The Flood of Noah's Day

[CoreyD]

OK. Let's start with the silt. Where's the silt from a supposed Global Flood? All of the mud and muck stirred up by the violence of rushing water would have settled creating a think layer of silt. We should see a world wide layer from an event like that. Where is it? It's either there or it's not. It would be clear as day for all to see if it actually existed. Even more so from a global flood event that supposedly happened only 4000 years ago. We need something, anything, to interpret before we can to any further. Show me the silt from your Global Flood.

One step at a time? That's good. We can do that.

Show me that you are not seeing the evidence of a worldwide flood, in the data I provided?
If the evidence is misinterpreted, would those who gave you that information, see what you are looking for?
Are you claiming that evidence cannot be misinterpreted?
If not, then arguing over who got the evidence interpreted correctly, will take us nowhere. Would you agree?

Can we take the next step then?
Many ancient civilizations, including the Egyptians, Greeks, Chinese, and indigenous peoples of the Americas, have flood legends that share striking similarities with the Genesis account. These stories often include a few survivors who escape in a vessel and the global destruction of life by water. For example, the Epic of Gilgamesh, a well-known Mesopotamian text, includes a flood narrative that closely mirrors the Genesis story, albeit with notable differences. The widespread nature of these flood traditions across diverse cultures strengthens the argument that they stem from a common historical event—the global Flood described in Genesis.

References to this event as historical, are made by persons living centuries after.
What explanation do you have for this, and why do you not count this as evidence of a historical global flood?

 

[dlamberth]

One step at a time? That's good. We can do that.

Show me that you are not seeing the evidence of a worldwide flood, in the data I provided

Direct evidence of a world wide flood would be seen in a thick layer of silt, that's what I asked for and which you have not provided.

I've seen no data from you regarding a Noah Global Flood. The article certainly provides no such data.

If the evidence is misinterpreted, would those who gave you that information, see what you are looking for?
Are you claiming that evidence cannot be misinterpreted?
If not, then arguing over who got the evidence interpreted correctly, will take us nowhere. Would you agree?

Can we take the next step then?
Many ancient civilizations, including the Egyptians, Greeks, Chinese, and indigenous peoples of the Americas, have flood legends that share striking similarities with the Genesis account. These stories often include a few survivors who escape in a vessel and the global destruction of life by water. For example, the Epic of Gilgamesh, a well-known Mesopotamian text, includes a flood narrative that closely mirrors the Genesis story, albeit with notable differences. The widespread nature of these flood traditions across diverse cultures strengthens the argument that they stem from a common historical event—the global Flood described in Genesis.

References to this event as historical, are made by persons living centuries after.
What explanation do you have for this, and why do you not count this as evidence of a historical global flood?

Local floods.

 

[sjastro]

One step at a time? That's good. We can do that.

Show me that you are not seeing the evidence of a worldwide flood, in the data I provided?
If the evidence is misinterpreted, would those who gave you that information, see what you are looking for?
Are you claiming that evidence cannot be misinterpreted?
If not, then arguing over who got the evidence interpreted correctly, will take us nowhere. Would you agree?

Can we take the next step then?
Many ancient civilizations, including the Egyptians, Greeks, Chinese, and indigenous peoples of the Americas, have flood legends that share striking similarities with the Genesis account. These stories often include a few survivors who escape in a vessel and the global destruction of life by water. For example, the Epic of Gilgamesh, a well-known Mesopotamian text, includes a flood narrative that closely mirrors the Genesis story, albeit with notable differences. The widespread nature of these flood traditions across diverse cultures strengthens the argument that they stem from a common historical event—the global Flood described in Genesis.

References to this event as historical, are made by persons living centuries after.
What explanation do you have for this, and why do you not count this as evidence of a historical global flood?

Since I am probably on your ignore list this post will not get a response from you hence this is for the benefit of others.
Apparently you missed the elephant in the room in order for these ancient civilizations and peoples to have experienced the flood as a common historical event, they would have had to occur at the same time.
Where is your evidence to support this?
If these floods were real events recorded as oral traditions and in some cases put down in writing, they were most likely describing local floods which occurred at different times.

A study was performed on the oral traditions of various indigenous peoples in Australia pertaining to their description of the flood.
These people occupied different regions of Australia and where scientists found evidence of flooding through sedimentation they found the oral traditions do not refer to a single flood but a number of floods dating 7500 to 13,400 years ago.

​

Finally a word on ancient Egypt's supposed global flood story, this is total rubbish.
The ancient Egyptians invented the nilometer during the Old Kingdom which was a device used to measure the annual Nile floods.
The Egyptians recorded their floods on a year to year basis which was a local not global event.

 

[CoreyD]

Direct evidence of a world wide flood would be seen in a thick layer of silt, that's what I asked for and which you have not provided.

I've seen no data from you regarding a Noah Global Flood. The article certainly provides no such data.

There is no direct evidence for anything you are asking for, or making a claim for.
Direct Evidence is a body of facts that directly supports the truth of an assertion without intervening inference.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact.

Do you understand the difference?

Data is a collection of facts, observations, or other information related to a particular question or problem.

I've seen no data from you regarding a Noah Global Flood

That however is not true, is it? I provided you with that data, but you do not have to accept it.
We don't accept a lot of things, and everyone certainly has that right.

Local floods.

Have you seen what was writen?
Of the 200 flood myths, 95 percent mention a global flood. In 70 percent, a boat serves as the sanctuary, and in over half, the survivors end up on a mountain, and some refer to repopulating the earth.

Scholars try to link some of these to river floods, but they do not explain why most of these myths are global... even covering mountains.
The idea that these flood myths describe local floods, is based on a bias toward the current consensus of the science community, and not based on the data itself.

The individuals who later referred to the flood of Noah's day, did not refer to local floods. They had no particular bias.

One of those individuals was Jesus Christ. Rather than contradict his father - God, Jesus supported his father's word.

 

[dlamberth]

There is no direct evidence for anything you are asking for, or making a claim for.
Direct Evidence is a body of facts that directly supports the truth of an assertion without intervening inference.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact.

That's what I've been saying. There is no evidence, none what's so ever, there's nothing at all that supports a Global Noah Flood. There is no Direct Evidence, there is no body of facts there isn't even any circumstantial evidence that even hints of a Global Noah Flood. A total lack of evidence is the evidence.

 

[CoreyD]

That's what I've been saying. There is no evidence, none what's so ever, there's nothing at all that supports a Global Noah Flood. There is no Direct Evidence, there is no body of facts there isn't even any circumstantial evidence that even hints of a Global Noah Flood. A total lack of evidence is the evidence.

You do not seem to understand.
A body of facts is what is called evidence.
That evidence does not have to be verified to be true, or false, in order for it to be evidence, or a body of facts.

For example, say you found biscuit crumbs in your son's pants pocket, and at the same time, you believe biscuits are missing from your biscuit tin.
Suppose you also found that your son lied to you.
While that is evidence - a body of facts, it needs to be verified, and it may actually turn out that he evidence does not support what you believe.

That evidence is circumstantial. It does not directly point to your son as having taken biscuits from your biscuit tin.
Direct evidence would be actually catching your son in the act.

If you understand that, evidence for a global flood does not need to be verified, in order for it to be evidence.
If you believe evidence, is only what is verified, then there is no evidence for LUCA, Abiogenesis, or the idea that all life came from one common ancestor.
Moreover, people do not accept the claim that there is evidence for such, so there cannot be any... according to your conclusion.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Are you being obtuse on purpose? The idea of a global flood in the age of humans is not a serious idea. It is not supported by evidence and no child should ever be taught it.

You like making statements that you claim are based on some evidence that you never share.

I don't recall the first time I found out some people believed such things, but I'm sure it was baffling.

Your claim was that the rocks proved that there was no global Flood event - yet refuse to share what led you to believe that.

You also stated that if I made a similar claim in support of a global Flood event - yet refused to share the evidence - that I would be full of it.

You not agreeing with people that believe in a global Flood event is not relevant.

Like most children I learned about the actual history of the Earth, not some tale about a flood killing everyone.

You mean killing almost everyone - right?

You claimed that you knew the Biblical narrative - but you keep making claims not supported by it.

I have no use for faith.

You and everyone else on the planet live by faith. You not realizing that does not change that fact.

I certainly alluded to it.

I mean - I guess mentioning unspecified "books, lessons and TV shows" could be "alluding" - but that would be a stretch.

Demonstrating something *didn't* happen requires a lot of data, and yet the early geologists pulled it off about 200 years ago.

I never asked for that. I asked for you to share what convinced you. What you saw in the rocks.

You claimed that there was evidence in the rocks that proved that something did not happen.

Do you actually know this for yourself, or do you just have faith in the people who wrote those unspecified books? Gave those unspecified lesson? Wrote those unspecified TV shows?

The problem for what you want from me (a non-geologist) is that the only kind of books that you are going to find that directly challenge the notion of a global flood are those intended to debunk the specific religous position you hold, and you might find such a text to be an attack on your beliefs.

As I said before - you should really stop lumping me in with other Christians and Creationists.

I have not shared my beliefs in regard to the global Flood or the age of the Earth.

And what I wanted from you was to share what had convinced you - yet it seems that you have been telling me all along - you have faith in those who told you these things - but you do not know it for yourself.

The other things would be standard geology texts which cover the full geological history of the Earth and will just not mention what didn't happen.

If that is the case - then perhaps you should not make the claim that the rocks have proven that certain things did not happen?

I mean - since these geology texts aren't making those kinds of claims - why are you?

It isn't about fear. It isn't even about pity. I no longer have pity for those who reject facts.

You say "facts" - but I am hearing beliefs.

All you have offered me is, "Trust me bro"

Check the context of the old post it was about "a fact".

You made the claim that it was an "established scientific fact" that "the rocks have claimed that there was no global Flood event." That was the context.

So - when I quoted you making that claim - I then claimed that it was a "fact" that you could not share.

It was then that you tried to obfuscate and backpedal - trying to claim that you never said it was a "fact" when you did.

I have no idea what this ramble was about. I got bored and stopped reading.

You know exactly what I was saying. I was pointing out all your attempts to distract from the fact that you could not support what you claimed. This is just more running away.

Distraction from the non-existent flood?

If you actually read what I wrote I said that it was a distraction "from the fact that you cannot back up the initial claim that you made."

Basically - you claimed that the rocks told us that no global Flood event happened - I asked you to provide evidence of that claim - and you have been trying to distract everyone from the fact that you cannot do that.

And that is fine - just own it.

Faith is useless to me.

You live by it. Sorry.

 

[David Lamb]

That's what I've been saying. There is no evidence, none what's so ever, there's nothing at all that supports a Global Noah Flood. There is no Direct Evidence, there is no body of facts there isn't even any circumstantial evidence that even hints of a Global Noah Flood. A total lack of evidence is the evidence.

But the evidence is there. It's just interpreted differently by those who believe what Genesis says about the Flood and by those who don't. For instance, fossils of marine creatures on the tops of mountains, the "out of order" arrangements of some rock strata.

 

[BCP1928]

But the evidence is there. It's just interpreted differently by those who believe what Genesis says about the Flood and by those who don't. For instance, fossils of marine creatures on the tops of mountains, the "out of order" arrangements of some rock strata.

That sounds good, but the devil is in the details. If conventional science has a better, more coherent, explanation for the evidence than creation science--one that has predictive ability--then it's the conventional scientific theory which will be accepted.

It's telling that no working geologists, even Christian geologists, working geologists who have to find minerals to make a living use the flood model in their work. They all use the conventional model.

 

[David Lamb]

That sounds good, but the devil is in the details. If conventional science has a better, more coherent, explanation for the evidence than creation science--one that has predictive ability--then it's the conventional scientific theory which will be accepted.

It's telling that no working geologists, even Christian geologists, working geologists who have to find minerals to make a living use the flood model in their work. They all use the conventional model.

There are scientists involved with such organisations as the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis who fully believe in a world-wide flood. ICR includes:

Tim Clarey, Ph.D.​

Research Associate - Geology​

and

John D. Morris, Ph.D.​

President Emeritus - Geology​

B.S., Civil Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia 1969
M.S., Geological Engineering, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 1977
Ph.D., Geological Engineering, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 1980

I should say that I don't know these men personally.

 

[BCP1928]

There are scientists involved with such organisations as the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis who fully believe in a world-wide flood. ICR includes:

Tim Clarey, Ph.D.​

Research Associate - Geology​

and

John D. Morris, Ph.D.​

President Emeritus - Geology​

B.S., Civil Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia 1969
M.S., Geological Engineering, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 1977
Ph.D., Geological Engineering, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 1980

I should say that I don't know these men personally.

Of course there are. But how many are working for oil and mineral exploration companies using flood geology models?

 

[sjastro]

But the evidence is there. It's just interpreted differently by those who believe what Genesis says about the Flood and by those who don't. For instance, fossils of marine creatures on the tops of mountains, the "out of order" arrangements of some rock strata.

Why are these fossils only found atop of mountains where there is or has been tectonic activity?

Similarly why are "out of order" rock strata only found in the same regions?

The chances of fossils being found increases when excavations occur.
Why are marine fossils found in the coastal regions of the Hawaiian islands but not atop of Mauna Kea despite major excavations over the decades in the construction of astronomical observatories?

 

[dlamberth]

But the evidence is there. It's just interpreted differently by those who believe what Genesis says about the Flood and by those who don't. For instance, fossils of marine creatures on the tops of mountains, the "out of order" arrangements of some rock strata.

Point out where marine fossils are found on top of mountains and I can tell you the geology on how they got there. Can you do the same with Noah Flood geology? Is there even such a thing as Noah Flood Geology? A person can point out stuff like marine fossils, but what is the Earth actually showing us about them like their age and how they got there.

Any unconformity of the geologic column are hundred's of million years ago, In other areas as much as 1.5 billion years ago. Much older than the 4000 year ago supposed Noah Global Flood. But also when looking at the whole of the earth, all of the columns exist. One may be missing in one local, but found in another.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You like making statements that you claim are based on some evidence that you never share.
Your claim was that the rocks proved that there was no global Flood event - yet refuse to share what led you to believe that.

You keep making this wierd claim/challenge. I'm not sure how more simply I can explain it, but let me try just one more time:

I was a child and I learned about the history of the Earth. I learned it in school. I learned it from science shows on TV. I read about it in the encyclopedia and in other books. This I have already told you. It is entirely unexceptional. There is no moment of revelation, no "Aha!" or "Eureka!". I'm sure you must have learned some true things in the same fashion as a child.

 

[Gene2memE]

There are scientists involved with such organisations as the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis who fully believe in a world-wide flood. ICR includes:

Tim Clarey, Ph.D.​

Research Associate - Geology​

and

John D. Morris, Ph.D.​

President Emeritus - Geology​

B.S., Civil Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia 1969
M.S., Geological Engineering, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 1977
Ph.D., Geological Engineering, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 1980

I should say that I don't know these men personally.

These men also are required to ascribe to the organisations' various statements of faith:

Foundational Principles

www.icr.org

Statement of Faith

answersingenesis.org

I'll also note that Dr Clarey, when not publishing in creationist materials, accepts a deep time model of the history of the earth. This paper acknowledges sedimentary deposits in Europe that are up to 600 million years old. Same thing in this paper on South American geology.

 

[David Lamb]

Of course there are. But how many are working for oil and mineral exploration companies using flood geology models?

I am afraid I don't know whether they are working for oil and mineral exploration companies, but whoever they work for, their beliefs in the Flood seem firmly held, and I have no reason to imagine that they say they believe it, then don't live out tat belief in the workplace.

 

[CoreyD]

I am afraid I don't know whether they are working for oil and mineral exploration companies, but whoever they work for, their beliefs in the Flood seem firmly held, and I have no reason to imagine that they say they believe it, then don't live out tat belief in the workplace.

Yes, David. I think that should be obvious to everyone.

Creation 101: Geology Part 1

Geology is one of the most advanced disciplines of creation science. There are at least two reasons for this. First, the Bible gives some very specific details about the Earth’s geological past, including some specifics of the original creation of the planet, and also many details pertaining to the global flood. These historical facts have enabled creation scientists to develop detailed geological models. We are able to explain things like plate tectonics, volcanos, the geologic column, and the ice age in light of the history recorded in Genesis.​

Using Bible history to interpret the rocks and landscapes

How biblical geology changes the way we look at our world​

With this geological framework we can interpret the rocks in the field. Every rock on earth today must fit somewhere on this framework because the rock-scale covers the entire history of the earth. The details of how we do this are not covered in this article, but you can find some insights in this article about the basement rocks of the Brisbane area and the one on the rocks of the Great Artesian Basin. We will use the latter as an example here.​

​

Once we have connected the geology we can develop a geological history of an area that is consistent with the Bible, as illustrated with this geological history of the Brisbane area, Australia. In fact we can develop a preliminary reinterpretation of the geological column (see figure 4 on the article about Wilpena Pound) which will enable us to understand news reports, tourist information and geological reports within the biblical framework.​

ICR is currently working with a model based on the flood of Noah's day.

 

[CoreyD]

These men also are required to ascribe to the organisations' various statements of faith:

Foundational Principles

www.icr.org

Statement of Faith

answersingenesis.org

I'll also note that Dr Clarey, when not publishing in creationist materials, accepts a deep time model of the history of the earth. This paper acknowledges sedimentary deposits in Europe that are up to 600 million years old. Same thing in this paper on South American geology.

It's their livelihood.
I am reminded of children in school, who submit work with answers the teacher expects, only because to give the "wrong" answer would result in instant failure.
It does not change their personal work, and views.

 

[David Lamb]

Yes, David. I think that should be obvious to everyone.

Creation 101: Geology Part 1

Geology is one of the most advanced disciplines of creation science. There are at least two reasons for this. First, the Bible gives some very specific details about the Earth’s geological past, including some specifics of the original creation of the planet, and also many details pertaining to the global flood. These historical facts have enabled creation scientists to develop detailed geological models. We are able to explain things like plate tectonics, volcanos, the geologic column, and the ice age in light of the history recorded in Genesis.​

Using Bible history to interpret the rocks and landscapes

How biblical geology changes the way we look at our world​

With this geological framework we can interpret the rocks in the field. Every rock on earth today must fit somewhere on this framework because the rock-scale covers the entire history of the earth. The details of how we do this are not covered in this article, but you can find some insights in this article about the basement rocks of the Brisbane area and the one on the rocks of the Great Artesian Basin. We will use the latter as an example here.​

​

Once we have connected the geology we can develop a geological history of an area that is consistent with the Bible, as illustrated with this geological history of the Brisbane area, Australia. In fact we can develop a preliminary reinterpretation of the geological column (see figure 4 on the article about Wilpena Pound) which will enable us to understand news reports, tourist information and geological reports within the biblical framework.​

ICR is currently working with a model based on the flood of Noah's day.

Thanks for that. Yes, it's really good to know such qualified scientists fully believe the biblical account of the Flood.

 

[BCP1928]

I am afraid I don't know whether they are working for oil and mineral exploration companies, but whoever they work for, their beliefs in the Flood seem firmly held, and I have no reason to imagine that they say they believe it, then don't live out tat belief in the workplace.

An example has just been posted, and--off the top of my head--Steve Austin has also done old Earth work. My favorite is John Woodmorappe, creator of hydroplate theory and and popular YEC author. Woodmorappe is the pseudonym of an atheist high school science teacher in Chicago who writes for the money.