Archeaological evidence for the Bible

[Autodidact]

Why? You don't even believe it happened.

Much easier to look at the evidence of a more specific claim.

Many good scientists believe it did,[/quopte] No they don't.

many don't, depends on how one looks at the evidence I suppose.

No, it only depends on whether one has a scientific, or anti-scientific world view. The consensus of geologists is that it never happened, could not possibly have happened, did not happen. There is no, NO, no controversy about this in geology. 99.99% of the world's geologists agree that there has never been a world-wide flood. If you base your views on the evidence and are intellectually honest, you cannot conclude that there was ever a worldwide flood.

I am quite convinced that it happened just as Genesis says, Jesus is convinced, too along with many, many other great and learned and Godly men and women.

That may be, but they're not geologists or metereologists or archeologists.

Do you accept or reject the scientific method as a way to learn about the natural world?

 

[Autodidact]

Modern geology, and its sub-disciplines of earth science, geochemistry, geophysics, glaciology, paleoclimatology, paleontology and other scientific disciplines utilize the scientific method to analyze the geology of the earth. The key tenants of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community.

The issue for flood geologists is not whether extrabiblical evidence is relevant to biblical interpretation but rather how to interpret that evidence. Having already employed, without benefit of external evidence, a hermeneutic that demands a literal interpretation of the Bible, flood geologists are prepared to do anything but accept the mainstream scientific evidence that flatly refutes their claims that the earth is geologically young and that a global deluge deposited the fossiliferous strata. They have thus been forced either to appeal to miracles or to construct elaborate theories that manipulate the extrabiblical data to fit their view of what must be true.

from an evangelical Christian geologist

In sum, modern geologists don’t reject global flood geology because of their wordview. They reject it because it is an inadequate explanation of geological data.

from Northern Arizona University astrobiology department.

Here, Joe, how does this sound: find me a single article from a single mainstream, recognized, scientific journal of geology or a related field that indicates that there was a global flood, or relies on there having been one, or in any way supports this crackpot notion.

 

[gnostic]

No evidence for a worldwide flood? LOL! I just posted links to TONS of evidence, but whatever. I did not say it changed so we can't prove it, but it changed so we have the evidence right before us that does prove it.

I don't have time for visiting all those links, but I am well aware of the Flood myths from the other cultures and civilisations. The only problem is that we can't set date in many of the flood that happened in other myths.

The date for the Biblical Flood, has been calculated anywhere between 2350-2100 BCE, but this actually don't coincided with that of Gilgamesh's Flood. There are no archaeological evidences of any major flood in Mesopotamia in that period. I would put Noah's Flood at 2100 BCE, according to the calculation I have made.

According to Sumerian and Babylonian myths, Gilgamesh lived around 2700 or 2600 BCE. If you know anything about Mesopotamian myths, it would seemed that Gilgamesh lived centuries after the Flood. Real archaeological evidences of large flood that can be found from Shuruppak to Kish, and this has been dated to 2900 BCE, not in the period of 2350-2100 BCE.

Plato' Altantis supposedly happened 9 to 10 thousand years ago, which is well before Adam and Noah's time.

The evidence of the great flood in the Black Sea, has been dated 5600 BCE, which turned landlocked freshwater sea into salt-water sea when the Mediterranean spill through Bosporus; that a couple of thousand of years before even Adam was supposedly created.

Not of these archaeological evidences or textual evidences or oral tradition coincide with that of Noah's Flood that supposedly covered the entire globe.

And in any case, as many have already pointed out to you and other creationists theories, where did all the water go? The water must go somewhere. It is outrageous that the Bible say that only ONE YEAR the flood water receded. A flood of such magnitude would have taken centuries before any civilisation could recover. The lowland regions of Sumerian/Babylonian lands and Egypt should have been still under water, but we have both civilisations still thriving (as I have posted here in #116) on Noah's Flood supposed dates of either 2348 BCE (Wiki's calculation) or 2106 BCE (my calculation, see Timeline of Patriarch in Dark Mirrors of Heaven). Neither evidences (Sumerian Flood and Black Sea) support Noah's Flood.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No evidence for a worldwide flood? LOL! I just posted links to TONS of evidence, but whatever.

No, you posted a laundry list of apologetic nonsense. May I suggest that you select the piece of 'evidence' that you find most probative, present it, and defend it? I'm sure we'll all find it instructive ... :yes:

 

[Hope]

The issue for flood geologists is not whether extrabiblical evidence is relevant to biblical interpretation but rather how to interpret that evidence. Having already employed, without benefit of external evidence, a hermeneutic that demands a literal interpretation of the Bible, flood geologists are prepared to do anything but accept the mainstream scientific evidence that flatly refutes their claims that the earth is geologically young and that a global deluge deposited the fossiliferous strata. They have thus been forced either to appeal to miracles or to construct elaborate theories that manipulate the extrabiblical data to fit their view of what must be true.

Here, Joe, how does this sound: find me a single article from a single mainstream, recognized, scientific journal of geology or a related field that indicates that there was a global flood, or relies on there having been one, or in any way supports this crackpot notion.

May I just suggest something in response to these two challenges? I know I said I would bow out of this thread, but I can't help but point out something here.

Who are you talking about when you say "mainstream"? Would it not be mainly scientists, geologists, etc., who are not religious (or, more specifically, non-Christian)? So, supposedly, because they have no religious agenda, they have no agenda at all, huh? I find this hard to believe. I don't doubt their credentials, their intelligence, or their knowledge of their specific fields, but I do call into question the claim that they are somehow unbiased, or have no agenda of their own. Everyone, whether you're a Christian or an atheist, looks at things through certain lenses, and has certain presuppositions. These "mainstream" scholars are not excluded.

"They have thus been forced either to appeal to miracles or to construct elaborate theories that manipulate the extrabiblical data to fit their view of what must be true." Take this quote for instance. Why could it not be true that "mainstream" scholars do the same thing? I am convinced that they often do this as well. The very fact that they dismiss the possibility of miracles shows they have an agenda and certain presuppositions. The main presupposition being, of course, that miracles do not happen. They in no way can prove miracles do not happen. They just assume they don't. This is no different than a creationist scientist assuming that miracles do happen.

Secular scientists approach what they see with the presuppositions that the world was not created and was formed through evolution. And, just like Christian scientists, they will interpret everything they find through their specific worldview lens. And sometimes even "construct elaborate theories," just as creationists supposedly do.

So let's not pretend one side is less biased or less qualified than the other. That is deliberately putting on blinders.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Secular scientists approach what they see with the presuppositions that the world was not created and was formed through evolution. And, just like Christian scientists, they will interpret everything they find through their specific worldview lens. And sometimes even "construct elaborate theories," just as creationists supposedly do.

So let's not pretend one side is less biased or less qualified than the other. That is deliberately putting on blinders.

This is not a fair comparison.

Evolution is not a presupposition in the same way that creationism is. The theory of evolution is the best explanation of the sum of the evidence from a variety of fields and is not a scientifically baseless presupposition that creationism remains. When a scientist presupposes evolution as they interpret further evidence, they are assuming a theory to be true that compliments the sum of scientific knowledge. When a creationist assumes creationism, they are forgoing all scientific knowledge at the beginning, and then misinterpreting and mishaping all further evidence.

Why Logic/Reason/Science is not the same thing as "Faith"

 

[Hope]

This is not a fair comparison.

Oh I beg to differ. It is a very fair comparison.

Evolution is not a presupposition in the same way that creationism is.

Well, at least you admit it is a presupposition. That's a start.

The theory of evolution is the best explanation of the sum of the evidence from a variety of fields and is not a scientifically baseless presupposition that creationism remains. When a scientist presupposes evolution as they interpret further evidence, they are assuming a theory to be true that compliments the sum of scientific knowledge. When a creationist assumes creationism, they are forgoing all scientific knowledge at the beginning, and then misinterpreting and mishaping all further evidence.

I would say this is only the case with some creationists. Only the strictest of creationists will dismiss all forms of evolution. I believe evolution does happen on some levels.

What I'm trying to say is that both creationists and Darwinian evolutionists twist evidence to suit their worldviews. It is not a lopsided affair relegated only to "crazy creationists," as has been implied by many in this thread. This is why I'm saying people are putting blinders on in this unfair assessment. People who don't believe in the Bible should at least be willing to admit that they bring just as many presuppositions to the table as creationists do. I'm not denying that creationists sometimes twist data to fit their worldview----it would simply be nice if evolutionists admitted they often do the same thing. Because there's no question they do.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well, at least you admit it is a presupposition. That's a start.

It's intellectually honest.

However, pretending to interpret scientific data while presuming something not sustained by any scientific conclusions - creationism - is not.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

People who don't believe in the Bible should at least be willing to admit that they bring just as many presuppositions to the table as creationists do.

That is simply not true.

The Bible and supplementing Christian traditions and intepretative methods amount to much, much more than the simple assumptions that guide scientific inquiry.

Scientific worldviews are constructed by scientific findings. It is dishonest to project a foreign view onto it.

 

[joeboonda]

It always amazes me when someone believes that the 8000 kinds of animals Noah saved in a flood 4,000 years ago can develop into the 10 million species that exist today and yet claim that the Theory of Evolution is wrong.

From AiG: (2 posts)

How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?
by Jonathan Sarfati
Many skeptics assert that the Bible must be wrong, because they claim that the Ark could not possibly have carried all the different types of animals. This has persuaded some Christians to deny the Genesis Flood, or believe that it was only a local flood involving comparatively few local animals. But they usually have not actually performed the calculations. On the other hand, the classic creationist book The Genesis Flood contained a detailed analysis as far back as 1961.1 A more detailed and updated technical study of this and many other questions is John Woodmorappe’s book Noah’s Ark: a Feasibility Study. This article is based on material in these books plus some independent calculations. There are two questions to ask:

• How many types of animals did Noah need to take?
• Was the ark large enough to hold all the required animals?

How many types of animals did Noah need to take?


The relevant passages are Genesis 6:19–20 and Genesis 7:2–3.

Genesis 6:19–20:​

‘And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.’​

Genesis 7:2–3:​

‘Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.’​

In the original Hebrew, the word for ‘beast’ and ‘cattle’ in these passages is the same: behemah, and it refers to land vertebrate animals in general. The word for ‘creeping things’ is remes, which has a number of different meanings in Scripture, but here it probably refers to reptiles.2 Noah did not need to take sea creatures3 because they would not necessarily be threatened with extinction by a flood. However, turbulent water would cause massive carnage, as seen in the fossil record, and many oceanic species probably did become extinct because of the Flood.
However, if God in His wisdom had decided not to preserve some ocean creatures, this was none of Noah’s business. Noah did not need to take plants either—many could have survived as seeds, and others could have survived on floating mats of vegetation. Many insects and other invertebrates were small enough to have survived on these mats as well. The Flood wiped out all land animals which breathed through nostrils except those on the Ark (Genesis 7:22). Insects do not breathe through nostrils but through tiny tubes in their exterior skeleton.
Clean animals: Bible commentators are evenly divided about whether the Hebrew means ‘seven’ or ‘seven pairs’ of each type of clean animal. Woodmorappe takes the latter just to concede as much to the biblioskeptics as possible. But the vast majority of animals are not clean, and were represented by only two specimens each. The term ‘clean animal’ was not defined until the Mosaic Law. But since Moses was also the compiler of Genesis, if we follow the principle that ‘Scripture interprets Scripture’, the Mosaic Law definitions can be applied to the Noahic situation. There are actually very few ‘clean’ land animals listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.
What is a ‘kind’? God created a number of different types of animals with much capacity for variation within limits.4 The descendants of each of these different kinds, apart from humans, would today mostly be represented by a larger grouping than what is called a species. In most cases, those species descended from a particular original kind would be grouped today within what modern taxonomists (biologists who classify living things) call a genus (plural genera).
One common definition of a species is a group of organisms which can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and cannot mate with other species. However, most of the so-called species (obviously all the extinct ones) have not been tested to see what they can or cannot mate with. In fact, not only are there known crosses between so-called species, but there are many instances of trans-generic mating, so the ‘kind’ may in some cases be as high as the family. Identifying the ‘kind’ with the genus is also consistent with Scripture, which spoke of kinds in a way that the Israelites could easily recognize without the need for tests of reproductive isolation.
For example, horses, zebras and donkeys are probably descended from an equine (horse-like) kind, since they can interbreed, although the offspring are sterile. Dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals are probably from a canine (dog-like) kind. All different types of domestic cattle (which are clean animals) are descended from the Aurochs, so there were probably at most seven (or fourteen) domestic cattle aboard. The Aurochs itself may have been descended from a cattle kind including bisons and water buffaloes. We know that tigers and lions can produce hybrids called tigons and ligers, so it is likely that they are descended from the same original kind.
Woodmorappe totals about 8000 genera, including extinct genera, thus about 16,000 individual animals which had to be aboard. With extinct genera, there is a tendency among some paleontologists to give each of their new finds a new genus name. But this is arbitrary, so the number of extinct genera is probably highly overstated. Consider the sauropods, which were the largest dinosaurs—the group of huge plant-eaters like Brachiosaurus, Diplodocus, Apatosaurus, etc. There are 87 sauropod genera commonly cited, but only 12 are ‘firmly established’ and another 12 are considered ‘fairly well established’.5
One commonly raised problem is ‘How could you fit all those huge dinosaurs on the Ark?’ First, of the 668 supposed dinosaur genera, only 106 weighed more than ten tons when fully grown. Second, as said above, the number of dinosaur genera is probably greatly exaggerated. But these numbers are granted by Woodmorappe to be generous to skeptics. Third, the Bible does not say that the animals had to be fully grown. The largest animals were probably represented by ‘teenage’ or even younger specimens. The median size of all animals on the ark would actually have been that of a small rat, according to Woodmorappe‘s up-to-date tabulations, while only about 11 % would have been much larger than a sheep.
Another problem often raised by atheists and theistic evolutionists is ‘how did disease germs survive the flood?’ This is a leading question—it presumes that germs were as specialized and infectious as they are now, so all the Ark’s inhabitants must have been infected with every disease on earth. But germs were probably more robust in the past, and have only fairly recently lost the ability to survive in different hosts or independently of a host. In fact, even now many germs can survive in insect vectors or corpses, or in the dried or frozen state, or be carried by a host without causing disease. Finally, loss of resistance to disease is consistent with the general degeneration of life since the Fall.6

 

[joeboonda]

Was the ark large enough to hold all the required animals?

The Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits (Genesis 6:15), which is about 140x23x13.5 metres or 459x75x44 feet, so its volume was 43,500 m3 (cubic metres) or 1.54 million cubic feet. To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard American railroad stock cars, each of which can hold 240 sheep.
If the animals were kept in cages with an average size of 50x50x30 centimetres (20x20x12 inches), that is 75,000 cm3 (cubic centimetres) or 4800 cubic inches, the 16,000 animals would only occupy 1200 m3 (42,000 cubic feet) or 14.4 stock cars. Even if a million insect species had to be on board, it would not be a problem, because they require little space. If each pair was kept in cages of 10 cm (four inches) per side, or 1000 cm3, all the insect species would occupy a total volume of only 1000 m3, or another 12 cars. This would leave room for five trains of 99 cars each for food, Noah’s family and ‘range’ for the animals. However, insects are not included in the meaning of behemah or remes in Genesis 6:19-20, so Noah probably would not have taken them on board as passengers anyway.
Tabulating the total volume is fair enough, since this shows that there would be plenty of room on the Ark for the animals with plenty left over for food, range etc. It would be possible to stack cages, with food on top or nearby (to minimize the amount of food carrying the humans had to do), to fill up more of the Ark space, while still allowing plenty of room for gaps for air circulation. We are discussing an emergency situation, not necessarily luxury accommodation. Although there is plenty of room for exercise, skeptics have overstated animals’ needs for exercise anyway.
Even if we don’t allow stacking one cage on top of another to save floor space, there would be no problem. Woodmorappe shows from standard recommended floor space requirements for animals that all of them together would have needed less than half the available floor space of the Ark’s three decks. This arrangement allows for the maximum amount of food and water storage on top of the cages close to the animals.
Food requirements

The Ark would probably have carried compressed and dried foodstuffs, and probably a lot of concentrated food. Perhaps Noah fed the cattle mainly on grain, plus some hay for fibre. Woodmorappe calculated that the volume of foodstuffs would have been only about 15 % of the Ark’s total volume. Drinking water would only have taken up 9.4 % of the volume. This volume would be reduced further if rainwater was collected and piped into troughs.
Excretory requirements

It is doubtful whether the humans had to clean the cages every morning. Possibly they had sloped floors or slatted cages, where the manure could fall away from the animals and be flushed away (plenty of water around!) or destroyed by vermicomposting (composting by worms) which would also provide earthworms as a food source. Very deep bedding can sometimes last for a year without needing a change. Absorbent material (e.g. sawdust, softwood wood shavings and especially peat moss) would reduce the moisture content and hence the odour.
Hibernation

The space, feeding and excretory requirements were adequate even if the animals had normal day/night sleeping cycles. But hibernation is a possibility which would reduce these requirements even more. It is true that the Bible does not mention it, but it does not rule it out either. Some creationists suggest that God created the hibernation instinct for the animals on the Ark, but we should not be dogmatic either way.
Some skeptics argue that food taken on board rules out hibernation, but this is not so. Hibernating animals do not sleep all winter, despite popular portrayals, so they would still need food occasionally.
Conclusion

This article has shown that the Bible can be trusted on testable matters like Noah’s Ark. Many Christians believe that the Bible can only be trusted on matters of faith and morals, not scientific matters. But we should consider what Jesus Christ Himself told Nicodemus (John 3:12): ‘If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?’
Similarly, if the Scriptures can be wrong on testable matters such as geography, history and science, why should they be trusted on matters like the nature of God and life after death, which are not open to empirical testing? Hence Christians should ‘be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you’ (1 Peter 3:15), when skeptics claim that the Bible conflicts with known ‘scientific facts’.
Christians would be able to follow this command and answer skeptics’ anti–Ark arguments effectively, if they read John Woodmorappe’s book Noah’s Ark: a Feasibility Study. This remarkable book is the most complete analysis ever published regarding the gathering of animals to the Ark, provisions for their care and feeding, and the subsequent dispersion. For example, some skeptics have claimed that the post-Flood ground would be too salty for plants to grow. Woodmorappe points out that salt can be readily leached out by rainwater.
Woodmorappe has devoted seven years to this scholarly, systematic answer to virtually all the anti–Ark arguments, alleged difficulties with the Biblical account, and other relevant questions. Nothing else like this has ever been written before—a powerful vindication of the Genesis Ark account.

‘It has just the sort of facts and details that kids find fascinating, and would make an excellent source of information for enhancing Bible study projects and class lessons on the Ark and Flood. Anyone interested in answering the many questions about the ark, especially from skeptics, would be advised to read Noah’s Ark.’7
​

 

[angellous_evangellous]

AiG is worthless propaganda...

 

[joeboonda]

Much easier to look at the evidence of a more specific claim.

Many good scientists believe it did,[/quopte] No they don't. No, it only depends on whether one has a scientific, or anti-scientific world view. The consensus of geologists is that it never happened, could not possibly have happened, did not happen. There is no, NO, no controversy about this in geology. 99.99% of the world's geologists agree that there has never been a world-wide flood. If you base your views on the evidence and are intellectually honest, you cannot conclude that there was ever a worldwide flood. That may be, but they're not geologists or metereologists or archeologists.

Do you accept or reject the scientific method as a way to learn about the natural world?

The Bible and science agree. In times past men lost their faith when certain scientific "facts" seemed to refute the Bible however these "facts" as they were proven false only show the Bible stands true.

 

[camanintx]

The Bible and science agree. In times past men lost their faith when certain scientific "facts" seemed to refute the Bible however these "facts" as they were proven false only show the Bible stands true.

Read some of these articles and get back with me:

Anyone can put together a web site. Do you have anything published in a respected journal that might have been through peer review?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Anyone can put together a web site.

Not quite... but anyone can brainlessly cut and paste from a website.

Do you have anything published in a respected journal that might have been through peer review?

We've asked for that already.

 

[Hope]

Anyone can put together a web site. Do you have anything published in a respected journal that might have been through peer review?

And anyone "can put together a so-called respected journal that might have been through peer review."

If you aren't even willing to check out someone else's sources, then what makes you think they should check out yours? That's arrogant and lousy debating. At least have the decency to look at the websites instead of dismissing them out-of-hand.

 

[SoyLeche]

And anyone "can put together a so-called respected journal that might have been through peer review."

Depending on who is "so-calling" it respected, of course.

 

[Hope]

Depending on who is "so-calling" it respected, of course.

Certainly. I'm just sick and tired of the arrogant attitude of so many opposed to creationist and Biblical theories in regards to archeaology. It is somehow "beneath them" to actually consider there might be credible archeaologists, geologists, etc., who are also Christians and find no conflict in the Biblical account and what they research in their respective fields.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Certainly. I'm just sick and tired of the arrogant attitude of so many opposed to creationist and Biblical theories in regards to archeaology. It is somehow "beneath them" to actually consider there might be credible archeaologists, geologists, etc., who are also Christians and find no conflict in the Biblical account and what they research in their respective fields.

Creationism isn't credible because there is no evidence for it.

 

[Hope]

Creationism isn't credible because there is no evidence for it.

It is no less credible than Darwinian evolution. Such a generalized statement means little. But this is a topic for another thread.