Evidence of NOAH's FLOOD

[Subduction Zone]

What was the highest mountain at the time, do you think?

The Flood was what created
most of the high ranges we have today.

Just by observing their features, you can see how geologically young they are.
The rocks themselves are old, but the features they have formed through uplift, are quite young, with well-defined and sharp characteristics.

Easily seen when you take into account the extreme amount of weathering they endure. If they were “millions of years old”, they’d be rounded stumps by now!

Don’t get me wrong… some ranges are very old, like the Appalachians.

But some are young.

The Andes are very young About 20 million years on average if I remember correctly. That is is still far too old for the Flood. You now that you have no answer to the evidence. Why do you keep calling your God a liar?

 

[John53]

What was the highest mountain at the time, do you think?

Impossible to know, there is no time for the flood given in the Bible. Everest is about 60 million years.

The Flood was what created
most of the high ranges we have today.

I'm no expert but it's certainly not true Himalayas which were caused from continental drift. As far as I'm aware that's how most mountain ranges are formed. Mountains can als be formed by volcanic activity. Never heard of them being caused by water.

Just by observing their features, you can see how geologically young they are.

Visit Australia and you'll see for yourself how old our mountains are.

The rocks themselves are old, but the features they have formed through uplift, are quite young, with well-defined and sharp characteristics.

Easily seen when you take into account the extreme amount of weathering they endure. If they were “millions of years old”, they’d be rounded stumps by now!

Everest isn't at the ripe old age of 60 million.

Don’t get me wrong… some ranges are very old, like the Appalachians.

But some are young.

Geologically young is a long time.


But even if the tallest was a modest 1,000 ft the water still wouldn't freeze in time.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Visit Australia and you'll see for yourself how old our mountains are.

My wife & i would really like to visit Australia some day!

I know some of those ranges are old — they look it!

But even if the tallest was a modest 1,000 ft the water still wouldn't freeze in time.

How would we know? There’s been no tests conducted on such a huge scenario, the size of our planet.

And what’s “in time”? It could have taken a day. It wouldn’t necessarily have to be in minutes.

The account says the water fell (as rain in most areas, but snow or ice in others?) for “40 days”. And some of the water came from below…. “All the springs of the great deep burst forth” (Genesis 7:11). Where was that land, the surface above those springs, to go?
Down.
And we find many megafauna in the Bering and North Seas, when ships are dredging the sea bottom.

It’s late here; have a good day.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If water covered the entire earth,

*was it salt water? Or fresh water. If salt water, how did the fresh water life survive, and how did fresh and salt water separate themselves after the flood reminded?

*If all the animals that survived the flood were on the boat, what did they eat? According to the bible they were on the boat for at least 100 days; during which time food for the animals would have spoiled due to no refrigeration.

*According to the bible, the Ark landed somewhere in Middle East Asia. So how did all of those Kangaroos and Kola Bears get to Australia without leaving a trail?

*Any Engineer will tell you it is impossible to build a boat 500 feet long (the recorded length of the Ark) made strictly out of wood without any steel reinforcements. Since steel wasn’t invented back then, how did they do what is impossible to be done today?

*It is estimated that it would take 5 times the amount of water currently on Earth to cover every mountain. Sooooo; where did all of that water go?

*If all species populations were reduced to at best a handful and at worste a single breeding pair, why isn't there a universal genetic bottleneck in every genome of every species dating to the same time?

 

[Subduction Zone]

*If all species populations were reduced to at best a handful and at worste a single breeding pair, why isn't there a universal genetic bottleneck in every genome of every species dating to the same time?

Including people. Transplants would be easy if the flood myth was true. About ten thousand years ago cheetahs went through a very extreme population bottleneck. There were roughly ten breeding adults for a while. Today you can trade skin grafts between two random cheetahs and neither one will reject the transplant. We do not see that anywhere else.

 

[John53]

How would we know?

We can't because there's no date given in the bible. But Ararat is the supposed resting site of the ark and it's 16,000ft and I was trying to be generous with my 1,000ft.

There’s been no tests conducted on such a huge scenario, the size of our planet.

Tests of what?

And what’s “in time”? It could have taken a day. It wouldn’t necessarily have to be in minutes.

It rained for 40 days so it's not going to be minutes or even days.

The account says the water fell (as rain in most areas, but snow or ice in others?) for “40 days”. And some of the water came from below…. “All the springs of the great deep burst forth” (Genesis 7:11). Where was that land, the surface above those springs, to go?
Down.

No snow or ice mentioned in my Bible or any of the versions I just looked at online.

And we find many megafauna in the Bering and North Seas, when ships are dredging the sea bottom.

Fully preserved?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Flood was what created
most of the high ranges we have today.

Nothing would have survived such a thing.
The release of energy would cook the planet.

Just by observing their features, you can see how geologically young they are.

lol

The rocks themselves are old, but the features they have formed through uplift, are quite young, with well-defined and sharp characteristics.

Some are young. Geologically young. Which is not a few thousand years. You are going to need to add a few zero's to that.

 

[Kenny]

It was one of @Subduction Zone earlier reply to Little Nipper’s OP and link to Snelling’s AnswersInGenesis’ article, about marine fossils found on mountains (eg the Himalayas, such as Everest). SZ addressed one of Snelling’s claims about mountains, by refuting Snelling’s points these fossils were dated to Noah’s Flood.

your reply mentioned adaption, which doesn’t address SZ’s points:



Your one-line reply was this:



SZ answered no, as the Nipper’s thread was about there been “evidence” to support Genesis Flood using Snelling’s article, not about Evolution.

Then you replied again with…



neither of your replies to SZ, addressed his points, nor those of AiG’ pseudoscience article by Snelling.

It is apparent that you didn’t bother to read the linked article that @Little Nipper had posted...so you have been making pointless & irrelevant replies to Subduction Zone and to @shunyadragon .

You claimed privilege of grandfather’s age as a defence, but you should realised that both shunyadragon & SZ are not youngsters. shunyadragon is also retired geologist, so he would know more about how mountain’t are formed better than you, I & SZ.

Ohhh... now I remember... thanks for the update.

I guess I didn't answer because the subject matter isn't that important to me especially when some answers leave me with a "hmmm really?" type of feeling

Like the answer that basically says that evolution has nothing to do with adaptation... "hmmm... really?" I find that SZ really doesn't address anything with real understanding. Adaptation - Understanding Evolution

So to say that "fish would not survive" is more of a simply a blanket statement with no supportive documentation. I'm sure some species may not have survived but there are just too many factors to come to a conclusive position (at least in the knowledge that I have or most people have). Has he looked up an opposing viewpoint to his? I'm sure he hasn't because he is very myopic in his approach.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ohhh... now I remember... thanks for the update.

I guess I didn't answer because the subject matter isn't that important to me especially when some answers leave me with a "hmmm really?" type of feeling

Like the answer that basically says that evolution has nothing to do with adaptation... "hmmm... really?" I find that SZ really doesn't address anything with real understanding. Adaptation - Understanding Evolution

So to say that "fish would not survive" is more of a simply a blanket statement with no supportive documentation. I'm sure some species may not have survived but there are just too many factors to come to a conclusive position (at least in the knowledge that I have or most people have). Has he looked up an opposing viewpoint to his? I'm sure he hasn't because he is very myopic in his approach.

You need to pay more attention. The last time someone brought up adaptation I pointed out that it is evolution.

And you are very close to not understanding on purpose when people point out that fish would die in the flood. Clearly they do not mean all fish. The vast majority would die. But there are species that can tolerate a range in salinity. But Nemo and his family? Kiss them goodbye.

As I always say, if you don't understand ask questions politely. Don't break the Ninth by accusing others of your shortcomings.

 

[Kenny]

And you are very close to not understanding on purpose when people point out that fish would die in the flood. Clearly they do not mean all fish. The vast majority would die. But there are species that can tolerate a range in salinity. But Nemo and his family? Kiss them goodbye.

Have your researched a counter to that position?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Have your researched a counter to that position?

Is there one? What you do not seem to realize that the burden of proof for dealing with all of the problems of the Flood myth falls upon the people that believe it. But I have never seen one that has even the possibility of evidence for their claims due to the way that they argue for their beliefs.

Let me explain. When people claim that the flood has really happened they have crossed over into the realm of science. They need to be able to support their claims with scientific evidence. And to do that one has to have a proper testable hypothesis. One has to more than believe to have a testable hypothesis. One has to want to be right no matter what. That means that if one's hypothesis fails one must be willing to admit that one's beliefs were wrong. One thing about science, it cannot "prove that this is right". What it can do is to prove that concepts are wrong. So to have any confidence in one's beliefs one must honestly try to refute it. Because if you don't do that some other smart alec scientist will gladly find your errors and prove that you were wrong.

I often try to teach others the importance of evidence. And how the concept of scientific evidence forces one to be honest. The bar for it appears to be deceptively low, but it is much harder to find evidence than most people realize. Just in case here it is:

Scientific evidence consists of observations that support or oppose a scientific theory or hypothesis.

That is it. Seems simple. The hard part is forming a proper hypothesis.


So you ask me if I have looked into that possibility of most fish surviving and I can simply state no. I can only go by the limited knowledge that I have because supporters of the flood myth refuse to properly test their beliefs and as a result have no evidence to look into.

 

[shunyadragon]

My wife & i would really like to visit Australia some day!

Wait about 250 million years and you can walk there due to Continental Drift. The problem is the one unified continent will be so hot you could not survive.

I know some of those ranges are old — they look it!

. and formed slowly over millions of years

 

[Revelation 21:4]

The flood, a supernatural event! Why so?
Lets please reason.

Why did Jehovah bring it? According to 2 Peter 2:4,5 & Jude 1:6 , in conjunction with Genesis 6:1-4 Angels were having relations with women, producing hybrid children which grew up to be giants. These were called “men of fame” (Genesis 6:4); and violence filled the earth. — Genesis 6:11.

This is supported by many legends found throughout the earth that share a common denominator: the “gods” having sex with women, and fathering hybrid children….like Achilles, Perseus, Hercules, etc. Anthropologists recognize that when unrelated myths share a common thread, they are based on actual events.

Do you see why the Flood had to be global? If it were local, these angels would have just relocated! Maybe they had already, and that’s why we find other areas of the earth that had ancient cities, that no longer exist. Maybe Atlantis, or those found off the Asian coasts. This would explain some of the evidence that Erich von Däniken has found.

According to Psalm 104:8,9 the Flood was the reason many “mountains ascended and valleys descended“; therefore, prior to the Deluge, mountain ranges were less pronounced.

To be continued…

 

[McBell]

To be continued…

Perhaps you could include some evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The flood, a supernatural event! Why so?
Lets please reason.

Why did Jehovah bring it? According to 2 Peter 2:4,5 & Jude 1:6 , in conjunction with Genesis 6:1-4 Angels were having relations with women, producing hybrid children which grew up to be giants. These were called “men of fame” (Genesis 6:4); and violence filled the earth. — Genesis 6:11.

This is supported by many legends found throughout the earth that share a common denominator: the “gods” having sex with women, and fathering hybrid children….like Achilles, Perseus, Hercules, etc. Anthropologists recognize that when unrelated myths share a common thread, they are based on actual events.

Do you see why the Flood had to be global? If it were local, these angels would have just relocated! Maybe they had already, and that’s why we find other areas of the earth that had ancient cities, that no longer exist. Maybe Atlantis, or those found off the Asian coasts. This would explain some of the evidence that Erich von Däniken has found.

According to Psalm 104:8,9 the Flood was the reason many “mountains ascended and valleys descended“; therefore, prior to the Deluge, mountain ranges were less pronounced.

To be continued…

So you are saying that it never happened at all. Right? It is abundantly clear that there there never was a global flood. All of the history, archaeology, biology, geology, chemistry. and just about every other branch of science tells us that it never happened.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Here we shall discuss evidence of NOAH's FLOOD. There is ongoing scientific research that has brought to light many interesting finds, that contrary to some or many ---- does in fact point more and more to a monumental worldwide cataclysm that is labelled the FLOOD in GOD's Word: Global Evidences of the Genesis Flood

Great thread. The evidence is unanswerable.

 

[McBell]

Great thread. The evidence is unanswerable.

Every single thing world wide flood proponents have presented has been thoroughly refuted.
Your not understanding and or accepting how it was refuted does not change that fact.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Every single thing world wide flood proponents have presented has been thoroughly refuted.
Your not understanding and or accepting how it was refuted does not change that fact.

When were they refuted?
By deceived people who have abandoned science and reason?
I have already proven the Bible to be the true word of God.
The worldwide flood is a historic event.
All facts prove that it is true.

BTW, where are those many millions of chains of missing links if evolution were true?
I calculate the odds against that as over 10^10 million to 1.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Every single thing world wide flood proponents have presented has been thoroughly refuted.
You’re not understanding and or accepting how it was refuted does not change that fact.

Every single thing, huh?
That’s not entirely accurate…
No one, I repeat, no one, has explained thru natural causes, why the megafauna are discovered within the Permafrost, throughout the northern hemisphere! And some of those specimens have been (and are currently being) found in an excellent state of preservation!

How did they get there?


And the other evidences supporting it, haven’t been refuted, either, lol!
Counter arguments are not refutations.

 

[McBell]

Every single thing, huh?
That’s not entirely accurate…
No one, I repeat, no one, has explained thru natural causes, why the megafauna are discovered within the Permafrost, throughout the northern hemisphere! And some of those specimens have been (and are currently being) found in an excellent state of preservation!

How did they get there?


And the other evidences supporting it, haven’t been refuted, either, lol!
Counter arguments are not refutations.

How exactly does this megafauna find evidence the world wide flood?