> i'm sure you go about believing every supernatural story you hear most certainly.

Oh, not at all. That's pretty silly.

> The last discovery that replaced a scientific explanation for a phenomena with a supernatural one was __________.

There are many phenomena that scientists are not able to explain. There are also many medical turnarounds that doctors are unable to explain. Obviously, people with a priori presuppositions that supernatural events don't happen are not going to attribute those events to the supernatural, but that's not proof that they weren't. Verifying miracles is outside of the scope of the scientists, and not subject to the scientific method, so of course you're going to end up with a blank there. You might as well as an economist about the football game. The two fields are unrelated.

If we knew for a fact that God did not exist, we could legitimately rule out the possibility of supernatural events. But that has not been and cannot be established.

If we look in one tiny pool—that which is scientifically verifiable—for our knowledge about the world, then our knowledge will be limited. Casting a large net will bring to light many report of unusual occurrences that could possibly be miracles. But before making a universal judgment, each one of those would need to be discredited. And remember, it takes on a single justified example to show that there is more to reality than the physical world.

> "I mean the book in general is full of myths..."

Um, this is obviously just the expression of opinion with nothing to substantiate it.

> Interesting that you bring that up, considering it's also got a story about the garden of eve written well before the Jews received it

More than one rendering of an event doesn't mean it's false, nor that it evolved organically. Another possibility is that it actually happened, and there is more than one interpretation of it. The story of the Garden of Eden in the Bible was most likely transmitted by oral means. It means nothing about its veracity that someone wrote it down before the Jews did.

lol, okay. i'm sure you go about believing every supernatural story you hear most certainly. Also you have misrepresented my position> it is not that they are "likely not possible" so much as "definitely ill supported". Unless you believe every 2 bit guru that rolls through town or have some real supernatural story or phenomena you can point to then I don't expect you have much.

Please answer this question for me:

The last discovery that replaced a scientific explanation for a phenomena with a supernatural one was __________.

When you can do that, maybe I'll lend credence to your flood story as something more than something interesting, but not historically true.

> And lastly, by what evidence do you claim the flood account is myth

I mean the book in general is full of myths in the sense of "ways or relating things about culture and experience, but not literally true and possibly not based on real events"

> There are other accounts, not just the Atrahasis Epic and the Gilgamesh Epic, but others around the world of a flood story

Interesting that you bring that up, considering it's also got a story about the garden of eve written well before the Jews received it. Also strange that they picked up the idea of a battle of good vs evil and monotheism over time as opposed from the origin. It's almost as though religions came about organically and not from a deity.

Ah, there, you have finally answered my question. Thanks. You seem to have a presupposition that supernatural events are most likely not possible (given that we live in a "real world"). And with that as your presupposition, of course you're going to find any story in the Bible as "unreal". You also seem to think that biblical evidence is specious whereas some other evidence is significant. That just seems like clear and simple bias to me. Their "lesser" understanding of the world doesn't mean their observations and experiences aren't valid, unless of course you are guilty of culture bias: our world and our science are the only reliable sources of knowledge. And lastly, by what evidence do you claim the flood account is myth? Again, is this an a priori bias on your part? See, to me you're not making sense or using logic. We have a story of a flood in a narrative considered to be historiography. There are other accounts, not just the Atrahasis Epic and the Gilgamesh Epic, but others around the world of a flood story. Granted, they are different, but there are some similarities. And your points are:

1. I really don't believe in the supernatural much.
2. I won't believe it unless there is outside corroboration of the story (from 10-20,000 years ago or so)
3. People then didn't understand the world much, and so their perspectives are unreliable anyway.
4. I'll come on board when you give me real evidence.

It sounds like you sank this ship before it sailed, and then you wonder why it's not seaworthy.

I'm not evading them, I've answered them. See there's this thing called the "real world" where any references to supernatural events are taken with a grain of salt. Pointing out to me that they believed these events occurred is grand, but when you can find me somewhere outside of the bible to support they occurred, then i will accept that they did. Until then, it looks like figurative language about a people that have less of an understanding of the world than we do. That is the only context I'm willing to have this discussion in until you can really point to some real evidence and not a compilation that refers to myth and theological points, not history.

You're still evading my questions. It makes me think you got nothing except an unfounded opinion. Maybe you're implying magic in the flood story. Instead of the games and sound bites, let's talk. What magic in the flood story makes you think the narrative is figurative?

The part where there's magic kind of tipped me off.

Well, that's not very clear or helpful. I thought you wanted to talk. What are your reasons, or your reasoning? Harry Potter's not figurative, it's fictional (despite being set in London). Tell me specifically what makes you think the flood story is figurative. If you've studied the story in detail, and spent some time thinking about it, and researched both the text and the science, then you have reasons for your conclusions. That's a good conversation. Let's have it!

I find my reasons outside the bible, the same way I determine Harry Potter isn't real.

Well, then we need to examine the reasons why you think it's all figurative. Is it presuppositions on your part or evidence you have? Genesis 5, just preceding the flood, seems to be a legitimate attempt at representing historical relationships (though in ancient genealogies it was never the case that all names were included). Genealogies in the ancient world were usually formatted to suit a purpose. There seems to be in this one both a theological agenda and some symbolism, in that there are 10 generations, and the final name has three sons. (The genealogy in Gn. 11.10-26 is the one from Noah to Abraham, and it also has 10 names with the final name having 3 sons). It doesn't necessarily mean it's fictional (though it can be interpreted that way), but it more likely indicates the writer had an agenda.

Then, immediately before the flood story (Gn. 6.1-4) is a messed-up quad of verses that no one understands. Theories abound.

That brings us to the Noah story. I think the story is written as if it were history.
- We get details of time: days, months, and years
- We get details of measurement: not just, "Build an ark," but dimensions and architectural details.
- We get an age of Noah (Gn. 7.6), as if that would matter if it were just figurative
- Noah appears in genealogies in Genesis 9 & 10; 1 Chr. 1, as if he were a real person in the chain of generations
- Ezekiel 14.14 mentions Noah alongside Daniel, who is also considered to be a historical person and not figurative.
- Jesus mentions Noah in Matt 24.27-28 as if he was historical.

This is fun. So whatcha got? Why do you think he (and the whole story) is figurative?

I think the flood story is all figurative and not historical at all. Can we talk about it?