Scientific Evidence of a Global Flood

a reply to: Seede

so what you are saying is...we should interpret past errors of science as reason to assume that our current scientific standing is not only erroneous as well, but also inferior to your god-driven methodology and its subsequent conclusions. furthermore, we should also assume, as a result of these past errors in science, that science has no hope of comparing to your methodologies and we should just give up in favor of the conclusions you have reached. is that about right?

originally posted by: [post=18349423]SeedeIf you are still young enough you might see that your secular accepted dating is another hat hanger.

As a young 44 year old, I bow down to your wisdom.

However, you do realise that every time religion has gone head to head with truth [science] it has lost?

I thought religion was somehow related to truth - but by denying truth hasn't it essentially lost the battle? If god exists, which you believe, then surely he gave us inquisitive minds, and the ability and intellect to satisfy that inquisitive mind. By denying that ability aren't you working against god's plan?

Or perhaps you're just regurgitating what you have read/heard before? Without thinking....

peter vlar

Normally I would retort with the logical flaws of your argument and try to show you what th actual science behind the theory is but after reading thru your increasingly belligerent responses there's no point except to point to your replies as a grade A example of the failings of educators. Te absolutely frightening level of pure ignorance and bloviating flatulence on display here simply elicits my utmost sympathy or you. You truly have no idea at all what you're talking about and your fear of learning anything that may differ from your theological leanings is just pure sadness.

I addressed nothing inappropriate to yourself or true science but have little respect for armchair wannabes spouting ape to monkey theology and dinosaur dating. Regardless of religion it was not myself that started Christian bashing or any such likeness. The same trolls search the forums and begin the Christian bashing when ATS people want honest discourse. This is repeatedly the case and is now to the point that hardly a civil discourse can be had without sides being chosen and belittling anyone of the opposite opinions. That is as bad as bad science and you know that there is bad science as well as accepted true science.

If this offended you as a learned technician then you have my sincerest apology but I stand firm in denouncing those who insult others and I do this with their own tools. Noah is biblical theology and the flood is also biblical theology. I see nothing to compare theology with true science. It should not be mixed into one format as it will never be compatible as is revealed today. I stand firm in that opinion.

Science cannot expect a layman to accept a teaching of their choosing only to rebuke it later and call it change. That is not true science and you very well know it. If true science is testable and demonstrable then it can not change or it is not true science. I know that you are very aware of that fact.

The accepted Christian bibles of today are not all theology. There is a good percentage of the bible that is scientifically true and a great portion that is theology. Once the theology is proven then it moves into fact the same as science moves its models into fact and I am certain that you are aware of this. By this some will offend others by degrading their expertise and that is wrong. There are great Christian scientists that are as brilliant as any other and it angers people to be chided and shamed to name calling and club mentality.
Thank you Peter for listening

a reply to: Seede

Well, that may very well be true in your mind, but it doesn't make it so.

I have yet to see any scientific evidence of a global flood. I don't mean the 'Icehouse World', or the 'Greenhouse World', or any dodgy misappropriations of plate tectonics and the building of orogenies, or an applied misunderstanding of various dating techniques.

All I want to see is concrete scientific evidence as posited by the OP, but there is no such evidence to support it.

I can walk back through time, all around where I live, and still see nothing that points to a global flood. Therwe is evidence of local floods, and here i feel we are going round and round in circles, as others have patiently debated the information and provided accompanying sources to back up their claims, which all seem to fall on deaf ears.

a reply to: MarsIsRed

As a young 44 year old, I bow down to your wisdom. However, you do realise that every time religion has gone head to head with truth [science] it has lost? I thought religion was somehow related to truth - but by denying truth hasn't it essentially lost the battle? If god exists, which you believe, then surely he gave us inquisitive minds, and the ability and intellect to satisfy that inquisitive mind. By denying that ability aren't you working against god's plan?

Yes you are correct and it will become worse to the point of no return but I hold no regrets as to my faith. I am quite old and near to ninety years. At one time I was shy and reclusive in opinions but WWII changed that as I found myself in a MASH unit with a lot of time to think. I soon learned that intellect was not salvation but salvation was intellect. Actually I admire the ones that have great knowledge and recall but would not trade Jesus for a million of them. I don't hate or despise those that hate and despise me but will stand what ground I have left. Thanks for the chat and God Bless.

originally posted by: Seede
I addressed nothing inappropriate to yourself or true science but have little respect for armchair wannabes spouting ape to monkey theology and dinosaur dating.

First, I think you would be surprised at the number of people posting in this thread with legitimate backgrounds and degrees, or are working towards their degree, in subjects very much pertinent to the topic of this thread. Second, when you care so little about the topic that you don't even understand the most basic premises of moder evolutionary synthesis or how dating is actually done then you are not really in a position to take such condescending tones towards people who believe that early Hebrew and later on Greek and Latin Christian texts are little more than Bronze Age fables.

Regardless of religion it was not myself that started Christian bashing or any such likeness.

Wasnt it Christ who said turn the other cheek? Perhaps you are secretly afraid that if you genuinely studied the science you may come to the same conclusions many others who come from a background steeped in Christian supernatural tales from the Bronze Age and beyond.

The same trolls search the forums and begin the Christian bashing when ATS people want honest discourse. This is repeatedly the case and is now to the point that hardly a civil discourse can be had without sides being chosen and belittling anyone of the opposite opinions.

Or perhaps its sheer frustration of the fact that every month or two the sAme exact topics are regurgitated and previously dealt with information is being brought back up and rehashed ad infinitum instead of someone using the search feature and adding to a thread already pertaining to the topic. I will agree that it certainly is the case repeatedly and its annoying as hell.

That is as bad as bad science and you know that there is bad science as well as accepted true science.

There is no such thing as bad science, only bad people. Do I think all clergymen are pedophiles because there have been some Catholics and Anglicans who have been young boy touchers for centuries? Absolutely not. Just like in any other profession there are people lacking scruples who will lie cheat and steal to get to the top and those who claim to follow the bible are certainly no exception so your holier than thou piety routine is silly at best.

If this offended you as a learned technician then you have my sincerest apology but I stand firm in denouncing those who insult others and I do this with their own tools.

Thanks but no worries, I can't be offended when I've over two decades under my belt of studying Neanderthal extensively. I've heard it all and seen it put better.

Noah is biblical theology and the flood is also biblical theology. I see nothing to compare theology with true science. It should not be mixed into one format as it will never be compatible as is revealed today. I stand firm in that opinion.

Glad you admit its your opinion. But what the bible describes regRding the world wide flood event which is the actuK tooic of the discussion, is physically, chemically and geologically implausible. It just couldn't happen that way let alone at all.

Science cannot expect a layman to accept a teaching of their choosing only to rebuke it later and call it change. That is not true science and you very well know it. If true science is testable and demonstrable then it can not change or it is not true science. I know that you are very aware of that fact.

What you fail to grasp is that you're basing that assessment on how the average media outlet portrays things, not how new find or new papers are promoted by the teams involved. What "science" for lack of a better term, tells us is..." This is what we know right now based on the best data and research we currently have available and that if someone else is able to contribute new data or materials then we will alter te paradigm to reflect the most up to date information we have at hand". What you're reading on blogs, news sites and in magazines has already been through peer review and in many instances and is, in some ways, already outdated by the time that information gets to you. The ability to admit an error and correct for it is what makes science a much better alternative than a eligion that holds onto things that are several millennia old but cling to it because its tradition just as much as thanksgiving turkeys and Easter hams. It doesn't make it superior in any way shape or form though, it makes. It obsolete and anachronistic.

The accepted Christian bibles of today are not all theology. There is a good percentage of the bible that is scientifically true and a great portion that is theology.

And which parts are scientifically true? Certainly not the flood myth which is the actual topic of this thread.

Once the theology is proven then it moves into fact the same as science moves its models into fact and I am certain that you are aware of this. By this some will offend others by degrading their expertise and that is wrong.

Nobody is degrading anyone, simply pointing the fallacies and then explaining exactly what those fallacies are not in any way resembling the truth. What you don't understand about science is that before people come up with the right answer, we often go through multiple failed experiments and hypothesis learning from each error and getting a better grip on which direction to be heading to get on the appropriate path. There is no blind faith involved. Everything has to be verifiable and repeatable.

There are great Christian scientists that are as brilliant as any other and it angers people to be chided and shamed to name calling and club mentality.
Thank you Peter for listening

Exactly, there are many Christians practicing anthropology, paleontology and evolutionary biology and they leave their faith at the door and do what good scientists do, follow the facts, whether those facts lead in the direction they want them to or not.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: MarsIsRed

As a young 44 year old, I bow down to your wisdom. However, you do realise that every time religion has gone head to head with truth [science] it has lost? I thought religion was somehow related to truth - but by denying truth hasn't it essentially lost the battle? If god exists, which you believe, then surely he gave us inquisitive minds, and the ability and intellect to satisfy that inquisitive mind. By denying that ability aren't you working against god's plan?

Yes you are correct and it will become worse to the point of no return but I hold no regrets as to my faith. I am quite old and near to ninety years. At one time I was shy and reclusive in opinions but WWII changed that as I found myself in a MASH unit with a lot of time to think. I soon learned that intellect was not salvation but salvation was intellect. Actually I admire the ones that have great knowledge and recall but would not trade Jesus for a million of them. I don't hate or despise those that hate and despise me but will stand what ground I have left. Thanks for the chat and God Bless.

I don't men to be rude but could you explain how you were in a M.A.S.H. Unit in WW2 when they never existed until after we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki and weren't deployed overseas prior to the Korean conflict? Not only am I a longtime student of Anthropology but I'm also a former 11B so I'm pretty familiar with many Aspects of military history.

a reply to: aorAki

All I want to see is concrete scientific evidence as posited by the OP, but there is no such evidence to support it. Text

Yes I agree with you 100 percent. I don't think people realize the ramifications of a global flood. My belief is that It was not just a flood . It was a global upheaval that cannot be imagined. The water was in one body and the land was also in one body and that land was not anywhere near the 29 percent of what is now being formulated. After the deep was broken up it became as it is shown today in tectonic theology. I would rather believe the land mass was at about 10 percent with one 90 percent body of water.

That 10 percent of land was so chewed up to unimaginable depths that it will never be analyzed in the manner that we should want. Even if the ark was found it would not change a thought as far as science is concerned. Science has their radiometric formulas and that will not be changed till another method is accepted and I will not see this in my life time. It actually matters little to me that the sciences deprive themselves of a greater discovery of the truth. Perhaps the truth is best left untold as it is told in the Hebrew account. But yes I agree with you completely.

a reply to: Seede

Because of what you said in your post, I don't think you agree with me completely at all, and your comprehension of geology is at the 'fail' level, such that you would not even gain entry to the 100 level classes.

Tell me about cratons, and how they might blast your 'tectonic theology' (wtf?) out of the water, or perhaps you might like to tell me about how we can determine if sediment has been deposited in an oceanic/marine environment cf an 'on land' environment, including, but not limited to the organisms that may help, and the chemical signatures that also give us clues which lead to our conclusions.

I'm still very unsure as to the timescale you are using, that is, when do you propose that this occurred. You see, geology is an observational science first and foremost, and nothing you have described can be observed. There is no global record, full stop, for a flood as per the Bible.

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: edmc^2
...

[Gen 1:7 ESV] 7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse."
It confirms the presence of water "accumulating in the atmosphere" and that this water accumulation or water canopy (as we call it) was the source of the Biblical Great Flood that forever changed the face of the earth. And it's this same water that is now locked in the form of glaciers, ice caps. It's the same water that is now found in underground rivers, underground seas, trenches, abysses, geysers etc.

www.dailymail.co.uk...
www.uweb.ucsb.edu...

I can cite more but I'm running out of text space.

Maybe it's best that I create a thread dealing with why the Global Flood is a fact from Biblical and Geological standpoint. This way the OP won't get upset at me.

ciao.

The Bible is a STORY book written over a 1500 yr period by about 40 people, it proves NOTHING and like I have said and SHOWN quite clearly MAN created god!!!!

Lots of THEM

pretty amazing for people who couldn't read or write and just took care of sheep with bronze stuff.

they are better than steven king, dan brown and JK rowling put together!

throw in Shakespeare if you want.

1500 yrs and all coordinated.

bunch of dummies back then, right?

bronze age sheep herders in the first century, writing down stone age cave dweller tales.

yeah, real stupid people.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Seede

Man is a product of evolution god(s) are a product of man's need to explain why things happen hence sun, moon & rain gods etc.

After all why can't this so called super being get the same message to all corners of the pale blue dot we live on SIMPLE because the people who made him up lived in a small part of the world.

Every race on the planet has god & creation stories they are NEVER the same so they can't all be right can they BUT they can ALL BE WRONG!!!

that's what YOU would do now, in he information age.

try thinking in the bronze age.

you are so friggin enlightened, you blind yourself.

don't make me break the T&C.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: Seede
I find it much easier to simply believe the manuscripts. When you declare that it is all clear that man created God, who then made man?

?--->

Singularity--->

Big bang--->

Gravity and eventually other fundamental forces--->

Hydrogen/Helium nuclei---->

Stable atoms--->

Stars--->

Supernovae--->

Heavy elements--->

2nd gen stars/planets--->

Chemical evolution--->

Biological evolution--->

Eventually...Apes--->

One Ape dreams up a way of extorting and controlling the more gullible members of his species--->

God is born.

awesome! why aren't you on TV?

coz that is all BS. that's why.

no one believes that.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: SeedeI find it much easier to simply believe the manuscripts.

The intellectual path of least resistance is not something to be admired.

When you declare that it is all clear that man created God, who then made man?

If god created man, who then made god?

that's the 64 million $ question! '

who made God!?

gee, let me think.....

alpha, omega, always was always will be...don't help me! i can figure it out myself..

let's see, in the beginning...God...

i'm screwed, i give up. who did create God?

need a link wit dat answer.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: tsingtao
to the lack of evidence crowd, i ask if there IS any evidence of flooding where peoples have this myth?

specifically, flooding that is referred to, in the myth?

Sure, but that isn't evidence that a global flood occurred. For a global flood, the evidence would have to exist EVERYWHERE, not just in a few spots around the world. Is it really that surprising for the flood myth to really just be a tale of a local flood that was larger than normal and flooded the goat herder's (noah's) known world? I can't imagine that a goat herder would have a terribly large picture of the world. Why is common sense and Occam's Razor thrown out the window when speaking about the bible?

as to the moon that has been brought up, there are myths that it was not there and suddenly it was.
how essential is a moon like ours, to intelligent life? or to life in general?
(maybe another thread subject)

Myths are myths. A myth is just an ancient testimonial. Testimonials aren't scientific evidence. The moon is VERY essential to life on this planet since the moon was present for the entire 3 billion years life was here and directly influenced the way that life evolved on the planet. If the moon wasn't here life would have evolved in a different direction, but don't assume that life couldn't evolve on the planet without the moon.

i can understand the people that reference geology for evidence, as they find the KT boundary in the strata after 65+- ya.

why not the flood?

Why not indeed.

lol, who knows? why even start something like that in the first place?

Because it's called looking for evidence. You know damn well if geologic evidence existed for a global flood in the geologic record similar to the K/T boundary, you would be singing it from the mountaintops. So don't pretend like it's no big deal that people look for evidence of the flood in the geologic record just because your side ended up in the no evidence camp.

it's not like flooding suddenly started, for the first time, right?
aren't we supposed to have a collective memory? instincts?

Right flooding has happened before, but not global flooding. Those are two VASTLY different doomsday scenarios. One wipes out ALL life on the planet meaning it will take millions of years for life to reach the present day diversity; the other destroys a local ecosystem but it doesn't take long to repopulate and rebuild afterwards.

the evidence is in ourselves.

This is a cop out answer said by people who don't have any real evidence.

those goat herders wrote the bible.

have geologists been "everywhere" yet?

so no moon and you would be a jellyfish?

or moon and humans! yay!

yeah moon=human!

have moon, will travel!

God made the flood. He can do anything He wants. KT boundary was incoming, not special enough to make it into the bible.

it's not a cop out.

you have less evidence than i do.

ya got some chump busting rocks in the hot sun saying, no flood here but there was a flood at one time.

can't be that flood! no way.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

One Ape dreams up a way of extorting and controlling the more gullible members of his species---> God is born.

And now we are right back with the monkey chasing it's tail and trying to prove that he was there 65 million years ago. God or no God the monkey is still there and 65 million years ago cannot be proven that 65 million years ago even existed. That is unless we find the monkey calendar and then we would have secular monkey science as the bully on the block. Same ole story with the same ole players.

As with the dinosaurs being dated. Found out that they couldn't use radiometric dating so just chalked it up to a little iron (wrong type at that) and give it a date to make everyone smile and get the ole grant money rolling in. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and walks like a duck -- I know -- let's call it a frog. ---- So a frog is born?

frogs turn into ducks, silly!

that's progressional dawinism.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

One Ape dreams up a way of extorting and controlling the more gullible members of his species---> God is born.

And now we are right back with the monkey chasing it's tail and trying to prove that he was there 65 million years ago. God or no God the monkey is still there and 65 million years ago cannot be proven that 65 million years ago even existed. That is unless we find the monkey calendar and then we would have secular monkey science as the bully on the block. Same ole story with the same ole players.

As with the dinosaurs being dated. Found out that they couldn't use radiometric dating so just chalked it up to a little iron (wrong type at that) and give it a date to make everyone smile and get the ole grant money rolling in. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and walks like a duck -- I know -- let's call it a frog. ---- So a frog is born?

did you miss all of the posts from peter vlar and hydeman? they've put a spectacular amount of factual scientific data into this thread. id actually like to take a moment and thank them for the efforts theyv taken to educate the less knowledgable members among us. thats gotta be some exhausting homework they did for our benefit. whew!

yeah, i almost pooped myself they were so friggin informative.

that 6th grade edgikation comes in handy when you are a double knot spy.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Humans didn't evolve from monkeys. They evolved from apes or proto-apes. Your second paragraph doesn't make any sense. Perhaps you could post a link to your claims instead of your personal inane rambling. I mean its not like there aren't other isotopes we can test with longer half-lives than carbon-14.

And you can prove that humans came from your proto -apes? You must have another secular theoretical science -- Something like Darwinism? Can you use your isotopes on that? Get real.

Sure, there is plenty of independent evidence from many different scientific disciplines that corroborate that humans evolved from apes. From fossil evidence, to dna evidence, to geologic evidence. Denying its existence doesn't automatically make it cease to exist. But this thread is about the global flood happening, so I'm not going to clutter it up with all that evidence. If you are ACTUALLY interested (and not just argumentatively deflecting) you can do your own independent research, or (since it can be tough to know where to start), you could PM any number of us for the evidence, which we'd gladly provide. There are also untold number of evolution threads on the creation and origins forums, so you can look at them for the evidence as well.

As to Dawinism, science has moved past Darwin's theory of evolution. Scientists have discarded many parts of it and have updated and evolved their view of how evolution works. It would be best for you Creationists to stop hanging around in the mid-1800's, because science has left you guys WAY in the dust.

is that why people like to throw flaming bags filled with poop at houses?

so you science guys killed darwin and took over his street corner.

how long before you get darwined?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Seede

And you sir are so brilliant as to judge a God? What arrogance from a creature who perishes in a whisper. You will have your say when faced by this childish, vindictive murderer.

whats he gonna do, murder us? that would be ironic.

are you married yet? kids?

lol!!

you wish you would be spared living any longer when it all goes south.

but yeah, and no one could prove it wasn't Him.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Seede

so what you are saying is...we should interpret past errors of science as reason to assume that our current scientific standing is not only erroneous as well, but also inferior to your god-driven methodology and its subsequent conclusions. furthermore, we should also assume, as a result of these past errors in science, that science has no hope of comparing to your methodologies and we should just give up in favor of the conclusions you have reached. is that about right?

yes.

ya keep moving the goal posts.

sup wit dat?

So, there is NO evidence of a global flood.

But there IS evidence of a tsunami hitting the Scottish coast ~7,000 years ago.

ie news.bbc.co.uk...

Odd that that evidence exists but the (supposedly) more recent, much larger, event left no traces here in Britain? Indeed, we have no legends or stories of such an event. Perhaps the global flood missed Britain? Perhaps the Biblical flood did occur, and did destroy the "whole world" so far as the survivors were concerned - but for a given definition of "whove world" ie the world they knew. The local area. But not the whole planet ....

This may also explain why Noah did not need to fetch stromatolites and duck billed platypuses and three-toed sloths for his ark?