The so-called global flood--evidence against

[Tamino]

For example the Mid-Atlantic ridge is one of the lines where the original continent was cracked. The cracks were the fountains of the great deep.

Except that we know quite well what's coming out of that crack, and guess what: it's not fountains of water. It's volcanic material.

The Geological Society

An online resource from the Geological Society, outlining the three types of plate boundary and the activity that characterises them.

www.geolsoc.org.uk

In the beginning of the flood, the water flowed to other directions, like to the west side of America and formed many layers of sediments and at the same time cleaned the ocean floor on the modern bottom of Atlantic ocean.
View attachment 90819

"Cleaned" the ocean floor on the bottom of the Atlantic? Are we talking about that same ocean floor that can be conveniently and precisely dated and which reveals how the continents are drifting apart? The poster child of seafloor spreading, with magnetically barcoded basalt and a huge, long rift valley and an ongoing movement that we can measure today? That seafloor? The one that is , by its mere existence, completely negating both you idea that the movement of the continents was vertical instead of horizontal AND that there is or was a deeper water source?
Yeah, by all means, tell me more about the mid-Atlantic ridge....

The problem is, I don't think we have a detailed knowledge about the layers.

You don't have a detailed knowledge of geology, but don't assume that other people are equally ignorant. I mean, I have only the most basic knowledge on this stuff, but even I can unearth a wealth of material with just a few simple Internet searches.

Not necessary. It depends on where there were when the flood happened.

Do you know any fossil of migratory bird? Where was it found?

Check out this one.

Fossil Birds – Black Hills Institute

bhigr.com

They found an old form of seabird in the older layers and songbirds only in the younger ones - as would be expected according to evolution, but in opposition to your flood theory.

And that seabird wasn't just in the lower layers, when, by your logic, they would have to die later (,or even survive the flood, since it was adapted to a mostly aquatic lifestyle) - it is as also found in Kansas. Again, by your logic, a higher up part of the continent that would only be submerged later in the flood

Hesperornis - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

No reason to assume that there would not have been enough suitable conditions for different species of water animals. There could have easily been different conditions, like for example in Baltic sea nowadays.

Nope, I am not doing your research for you again. Prove it. By which mechanism and in which region do you see freshwater fish surviving?

Maybe so, but it is not something that would generate necessary boiling temperatures.

Are you in any way familiar with radiometric dating and the decay of radioactive isotopes? Even creationists at least admit that the "heat problem" exists...

 

[Tamino]

For example the Mid-Atlantic ridge is one of the lines where the original continent was cracked. The cracks were the fountains of the great deep.

Except that we know quite well what's coming out of that crack, and guess what: it's not fountains of water. It's volcanic material.

The Geological Society

An online resource from the Geological Society, outlining the three types of plate boundary and the activity that characterises them.

www.geolsoc.org.uk

In the beginning of the flood, the water flowed to other directions, like to the west side of America and formed many layers of sediments and at the same time cleaned the ocean floor on the modern bottom of Atlantic ocean.
View attachment 90819

"Cleaned" the ocean floor on the bottom of the Atlantic? Are we talking about that same ocean floor that can be conveniently and precisely dated and which reveals how the continents are drifting apart? The poster child of seafloor spreading, with magnetically barcoded basalt and a huge, long rift valley and an ongoing movement that we can measure today? That seafloor? The one that is , by its mere existence, completely negating both you idea that the movement of the continents was vertical instead of horizontal AND that there is or was a deeper water source?
Yeah, by all means, tell me more about the mid-Atlantic ridge....

The problem is, I don't think we have a detailed knowledge about the layers.

You don't have a detailed knowledge of geology, but don't assume that other people are equally ignorant. I mean, I have only the most basic knowledge on this stuff, but even I can unearth a wealth of material with just a few simple Internet searches.

Not necessary. It depends on where there were when the flood happened.

Do you know any fossil of migratory bird? Where was it found?

Check out this one.

Fossil Birds – Black Hills Institute

bhigr.com

They found an old form of seabird in the older layers and songbirds only in the younger ones - as would be expected according to evolution, but in opposition to your flood theory.

And that seabird wasn't just in the lower layers, when, by your logic, they would have to die later (,or even survive the flood, since it was adapted to a mostly aquatic lifestyle) - it is as also found in Kansas. Again, by your logic, a higher up part of the continent that would only be submerged later in the flood

Hesperornis - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

No reason to assume that there would not have been enough suitable conditions for different species of water animals. There could have easily been different conditions, like for example in Baltic sea nowadays.

Nope, I am not doing your research for you again. Prove it. By which mechanism and in which region do you see freshwater fish surviving?

Maybe so, but it is not something that would generate necessary boiling temperatures.

Are you in any way familiar with radiometric dating and the decay of radioactive isotopes? Even creationists at least admit that the "heat problem" exists...

 

[blü 2]

Rising water is relative. From human point of view it looked like it was rising. And Bible don't have to say things that are obvious. Everyone should understand that if you have for example 1000 feet of water on top of something, it will compress the something. For example regular wood would not stand that pressure without being compressed.

You STILL haven't quoted me the part of the bible that said the ground sank.

Which is not surprising since the bible says the waters rose.

But you appear unable to face your actual problem.

Sorry, I don't think that is true.

You don't think eg the Babylonians thought that the earth was flat &c? On the basis of what reliable information do you assert that?

I think it is correct today, as it was before.

Then you haven't understood the problem. Why did Galileo get into strife? Because in his day it was not true that the sun was at the center and the earth and other planets went round it. Uranus was not a planet till 1781. In 1800 (by which time some European geologists were starting to realize the earth was seriously ancient) it was not true that the earth was older than 6000 years. In 1800 it was not true that germs caused disease, but it was true that God had created the species of plants and critters we see. In 1850 it was true that light propagated in the lumeniferous ether. In 1900 it was true that the universe was in a steady state ie not expanding, and in 1935 Einstein was rude to Lemaître for saying otherwise. In 2024 we have a problem which we call "dark matter" whose existence and nature we're still guessing at.

And back when and where the bible was being written, it was true that the earth was flat, and immovably fixed, and the sun went round it, and the sky was a hard dome you could walk on, to which the stars were affixed such that if they came loose they'd fall to earth ─ and so on.

Here's that >link< to the quotes of the bible's cosmology yet again. THIS TIME please read it and understand what is said so you have some idea of what your own problem is.

In Bible earth means dry land. In a way it is immovable on our planet. Doesn't necessary mean our planet would also be immovable.

When you finally read those quotes from the bible on that link, you'll understand your problem. They believed the earth was immovably fixed. READ IT FOR YOURSELF.

The problem with that is, the distances are not necessary correct.

They're the findings of educated and specialized people who now have magnificent research tools at their disposal, like the Hubble and James Webb telescopes. If you want to argue with them, get a grasp of the science they're involved with.

Meanwhile those figures I gave you are correct, and they show that your argument is absurb. The earth rotates AND the earth orbits the sun AND the sun and its planets and other entities and structures are part of the Milky Way Galaxy AND the Milky Way is one of a huge number of galaxies in the universe AND the cosmology of the bible is out of date AND the cosmology of 2024 won't be the same in 2100.

 

[1213]

You STILL haven't quoted me the part of the bible that said the ground sank.

It obvious by the context.

You don't think eg the Babylonians thought that the earth was flat &c?

Maybe Babylonians thought so. I have no reason to think they could not have been wrong.

In 1800 (by which time some European geologists were starting to realize the earth was seriously ancient) it was not true that the earth was older than 6000 years.

That is weird, because there is nothing in nature that proves earth to be extremely old.

In 1800 it was not true that germs caused disease,

It is still questionable are they the actual reason.

but it was true that God had created the species of plants and critters we see. In 1850 it was true that light propagated in the lumeniferous ether. In 1900 it was true that the universe was in a steady state ie not expanding, and in 1935 Einstein was rude to Lemaître for saying otherwise. In 2024 we have a problem which we call "dark matter" whose existence and nature we're still guessing at.

Nicely show that people have been often wrong. What are the chances that you are now correct about everything.

And back when and where the bible was being written, it was true that the earth was flat, and immovably fixed, and the sun went round it, and the sky was a hard dome you could walk on, to which the stars were affixed such that if they came loose they'd fall to earth ─ and so on.

I think that is what modern people think, not necessary what the ancient ancestors of Jews thought.

...AND the cosmology of 2024 won't be the same in 2100.

So, why settle to this current state?

 

[1213]

Except that we know quite well what's coming out of that crack, and guess what: it's not fountains of water. It's volcanic material.

Maybe today, because there is not anymore the water in the same place as before the flood.

"Cleaned" the ocean floor on the bottom of the Atlantic? Are we talking about that same ocean floor that can be conveniently and precisely dated and which reveals how the continents are drifting apart?

Yes, cleaned it. But, obviously after the flood, lot of new stuff has been drifted on the surface of it.

Check out this one.

Fossil Birds – Black Hills Institute

bhigr.com

They found an old form of seabird in the older layers and songbirds only in the younger ones - as would be expected according to evolution, but in opposition to your flood theory.

I would like to see a real cross section of the strata that shows the order.

And that seabird wasn't just in the lower layers, when, by your logic, they would have to die later (,or even survive the flood, since it was adapted to a mostly aquatic lifestyle) - it is as also found in Kansas. Again, by your logic, a higher up part of the continent that would only be submerged later in the flood

Hesperornis - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I would like to see the exact location. It would be also nice to know, why do you think it got stuck.

By which mechanism and in which region do you see freshwater fish surviving?

Freshwater wish could survive in areas where there is lot of rain water, like in the surface of the ocean. The water during the flood was probably brackish, which means there were many different layers/areas, with different conditions that would have made it possible for different species to survive.

Are you in any way familiar with radiometric dating and the decay of radioactive isotopes?

Yes, I think it is not reliable, because it is based on certain assumptions that may not be true.

 

[blü 2]

It obvious by the context.

You mean, nothing of the kind is there.

If I didn't know you were a Christian and that Christians never lie, dissemble or pretend they're right when they're wrong, I'd say you were pretending.

Maybe Babylonians thought so. I have no reason to think they could not have been wrong.

The Babylonians were the major Semitic culture of Mesopotamia in the relevant period, with cultural and trading links to the Semitic peoples of Canaan. How is it you don't know this stuff?

That is weird, because there is nothing in nature that proves earth to be extremely old.

You need to get out more. Start >here< and it will explain what we know about the age of the earth and how we know it.

Or are you too scared to understand the case you're arguing against?

It is still questionable are they the actual reason.

They're not the sole reason, but they're a major one. Others are viruses, prions, parasites, toxins, vitamin deficiencies, poisons, carcinogens and so on.

Nicely show that people have been often wrong. What are the chances that you are now correct about everything.

At least I'm likely to find out when I'm wrong. You appear to be stuck with a book you don't even read, have merely heard about.

So, why settle to this current state?

Because it's the best-informed state that has been. And the bible was reasonably informed in one of the major cosmologies of its day, but one that we now know is wrong. Unlike the bible, I don't think the earth is flat, that the earth is immovably fixed at the center of creation, that the sun, moon and stars go round it, that the sky is a hard dome you can walk on and to which the stars are affixed such that if they come loose they'll fall to earth, or that life on earth was created by magic. I acknowledge that what we know about reality changes as we learn and discover and recheck. You apparently have chosen to cut yourself off from understanding that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

My go-to evidence against it, is two-fold.

The flood story makes 2 predictions dealing with independent lines of evidence. The "independent" part is important, because multiple lines of evidence converging on the same answer is the best type of evidence there is imo.

1. a global flood layer dated to the time of the flood

2. a universal genetic bottleneck in all species dated to the same period as that global flood layer.


These are direct predictions that necessarily must be the case if the flood myth is true.
Reducing ALL species populations to a handfull of breeding pairs necessarily creates genetic bottleneck in all those species.
Flooding the world with such a massive flood necessarily leaves global geological evidence behind as well.
And both these datapoints (the bottlenecks and the geological formations) should point to the same period.

The word "necessarily" is important here. Because if we test these predictions and it turns out that there are no such bottlenecks or there is no such geological formation, then the flood story is disproven since its predictions fail.
So even if just one of them doesn't check out, then also the story (as written) is disproven.

And yes, you guessed it: there is no such universal genetic bottleneck and there is no such geological formation.


This means that there simply is no way that this story is accurate.
It is demonstrably false because of these 2 predictions alone.


And then there still is all the other evidence that makes the story as written impossible, like the physics involved and how it would boil Noah and everything on the ark...........

 

[metis]

Mammal families ~160, bird families ~200, reptile families ~100.

2 pairs of unclean animals and 7 pairs of clean animals. I am not sure about the about the number of clean animals. If we would assume all were clean, the number of animals would have been ~6440. Obviously not all were clean, so the number is something less than that.

So, how could the ark supposedly contain all of them and the many forms of dinosaurs, etc? How would the kangaroos get there? the bison? the polar bears? etc.

The literalistic approach makes no sense on numerous levels, but if taken symbolically it very much can.

 

[metis]

For example the Mid-Atlantic ridge is one of the lines where the original continent was cracked. The cracks were the fountains of the great deep. In the beginning of the flood, the water flowed to other directions, like to the west side of America and formed many layers of sediments and at the same time cleaned the ocean floor on the modern bottom of Atlantic ocean.

We know with certainty through basic geological evidence that the American continents and European & African continents were at one time joined together.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Mammal families ~160, bird families ~200, reptile families ~100.

2 pairs of unclean animals and 7 pairs of clean animals. I am not sure about the about the number of clean animals. If we would assume all were clean, the number of animals would have been ~6440. Obviously not all were clean, so the number is something less than that.

The hilarious part of this is that to get to all species we have today from that source in just a few millenia, not only do you need to believe in evolution, you actually need to believe in a SUPER DUPER MEGA evolution on STEROIDS. An evolution that happens at a rate many many many many many times faster then we actually observe.

At a rate of about a couple dozen speciation events PER DAY.
Do you realize what that means? It means that EVERY DAY dozens of new species would evolve. EVERY DAY.


Regardless of the sheer absurdity of the entire story and the dozens of ways it can be disproven from multiple independent lines of evidence.... This little point alone shows how mega absurd it is.

 

[1213]

We know with certainty through basic geological evidence that the American continents and European & African continents were at one time joined together.

Good, I think they were connected by the material that is now on bottom of Atlantic ocean.

 

[1213]

So, how could the ark supposedly contain all of them and the many forms of dinosaurs, etc? How would the kangaroos get there? the bison? the polar bears? etc.

It could be that dinosaurs had died before the flood, or perhaps Noah just collected their egs to ark.

By what is said in the Bible, before the flood, there was only one continent. So, all necessary animals could have been in places where they could have traveled relatively easily to the Ark.

And, for example bears, I believe there was on pair from bear family that became the ancestors of all different modern bears. Same can be with many different species.

Most likely the Ark was build like in these images, like a log house that floated because wood is lighter than water. It had probably about 800 rooms. And if there were about 500 animal families, there would have been at least 300 rooms for food. Most large animals could have been puppies and would not have need as much room as adults. Also, many of the animals are small and could have shared rooms with other families.

 

[1213]

The hilarious part of this is that to get to all species we have today from that source in just a few millenia, not only do you need to believe in evolution, you actually need to believe in a SUPER DUPER MEGA evolution on STEROIDS. An evolution that happens at a rate many many many many many times faster then we actually observe.

At a rate of about a couple dozen speciation events PER DAY.
Do you realize what that means? It means that EVERY DAY dozens of new species would evolve. EVERY DAY.

All the "specification" could also be because of epigenics, DNA activating differently, causing small changes in offspring.

 

[Tamino]

Good, I think they were connected by the material that is now on bottom of Atlantic ocean.

The material on the bottom of the Atlantic ocean is igneous rock that can be dated my radiometric dating AND by magnetic fields dating.
Two independent methods, both showing beautifully how the material closer to the rift is successively younger.
We can also measure how Africa and South America are still today drifting apart.

And you just swipe all of that off the table with a "ach, I don't believe that" and go back to your fountains of the deep and how this just sunk.

How can we even have a discussion if you simply ignore the absurdity of your own argument even when it is pointed out to you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All the "specification" could also be because of epigenics, DNA activating differently, causing small changes in offspring.

You don't seem to understand.

Small changes accumulating and achieving fixation in a population which in turn leads to speciation over time is how evolution actually works.
This results in speciation events spread out over hundreds of thousands and millions of years.

But your absurd belief requires it to be stuffed into just a few millenia.
Evolution on mega steroids. Dozens of speciation events PER DAY.

It makes no sense at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The material on the bottom of the Atlantic ocean is igneous rock that can be dated my radiometric dating AND by magnetic fields dating.
Two independent methods, both showing beautifully how the material closer to the rift is successively younger.
We can also measure how Africa and South America are still today drifting apart.

And you just swipe all of that off the table with a "ach, I don't believe that" and go back to your fountains of the deep and how this just sunk.

How can we even have a discussion if you simply ignore the absurdity of your own argument even when it is pointed out to you?

Exactly. He just did the same when I pointed out to him how his flood beliefs requires evolution to go at a rate of several dozens of speciation events PER DAY. Evolution on mega super duper steroids.

In the analogy to language evolution, he requires Latin to transform into spanish, french, italian and portugese within 2 generations or something.

 

[metis]

It could be that dinosaurs had died before the flood, or perhaps Noah just collected their egs to ark.

By what is said in the Bible, before the flood, there was only one continent. So, all necessary animals could have been in places where they could have traveled relatively easily to the Ark.

And, for example bears, I believe there was on pair from bear family that became the ancestors of all different modern bears. Same can be with many different species.

Most likely the Ark was build like in these images, like a log house that floated because wood is lighter than water. It had probably about 800 rooms. And if there were about 500 animal families, there would have been at least 300 rooms for food. Most large animals could have been puppies and would not have need as much room as adults. Also, many of the animals are small and could have shared rooms with other families.
View attachment 90873View attachment 90874View attachment 90875View attachment 90876

It still doesn't even get close to adding up both scientifically and logically. What does make sense is that it uses myth to counter the Babylonian flood myth of Gilgamesh. Both the Creation and Flood myths actually do explain a lot about their perspective within Judaism, thus they are valuable lessons. If one deals with both piece by piece, there's a lot there.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe you use evidence as a smoke screen to avoid issues.

If I had never learned about electricity and someone told me a lever could be pressed and a light would come on I would consider that far fetched.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe that is correct. There had to be living plants because a dove came with an olive leaf. It must have come from a geographic area unaffected by the flood.

 

[Muffled]

Exactly, and it's illogical if taken literally.

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

I believe your conclusion does not follow from the premises. Your logic is full of holes.

First of all what God says is not mythical.

Second the account gives the reason for the flood and it isn't because there is another account that may be about the same flood.