Evidence of NOAH's FLOOD

[Mock Turtle]

Was that your working or mine?




One of my arguments when debating the flood, where were two blue whales kept and the around 10 tons of krill each whale eats per day.

They were in the swimming pool of course.

 

[Heyo]

I have seen creationists assert that there were no significant mountains then, so there was less water needed to cover the whole planet. Of course, as usual, this is absurd, and it lacks the necessary evidence. It also ignores the tremendous instability of the highest mountains forming in just a few months, all by magic, and all inconsistent with geology. It amazes me how desperate creationists are to make their bad interpretation of Genesis fit their Christian dogma. Let's not forget the Jews don't even interpret Genesis literally, and it is their story. The arrogance of conservative Christians is astounding and so contrary to any ethic that Jesus taught.

What gets on my nerves is that have the audacity to insist that their myth could be scientific - while denying all of actual science. And at the end they still have to rely on magic.

 

[YoursTrue]

Some water is trapped under the earth. Geological echo sounding through the entire earth has identified these ground water deposits and they are taken into account. It should be noted that ground water does not naturally rise to the surface, it would leave huge caverns underground that... Guess what... Will fill with the water displaced.

Yes there are clouds and humidity, really small amounts 0.001% of all water on earth.

Nope earth wasn't entirely covered with water. There was a supercontinent known as Pangaea. Todays continents formed from the breakup of Pangaea.

Ain't tectonics wonderful?

A lot of water is trapped under the earth. Ground water is not the only thing from my understanding. As far as tectonics go, it also shows there is a lot of water. And don't forget that scientists say the earth was once entirely water covered. 1.5 billion-year-old Earth had water everywhere, but not one continent, study suggests
True this is said to have happened a looong time ago, neveretheless the scientists are claiming it once was entirely water covered. But that doesn't matter in reference to the "Flood." What it does say, however, is that there was (is) plenty of water, and seems scientific evidence is such that the earth was once entirely water covered. Genesis 1 recounts the events, I'll only quote the beginning of the series of events: "Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters." Watery deep, surface of the waters so far. Now again, I'm not trying to prove the flood of Noah's time, just the sequence of events regarding water said to be in/over/and on the surface of the earth's firmament. (I'm not going to argue each and every point brought out by others because it is very clear to me that there was and is lots and lots of water within and without the earth's crust and science is still figuring it out. But the Bible has a very interesting relation about waters first.
Like I say I'm not saying I can explain how it happened in Noah's time because it seems rather unusual. And just like with Moses and Pharaoh, I'm on Moses's side. I'll go with Moses. But there were obviously those on Pharaoh's side, and while it is not believed by many, I still feel the account is truthful. I'll accept it over popular scientific ideas that controvert that.

 

[F1fan]

What gets on my nerves is that have the audacity to insist that their myth could be scientific - while denying all of actual science. And at the end they still have to rely on magic.

Given the creationists don’t acknowledge valid arguments via facts and science, and they repeat invalid religious beliefs, suggests to me they are wanting to reinforce their beliefs, and seeing them in text gives them a feeling of credibility. And of course they justify these bad ideas with the same unreliable faith as their tradition of religion.

I find their mental processes interesting and do feel sorry that they are in a trap they don’t want to escape.

 

[YoursTrue]

Some water is trapped under the earth. Geological echo sounding through the entire earth has identified these ground water deposits and they are taken into account. It should be noted that ground water does not naturally rise to the surface, it would leave huge caverns underground that... Guess what... Will fill with the water displaced.

Yes there are clouds and humidity, really small amounts 0.001% of all water on earth.

Nope earth wasn't entirely covered with water. There was a supercontinent known as Pangaea. Todays continents formed from the breakup of Pangaea.

Ain't tectonics wonderful?

A lot of water is trapped under the earth. Ground water is not the only thing from my understanding. As far as tectonics go, it also shows there is a lot of water. And don't forget that scientists say the earth was once entirely water covered. 1.5 billion-year-old Earth had water everywhere, but not one continent, study suggests
True this is said to have happened a looong time ago, neveretheless the scientists are claiming it once was entirely water covered. But that doesn't matter in reference to the "Flood." What it does say, however, is that there was (is) plenty of water, and seems scientific evidence is such that the earth was once entirely water covered. Genesis 1 recounts the events, I'll only quote the beginning of the series of events: "Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters." Watery deep, surface of the waters so far. Now again, I'm not trying to prove the flood of Noah's time, just the sequence of events regarding water said to be in/over/and on the surface of the earth's firmament. (I'm not going to argue each and every point brought out by others because it is very clear to me that there was and is lots and lots of water within and without the earth's crust and science is still figuring it out. But the Bible has a very interesting account about waters.

 

[YoursTrue]

What gets on my nerves is that have the audacity to insist that their myth could be scientific - while denying all of actual science. And at the end they still have to rely on magic.

The science itself is "evolving." 1.5 billion-year-old Earth had water everywhere, but not one continent, study suggests

 

[Heyo]

The science itself is "evolving." 1.5 billion-year-old Earth had water everywhere, but not one continent, study suggests

Thanks for the example. It is exactly what I was saying. Through one corner of your mouth you cite an article about an 1.5 billion year old water covered Earth and through the other you question dating methods.
And you also think that somehow Earth before plate tectonics could have anything to do with the topic which is the Noachian deluge.

 

[YoursTrue]

Thanks for the example. It is exactly what I was saying. Through one corner of your mouth you cite an article about an 1.5 billion year old water covered Earth and through the other you question dating methods.
And you also think that somehow Earth before plate tectonics could have anything to do with the topic which is the Noachian deluge.

I am saying that scientists themselves either say or contest that the earth was covered by water at some time. Therefore, covering the earth with water is -- possible. Whether now or before...

 

[ChristineM]

A lot of water is trapped under the earth. Ground water is not the only thing from my understanding. As far as tectonics go, it also shows there is a lot of water

Yes, its called ground water and is taken into account, i thinks thats the 4th time i mentioned that. And still it would not rise to the surface because it would leave voids that need filling. Study a little fluid dynamics rather than bronze age guessing.

And don't forget that scientists say the earth was once entirely water covered. 1.5 billion-year-old Earth had water everywhere, but not one continent, study suggests

Suggests. It's not even a hypothesis yet.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, it isn’t. It’s assumption-based.

When your peer-reviewed literature resort to explanations that contain “probably”s, “likely”s & other suggestive language, which is pervasive in biology publications, you’ve entered the realm of philosophy.
You however attempt to portray these as fact, when in reality, they are based on assumption & guesses Not logic. Lol.

You have no explanation as to how the first of these molecular machines, or the first cell itself, arose.

As more & more cellular complexity is being discovered, in
explaining how it began, the more “evolution of the gaps” there will be, added to the already huge list!

But without any understanding as to how the complexity originated, you will continue to exclaim, “look what evolution did!”

That’s biased ignorance. And blind faith.

We know of no other source for complex functioning structures, than intelligence.

That is science.

Why do creationists always point that out like it's a bad thing? Or a thing at all?

Google any scholarly scientific journal article on pretty much anything in the world, and you're going to find the exact same language throughout.
It's not the big great point you seem to think it is.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Which would be what? Why does the Genesis Flood narrative have all those details, & how do they fit into the teachings?

For example, what’s the teaching behind the highest mountain covered over by “15 cubits” of water?

Or, the meaning behind the Ark’s dimensions & ratios?

Or, the meaning of why animals were saved?

Or, say, covering the Ark with bitumen & tar?

Or of a hundred other details?

See, Too many details in a teaching illustration defeats its purpose. (Simple illustrations are best.)

No, it was a real event.

One purpose the Flood serves, is what Peter said, 2Pet.2:5,6..
“And he did not refrain from punishing an ancient world, but kept Noah, a preacher of righteousness, safe with seven others when he brought a flood upon a world of ungodly people. And by reducing the cities of Sodʹom and Go·morʹrah to ashes, he condemned them, setting a pattern for ungodly people of things to come.“

So see, if these events didn’t happen, then there’s really no pattern set. It’s empty.

So what? I could pick up a ton of fiction off the shelf that goes into great detail in its story-telling. Doesn't make it true because it's detailed.

 

[F1fan]

The science itself is "evolving." 1.5 billion-year-old Earth had water everywhere, but not one continent, study suggests

This doesn’t help your religious beliefs. The conditions of the planet well before humans evolved, some 200,000 years ago, doesn’t imply a literalist interpretation of Genesis is rational. Remember to you creationists evidence doesn’t matter. You assume a God that performs magic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've found him useful:

"The moderator in the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on whether creationism is a viable scientific field of study asked, 'What would change your minds?' Scientist Bill Nye answered, 'Evidence.' Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, 'Nothing. I'm a Christian.' Elsewhere, Ham stated, 'By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

I think that almost every rational person watching that debate knew that was the moment that Ken Ham lost the debate. It was almost as if he forgot what they were debating altogether. The debate was:

"Is Creation A Viable Model of Origins?"

Right then and there Ham admitted that he did not even have a proper model. He only had a dogma.

 

[John53]

What gets on my nerves is that have the audacity to insist that their myth could be scientific - while denying all of actual science. And at the end they still have to rely on magic.

The amount of hypocrisy involved is monumental.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A lot of water is trapped under the earth. Ground water is not the only thing from my understanding. As far as tectonics go, it also shows there is a lot of water. And don't forget that scientists say the earth was once entirely water covered. 1.5 billion-year-old Earth had water everywhere, but not one continent, study suggests
True this is said to have happened a looong time ago, neveretheless the scientists are claiming it once was entirely water covered. But that doesn't matter in reference to the "Flood." What it does say, however, is that there was (is) plenty of water, and seems scientific evidence is such that the earth was once entirely water covered. Genesis 1 recounts the events, I'll only quote the beginning of the series of events: "Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters." Watery deep, surface of the waters so far. Now again, I'm not trying to prove the flood of Noah's time, just the sequence of events regarding water said to be in/over/and on the surface of the earth's firmament. (I'm not going to argue each and every point brought out by others because it is very clear to me that there was and is lots and lots of water within and without the earth's crust and science is still figuring it out. But the Bible has a very interesting relation about waters first.
Like I say I'm not saying I can explain how it happened in Noah's time because it seems rather unusual. And just like with Moses and Pharaoh, I'm on Moses's side. I'll go with Moses. But there were obviously those on Pharaoh's side, and while it is not believed by many, I still feel the account is truthful. I'll accept it over popular scientific ideas that controvert that.

Yes, trapped. Like it is trapped in drywall. Like it is trapped in cement. The only way to get it out is through extremes that would melt the crust and then some. You cannot get that water out with reducing Noah and company to the point beyond ashes.

Your own scientific illiteracy causes you to grasp at the thinnest of straws. Ones that actually harm your argument.

This myth was refuted over 200 years ago and it has only gotten worse since then. This is why when you insist that it is true that you are calling your God a liar. You have to claim that he planted endless false evidence. Not only on the macro scale, but to the molecular scale. Yes, an all powerful God could for some insane reason insist that he had to kill all sorts of innocents for no good reason at all. But if he did it as the myth tells you that he did it then there would be evidence for it, unless of course God lied. God, being omnipotent could always lie by trying to coverup the fact that he was guilty of that evil deed. But supposedly he is both sociopathic enough to kill everything and only tries to cover it up but then brags about it too. You are not only claiming that God is a liar you are also claiming that he is an extreme irrational psychopath.

Why do you denigrate your God in such a fashion? If he did it, as the Bible says, why did he try to cover up his crimes?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think that almost every rational person watching that debate knew that was the moment that Ken Ham lost the debate. It was almost as if he forgot what they were debating altogether. The debate was: "Is Creation A Viable Model of Origins?" Right then and there Ham admitted that he did not even have a proper model. He only had a dogma.

Agreed. And that's why I find Ham useful. He's a great example of the closed-mindedness and confirmation bias of religious faith and how it cuts one indulging in it off from evidence that contradicts such beliefs.

I have a collection of such quotes. Every one of these people is proudly announcing that their minds are closed to contradictory evidence. In the Nye-Ham part, Nye serves as the example of open-mindedness:

[1] "The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right..." - William Lane Craig

[2] The moderator in the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye on whether creationism is a viable scientific pursuit asked, “What would change your minds?” Scientist Bill Nye answered, “Evidence.” Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, “Nothing. I'm a Christian.” Elsewhere, Ham stated, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

[3] “If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

[4] “When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data. The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1-11 is actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronological problems thereby entailed.” –creationist Henry Morris

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, its called ground water and is taken into account, i thinks thats the 4th time i mentioned that. And still it would not rise to the surface because it would leave voids that need filling. Study a little fluid dynamics rather than bronze age guessing.




Suggests. It's not even a hypothesis yet.

Ground water is only the beginning. There's more but I leave the rest for you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, its called ground water and is taken into account, i thinks thats the 4th time i mentioned that. And still it would not rise to the surface because it would leave voids that need filling. Study a little fluid dynamics rather than bronze age guessing.




Suggests. It's not even a hypothesis yet.

Maybe it will rise to the hypothetical status.

 

[YoursTrue]

What gets on my nerves is that have the audacity to insist that their myth could be scientific - while denying all of actual science. And at the end they still have to rely on magic.

Science denies itself sometimes by discovering something that overturns the previous version. But... that's science!

 

[YoursTrue]

Natch you don't have to believe this postulation by science but here it is...from https://www.science.org/content/article/ancient-earth-was-water-world
"Across the ages...Earth's total surface water was always assumed to be constant." (Note the word assumed there...assumed for a long time.)
But evidence is mounting that a few billion years ago the planet's oceans held nearly twice as much water--enough to submerge today's continents above the peak of Mount Everest."
Oops above Mount Everest. But then, of course, that's only based on the "mounting evidence."