Evidence for and against young earth creationism.

[Skwim]

.

In a private conversation with Sapiens, I admitted that the actual hebrew text of the Torah, nowhere implies that the Flood was global. The word for "earth" in the Flood account simply means the land. In the way that an American would say our land, which would mean the United States, but not necessarily the whole earth. So this flood that allegedly occurred a little over 4000 years ago, probably covered much of the Middle East and possible some surrounding areas. But even taking the Hebrew text of the Torah literally, and seeing the Flood was regional and not global, I still doubt that it happened as late as a little over 4000 years ago. Is there any evidence of a great flood somewhere around the Mesopotamian Valley that could have flooded as far as the Indus Valley and as far as the Nile? Sapiens said that any valley around a water supply is bound to flood.

It doesn't really matter what the Hebrew text actually meant, whether the flood was fairly local or world wide. What counts is how it's being presented to day. What are Christians taught today? 73 percent of Protestants are taught to believe in Noah and the ark. and "Sixty percent are taught that the flood was global. The number of Protestants in the USA is estimated to be about 150 million, which means that in the United States about 90 million people believe the flood was global, because the Bible tells them so. . Catholics are not taught the flood was global.
Protestant figure source


.

 

[sayak83]

In a private conversation with Sapiens, I admitted that the actual hebrew text of the Torah, nowhere implies that the Flood was global. The word for "earth" in the Flood account simply means the land. In the way that an American would say our land, which would mean the United States, but not necessarily the whole earth. So this flood that allegedly occurred a little over 4000 years ago, probably covered much of the Middle East and possible some surrounding areas. But even taking the Hebrew text of the Torah literally, and seeing the Flood was regional and not global, I still doubt that it happened as late as a little over 4000 years ago. Is there any evidence of a great flood somewhere around the Mesopotamian Valley that could have flooded as far as the Indus Valley and as far as the Nile? Sapiens said that any valley around a water supply is bound to flood.

No, there is no such evidence. There could have been an increase in sea levels at the end of the ice age 10,000 years ago which may have flooded many coastal regions throughout the world. But that is not caused by rains, obviously, but the melting of the large ice sheets in Europe and North America.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

 

[jonathan180iq]

That the 6 days prior to Adam being created time didn't pass at the same rate it does now.

Citation please

So what I'm saying is, produce for me evidence that can't be denied, that if there was a global flood...

There is no evidence of a global flood, ever. Produce that evidence, or stop referencing it as a possibility.

that it was significantly longer than 4121 years ago.

There is no evidence of a global flood, ever. That includes yesterday, 4,121 years ago, and 800,000 years ago. The evidence for your supposed event does not exist.

Or produce for me evidence that can't be denied that civilizations existed prior to 5777 years ago.

How about you show me some evidence that Judaism existed prior to 600BCE. If you cannot do that, then any claims to knowledge before that period would be pointless, don't you think?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_millennium_BC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_millennium_BC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_millennium_BC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8th_millennium_BC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9th_millennium_BC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_millennium_BC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalenian

(17,000-9,000 BCE)

This took me 45 seconds to compile...

 

[Etritonakin]

I would advise referencing Genesis with other scriptures -and reading the definitions of the words carefully.
Though Adam was directly created -and Eve from his material -the scriptures do not actually say there were no other humans -by scientific definition -on the earth before them. They were the first with the potential to become gods.
It is also not true that Genesis describes the initial creation of the earth -except the first line. What follows is a renewal after the earth HAD BECOME waste and ruin at a certain point (likely due to the rebellion the the third of the angels under the one who became the devil -who staged that coup against God's throne from Earth).

More on that later....

A global flood would not leave the same evidence as a localized flood.
A localized flood would move all sorts of things from one place to another.
A global flood -due to rain falling and water rising from the earth at the same time -would leave much different evidence...possibly even less evidence.

The scriptures seem quite specific that the whole earth was flooded -and that all life which could be affected by a global flood was destroyed -though I haven't researched the question much.
Also.... Though what is written may be perfectly accurate if read and understood correctly, it should not be assumed that scripture tells the whole story -or that evidence would show that only what is written happened.

Noah's genes would contain information from his forebears -as would those animals on the ark. The flood would essentially have been an instantaneous extinction event of all life which could be destroyed by a global flood.
Humans and those sorts of animals would then spread from the location of the resting place of the ark.

The main focus of the flood was to remove man from the earth -because his mind was on evil continually -so God would likely be more focused on having all humans descend from Noah and his family than having all affected animals descend from those on the ark -but as the trouble was taken to gather them and kill the others... let's assume no other creative activity afterward.
If all affected animals did descend from those on the ark, the question would be how they quickly spread over the entire earth and evolved -and whether there is evidence for that. Such evidence would need to be separated from other evidence of deaceased affected life forms in various areas.

More recent extinctions are lumped together as the Holocene or Anthropocene extinction -mostly attributed to human activity -but I don't think many are looking for evidence of the sudden deaths of many animals worldwide which were quickly replaced by relatively similar species.

Noah and his sons had wives -so there is no question about finding mates.
Evidence would need to show all present human life descending from Noah and his sons -spreading from the resting place of the ark -separated from evidence of previous human activity -understanding they had genetic information of their forebears. There should be evidence of all previous human activity suddenly halting at the time -wherever humans might have existed on the earth.
The idea of humans spreading throughout the earth so quickly has been ridiculed, but we are realizing that humans were quite knowledgeable and capable back then -and traveled the oceans more than we realized.

I believe there is overhwelming evidence for an old earth from many sources individually and collectively -but don't believe the bible states that the earth is young so it is not an issue at all.

I also do not believe people have been looking for the correct sort of evidence for the flood (or even Adam and Eve, as their material would have mixed with others -apparently beginning with Cain somehow finding a wife in Nod) -and are only beginning to be able to interpret available evidence correctly.

It is certain, however, that around the time Adam is said to have been created, the human population began to increase dramatically -and human activity also changed dramatically.

 

[Sapiens]

That water is bound up in the mineral ringwoodite and is not available to the surface of the Earth.

 

[Parsimony]

Again, this is not an argument about evolution versus creation, but rather an argument about how old is human civilization.

I suppose that would depend on how you define "human" and "civilization". Would Homo erectus count as a human? How about Homo naledi or Homo habilis? Would caveman society count as a civilization or do you want something more developed than that?

 

[jonathan180iq]

The scriptures seem quite specific that the whole earth was flooded

What were the known boundaries of the Earth when it was supposedly flooded? Did the Biblical writers know that the Earth extended beyond the limited scope of their localized vision?

Noah's genes would contain information from his forebears -as would those animals on the ark. The flood would essentially have been an instantaneous extinction event of all life which could be destroyed by a global flood.
Humans and those sorts of animals would then spread from the location of the resting place of the ark.

Meaning that our genes would contain information of our forebears as well, right? Oddly enough, our genes, which you admit must contain some of Noah's genetic information, also carries lots and lots of shared information with more primitive primates... Why is that?

A global flood would not leave the same evidence as a localized flood.

References? You can't flood a whole yard without flooding lots of localized parts, can you?

A localized flood would move all sorts of things from one place to another.

Correct. As would a global flood.

A global flood -due to rain falling and water rising from the earth at the same time -would leave much different evidence...possibly even less evidence.

Explain this please... How could a global catastrophic event leave less evidence than a localized event?
Was it a calming and gentle rain that God flooded the Earth with when he killed all of mankind in a matter of days?
Were the fissures of the deep opened up gradually and peacefully as all life was washed away?

 

[Desert Snake]

Explain this please... How could a global catastrophic event leave less evidence than a localized event?
Was it a calming and gentle rain that God flooded the Earth with when he killed all of mankind in a matter of days?
Were the fissures of the deep opened up gradually and peacefully as all life was washed away?

Were you there? I find sea remants in the hills ive hiked /elevation. You can theorize all you want about how that happens, or how quickly it happens, but the fact is, your just guessing based on your own theories. Many cultures have a /''global'' flood legend, you are currently contradicting common sense, and what i personally find/notice.

Hail Caesar

 

[Etritonakin]

What were the known boundaries of the Earth when it was supposedly flooded? Did the Biblical writers know that the Earth extended beyond the limited scope of their localized vision?


Meaning that our genes would contain information of our forebears as well, right? Oddly enough, our genes, which you admit must contain some of Noah's genetic information, also carries lots and lots of shared information with more primitive primates... Why is that?


References? You can't flood a whole yard without flooding lots of localized parts, can you?


Correct. As would a global flood.


Explain this please... How could a global catastrophic event leave less evidence than a localized event?
Was it a calming and gentle rain that God flooded the Earth with when he killed all of mankind in a matter of days?
Were the fissures of the deep opened up gradually and peacefully as all life was washed away?

I do not know what the particular writer knew or believed.

Not sure if you read what I wrote -or correctly -but I said that Adam and Eve's offspring would have mated with other humanoids not of Adam's line (such as Cain somehow finding a wife in Nod) -who would have information from previous "man" by scientific definition. Also -even though Adam was directly created, we could not know how that might have happened -or whether God used available genetic material -perhaps even tweaking it somehow. Scripture is not much for details in that area.

Flooding a yard from one source at one point would leave different evidence than an even downfall and a rising water table (in a yard which did not flow into another). That should be obvious. Some have looked for things being moved great distances -or have claimed such as evidence -but I don't see that things would be moved any great distance. Less moving things around -less evidence. The global flood described was actually more "gentle" than localized flooding with which we may be familiar -and would have moved things -but not necessarily long distances, as the water moved primarily from beneath and above everywhere -not like the flash flooding we have here in Texas where everything is washed from one place to another -sometimes without even having rain locally.
If the whole earth flooded everywhere from beneath and above simultaneously, forces would be generally equal everywhere -and it would not cause flow from one area to another as drastically as flooding beginning in one area and moving to another -as if some huge bucket had been poured on one part of the earth and the water flowed everywhere else.
(Though not scientific evidence, the ark itself is not described as moving very far.)


What is described is more gentle than the earth being flooded from one point -rising from beneath and also falling from above for forty days - apparently gentle enough to lift the ark with the water and not flip it or sweep it away -and the waters receded over not so few months......

(From: https://beyondflannelgraph.wordpress.com/the-flood/how-long-did-the-flood-last/ )

God commanded Noah to bring his family and all the animals aboard the Ark and seven days later, it began to rain and God shut the door to the Ark. The Bible says that it all began “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.” [Genesis 7:11]

It then began to rain for 40 days and nights. As the waters rose, the Ark was borne upon the waters with it. The waters covered all of the mountains by a depth of 15 cubits [about 22 feet 6 inches; the Ark itself was 30 cubits high, or 45 feet tall.]

After it rained that 40 days and nights, the waters prevailed on the earth for another 150 days [5 months] and everything that wasn’t aboard the Ark died. God made a might wind to pass over the earth and the waters began to recede. In fact, the Bible says that at the end of the 150 days of nothing but water, the Ark grounded itself on Mount Ararat. It was the 17th day of the 7th month of that year.

The waters continued to recede for a little over 2 months more, until on the 1st day of the 10th month, the tops of the mountains were exposed.

40 days after the tops of the mountains were seen, Noah sent forth a raven and a dove to see if the flood waters were abated. The dove returned to him, unable to find land, so he waited a week and sent it out again. This time, it came back with an olive leaf in its mouth. He waited yet one more week and sent it out one last time, but it did not return.

In the 601st year, 1st month and 1st day [on Noah’s birthday in other words], he looked and saw that the “face of the ground” was dry. But apparently not yet firm. On the 2nd month and 27th day, the ground was dry and God commanded Noah and those aboard the Ark to leave it.

So if we calculate the time that passed between the point where God shut the door of the Ark until God commanded them to leave it:

Year 601 Month 2 Day 27 [End date]

– Year 600 Month 2 Day 17 [Begin Date]

= 1 Year 0 Months 10 Days

 

[jonathan180iq]

I do not know what the particular writer knew or believed.

That's a pretty big problem, don't you think?

The people of Mesopotamia could not have possibly known about Western Europe, could they? They knew nothing of the Far East. They knew nothing of the poles, nothing of Australia, nothing of the New World... Yet you read their mythology as a factual telling of events? You read their claim of a global flood, and proclaim that it covered the world as you know it, yet admittedly do not know what the writer knew or believed about the world?

Again, that's a pretty big problem, don't you think?

Not sure if you read what I wrote -or correctly -but I said that Adam and Eve's offspring would have mated with other humanoids not of Adam's line (such as Cain somehow finding a wife in Nod) -who would have information from previous "man" by scientific definition. Also -even though Adam was directly created, we could not know how that might have happened -or whether God used available genetic material -perhaps even tweaking it somehow. Scripture is not much for details in that area.

Oh, I read it. I'd like you show me some references which separate people into different "types" of DNA. Show me some genetic distinction between one type of human and another type of human. You're claiming a magical creation of Adam in an attempt to distinguish his offspring from all of the other "humanoids" that must have existed on Earth at the time... You'll also have to explain why the primitive humanoid and the supposed people of Adam and Noah (us) all share giant swaths of their genetic material with more primitive apes, just like the supposed humanoids that Cain found a wife with. Why is that?

Flooding a yard from one source at one point would leave different evidence than an even downfall and a rising water table (in a yard which did not flow into another). That should be obvious. Some have looked for things being moved great distances -or have claimed such as evidence -but I don't see that things would be moved any great distance. Less moving things around -less evidence. The global flood described was actually more "gentle" than localized flooding with which we may be familiar -and would have moved things -but not necessarily long distances, as the water moved primarily from beneath and above everywhere -not like the flash flooding we have here in Texas where everything is washed from one place to another -sometimes without even having rain locally.
If the whole earth flooded everywhere from beneath and above simultaneously, forces would be generally equal everywhere -and it would not cause flow from one area to another as drastically as flooding beginning in one area and moving to another -as if some huge bucket had been poured on one part of the earth and the water flowed everywhere else.
(Though not scientific evidence, the ark itself is not described as moving very far.)

To be fair, there's no scientific evidence for anything that you're talking about...

If it happened as you're suggesting, wouldn't all the water-faring people of the world have survived? Anyone who had a boat and a fishing pole would have at least had a chance, right?
Wouldn't the ducks have made it out just fine?
How did Noah reseed the entire planet's population of trees?
Did the receding waters vanish as gently as they arose, leaving no trace of themselves in erosion marks? Where did all the water go?
Better yet, where did all the water come from?

You're suggesting that the Springs of the Deep (whatever those are) and the the rain that fell (somehow evenly and globally for 40 days) didn't disrupt much of the Earths surface, right? It was enough water to cover the entire globe, set upon Earth for 40 continuous days, covering even the highest mountains by 22 some odd feet, yet it was gentle enough to not really disrupt rock layers or leave it's imprint in the geologic timeline... That's a pretty bold claim, considering that we can find evidence of localized flooding as far back as we care to look.

For example, we have physical evidence for substantial floods that occurred in Mesopotamia between 5,000-7,000 years ago. That timeline, interestingly, coincides with Sumerian mythologies, like the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Surprise, surprise. River people wrote stories about water...

Here's a nifty little thought experiment, name for me one civilization that lived near water that doesn't have a flood mythology.

What is described is more gentle than the earth being flooded from one point -rising from beneath and also falling from above for forty days - apparently gentle enough to lift the ark with the water and not flip it or sweep it away -and the waters receded over not so few months......

Again, this poses some problems for your story.
Why wouldn't all of the boats, over all of the world, have just floated calmly and gently like the Ark supposedly did?
Was it daytime or night time for Noah when the waters came? The inverse would be true for the other side of the planet. You are aware of that, right?
New Zealand is basically directly opposite Jerusalem on the globe, for example. Did the clouds just roll in and start gently flooding the people's of New Zealand sometime around lunch that day?
(Not that anyone from your Bible knew that New Zealand existed, mind you... But still, the question remains.)

God commanded Noah to bring his family and all the animals aboard the Ark and seven days later, it began to rain and God shut the door to the Ark. The Bible says that it all began “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.” [Genesis 7:11]

It then began to rain for 40 days and nights. As the waters rose, the Ark was borne upon the waters with it. The waters covered all of the mountains by a depth of 15 cubits [about 22 feet 6 inches; the Ark itself was 30 cubits high, or 45 feet tall.]

After it rained that 40 days and nights, the waters prevailed on the earth for another 150 days [5 months] and everything that wasn’t aboard the Ark died. God made a might wind to pass over the earth and the waters began to recede. In fact, the Bible says that at the end of the 150 days of nothing but water, the Ark grounded itself on Mount Ararat. It was the 17th day of the 7th month of that year.

The waters continued to recede for a little over 2 months more, until on the 1st day of the 10th month, the tops of the mountains were exposed.

40 days after the tops of the mountains were seen, Noah sent forth a raven and a dove to see if the flood waters were abated. The dove returned to him, unable to find land, so he waited a week and sent it out again. This time, it came back with an olive leaf in its mouth. He waited yet one more week and sent it out one last time, but it did not return.

In the 601st year, 1st month and 1st day [on Noah’s birthday in other words], he looked and saw that the “face of the ground” was dry. But apparently not yet firm. On the 2nd month and 27th day, the ground was dry and God commanded Noah and those aboard the Ark to leave it.

Ah yes... Let's quote the book that suggests that people lived to be 600 years old, and that Nephilim walked the Earth and God's people mated with humans because they were so pretty yet were somehow genetically different from the other people that lived there...

Was God's creation perfect?
If it was, why did he have to start over? Why did he have to kill everything and everyone through unbelievable means? Why didn't he just use lightning bolts or something more easily defensible?
If you blame this destruction on the fall of man, why did God whine so much about his creation turning evil? I mean, if he knew it was going to happen, why did he make them crappy in the first place?
If God had to wipe the world out because he needed a fresh breed of humans to create a path for salvation through Jesus, why didn't he just do that to start with? Was all of the murder necessary, if he was ultimately going to allow for reparations through Christ?

What I find so funny about the defense of these Old Testament mythologies by the modern Western Christian is that they fail to recognize the implications of their defense... The God who cleansed the world for purity through mass genocide is not the same god that cleansed the world through redeeming salvation in singular sacrifice. Surely you see that. The character traits are not consistent. The God who made the world perfect through creation would not be the same god who temperamentally wiped everyone out when they got a little disobedient. How can a disobedient thing, worthy of death, deemed to be perfect? Those two things are mutually exclusive.

But I digress...

Again, do you have anything but the Bible to back up any of this nonsense?

 

[Etritonakin]

That's a pretty big problem, don't you think?

The people of Mesopotamia could not have possibly known about Western Europe, could they? They knew nothing of the Far East. They knew nothing of the poles, nothing of Australia, nothing of the New World... Yet you read their mythology as a factual telling of events? You read their claim of a global flood, and proclaim that it covered the world as you know it, yet admittedly do not know what the writer knew or believed about the world?

Again, that's a pretty big problem, don't you think?



Oh, I read it. I'd like you show me some references which separate people into different "types" of DNA. Show me some genetic distinction between one type of human and another type of human. You're claiming a magical creation of Adam in an attempt to distinguish his offspring from all of the other "humanoids" that must have existed on Earth at the time... You'll also have to explain why the primitive humanoid and the supposed people of Adam and Noah (us) all share giant swaths of their genetic material with more primitive apes, just like the supposed humanoids that Cain found a wife with. Why is that?



To be fair, there's no scientific evidence for anything that you're talking about...

If it happened as you're suggesting, wouldn't all the water-faring people of the world have survived? Anyone who had a boat and a fishing pole would have at least had a chance, right?
Wouldn't the ducks have made it out just fine?
How did Noah reseed the entire planet's population of trees?
Did the receding waters vanish as gently as they arose, leaving no trace of themselves in erosion marks? Where did all the water go?
Better yet, where did all the water come from?

You're suggesting that the Springs of the Deep (whatever those are) and the the rain that fell (somehow evenly and globally for 40 days) didn't disrupt much of the Earths surface, right? It was enough water to cover the entire globe, set upon Earth for 40 continuous days, covering even the highest mountains by 22 some odd feet, yet it was gentle enough to not really disrupt rock layers or leave it's imprint in the geologic timeline... That's a pretty bold claim, considering that we can find evidence of localized flooding as far back as we care to look.

For example, we have physical evidence for substantial floods that occurred in Mesopotamia between 5,000-7,000 years ago. That timeline, interestingly, coincides with Sumerian mythologies, like the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Surprise, surprise. River people wrote stories about water...

Here's a nifty little thought experiment, name for me one civilization that lived near water that doesn't have a flood mythology.



Again, this poses some problems for your story.
Why wouldn't all of the boats, over all of the world, have just floated calmly and gently like the Ark supposedly did?
Was it daytime or night time for Noah when the waters came? The inverse would be true for the other side of the planet. You are aware of that, right?
New Zealand is basically directly opposite Jerusalem on the globe, for example. Did the clouds just roll in and start gently flooding the people's of New Zealand sometime around lunch that day?
(Not that anyone from your Bible knew that New Zealand existed, mind you... But still, the question remains.)



Ah yes... Let's quote the book that suggests that people lived to be 600 years old, and that Nephilim walked the Earth and God's people mated with humans because they were so pretty yet were somehow genetically different from the other people that lived there...

Was God's creation perfect?
If it was, why did he have to start over? Why did he have to kill everything and everyone through unbelievable means? Why didn't he just use lightning bolts or something more easily defensible?
If you blame this destruction on the fall of man, why did God whine so much about his creation turning evil? I mean, if he knew it was going to happen, why did he make them crappy in the first place?
If God had to wipe the world out because he needed a fresh breed of humans to create a path for salvation through Jesus, why didn't he just do that to start with? Was all of the murder necessary, if he was ultimately going to allow for reparations through Christ?

What I find so funny about the defense of these Old Testament mythologies by the modern Western Christian is that they fail to recognize the implications of their defense... The God who cleansed the world for purity through mass genocide is not the same god that cleansed the world through redeeming salvation in singular sacrifice. Surely you see that. The character traits are not consistent. The God who made the world perfect through creation would not be the same god who temperamentally wiped everyone out when they got a little disobedient. How can a disobedient thing, worthy of death, deemed to be perfect? Those two things are mutually exclusive.

But I digress...

Again, do you have anything but the Bible to back up any of this nonsense?

Will address more points later, but I actually haven't spent much time thinking about evidence of the flood which might be found today -and I am not extremely interested in finding such evidence. I'm certainly not interested in proving things to others. That is usually impossible. Certainly you have found that to be true when discussing things with YECs.
I was responding to the original post -and clarifying that what is actually written in the bible does not support certain views -such as YEC or Adam being the first man by scientific definition.
I do believe in evolution -not sure if you are aware of that -I just don't believe it disproves the existence of God -only the falsehood of certain beliefs about God or what is falsely believed to be written in the bible.
Adam being directly created as described -which is not in much detail -and his offspring mating with others -would produce people who could be traced back to any "animals" they evolved from if that were the case.

 

[HonestJoe]

A global flood -due to rain falling and water rising from the earth at the same time -would leave much different evidence...possibly even less evidence.

The death of almost every single living thing on the planet in such a short period of time would have left blatant evidence to this day. We can identify slower, partial extinction events in geology so an all-but instant and total extinction would be very clear.

 

[VioletVortex]

What about the shape of the Earth? If the Earth was created only a few millennia ago, and has been spinning at a near constant speed since then, it would not show any significant shape distortion. The Earth is not a perfect sphere, it has actually been stretched out by the rotation. It has stretched too far to be that new.

 

[Etritonakin]

The death of almost every single living thing on the planet in such a short period of time would have left blatant evidence to this day. We can identify slower, partial extinction events in geology so an all-but instant and total extinction would be very clear.

Understand that at this point my present view of the flood or lack thereof is "I wasn't there".
Some people put "Easter" in the bible -and I don't believe in that just because it is there -though it's easier to prove that word should be Passover than it is to prove a global flood.
I was speaking more of displacement of things by flow of water -but as for evidence of the deaths of those animals which would be affected by a global flood....

I'm seriously asking here -not scoffing...

What evidence would it leave besides a bunch of dead animals relatively similar to those which replaced them -and how would you distinguish it from other evidence?
Assuming the animals on the ark were from the local area -the local area would show a bunch of animals dead at the same time -but the animals which replaced them would be similar.
It would not be an extinction of species -but a mass death and replacement. What evidence would there be of many animals drowning at the same time -not necessarily grouped together?

One question I would have is how quickly the animals on the ark could spread across the entire planet -how that might happen, etc.... and I suppose the same question would apply to humans.
Humans would likely have taken animals and tag-along species wherever they went -and animals would also spread on their own.
If the animals on the ark were only local -there would be more of a change in animal life elsewhere after the flood -perhaps an extinction of local species replaced by others.

Have there been any DNA studies done on animal ancestry? It would be interesting to have an "Ancestry dot com" for your dog or cow.

Finding unbroken human bloodlines predating the flood in areas far from the resting place of the ark would definitely raise some questions.

 

[HonestJoe]

What evidence would it leave besides a bunch of dead animals relatively similar to those which replaced them -and how would you distinguish it from other evidence?

We're not just talking about "a bunch of dead animals". We're talking about the death of almost every living thing on the planet - nothing not on the ark could survive the period of flood depicted in the Bible. That's almost all the humans and other animals, birds and sea creatures (the marine environment would change too much too quickly), all the insects and, significantly, all of the plants. That would create a massive layer of biological material in the geology (along with all the other geological evidence there would be) and a massive spike in fossils.

Assuming the animals on the ark were from the local area -the local area would show a bunch of animals dead at the same time -but the animals which replaced them would be similar.

To be honest, the animals getting to the ark and the re-population of the planet after the waters subside pose entirely separate issues for the flood narrative. I actually think plants are the biggest "plot hole" since as far as I'm aware, they're not accounted for at all in the Biblical narrative.

Finding unbroken human bloodlines predating the flood in areas far from the resting place of the ark would definitely raise some questions.

Not something I've any great expertise in but there is research around things like the so called "Mitochondrial Eve". The flood narrative wouldn't break that entirely but I'd expect such a sudden "reset" of the human genetic lines would be apparent to researchers today.

 

[Sapiens]

The lack of synchronous genetic bottlenecks is proof positive that the flood never happened.

 

[idav]

You know this kind of agrees with some New Age stuff I read. The human history is more complicated than our current science has evidence for. Interesting to me that Islam says this.

It agrees with the Genesis account found in the bible, when read rather literally. Adam and Eve would be a chosen people rather than the first humans.

 

[George-ananda]

It agrees with the Genesis account found in the bible, when read rather literally. Adam and Eve would be a chosen people rather than the first humans.

He was talking about the existence of creatures similar to humans (but not human).

 

[Parsimony]

The lack of synchronous genetic bottlenecks is proof positive that the flood never happened.

I had thought the exact same thing in the past. Believers in a global flood should be getting behind genetic research looking for bottlenecks in a wide variety of terrestrial species that happened about 4,000 years ago. If they can, they'd greatly help their position. If not, they'd shoot it down.