Scientific Evidence of a Global Flood

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: edmc^2
But still, the question is - do you agree that at one point in time mountains were under water?

Yes, but not 5 - 6000 years ago. More like millions of years ago. Plate tectonics doesn't work that quickly.

So the question really has something to do with or the contradiction is with timeline NOT the Global Flood itself. Isn't it?

That it's a fact that the earth can entirely be covered with water - even high mountain tops.

absolutely not even remotely in the ball park with that assumption. Your example for the Himalayas is a rather good one. The fossilized sea life found high up in the Himalayas was not covered in water while atop the mountains. It was underwater when that sea life was on the ocean floor between two continental plates. 80 million years ago, India was an island approximately 4000km from the Eurasian plate boundary. by 60 MYA it was getting very close to impact. Once the two continental plates collided the immense pressure caused an upheaval in the land because it had nowhere else to go but up. The tops of the mountains were never underwater, not in the way you're trying to portray it. The tops of the mountains used to be the floor of an ancient ocean.

Interesting take.

But you're actually confirming what I'm getting at. That the earth CAN be covered entirely by water!

For instance you said:

"The tops of the mountains were never underwater, not in the way you're trying to portray it. The tops of the mountains used to be the floor of an ancient ocean."


Which means that there was a time where there were no tall mountains. And that they were under water just like what you said.

The Himalayas "...was underwater when that sea life was on the ocean floor between two continental plates.

So a Global Deluge is not far fetch but agrees with scientific facts.

The earth can be completely covered with water.

If fact the Bible says this to be so right from the very beginning:

[Gen 1:2 ASV] 2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters"

Then a division was created between the waters - water above the earth and water on earth.

[Gen 1:6 ASV] 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."

[Gen 1:7, 9 ASV] 7 "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. ...

Then there was a separation between water and land.

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

And that this "water above the firmament" was broken / released during Noah's time to Deluge the earth.

Now just imagine the amount of force that impacted the earth's crust when the "water above the firmament" came falling down from such a high altitude?

Surely the earth's crust would buckle and bend. The tectonic plates will move at considerable force and rate, moving continents to higher elevation while further lowering sea basins. It would also create dramatic climate change such that animals can suddenly froze to death from the north pole to the south pole.

Sound incredible?

Not really because we have evidence of animals being buried alive and frozen to death while grazing.

We have evidence of crust folding.

And so much more.

So really, the Noachian Flood is supported by facts.

You're stretching the facts and twisting my words so badly to assist your own confirmation bias I literally don't even know where to start with this. Ill be back after dinner to dissect this massive misrepresentation of facts. Nothing I said confirms the biblical flood story but really, is there any point in trying to explain the truth to a bible literalist? Your mind is entirely made up with preconceived notions of a foregone conclusion. I will definitely give you credit for originality and coming up with a reply i never would have guessed was coming so in that regard...kudos to you!

a reply to: np6888

You are trying to rationalize away well understood concepts of botany to try and fit in with your god book.

Yes plants, like all living things come in a variety of different forms adapted for different environments. You will find aquatic plants and semi aquatic species which are quite happy with some degree of submersion, even if for only part of the year.

You will not, however, be able to take a species adapted to terrestrial life, put them under thousands of feet of water and expect them to live.

Bamboo is not a tree. It's a grass, and it's one that is quite happy in semi aquatic situations as it has adapted to this kind of environment. It is therefore dishonest to point to such a plant and to hold it up as proof of the flood story, as it is not representative of the great majority of terrestrial plant species.

Even if you took bamboo, which is one of the hardiest, most indestructible plants in the world and put it under thousands of feet of water, guess what would happen? Can you guess? Go on guess..

IT WOULD DIE.

As hardy as it is, and as adapted to semi aquatic environments as it is, the plant still needs oxygen and carbon dioxide and sunlight, and despite what you would like to believe and have others believe, it can not get these in sufficient quantities under a great deal of water.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: edmc^2
But still, the question is - do you agree that at one point in time mountains were under water?

Yes, but not 5 - 6000 years ago. More like millions of years ago. Plate tectonics doesn't work that quickly.

So the question really has something to do with or the contradiction is with timeline NOT the Global Flood itself. Isn't it?

That it's a fact that the earth can entirely be covered with water - even high mountain tops.

absolutely not even remotely in the ball park with that assumption. Your example for the Himalayas is a rather good one. The fossilized sea life found high up in the Himalayas was not covered in water while atop the mountains. It was underwater when that sea life was on the ocean floor between two continental plates. 80 million years ago, India was an island approximately 4000km from the Eurasian plate boundary. by 60 MYA it was getting very close to impact. Once the two continental plates collided the immense pressure caused an upheaval in the land because it had nowhere else to go but up. The tops of the mountains were never underwater, not in the way you're trying to portray it. The tops of the mountains used to be the floor of an ancient ocean.

Interesting take.

But you're actually confirming what I'm getting at. That the earth CAN be covered entirely by water!

For instance you said:

"The tops of the mountains were never underwater, not in the way you're trying to portray it. The tops of the mountains used to be the floor of an ancient ocean."


Which means that there was a time where there were no tall mountains. And that they were under water just like what you said.

The Himalayas "...was underwater when that sea life was on the ocean floor between two continental plates.

So a Global Deluge is not far fetch but agrees with scientific facts.

The earth can be completely covered with water.

If fact the Bible says this to be so right from the very beginning:

[Gen 1:2 ASV] 2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters"

Then a division was created between the waters - water above the earth and water on earth.

[Gen 1:6 ASV] 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."

[Gen 1:7, 9 ASV] 7 "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. ...

Then there was a separation between water and land.

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

And that this "water above the firmament" was broken / released during Noah's time to Deluge the earth.

Now just imagine the amount of force that impacted the earth's crust when the "water above the firmament" came falling down from such a high altitude?

Surely the earth's crust would buckle and bend. The tectonic plates will move at considerable force and rate, moving continents to higher elevation while further lowering sea basins. It would also create dramatic climate change such that animals can suddenly froze to death from the north pole to the south pole.

Sound incredible?

Not really because we have evidence of animals being buried alive and frozen to death while grazing.

We have evidence of crust folding.

And so much more.

So really, the Noachian Flood is supported by facts.

You're stretching the facts and twisting my words so badly to assist your own confirmation bias I literally don't even know where to start with this. Ill be back after dinner to dissect this massive misrepresentation of facts. Nothing I said confirms the biblical flood story but really, is there any point in trying to explain the truth to a bible literalist? Your mind is entirely made up with preconceived notions of a foregone conclusion. I will definitely give you credit for originality and coming up with a reply i never would have guessed was coming so in that regard...kudos to you!

Sure from your point of view it's not a confirmation. But from my pov, it is for the simple fact that mountains as you said

The tops of the mountains used to be the floor of an ancient ocean.

That would equate to as I see it a submerged earth. An earth covered with water.

originally posted by: Sump3
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Would this suffice as enough ocean?

Massive 'ocean' discovered near core of the earth

Another 'ocean' link

So clearly we have the amounts of ocean on and in the earth to cover it. Didn't the bible say the earths "flood gates" were opened?

Well, I have no idea whether or not there was a flood. Wasn't there nor have I explored the topic enough. I care more about taming myself and normalizing those traits which I consider to be good for me and others around me.

I can let you know that there isn't evidence of a global flood in the geologic record. You see, these floods in the OP are detectable, but they are local floods and isolated events. If there had been a global flood, there would be evidence. We know this is the case because we have evidence of other world changing events in the past and there wasn't one 5000 years ago. Not to mention it would be physically impossible for the human race to repopulate. You need at least 600 people to carry on the species.

Also there is the Toba event that wiped out most of the human race, but that wasn't anywhere close to the alleged flood event and it wasn't even a flood that reduced the population.

Toba event

How do we know about that? The geologic record. There is ZERO evidence in the geologic record of a global flood. This isn't really a debate it's just arguing with reality.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: edmc^2
But still, the question is - do you agree that at one point in time mountains were under water?

Yes, but not 5 - 6000 years ago. More like millions of years ago. Plate tectonics doesn't work that quickly.

So the question really has something to do with or the contradiction is with timeline NOT the Global Flood itself. Isn't it?

That it's a fact that the earth can entirely be covered with water - even high mountain tops.

No you are misunderstanding, just because it was all submerged at one point doesn't mean that I am saying that it was all submerged at the same point in time.

a reply to: edmc^2

Just because what is now the Himalayas was part of the sea floor 80 million years ago does not mean that the entire earth was covered in a giant flood at one time. Unless I'm misunderstanding you and if that's the case I do indeed apologize, but the impression I got was that you were arguing from a biblical perspective that Noah's flood was the real deal and the entire planet was covered in its entirety during the span of human beings occupying the earth. I mean the article this thread is predicated on evidence that traces the flood myth to 5,000 BCE or 7,000 years before present if you prefer. The Himalayas are in no way shape or form proof that there was a global flood as described in Genesis. The Himalayas are excellent evidence of plate tectonics and mountain formation but not for a singular world wide flood event. I'm not even comfortable saying that at one time or another that every piece of solid land currently in existence was once under water because due to subduction and vulcanism new land is formed or brought to the surface regularly.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Unless you can actually prove this experiment with the Pando trees, we're going in circles. I mean, now matter how many times I keep saying that you need to prove that "the entire root system" will die, people still can't get it. Botany has proven nothing. In fact, botany has shown that even a single plant will survive for up to a week under water.

Answer me this, the root system of the Pando trees has been around 80,000 years, yet we cannot find even one tree that dates back to around that time, how did this happen? The Native Indians didn't have the tools to cut down the trees in such quantity(and I mean ALL of them), and even if they did cut them down, you still have to show how the trees managed to grow back. Looking at the Pando tree pictures, it doesn't appear that they were cut down at some point. I'm not sure if they can count tree rings at the bottom, but if they can, then you should see evidence of its age there, if they had been around 80,000-60,000 years ago.

If forest fires caused the trees to die, then you should still see evidence in the tree rings, and some of those trees should still survive and have those scar marks, and they should date back to antiquity.

a reply to: peter vlar

Thank you. I can't understand how he can keep denying the obvious. I mean when we discuss evolution, they always come up with the claim that we can't see (macro-)evolution in action. So here he can actually go and see that this is the case himself. He can produce the evidence with a quick trip to Home Depot.

Have they tried this experiment? Submerge a plant underwater. Wait until it's dead, then remove the dead parts in a way such that they can still be revived by the roots. If it grows back, then that means that the roots never died.

originally posted by: np6888
Have they tried this experiment? Submerge a plant underwater. Wait until it's dead, then remove the dead parts in a way such that they can still be revived by the roots. If it grows back, then that means that the roots never died.

Til its dead? I thought the biblical flood was 40 days rain? If you're going to recreate the event your basing your hypothesis on you have to stay true to the original parameters. I can attest from personal experience that you won't have a viable root system. I used to do a lot of indoor and outdoor gardening and neglected to put enough perlite into one of my soil batches which meant I had a serious lack of both aeration end drainage. Te plant in question developed root rot and I lost it quite quickly. And that wasn't even submerged, it was simply over saturated soil. Go down to your local garden center, Home Depot or WalMart and for around $10 or $12 you can run this experiment on your own and document it properly and post your results.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: edmc^2

Just because what is now the Himalayas was part of the sea floor 80 million years ago does not mean that the entire earth was covered in a giant flood at one time. Unless I'm misunderstanding you and if that's the case I do indeed apologize, but the impression I got was that you were arguing from a biblical perspective that Noah's flood was the real deal and the entire planet was covered in its entirety during the span of human beings occupying the earth. I mean the article this thread is predicated on evidence that traces the flood myth to 5,000 BCE or 7,000 years before present if you prefer. The Himalayas are in no way shape or form proof that there was a global flood as described in Genesis. The Himalayas are excellent evidence of plate tectonics and mountain formation but not for a singular world wide flood event. I'm not even comfortable saying that at one time or another that every piece of solid land currently in existence was once under water because due to subduction and vulcanism new land is formed or brought to the surface regularly.

No apologies needed. It's just a conversation.

But if you say that

"Just because what is now the Himalayas was part of the sea floor 80 million years ago does not mean that the entire earth was covered in a giant flood at one time.",

To the contrary.

If "the Himalayas was part of the sea floor 80 million years ago" which mountain range was above water "80 million years ago" then?

Are there any taller mountain peaks other than the Himalayan peaks (including Mt. Everest) 80 million years ago?

Based on the geologic layout you've provided, there are none.

It's illogical to me so say that there was already high mountain peaks when the Himalayan peaks were part of the sea floor 80 million years ago.



In any case, my point is this, if at one point in time the world was under water, why would it be difficult or a stretch of imagination to say that a Global Flood happened?

a reply to: peter vlar

To stick to the original parameters you would need to test the Pando trees themselves with a flood and that's impossible, which is why you can only use plant roots and guess how much longer the Pando trees root system would survive. To me, you need to use a live plant(because the Pando trees already existed) in your example.

Anyway, perhaps this picture gives a better idea:

science.howstuffworks.com...

I'd imagine the root system of the Pando trees is much wider and deeper(there is a reason after all, they have survived for 80,000 years). Why would any root be affected by anything above ground? I'd imagine that the roots can get everything from the soil, which it turns out, is just water.

Another thing is that there are 400 billion trees in the Amazon forest(or the world), you mean to tell me that you can't find one tree older than 6000 years old there or elsewhere? What event could have possibly happened during this time that it appears that anything above ground did not survive past 6000 years? I mean, if the roots can survive for 80,000 years, then it suggests that unless something extraordinarily happened, then the trunks or stems above ground somewhere should be able to survive past 6,000 years.

Then you have to ask, who planted the forest, and why is its age so young, and so on.

originally posted by: edmc^2


No apologies needed. It's just a conversation.

But if you say that

"Just because what is now the Himalayas was part of the sea floor 80 million years ago does not mean that the entire earth was covered in a giant flood at one time.",

To the contrary.

If "the Himalayas was part of the sea floor 80 million years ago" which mountain range was above water "80 million years ago" then?

Are there any taller mountain peaks other than the Himalayan peaks (including Mt. Everest) 80 million years ago?

Yes, while not very impressive these days, the Appalachian mountains were at one time taller than the Himalayas.they formed approximately 480 million years ago during the construction of Pangaea and despite running from upstate New York all the way down toGeorgia, they were once connected to Little Atlas in Morocco. The Appalachians were formed in a collision of plates in a similar fashion as the Himalayas but were taller and are older by about 400 million years. While its hard to be 100% certain, thy were believed to have been over 32,000 ft above sea level.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Based on the geologic layout you've provided, there are none.

It's illogical to me so say that there was already high mountain peaks when the Himalayan peaks were part of the sea floor 80 million years ago.

It's not at all illogical, its only illogical to insist that there were tall mountains already existing where the Himalayas currently are. As shown above the Appalachian mountains had been there for hu dress of millions of years when the Himalayas formed.

In any case, my point is this, if at one point in time the world was under water, why would it be difficult or a stretch of imagination to say that a Global Flood happened?

Because this is about the OP which is based on actual geological data indicating a large localized flood into the Black Sea basin. There just isn't any evidence of one singular worldwide flood of the type described in Genesis. Not since The genus Homo emerged in Africa. In fact the last time the entire planet was covered in water with no dry land was 2.5 billion years ago. Just because you can convince yourself a hypothetical is possible doesn't mean that it actually happened. At least it hasn't happened within the framework of Genesis or the span of time hu,and or archaic humans have been creeping about the earth.

I don't know about evidence, but would it be possible for an comet or asteroid made of mostly water (ice) that was large enough to hit and deposite enough water to cause a worldwide flood?

Or would it melt first in our atmosphere, splashing water, causing a flood? Maybe if it hit the perfect spot the impact itself wouldnt destroy everything. Like say the Himalayas? Maybe they could obsord most of the destructive collision but still leak the massive water from the object?

What if the comet/asteroid melted near the sun and fragmented so that by the time it entered our atmosphere it was simply a ton of water, causing a flood?

Just an idea, im not familiar with the great mathematics and physics behing it. Seems fesable though right?

Im not saying there was a great flood but I think my idea would be the perfect candidate for an earthly flood of the theorized bibblical flood. Who knows if there was one. Usually water leaves evidence. But usually where we have seen evidence of water, water has been grinding that area for a lengthly period. Would there be evidence of a worldwide flood? Maybe under the ocean? Im no expert.

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: peter vlar

To stick to the original parameters you would need to test the Pando trees themselves with a flood and that's impossible, which is why you can only use plant roots and guess how much longer the Pando trees root system would survive. To me, you need to use a live plant(because the Pando trees already existed) in your example.

So Pando was the only type of flora that existed pre flood? There should have been a vast array of plant life living in all types of niches. You should therefore be able to use just about any type of plant to prove your hypothesis that they can survive, completely submerged for 40 days and 40 nights.

Anyway, perhaps this picture gives a better idea:

science.howstuffworks.com...

This really has no bearing whatsoever on what you're claiming though.

I'd imagine the root system of the Pando trees is much wider and deeper(there is a reason after all, they have survived for 80,000 years). Why would any root be affected by anything above ground? I'd imagine that the roots can get everything from the soil, which it turns out, is just water.

You just aren't getting it. If the surface is flooded, the soil soaks it up like a sponge. Like a sponge, the soil has a saturation poi t where it can not hold any more water and becomes over saturated and will suffocate the root system through lack of O2 and over abundance of CO2. With the amount of water you claim existed, it would mean the surface was now coved in water twice as deep as the average depth of the Earths oceans and just as deep as the deepest point of all the oceans in the Marianas Trench. Te amount of pressure from Ll of that water would further compact the soil above the root system speeding up the buildup of CO2 and depletion of oxygen.

Another thing is that there are 400 billion trees in the Amazon forest(or the world), you mean to tell me that you can't find one tree older than 6000 years old there or elsewhere? What event could have possibly happened during this time that it appears that anything above ground did not survive past 6000 years? I mean, if the roots can survive for 80,000 years, then it suggests that unless something extraordinarily happened, then the trunks or stems above ground somewhere should be able to survive past 6,000 years.

Actually, if you would have taken my earlier advice and done a little research on your own you would know that the oldest confirmed age of a tree is 9500 years old.due Diligence is your friend. Try it sometime, really. It doesn't hurt to be well informed.www.sciencedaily.com...

Then you have to ask, who planted the forest, and why is its age so young, and so on.

No, I don't have to ask that because it wasn't your god and the flood story in genesis is just that a parable much like many. Of Jesus alleged teachings.

a reply to: peter vlar

The age of that tree is unconfirmed. Why did they use carbon-dating instead of tree rings? A small change in the amount of carbon can pretty much change the age by half, whereas with tree rings, you can at least assume that they're close.

And yes, you do have to prove why the Amazon forest is so young. If "nature" created it, why do we not see any evidence of the trees past 6000 years?

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Answer me this, the root system of the Pando trees has been around 80,000 years, yet we cannot find even one tree that dates back to around that time, how did this happen? The Native Indians didn't have the tools to cut down the trees in such quantity(and I mean ALL of them), and even if they did cut them down, you still have to show how the trees managed to grow back. Looking at the Pando tree pictures, it doesn't appear that they were cut down at some point. I'm not sure if they can count tree rings at the bottom, but if they can, then you should see evidence of its age there, if they had been around 80,000-60,000 years ago.

If forest fires caused the trees to die, then you should still see evidence in the tree rings, and some of those trees should still survive and have those scar marks, and they should date back to antiquity.

It's easily answered.

Plants like Pando usually have a persistent presence underground in the form of tubers, rhizomes or other modified root systems which can last much longer than the individual stems which is the part we see above ground. These types of plants form clonal colonies - each stem, rosette or growing point sends out lateral underground runners which will at some point bed-in and form a clone of the original. It's a type of asexual reproduction.

Sarraceniae (North American Pitcher Plants) do the same thing, as do grasses.

The Pando root system is 80,000 years old, but the individual stems will only last for about 130 years before they die off naturally.

This is stated quite plainly if you check the wiki entry on Pando. Wiki: Pando (tree)

a reply to: edmc^2

Howdy,

Boy, I leave for a few hours to collect trilobites and I come back to see this thread has been "flooded" with new discussion.

A while back you asked for some information on how fossils got on top of mountains... As a general explanation, here's my post from a few pages before your question where I explained the general process...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

To be more clear, sedimentary rock was once sediment. Sediment is weathered and eroded rock. Before you can have sediment, you must have rocks. The oldest rocks on Earth are igneous rocks, basalts, gabbros, granites... Indeed, these rocks are the hearts of most mountain ranges. Most shales are actually mineralogically equivalent to slightly quartz enriched granites, which fits well with the model of weathering of granite, deposition of sediment (protoshale), lithification from heat and pressure as well as time.

Shall we examine the Appalachian mountains, my home? These "mountains" are comprised of sedimentary rocks, unlike the Andes, which are funnily enough comprised of mostly andesite (an igneous rock). This is because the Appalachian mountains are the eroded remnants of true mountains, and represent the product of three orogenic (mountain building events). See, before the "Appalachian" mountains, there were the product of the Acadian, and before that the products of the Taconic. These three tectonic events are recorded by their "clastic wedges," the sedimentary rocks that represent the long term erosion of sediment from mountain ranges. What is also worth noting is that Pennsylvania was tropical, as evidenced by the multiple limestone strata (one of which I was digging in less than 8 hours ago) that are found in the sedimentary sequences. For some more information on these mountain building events...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

So, Peter was indeed correct. These mountains (as is the case for the Himalayas) were sea floors, which accumulated the sediment of eroding mountains. The mountains themselves were never under water, but the rocks that make them are created from mostly marine accumulations of sediment. I say mostly, because there are actually places where non-marine deposits are quite... mountainous.
www.redrockcanyonlv.org...

So I suppose that also answers a question of whether or not all large units of sedimentary rock are deposited by water, as that is clearly not the case. That said, the Himalayas are not aeolian deposits, as you have pointed out, because they are quite rich in marine fossils. Again, tectonic uplift based on lithospheric density is at play here, not some confangled water-plate theory.

To conclude, the entirety of the world has never been submerged completely by water. It is only difficult or a stretch of the imagination to say that a global flood happened because there simply exists no real evidence for it. Believe me, if there were evidence for it, geologists would have found it by now. Geology started out quite biased by Christian faith.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

a reply to: Sump3

Howdy,

I don't mean to sound rude, but both of your sources refer to molecular water (water as part of the crystal structure of minerals, usually in the form of hydroxide ions), not water water. Check out my below post earlier in this thread for some more info.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

In fact, botany has shown that even a single plant will survive for up to a week under water.

a reply to: np6888

Salt water? If ocean water covered all the land, wouldn't it be salty?