The so-called global flood--evidence against

[Muffled]

Here's a list of 12 videos on 10 ways to disprove the flood myth:

I believe the Word of God of a flood is not a myth.

 

[Muffled]

You said list all arguments and evidence. This is my argument. As far as evidence for my argument, there is none. Just a hunch. There’s a lot of things in the Bible that are far fetched that I don’t need evidence for such as men walking on water, demons in hell or the flooding of earth. To me, these stories are clearly metaphorical in nature and exist to teach us something.

I believe a lot of science today is far tetched does that make it invalid?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why, if not a single layer of silt, why would there be any fossils?

They would probably not be "fossils". You are right there. There would be layer of unfossilized bones. Just one relatively thin layer. We do not see that.

I don't think we would have any fossils, if the sediments would from as slowly as you seem to suggest. Most likely only realistic way to cause fossils is sudden vast event that buries lot of stuff.

What are you talking about? Rapid deposition is needed for terrestrial fossils. That is one of the reasons that they are incredibly rare. But we would see buried bones, just as we are finding more and more mammoth bodies as the permafrost thaws. The bones would be preserved,, but in just 5,000 years they would not be fossilized yet.

Here is image series that show how the flood came. It started when the original single continent was broken (image 4). In below the first continent there was vast amount of water. When it begun to escape, like in big geyser, the water started to flush all kind of sediments from where the water came. And obviously it would have taken first those animals that are closest and easiest to catch, likely the animals that are not as advanced as some. Mammals are more agile than many other animals, which is why they could have escaped longer. Mammals often can also swim, which is why they don't easily get caught into sediments. That is why no intelligent reason to assume one should find all in the same layer.

View attachment 90627
And as it is said in the Bible, there were many fountains of great deep. That means, the water came from multiple sources. And there was also heavy rain. If earth was not uniform in the beginning, water from different areas, would have caused different sediments, by what the water could caught on its way.

Sorry that is pure fantasy. We know how old the mountains are, we can date them. They existed at the time of the mythical flood. You do not get to appeal to the sciences and then deny all of it. Also your image in "3" shows a structure that would immediately collapse. Unless God planned to kill everyone ahead of time, which makes his actions even more immoral, there would be no way for that to form nor would there be any reason for it.

It appears that you think that sedimentary rocks are young I have a picture that shows that they are millions of years old.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe a lot of science today is far tetched does that make it invalid?

No, it is meaningless. You have to be able to show that it is farfetched, like your last post.

Here is the problem with the sciences, and why they cause you to fail. If you make a claim you take on the burden of proof. And you do not even understand the concept of evidence, so you are working at a terrible disadvantage. Others do understand the concept of evidence and the sciences so they can easily show you to be wrong, even if you do not understand how you are wrong.

 

[Alien826]

I've tried and failed to find a cartoon I like. It shows two guilty looking lions next to a dead unicorn and Noah saying "Well, that's it for the unicorns. From now on predators are restricted to deck 2".

It kind of sums up the problems with animals after the ark landed. What did the predators eat before the prey animals increased enough to not be exterminated? What did the herbivores eat with all the vegetation destroyed? How did the various groups of animals sort themselves into different areas (like marsupials in Australia)?

And so on.

 

[metis]

I believe the logistics of trying to get animals from Africa, America and the Pacific is untenable.

Exactly, and it's illogical if taken literally.

IOW, it was a myth to likely counter the Babylonian polytheistic narrative of Gilgamesh.

 

[metis]

I believe the Word of God of a flood is not a myth.

In the theological context, "myth" does not mean nor imply falsehood.

 

[Kfox]

I realize that this topic has been addressed here and there in many threads. I'd like to collect all the points into one clearly labeled thread. Let's list all the arguments and evidence against the flood. They can include, for example, geological evidence, or internal problems with the Genesis account.

I'll start.

If there had been a global flood, there would be a single layer of silt extending all around the world. No such layer of silt exists.

-If the flood covered the entire earth, how did the salt water separate itself from the fresh water after it rescinded?

-Without the technology of refrigeration, how did they keep food from spoiling after a few days to feed the animals?

-How did they get rid of animal waste after God closed the door and took the key? Disease would have been rapid.

-According to the Bible, the Ark was approx 500 ft long. Even using today's technology using pressure treated wood, it is impossible to make a floating craft of that size that can float without steel reinforcements. Steel wasn’t invented back then.

- So the Ark landed somewhere in Asia? How did all of those Kangaroos and Kola Bears get to Australia without leaving a trail

 

[danieldemol]

That's the thing, you need lots of miracles to explain the flood, but we are talking about scientific explanations.

Not only that if God could magically protect everything from destruction getting a human to build a man made ark to protect anything would be a pointless waste of time when things could be magically protected from the flood in their original locations in my view.

If one is going to appeal to magic, why stop halfway to have a boat built?

 

[Heyo]

Not only that if God could magically protect everything from destruction getting a human to build a man made ark to protect anything would be a pointless waste of time when things could be magically protected from the flood in their original locations in my view.

If one is going to appeal to magic, why stop halfway to have a boat built?

Because god can do anything except those things humans can do.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why do you think global flood would case single layer of silt? Single layer can be formed only, if the material comes from the same source. In global flood, material could come from different sources, and therefore cause different layers.

It would not be just one layer of silt. A flood of that magnitude would leave literally a jumble of debris world wide many meters deep and destroy most of the existing surface. The type of catastrophic flood only occurs locally as documented through history at different times and even in the past hundreds of years,

 

[shunyadragon]

Why, if not a single layer of silt, why would there be any fossils?

I don't think we would have any fossils, if the sediments would from as slowly as you seem to suggest. Most likely only realistic way to cause fossils is sudden vast event that buries lot of stuff.

Here is image series that show how the flood came. It started when the original single continent was broken (image 4). In below the first continent there was vast amount of water. When it begun to escape, like in big geyser, the water started to flush all kind of sediments from where the water came. And obviously it would have taken first those animals that are closest and easiest to catch, likely the animals that are not as advanced as some. Mammals are more agile than many other animals, which is why they could have escaped longer. Mammals often can also swim, which is why they don't easily get caught into sediments. That is why no intelligent reason to assume one should find all in the same layer.

View attachment 90627
And as it is said in the Bible, there were many fountains of great deep. That means, the water came from multiple sources. And there was also heavy rain. If earth was not uniform in the beginning, water from different areas, would have caused different sediments, by what the water could caught on its way.

You have posted this before. Physically impossible fairy tale.

 

[Soandso]

The heat problem

The forces at work during the flood event would create enough heat to "vaporize the Earth's oceans, melt the crust, and obliterate the surface of the earth-" and that is just the heat problem associate with radioactive decay and doesn't include things such as the plate techtonics involved or other such things

Heat Problems Associated with Genesis Flood Models—Part 4: Heat Deposited by Magmatic Activity

In Part 4 of this series key sources of Flood heat are identified. The primary concern is with the heat deposited as a result of Flood and post-Flood magmatic activity.

answersresearchjournal.org

"The main conclusion of this article is that the total amount of geological heat deposited in the formation of the ocean floors and of LIPs is overwhelming: it cannot be removed from the biosphere within a biblically-compatible timescale by known natural processes. Using CPT-style Flood models as our theoretical framework, no more than a tiny fraction of the total could have been released into the atmosphere and oceans during and after the Flood. Given that the highest bulk ocean temperature in the early Cenozoic did not exceed 13°C in contrast with the present-day value of ~2°C (Worraker 2018; the lower figure of 2°C may be taken as a representative pre-Flood minimum temperature), the total heat absorbed by the oceans, earth’s main environmental heat sink, would have been of order 6 × 1025 J at most, assuming a thermal capacity of 5.5 × 1024 J/K (as estimated above). This is only 0.04% of the total heat deposition: the remaining 99.96% must have been removed or absorbed elsewhere. It seems that this must have been accomplished by some special, hitherto unrecognized mechanism."

Gutsick Gibbon has a great video on the subject

 

[F1fan]

That's the thing, you need lots of miracles to explain the flood, but we are talking about scientific explanations.

And let's not forget, it was a stupid solution that didn't solve anything.

Frankly believers trying to argue for the literal flood story can only feel shame for thinking this God is perfect, because clearly God is a total screw up. God caused all the problems that led to a flood as a solution, and the flood didn't wash the world of sin (plus killed off how many?). The story says sin occurred right after the family got back on land.

This is the best God can do?

 

[Heyo]

And let's not forget, it was a stupid solution that didn't solve anything.

Frankly believers trying to argue for the literal flood story can only feel shame for thinking this God is perfect, because clearly God is a total screw up. God caused all the problems that led to a flood as a solution, and the flood didn't wash the world of sin (plus killed off how many?). The story says sin occurred right after the family got back on land.

This is the best God can do?

It was the best at the time of writing. God was neither omnipotent nor omniscient nor omni benevolent at the time - and obviously not very smart.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was the best at the time of writing. God was neither omnipotent nor omniscient nor omni benevolent at the time - and obviously not very smart.

That is why that "God" is so easily refuted. Creationists hear that "You cannot refute God" and think that makes their God safe. The saying would be more proper if it said "You cannot refute all versions of God". Irrational overly human versions of God are simple to refute. But this does not even refute Christianity since there are far more rational versions of that faith.

 

[Heyo]

That is why that "God" is so easily refuted. Creationists hear that "You cannot refute God" and think that makes their God safe. The saying would be more proper if it said "You cannot refute all versions of God". Irrational overly human versions of God are simple to refute. But this does not even refute Christianity since there are far more rational versions of that faith.

That's the main reason why I'm an Agnostic. I can't refute all the gods, but at least I can say that anybody speaking of "god" doesn't know what they are talking about.

 

[Tamino]

When it begun to escape, like in big geyser, the water started to flush all kind of sediments from where the water came. And obviously it would have taken first those animals that are closest and easiest to catch, likely the animals that are not as advanced as some. Mammals are more agile than many other animals, which is why they could have escaped longer. Mammals often can also swim, which is why they don't easily get caught into sediments.

So in your theory, "the mammals", including such creatures as the Giant Sloth, would survive longer in a flood than, let's say, the Ichthyosaurs or Trilobites, who are specifically adapted to life under water??

That is why no intelligent reason to assume one should find all in the same layer.

There is no intelligent reason to assume that the layers we find are from one single event.

 

[ChristineM]

Not enough water. To cover the earth to several cubits over the highest mountain would require at least 80 times more water than has existed on earth.

That much fresh rain water would have diluted the seas to the point salt water animals (fish, blue whales etc) would have died. Unless sea creatures were also saved in the ark. In which case, where were the blue whales kept and the 12 tons of krill per day required to feed them.

The ark was not big enough to hold all species (kinds) of animals on earth.

There is no geological evidence for a world flood.

There is no genetic evidence for a world flood.

 

[wellwisher]

I realize that this topic has been addressed here and there in many threads. I'd like to collect all the points into one clearly labeled thread. Let's list all the arguments and evidence against the flood. They can include, for example, geological evidence, or internal problems with the Genesis account.

I'll start.

If there had been a global flood, there would be a single layer of silt extending all around the world. No such layer of silt exists.

One of the bogeyman scenarios, used by manmade climate change, to shake down rich countries, is the potential for a great world flood due to the rising oceans. This world flooding is supposed to happen due to the melting of the polar caps and the other glaciers, adding water to the oceans, causing sea level to rise.

Is it possible, the earth's transition from the last ice age, when way more ice melted, due to natural causes, that oceans rose, along with changes within natural climate, creating great storms and floods? Politics is banking on a version of a man made scenario, with such less ice melt for the shakedown. This much larger natural scenario could also explain giants flood, in the not so distant past, in many ancient mythologies.

For example, the Aborigine of Australia have a flood mythology. These people are very ancient dating back 50,000 years. There is no direct proof they interacted with the Northern African and Western Asian Civilizations, yet they also speak of a great world flood. The 50,000 year history of the Aborigine people allows them to be actual witnesses to such an event. The most recent natural meltdown was within their range as witnesses and the observation could have been passed down as traditions.

According to science, Saul or ancient Australia;

Sahul, during the last ice age (beginning 30,000 years ago and peaking 20,000 years ago) was cold – around 5 degrees colder – and much drier than present. Sea level was 125 metres lower and, as a consequence the continent was almost 40% larger than it is today

Australia’s epic story: a tale of amazing people, amazing creatures & rising seas.

As the earth warmed, that 40% larger land mass of Australia and other Continents became submerged via the global flooding due to the warming and the global ice melt. The increasing ocean surface area, due to the flooding, allowed the sun to evaporate even more water surface, compared to before the flooding. This extra water in the atmosphere, could explain the heavier rains; not yet in steady state.

If you look at the earth's crust below the ocean; topological map below; the ocean floor is not smooth, like the sand at the beach. The ocean floor is rugged with a mountainous landscape. Below is a topological map of the Atlantic Ocean. One can see England and Spain and the inlet to the Mediterranean Sea on the right side.

This rugged ocean flow means the rising oceans would confront natural dams due to some of the rugged ocean floor, of today, partially above the surface. One would have a gradual ocean rise everywhere, as well as bottleneck places of natural dams.

In such damming events, the building of the ocean height outside the dam and its breech, catastrophically increased the surface area of the water. This water would evaporate beyond what it had been normal for centuries. It may have taken weeks before the climate stabilized in the region.

Genesis appears to be using a relativistic calendar that I explained in my last post, on a different subject. Earth years and Big Bang years are not the same, since the earth did not exist for most of Big Bang or universe cycle. The earth calendar is not a reliable way to keep track of universal time and infer early BB physics. The ancients in that region used a relativistic calendar based on BB time dilation. I was able to disprove current BB Physics mechanisms using a BB relativistic calendar.