemdet Nasr Period, [62] then these sediments date from the right time and place and may be deposits left by Noah’s Flood.

[60] P. Carleton, Buried Empires: The Earliest Civilizations of the Middle East (London: Edward Arnold, 1939), 64.

[61] M. E. Mallowan, “Noah’s Flood Reconsidered,” 80.

[62] C. A. Hill, “A Time and Place for Noah,” 26.’

Carol A Hill, ‘Qualitative Hydrology Of Noah’s Flood’, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, volume 58, number 2, page 126, June 2006

‘The search for flood deposits within the settlement hills was triggered by Sir C. Leonard Woolley’s excavations at Ur south of Uruk in the 1920’s. WOOLLEY (1931) ascribed a more than 2.5 m thick homogeneous loam void of artifacts to Noah’s Flood. Below this layer are traces of an early civilization which had been buried by a great flood. The hanging layers were those of the pure Sumerian civilizations. Systematic search has shown that other tells [archaeological sites] in middle and southern Mesopotamia, e.g. Kish (Tell al-Uhaimir) and Shuruppak (Tell Fara), also have layers which may be interpreted as deposits of a great flood.

It seems that Mesopotamia was subject to a mega-flood around 2900 BC. A unique rise in the water table of the Euphrates and Tigris, e.g. caused by extraordinary and long-lasting rains in their source area, plus a southern wind blocking the drainage into the Persian Gulf, may have drowned the extremely flat central and southern Mesopotamia completely.’

Dr. Helmut Brückner, Department of Geography, University of Marburg, ‘Are there evidences for Noah’s Flood?’

‘When Kish was systematically excavated between 1923 and 1933, the Anglo-American team discovered a flood stratum upon which the remains of the Early Dynastic I period, [commenced 2,900 BC] i.e. the first period dominated by priest kings, was found. [33]

Meanwhile, excavations have ’shown that the Archaic Sumerian or Early Dynastic civilization of the early third millennium follows notable flood levels at several important sites: Shuruppak, Kish, and Uruk among them. […] The great recorded depth of the deposits at Ur, over 3 m, and at Shurrupak, probably about 60 cm, are significant as they would require lagoon-like conditions for a fairly long time‘. [58]

[33] M. Gibson, ‘Kis. B. Archaologisch’, in Realexicon der Assyriologie, vol. 5, Berlin, Walter de Gruyter 1976-80, p. 618.

[58] R. L. Raikes, ‘The physical evidence of Noah’s Flood’, Iraq XXVIII (1966),p. 53.

Gunnar Heinsohn, ‘The Rise Of Blood Sacrifice And Priest-Kingship In Mesopotamia: A ‘Cosmic Decree’?', 2001

Irregular silt layers are to be expected in flood conditions. Your quote from the National Geographic source helpfully supports the idea that the Genesis flood narrative was taken from oral traditions which had successfully survived the interval from the event to the time of writing. As for the sources not agreeing in every detail, that's hardly news - we've known that since the Atrahasis Epic and the Eridu Genesis narrative were discovered decades ago. It's to be expected that different sources of oral tradition for a particular event are going to differ in detail. The important issue is which of them presents the most credible details. --Taiwan boi 18:26, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

So the flood story with the most credible details is true then? Well I guess the bible loses out. What is more credible; god told a single family to build a boat, then collect seven of some animals and two of others, after which a flood high enough to cover the highest mountains for 150 days overran Mesopotamia while (according to you) high winds pushed the ark upstream or the arcadian version where there is a flood in the lowlands and people escape by climbing the hills?[11] ^{— Unsigned, by: Icewedge / talk / contribs}

No, the point I was making was that with regard to a given flood event recorded by a number of different flood stories, the flood story with the most credible details is the most likely to be true, the most likely to be an accurate depiction of the flood event. Its credibility is not proof that it is true. It seems you're unfamiliar with all four of the flood stories under discussion (I provided a link which evaluates them, please read it). The issue under discussion is which of these four is the most credible account of the 2,900 BC Mesopotamian mega-flood. The Arcadian flood story you cite certainly sounds credible, but it's not talking about the same flood as the Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian, and Hebrew flood narratives. It's talking about a perfectly ordinary local flood which took place in Greece (not Mesopotamia), far later than the Mesopotamian mega-flood of 2,900 BC. This has no bearing whatever on the credibility of the Genesis flood narrative.

By the way, you're still misrepresenting the Genesis flood narrative. There's nothing in the narrative which says that only Noah's family were involved in building the Ark, there's no need to posit that the highest mountains were under water for 150 days (as I've shown you, the Genesis account doesn't say this, and in fact says that by the end of the 150 days the water had abated, and also says that before this time the tops of the hills or mountains were already visible). You haven't addressed the issue, which was the comparative credibility of the Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian and Hebrew flood narratives. Nor have you even attempted to address the hydrological data which proves that the upstream movement of the Ark under the influence of a stalled cyclonic system is entirely credible. It seems you're just not very good at doing research or assessing facts. For this reason, it's a shame that you have been given open license to edit this article without having to consult anyone else, and that others refuse to have your edits corrected even when your errors are exposed. --Taiwan boi 21:52, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

Archive

Someone more knowledgable than me needs to archive a lot of this talk page (currently, it's over 111 kb). Thunderkatz^Ho! 12:23, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Done. Did I archive too much?-αmεσ (!) 13:19, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

Suggested edits

The following are edits I'm suggesting for improvement to the article. I have placed in bold the sections I have changed. I haven't bothered correcting spelling mistakes and grammatical errors for the most part (just here and there), since most of them have obviously been in the article for so long they're clearly supposed to be there.

Introduction:

The global flood is a common interpretation of a flood narrative found in the book of Genesis.[1] This interpretation of the narrative understands the story to tell of a great flooding of the world in which every last animal except those on a large boat. The flood according to this interpretation of the narrative is brought because all but eight people in the whole world were wicked and needed to be killed. It does not specify if the animals were killed because they were wicked or if they were just collateral damage.[2]

Note that I've kept the utterly hilarious last line intact, even though it could be improved.

Gathering the Animals:

In this interpretation of the flood story, at least two of every "kind" of animal were present on Noah's Ark.

Aquatic species survival:

No marine life is recorded as having been taken onboard the Ark[6] so each observable aquatic species we see today, according to the global flood interpretation, had to have survived the entire duration of the flood.

Integrity of Noah's Ark:

During a global flood Noah's Ark would have faced the most brutal weather in the history of the world.

The Rain Itself:

The amount of water vapor suspended in air needed for a global flood would have been unbreathable. Humans, and virtually every other animal, would have drowned by the simple act of breathing. The atmospheric pressure caused by such a density of suspended water would also have been lethal for most air breathing lifeforms.

I have already suggested edits to the 'Sons of God', 'Human Lifespan', 'Giants' and 'Rainbow' sections of this article. I would like to see them addressed. Here they are again:

• Sons of God: This section referred to the Contemporary English Version of the Bible using incorrect nomenclature. It also made an entirely spurious argument by selectively quoting this translation of the Bible without explaining why this particular translation is superior to others. The fact is that the translation 'supernatural beings' found in this translation is not found in the majority of standard English translations over the last 400 years. It is a gloss, and a fringe gloss at that. The entire argument made in the 'Sons of God' section relies on the 'sons of God' being 'supernatural beings', something which the Bible never says. Making an argument from a single Bible translation which contains a gloss not found in any standard reputable modern Bible translation is not only very sloppy research, it commits the fallacy of selective quoting. I note that the article does this quite a lot. There are about four or five different Bible translations being quoted, each one in order to justify a particular 'spin' on the Genesis narrative.

• Human lifespan: Same problem as above. Once more a loose paraphrase of the Bible has been quoted (not even a translation), and once more this paraphrase is being uniquely quoted in the article (apparently only in this place, and only because its translation creates an apparent contradiction in the text. Once more there is no explanation given as to why this paraphrased version of the English Bible is authoritative, and the majority of standard reputable modern English translations are ignored (undoubtedly because they do not contain this 'contradiction'). This is sloppy research and selective quoting.

• Giants: This section claims that since giants lived after the flood, they must have survived the flood and been carried aboard the Ark. This commits the logical fallacy of the non sequitur. There is no necessity whatever for giants to have survived the flood. Giants can be born to non-giants, and typically are. This argument was based on completely faulty reasoning. The earliest 'giants' referred to after the flood don't appear until over 1,500 years after the flood has taken place, and are not even referred to as 'giants' but as an ethnic group called the 'Rephaim' who are described only as 'tall' (not 'giants'). The length of time between them and the flood is plenty of time for a group of unusually tall people to develop (height increases of 3 inches or more have occurred within populations in as little as 30 years, and height increases of a foot have occurred within populations in just a few centuries). In the Bronze Age people would not have only needed to be over 6 feet tall in order to classify as 'giants', meaning that an average height increase of a quarter to half a foot would have been necessary to classify an entire ethnic group as unusually tall. Another error this section commits is in claiming that the statement made by the men of Israel that the Anakim made them feel like grasshoppers really means that the men of Israel were claiming that the Anakim were so large that the physical difference in proportion between the Anakim and the men of Israel was the same as the physical difference in proportion between a grasshopper and a fully grown human adult. This is nonsense, as the text says no such thing.

• The 'Rainbow' section contains the wholly unsubstantiated claim that the ancient Israelites thought that the rainbow was a physical object. It also starts by saying that the Bible seems to say that God created the rainbow after the flood, and then immediately continues on the basis that this mere assumption is a statement of fact. The Bible nowhere says that God created the rainbow after the flood, and early rabbinical exegesis says no such thing (the earliest rabbinical exegesis says that the rainbow was already around from the beginning of creation). --Taiwan boi 23:20, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

OMG, you like to say the same thing over and over again... Anyway, I am typing to address one thing: "spelling mistakes and grammatical errors". Please correct them. They are not intentional, they are just the work of an editor whose command of English grammar and syntax is weaker than his command of computer languages. I'd love to see an edit by you to this file that simply "makes it better" - ie, fixing grammar, spelling, etc. - just to show, if nothing else, that you are "on our side". As far as I can see, you simply have an axe to grind, the "flood" is your pet topic, and you want... I don't know. What do you want here? Besides links to your blog? human^{be in} 23:32, 9 September 2007 (CDT)

I've said the same thing a few times now, but I can assure you this is the last time I will say it if I get a clear answer. If you people do not wish these issues to be corrected, and you're happy with those parts of the article the way they are, then I'll simply stop commenting on them. Instead I'll enjoy taking the entire article apart on my blog. I find it interesting that you're happy for me to do all the laborious corrections of spelling and grammar that no one else wants to do, in order to show that I'm on 'your' side. You accuse me of having an axe to grind, despite the fact that I am not pushing my own interpretation of the flood here, and I am in fact offering to improve your criticism of the common Christian interpretation. Axe to grind? What axe would that be again? As to what I want, I've explained this before - I want to improve this article. I do not want links to my site. I've never asked for links to my site, certainly not in the article. The only times I've linked to my site are when I've been asked for evidence to substantiate various statements of mine. --Taiwan boi 00:17, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

'The Bible and the Torah'

Are people aware that the statement 'The Bible and the Torah' is redundant? The Torah is part of the Bible. --Taiwan boi 00:42, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Yes. Was it needed in context for clarity? Even if so it could be better written - perhaps "The Bible (which includes the Torah)"? Only if needed due to later refs to "either" book(s). human^{be in} 14:15, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

It wasn't needed in context for clarity, and doesn't make any sense. It could be written better simply by saying 'the book of Genesis'. --Taiwan boi 22:04, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

'an incredible most likely insurmountable problem logistical problem'

I would like to suggest that this phrase needs serious work. It contains an obvious redundancy. A similar hilarity is the statement 'extreme insurmountable difficulties' (I suggest the author of this phrase does not know the meaning of the word 'insurmountable'). --Taiwan boi 00:44, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Hahaha, I'd missed that one. I would often copyedit new "chunks" when added to this article, since they badly needed it. I wasn't concerning myself with content so much, just readability. I figured worrying about how good the content was could come after the new stuff slowed down. Shall I go repair those horribly clumsy phrases or are you on it? human^{be in} 14:19, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

I'm on it. As long as I don't have to wait for a consensus. --Taiwan boi 22:05, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Latest edits

I have made a number of typographical and grammatical corrections to the article. --Taiwan boi 00:53, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Much appreciated... you're not the only only one trying to keep it readable... and thanks for the capped "Ark"! human^{be in} 12:18, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

Just an Observation

I noticed that many of the points that Taiwan boi is being critical of are based on translation variances. Whereas many cultures have flood stories what we are analyzing here is the generally accepted story contained in the bible. Perhaps Taiwan boi has inadvertently helped clarify an issue with these biblical story debunking articles by questioning the translation from which we gather our information for our argument. So if anyone is will perhaps we should put a header that top of this page listing this flood story as literally described by the King James Version or ect.

I point this out because if there is a question behind the translation then there is a question behind the literal meaning of the words of the translation and example would be the rainbow story as Taiwan Boi pointed out. If we were to adopt a literal version then there would be no question of the as to what the authors meant. After all if we are to take and of the bible literally then we need to take it all literally (last time I check there were no disclaimers in the bible stating "the proceeding text is to be taken metaphorically"). Just my 2 cents.--TimS 06:57, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

TimS: copyedit above please SJG^sjg 07:14, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

Tim makes a good point and I've been thinking about it too. In fact, for this very reason, I've been avoiding contributing to this class of article. It comes down to audience. Let’s imagine that we can divide Christian religious belief/knowledge into three types (yes I know it’s arbitrary).

Level one I’ll call Under Educated Utter Fundamentalist (UEUF). The bible is correct in the King James version and that’s all there is to it.

Level two is Reasonably Educated Intermediate Christian (REIC). The bible is broadly correct but a literal interpretation is absurd.

Level three is Super Educated Biblical Scholar (SEBC). The Bible was true when it was written but can only be really understood if one goes back to the original texts.

The existence of these three levels gives us a problem in addressing the bible. Why? Well let’s take tihs Global Flood article. It's directed at Cat 1. Given the large number of cat1's in the US this may be a good strategy. But cat 2's will take us to task for taking the bible literally, and cat 3's will simply say that we don’t know what we’re talking about. But if we write for cat 2's we go straight past cat 1's and still get picked on by cat3's. And If we write for cat3's then we have an encyclopedic entry understood only by the cognoscenti.

What is the solution? Write three articles for every biblical topic? Put a heading on each article saying which translation it's debunking? Purge the site of any reference to the bible and simply say that we make no reference to works of religion? Make the site explicitly atheist?--Bob^{'s your uncle} 08:07, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

Well, I'd go for the atheist option but then there'd be no-one to argue with & only the converted would come near the site. So the obvious (albeit ridiculous?) way would be to have a three column arg - one for each. The third might get a bit (!) big though. The thing to do is play it by ear, start off simple & get more complex with time? SJG^sjg 08:27, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

One, I "agree" with TimS above, except that there is no such thing as a literal translation of the Bible, as TB has pointed out. Any translation (beyond "ou est la toilette") has to be interpreted to get from one language to another, which is why most bible translations/versions are annotated. Two, I agree with BobM, in the sense that we should have a "disclaimer" at the top - article is aimed at "cat1", please, cat2 and cat3 people, bear with us. Also mention why we are using (if we keep doing so) multiple versions for the quotes. human^{be in} 12:36, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

These are very useful comments, and human yours are particularly pertinent. Translation always involves some kind of interpretative process. I've spent some years on B-Trans, an email list run by professional Bible translators (though non-professionals such as myself are welcome to observe and comment), and this is one point they find very difficult to get across to people.

Having said which, my particular objections to the use of translations in the article as it stands at present are directed at the fact that certain translations are being quoted as authoritative specifically in order to attack the text which they present, despite the fact that these translations are not professionally recognized as authoritative. No professional Bible translator would consider the KJV an authoritative Bible translation, nor the CEV. I would recommend using a well recognised Bible translation (specifically the New English Translation, which contains plenty of useful footnotes), and I would check the translation of any passage against a range of other translations in order to determine whether or not it is a 'fringe' rendering (the CEV and the KJV are both known for 'fringe' renderings).

TimS, the Bible doesn't come with a disclaimer saying 'the proceeding text is to be taken metaphorically', any more than the works of Shakespeare, Milton, Wordsworth, Austen, or Dickens do. The reader was and is expected to interpret each part of the text according to its genre. This means interpreting poetry as poetry, interpreting judgment oracle as judgment oracle, interpreting historical narrative as historical narrative, etc. It also means recognizing the various literary forms which each genre uses. Historical narrative may use figures of speech such as metaphor, simile, and hyperbole, none of which are to be interpreted literally. Furthermore, it requires an understanding of how certain phrases (such as idioms), were used in the Hebrew language. The phrase 'all... under heaven' did not necessarily mean 'every... on the planet', nor did the phrase 'all the earth' necessarily mean 'the entire planet'. It is misleading to say 'if we are to take and of the bible literally then we need to take it all literally' - misleading and wrong. This is exactly the mistake into which uneducated Fundamentalists fall.

BobM, your distinctions are useful. You could take a pointer from the TalkOrigins flood FAQ, which states at the start that it is only directed at global interpretations of the Genesis flood narrative, and makes no comment on local interpretations. I would recommend doing the same. Alternatively, you could introduce subsections to the article which also address different historical interpretations of the flood, though that would require more work. This also answers both your questions and those by SJG. What I would certainly recommend is that the editors of this article spend a lot more time on proper research, so that they are aware of all the relevant issues with this subject, and the common Christian arguments. --Taiwan boi 22:04, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to have different sections explaining the various perspectives on the event and the "evidence"? -Smyth 15:09, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

No contributions for the last three days or so. Is everyone on vacation, or is this article the way you want it? --Taiwan boi 23:35, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Gee, I didn't realize there was a deadline to have it "finished" to your satisfaction... human^{be in} 00:44, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Taiwan Boi, I just want to point out the issue in the logic of the literalism of the bible. Without your stated disclaimer when should one acknowledge a passage as factual or as metaphorical? By your reasoning the bible can not be taken as truth due to no true indicator to its validity. If the message is hidden in the text through metaphorical expression then how is the literal truth to be determined without some human interpretation that could be misleading? Here is the issue with this claim. Those that take the bible literally have committed themselves to the direct interpretation of the text without weeding though hidden meanings, this seems to be the most clear since speculatory notion could not be applied to the underlining reasoning of the author. However if the bible is not taken literally but metaphorically then that allows room for interpretation which means that the validity of the text is called into question when used as a factual president. The global flood is a wonderful example of this. If we take the text literally we have to assume that the world was fully covered in water which, through geological understanding we know is not the case. However if we take the text metaphorically then we can say that there was a flood and since the author's world view was limited by their experience then when "the waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep" we can assume that the "the waters prevailed above the mountains" is defined by the current world view of the author which may or may not be the literal understanding of the phrase "the waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep". With all of this said how can a person take such a text as the truth when it has been shown to be false in the literal understanding of the text?--TimS 15:00, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Where did the water go?

Perhaps we should put this in somewhere. Some claim that the ocean beds became deeper causing the water to trapped but if you take the diameter of the earth and calculate the surface area that the water would have to cover to flood the world the water in the oceans does not account for enough water to flood the whole earth.--TimS 15:06, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

That one's easy! See Antarctica! human^{be in} 15:18, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

LOL, you know I have asked this question on CBN's board a couple of times and I get weird answers like a comet hit the earth and caused the water to go into space, hense the reason for water on Mars.--TimS 15:25, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

"Probability of landing"

Hoji, your math's good only if you assume that the Ark would land at any random spot on the earth, but since it has a specific starting point and could only presumably be moved by huge amounts of wind or large currents, it does not have an equal probability distribution across the earth. Most likely the probability of it landing near where it started would be highest, and it would get smaller the farther away from its origin. Think about it this way: if you had a rubber ducky floating in 1 inch of water in your bathtub, then slowly raise the water level, then slowly drain the water level, the rubber ducky will end up just about where it started. Lurker 23:15, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Goddamnitmotherfuck. --Ζωροάστρης 23:25, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Oh man that response just made my day. I'm cracking up over here on my side of the keyboard. Lurker 23:34, 6 November 2007 (EST)

You assume that the water was still user:lurker. Was the water still? Well according to creationists no, in the creation flood model sedimentary rocks were formed at this time. How do you make hundreds of thousands of feet of sedimentary rock form in a flood? You make the water move very, very fast. How fast? 80 meters per second. Now put your rubber ducky in your bath tub and swish the water around at 160+ MPH, do you think that the rubber ducky would land in the same place? You also have to consider the factor of time. Even if you raised the water level very slowly after many months the position of the ducky would be pretty much random. I say re-add the section. - Icewedge 23:41, 6 November 2007 (EST)

If you have the time, Wedgy (my new affectionate nickname for you), you could calculate the drift rate per day, and see if the ark could circumnavigate the globe in 40 days. Please feel free to re-insert the section.--Ζωροάστρης 23:46, 6 November 2007 (EST)

We do know that this is just a story, right?CЯacke® 00:20, 7 November 2007 (EST)

You also know that a sizable percentage of the world's followers of Abrahamic religions (many Christians and Jews, and theoretically all Muslims since the Qur'an is universally accepted as the literal word of God). Therefore, every piece of evidence that works against it serves to discredit these religions. That's a good thing. --Ζωροάστρης 00:30, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Ah, did you want to finish your thought? Or do you prefer to dangle participles? CЯacke® 00:33, 7 November 2007 (EST)

You're right, Ice, I was simplifying the example because honestly I believe the Great Flood is allegorical (gasp) and therefore do not spend a lot of time reading about things like water speeds and such. Still, it stands to reason that it is very hard to move the ark, since it's s'darn big. Also, even if the ark moved substantially it is highly unlikely that it would be a truly random probability; there's got to be some sort of probability distribution because (a) the ark has a definite starting point and (b) the flood only lasted 40 days. Really, (b) is the more important part here, because the only way there would be a uniform probability distribution is if the flood took a very very large amount of time or if the ark were moving very very fast.

Ok, I just reread what the rest of you wrote above and I see you said more or less the same thing. However, I still think that it would not be truly random across the entire globe. This time next semester I could probably calculate the actual probability based on some assumptions (I will be taking a class in probability). I might be able to do something rough in the mean time though and get a rough range. I don't think you should readd the section, but the mobacracy rules. Lurker 00:47, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Going 500 miles in 40 days would imply a speed of .23 meters per second, a speed which may seem fast but is actually way to slow for ocean currents which are usually between 1-2.5 m/s and ocean currents in the flood would have most likely been a lot faster in the deeper water.

This does not really mater though because I just realized another problem with the section. The Bible does not specify where Noah built his ark which would make any arguments that he landed to close to his starting point invalid. - Icewedge 01:13, 7 November 2007 (EST)

I shall have ample time tomorrow evening to pore over Genesis 2 genealogies and commentaries, to determine a generalized location for where Noah lived at the time of the Ark's construction. This sounds like a good project for a slow evening. --Ζωροάστρης 01:35, 7 November 2007 (EST)

I think that we need to step back and simply state the obvious here. The writers of these myths only really knew of a geographic area approximately bordering Greece to the west, the north coast of the Black Sea to the north, Persia to the east, and the Horn of Africa to the south. That's why Noah "landed" where he landed. To the writers there was no where else to land. This doesn't even begin to mention that the story is just a copy of older stories. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 07:52, 7 November 2007 (EST)

AronRa delivers

Check out this excellent playlist! Four short Global Flood videos by AronRa and already the first one had both novel points, and provided a few laughs (AronRa's the man)!

Sounds like the playlist will keep growing as he adds to it, but for now, it's four videos on how the following sciences disprove Noah's flood (respectively):

• Meteorology
• Geology
• Paleontology
• Dendrochronology

There's bound to be great quotes in the videos, and the video summaries contain citable articles! Dig in. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)