Does the evidence support the Flood? (attn: DwarfishSquints)

So you assert, but you have not provided any evidence to support this assertion. Do so immediately, or conceded that you have no eivdence supporting your assertion that the Flood was possible. ...Excuse me? You do realize that the vast majority of living organisms that have existed, even the majority of living things today, do not have bones of any kind, right? You also realize that no scientific model suggests that life has eisted on Earth for the entire history of teh planet, don't you?The age of the Earth is not an assumption. It is a well-supported conclusion drawn from evidence. It's been known for several hundred years that the age of teh Earth cannot possibly be only a few thousand years old - even before Darwin was born, no age for the Earth less than the millions of years was seriously considered.I'm sorry, Lucy, but you're either woefully ignorant with regard to the age of teh Earth, or you're in deliberate denial in favor of your religious beliefs. This statement shows that you truley have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.We can and do find evidence of local floods all the time - including ancient ones. We also find evidence of areas of dry land that were once submerged millions of years ago.What we do not find evidence of is a global Flood. None. At all.Let's just run down the list of a few things off the top of my head that we should expect to find if a global Flood happened - we'll even disregard completely the age of teh Earth questions so that this works against OECs as well.1) We should see a very large global layer of sediment. It would not necessarily be compeltely uniform (a global Flood would not necessarily transport sediment globally, even if this would be likely), but we should see a signle continuous global layer of sediment, and it should be extremely thick.2) The fossils contained in the sediment layer should be sorted primarily by bouyancy and ability to swim - organisms able to float should tend to be on top, and organisms that do not float should be on the bottom. This should starkly contrast with the sorting of fossils predicted by the Theory of Evolution.3) Stone and metal tools should be found at the bottom of this layer, since they do not float.4) We should see a very large number of human and animal remains in this layer, and then suddenly see almost no fossils at all immediately on top of this layer. Subsequent layers should show a gradual increase in remains as populations increased from the single-digits to global populations again.5) Oceans and inland lakes should have a similar salinity, having been mixed in the very recent (geologically anyway) past.6) we should see genetic bottlenecks in all species, corresponding to a reduction in population size to single digits. These should all appear to have happened at roughly the same time across every existing species.7) We should see a relatively similar distribution of species globally, and evidence of a migration from Mt. Arrarat, as all of the animals on the Ark migrated from that single location to their eventual destinations.8) We should see an amount of water in reasonable locations (polar ice caps, for example) that could possibly have contributed to a global FLood sufficient to accomplish the task as described in the Bible.These are just a few off the top of my head. None of these conditions match the evidence we actually observe. There is no global sediment layer. Stone and metal tools are always found above various species that should have been killed in the Flood according to the Bible. The sorting of fossils corresponds to the model predicted by the Theory of Evolution, and does nto bear any resemblance to the sorting of remains after a Flood. The salinity of the oceans and inland water sources show no evidence of being mixed in the recent geological past. While we do detect genetic bottlenecks in some species, they are not universal as we would see if teh Flood myth were true, and of the species that do show bottlenecks the dates do not match up. We do not see sufficient water to Flood the Earth in any reasonable storage location - those locations which are even debatable require physics-defying miracles to contribute to a Flood and wind up where they are today.It's really very simple, Lucy. There is no objective evidence in support of a global Flood, and literal mountains of evidence that the Flood never happened. We see no signs of it having ever happened, though we see signs of ancient, locally-scaled flooding. The evidence simply doesn't match up.So how precisely do you claim that the Flood was possible? Do you have any evidence to back your claims? Or are you simply convinced because the story is told in your religious text, which you believe has final authority even over your own eyes?

...YES.The field of genetics, even as it pertains to evolution, can in no way be described as a field "in its infancy." We can use genetic information to determine ancient bottlenecks in populations, detect genetic damage from ancient retroviral infections to help determine common ancestry, contrast and compare the DNA of different species, we understand exactly how mutations through DNA replication errors contribute to the evolutionary process...We aren't exactly taking our first few steps here, Lucy. We've been around the block a few times. Sure, there's plenty more to learn, but that's the best part of this Universe: there's always more to learn.

From your own source:

quote:

---

...24,500 and 57,500 years ago (depending on different estimates of the nucleotide substitution rate);

---

How so? They have nothing to do with a bottleneck.

quote:

---

Despite the existence of a sexual phase in the life cycle, T. gondii has an unusual population structure dominated by three clonal lineages that predominate in North America and Europe, (Types I, II, and III). These lineages were founded by common ancestors ~10,000 yr ago. The recent origin and widespread distribution of the clonal lineages is attributed to the circumvention of the sexual cycle by a new mode of transmission”asexual transmission between intermediate hosts.

---

A common ancestor ~10,000 years ago does not mean a genetic bottleneck. According to a quick reading of your source, that would be roughly ten thousand generations ago, making it somewhere around 20,000 years in the past. Yes, it is, but not for the reasons you seem to think it is. No, they aren't.The two bottlenecks you've put forth ( the other wasn't even a bottleneck, simply a note of common ancestry) occurred at wildly different times, and neither occurred anywhere near the time of the FLood as documented in teh Bible.More specifically, every single species should show a bottleneck at the same time. Not one or two, not a hundred, but all species should have a genetic bottleneck that dates around the time of the Flood as recorded in teh Bible.Even one species which does not show evidence of a bottleneck in the past 4-5000 years or so contradicts the Biblical Flood myth.Both of your examples of bottlenecks disagree with the Flood myth as presented in teh Bible, both by occurring at different times, and by occurring at a time before the Bible presents life having even been Created at all. Congratulations, your own sources disprove your position. And the answer is "no, it's not." Exposing the mantle to flash-vaporize "part of" the ocean?! Are you really that ignorant?Here's the very basic simple fact: any scenario involving vaporizing significant portions of the ocean makes a Flood redundant, as all life on Earth would be boiled alive by the sudden increase in temperature. Not to mention the atmospheric effects of superheated steam entering the atmosphere - the global weather changes would make a 40-day rainstorm look pretty pathetic. Noah's little boat would never have survived. AND you have to deal with the fact that superheated steam from teh bottom of the ocean cools ratehr quickly, and doesn't reache the surface. You'd have to increase the temperature of teh entirety of the oceans to a point where, again, all life would cease and not due to a Flood.Your scenario would have resulted in "the Great Boiling" rather than "the Great Flood." We, of course, see evidence of neither. Methinks someone should stop playing with fire, lest they get burned. Particularly when your posts are so devoid of actual content - tha admins have had a poor view of nonsense posts in teh recent past, and your posts dangerously approach that level.Perhaps rather than "thinking for yourself" you should try to educate yourself on physics and geology and biology before making such completely ignorant and unsupported statements.

Even in simple tidal movements, the water moves objects and sediments around. Sufficient water to Flood even a "flat" Earth would have to be many times more significant than any simple tidal movement.In any flood scenario, large or small, sediments are shifted around by the movement of the water, and the higher-density material is sifted to the bottom while lighter material settles on top.This means that we should see a global layer of sediments (it doesn't have to be homogenous - dirt from China would not necessarily flow all the way to England - but there should be a global layer of sediment that all dates to the same period), and that this layer should be sorted by density. Metal and stone tools, pottery, and stones should be in the bottom of the layer. Fossilized remains should not be sorted by age, but rather by density and ability to swim. There should be massive amounts of fish fossils globally, far more than in other layers as fish die off due to the salinity changes inherant in a flood scenario. The entirety of the fossil record from this period should globally be consistent with a flood.This is simply not the case. The most obvious evidence is stone and metal tools - they are always found in layers far above fossils of creatures that should have been killed in the Flood (to suggest that all of these fossils had died before the flood is silly, as this would involve ridiculous overpopulation).If we go to the midwestern US where many cities are being flooded right now, where will we find a hammer (for the purpose of argument, assume the hammer was left on the ground rather than in someone's garage - we don't tend to find ancient garages )? Will it be at the bottom of the sediment when the water recedes, beneath most animal remains? Or will it be almost on top, above significantly less-dense material?IF (a global Flood happened) THEN (there should be a global sediment layer) AND (all material in the sediment layer should be sorted by density consistent with observed flooding)Both of those conditions are false, and so we have evidence in direct contradiction of the Flood myth. Equivocation about comparisons to a flash flood are irrelevant.

The flooding in the midwest is in no way a "flash flood." It consists primarily of rivers overflowing their banks - this is completely different from a true flash flood. Quite to the contrary, the midwestern flooding involves for the most part simple rapidly rising water levels in rivers, not the sudden movement of water from higher ground to lower due to oversaturated ground in higher elevations that defines flash flooding.Again, flash flood vs "normal flood" comparisons are irrelevant. Regardless of the scenario you use to flood the Earth (rising water levels due to "fountains of the deep," extreme rainfall, etc), all flooding results in sediments being picked up and moved. This contradicts every single flood ever observed. All floods shift sediment - ever notice on the news how the water is always muddy? That would be sediment being moved along by the water. Exactly how many floods have you ever seen photos of with perfectly clear water, ICANT?Erosion is irrelevant. If you wash water over simple dry ground, particulate matter is picked up by the moving water and moved. On loose ground like sand or even soil, significant amounts of sediment are picked up. In natural disasters like floods, lots of sediment gets moved around. Have you ever seen the interior of a home in a low-lying region after a flood? It's filled with dirt carried by the water. That's the sediment left behind. Irrelevant - the fish would have died due to rapidly changing salinity. Saltwater fish and freshwater fish cannot coexist, with a few exceptions. Food is not the issue - it's the salinity difference. If you take a bass from Lake Michigan and put it in the Pacific, it will die, and it has nothing to do with food.Not to mention, not all fish are carnivorous. Carcasses would have nothing to do with anything. You assert that the flood was caused by fresh water with no evidence whatsoever, I'll note.Go ahead and dump a few gallons of freshwater into a fish tank filled with seawater and see what happens to the fish. I'll give you a hint: most species will be dead, very quickly. As I said, there are exceptions. River fish (like salmon) for example can be tolerant of both environments. This, however, is atypical. Most species cannot tolerate significant changes in salinity. Again, we would expect to see an atypically large number of fish fossils in the sediment left by a global flood due to a rapidly changing environment that most species would be incapable of surviving.I also note that you are compeltely ignoring the main point - that of tools always being found above the fossilized remains of creatures like dinosaurs and others that science accepts as predating humanity, but the Bible requires to have been killed in the flood. Why are metal tools found above biological remains that are far less dense, and should have been able to swim? Why is there no global layer of sediment consistent with a global flood?

Dinosaurs aren't the only things that would be killed by a flood, ICANT. This doesn't only apply to YEC's, though it obviously strikes them harder.We always find metal tools above vaious species. IF there was a flood, there would of necessity have been an unusually large number of creatures buried in sediment as the water receded, and those creatures along with everything else would have been sorted by density. We see no such thing. Instead, we see tools lying on top of much less dense objects. We see dense objects like stones or magma on top of species with no examples of that species above it.I realize that some of this is targeted towards YEC's, ICANT, but as you undoubtedly realize, you Biblical literalists can't even agree on how to literally interpret the Bible, so I need to argue against all of thsoe positions simultaneously.Even given an old Earth with dinosaurs and such already extinct, a global flood would need to result in a global layer of sediment. This layer would contain the remains of those killed by the flood, and being a sudden catastrophic event resulting in near-sterilization of the Earth over the course of less than a year's time, the layer should contain exponentially more fossils than layers generated in normal time periods. Similarly, there should be a sudden dropoff in fossils immediately thereafter, as there were almost no additional living creatures to fossilize as the world repopulated.We do not see this. The lack of such a layer and a completely different pattern of fossilization is direct, contradictory evidence that proves the flood myth to be nothing more than that - a myth. Then you need to look at the afteraffects of floods. An example of particulate matter left after a flood (ie - sediment). A really good one including dead cattle partially buried by sediment.FACT - flooding of all types stirs up sediment and redeposits it. You can try to deny this all you want, but you lack evidence to back the conviction of your delusional beliefs. And what relavence, precisely, does the sound of Niagara Falls have to do with this discussion? Niagara Falls is a waterfall, as you know - it's eroding, of course (carrying away sediment), but it's not exactly an example of a flood, now is it? It doesn't even support your position or mine - it's irrelevant. Have you never seen the daily tides? That's a relatively gentle rising of the seal level, and yet it comes as crashing waves and does, in fact, move sediment. Saying "there would be no sweeping current" is blatantly false. Sufficient water to flood the Earth would make tidal movements look like ripples in a pond, ICANT. Your position is based solely on your own mind defending your faith-based beleifs. You have no evidence to back your claims, while the evidence stacks against your position.Show me an example of a flood (not resulting from a water main breach, anyway) that does not leave a layer of sediment when the water recedes. Until you do so, you're making unsupported assertions - and we know what that means. This is a picture of a tidal wave. Not to be confused with a tsunami (as is so common), this is just one of the large waves that comes in as the tide rises. Note that it's pretty large. Here's a picture of land revealed by low tide. See the ripples? That's from the water moving sediment around.Oh, and the tides would be an example of "oceans rising faster than the water being rained down on the land." Sea level rises significantly more than rainfall at high tide.I'm also calling "bullshit" on your claim that "it had never rained before." We see sufficient evidence in the geological record to track ancient rainfall levels - unless your flood happened long before human (or any) habitation, it obviously was not the first time rain had fallen. A year-long flood? Really? When even short-term local flooding results in significant amounts of sediment being deposited? You're breaking the boundaries of rationality, ICANT. You're speaking from the wrong orifice, as you haven't produces a single bit of evidence to support your assertion that a global (or even local! flood can occur and not leave sediment behind. We did. It's also not relavent to this discussion, and I have no idea how you think it is. That's good, but you also believe in a magic flood of pure water that doesn't carry any sediment, leaves no fossil evidence of its passing despite killing billions of living things in a very short timespan, and somehow restructures the face of teh Earth (referring to your "if there were even mountains" comment earlier) in ways completely inconsistent with observed floods.Coal and oil have nothing to do with this discussion - since we both agree that coal and oil were not formed in the flood, they are wholly irrelevant.So again - your comments regarding flooding and sedimentary deposits are compeltely wrong, not even corrent in the slightest bit.

ICANT, this is a gigantic red herring stacked on a strawman. No scientific theory states that the Universe "came from an absence of anything," and cosmology is not in any way related to this topic.And since we both agree that the Flood is a scientific impossibility, why are you participating in this thread, which resides in the science forums? If you claim the Flood happened, provide objective evidence to support such a claim - put up or shut up.If you have nothing more useful to contribute than strawmen and red herrings in an attempt to derail the thread with utter nonsense, stop posting.

Mythological exaggeration, as happens in most mythology.I don't know specifically about the Dead Sea flooding, but it would certainly be plausible that the similarities between the various middle-eastern flood myths like the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Noachian Flood could be explained as exaggerated retellings of a real-life event.Rivers flood all the time, and it's certainly not an extraordinary claim to suggest that a big local flood happened coupled with a significant storm, and that an individual and his family survived along with their livestock in some primitive boat. The retelling of such a story can easily reach mythical proportions, especially after it's adapted into the Hebrew culture, where the story could be made "better" by making it a global event.I'd say the evidence available fits such a scenario far better than a literal reading of the account - the physical evidence doesn't match up to a global Flood even remotely, but we do have many examples of myths surrounding real-world natural phenomenon, including floods.