How we know that there was no Flood of Noah.

[Audie]

Let me pose an admittedly extreme hypothetical...

Person A is a high school dropout.
Person B has advanced degrees in cosmology.

Person A and Person B engage in a debate about the Universe.

Person A makes a fifteen minute statement containing many incorrect assumptions and assertions.
Person B responds by taking some of A's claims and showing they are wrong.

Person A spends his next fifteen minute time slot make more incorrect assertions.
Person B responds: It is clear, from your own statements, that you don't have the knowledge or training to discuss the subject. You are ignorant of even basic facts.

Is person B wrong for accurately pointing out the obvious?

No you are confused. This is how it works.

I go on the post game show after a college football game.

I talk about how all they do is line up, throw a ball, and
knock each other down, then stop the clock. The game
would go so much faster if they just kept the clock going!!

And why dont they just decide which way the ball should go
instead of fighting over it??

Then, if there are boos and someone dares to say I do
not understand the game, I will start crying and say boo hoo
you you you committed a mean nasty ad hom against me!!!

 

[nPeace]

Finding no evidence of something that could be expected to have left evidence is different from finding none in situations where none would be expected.

Yes, and evidence can be covered and hidden, or it may be in plain sight, but simply ignored or overlooked. True?

I just looked at three points in the article so far.

1. Building the Ark
Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?

Could Noah’s Ark Float? In Theory, Yes
Basic physics suggests that an ark carrying lots of animal cargo could float, but science doesn't support other facets of the biblical tale

Noah's Ark would have floated...even with 70,000 animals

The proportional dimensions of the ark are not far off from modern ocean vessels.
How the World's Largest Cruise Ship Floats

Genesis 6
14 . . .Make for yourself an ark from resinous wood. You will make compartments in the ark and cover it with tar inside and outside.
22 And Noah did according to all that God had commanded him. He did just so.


2. Gathering the Animals
Could animals have all lived near Noah?

Why not? If earth's atmosphere was altered drastically after the flood, then one could logically conclude that all the animals lived in similar environmental conditions, but adapted to climate change. So penguins did not originally need to have been built for their current habitat.

This can be seen from the fact that the picture painted by Isaiah is quite different to what we know today.
Isaiah 11:7
Cows and bears will eat together.
Their young will lie down together.
Lions will eat straw like oxen.

God made the animals herbivores, and they were harmless to man.

How was the Ark loaded?

Bringing the animals to the ark would have been no problem for Noah, in the same way that killing the giant Goliath was no problem for a small shepherd boy with a sling and a stone. Many hands make light work, and God's hands are bigger than ours.
Genesis 2:19

3. Fitting the Animals Aboard

Not all animals needed to board the ark.
Australia is home to 2 species of crocodile, the freshwater crocodile (Crocodylus johnstoni), which is found nowhere else in the world, and the estuarine crocodile (Crocodylus porosus). Both species can live in fresh or salt water. ... Freshwater crocodiles also live in tidal reaches of some rivers.

Amphibians may be the most familiar animals that often live on land and in the water, but several other animals thrive in both domains as well, including crocodilians, turtles and even some fish.

Insects don't require much room.
The scriptures say

From one man he has made every nation of humanity to live all over the earth. He has given them the seasons of the year and the boundaries within which to live.

Acts 17:26
I believe this is the case with every kind of animal - They reproduce according to their kind, but there is variety.

I don't see this a problem, and to suggest it is, is imo nothing more than suggesting simply that it didn't happen, without giving careful thought to other reasonable circumstances.
Also, what person would have a plan to fill a barn with all his produce, and then build the barn too small. I know the answer skeptics will give.

I'll continue the rest later. Have fun.

 

[InChrist]

Your entire list is of discredited and incompetent scientists. Here is a question that you will not be able to answer:

Where can you did their work in a well respected professional peer reviewed journal?

I don't think all those scientists can so easily be dismissed as incompetent based on your opinion. Many do actually have work published in peer-reviewed journals on various subjects not directly or openly related to evolution/creation....since anything on that subject, other than the accepted paradigm and status quo, is forbidden by the established " atheistic scientific community". Not only that, but there is a major bias against scientists who are known adherents of ID or creation, even when their articles are on different subjects.




‘I would therefore reply to such a question ‘Are there any who don’t?’ Every one I know does publish. Even scientists who are full-time in creationist organizations usually have a few such publications, despite the serious disadvantage their institutional connections give them. Although there is strong discrimination against high-profile creationist scientists, most creationist scientists publish non-creationist scientific articles frequently. Moreover, many of them have published data with important creationist implications—but without explicit creationist conclusions, which would point out the significance of the data to the average non-creationist scientist.
Creation Question

"Many have impressive publication records in secular scientific journals too. But creationists cannot publish their creationist ideas in secular journals because the evolutionary worldview has a stranglehold on scientific publishing. How did that happen? It’s a long story but it’s got to change.


Some have quipped that the scientific establishment has developed immunity to new ideas. Certainly the symptoms are showing. They have a shocking history of censoring any hint of creation and intelligent design from the marketplace of ideas. Sir Isaac Newton would be locked out of publishing his thinking today."
Professional, peer-reviewed scientific journal - creation.com

 

[nPeace]

1. There's an old saying: Smiling faces tell lies.
2. Some people grin when they are embarrassed.
3. Others grin when they are nervous.

Others don't grin at all. They always seem angry.

 

[InChrist]

Any article that starts off with a flat out lie can be immediately thrown into the trash heap.

There is no "growing body of scientific evidence that supports the reality of the Biblical flood".

In your opinion...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, and evidence can be covered and hidden, or it may be in plain sight, but simply ignored or overlooked. True?

I just looked at three points in the article so far.

1. Building the Ark
Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?

Could Noah’s Ark Float? In Theory, Yes
Basic physics suggests that an ark carrying lots of animal cargo could float, but science doesn't support other facets of the biblical tale

Noah's Ark would have floated...even with 70,000 animals

The proportional dimensions of the ark are not far off from modern ocean vessels.
How the World's Largest Cruise Ship Floats

Genesis 6
14 . . .Make for yourself an ark from resinous wood. You will make compartments in the ark and cover it with tar inside and outside.
22 And Noah did according to all that God had commanded him. He did just so.


2. Gathering the Animals
Could animals have all lived near Noah?

Why not? If earth's atmosphere was altered drastically after the flood, then one could logically conclude that all the animals lived in similar environmental conditions, but adapted to climate change. So penguins did not originally need to have been built for their current habitat.

This can be seen from the fact that the picture painted by Isaiah is quite different to what we know today.
Isaiah 11:7
Cows and bears will eat together.
Their young will lie down together.
Lions will eat straw like oxen.

God made the animals herbivores, and they were harmless to man.

How was the Ark loaded?

Bringing the animals to the ark would have been no problem for Noah, in the same way that killing the giant Goliath was no problem for a small shepherd boy with a sling and a stone. Many hands make light work, and God's hands are bigger than ours.
Genesis 2:19

3. Fitting the Animals Aboard

Not all animals needed to board the ark.
Australia is home to 2 species of crocodile, the freshwater crocodile (Crocodylus johnstoni), which is found nowhere else in the world, and the estuarine crocodile (Crocodylus porosus). Both species can live in fresh or salt water. ... Freshwater crocodiles also live in tidal reaches of some rivers.

Amphibians may be the most familiar animals that often live on land and in the water, but several other animals thrive in both domains as well, including crocodilians, turtles and even some fish.

Insects don't require much room.
The scriptures say Acts 17:26
I believe this is the case with every kind of animal - They reproduce according to their kind, but there is variety.

I don't see this a problem, and to suggest it is, is imo nothing more than suggesting simply that it didn't happen, without giving careful thought to other reasonable circumstances.
Also, what person would have a plan to fill a barn with all his produce, and then build the barn too small. I know the answer skeptics will give.

I'll continue the rest later. Have fun.

I am not paying too much attention for this, except for your misuse of the word "evidence". Since we are having a scientific based discussion here the sort of evidence needed is scientific evidence. And scientific evidence is evidence that supports or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis. What testable idea is used by flood believers? And what reasonable test could possibly show that idea to be wrong? Without that you do not have evidence by definition.


Meanwhile the what I like to call the lesson of the cheetah tells us that there was no flood. The flood would cause massive population bottlenecks in all land species. That we do not see a universal population bottleneck tells us that there was no flood. About ten thousand years ago cheetahs underwent a population bottleneck about ten thousand years ago when they got close to a Noah's Ark level of breeding cheetahs. There were less than ten of them and they as a result are still suffering from that today. They are so heavily interbred that any two cheetahs are more closely related to each other than you are to either your brother or sister (assuming that they are not identical twins). It puts a bit of a yuck factor into breeding.

Will evolution doom the cheetah?

Just one of the countless pieces of evidence that tell us that there never was a flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In your opinion...

No, demonstrably lies. Perhaps you should try to learn how we know that the authors lied.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think all those scientists can so easily be dismissed as incompetent based on your opinion. Many do actually have work published in peer-reviewed journals on various subjects not directly or openly related to evolution/creation....since anything on that subject, other than the accepted paradigm and status quo, is forbidden by the established " atheistic scientific community". Not only that, but there is a major bias against scientists who are known adherents of ID or creation, even when their articles are on different subjects.




‘I would therefore reply to such a question ‘Are there any who don’t?’ Every one I know does publish. Even scientists who are full-time in creationist organizations usually have a few such publications, despite the serious disadvantage their institutional connections give them. Although there is strong discrimination against high-profile creationist scientists, most creationist scientists publish non-creationist scientific articles frequently. Moreover, many of them have published data with important creationist implications—but without explicit creationist conclusions, which would point out the significance of the data to the average non-creationist scientist.
Creation Question

"Many have impressive publication records in secular scientific journals too. But creationists cannot publish their creationist ideas in secular journals because the evolutionary worldview has a stranglehold on scientific publishing. How did that happen? It’s a long story but it’s got to change.


Some have quipped that the scientific establishment has developed immunity to new ideas. Certainly the symptoms are showing. They have a shocking history of censoring any hint of creation and intelligent design from the marketplace of ideas. Sir Isaac Newton would be locked out of publishing his thinking today."
Professional, peer-reviewed scientific journal - creation.com

Not a mere opinion. I have looked into the works of these scientists. I gave an example with one of them. And a fake peer reviewed journal only indicates desperation on the part of those "scientists". You should know that creation.com actually requires their workers not to use the scientific method. How can they claim to have a scientific peer reviewed journal when they do that?

 

[InChrist]

No, demonstrably lies. Perhaps you should try to learn how we know that the authors lied.

I am willing to consider these lies you refer to. if you can be specific as to... what lies?

 

[InChrist]

Not a mere opinion. I have looked into the works of these scientists. I gave an example with one of them. And a fake peer reviewed journal only indicates desperation on the part of those "scientists". You should know that creation.com actually requires their workers not to use the scientific method. How can they claim to have a scientific peer reviewed journal when they do that?

Can you provide some link or something which shows that Creation.com requires their employees not to use the scientific method?

 

[nPeace]

I am not paying too much attention for this, except for your misuse of the word "evidence". Since we are having a scientific based discussion here the sort of evidence needed is scientific evidence. And scientific evidence is evidence that supports or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis. What testable idea is used by flood believers? And what reasonable test could possibly show that idea to be wrong? Without that you do not have evidence by definition.


Meanwhile the what I like to call the lesson of the cheetah tells us that there was no flood. The flood would cause massive population bottlenecks in all land species. That we do not see a universal population bottleneck tells us that there was no flood. About ten thousand years ago cheetahs underwent a population bottleneck about ten thousand years ago when they got close to a Noah's Ark level of breeding cheetahs. There were less than ten of them and they as a result are still suffering from that today. They are so heavily interbred that any two cheetahs are more closely related to each other than you are to either your brother or sister (assuming that they are not identical twins). It puts a bit of a yuck factor into breeding.

Will evolution doom the cheetah?

Just one of the countless pieces of evidence that tell us that there never was a flood.

It's your thread. You're the one saying that you have proof the flood did not happen. I don't have to prove nothing, other than to show you why the reasoning you present is not proof.

The article I was given - not by you - gave suggestions, not proof, as to why the flood did not happen. It reads
Problems with a Global Flood
I am merely showing why there are no problems.

If you have proof, do your thing. The thread is thirteen pages long, and it doesn't look like you have done a good job with your "proof", imo

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's your thread. You're the one saying that you have proof the flood did not happen.

Where, precisely, was that asserted?

 

[Brickjectivity]

....These scientists are very highly credentialed, and are committed to do their best to use high-quality science to affirm Scripture....

Whatever source that is from its not scientific to use researchers to affirm things but political activism. Its no different from paying people to say what you want them to say. Science is a no strings attached "We find what we find" discipline.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Not a mere opinion. I have looked into the works of these scientists. I gave an example with one of them. And a fake peer reviewed journal only indicates desperation on the part of those "scientists". You should know that creation.com actually requires their workers not to use the scientific method. How can they claim to have a scientific peer reviewed journal when they do that?

I looked at the rag. There is no academic system or learning institution on Earth that will regard it as a scientific peer reviewed journal.

Of course being creation "science" is not science whatsoever, I suppose the only recourse will be to make up your own pretend "scientific" peer reviewed journal.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I looked at the rag. There is no academic system or learning institution on Earth that will regard it as a scientific peer reviewed journal.

Of course being creation "science" is not science whatsoever, I suppose the only recourse will be to make up your own pretend "scientific" peer reviewed journal.

Here is what a real scientific peer review journal, "Nature" has to say about creation.com's ahem...."scientific" peer review journal.

Creationists launch 'science' journal : Nature News

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am willing to consider these lies you refer to. if you can be specific as to... what lies?

To start off with the claim that there is a growing body of scientific evidence for the flood. There is none at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you provide some link or something which shows that Creation.com requires their employees not to use the scientific method?

Yes, but you probably would not understand. Tell me, can you decide what the answer is before you do research and then claim that no matter what the evidence shows that your beliefs are true and then call that process 'scientific'?

For example if I decided that gravity does not work and ignored all of the experiments that showed me to be wrong and required anyone to work with me to make promise that they believed that gravity did not work either would that qualify as being scientific in your opinion?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's your thread. You're the one saying that you have proof the flood did not happen. I don't have to prove nothing, other than to show you why the reasoning you present is not proof.

The article I was given - not by you - gave suggestions, not proof, as to why the flood did not happen. It reads
Problems with a Global Flood
I am merely showing why there are no problems.

If you have proof, do your thing. The thread is thirteen pages long, and it doesn't look like you have done a good job with your "proof", imo

You have not paid attention or you are not being honest. Why participate in a thread if you can't do both?


EDIT: @nPeace , in fact I recently answered a post of yours with quite clear evidence against the flood. Why did you not respond to that instead of making a claim full of incorrect claims and nonsense?

Do you not understand how the lack of a universal population bottleneck alone refutes the flood story.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is what a real scientific peer review journal, "Nature" has to say about creation.com's ahem...."scientific" peer review journal.

Creationists launch 'science' journal : Nature News

That is actually a different "science" journal. But they have exactly the same problems that creation.com has.

 

[Valjean]

Merely saying something is true doesn't prove it is true.
You need to give reasons why you can prove it never happened

The burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim, ie: a worldwide flood.
Not believing in something with no evidence supporting it is just an epistemic default position and carries no burden.

Merely claiming that polar ice existed before the flood doesn't make it true - You need to present evidence to prove your claim is true that polar ice had to predate the Biblical flood.

But ice caps have seasonally varying deposition rates. They're laid down in layers and compressed, producing seasonal rings like trees. The layers can be dated.
Of course, we can also radiometrically date the ice itself and any gaseous inclusions.
There is an unbroken record of accumulation right back through the time period the flood was said to have occurred.

Speaking of trees, there's also dendrochronological (tree-ring) evidence of continuous growth right through the claimed flood period:
One Oak and pine sequence dates back 12,460 years -- back to the ice age.
There's the Pando aspen grove in Utah, growing continuousely for 80,000 years (an aspen "forest," FYI, is a single underground organism that sends up trunks as it grows and spreads)
There are living creosote bushes 12,000 years old.
"Old Tjikko" is a Norway Spruce growing on Fulufjallet Mt, in Sweden, Carbon dated to 9,560 years old (dendrochronological cores would have damaged the tree).
None of these show any signs of a flood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulufjället
There are also places continuously inhabited right through the flood dates, whose inhabitants apparently missed it.