No. The flood itself would produce a lot of evidence. In fact, it is more the advance and receding of the flood that produces the actual geological evidence.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can religion reject this science ?
- Thread starter james blunt
- Start date
-
- Tags
- science
No. The flood itself would produce a lot of evidence. In fact, it is more the advance and receding of the flood that produces the actual geological evidence.
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
What kind of evidence are we talking about?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Both sedimentary deposits and erosion features.
gnostic
The Lost One
What Subduction Zone said.
Plus, even when soil has been dried after over the centuries and even millennia, it would still show signs of saturation and compaction, by noting the different colours of that layer of sediments.
In the case of ancient towns and cities being flooded, you would see evidences of man-made debris and waste being jumbled/mixed together and deposited in certain area, covered what used to be mud.
And speaking of mud, it would leave evidences on the walls of buildings, eg houses, palaces, temples, tombs, etc. Water would also saturate the walls, often leaving marks of the heights of floodwater had reached.
Flood in towns and cities, leaving different evidences to those that have succumbed to fire outbreaks, earthquakes and destruction of wars, like sieges.
Experts (which I am not) would know all this, where to find what evidences left behind, and what disasters, natural or man-made, had caused it.
Do you think experts can’t tell?
ps I said that I am not expert investigating natural disasters, searching for evidences in ancient sites, but I was a former civil engineer, and over the years I hear how these experts know certain things that are outside my areas of expertise, so I pick up information here and there. In any case, though my works have been designing for modern buildings and public works (not ancient ones), I do understand a few things about geology and soils.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
I would like to add above, that when some disasters hit a city, these ancient people don’t make repairs. They would just spent years building new city on top of the older ones.
Many ancient cities in the Middle East were like that, and archaeologists often find that newer layers of cities were built over the olde ones, like Jericho, Uruk (which you probably know in Genesis as Erech), Damascus, Babylon, Nineveh, Troy, etc.
There are at least 20 layers of Jericho, stretching as far back as early Neolithic period, shortly after the Ice Age had ended 11,000 years ago.
Of course, not all these layers were caused by natural disasters or by wars. Sometimes cities are just abandoned for no apparent reasons, and new group of people, centuries later, might come by and built a new city on top of the older one. Possible examples reasons of abandoning towns, like virulent diseases, famine, droughts, economic changes (no trades), etc.
But any competent archaeologists or engineers would know the evidences caused by flood.
What happened is that these layers of cities and towns that have been buried, often preserved these evidences that are left behind.
Many ancient cities in the Middle East were like that, and archaeologists often find that newer layers of cities were built over the olde ones, like Jericho, Uruk (which you probably know in Genesis as Erech), Damascus, Babylon, Nineveh, Troy, etc.
There are at least 20 layers of Jericho, stretching as far back as early Neolithic period, shortly after the Ice Age had ended 11,000 years ago.
Of course, not all these layers were caused by natural disasters or by wars. Sometimes cities are just abandoned for no apparent reasons, and new group of people, centuries later, might come by and built a new city on top of the older one. Possible examples reasons of abandoning towns, like virulent diseases, famine, droughts, economic changes (no trades), etc.
But any competent archaeologists or engineers would know the evidences caused by flood.
What happened is that these layers of cities and towns that have been buried, often preserved these evidences that are left behind.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
When did you think the Genesis Flood happened?
Your date...your sources?
I am asking because the dates for the Flood can be roughly estimated from the OT, and it is dependent on how you would interpret certain verses, eg 1 Kings 6:1 and Exodus 12:40-41. It would depends on when Jerusalem was captured by the Neo-Babylonians and when Solomon reigned, as well as if you are using the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) or the Greek Septuagint as your sources.
Since you are of the LDS church, you would used either the King James Version (KJV) or Joseph Smith revised version of KJV.
The KJV depends on mostly of the Masoretic Text, with some passages in the Old Testament supplemented/replaced with translation of Septuagint.
The MT & Septuagint might give different number of years (eg Genesis 5 & 11) or include a patriarch or a reign that are not found in the other source. So there may some conflict between 2 or more different sources (eg Samaritan Torah, Pe****ta).
So what date would you put the flood of Genesis?
Edit:
LOL
I wasn’t swearing
but it censored the title of Syriac translation of the scriptures.
Last edited:
james blunt
Well-Known Member
18 pages written so far and I can't even get a honest opinion off somebody normal pfffff.....
Page 1 - Is this looking presentable ?
Page 1 - Is this looking presentable ?
Last edited:
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, it does not prove it, but until you understand how you did so There is no point going over that shipwreck of a post that you wrote. I owned up to the error that I made. If you want me to go over that post you need to do the same. Until then corrections of your most recent posts is all that you get.
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
Always looking for some excuse to justify never providing the evidence you claim is there.
You, my dear Subduction Zone, are a creature of very irresponsible habit.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, that post was answered and refuted a long time ago. I made a minor error that I owned up to. When you are rude there is no obligation to go over something again.
Strange that you have not asked for sources for the more recent corrections of your errors.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
Polymath ...Eureka ....
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Not "science" or even a major discovery, but it could be interpreted in such a manner as to be correct. Now if you could simply learn how to add, subtract negative numbers.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
It is science and thank you for confirming it is correct !
Do you also agree this is correct ?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, it is NOT science. But at least it is not idiocy. There is a way to read that so it is mathematically correct.
Sadly your next one goes back to being nonsense. It indicates that simply multiplication and division is beyond you. The problem is that you parrot what you do not understand. Even a parrot may be right occasionally, but most of the time "polly wanna cracker" is meaningless.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
The second equation is the same as the first equation .....getting more complex...
Do you agree?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nope, more nonsense.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
How is it more nonsense when it is the same equation you already said was correct ?
james blunt
Well-Known Member
Quite obviously you're confused about how to do maths !
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
No, that would be you. The one thing that could be read as correct is (if you read it like that) totally obvious and uninteresting, the rest is total gibberish.