How we know that there was no Flood of Noah.

[Subduction Zone]

What is the "great deep"? It's ocean.


The sea level could have risen. How do you know it didn't rise? Anyway I dispute this argument for other reasons also. But seriously, how do you know it didn't rise?

It went into the oceans and back underground. Again we don't know what the sea level was before the flood. We only know what it is now. According to ancient accounts the Atlantic ocean was considered impassible for ships because it was muddy. This was attributed to the sinking of Atlantis. The stories of Atlantis themselves may be memories of the antediluvian world.

There is not that much water underground anywhere near the surface. You are back to cooking Noah and company and then magicking the water away.

 

[ecco]

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

Yes it could have floated, maybe, in a very still pond. Could it have survived massive waves and winds. No. It was less sea worthy than...

El Faro joins scores of ships felled by hurricanes

Ever since the voyages of Christopher Columbus, scores of ships have inadvertently sailed into hurricanes, battled gigantic waves and chaotic winds — and been lost at sea. Among them: Spanish galleons, tall ships, military ships, cargo haulers and pleasure cruisers.

The latest victim was El Faro, a 735-foot container ship that got caught in the grip of Hurricane Joaquin earlier this month, while attempting to sail from Jacksonville to San Juan, Puerto Rico. The ship lost power near the Bahamas, allowing the storm to overtake it.
"A ship without engine power is little match for a major hurricane," said Jeff Masters, director of meteorology for Weather Underground, the online weather site.​

 

[74x12]

That was about 200 million years ago.

Oh you dated it? With what submarine? But anyway it could have already been there for 200 million years. It doesn't matter. The water could still come out there and possibly in other oceanic ridges around the world.

Necessarily. You have no clue as to how much was was needed for the flood or how hot the water is deep withing the Earth. The water that you earlier referred to would not have come out as liquid water. It would be a super heated fluid. Essentially a gas hot enough and at a high enough pressure to cut through metal as if it were butter.

If steam rises into the atmosphere(from a very high geyser) do you know what would happen to it? In Genesis 7:11 we see that the fountains of the deep are actually mentioned first and then the windows of heaven are opened. So it seems to me to be quite possibly an example of cause and effect. In other words super-heated geysers of water shooting into the atmosphere causing distillation and rain.

And you say it would cook Noah and his family. Have you measured the distance from the mid-atlantic ridge to the middle east where Noah's ark was likely to be located? It's a pretty good little ways. Enough time for the water to cool down.

Not much. The lack of evidence for the flood still tells us that it did not happen. If anything the floods that we see make the Noah's Ark flood even more impossible. They are all smaller floods and many of them are older than any proposed date for the flood. If the flood was real those records should have been "overwritten" by a newer stronger flood.

Smaller and older because they say so. The evidence can be interpreted different ways. The subject is not without controversy. Dating methods are skewed based on the parameters being used. In other words guess work is always a factor.

 

[ecco]

"While this is very distressing, by God’s grace there is a growing body of scientific evidence that supports the reality of the Biblical flood.

In your opinion...

You made the claim, by way of copying and pasting, that "there is a growing body of scientific evidence that supports the reality of the Biblical flood."

That puts the burden on you to provide evidence supporting the assertion. Got any? Did you actually read the article?

 

[ecco]

To be fair, most creationists do not know the difference between proof and evidence. They constantly conflate the two. Worse yet they do not understand that they are making equivocation fallacies by using different definitions of the concept of "proof".

 

[ecco]

To be fair, most creationists do not know the difference between proof and evidence.

I strongly disagree. They do know the difference.

They constantly conflate the two.

Intentionally, not out of ignorance, when it serves their purpose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh you dated it? With what submarine? But anyway it could have already been there for 200 million years. It doesn't matter. The water could still come out there and possibly in other oceanic ridges around the world.

If steam rises into the atmosphere(from a very high geyser) do you know what would happen to it? In Genesis 7:11 we see that the fountains of the deep are actually mentioned first and then the windows of heaven are opened. So it seems to me to be quite possibly an example of cause and effect. In other words super-heated geysers of water shooting into the atmosphere causing distillation and rain.

And you say it would cook Noah and his family. Have you measured the distance from the mid-atlantic ridge to the middle east where Noah's ark was likely to be located? It's a pretty good little ways. Enough time for the water to cool down.


Smaller and older because they say so. The evidence can be interpreted different ways. The subject is not without controversy. Dating methods are skewed based on the parameters being used. In other words guess work is always a factor.

Various means. Radiometric dating, geomagnetic reversals.

Please, you don't know a lick of science and are grasping at straws. If you want to learn people here can help you. If you insist on keeping yourself ignorant you will only look bad.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I strongly disagree. They do know the difference.

Intentionally, not out of ignorance, when it serves their purpose.

Sadly you are probably right. I do like to try to give them the benefit of the doubt, but too many seem to think that lying for Jesus is acceptable.

 

[ecco]

The mid-Atlantic ridge. The rift valley between two tectonic plates. It's my personal opinion that the mid-Atlantic ridge is where the water came out. ...
... The Bible explicitly states that the "fountains of the great deep" were broken up. So underground water is precisely the water we should be talking about.

Simple math tells us how much water was needed to cover the earth as described in Genesis...

How much water would be needed for Noah’s Flood? – Andrew L. Seidel – Medium

That means that there had to be 813,875,076 miles³ of [water] for the biblical flood.
​

What percentage came from rains vs ground water? Pick a number, any number. It really doesn't matter. Let's use 50/50.

That means that 407 million cubic miles of water came from underground - in 960 hours. That's 424,000 cubic miles per hour. All coming up, you say, from a crack about 10,000 miles long.

Have you given any thought to the massive waves that this would have created?

Have you given any thought to how the ark could have survived these massive waves?

But wait, there's more. All that warm water coming out of the earth would have interacted with the Atlantic's existing water.

Have you given any thought to the massive hurricanes that this would have created?

Have you given any thought to how the ark could have survived these massive hurricanes?


Yes, these are rhetorical questions.

​

 

[Subduction Zone]

Simple math tells us how much water was needed to cover the earth as described in Genesis...

How much water would be needed for Noah’s Flood? – Andrew L. Seidel – Medium

That means that there had to be 813,875,076 miles³ of [water] for the biblical flood.
​

What percentage came from rains vs ground water? Pick a number, any number. It really doesn't matter. Let's use 50/50.

That means that 407 million cubic miles of water came from underground - in 960 hours. That's 424,000 cubic miles per hour. All coming up, you say, from a crack about 10,000 miles long.

Have you given any thought to the massive waves that this would have created?

Have you given any thought to how the ark could have survived these massive waves?

But wait, there's more. All that warm water coming out of the earth would have interacted with the Atlantic's existing water.

Have you given any thought to the massive hurricanes that this would have created?

Have you given any thought to how the ark could have survived these massive hurricanes?


Yes, these are rhetorical questions.

​

Not even warm. He wants to add at least two oceans of water out of either "the deeps" which he earlier tried to claim from deep in the mantle where a temperature of 1,000 K would be an under estimate or from outer space. Even if the water from space was at absolute zero the change in potential energy would again end up as heat would turn into a gas far past the temperature of live steam.

And that is just one way that Noah would be cooked. Many creationists try to claim the sedimentary rocks came from the flood. Calcite is a significant fraction of sedimentary rocks usually in the form of limestone. Making that chemical is an exothermic chemical reaction. Making all of the limestone in a year would once again cook Noah and family.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And since large wooden vessels were brought up the largest wooden ship ever was the Wyoming Roughly the length of the Ark but narrower so that it could said. It was incredibly unseaworthy and it was built with modern sailing technology with the aid of metallic bracing, something missing from the Ark. It still leaked terribly and was kept afloat only by the means of powered pumps, again something that the Ark did not have, and yet when the seas got to heavy for it, and these were just normal seas, not incredible mega storm seas and it sank. The Ark would have sank even sooner.

Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia

There have been a couple of replicas of the Ark made. Ken Ham was the wisest and put his on land. The others are embarrassing are stuck at dock and not allowed out on the seas.

 

[Native]

Where are the references to floods, please? There are none at all in that Wiki article, so far as I can see.

Of course there are no references to "floods" but to a celestial river which refers to the Milky Way which is "running all OVER the Earth". Link - Milky Way (mythology) - Wikipedia

 

[exchemist]

Of course there are no references to "floods" but to a celestial river which refers to the Milky Way which is "running all OVER the Earth". Link - Milky Way (mythology) - Wikipedia

So. No references to floods. As I thought.

 

[nPeace]

OK. Sit down, have a drink -- maybe a double -- and give this a chance. I'm going to link to Potty-Mouth again, but this time I've carefully reviewed the video and, while there's still a bit of snark, some scattered irreverence, and some questionable (even by me) hermenuetics, there is no potty-mouthism, and some good points are made.
This video deals with the animals on the arc:

Thanks. Right now I only have a few minutes, so I'll take a look later.
I don't want to drink though, lest I spill it on my computer when I have a sudden burst of laughter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks. Right now I only have a few minutes, so I'll take a look later.
I don't want to drink though, lest I spill it on my computer when I have a sudden burst of laughter.

Why do the ignorant laugh at reality that they do not want to face?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

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.

It is just bad science. Hiding behind made up conspiracies and non-existent persecution doesn't make it into good science.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The mid-Atlantic ridge. The rift valley between two tectonic plates. It's my personal opinion that the mid-Atlantic ridge is where the water came out. To this day magma from the mantel continues to come out. So water coming out in the time of Noah is not such a far-fetched idea.

Your scenario requires the entire mantle of the Earth to circulate to the surface and somehow release superheated steam into the atmosphere. What you are describing would have killed all life on the surface of the Earth, including all life on any boat. It would have turned the entire surface of the Earth into a molten ball of lava.

Anyway, it's hard for me to believe that God created the world with a giant scar on it. That would seem to me to be a flaw. So I hypothesize that this "scar" must not have originally been there.

Reality is not forced to conform to what you find easy or hard to believe.

A lack of evidence does not equal proof of the contrary.

We have positive evidence for a lack of a global flood over the last million years or so. Ice floats. We would not have ice caps at the poles that are millions of years old if there was a flood during those time periods. Those same ice caps would also not have a continuous record of ice deposition if there was a flood.

 

[Valjean]

My point is that the water could have come out there when the two plates originally began to separate.

Not necessarily; if it came out on the sea floor it would result in a rise in sea level. If on the other hand it was not actual sea floor at the time; then with enough pressure it could rise into the atmosphere much like a volcanic ash plum (except steam this time). Basically it would come back as torrential rainfall just like the Bible talks about. We've never seen it rain for 40 days straight around the world and indeed it's impossible with normal weather patterns.

It would likely boil away the sea -- being three times as hot as the Kilauea lava currently inundating Hawaii -- and raise global temperatures hotter than a pizza oven. Heat doesn't just go away, it may move, but its always conserved.
We worry today about the effects of two degrees of global warming. The flood would have caused more like 2,000 degrees of warming.

How about the earthquakes and tsunamis such massive vulcanism at the plate edges would have caused?

Wouldn't you expect some radical subsidence if a volume equal to twice the volume of the current oceans were suddenly evacuated from underground? I expect this would make Florida's little house-swallowing sinkholes seem insignificant.

What is the "great deep"? It's ocean.
The sea level could have risen. How do you know it didn't rise? Anyway I dispute this argument for other reasons also. But seriously, how do you know it didn't rise?

Rising sea levels leave evidence. We know what sea levels were ten, ten thousand and ten million years ago.
There was no great change 6,000 years ago.

It went into the oceans and back underground. Again we don't know what the sea level was before the flood. We only know what it is now

We do know what sea levels were. Where did you go to school???
The pressure in the transition zone is massive. How could surface water possibly be pumped back into there?

According to ancient accounts the Atlantic ocean was considered impassible for ships because it was muddy. This was attributed to the sinking of Atlantis. The stories of Atlantis themselves may be memories of the antediluvian world.

Where did you come up with this? I can find sources describing the Mississippi river as muddy, but I don't recall ancient sailors describing the Atlantic as muddy. Wouldn't a muddy ocean result in a massive extinction event?

 

[InChrist]

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?

I don't see it that they ..."decide what the answer is before you do research", any more than those with an Darwinian mindset do. Everyone starts with their presuppositions, that doesn't necessarily mean those who accept creation or even those who accept Darwinian evolution will ignore where the evidence leads. As a matter of fact, quite a few evolutionists have followed the evidence and come to the conclusion that there is a Creator or at least some kind of Intelligent Design.


A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
https://dissentfromdarwin.org/about/

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't see it that they ..."decide what the answer is before you do research", any more than those with an Darwinian mindset do. Everyone starts with their presuppositions, that doesn't necessarily mean those who accept creation or even those who accept Darwinian evolution will ignore where the evidence leads. As a matter of fact, quite a few evolutionists have followed the evidence and come to the conclusion that there is a Creator or at least some kind of Intelligent Design.


A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
https://dissentfromdarwin.org/about/

Why link to sites written by ignorant or dishonest people? Just because someone puts "scientific" on the label of something does not make it so. In fact it should immediately cause you to question whether it is scientific or not. If it was "scientific" where are the articles in a well accepted peer reviewed journal that support this "science"? If they have none, as is the case with this article, then the odds are enormous that there is no science to their claims.

The problem is that most creationists simply do not understand what is and what is not reliable evidence. Would you like to go over the concept?

In fact your article does not even try to give one whit of scientific evidence against evolution. It is a list, a list of scientists that supposedly oppose evolution, but even that is not true. Your source lied to you. There was a petition circulated years ago about keeping an open mind on evolution. It did not oppose it. Many scientists, not realizing how it was going to be abused, signed it. Later on when they found out that a petition on keeping an open mind, which scientists do try to do, was being used to claim that these scientists doubted evolution and they asked their names to be taken off. None of them were removed. Here is a video that explains that to you: