The so-called global flood--evidence against

[Tamino]

The flood lasted many days and it has different water sources, the rain and the flooding water from the "fountains of the great deep". Rain would have done different layers, depending on the place and what materials there were. And the water from the fountains carried different materials and its effect was probably more dramatic, because it was more powerful. The water from below would also probably have had many minerals in it to cause different layers.

And, by what is said in the Bible, in the beginning earth was covered with dust. I don't know what exactly it was, but what would have been carried away from the fault line of the original continent, for example Mid-Atlantic ridge, cleaning the are that is now for example the bottom of Atlantic ocean. By what we can see from the result, the conclusion is, earth (=dry land) was not homogeneous before the flood.

You don't get it. There's an entire discipline of science working on this stuff. Geologists have mapped out layers and formations all over the world and built up detailed models of how those layers formed over a period of millions of years.
If you want to overturn that model, you need a bit more than "The water from below would also probably have had many minerals in it"
You would need maps. Where are your proposed "fountains of the deep"? Which layers do they form an why? Which layers are from rain erosion?
You cannot just overthrow a detailed and well-established model with some hand-waving and "it could have been different", that's not how science works. You need to present your own model. Every single layer of stone and every single fold and movement that is explained by the current theory, requires an alternative and plausible explanation in your model.

Eaten by water animals, and birds that can live on water.

No. Very specific birds can live on open water. The majority cannot.

It may be that dinosaurs had died before the flood already.

Wait, you don't even have a model on where to fit your flood idea in the fossil record??

But, on basis of their structure, I would think they would not float when dead.

Evidence, please?

And many birds could have drowned, but because they normally can fly, they would not get as easily stuck into the sediments. They would fly some time and drop to water and sink.

In that case, we would find colibris, small songbirds and flightless birds in lower layers of the fossil record, because they either cannot fly, or they cannot fly for long durations. And we would find migratory birds and sea birds in upper layers or not at all because they can survive longer above an ocean. There is no such evidence in the fossil record. You are still trying to pull solutions out of your sleeve without even thinking it through.

But at that point there would not be much material coming to cover them and make them fossils. They would sink to the bottom of the ocean floor, where they would be eaten by all kind of water animals.

Yeah, those water animals.... I was going to ask... How are those going to survive the sudden and radical changes in their habitat? All those minerals and materials that your "fountains of the deep", wouldn't they alter the acidity, salinity and mineral content of the sea water? Water layers would mix, currents and temperatures would change, the fresh water fish would almost all of them die as soon as the fresh water sources are mixed in with the oceans...

Why do you think they moved rapidly across the earth?

I think Bible suggests that the original continent was broken and sunk down. And it was relatively slow process, almost a year, because the water below it made it softer.

"Almost a year" is extremely rapid movement in geological terms.

Many vast limestone formations were likely from the dust that covered the earth in the beginning and were carried by the flooding water to current places.

Do you have any clue how limestone forms? Your "dust" idea doesn't account at all for the vast amounts of biogenic limestone.

 

[blü 2]

Bible doesn't say earth is flat, it is only an silly interpretation.

Why is it a silly interpretation? First, as history shows, it conforms with the general cosmological understandings of its time and place (just as the writings of our times conform to ours).

Second, if the cosmology of the bible is correct according to the scientific understandings of 2024, then the bible was wrong when it was written, wrong in the year 1000, wrong in the years 1600, 1800. 1900, 2000 ... and I say with some confidence wrong again in 2050, 2100 and 2150.

Third, if as the bible claims, the earth is immovably fixed and the sun, the planets and the stars orbit it, at what speed must a star one million light years from the earth travel in order to orbit the earth every 24 hours? Answer: The orbit of a star a million light years from the earth would be a distance of ~20,000,000 light years so the star would need to be moving at 365 times that speed ─ say ~7,300,000,000 times the speed of light. There are stars that more than 13 billion light years distant from the earth, so they would need to be moving at more than ~187,000,000,000,000,000,000 times the speed of light.

What force causes this to happen, do you say?

 

[blü 2]

The amount of water is relatively same. The difference comes from that after the flood, all the sunken stuff has been compressed, which has caused the ocean floor to go down, resulting in "rising mountains" and also oil, gas and coal.

You haven't quoted me the part of the bible that says so, or indeed anything vaguely resembling that. The bible specifically says the waters rose, and covered the tallest mountains. Nor does the bible ever suggest that compression occurred such as you suggest. If you disagree then it's time to quote the relevant part of the bible as I asked you to.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

There is no need to disprove the "FLOOD" there is no actual evidence of a flood for anyone to disprove.
Like the creation story, it is just ancient folklore rolled over into religion. You can not prove or disprove such myths and false beliefs.

However the. total lack of positive evidence for a flood covering the earth, strongly suggests it did not happen, nor was even possible.

 

[metis]

No one has been able to prove it really inerrant. And Bible gives the best explanation, therefore I believe it is also factual in matters that I can't check.

Not true. For just one example, how many animals of each kind came into the ark?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The flood lasted many days and it has different water sources, the rain and the flooding water from the "fountains of the great deep". Rain would have done different layers, depending on the place and what materials there were. And the water from the fountains carried different materials and its effect was probably more dramatic, because it was more powerful. The water from below would also probably have had many minerals in it to cause different layers.

It does not matter. The water came quickly and it was so hot that from above or below it would have cooked Noah. That alone refutes the Flood.

And no, we know how different layers were formed. We can show how they were formed. Creationists have no answer for that.

And, by what is said in the Bible, in the beginning earth was covered with dust. I don't know what exactly it was, but what would have been carried away from the fault line of the original continent, for example Mid-Atlantic ridge, cleaning the are that is now for example the bottom of Atlantic ocean. By what we can see from the result, the conclusion is, earth (=dry land) was not homogeneous before the flood.

No, when the Earth was first formed it was under the laws of physics and the heat from material colliding with the Earth as high velocities made the surface molten magma for the first millions of years. Plate tectonics took perhaps another billion years to develop.

Eaten by water animals, and birds that can live on water.

It may be that dinosaurs had died before the flood already. But, on basis of their structure, I would think they would not float when dead.

And many birds could have drowned, but because they normally can fly, they would not get as easily stuck into the sediments. They would fly some time and drop to water and sink. But at that point there would not be much material coming to cover them and make them fossils. They would sink to the bottom of the ocean floor, where they would be eaten by all kind of water animals.

Here is another way that we know that there was no flood. You have no mechanism for sorting all of those fossils. Size does not do it, density does not do it. How did dinosaurs get sorted by species? There is not just one layer of "dinosaurs". We have dinosaurs of specific ages that can only be found in limited layers. In fact we see that with all live.

Why do you think they moved rapidly across the earth?

It was creationists that came up with that claim, not scientists. By the way, that cooked Noah and family too.

I think Bible suggests that the original continent was broken and sunk down. And it was relatively slow process, almost a year, because the water below it made it softer.

A year is not slowly when it comes to continents. That is incredibly rapid. And they did not sink. There is a difference between oceanic and terrestrial crust. In fact terrestrial crust cannot "sink" because it is less dense that oceanic crust. It floats.

I think that you really would do yourself a huge favor by not referring to the Bible

Many vast limestone formations were likely from the dust that covered the earth in the beginning and were carried by the flooding water to current places.

No, we can look at limestone under microscopes and see what it is made of. There are no old limestones. They are all Cambrian or more recent. By the way, in geology even 500 million years is not "old". Limestone is made up of body parts. Many have been broken and rebroken but the crystalline structure still tells the tale.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it is you, who make such irrelevant and baseless claims.

Incorrect. You are the one that keeps claiming that the myth is true and there are consequences of those claims. You keep cooking Noah again and again with your ignorance.

What is your source of water? Be specific and you need about five vertical miles of it. Where did it go to? You have no place to drain it to. The oceans are old too. It had to rain over the entire Earth including the oceans. Water does not pile up and stay in one place.

Please stop lying.

Whoa! That is a clear violation of the rules here and worse yet I never lied. The fact that you refuse to learn even the basics of science has now changed the category of the fact that you are claiming that your God is a liar. It has gone from you just being terribly ignorant of all of the sciences to doing it on purpose. People have offered to help you to learn the basics but you wish to remain ignorant. When one is willfully ignorant one loses the "I did not know that" excuse. If the Christian God exists do you think that he would be happy with someone purposefully calling him a liar? If you do not think so then it would be in your best interests to learn the basics of science so that you do not do that.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I realize that this topic has been addressed here and there in many threads. I'd like to collect all the points into one clearly labeled thread. Let's list all the arguments and evidence against the flood. They can include, for example, geological evidence, or internal problems with the Genesis account.

I'll start.

If there had been a global flood, there would be a single layer of silt extending all around the world. No such layer of silt exists.

You mean the flood in the Bible? If so it never happened physically. The Bible is a spiritual Book primarily about spiritual matters. So spiritually yes. Today we are in the midst of a huge deluge of materialism and consumerism which has all but numbed and destroyed our spiritual senses. So we are drowning in self and ego and lost all sense of perspective and direction. In place of spirituality are wars and hopelessness and despair with no end in sight.

And the Ark? Yes there is one calling men to God but most scoff at it so very few are spared the confusion and chaos engulfing humanity. As in the times of Noah people are left free to make their choices for better or for worse.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Not true. For just one example, how many animals of each kind came into the ark?

None. Fictional arcs contain no real animals.
Only a tinyl proportion of the world's animal have ever existed in the middle east, around mount Ararat. how were animals like kangaroos supposed to have got there.

 

[loverofhumanity]

None. Fictional arcs contain no real animals.
Only a tinyl proportion of the world's animal have ever existed in the middle east, around mount Ararat. how were animals like kangaroos supposed to have got there.

In the Bible animals are sometimes referred to in a symbolical manner such as the wolf and the lamb will lie down in peace together which really symbolises the antagonistic sects, races and nations that they will reconcile their differences and live in peace.

The Ark is in my view the Ark or Ship of God’s Covenant, His religion and the various animals once again describes the diversity of the humans which will enter into the safety of God’s laws of love whilst the oceans around them are tossing and turning with wars, hatreds and prejudices. Only those who enter the Ark survive ‘spiritually’. The rest drown in ungodliness and hopelessness and despair. This is the condition the world is approaching one of utter hopelessness except for those who enter the Ark. These are not confused but know that this is all the process of a new world spiritual civilization being born and humanity is experiencing birth pangs of this new world and at the same time the death pangs of the old world.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

In the Bible animals are sometimes referred to in a symbolical manner such as the wolf and the lamb will lie down in peace together which really symbolises the antagonistic sects, races and nations that they will reconcile their differences and live in peace.

The Ark is in my view the Ark or Ship of God’s Covenant, His religion and the various animals once again describes the diversity of the humans which will enter into the safety of God’s laws of love whilst the oceans around them are tossing and turning with wars, hatreds and prejudices. Only those who enter the Ark survive ‘spiritually’. The rest drown in ungodliness and hopelessness and despair. This is the condition the world is approaching one of utter hopelessness except for those who enter the Ark. These are not confused but know that this is all the process of a new world spiritual civilization being born and humanity is experiencing birth pangs of this new world and at the same time the death pangs of the old world.

I have no difficulty in accepting that the whole of genesis is useful as parables and as teaching aids. However I would suggest that it was compiled from folk law stories circulating from the distant past. And has no historical accuracy. Nor was it intended as any form of prophecy.

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

Now there might have been extreme flooding in certain parts of the world, because the Earth's landscapes do change overtime and are subject to all kinds of weather. But I don't buy a global flood anymore then I buy a boat being large enough to take two species of every animal in the world.

 

[1213]

What is your source of water? Be specific and you need about five vertical miles of it. Where did it go to? You have no place to drain it to. The oceans are old too. It had to rain over the entire Earth including the oceans. Water does not pile up and stay in one place.

I think I have already explained that. Vast part of the water was below the dry land (earth). After the flood, part of it is in great glaciers and main part in oceans. Because ocean floor has gone down, the water is not sufficient anymore to cover all the mountains.

worse yet I never lied.

You said I have called God a liar. That is not true.

 

[1213]

It does not matter. The water came quickly and it was so hot that from above or below it would have cooked Noah.

Are people watching geysers boiled? no, therefore no intelligent reason to think Noah would have been boiled.

And no, we know how different layers were formed. We can show how they were formed.

sorry, I have no good reason to believe that.

...the heat from material colliding with the Earth as high velocities made the surface molten magma for the first millions of years. Plate tectonics took perhaps another billion years to develop.

Why do you believe that?

Here is another way that we know that there was no flood. You have no mechanism for sorting all of those fossils. Size does not do it, density does not do it. How did dinosaurs get sorted by species? There is not just one layer of "dinosaurs". We have dinosaurs of specific ages that can only be found in limited layers. In fact we see that with all live.

Can you even prove they are sorted the way you claim? Please show one example where they are actually sorted the way you claim.

There is a difference between oceanic and terrestrial crust. In fact terrestrial crust cannot "sink" because it is less dense that oceanic crust. It floats.

Are you claiming it floats on water?

No, we can look at limestone under microscopes and see what it is made of. There are no old limestones. They are all Cambrian or more recent. By the way, in geology even 500 million years is not "old". Limestone is made up of body parts. Many have been broken and rebroken but the crystalline structure still tells the tale.

If it is made of body parts, it is a great evidence for the flood that drowned a lot of living beings. However, Wikipedia says it can be formed also in other ways, which should be obvious, because it is just CaCO3.

"Limestone (calcium carbonate CaCO3) is a type of carbonate sedimentary rock which is the main source of the material lime. It is composed mostly of the minerals calcite and aragonite, which are different crystal forms of CaCO3. Limestone forms when these minerals precipitate out of water containing dissolved calcium. This can take place through both biological and nonbiological processes"

Limestone - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[1213]

Not true. For just one example, how many animals of each kind came into the ark?

Mammal families ~160, bird families ~200, reptile families ~100.

2 pairs of unclean animals and 7 pairs of clean animals. I am not sure about the about the number of clean animals. If we would assume all were clean, the number of animals would have been ~6440. Obviously not all were clean, so the number is something less than that.

 

[1213]

You haven't quoted me the part of the bible that says so, or indeed anything vaguely resembling that. The bible specifically says the waters rose, and covered the tallest mountains. Nor does the bible ever suggest that compression occurred such as you suggest. If you disagree then it's time to quote the relevant part of the bible as I asked you to.

Rising water is relative. From human point of view it looked like it was rising. And Bible don't have to say things that are obvious. Everyone should understand that if you have for example 1000 feet of water on top of something, it will compress the something. For example regular wood would not stand that pressure without being compressed.

 

[1213]

Why is it a silly interpretation? First, as history shows, it conforms with the general cosmological understandings of its time and place

Sorry, I don't think that is true.

Second, if the cosmology of the bible is correct according to the scientific understandings of 2024, then the bible was wrong when it was written, wrong in the year 1000, wrong in the years 1600, 1800. 1900, 2000 ... and I say with some confidence wrong again in 2050, 2100 and 2150.

I think it is correct today, as it was before.

Third, if as the bible claims, the earth is immovably fixed

In Bible earth means dry land. In a way it is immovable on our planet. Doesn't necessary mean our planet would also be immovable.

and the sun, the planets and the stars orbit it, at what speed must a star one million light years from the earth travel in order to orbit the earth every 24 hours? Answer: The orbit of a star a million light years from the earth would be a distance of ~20,000,000 light years so the star would need to be moving at 365 times that speed ─ say ~7,300,000,000 times the speed of light. There are stars that more than 13 billion light years distant from the earth, so they would need to be moving at more than ~187,000,000,000,000,000,000 times the speed of light.

The problem with that is, the distances are not necessary correct.

 

[1213]

Where are your proposed "fountains of the deep"?

For example the Mid-Atlantic ridge is one of the lines where the original continent was cracked. The cracks were the fountains of the great deep. In the beginning of the flood, the water flowed to other directions, like to the west side of America and formed many layers of sediments and at the same time cleaned the ocean floor on the modern bottom of Atlantic ocean.

You cannot just overthrow a detailed

The problem is, I don't think we have a detailed knowledge about the layers.

In that case, we would find colibris, small songbirds and flightless birds in lower layers of the fossil record, because they either cannot fly, or they cannot fly for long durations.

Not necessary. It depends on where there were when the flood happened.

And we would find migratory birds and sea birds in upper layers or not at all because they can survive longer above an ocean. There is no such evidence in the fossil record.

Do you know any fossil of migratory bird? Where was it found?

Yeah, those water animals.... I was going to ask... How are those going to survive the sudden and radical changes in their habitat? All those minerals and materials that your "fountains of the deep", wouldn't they alter the acidity, salinity and mineral content of the sea water? Water layers would mix, currents and temperatures would change, the fresh water fish would almost all of them die as soon as the fresh water sources are mixed in with the oceans...

No reason to assume that there would not have been enough suitable conditions for different species of water animals. There could have easily been different conditions, like for example in Baltic sea nowadays.

"Almost a year" is extremely rapid movement in geological terms.

Maybe so, but it is not something that would generate necessary boiling temperatures.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You said I have called God a liar. That is not true.

Disagreeing with the Bible and disagreeing with you is NOT the same thing as calling God a liar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think I have already explained that. Vast part of the water was below the dry land (earth). After the flood, part of it is in great glaciers and main part in oceans. Because ocean floor has gone down, the water is not sufficient anymore to cover all the mountains.

That is just a silly claim. You need to be able to properly support that. You cannot just make up nonsense. That is not a refutation.

You said I have called God a liar. That is not true.

How would you know? You refuse to learn even the basics of science. The scientific method is a very important tool for reasoning. If you were willing to learn I could show you how you regularly claim that God is a liar. If you won't learn then I cannot show that to you, but it will still be a fact.