Flood

[Vis Major]

This is a very interesting forum. Some of you seem to have a much better grasp of both science and the Bible than I do. So, for my first post, I'll just ask a question. Assuming no worldwide flood, what evidence is there for a localized flood in an early civilization to account for a flood story in so many traditions?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Here: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html

 

[gentu]

In addition, local floods are common in the birthplaces of many civilizations such as Mesopotamia and the Nile. The conditions that facilitate agriculture often make an area prone to flooding.

 

[Jase]

Well, in order to accept a localized flood, the Bible has to be wrong since it makes it clear that it was Global.

 

[paulewog]

Exactly, Jase.

 

[Arikay]

Unfortunatly, the evidence points to a lack of global flooding.

Then again, if the story was to instil a message and was never ment to be taken literally, then it wouldnt be wrong, would it.

Today at 03:47 PM Jase said this in Post #4

Well, in order to accept a localized flood, the Bible has to be wrong since it makes it clear that it was Global.

 

[Jase]

Today at 06:58 PM Arikay said this in Post #6

Unfortunatly, the evidence points to a lack of global flooding.

Then again, if the story was to instil a message and was never ment to be taken literally, then it wouldnt be wrong, would it.

What evidence? 

 

[WinAce]

There are several topics in this forum that demonstrate the Noachic deluge is falsified by geologic evidence. See the one in my sig, for one.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Today at 11:47 PM Jase said this in Post #4

Well, in order to accept a localized flood, the Bible has to be wrong since it makes it clear that it was Global.

Genesis (literally understood) was wrong; there was no global flood.  Of course, this is only of concern to those who slavishly read the Bible as if every bit of it must be valid history and science.  Our present-day literalists are -- every one of them -- children of an age in which there has been a decided cleavage between logos and mythos.  Sophisticated readers two-thousand years ago had a more malleable sense of what constituted truth and were less likely to be tripped up by literal interpretations.  Presented with overwhelming scientific evidence that no global flood happened, they would likely have shrugged their shoulders and said, "Yes, but the story is true nevertheless," without feeling that they were arguing in favor of a fiction.  I'm reasonably certain that our hypothetical reader from antiquity, steeped in folklore and mythos and not wedded to modern notions of historical accuracy and scientific truth, would look askance at present-day YECs and their sad attempts to substantiate a falsified hypothesis.  To them, the YEC would seem to have entirely missed the point.

 

[paulewog]

and yet, evolutionist people keep having to come up with disasters that must have happene in order for this or that to occur. At least, so I have heard anyways.

They tend to stay away from saying ther ewas ever a global flood though.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Today at 12:09 AM paulewog said this in Post #10

and yet, evolutionist people keep having to come up with disasters that must have happene in order for this or that to occur. At least, so I have heard anyways.

They tend to stay away from saying ther ewas ever a global flood though.

What on earth are you talking about?  Mass extinctions?

 

[Arikay]

Disasters that do have evidence to support them.

Currently most global flood models dont even make sense, and quite often end up contradicting themselves at one point or another.

Today at 04:09 PM paulewog said this in Post #10

and yet, evolutionist people keep having to come up with disasters that must have happene in order for this or that to occur. At least, so I have heard anyways.

They tend to stay away from saying ther ewas ever a global flood though.

 

[Douglaangu]

Which is a problem, since there is no evidence of a global flood.

 

[paulewog]

none?

I'm just rattling off things that come to my ever so brainwashed mind D) and you've probably heard them a million times... but.

-seashells on mountains
-pillow lava on mount ararat (scientists don't believe this one, but a personal friend of my pastor's actually climbed the mountain [he's a scientist also by the way], and found it....)
-polar ice caps...

well can't think of any others at the moment. it's late... in the afternoon..

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Today at 07:09 PM paulewog said this in Post #10

They tend to stay away from saying ther ewas ever a global flood though.

Because it's (1) impossible, (2) unsubstantiated, and (3) falsified.

 

[gentu]

There is no way that sea fossils can be found on the peaks of mountains if a global flood occurred. Unless the water was something like twice the height of the mountains, which is physically impossible anyhow, the global flood would have tended to wash away all forms of sediment to the bottom of mountains as it rose, and again when it rushed off (to wherever that may be). That type of hydrological action is going to wash all sediments to deposits at the lowest point of local elevation. If a global flood occurred, we should see piles and piles of mixed fossils in great deposits of local low elevation, and only that type of fossil. Instead, we have a very specific types of marine fossils that is found on solid rock on the tops of mountains. No T-Rex fossils, no human fossils, no coprolites. A global flood would never fossilize things at its surface.

On the other hand, fossilization under the ocean combined with plate tectonics does produce fossils on mountains.

I don't know of any relevant information about your lava claim (Did he happen to find an ark while he was up there?) but polar ice caps would have broken apart in a global flood and would not have reformed in tens thousands of years.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Today at 07:29 PM paulewog said this in Post #14

none?

I'm just rattling off things that come to my ever so brainwashed mind D) and you've probably heard them a million times... but.

-seashells on mountains
-pillow lava on mount ararat (scientists don't believe this one, but a personal friend of my pastor's actually climbed the mountain [he's a scientist also by the way], and found it....)
-polar ice caps...

well can't think of any others at the moment. it's late... in the afternoon..

Yes, we have heard them quite often. They get refuted and yet come up again and again.

1. Moutains are uplifted rocks that were previously at and/or below sealevel due to plate tectonic processes. Thus, it's perfectly reasonable for marine fauna to be present on the top of a mountain uplifted long ago. It should also be noted that not all mountain ranges have such seashells on their tops and that not all mountain ranges formed at the same time.

2. I have yet to see any documented evidence of pillow lava on Mt. Ararat, but the answer is the same as #1.

3. Polar ice caps are evidence that the poles of the planet have a colder climate than the equatorial and subtropical regions. In no way does it validate your model. Furthermore, there is not enough water on Earth to produce such a flood, and if you are referring to the melting of the ice caps, it still isn't enough water. This has already been discussed in another thread.

And finally:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/41209.html

The above thread contains evidence that is fatal to YECism and flood geology. They are features that CANNOT exist if YECism and the notion that a global flood is responsible for Earth's geologic features are true.

 

[Taffsadar]

Today at 12:29 AM paulewog said this in Post #14

-seashells on mountains

The continental plates are moving around, old sea bottom is now mountains in some places.

Today at 12:29 AM paulewog said this in Post #14

-pillow lava on mount ararat (scientists don't believe this one, but a personal friend of my pastor's actually climbed the mountain [he's a scientist also by the way], and found it....)

Um what? I doesn't understand this ones (ie scientists doing two things at once and what does lava got to do with the flood?)

 

Today at 12:29 AM paulewog said this in Post #14

-polar ice caps... 

Um why? I doesn't understand how they would prove a global flood...

Ice weighs less than water so a part of the ice must be over the surface.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Today at 12:29 AM paulewog said this in Post #14

none?

I'm just rattling off things that come to my ever so brainwashed mind D) and you've probably heard them a million times... but.

-seashells on mountains
-pillow lava on mount ararat (scientists don't believe this one, but a personal friend of my pastor's actually climbed the mountain [he's a scientist also by the way], and found it....)
-polar ice caps...

well can't think of any others at the moment. it's late... in the afternoon..

It is interesting that creationists claim that there is pillow lava 10-15,000 feet high on Mt Ararat as the result of the global flood and then turn around and say that the flood water didn't really have to be all that deep because there were no significant mountains before the flood. I think 15,000 feet is a pretty significant mountain don't you? I have also heard that there is no pillow lava on Mt. Ararat.  You guys really need to get your stories straight.

BTW Leonardo da Vinci first figured out that fossils on mountains are not evidence of a global flood.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/vinci.html

You "evidence" is about 500 years out of date.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Douglaangu]

Seashells on mountains: If a global flood occured, which I assume deposited this shells on the mountains, why don't we find other, larger fossils among the shells?

Pillow lava:Uplift? Anyway, you contradict your self.

Polar ice caps: What? Their existance isnt evidence for a recent global flood. If anything its evidence that no such thing occured.