Timeline for What is the physical evidence for a local flood?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 14, 2015 at 6:42 | comment | added | bruised reed | @Caleb Additional context is that the old version of the question was closed, and editing to the new version has been judged sufficient for reopening | |
| Aug 14, 2015 at 6:30 | comment | added | bruised reed | @Caleb In a word, yes. The comment was auto-generated from a low-quality post review. The context is that the question has been edited and what was a borderline answer at the time of original posting is now more objectively "not an answer" according to the revised question. | |
| Aug 14, 2015 at 6:26 | comment | added | Caleb | @bruisedreed Did you review the context of this post and the other comments before leaving that comment? You might disagree with the conclusion that I and others came to about this post, but dropping a canned comment on it without interacting with the previous observations in a bit tacky. | |
| Aug 14, 2015 at 5:05 | comment | added | bruised reed | This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. | |
| Aug 13, 2015 at 23:45 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| Aug 14, 2015 at 6:25 | |||||
| Dec 31, 2014 at 8:25 | comment | added | Marc Gravell | @thedarkwanderer local floods happen constantly, yes; but that does not mean that "Noah's flood" represents an actual event. We have winter regularly - and even unexpected cold spells in other seasons; that doesn't mean that this is evidence that "The Day After Tomorrow" (2004 film) depicts actual events from a "localized winter". The lack of evidence of a global winter in the last few decades is not evidence for this having happened, but locally. | |
| Dec 31, 2014 at 0:49 | comment | added | Please stop being evil | @MarcGravell Floods happen [citation needed]? I think it's fair to assume that a 'localized flood' happened at some point in history. If one makes the assumption that 'The Flood' happened as a discrete historical event (which this question does) evidence against it being global is indeed evidence for a localized flood. | |
| Dec 17, 2011 at 2:24 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackChristian/status/147864661960826881 | ||
| Sep 7, 2011 at 21:50 | comment | added | StackExchange saddens dancek | @Marc this was a little tongue-in-the-cheek (check the timestamps btw). You're right. Moreover, lack of evidence is never actual evidence -- no matter what the assumptions are. | |
| Sep 7, 2011 at 20:29 | comment | added | Marc Gravell | The lack of evidence for a global flood is not, by itself archaeological/physical evidence of a local flood; it still completely assumes the existence of a significant flood. Meaning: in evidence terms it is a false dichotomy - there is a third, simple, option... | |
| Aug 27, 2011 at 17:22 | comment | added | Caleb | At first glance I almost flagged this as "not an answer", but then I realized its' true. There is almost no other way to answer this question. The only "evidence" for something on this nature having NOT happened is a lack of convincing evidence that it DID happen. This isn't just sarcasm or tongue-in-cheek since there is no authority we can appeal to as a witness for it having not happened -- other than God who's testimony is generally agreed to be the opposite. +1 even though I personally find this "evidence" unconvincing! | |
| Aug 27, 2011 at 7:53 | history | answered | StackExchange saddens dancek | CC BY-SA 3.0 |