New Article regarding the Global Flood of Noah

by jwfacts 63 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • jwfacts

    I have put together a new article regarding whether the Global Flood of Noah is possible. It utilises a lot of information from threads on JWN, and some of you may recognise your own comments. Please feel free to proof read, make suggestions, provide further references, etc.

    It is not intended to be a scientfic article, but a simple summary of areas of science that prove a flood covering the highest mountains globally is impossible, hence it is lengthy but quite light reading.

  • Terry

    You may want to run the article through spell-check. Apologists will grasp at spelling errors if they cannot find any others. Why give them a shred?

  • jwfacts

    Good idea Terry. It is always unususal to do, as the spellchecker has issues with the Watchtower quotes being American, but my writing being English. I have done check now and updated the article.

  • Socrateswannabe

    Thank you so much for this great synopsis! First-rate reasoning!

  • ThomasCovenant

    Thank you very much, once again for your work.

    The Flood and date of the flood and everything associated with it, is the single biggest reason I have to disbelieve the Witnesses and the Witness view of Genesis.

    Is there a ''god''? Who knows for sure? I doubt it very much.

    Were we created? Who knows for sure? I very strongly suspect no.

    Was there a worldwide flood in 2370 BC? Of course not, you idiot.

    I would challenge any Witness to spend 2 or 3 hours reading your website and still believe the Watchtower.

    I wouldn't belive them if they said they still did.

  • bohm

    Very nice article, very efficient presentation.

    • " The easiest proof to visualise regarding a global flood is that of Australian marsupials. ". I love the example (can it be brought up later? for instance that it waddle over the destroyed world covered in salted mud and sediments which is being shaken by earthquakes as the himalayas are shooting up?). I would not say "proof" but illustration. Also, perhaps add reference to its date (50'000) along with method of dating.
      Also possibly add a few more animals which can only live of a special diet and live at places very far off. Perhaps also point out the strange coinsidence no rats, rabbits, etc. made it along the marcipuals.
    • Re. "where is the water", JW. has historically believed in the idea the water was in orbit, i think it is still quite a common belief and can be found with some variations in the litterature. Water falling from even low orbit will release enough temperature to be about 1000K hot; perhaps include this as a footnote?
    • De-focus claims which are hard to verify easily. For instance the claim the ark would leak. I am sure this is true, but what is the proof? Sure, boats sag (which was the greatest problem), but sagging is related to the shape of the hull (specifically more boyance along the middle) and the ark did not have this shape; since nobody has ever been stupid enough to build a large boats in wood the shape of a box the appolegist will find comfort here.
    • Can the proposal of hyperevolution after the ark be contrasted to a quote by the WT on evolution which says (something along the lines of) "if there is no evidence of evolution why accept it as true", then use that to emphasize more on the clear double standard of both being able to propose hyperevolution and hyperspecitation without any evidence at a rate far, far higher than anything considered by people who propose evolution, and at the same time be extremely sceptic about evolution when it is proposed to happend at a much lower rate? I know you are making the same point, but backing it up with quotes would be very nice.
    • With respect to dendrochronology, you should either define it or introduce it without the name. Perhaps a text along the lines of: "The global flood contradict many simple observations. Take for instance something as simple as counting annual layers in trees; nobody would take offense at the idea a tree with 500 annual layers is about 500 years old, but it become more problematic when a tree such as the Bristlecone Pine Prometheus which had 4,844 annual layers in 1964. Did it survive beneath the saline water for a year? Even though Bristlecone Pine is known for missing anual growth layers, did it for some reason grow very fast at some point? Since it only grow in high altitude, how did it manage having the mountain shooting into the air? The problem is not just a single tree, by aligning tree-rings scientists can trace trees back 10'000 years, and these dates can give an independent confirmation of carbon 14 dating. The watchtowers response is very simple: the entire field of dendrochronology has simply been ignored.".
    • I would emphasize glaciers on mountains more. They go back at least 18000 years are harder to explain than glaciers near the poles when one wish to claim the mountains themselves did not exist, also inside their ice is microfossils of bugs and leafs which have been carbon 14 dated and independently confirm the age obtained by counting seasonal layers (or the validity of C14,whichever way you wish to argue).
  • j dubb
    j dubb

    Very, very nice!

    Considering the scientific evidence against a Noachian flood was a great benefit to me.

  • AnnOMaly

    That looks great! Keeping a tab open to read your article later.

  • unstopableravens

    terry: you i cant say anything about that ,im prob the worst speller here!

  • besty

    great arrticle Paul - it was the flood that started me on the road to perdition....

    one typo - 'drowning' not 'drawing' - you can ctrl F the location..

Share this