Evidence of NOAH's FLOOD

[Dan From Smithville]

You cannot have water covering the heights of mountains, and not destroyed plant life, in the process.

Genesis 8 says that the Ark finally rested on the mountains, mentioning Ararat:



And it said earlier in Genesis 7 that the water covered “all the high mountains”:



even if we were to ignore the mountains of the Himalayas (eg Everest) and of the Andes, the 2 main peaks of Ararat is about almost 3900 metres for Little Ararat and over 5100 metres for the Greater Ararat.

The World War II submarines built by the Germans would implode at the crushing depths of 200 to 280 metres.

So imagined what would happen if trees were submerged 3000 metres of water?

Trees aren’t meant to be submerged.

even the majority of marine life that people see and catch, wouldn’t live at that depth, because they are not anatomically and physiologically built to withstand the water pressures.

You are deluded if you believe that can survive months under thousands of metres water.

And the “God did it”, saving trees from depth, is unrealistic fantasy.

I've been thinking about this a bit since you posted.

We have a claim that the carcasses found in permafrost died at the same time by a global flood and were buried in the sediment. At the same time, there is a claim that trees were protected from the flood, because someone "knows" what God thinks and did.

Outside of an appeal to magic, I can't think of a mechanism that would achieve both results. A flood of such a scope and power that it would kill every living animal and leave the trees would be outside of the natural laws as I understand them. So, if magic is the claim and there is no evidence of magic to support that magic happens, the claim is meaningless. I didn't see that coming.

Further, I can't think of a mechanism that would sort out all the other terrestrial organisms that we would expect to find with mammal carcasses and don't. Floodists have come up with all sorts of sorting schemes for why this is so, including how physics then didn't work like it does now. Of course, without evidence that physics is different now, it is just another empty scheme in a long list of empty schemes to join the appeal to magic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've been thinking about this a bit since you posted.

We have a claim that the carcasses found in permafrost died at the same time by a global flood and were buried in the sediment. At the same time, there is a claim that trees were protected from the flood, because someone "knows" what God thinks and did.

Outside of an appeal to magic, I can't think of a mechanism that would achieve both results. A flood of such a scope and power that it would kill every living animal and leave the trees would be outside of the natural laws as I understand them. So, if magic is the claim and there is no evidence of magic to support that magic happens, the claim is meaningless. I didn't see that coming.

Further, I can't think of a mechanism that would sort out all the other terrestrial organisms that we would expect to find with mammal carcasses and don't. Floodists have come up with all sorts of sorting schemes for why this is so, including how physics then didn't work like it does now. Of course, without evidence that physics is different now, it is just another empty scheme in a long list of empty schemes to join the appeal to magic.

That is the problem with such an obvious myth as the Flood. God has to be incredibly inconsistent and doing magic all over the place, but only in certain areas. And then you have the problem of that God lying by planting false evidence.

It raises the question of why didn't God simply kill all the people that he wanted to kill? It would have been far easier and far less immoral. If the fear of death was needed as some claim to allow the people a chance to beg God for forgiveness then why couldn't God have just given them a vision that would scare them straight if there was a chance of that happening and then he could kill them. The whole story is so incredibly logically inconsistent the only excuse for believing it is extreme indoctrination.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That is the problem with such an obvious myth as the Flood. God has to be incredibly inconsistent and doing magic all over the place, but only in certain areas. And then you have the problem of that God lying by planting false evidence.

It raises the question of why didn't God simply kill all the people that he wanted to kill? It would have been far easier and far less immoral. If the fear of death was needed as some claim to allow the people a chance to beg God for forgiveness then why couldn't God have just given them a vision that would scare them straight if there was a chance of that happening and then he could kill them. The whole story is so incredibly logically inconsistent the only excuse for believing it is extreme indoctrination.

Why wipe out animals and plants and other living things? Doing that doesn't make a lot of sense either. The claim is that God was upset with men and no mention of other living things are included in that.

If a fox steels some chickens, the farmer doesn't shoot his pigs, because they were their when it happened.

 

[Astrophile]

The best scenario I could come up with, that can check all the boxes, is connected to a recent discovery by science, of oceans of water, below the crust, in the upper mantle. Say there was an earthquake, that create a small fissure, that allows this very hot high pressure super ionic water to lower pressure, phase change, and work its way to the surface. It then open the fissure, wider and wider, as it time goes on.

It would eventually be like a huge steam geyser, that gets stronger and stronger, filling the atmosphere with hot water and steam. As it grows, clouds form and spread across the globe. There is an ocean of water below the crust and this scenario does not need all of it. It would create very serious rain storms, with torrential rains, until all the added atmospheric water falls from the atmosphere; mass flooding everywhere. As it rains and drains over forty days and nights, the oceans rise.

The water in the upper mantle is not present as liquid water; it is in chemical combination with the mineral ringwoodite. If it were to reach the surface it would erupt as lava, not as a flood or as a steam geyser.

Science has found a large scar on the floor of the Atlantic Ocean, where the crust is fully eroded away, and the mantle is exposed. This suggests such a scenario may have happened. It is hard to tell when, until they can test the scar to see how fresh it is. El Niño might form from a smaller sub ocean water vent; old faithful.

Can you give me any information about this large scar, for example its latitude and longitude, its size, and a link to the original paper?

 

[John53]

I grew up in Minnesota and I have seen temperature changes of over 50 degrees Fahrenheit in one day. Do you think that was impossible in the past? You are still grasping at straws or in this case buttercups and you still do not have a testable hypothesis. This means that you still have no evidence.

Are you saying it's possible there could be blizzards in Arctic regions during spring or summer that might suddenly catch animals out?

 

[John53]

Every time some floodist comes up with some wild scheme for how it happened, they open up more questions than the schemes answer and, not surprisingly, have no answers for those questions.

If God could protect trees from miles of turbid, brackish water, why couldn't he just put Noah and and representatives of all living things under the same sort of deflector shield He used to save the trees? Why an ark at all in that case also?

The magic of magic answers of today seem much more imaginative than the magic answers of the past too. Ancient authors knew about boats and the power of local floods, but they didn't know about all the stuff we do that floodists can now use to speculate on.

The only real magic in his answer was the bit about only look at the evidence for his claim, don't look for any that challenges it. Like all magic once investigated it turns out to be sleight of hand and diversion. Forget my megafauna claim, look over there someone is claiming to talk to dead people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you saying it's possible there could be blizzards in Arctic regions during spring or summer that might suddenly catch animals out?

Yes, especially when the seasons are close to changing. Plus as usual our opponent at best misunderstood a source. It only has to be 50 F or 10 C for buttercups to blossom. But that same species can make it through winters of -30 F or -35 C. That means that they could exist and even bloom at the base of an advancing ice sheet.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The only real magic in his answer was the bit about only look at the evidence for his claim, don't look for any that challenges it. Like all magic once investigated it turns out to be sleight of hand and diversion. Forget my megafauna claim, look over there someone is claiming to talk to dead people.

I understand that someone wouldn't want to accept the evidence that challenges a long-held belief, but the lengths gone to and questionable tactics employed undermine the ethics of the belief system in my opinion. You, @Subduction Zone, @gnostic, @ChristineM and most of the other atheists I communicate with on here may not believe as I do, but I appreciate the honesty of your position.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand that someone wouldn't want to accept the evidence that challenges a long-held belief, but the lengths gone to and questionable tactics employed undermine the ethics of the belief system in my opinion. You, @Subduction Zone, @gnostic, @ChristineM and most of the other atheists I communicate with on here may not believe as I do, but I appreciate the honesty of your position.

When I used to argue against AGW one of the final straws that changed my mind was a lecture by Lord Monckton. I had learned enough to see the endless falsehoods and distortions that he was using. That made me think if the facts are on his side why does he have to be so dishonest?

 

[YoursTrue]

I'd say it is settled. ID is not science. It is religion. That some refuse to let go and accept that is not evidence that it is science. That some think science is a search for the truth tells me more about what they do not understand about science and indicates that their opinions on the subject are very limited and biased.

A judge essentially saying that the argument isn't over the claims of ID being right or wrong, but whether it is science or not is not an endorsement of a particular religious view. It seems to me that people that have lost will grasp at anything to keep the argument alive. That, to me, appears to be all it is about at this point.

My interpretation of the creationist position is, "If we keep arguing in the face of overwhelming evidence and the rational conclusions on that evidence, we haven't lost".

Thinking about various facets of life, the Pope recently visited Mongolia to speak to religious workers and about other things. Lots of starving and poorly treated persons throughout the world, but then I see big $$ going for things like putting artwork on the moon.
Lots of religious people on this earth. Yet Jesus said that just as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be in the days of the son of man Luke 17:26. Wish I could ask the Pope if he believes that Jesus believed in myths, as many here say about Noah and someone I recall said about Jesus.

 

[YoursTrue]

ID is religious based, not scientific.

In actuality, Truth is needed to realize that when the facts are discerned about life in the past or the present, the idea of fish evolving to eventually becoming humans is simply conjecture.

 

[YoursTrue]

ID is religious based, not scientific.

In actuality, Truth is needed to realize that when the facts are discerned about life in the past or the present, the idea of fish evolving to eventually becoming humans is simply conjecture.

ID is religious based, not scientific.

ID claims, he said, may be accurate. They may be...of course once you get down to the nitty gritty then what do you have? Yes, humans remain humans, fish remain fish and getting down to basics, there ain't nowhere to go.

 

[Soandso]

Unfortunately, there’s no *one date* that has consensus.

But here are the contenders (in each case, add 2022 years, for a BP [Before Present] date. I’ll do it for you):

3756 BCE; or 5,778 years ago (BP).

3298 BCE (based on LXX); or 5,320 years ago.

2370 BCE (based on MT & Ussher);
or 4,392 years ago.

2348 BCE (based on MT w/o Ussher); or 4,370 years ago.

Wait... The earliest known Egyptian empire coalesced around 3150 BC. We have Egyptian hieroglyphics dating to 3200 BC. How does this timeframe allow for an entire culture, let alone an empire to have enough time to form - especially when we can know and track the previous cultures that led up to that empire even before that and beyond going back centuries?

Even more than that, we can track how ancient Chinese people groups progressed going back more than 12k years. It makes no sense that we could have archeological evidence of the progress of mankind in that area that goes from paleolithic, to neolithic, to chalcolithic, and to the bronze age in the unique way it did and saying that an apocalyptic flood that wiped everyone out didn't change the course of how that progress happened. We would expect to see the artistic style change drastically, if not the technological progress of mankind in the area change in some kind of way

I don't know... The whole thing doesn't track

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If God could protect trees from miles of turbid, brackish water, why couldn't he just put Noah and and representatives of all living things under the same sort of deflector shield He used to save the trees? Why an ark at all in that case also?

Yes, Noah built an Ark with divinely-given ratios. Why did Jehovah require Noah to do that?

Why did Jehovah require lamb’s blood on the doorpost during the 10th plague?

Why did Jehovah require Naaman to bathe in the Jordan to get cured of leprosy?

Why did God require Gideon to reduce his army, then attack?

Etc., etc.

Because, for one thing, it allowed these ones to do something, to show that their faith in God was alive. - James 2:17,26

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, Noah built an Ark with divinely-given ratios. Why did Jehovah require Noah to do that?

That was never shown to be the case. You seem to have forgotten that the paper that you relied on was refuted.

Why did Jehovah require lamb’s blood on the doorpost during the 10th plague?

He probably didn't since Moses appears to be fictional too.

Why did Jehovah require Naaman to bathe in the Jordan to get cured of leprosy?

I have no idea. It sounds like another myth. What makes you think that ever happened?

Why did God require Gideon to reduce his army, then attack?

Etc., etc.

Again, that story sounds mythical too. There is no reliable evidence for it at all.

Because, for one thing, it allowed these ones to do something, to show that their faith in God was alive. - James 2:17,26

Or, and this appears to be far more likely, they are all just myths that match the other mythical stories of the Bible.

How would you show that any of those actually happened? What is the evidence that the Bible is reliable?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, Noah built an Ark with divinely-given ratios. Why did Jehovah require Noah to do that?

Why did Jehovah require lamb’s blood on the doorpost during the 10th plague?

Why did Jehovah require Naaman to bathe in the Jordan to get cured of leprosy?

Why did God require Gideon to reduce his army, then attack?

Etc., etc.

Because, for one thing, it allowed these ones to do something, to show that their faith in God was alive. - James 2:17,26

I would say that it supports your faith in verses in the Bible. I see it as misplaced faith in a book and the words of man and less on the subject of that book.

It certainly isn't an argument for your claims. Everyone sees that. It isn't evidence impugning my faith either. As a Christian, I don't look at the Work of God and deny it or imply that He planted false evidence, removed evidence to fool people or intend that people be fooled by the actions of another. That doesn't make sense.

Perhaps accepting reality was the challenge God put before me to show my faith? Unlike others seem to, I don't claim to know the mind of God or control His actions.

I notice you didn't respond to my response about the relevance of discussing talking to dead people in a thread that isn't about that and has no bearing on what the is thread is about.

I wonder why?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That was never shown to be the case. You seem to have forgotten that the paper that you relied on was refuted.

He probably didn't since Moses appears to be fictional too.


I have no idea. It sounds like another myth. What makes you think that ever happened?


Again, that story sounds mythical too. There is no reliable evidence for it at all.


Or, and this appears to be far more likely, they are all just myths that match the other mythical stories of the Bible.

How would you show that any of those actually happened? What is the evidence that the Bible is reliable?

I often wonder where the line is from learning from the Bible and deifying.

I wonder at the practice of a religion that tries so hard to force a particular interpretation of people as so vile we cannot even use the senses and intelligence God gave us to see what I view as the Works of God in the natural world. Presumably, those that take this position think they are using their senses and intelligence. Yet, one wonders when one encounters so many misguided fallacies and unsupported conjecture used to support positions.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Wait... The earliest known Egyptian empire coalesced around 3150 BC. We have Egyptian hieroglyphics dating to 3200 BC. How does this timeframe allow for an entire culture, let alone an empire to have enough time to form - especially when we can know and track the previous cultures that led up to that empire even before that and beyond going back centuries?

Even more than that, we can track how ancient Chinese people groups progressed going back more than 12k years. It makes no sense that we could have archeological evidence of the progress of mankind in that area that goes from paleolithic, to neolithic, to chalcolithic, and to the bronze age in the unique way it did and saying that an apocalyptic flood that wiped everyone out didn't change the course of how that progress happened. We would expect to see the artistic style change drastically, if not the technological progress of mankind in the area change in some kind of way

I don't know... The whole thing doesn't track

You bring up some good points.

To add to this, the Aborigines of Australia claim to have history that’s 75,000 years old.

I think a lot of these claims are embellished.

It’s a fact that human rulers in the past, like those in Egypt, would erase the predecessors’ accomplishments and claim them as their own.
The only way we know this many times, is when archeology finds information from contemporary sources that are unrelated & more objective, which reveals the cover-up, ie., outright lies.

Conclusion? Oftentimes humans, especially those in power, can’t be trusted..

Miz’ra•im, grandson of Noah through Ham, is the ancestor of the Egyptians (according to the Bible). Since his birth was soon after the Flood, it wouldn’t have taken long for the Egyptians his descendants to establish themselves.

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/469894

(The above website only states whom the Egyptians descended from, not how quickly they established themselves. I must say i don’t agree with everything this website says.)


Have a good day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You bring up some good points.

To add to this, the Aborigines of Australia claim to have history that’s 75,000 years old.

Do they? Does it matter if they do? What should matter is what the evidence tells us.

I think a lot of these claims are embellished.

It’s a fact that human rulers in the past, like those in Egypt, would erase the predecessors’ accomplishments and claim them as their own.
The only way we know this many times, is when archeology finds information from contemporary sources that are unrelated & more objective, which reveals the cover-up, ie., outright lies.

Conclusion? Oftentimes humans, especially those in power, can’t be trusted..

Miz’ra•im, grandson of Noah through Ham, is the ancestor of the Egyptians (according to the Bible). Since his birth was soon after the Flood, it wouldn’t have taken long for the Egyptians his descendants to establish themselves.

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/469894

(The above website only states whom the Egyptians descended from, not how quickly they established themselves. I must say i don’t agree with everything this website says.)


Have a good day.

Yes, those claims probably are embellished. That is why dating is not based upon them. There is some debate about when humans first arrived since there does not appear to be reliable radiometric dating available for this event. Other methods have to be used. And they tend to have larger error bars. For example this article states 50,000 to 60,000 years:

The archaeology, chronology and stratigraphy of Madjedbebe (Malakunanja II): a site in northern Australia with early occupation

Published ages of >50 ka for occupation at Madjedbebe (Malakunanja II) in Australia's north have kept the site prominent in discussions about the colonisation of Sahul. The site also contains one of the largest stone artefact assemblages in Sahul for this early period. However, the stone...

ro.uow.edu.au

https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4050&context=smhpapers

They analyzed various stone tools with a dating method that I am unfamiliar with.

Others using genetics came up with a date of 50,000 years too:

When did Aboriginal people first arrive in Australia?

Many Aboriginal Australians would say with conviction that they have always been here. Their ancestors and traditional learnings tell them of this history, and their precise place within it.

newsroom.unsw.edu.au

And once again, that is far too long for the Flood myth.

Now as to the "outright lies" please state what they are and the evidence for them. And I need to remind you that you are the one that believes in a coverup by your God. You do keep claiming that he is a liar when you say that the Flood is real.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do they? Does it matter if they do? What should matter is what the evidence tells us.

Yes, those claims probably are embellished. That is why dating is not based upon them. There is some debate about when humans first arrived since there does not appear to be reliable radiometric dating available for this event. Other methods have to be used. And they tend to have larger error bars. For example this article states 50,000 to 60,000 years:

The archaeology, chronology and stratigraphy of Madjedbebe (Malakunanja II): a site in northern Australia with early occupation

Published ages of >50 ka for occupation at Madjedbebe (Malakunanja II) in Australia's north have kept the site prominent in discussions about the colonisation of Sahul. The site also contains one of the largest stone artefact assemblages in Sahul for this early period. However, the stone...

ro.uow.edu.au

https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4050&context=smhpapers

They analyzed various stone tools with a dating method that I am unfamiliar with.

Others using genetics came up with a date of 50,000 years too:

When did Aboriginal people first arrive in Australia?

Many Aboriginal Australians would say with conviction that they have always been here. Their ancestors and traditional learnings tell them of this history, and their precise place within it.

newsroom.unsw.edu.au

And once again, that is far too long for the Flood myth.

Now as to the "outright lies" please state what they are and the evidence for them. And I need to remind you that you are the one that believes in a coverup by your God. You do keep claiming that he is a liar when you say that the Flood is real.

I don't know of any evidence for a universal interruption of human cultures at any time in the past, let alone a few thousand years ago.

Anyone claiming "outright lies" in any of the evidence needs to present that. Unsupported generalizations and presumption don't cut it.