Evidences Supporting the Biblical Flood

[Jose Fly]

@Hockeycowboy it's quite simple. There isn't enough water on the earth to flood the entire earth. If there was, the entire earth would be flooded right now. The reason we have "dry land" is because there isn't enough water on earth to flood it.

Now, I realize your argument is that the earth was much different prior to and during the flood, specifically in terms of topography. You seem to believe that all of the mountain ranges across the earth formed and/or rose to their current heights during, or just after, the flood. However, that leads to some obvious problems, the most notable of which relates to the amount of heat that would be given off from such massive tectonic activity in such a short amount of time. One simply cannot move entire continents large distances in matter of months without generating absurd amounts of heat. Basically, the scenario you're painting would boil off the earth's oceans and atmosphere, rendering the entire earth uninhabitable.

Further, certain mountain ranges are igneous, which means they were formed from volcanic magma or lava. Obviously creating such mountain ranges (referred to as batholiths) requires molten magma/lava to form, cool, and harden. Doing so gives off a lot of heat. Now imagine that process occurring across the globe with truly gigantic mountain ranges, all in about one year! Again, the amount of heat given off would be enough to kill everything on earth and boil off the atmosphere. Creationists have written papers in their own journals where they admit as much (CLICK HERE).

Of course, if you're just going to respond to this with some variation of "God fixed it", then this entire thread is a sham. No matter what objection anyone raises, you'll just play your "God fixed it" trump card.

There's also the question of the lack of simultaneous genetic bottlenecks in extant species, but one thing at a time.

 

[Salvador]

Interesting! (FYI, if I added correctly, tree is 5,068 yrs.old, now. According to their assessment, w/o cutting it down.) These dendrochronologists say the tree is “quite healthy”, leading me to ask, “Why haven’t other, older trees been discovered, say at near death, ie., unhealthy?
Because, although Bible chronology is mostly understood using Ussher’s timeline, more recent interpretations put the Flood at a little beyond that time, around 5,235 yrs.ago. Based on the Septuagint and recent connected discoveries.

1975 -- A Marked Date?


But then, it could be that dating a tree so old, is only accurate post-mortem (the tree, that is. Lol)

Perhaps, you should take up this quarrel of when Noah's Flood happened with creation.com who puts the time of Noah's Flood at approximately 2304 B.C.

Reference: The Date of Noah’s Flood - creation.com

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Frank Cumming Hibben (December 5, 1910 – June 11, 2002) was a well-known archaeologist whose research focused on the U.S. Southwest. As a professor at the University of New Mexico (UNM) and writer of popular books and articles, he inspired many people to study archaeology. He was also controversial, being suspected of scientific fraud during his studies of Paleo-Indian cultures

Hibben's first marriage and subsequent investments made him a millionaire. In 2000, he donated part of his fortune to build an archaeology research building at UNM. (Due to the controversies surrounding his career, the decision to name the new building after him was questioned.

The primary source of the controversies was Hibben's claim to have found a deposit with pre-Clovis artifacts (including projectile points, which he termed "Sandia points") in Sandia Cave (in the Sandia Mountains near Albuquerque, New Mexico). Hibben believed the layers to be about 25,000 years old, much older than the Paleo-Indian cultures previously documented in the U.S. Southwest. The layers also included the bones of Pleistocene species such as camels, mastodons, and horses.[5]

The 25,000 year age for the "Sandia Man" deposits was a best guess based on the strata in the cave, and was later called into question, in part through radiocarbon dating. Also, research notes by Wesley Bliss (who had excavated in the cave in 1936) and others indicate that animal burrowing led to a mixing of deposits. The notion of a "Sandia Man" occupation of the U.S. Southwest is no longer accepted by professional archaeologists, but that in itself is not the source of controversy. Instead, some researchers believe that artifacts were "salted" (fraudulently placed) in the cave deposits to support the notion of the "Sandia Man" occupation. Those who believe that fraud was committed often suspect Hibben of being involved in the fraud.[4][6][7] The evidence is inconclusive, however, and Hibben maintained his innocence in the matter until his death.
Source: Wikipedia

​

In short, his scholarship and veracity is questionable.

.

The man wasnt anywhere near being a creationist! He simply reported the facts as they were, and he gets attacked for it! Attacked by others, whose own hypotheses were later disavowed. Or at least, not accepted by the majority.

 

[blü 2]

It's obvious that you didn't even read the full post... Sad.

I'm moved by your pity.

When you've wiped the tears from your eyes, tell me:

Who came along and stood the drowned animals upright? And why?

How much heat was released in a fall of rain that covered every square meter of the earth to a depth of least 9 km, all within 40 days?

 

[Skwim]

The man wasnt anywhere near being a creationist!

What's the relevance of him not being a creationist?

.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Perhaps, you should take up this quarrel of when Noah's Flood happened with creation.com who puts the time of Noah's Flood at approximately 2304 B.C.

Reference: The Date of Noah’s Flood - creation.com

Their timeline doesn’t seem to agree with known facts....your tree evidence was good, and I don’t see how trees could survive being inundated with water for over six months! I’m not of the mind to believe Jehovah God “hides evidence”, so I don’t believe Jehovah would keep trees living under water, to obscure the facts. At the time, His focus was the Ark and it’s contents.

Besides, Creation.com promotes YEC. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not agree with that, due to scientific and Biblical evidence.

 

[Jose Fly]

Who came along and stood the drowned animals upright? And why?

Yeah, the first item in @Hockeycowboy 's OP makes no sense. Apparently it's something like....

Pre-flood, there was a canopy of water above the earth that kept the earth warm.

As the flood began, the canopy fell to the earth as rain, instantly freezing the planet.

This instant freezing is evidenced by the frozen remains of animals in Alaska, and how some of them are standing upright with food in their mouths.​

But one has to wonder.....if the global temperature dropped so much, so rapidly that it froze those animals in place, how did Noah et al. survive? And why the need for a flood, since apparently everything on earth was flash-frozen once the water canopy collapsed? Also, why isn't the earth similarly frozen now? There's no canopy, right?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

...a fall of rain that covered every square meter of the earth to a depth of least 9 km, all within 40 days?

Again, you didn’t read the OP obviously, and because of that, present strawmen!

Proverbs 18:13

 

[Subduction Zone]

Their timeline doesn’t seem to agree with known facts....your tree evidence was good, and I don’t see how trees could survive being inundated with water for over six months! I’m not of the mind to believe Jehovah God “hides evidence”, so I don’t believe Jehovah would keep trees living under water, to obscure the facts. At the time, His focus was the Ark and it’s contents.

Besides, Creation.com promotes YEC. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not agree with that, due to scientific and Biblical evidence.

Creation.com is useless in a scientific argument. To work there one must swear not to follow the scientific method making their work unscientific.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, you didn’t read the OP obviously, and because of that, present strawmen!

Proverbs 18:13

You need to work on your concept of a strawman.

 

[blü 2]

Again, you didn’t read the OP obviously, and because of that, present strawmen!

Proverbs 18:13

So who came along and stood the animals upright? After all, the bible is specific that they drowned in water that covered Mt Everest.

And what was the total of potential energy released in the forty days of rain? What heat would that waterfall generate in total? The question is not a strawman, it's pure physics, and it requires an answer whether you find it inconvenient or not.

And why aren't you answering these questions instead of waving your hand airily at your former post, which doesn't address them?

PS: Before you get too serious about defending the Flood, remember what I said: the Flood story takes place on a flat earth with water above and below (Genesis 1.6). For the bible's view of cosmology from the horse's mouth, >see these quotes<.

After all (but this is a question that no creationist seems to want to answer) what else would you expect of the authors of the bible but the cosmology of their time and place, a flat earth at the center of creation?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@Hockeycowboy it's quite simple. There isn't enough water on the earth to flood the entire earth. If there was, the entire earth would be flooded right now. The reason we have "dry land" is because there isn't enough water on earth to flood it.

Now, I realize your argument is that the earth was much different prior to and during the flood, specifically in terms of topography. You seem to believe that all of the mountain ranges across the earth formed and/or rose to their current heights during, or just after, the flood. However, that leads to some obvious problems, the most notable of which relates to the amount of heat that would be given off from such massive tectonic activity in such a short amount of time. One simply cannot move entire continents large distances in matter of months without generating absurd amounts of heat. Basically, the scenario you're painting would boil off the earth's oceans and atmosphere, rendering the entire earth uninhabitable.

Further, certain mountain ranges are igneous, which means they were formed from volcanic magma or lava. Obviously creating such mountain ranges (referred to as batholiths) requires molten magma/lava to form, cool, and harden. Doing so gives off a lot of heat. Now imagine that process occurring across the globe with truly gigantic mountain ranges, all in about one year! Again, the amount of heat given off would be enough to kill everything on earth and boil off the atmosphere. Creationists have written papers in their own journals where they admit as much (CLICK HERE).

Of course, if you're just going to respond to this with some variation of "God fixed it", then this entire thread is a sham. No matter what objection anyone raises, you'll just play your "God fixed it" trump card.

There's also the question of the lack of simultaneous genetic bottlenecks in extant species, but one thing at a time.

Appreciate your civil response.

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

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.

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

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Appreciate your civil response.

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

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.

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

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.

Sorry, referring to verses in the Bible that you reinterpreted does not help you. You can't seem to deal with the fact that the mountains are far older than mankind. You need five miles of water to magically appear and to disappear or you need to show that scientists are wrong first.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

A wood that doesnt exist, has properties inconsistent with wood, and for a wood so durable and hard its surprising that no fragments are in existence today. After all you can but genuine pieces of jesus cross in almost any church bring and buy sale.

I remember reading that during the first millineum, there were so many fragments if "the one true cross" it was estimated if you could put all the pieces together, you could build a coliseum or similar giant structure. The Catholic church eventually began to crack down on fake artifacts, it had gotten so out of hand, that even they had to notice.

Or so I read. There may have been some hypoberlie in that bit, but there are references to fake "artifacts" being abundant.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

What's the relevance of him not being a creationist?

.

He had obviously failed to pay the Creationist Club's Membership Dues, and they had kicked him out.

 

[Misunderstood]

Of course, if you're just going to respond to this with some variation of "God fixed it", then this entire thread is a sham. No matter what objection anyone raises, you'll just play your "God fixed it" trump card.

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.

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.

 

[Bear Wild]

The man wasnt anywhere near being a creationist! He simply reported the facts as they were, and he gets attacked for it! Attacked by others, whose own hypotheses were later disavowed. Or at least, not accepted by the majority.

It was not because a creationist. It was his interpretations were not accurate. The mass extinctions occurred over time and related to fluctuations in the ice age patterns. Organism destroyed by a flood would rot and not be preserved as he found in his observations.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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.

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.

The whole problem of introducing God Magic to fix an obviously failed story?

Is this: Have you ever heard of Rube Goldberg's contraptions?

The Noah Flood story is exactly that: A Rube Goldberg Contraption to "fix" a problem that frankly, was unworthy of Global Catastrophe.

The Noah story is akin to hydrogen-bombing the entire continent of North America to radioactive glass, because half the teachers went on strike in a small town in Kansas, that one time.

Logically, an Infinitely Powerful Supreme Being would have a BETTER plan than drowning all the kittens, puppies and baby ducks over the entire planet, to "punish" a few hundred thousand humans.

I am a mere human, and I can think of at least an even dozen superior methods to fix the problem of Those Pesky Evil Humans.

All without needing to destroy a planet, and all the baby geese too.

Heck-- a simple ZAP! and you are Dead Right There would be better than a global drowning of all the world's butterflies at once.

 

[Misunderstood]

The whole problem of introducing God Magic to fix an obviously failed story?

Is this: Have you ever heard of Rube Goldberg's contraptions?

The Noah Flood story is exactly that: A Rube Goldberg Contraption to "fix" a problem that frankly, was unworthy of Global Catastrophe.

The Noah story is akin to hydrogen-bombing the entire continent of North America to radioactive glass, because half the teachers went on strike in a small town in Kansas, that one time.

Logically, an Infinitely Powerful Supreme Being would have a BETTER plan than drowning all the kittens, puppies and baby ducks over the entire planet, to "punish" a few hundred thousand humans.

I am a mere human, and I can think of at least an even dozen superior methods to fix the problem of Those Pesky Evil Humans.

All without needing to destroy a planet, and all the baby geese too.

Heck-- a simple ZAP! and you are Dead Right There would be better than a global drowning of all the world's butterflies at once.

I follow your logic, and even agree that if the only reason to destroy most all life is all God wanted, there may have been a better way. However, I do not know the mind of God and do not why this method was chosen over any other, I do have an idea, but that is all. But this conversation I feel is for a different thread.

I was responding to a suggestion that we cannot use the power of God in defense of the flood story. Without God there would be no story, so how can you take that away?

In order for the flood to have happened in the way the Bible states God would have had the power to cause it. If he did not have the power he would have had to wait for a natural disaster to happen and then taken credit for it. So if God has the power to create the whole universe, create life, and to cause the flood, would he not have the power to protect a few inhabitants of an Ark?

I feel in order to disprove this story, you would need to either disprove God or that God is powerless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I follow your logic, and even agree that if the only reason to destroy most all life is all God wanted, there may have been a better way. However, I do not know the mind of God and do not why this method was chosen over any other, I do have an idea, but that is all. But this conversation I feel is for a different thread.

I was responding to a suggestion that we cannot use the power of God in defense of the flood story. Without God there would be no story, so how can you take that away?

In order for the flood to have happened in the way the Bible states God would have had the power to cause it. If he did not have the power he would have had to wait for a natural disaster to happen and then taken credit for it. So if God has the power to create the whole universe, create life, and to cause the flood, would he not have the power to protect a few inhabitants of an Ark?

I feel in order to disprove this story, you would need to either disprove God or that God is powerless.

My problem with the flood story is that there is no evidence for it. A collection of supposed finds is not evidence on their own even if true. Before one can have evidence one needs a testable hypothesis.