How we know that there was no Flood of Noah.

[CLee421]

But the flood did no such thing. We can't find any evidence of a global flood, yet we can find evidence of smaller local floods. The supposed global flood should have "overwritten" much of that evidence if not all of it.

What you need to find is evidence of simultaneous worldwide erosion.

Ignoring the convo we have had thus far - to ask - why erosion? Moving water causes erosion. A flood covering the earth quickly wouldn't really be what would cause erosion.

What we do see is worldwide deposits of layers, that actually don't take much time.

Canyons said to be called by erosion by most - actually show evidence of a catastrophic flood - formations over extremely large areas - that reveal they were deposited because of shape/flatness.

??

 

[InChrist]

Your ideas are scoffed at because they were shown to be wrong over 200 years ago. You should be trying to learn why we know that they are wrong. Defending the indefensible only makes one look bad.

And if there were attempts to suppress knowledge then you should be able to show that. You do not seem to realize that when you make claims against others that you cannot support that that is most likely a bearing of false witness. As a Christian you should understand that the Ninth Commandment is not a ban on lying. It is a ban on saying false claims about others. If you cannot support a claim with reliable sources you should not make claim that involves others.

How is it that someone who denies the existence of a Creator God and claims that the very scriptures which contain the commandments are nothing more than fables, can so readily cite one of those commandments as if in a meaningful way? Oh the irony!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ignoring the convo we have had thus far - to ask - why erosion? Moving water causes erosion. A flood covering the earth quickly wouldn't really be what would cause erosion.

What we do see is worldwide deposits of layers, that actually don't take much time.

Canyons said to be called by erosion by most - actually show evidence of a catastrophic flood - formations over extremely large areas - that reveal they were deposited because of shape/flatness.

??

Water draining is moving water. It would take over five miles of water to cover the Earth that is a huge amount of water. We can find evidence of floods that were only tens of feet from roughly what would be when the flood occurred or earlier and yet we can't find any evidence of a flood that was tens of thousands of feet.

Did you read my post to @nPeace about a herd of buffalo stampeding through a kitchen? A lack of evidence of an event can be evidence against that event.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How is it that someone who denies the existence of a Creator God and claims that the very scriptures which contain the commandments are nothing more than fables, can so readily cite one of those commandments as if in a meaningful way? Oh the irony!

No irony. One does not need to believe your book of myths to understand it. As an ex-Christian I understand the Bible fairly well. Possibly better than you do since I do not have to deny the parts that are wrong or contradictory. I understand why they are wrong or contradictory.

 

[CLee421]

Water draining is moving water. It would take over five miles of water to cover the Earth that is a huge amount of water. We can find evidence of floods that were only tens of feet from roughly what would be when the flood occurred or earlier and yet we can't find any evidence of a flood that was tens of thousands of feet.

Did you read my post to @nPeace about a herd of buffalo stampeding through a kitchen? A lack of evidence of an event can be evidence against that event.

No I read that. But I don't see what you see.

The layers cannot be explained / you didn't address it.

They wouldn't be so perfect/flat/compacted together if it happened over a long period of time. It displays rapid sedimentary deposits being made.

I'll always continue looking into it. Hope everyone does

 

[URAVIP2ME]

.............
What you need to find is evidence of simultaneous worldwide erosion.

I find Man's world-wide history does show similar legends.
Similar world-wide Flood legends of only a few saved through water.
No legends would mean No Flood, but those historic similar legends do point to a similar global Flood.
On a brighter note, we have the Genesis rainbow promise. Never again would earth be flooded.
Each time we see a rainbow we are re-assured there will be No more such flooding, and good times coming.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No I read that. But I don't see what you see.

The layers cannot be explained / you didn't address it.

They wouldn't be so perfect/flat/compacted together if it happened over a long period of time. It displays rapid sedimentary deposits being made.

I'll always continue looking into it. Hope everyone does

What are you claiming that I did not address? The layers of strata, the sorting of both sediments and fossils are things that flood believers cannot explain.

And no, the vast majority of sedimentary rocks are formed from very slow steady deposition. Rapid deposition occurs, but is relatively rare.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I find Man's world-wide history does show similar legends.
Similar world-wide Flood legends of only a few saved through water.
No legends would mean No Flood, but those historic similar legends do point to a similar global Flood.
On a brighter note, we have the Genesis rainbow promise. Never again would earth be flooded.
Each time we see a rainbow we are re-assured there will be No more such flooding, and good times coming.

Many legends are similar because story telling is the same worldwide. And people tend to live where there is water. They sort of need to take a drink every now and then. People also like to think of themselves as better than others so that only a select few would be "saved" is not surprising. Legend is very weak evidence for a flood. There are rational reasons for flood legends.

 

[CLee421]

What are you claiming that I did not address? The layers of strata, the sorting of both sediments and fossils are things that flood believers cannot explain.

And no, the vast majority of sedimentary rocks are formed from very slow steady deposition. Rapid deposition occurs, but is relatively rare.

Well I disagree.

Also we have footprints of creatures - deposited in a layer below where those creatures "hard parts" are found. Supposedly millions of years separating those creatures from their footprints. In addition, the fact that footprints exist reveal a rapid deposit - then the creatures basically floating around a bit then getting encased themselves. As you go up you are just seeing the flood destruction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well I disagree.

Also we have footprints of creatures - deposited in a layer below where those creatures "hard parts" are found. Supposedly millions of years separating those creatures from their footprints. In addition, the fact that footprints exist reveal a rapid deposit - then the creatures basically floating around a bit then getting encased themselves. As you go up you are just seeing the flood destruction.

Please support your claims with valid links. I will simply wave off any claims made without them.

 

[CLee421]

How do you propose fossils are made?

It requires certain circumstances.
If animals are just dying on top of the earth, they would all have had to be buried together (how?)

I just don't see how anything but a flood makes sense.

 

[CLee421]

Please support your claims with valid links. I will simply wave off any claims made without them.

I'm not researching for you. You know where you can look that you'll trust anyway right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you propose fossils are made?

It requires certain circumstances.
If animals are just dying on top of the earth, they would all have had to be buried together (how?)

I just don't see how anything but a flood makes sense.

It depends upon the type of fossils. Most fossils are deposited and buried over the period of years, or more. You are only considering land based fossils when most of the fossil record are marine fossils. Coral reefs grow and leave a record that is eventually fossilized. Chalk beds cannot be formed rapidly. And though you may not realize it chalk is ALL fossils. One needs a microscope to see that.

Land based fossils tend to be buried relatively rapidly, that is true, but they are the exception and not the rule

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Many legends are similar because story telling is the same worldwide. And people tend to live where there is water. They sort of need to take a drink every now and then. People also like to think of themselves as better than others so that only a select few would be "saved" is not surprising. Legend is very weak evidence for a flood. There are rational reasons for flood legends.

To me the rational reasons for the Flood legends are connected to that God was grieved by the violence on Earth.
After the Flood, as the people migrated out from ancient Babylon they took with them their similar Flood stories and spread them world wide and that is why the Flood legends are so similar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not researching for you. You know where you can look that you'll trust anyway right?

When you make a claim you put the burden of proof upon yourself. When you don't support a challenged claim with valid sources you lose by default. If you want to challenge any of my claims I will gladly support them for you. The rules of debate apply to both of us equally.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To me the rational reasons for the Flood legends are connected to that God was grieved by the violence on Earth.
After the Flood, as the people migrated out from ancient Babylon they took with them their similar Flood stories and spread them world wide and that is why the Flood legends are so similar.

The problem is that the lack of expected physical evidence of the flood negates your so called "rational reasons". Once shown to be wrong adhering to a refuted idea is irrational.

 

[Audie]

Please, as a Christian you should avoid breaking the Ninth Commandment. The 800 billion figure was based upon the volume of the deposit and how much had been found to date. It was not made by an "excited man".

And the stories are far from matching. They have similar causes so the narratives will be similar. And they do not explain how some civilizations lived through these supposed floods without a hitch.

No one mentioned carbon dating. Carbon dating is only good for roughly 50,000 years.

Lastly you need to learn what "speculation" means. Your use of the term is once again a violation of the Ninth.

If you want more detail in response then ask your questions properly. One per post and I will gladly go over them with you. When you spray out a bunch of false claims I will merely point out your errors.

Gish city. It is like getting a creo from central casting.

 

[CLee421]

It depends upon the type of fossils. Most fossils are deposited and buried over the period of years, or more. You are only considering land based fossils when most of the fossil record are marine fossils. Coral reefs grow and leave a record that is eventually fossilized. Chalk beds cannot be formed rapidly. And though you may not realize it chalk is ALL fossils. One needs a microscope to see that.

Land based fossils tend to be buried relatively rapidly, that is true, but they are the exception and not the rule

Fossils are deposited? The animals fully fossilized skeleton is deposited THEN covered up?

No I know that in the first layer/s we are aware of reveals a "burst" of marine life (kind of out of nowhere) .. I imagine because they were simply lower than the land animals in the flood but we also find deposits of marine fossils in areas that are completely dry now - as if the ocean covered mountains and went down after depositing the animals.

 

[Audie]

The problem is that the lack of expected physical evidence of the flood negates your so called "rational reasons". Once shown to be wrong adhering to a refuted idea is irrational.

A balloon needs only one hole.

 

[CLee421]

When you make a claim you put the burden of proof upon yourself. When you don't support a challenged claim with valid sources you lose by default. If you want to challenge any of my claims I will gladly support them for you. The rules of debate apply to both of us equally.

Nope hon I've done that way too much to be dismissed for no real reason more than "he said she said" I'm okay with "losing" if that's what you call it - I'm not here to win anything. But talk.