Scientists attempt to disprove God’s existence

[Guest]

My lady & I were watching a discovery channel show the other day. We like watching them. Science is interesting, even when we disbelieve a fair amount of what they say. For instance, scientists will often talk about what might have killed the dinosaurs on discovery channel. They’ll talk about everything except ‘the flood’. Scientists just don’t want to deal with the Bible at all. This is incredible since there is global evidence of a flood by the myth & legends of most every culture on the face of the entire planet. But, scientists want nothing at all to do with it, because it is from the Bible.

At any rate, the other day, the scientists were talking about the possibility of life on other planets. They stated the usual about how there were so many stars that statistics alone suggest that there should be earthlike planets. But they haven’t found any yet. They were also quite realistic in that even if they found such a planet, chances were slim that it would be as perfectly balanced as earth in terms of elements, atmosphere, and temperature. They left out how important the moon was to the earth, but that’s okay. They then stated how it might still be possible for life to exist on those planets even if there were extreme conditions, because we found microbes existing in the acid baths of +30 degree over boiling point in Yellowstone springs. And of course, many people know of the life that exists around volcano vents in the deep ocean. They suggested that because there is life that can exist here in extremes of PH & temperature, that perhaps life can exist in even greater extremes on other earth-like worlds.

I started thinking to myself, what is the value of life on other worlds? Unless that life is intelligent & we can somehow interact with it, what is important about it at all, in any way, shape, or form? It would be as worthless to us as a planet of pure gold. It’s not as if we’re going to find a cancer-cure in space. And if you disregard science-fiction, we can’t get to any other planet outside of our solar system and back again to do anyone currently living any good at all even if there was such a fairy-tale find. So what is the real purpose of finding primitive life on another world? There can be no other reason that to use the information to disprove God’s existence and to suggest that chance is the only answer to our existence. There’s simply no other rational reason to seek out primitive life on other worlds except to solidify science as the other acceptable reality.

So is it any wonder that science does not at least incorporate an open-ended attitude toward ‘the flood’ as being responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs. A global catastrophe. But, there is no mention of it. Science turns a blind eye from anything religious. But science declares itself to be the ever questioning, always open to new ideas, ready to change if they were wrong, method of understanding everything. And yet, we are not allowed to pray in schools, or be taught that there are other belief systems such as creationism. Science is pounded down into us, willing our not, as the only axiom of understanding we will ever need. But there must be a reason that science is so fearful of God, so incredibly afraid that it spends uncountable amounts of resources attempting to prove that God does not exist. Why are there not scientists attempting to find if the dark matter in the universe is God or Heaven? Well, I have an answer for this.

When I was a child, we sang in our school. We sang for our patriotism. We said the pledge of allegiance. It wasn’t something any of us really understood. We knew nothing of the world except our tiny localized part of one single city. But we were being taught that our country was great. In some ways, it is easier to explain God than to explain patriotism. We love our country. Does it mean we don’t like other countries then? Does it imply that? But I was merely born. It wasn’t as if I applied to be born *here*. Nothing really makes much sense about patriotism until you are older and have been a part of that country long enough to respect it. But God is the one that created you or I, and so that is more directly accessible. It used to be that children prayed in schools. But that was outlawed.

I was taught that evolution is how things happened in the world. I was taught that the dinosaurs died from ice ages. I was taught that science was the only real truth. But as I aged, I began to think for myself instead of letting other people think for me. I learned that they changed the age of the the world, the universe, and added dark-matter, and manipulated numbers and I became aware that they didn’t actually have the answers. They had guesses. That was all. They called them answers and people everywhere called them the answers, but the answers were always changing. The dinosaurs weren’t really reptiles, they were more like birds. Another change. But when they were reptiles, everyone spoke of them as if this were the quintessential truth. Yet, now that truth was different, but that was completely okay with them. It was like watching a Monte Python movie,
“The dinosaurs were reptiles.”
“Yes, yes, reptiles.”
“Say the mantra, the dinosaurs were reptiles.”
“Reptiles. The dinosaurs were reptiles.” “His name was Robert Paulson.” And then later in the movie, “
Oops, that changes things. The dinosaurs were birdlike.”
“Birdlike?”
“Yes, birdlike.”
“Hmmm… birdlike. Yes. The dinosaurs were birdlike. The dinosaurs were birdlike.”

I know that grates against you & you don’t like it, and I sympathize. But no one seems to question science. They go along with it, easily, without coercion. And unmistakably, Christianity uses far more heavy-handed tactics than does science, to the doom of Christianity. Yet, I understand why. We aren’t trained from birth to believe in God, but in science. When someone comes along with a different aspect of experiencing the world, it may be disconcerting, perhaps even frightening, especially in light of the fact that this new viewpoint suggests a creator that makes us responsible to him & him responsible for all the plights of the world (but also all the goodness, which we overlook). The problem becomes that science has no room for other viewpoints and pushes them away, suggesting to their public that it is uneducated folly and it will not be tolerated in the scientific community. Whenever a religious belief system is brought up, science scoffs at it. But why would science need to mock religion? Isn’t science secure in it’s formulas and methods? Why is there such a fear of Christianity?

And here we are spending massive funds and incredible amounts of man-hours researching the possibility of life on other worlds which can never benefit us in any way. We cannot get there. They are too far away to be of any use at all. So why look? More importantly, why look so hard? It is like some strange quest. But the quest isn’t to just be curious about our universe, we throw far, far too much money and thought at it to be so mundane as that. The quest is to disprove God’s existence. To say, if God created life here, as it says in Genesis (oh, you see, they do read the Bible, they just want nothing to do with it unless it is against it, to disprove it, discredit it), then how come there is life way out here 8,909 light years away on this planet?

Now here’s the kicker. If you believe in science, you believe that things all happened by chance. That this thing just happened to be that caused this thing, on & on, mostly because of time. We throw so much time at the idea of chance, that we’re left with nothing to say but, we’ll gosh anything could happen in 10 billion years, I mean I can’t even conceive of such an incomprehensible amount of time. And even though the events that would be required to cause life to spontaneously exist and transform through evolution until we humans inhabit the world, well, it much be possible because of so much time. So the science-minded fellow believes in time and chance. The problem is that there is no hope to that belief system. Once you die, you’re gone forever. It’s really a depressing viewpoint if you are brave enough to actually compare it to the hope of a Christian. Scientist guy dies and simply stops understanding his existence. Christian guy dies and goes to live in perfect happiness for all time with his creator. I mean, really, when you actually think about it, without throwing sticks at it, but really think about it, the Christian guy has hope and whether it is true or not doesn’t matter, his whole life is filled with hope after death, while the science guy is just going to stop being there. I mean it really doesn’t even make sense that someone would want to be without hope, does it? When you are perfectly honest with it, why would you prefer not to hope, right?

-Z

[Loredoctor]

Hi Zeph,
Interesting read! I should add that people do question science ALL the time. That's the nature of the science community - it's a aggressive business; scientists try to come up with alternative explanations all the time. It's not, "Dr Johnson found this, then let's all accept it". It's more like, "Dr Johnson found this, well I have a problem with his/her methodology and I think the explanations are suspect." Don't believe me? Look at any journal article and you'll see. I don't why you keep saying science is blindly accepted. It's odd because you expect us to take your beliefs seriously when all you can offer is a reference to am historical book. I mean, what religious experiences have you had? No offence, but I've met more blind religious people than I have science students.
Further, why should one follow a religion out of fear? So what if I don't believe in an afterlife? If fear is the motivating factor to believe then do you believe in an afterlife because you fear death?
Sorry if I am sounding critical to you, Zeph, but I am getting really tired of these religious versus science threads showing up which will incite a flame war and you will somehow get offended when no one has attacked you and then attack the watch because it's okay to criticise science yet it is a sin to criticise religion. Well you started these debates; accept what you get in return. If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen.

[Fist and Faith]

A few points:

1) The fact that Christian beliefs offer hope in certain areas, and make certain fears disappear in a puff of smoke, is not evidence of its Truth. I do not have a switch that I can throw in my head so that I can suddenly believe. Wishing things were a certain way is not proof that they are that way. The Christians of strong faith that I've spent any time getting to know do not believe as they do for logical reasons. They have an unshakable feeling of God's presence in their lives, hearts, and souls. I do not.

2) A very good reason, rational or not, to seek out life on other worlds is because that's what humans do. We have been learning all we can about everything we can since the beginning of our existence. We are driven to it. Some scientists are trying to find certain things to make our lives easier, but, for the most part, we study fossils, look for other life here on earth, reach out into space, and everything else, because we are driven to learn. It's one of our defining characteristics.

3) Using science to attempt to disprove God's existence is a stupid misuse of science. Science tells us HOW things work. What is fire? Is it the breath of an angry god? No, we study it closely, and learn that combustion is the chemical reaction whereby...etc. Other things that cannot be studied in their entirety, like the Big Bang and evolution, are suggested by certain evidence.

4) Proving that the Big Bang, evolution, or any other scientific theory, are fact would not in any way suggest that God does not exist. Scientists would have no reason to think that these processes are not God's tools, his way of making the continually changing universe.

5) I agree that people believe things they've been taught about science more easily than they should. I have never seen other galaxies through the telescope that Hubble built, or a better one. I have not seen the red-shift at work in them, which shows that they are moving away from each other. I have not built a microwave detector that picks up the background radiation that is said to exist everywhere, left over from the Big Bang. If believed, some scientific findings can only be accepted on faith. You believe a certain Christian creation story on faith, and others believe a certain scientific origin theory on faith.

[Loredoctor]

Anyone who understands science realises that it is a means, not an ends. It is a way of finding out how things work, not truth. People who do not understand science mistake it for truth not a means.

[Fist and Faith]

Yep!

[Guest]

Oh wait a sec, I'm not saying that it's either science or Christian. I'm saying that from what I've seen that it is either science or Christian from a science point of view. I'm totally comfortable mixing the two. I think a lot of Christians are.

I'm saying science is not comfortable with it. I thought that was clear. Sorry if it wasn't.

Z

[Guest]

Sorry if I am sounding critical to you, Zeph, but I am getting really tired of these religious versus science threads showing up which will incite a flame war and you will somehow get offended when no one has attacked you and then attack the watch because it's okay to criticise science yet it is a sin to criticise religion. Well you started these debates; accept what you get in return. If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen.

I'm not trying to incite a flame war. I'm actually interested in people's opinions about this.

Like I said, God is important enough to think about for me that it's going to be a part of everything I do. So yes, this is a Zeph post about God. It's pretty easy to stay away from it & I'll make another one in a week or so that you can stay away from too. If you are interested in discussing it, I'll be interested in discussing it.

Zeph

[Loredoctor]

Sorry Zeph, I'm just a bit annoyed because I get caught up in these things too. Plus I can forsee flaming. I don't mean to come down on you, it's just I worry things will get out of control.

[I'm Murrin]

I'm beginning to find your views extremely close-minded, Zeph. You state that since the things we try do do/find have no conceivable use, then we must only be doing it to disprove God - why would that be such a priority? [Edit - Sentence removed cos I looked back and it had come out a little differently than I'd wanted]
Anyway, I do not think that you should automatically conclude that most things scientists do have something to do with religious beliefs. You say you acept science, then talk as though all science is based on the need of scientists to disprove religion. This is looking at it from the wrong perspective.
A flood may exist in many mythologies, but scientist do not talk of it because they have found no physical evidence of such a thing, other than the small isolated events which brought about the legends.

I started thinking to myself, what is the value of life on other worlds? Unless that life is intelligent & we can somehow interact with it, what is important about it at all, in any way, shape, or form? It would be as worthless to us as a planet of pure gold. It’s not as if we’re going to find a cancer-cure in space. And if you disregard science-fiction, we can’t get to any other planet outside of our solar system and back again to do anyone currently living any good at all even if there was such a fairy-tale find.

Ah, such an unusual thing, human curiosity. An unsatiable need to know what is happening, how it happens, and why. We know the knowledge is useless. We know it's impractical. But we want to know, whether to say 'we were right', or just from curiosity.
Tell me - why climb Mt Everest, if there's nothing of value at the top?

[Fist and Faith]

Oh wait a sec, I'm not saying that it's either science or Christian. I'm saying that from what I've seen that it is either science or Christian from a science point of view. I'm totally comfortable mixing the two. I think a lot of Christians are.

I'm saying science is not comfortable with it. I thought that was clear. Sorry if it wasn't.

Not "from a science point of view," but "from the point of view of some scientists." Truly, there's a world of difference.

But the specific point you bring up - the flood - can't be addressed by science. Given things like the amount of water on the earth and the composition of the earth, there is no way for science to discuss a flood that covered the entire earth all at once. From a scientific standpoint, there is no way it could have happened, no way to study it, no way to test it. If God did such a thing, science is helpless. The only thing it can do is look at other possibilities, other theories that have evidence it can study. I can't imagine how much more water would be needed than the earth has. I suppose it's been calculated, and surely must be millions of cubic miles. But can you offer suggestions on scientific methods of studying this phenomenon? What process that science can learn about made all that water? Where did it go?

[Revan]

Hi Zeph,
Interesting read! I should add that people do question science ALL the time. That's the nature of the science community - it's a aggressive business; scientists try to come up with alternative explanations all the time. It's not, "Dr Johnson found this, then let's all accept it". It's more like, "Dr Johnson found this, well I have a problem with his/her methodology and I think the explanations are suspect." Don't believe me? Look at any journal article and you'll see. I don't why you keep saying science is blindly accepted. It's odd because you expect us to take your beliefs seriously when all you can offer is a reference to am historical book. I mean, what religious experiences have you had? No offence, but I've met more blind religious people than I have science students.
Further, why should one follow a religion out of fear? So what if I don't believe in an afterlife? If fear is the motivating factor to believe then do you believe in an afterlife because you fear death?
Sorry if I am sounding critical to you, Zeph, but I am getting really tired of these religious versus science threads showing up which will incite a flame war and you will somehow get offended when no one has attacked you and then attack the watch because it's okay to criticise science yet it is a sin to criticise religion. Well you started these debates; accept what you get in return. If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen.

Excellent post Ur-Vile! You have made some great points in there... Shame I cannot say the same about the post that came before yours...

I believe in science... much more than I do religion... In fact... come to think of it... I do not believe in science. Because it is fact, you cannot dispute fact. You can believe or disbelieve something that is fact. That is why people find it so easy to debelieve in religion. Because Religion is not fact. It is based on truth. There is a difference. Truth can be disputed; fact cannot.

And as for Science doing what it does because it fears Religion, *Snorts* HAHA. What a joke! I really doubt the scientist sits there and tries to prove his or hers theory right because they fear religion. I mean come on... are you serious?

We try and find life on other planets... because... like Murrin said...

Ah, such an unusual thing, human curiosity. An unsatiable need to know what is happening, how it happens, and why. We know the knowledge is useless. We know it's impractical. But we want to know, whether to say 'we were right', or just from curiosity.
Tell me - why climb Mt Everest, if there's nothing of value at the top?

We are humans... and want knowledge... What's wrong with wanting to know that there is live on other planets? I would continue... but the rest I want to say is unpleasant

[Zephalephelah]

Oh wait a sec, I'm not saying that it's either science or Christian. I'm saying that from what I've seen that it is either science or Christian from a science point of view. I'm totally comfortable mixing the two. I think a lot of Christians are.

I'm saying science is not comfortable with it. I thought that was clear. Sorry if it wasn't.

Not "from a science point of view," but "from the point of view of some scientists." Truly, there's a world of difference.

But the specific point you bring up - the flood - can't be addressed by science. Given things like the amount of water on the earth and the composition of the earth, there is no way for science to discuss a flood that covered the entire earth all at once. From a scientific standpoint, there is no way it could have happened, no way to study it, no way to test it. If God did such a thing, science is helpless. The only thing it can do is look at other possibilities, other theories that have evidence it can study. I can't imagine how much more water would be needed than the earth has. I suppose it's been calculated, and surely must be millions of cubic miles. But can you offer suggestions on scientific methods of studying this phenomenon? What process that science can learn about made all that water? Where did it go?

Hmm... that's quite interesting, and I'm glad you brought it up. You see, I have a theory about that.

Okay, so long ago, when the dinosaurs roamed, the earth was a vast greenhouse. We've found dinosaur fossils in Alaska & Antartica. So my theory is that there was a layer of moisture in the atmosphere and that it broke down. In my understanding, the world has been expanding for eons as one can see by viewing how well the world's continents fit together. Pangaea. So the earth has been expanding. There's proof of this in the ocean centers, where the earth creates new crust.

Eventually, the moisture atmosphere cannot be contained any longer. It fails and Noah has to build his ark before it completely collapses. The Bible says that God made a rainbow to promise Noah He would never flood the world again. This means that prior to the flood there wasn't rain, and thus no rainbows, or if there was rain, the atmosphere was so thick that there wasn't a rainbow. The world changed. People in Noah's time & before lived for centuries. That changed.

Although it is possible that Noah took dinosaur eggs with him, none of the creatures could have survived. Things had changed. The world was covered with water and the continents were moving, colliding, creating mountains. Eventually, the water settled into the polar ice caps, oceans, rivers, and new atmosphere. An ice age occurred, carving out the grand canyon, Michigan, among other great wonders, and eventually receeded as ice built up at the polar caps and the oceans settled under the immense weight of the waters.

My thing is that if science were to really like this theory, they would prove it to be true. My view is that science invents itself. We want something to be, so we make it so, like Pickard would say. We think up lasers, we make lasers. We think up automobiles, we make them. I'd like to know where the fast sidewalks and highspeed high altitude skymobiles from the Jetsons are though.

Anyway, I firmly believe that if science wanted to discover proof of an old atmosphere that decayed and fell due to the earth's expansion, that they could do it. That's my problem with science. They aren't interested in the Bible. I wish they were. Imagine the benefits of understanding that earth is expanding and will die far before the sun. We would realize the why about so many things. But it is shunned. This is my difficulty with science.

And like I said, I like science. I like shows about dinosaurs and millions of years ago, even if I don't believe that the earth has existed that long. It is still fascinating. Why isn't the Bible fascinating to scientists? That's my big deal. Cool?

[Revan]

The Bible says that God made a rainbow to promise Noah He would never flood the world again.

Do you believe that drivel? The reason rainbows are here... is not because "God" invented them, it's because of the light and a trick of it... and I really can't be bothered to go into the science of rainbows at this time. I mean do you wonder why science is often favoured over religion? When you hear this pathetic crap about God inventing the rainbow, when science clearly proves otherwise?

Why isn't the Bible fascinating to scientists?

Because... and I don't mean this to sound nasty: The bible is a load of rubbish. it has no facts in it. Itcontradicts itself at every turn. It states thing that are logical impossible. Like "God created the Earth in seven days". I mean he must have had a pretty big tool kit for that... Science proves the bible is wrong on so many levels, it's ridiculous.

You say you don't believe that the Earth hasn't existed for millions of years... again, science proves you and everything you believe in you wrong.

The Bible also lacks interest from scientists, because it is not in there line of research.

[Fist and Faith]

First of all, I'd like to point out that Zeph's last post was thoughtful, and in all ways was the type of post that many here are always demanding he make. Darth's, otoh, was a wee bit shameful. We always tell Zeph to be nice. Well, when he is, don't continue the war! Please? It's gotta end. BOTH sides have to stop attacking.

In my understanding, the world has been expanding for eons as one can see by viewing how well the world's continents fit together. Pangaea. So the earth has been expanding. There's proof of this in the ocean centers, where the earth creates new crust.

That's not quite my understanding of what science believes. For the earth to be expanding, either: a) it would need to be hollow, like a balloon being blown up, or b) it would need to have a source of matter outside of itself that it could draw on. I've never heard of evidence supporting either theory. The closest might be the many asteroids and meteors that we run into, but I doubt they add enough mass to explain the increase in size that would be needed to seperate the continents.

The theory is that the earth is the same size as it has been for most of it's existence, it's just that the surface is moving and changing. Yes, the east coasts of the Americas are much farther from the west coasts of Europe and Africa than they used to be. But the opposite coasts are much closer to each other. Perhaps they'll collide one day as they continue to circle the globe.


And though it may be a minor point, I think I've heard that the Grand Canyon was formed primarily by the erosion caused by the Colorado River. As we can see many thousands of streams and rivers around the world carving out canyons, with all stages of development represented, I personally don't see reason to doubt this. The Great Lakes, however, are believed to be the result of the glaciers, iirc.

On a much more important matter, the name of the captain of the Enterprise in TNG is spelled Picard. I don't get too upset about your doubting science, but you've crossed the line with that one!!

My thing is that if science were to really like this theory, they would prove it to be true. My view is that science invents itself. We want something to be, so we make it so, like Pickard would say. We think up lasers, we make lasers. We think up automobiles, we make them. I'd like to know where the fast sidewalks and highspeed high altitude skymobiles from the Jetsons are though.

Anyway, I firmly believe that if science wanted to discover proof of an old atmosphere that decayed and fell due to the earth's expansion, that they could do it. That's my problem with science. They aren't interested in the Bible. I wish they were. Imagine the benefits of understanding that earth is expanding and will die far before the sun. We would realize the why about so many things. But it is shunned. This is my difficulty with science.

I remember your "If you think of building it, they will come" thread, saying pretty much the same thing. I didn't respond there, because I had said pretty much the same thing a couple days earlier, so my support was already there. But, by and large, I agree. Though I imagine there's a limit to what can be proven, and we could probably make up many such things.

And like I said, I like science. I like shows about dinosaurs and millions of years ago, even if I don't believe that the earth has existed that long.

Others will have to give you specifics, but why do you doubt that it takes a certain amount of time for sedimentary rock to form, or things like half-life readings? Or do you believe that God made the earth in its current state, with layers that appear to have been formed over huge periods of time, or radiological readings that indicate even huger periods of time? Would this be to fool us, to test our faith?

It is still fascinating. Why isn't the Bible fascinating to scientists? That's my big deal. Cool?

Another question is, why aren't you using scientific methodology and technology to test the Bible, instead of asking for things to go in the other direction? Michael Behe used science (very nicely!) to try to disprove evolution, but even that is not the same as using it to prove the Bible.

But going in the direction you want, I think most of the problem, as I was getting at in my last post, is that things in the Bible are usually untestable. Things that are miracles are, by definition, outside the laws of nature, and even in opposition to those laws. No? And as such, they cannot be studied using science, which cannot operate outside of the laws of nature.

Another point is that scientific theories are conceived because of some detectable phenomen. The one you mentioned in that other thread is dark matter. People noticed that objects in the universe were not behaving as they should. Though we could not detect anything in any way available to us, it seemed that something was having a gravitional influence on them. We know gravity pretty well, after all. We can predict how it will work in situations, test them, and be right every time. But it was not in certain places, suggesting something was there that we just couldn't see. (I imagine they also tried to refigure gravitional theory.)

Many things in the Bible, however, are not supported by physical evidence. Yes, all parts of the planet have had floods at one time or another. But are you aware of evidence that suggests all parts were flooded at the same time.

[Zephalephelah]

And like I said, I like science. I like shows about dinosaurs and millions of years ago, even if I don't believe that the earth has existed that long.

Others will have to give you specifics, but why do you doubt that it takes a certain amount of time for sedimentary rock to form, or things like half-life readings? Or do you believe that God made the earth in its current state, with layers that appear to have been formed over huge periods of time, or radiological readings that indicate even huger periods of time? Would this be to fool us, to test our faith?

Well, let’s say I go out to Arizona & hang out by a mesa. The mesa is supposed to be millions of years old or something like that. So a pebble falls. I hear it. I see it. Could just be coincidence huh? But I bet that if I hang out there, live there, and hear pebbles dropping at just the rate of 1 per day, there’s no way the thing would survive for millions of years.

I believe that science throws time at things it cannot readily explain. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if our next generation telescopes detect light 50-100 billion light years away. That’ll shake up the science world. They might then say that there is a constant rippling big bang effect that causes matter to be spontaneously ejected into the universe every once in 20-40 billion years. Then they’ll consider the possibility that matter which goes into black holes is placed into the center of the universe until it overloads and “bangs” or explodes outward in a never ending Shiva’s dance.

I don’t know what to say. I believe in the Bible. I think that the world and the universe is only a few thousand years old, but then I see holes in the Creation timeline. I’m confused, but I’m searching. God said, let there be light, but he created the stars later. In fact, it appears that he created the sun after the plants or something, so it doesn’t make any sense either. I guess what I’m really saying is that I don’t buy either science or Creationism to the degree that I believe it to be the ultimate answer, but that it appears to me that Christians are more apt to buy into science than scientists into Creationism and though I see the reasoning, I think that science is pretty far from having the answers.

[Zephalephelah]

Many things in the Bible, however, are not supported by physical evidence. Yes, all parts of the planet have had floods at one time or another. But are you aware of evidence that suggests all parts were flooded at the same time.

I did a search on google "evidence of worldwide flood".

This is the very first website I found, so I'll just give you this one example, though there are a great many.

www.ucg.org/gn/gn47/worldwideflood.htm

And here is a long list of many cultures who have flood myths in their history:

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

[Zephalephelah]

...Do you believe that drivel? ...

...When you hear this pathetic crap about God...

...The bible is a load of rubbish...

Hey, I said I like pie!

[Fist and Faith]

Ah, I'm beginning to understand.

And your last paragraph to me is quite a surprise!

Thanks for the response.

[Dromond]

But...

Evidence of a world wide flood gives no credence to the bible, as the story of Noah is merely a Hebrew copy of the much older Sumerian Legend of Gilmamesh.

Most if not all of the biblical legends have much older roots that were copied by the Hebrews and adopted as their own.

[Zephalephelah]

But...

Evidence of a world wide flood gives no credence to the bible, as the story of Noah is merely a Hebrew copy of the 2000 year older Sumerian Legend of Gilmamesh.

Most if not all of the biblical legends have much older roots that were copied by the Hebrews and adopted as their own.

What would give credence to the Bible for you?

I did know about the The Epic of Gilgamesh, although I'd never read any of it. So I took some time to read about it. There are obvious simularities. I can't dispute that at all. It's plain. On the surface, it would appear that you are correct.

These Gilgamesh tablets cannot predate the flood. For one, they talk about the flood, and for another nothing like this would have survived such a global event. So the tablets survived.

As I've stated already, a great many cultures all around the world knew about the flood. They have myths even to this day. This one has poems about it. The boat they have is all out of proportion, but it's a poem meant to conjure imagery.

Just because everyone knew that there was a flood before it was written in the Bible doesn't make it any less true. And by the date of these tablets, the flood being a relatively recent event at the time and surely by comparisons to anything else written, it would be reasonable to assume that knowledge of an ark would still be maintained. If anything, this strengthens my faith, and I thank you for it.