Evidences Supporting the Biblical Flood

[Jose Fly]

Appreciate your civil response.

You're welcome.

I try not to say “God Did it”, but overall, Jehovah was behind it. And more than just the water.

My understanding of this thread is that you're attempting to argue that the Biblical flood is supported by the empirical evidence, correct?

Much, if not most — which is what I believe — came from below the surface - “all the springs of the vast watery deep opened”, not requiring much sideways movement of the plates.
What would’ve happened, is “valleys” formed - Psalms 104; the land surface fell, because the rising springs would have left a vacuum....the Earth had to settle.

The problem there is, there are several mountain ranges across the globe that we know for a fact are formed via tectonic movement. The Himalayas are a good example; not only have we identified the plates that are colliding, we can measure their movement in real time.

There are also other types of mountains that don't fit what you're presenting....the batholiths I mentioned earlier, volcanic mountains, and a host of others. Very, very few of them show signs of being formed in the way you're talking about.

How do you account for that?

That being said, any heat produced would be minimal, absorbed by the huge amounts of water-containing ringwoodite that’s been newly discovered.

We can get into that later, but suffice to say....no, it doesn't work that way at all.

Mountains would not necessarily rise; only from the perspective of a ground-based observer describing the Event. (Moses recorded Genesis 1 in this style....reporting as though he was there on the ground.)

Mountains have “roots”, as per Putnam’s Geology. It keeps them stable.

I strongly suggest you do a bit more research and reading into the geology of mountain formation. Right now you're throwing around very simplistic generalities that aren't really helping your case.

 

[Jose Fly]

Isn't this thread about the biblical flood? If so how can we take God out of the conversation?

All Abrahamic Religions believe in God, so to say we are going to take the power of God out of a story we believe in is not going to work, as that is what we believe (God is all powerful). I doubt many believers will let you take God away from them, and will continue to believe.

This thread is about someone attempting to make the case that the Biblical flood is supported by the empirical data. Invoking "God did it" contradicts that goal, since a lack of empirical support can always be explained away with "it was a miraculous act of God".

Also, I do feel most believers believe in science, but that science is subject to God. So using science to disprove God holds no validity as God set the laws our physical space operates under.

I have zero interest in "disproving God".

 

[Vee]

Why do creationists demand to observe something that would falsify the theory of evolution to believe in it? No wonder you are confused.

I'm not confused at all. Evolutionists believe that one species can change so much it becomes a different species sometime in the future, and that life could have originated from non-living things. None of those things has ever been witnessed but you believe it anyway.
I believe there is a God that created everything, but I've never seen God.
We both believe in miracles. They are just of a different nature.

 

[Jose Fly]

Do you really think mainstream researchers, dedicated to supporting only naturalism, would even consider Noah’s Ark a possibility, let alone performing experiments that might give the Event credibility?

That's an interesting subject. You see, it was actually European Christian scientists who first started realizing and writing about how the data just did not support the Biblical flood. If you read their writings, it was quite a painful realization for some of them, but in the end they did what all good scientists do and followed the data where it led.

I suggest you read THIS ARTICLE. It's quite the story, and it illustrates how your argument that rejection of the Biblical flood is somehow tied to an anti-Biblical agenda just isn't historically accurate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not confused at all. Evolutionists believe that one species can change so much it becomes a different species sometime in the future, and that life could have originated from non-living things. None of those things has ever been witnessed but you believe it anyway.
I believe there is a God that created everything, but I've never seen God.
We both believe in miracles. They are just of a different nature.

Actually we have observed speciation occur. It is an every day occurrence. Evolution does not rely on miracles. By the way there more than ample evidence for evolution, evidence for a god? Not so much.

It would help if you understood the concept of evolution. For example I have heard creationists talk about life evolving into different "kinds". There is no change of kind in evolution. "Kinds" is a failed creationist idea.

 

[Jose Fly]

Why do creationists demand to observe something that would falsify the theory of evolution to believe in it? No wonder you are confused.

It's a defense mechanism. Folks like @Vee hold evolutionary biology up to an impossible standard, which allows them to dismiss it without understanding it. That way their religious beliefs stay intact and their emotional well-being is secured.

 

[stvdv]

I’ve presented a lot of evidence. Are you open-minded enough, to consider it now?

EDIT: Well, it’s been over a day since I posted, and it’s obvious some simply aren’t open-minded enough; they are so biased even to the point where they attack the poster....me....rather than debate the evidence.

Sad but expected.

Sad but expected. That is true, but it's expected because "Christians are the ones starting to be biased and belittling (lack of) faith of others"

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I find your argument hard to follow, but full of strange mental gymnastics. I don't see anything in your claims - if they're even true - that requires a worldwide flood to explain it.

OTOH, we have plenty of evidence against a recent global flood. For instance, the soils in many parts of the northern hemisphere - the parts that were under glaciers in the last ice age - were overconsolidated by those glaciers and have been undisturbed since. We can see this in the very structure and response of the soil.

A heavy weight of water on the soil wouldn't explain what we see, since water actually reduces stress in soil due to buoyancy.

The implication of all this is that the soils in, say, the Great Lakes region have definitely not been disturbed - e.g. by a massive flood - since the time that a glacier was sitting on them.

Do you think there has been an ice age since the flood?

I think the Flood caused the Ice Age. Grief, I’ve read articles from researches saying we still have an ice age! (Which is quickly disappearing.) There are glaciers all over the Northern and Southern Hemispheres...198,000. If you count smaller ones, up to 400,000.

 

[stvdv]

I’ve presented a lot of evidence. Are you open-minded enough, to consider it now?

EDIT: Well, it’s been over a day since I posted, and it’s obvious some simply aren’t open-minded enough; they are so biased even to the point where they attack the poster....me....rather than debate the evidence.

Sad but expected.

I've been 6 month on RF. And I have seen this "Arc thing" pass by quite a few times.

More interesting than "whether it's true or not", is to me "why Bible believers need to prove to others that it is true?"

Sadly I expect the reason to be "If this is true then we have one more proof that Jesus/Bible is the only way" or even worse "It proves others (their way) are wrong"

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That's an interesting subject. You see, it was actually European Christian scientists who first started realizing and writing about how the data just did not support the Biblical flood. If you read their writings, it was quite a painful realization for some of them, but in the end they did what all good scientists do and followed the data where it led.

I suggest you read THIS ARTICLE. It's quite the story, and it illustrates how your argument that rejection of the Biblical flood is somehow tied to an anti-Biblical agenda just isn't historically accurate.

I read it, years ago. But I saved it, (I forgot a lot of it) I’ll get to it later. Thanks.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The problem there is, there are several mountain ranges across the globe that we know for a fact are formed via tectonic movement. The Himalayas are a good example; not only have we identified the plates that are colliding, we can measure their movement in real time.

Yes, they are being affected by tectonics, now.
You are using “the present is the key to the past” concept in your interpretations. I simply don’t agree.

The Pleistocene Megafaunal extinctions should be evidence enough to bury that idea!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Please make the bacteria evolve into a dog and I'll be happy to change my mind about evolution

The above, class, is Why We Can't Have Nice Things.

What is stated above, is Fantasy Land: Magic, in other words. JUST Like in the Bible, in fact!

What actual scientific evolution states? Is not even a little bit like the above. It's akin to the difference between Chinese Language Lessons, and playing with blocks-- with the above being blocks, of course.

Apples and Airplanes-- nothing alike.

 

[Jose Fly]

I read it, years ago. But I saved it, (I forgot a lot of it) I’ll get to it later. Thanks.

That's fine, but at the very least the history in those writings demonstrates that rejection of the Biblical flood was not due to some anti-Bible agenda or bias, but rather was the result of scientists doing what scientists are supposed to do....follow the evidence where it leads.

Yes, they are being affected by tectonics, now.
You are using “the present is the key to the past” concept in your interpretations. I simply don’t agree.

First, simply saying "I don't agree" isn't a compelling response.

Second, can you discuss and address the specific geologic conditions around uplift mountain ranges and describe how the data is better explained by your scenario than by what geologists have been saying for quite some time now?

I mean, you do understand that so far, you've not given one good reason why anyone should reject the consensus explanation from geologists and adopt your explanation, right?

The Pleistocene Megafaunal extinctions should be evidence enough to bury that idea!

I don't understand how that extinction event should lead one to conclude that geologic uplift mountains are actually not formed by tectonic movements.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What is stated above, is Fantasy Land: Magic, in other words. JUST Like in the Bible, in fact!

The Bible is fantasy to you.

Does that tell us anything about the Bible? Or rather does that simply tell us more about your misunderstanding of it?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That's fine, but at the very least the history in those writings demonstrates that rejection of the Biblical flood was not due to some anti-Bible agenda or bias, but rather was the result of scientists doing what scientists are supposed to do....follow the evidence where it leads.


First, simply saying "I don't agree" isn't a compelling response.

Second, can you discuss and address the specific geologic conditions around uplift mountain ranges and describe how the data is better explained by your scenario than by what geologists have been saying for quite some time now?

I mean, you do understand that so far, you've not given one good reason why anyone should reject the consensus explanation from geologists and adopt your explanation, right?


I don't understand how that extinction event should lead one to conclude that geologic uplift mountains are actually not formed by tectonic movements.

I didn’t “simply say” that...I gave you a reason why I don’t believe it. In fact, the reason I gave, indirectly questions your reason for believing the mountain ranges are geologically, ie., very, old..... especially since in observing them, we see very crisp and well-defined features. With the extreme weathering conditions they experience, they would be eroded and worn-down in appearance!

But I’m repeating myself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn’t “simply say” that...I gave you a reason why I don’t believe it. In fact, the reason I gave, indirectly questions your reason for believing the mountain ranges are geologically, ie., very, old..... especially since in observing them, we see very crisp and well-defined features. With the extreme weathering conditions they experience, they would be eroded and worn-down in appearance!

But I’m repeating myself.

Unjustified questions are merely a form of denial. Your "reasons" are merely excuses. This is why I tried to get you to learn some of the basics of science. Understanding how science is done also allows one to understand the nature of evidence. There is no scientific evidence for the flood. Or rather no one has presented any to date. One has to "Put one's money where one's mouth is". If someone is afraid to take the risk of putting their idea in the form of a testable hypothesis they do not have evidence by definition. What is hard to understand is why people that think they have evidence are so afraid to take this simple step.

 

[Jose Fly]

I didn’t “simply say” that...I gave you a reason why I don’t believe it. In fact, the reason I gave, indirectly questions your reason for believing the mountain ranges are geologically, ie., very, old..... especially since in observing them, we see very crisp and well-defined features. With the extreme weathering conditions they experience, they would be eroded and worn-down in appearance!

But I’m repeating myself.

Again you're just speaking in very vague generalities.

From what I see, so far you've asserted in very vague terms a scenario where all mountain ranges on earth were formed very recently via some sort of sinking process, while at the same time waving away the long-held consensus views of the world's geologist in equally vague terms (see above).

I'll reiterate....I hope you understand why that's not the slightest bit compelling and is insufficient justification for rejecting the long-standing consensus in favor of your vague scenario.

So how about you actually try to make a detailed, informed case? You can start by doing what I suggested, i.e., discuss and address the specific geologic conditions around uplift mountain ranges and describe how the data is better explained by your scenario than by the plate tectonics model. Start with the Himalayas. What specifically in the geologic data of those mountains indicates to you that they were formed via your sinking idea, instead of via tectonic movements? And if you're going to just restate what you said above, then describe the amount of weathering that's currently exhibited in the Himalayas, and then explain how it's inconsistent with the tectonic model and is consistent with your sinking idea.

 

[Shad]

It could be, but I doubt they'd consider anything which is stated outright to be of a metaphysical cause. If you disagree, then give me an example.

(Although, I do know of some highly regarded Universities that held classes, researching aspects of the paranormal.)

Check out The Emperor's New Mind by Penrose.

 

[Shad]

I did find this:

WWF: Hull Form

This from Hong's study

 

[SkepticThinker]

So...doesn't the Bible present the Flood as a phenomenon caused by God? (It wasn't natural.) But then, you propose He did nothing else? He wouldn't protect the arks contents, during and after? (One of the last paragraphs in the OP discusses this.)

Regarding the animals....don't you believe in evolution? I do, to an extent. Those animals would be all that was needed, for the diversity within the families and genera we see today.

We're not told, but Jehovah could've induced a state of hibernation or torpor, to keep them calm.

We have precedent in the Bible, other accounts, describing God keeping people and animals from eating.

You give Jehovah very little credit.

But at least you discussed some of the OP evidence. Thanks for that.

You're trying to present a scientifically supported hypothesis about the ark, yes? If that is the case then you can't start inserting magic into it when you run out of scientifically verifiable answers.
Pick one or the other (science or God-magic), but you can't have both.