Summations Only

This proposed thread would continue the one started by Moose, but with a slightly different perspective.I feel the evidence does not support a global flood, but others obviously disagree. This thread is a place for them to present their evidence.But biblical scholars place the flood at about 4,350 years ago. Not at the K-T boundary, over 60 million years ago, and not at the Cambrian explosion over 500 million years ago. Further, there is no evidence whatsoever of humans being around at those distant dates.So please limit the evidence presented to support a recent flood to recent time periods. This means you will need to deal with soils, not rocks; with archaeology, not geology; and with radiocarbon dating, not other radiometric dating techniques. It also means that historical evidence will be applicable, such as the records from ancient Egypt.To get started, archaeologists have been excavating into these recent soil layers for about 150 years. I have excavated probably 100 sites that cross-cut the approximate 4,350 year time period. My colleagues and I have found no evidence for a global flood (massive erosional or depositional features). Rather, we generally find continuity of human cultures, fauna and flora, sedimentation, and most telling of all we find continuity of mtDNA. If there had been a flood at this time, one would expect to find the previous mtDNA haplotypes cut off and to be replaced by haplotypes characteristic of the eastern Mediterranean, representing Noah's female companions.

Thread copied here from the Evidence for a recent flood thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

It's written in a book.100% of the evidence ever needed.
Anything which contradicts it is a trick by the devil.

But of course their first step would be to deny the efficacy of dating methods, so what do you do then?

It would seem if one were to challenge the efficacy of dating methods, one would have to provide evidence to that effect. And one would have to counter all of the evidence that suggests the dating methods, particularly radiocarbon dating, are incorrect.Just suggesting the dating methods are inaccurate isn't enough. If one wants to play scientists, one must follow the rules of science and the first rule is to bring data.

And then we go down the rabbit hole ...

Hi Coyote,You have mentioned many times about massive things that would take place during a flood as one described in the Bible.Just what and why would you expect to find the things you believe the Bible presents to have happened?The Bible states it rained for 40 days. It also states that the fountains of the deep opened up and the waters rose from them.The land mass being in one place and the water rising from all directions (with no rate of the rise of the water given) and coming down in the form of rain (with no explanation of the rate the water was raining at) just what would you expect to find.Since the text does not state what the sea level of the land mass was at that time as it had rose out of the water when the water was gathered into one place, what would you expect to find and how much water would it take to cover the land mass?I know you disagree with what many have presented here that took place during a flood they believe happened in a certain way. But I believe the Bible and I disagree with them also.It seems to me you have created a strawman and continue to argue against that strawman.So could you please explain what the Bible text says that you disagree with?God Bless,Edited by ICANT, : remove extra word falling

I have to rely on creationists to interpret the bible. I am only responding to what they claim.The claims here can be simplified to just two: 1) the date of the flood is recent, not millions of years ago; and 2) the flood was worldwide.As a consequence of these claims, there should be evidence in the soils of that flood, and as such these claims can be easily tested by archaeologists, as they deal with that time period all the time.Archaeologists do not find the evidence in recent soils of a global flood. To me this is a simple but conclusive test.==========Evidence of the first claim, that of a recent flood:2252 BC -- layevangelism.com
2304 BC -- Answers in Genesis (+/- 11 years).
2350 BC -- Morris, H. Biblical Creationism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993.
2370 BC -- TalkOrigins.com
2500 BC -- nwcreation.net
2978-3128 BC -- asa3.org
3300 BC -- biblediscoveries.com
3537 BC -- Setterfield (1999)If you disagree, these are the folks you should be debating.

Any evidence for this, apart from your statement?
All the evidence we have clearly points to the exact opposite. In the last 10 000 years, there's absolutely no empirical evidence for this. In fact, glue was invented before that. We have evidence for the invention of glue and also exactly when it was invented. Way before your flood. It rained for forty days and forty nights. From your holy book. As we can measure how much water the atmosphere can contain, the rate of how much rain can fall in forty days and nights is a given. It won't even put Australia under water. Your book is complete fairy tale stuff.

The first thing I would expect is a discontinuity in annual records such as lake varves, ice layers, and tree rings. Looking at ice layers in particular, if Antarctica and Greenland (two sources for correlating annual layers) were covered in water then the ice sheets covering these land masses would lift off and float away. When we look at ice cores from these two continents they should only go back 4,000 years or so. The carbon dioxide gas trapped in these ice layers could also be used to correlate 14C ratios with the other two annual records: tree rings and lake varves.ABE: In the lake varve record I would expect to see an interruption of the alternating diatom and clay layers, and in the tree rings I would expect to see an extinction of the forest at a given year with new trees starting to grow after this disturbance.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Hi Coyote,Thanks for your response. So you are not argueing against what the Bible says but against opinions of other you have read says the Bible says.

quote:

---

Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

​

1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

---

There was one body of water and one land mass.There is no place the land mass is said to be divided until Genesis 10:25, which is after the flood.

quote:

---

Genesis 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

---

So God said He was going to bring a flood of waters upon the earth. The earth refered too was the same earth He refered to in Genesis 1:10.

quote:

---

7:10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

​

7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

​

7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

​

7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

​

7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

---

So it rained for fourty days without any rate of rainfall given.The water rose from fountains of the deep with no rate of rise given.There is no mention of the things that have been put forth by the misguided people whose imagination have produce all the things you are argueing about.If you are going to debate what the Bible says you should equipt yourself with what the Bible says and not what someone else says.If you are going to debate what others have said you need to do your debating with them and not debate what they have said. But you are the one debating what they have said.I am and have been trying to point out to you that you are not debating against what the Bible actually says.The reason I have not participated in all the flood threads to any extent is that everyone here has made up their mind what the Bible says according to what someone else has said and all they can do is argue against that strawman.Now if you would really like to discuss and debate what the Bible says maybe we should start a Bible study on what the Bible says about the flood.God Bless,

This is a science thread. In science we need empirical evidence. Not wishful thinking. Verses or whatever they are called from your favourite holy book do not count. Empirical evidence does. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Hi Pressie, I am argueing what the Bible says not what someone thinks it says.

quote:

---

Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

​

1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

---

The object of the rate of rain is to determine the damage the rain could cause.Since the land mass was in one place only the water above the land mass could fall on the land mass the rest fell in the mass of water.The water was all around the land mass so I assume the fountains of the deep was all around the land mass.

Feel free to do so.But since you are here, why don't you try and address the two important points I raised:If the flood was recent and worldwide, as is claimed, why don't archaeologists find evidence for it?

Hi Taq, Well the first thing you would need to do is determine exactly the date that the flood took place. Since the Bible does not give one you have no idea what to look for.Since there is no date given what disagrees with science?Science does believe that all land mass was covered by water at one time don't it due to the fact of what is found in and on the earth?Remember I am argueing what is recorded not what someone thinks is recorded.