A global flood.

[lands21]

A global flood. A topic struggled with by Christians and Atheists alike. Did it really happen? Or was it simply a metaphor? Was it global or did it just cover the known earth of that time? Is there evidence for the flood? These are great questions, and questions that I needed to answer.

I come from a traditional Christian home and have historically taken a literal view of Genesis. However, God has given me a desire to be better able to answer questions like those posted above and I did not want to take other peoples word for it, I wanted to check the sources, follow the leads, and come to an independent conclusion. A conclusion I believed in, and am able to defend, both on a spiritual and intellectual basis.

I decided to start with the most basic of questions: Did the flood even happen? If you look at Scripture (Genesis 6 – 8), you can only come to the conclusion that it did occur and that it was in fact a global flood. “The flood got worse until all the highest mountains were covered – the high water mark reached 20 ft above the crest of the mountains.” That would place the water approx 29,049 ft deep, 20 ft higher then Everest. Genesis goes on “Everything died. Anything that moved – dead. Birds, farm animals, wild animals, the entire teaming exuberance of life – dead. And all the people – dead. Every living breathing creature that lived on dry land died; He wiped out the whole works – people and animals, crawling creatures and flying birds, every last one of them, gone. Only Noah and his company on the ship lived. The floodwaters took over for 150 days.” To me, it sounds like the author is taking a painstaking effort to stress the global effect of this flood.

For a Christian, the Bible is the source of all truth and knowledge. Therefore this would be enough. Or, even if there was still doubt we could further evaluate the rest of Scripture to see what is said about the flood. Verses like Job 22:15-16, Is. 54:9, Luke 3:36, or Matt. 24:37-38. So, for the dedicated Christian, there can not be any doubt. To deny the global flood places our entire belief system at risk.

Here the questions could end, but I think an entire audience has been left out. What about the large group of people who do not believe Scripture to be the source of truth. In fact, they may even believe the Bible to be a complete lie? The questions that are usually posed consist of: are there proofs of a global flood outside of Scripture? How do global flood legends compare with the Bible’s account? What did the ark look like and was it big enough to carry two of all the animals? If so, how did Noah gather all the animals? How could fresh water fish survive a flood? How could Noah and his family take care of all the animals and themselves? That and other questions that arise during my research is what I plan to focus on for the remainder of this search.

Please understand, for me Scripture is my final authority on all things. Therefore, I am not worried about searching the unknown (or at least unknown to me) for I already know the outcome. The excitement is everything you learn on the journey and all the new questions that will be raised. If, at anytime during the reading of this, you have questions or you feel I have not addressed a topic sufficiently, please write it down and follow up on it. Do not take this lightly; these questions are a matter of life and death. If Christians are wrong, then atheist Quentin Smith was right when he said “We came from nothing, by nothing, for nothing.” But, if Christians are right, well then, things are very different.

With that, let’s begin…








1) Are there proofs of a global flood outside of Scripture?

The simple answer to this question is yes, and lots of it. However, a lot of it requires an understanding or desire to understand geology. Though I have the desire, my knowledge is limited and instead of me just copying and pasting the answers, I will send you direct to the source: http://www.globalflood.org/. Here Dr. John Baumgardner has collected a “selection of the massive evidence that supports the reality of the biblical flood” and given a “clear description of a tectonic mechanism for this cataclysm as well as current modeling results.” If you can understand that last sentence or would like to be able to, www.globalflood.org is a great place to start. Another great source is http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp where it is presented in more of a Q&A format. Some of the information I present in this article has come from these two sources.

2) How do global flood legends compare with the biblical account of the flood?

At first this question did not sit right with me, I did not really care what other legends or cultures said about a flood because I did not believe the rest of their beliefs to be true. But as I started to think about it, I developed in my mind a “lying logic”. The thinking that if 10 people tell a story that has been passed on to them as history and all 10 stories have one single aspect that is the same, you can logically assume that one point is accurate. Now if you take that thinking past 10 stories, and make it 100 or 1000, the strength of this single “truth” becomes compelling. As it turns out, I was not the first to think of this. Anthropologists believe that myths come from faded memories and when two separate cultures have similar aspects in a myth; their ancestors must have the same history.

With my “lying logic” and support from the Anthropology community, I present the Inca’s of (what is known today as) Peru. The Inca Empire extended along the Pacific coast and Andean highlands of South America from the northern border of modern Ecuador, through all of Peru, and as far south as the Maule River in central Chile. We do not know how long the Inca’s had survived there as they were mostly destroyed by the Spanish in 1532-1562. They believed that their creator god, Viracocha, decided to make a world for great giants called men. He crafted these giants out of stone and then gave them life. At first everything seemed to be going fine but after some time the giants began to fight between themselves and refused to work, thus causing Viracocha to destroy them. Some he turned into stone, others he killed with a global flood. They had a well documented account of the flood, saying that it “perished all races of men and created things insomuch that the waters rose above the highest mountain peaks in the world.” It goes on to say “no living thing survived except a man and a women who remained in a box and, when the waters subsided, the wind carried them to land.”

There are many more cultures with stories and beliefs that I could tell you about. But I think the example above and the results of a study Dr John Morris completed of 200 flood legends from various groups around the world will suffice:

Common themes from Flood Myths:

1. Was there a favored family? 88%
2. Were they forewarned? 66%
3. Is flood due to wickedness of man? 66%
4. Is the catastrophe only a flood? 95%
5. Was the flood global? 95%
6. Is survival due to a boat? 70%
7. Were animals also saved? 67%
8. Did animals play any part? 73%
9. Did survivors land on a mountain? 57%
10. Were birds sent out? 35%
11. Was the rainbow mentioned? 7%
12. Did survivors offer a sacrifice? 13%
13. Were specifically eight persons saved? 9%

3) What did the ark look like and was it big enough to carry two of all the animals?

Genesis 6 gives us the following: “The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high. 16 Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit high all around. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. 17” There where 2 size ranges for cubits: common (450mm) and the longer (520mm) royal. Without us finding the ark, it is impossible for us to determine the exact size Noah’s ark. However, it is known that the royal cubit has dominated major building projects of the earliest peoples (example: Tower of Babel, Pyramids of Giza) and therefore is the logical choice for Noah. Some have argued that because the common cubit is used in most Hebrew construction sites, Noah must have also used the same, but there is something wrong with that statement; Noah is not Hebrew. He built the ark in a different time and a different country. However, to silence the critics, most models / studies have still purposely been completed using the smaller common cubit, thus making is more difficult. I will also use the common cubit for my research.

So, was it big enough to carry two of all the animals? With the measurements used above, the ark’s volume was about 1.54 million cubic feet, for perspective, this is about the same as 522 standard railroad stock cars, which can each hold 240 sheep. So could 522 stock cars hold all the animals? For this we need to look at Genesis 6:19 NLT “Bring a pair of every kind of animal” Did you catch it? Noah was not told to bring every animal, but every kind of animal or in today’s terms, each “family” or “genera”. For example, horses, zebras and donkeys are of the same kind. Dogs, wolves, coyotes, and jackals are also the same kind. John Woodmorapppe’s book Noah’s Ark: A feasible study narrows down all today’s species to approx 8,000 kinds of animals (also called Micro Evolution). This would put 16,000 animals on the ark. Furthermore most animals are small, only a few dozen kinds of animals are larger then sheep (plus the fact that no where does God tell Noah to take full grown or older animals. That would mean that the larger animals could be taken in as much smaller infants. This would also make sense as it would be their task to repopulate the world. A younger generation would have better success with this then an older generation that just spent a year on a boat). So, was it big enough? Let’s look at the math:

350 cc x 50 cc x 30 cc = 1.54 million cubic feet (c = common cubit)
1.54 million cubic feet = 522 standard railroad stock cars
1 standard railroad stock cars can hold 240 sheep
522 standard railroad stock cars can hold 125,280 sheep
Average animal = Average size of a Sheep
Animals actually kept on the Ark: 18,000

The ark was easily big enough for all the kinds of animals. Not to mention that the above assumptions are based upon the common cubit and not the royal cubit which would add approx 13% to the capacity!




More to come…

 

[Mallon]

I'm not going to reply to the apologetics you've brought up because none of them are new and they've all been dealt with handedly before.

I do want to ask you about this, however:

I am not worried about searching the unknown (or at least unknown to me) for I already know the outcome.

Isn't this plea to ignorance in-and-of-itself not Scriptural, given that God wishes us to seek out the truths He has hidden from us?

It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

A topic struggled with by Christians and Atheists alike.

i know of no reason for an atheist to struggle with the issue. It was throughly disproven 200 years ago by Christians.

For a Christian, the Bible is the source of all truth and knowledge.

this is not true. the canon itself is not part of the Bible, the very list of what you believe is part of the Scriptures is itself part of history, not the text. the Bible is the source of authoritative spiritual and religious knowledge. it doesn't teach auto mechanics or computer science for two examples.

1) Are there proofs of a global flood outside of Scripture?

The simple answer to this question is yes, and lots of it.
you are reading lies. there is NO scientific evidence for a global flood within the last 10kya. If you really desire to read the truth start with Davis Young's _The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence_, i personally know of no better a beginning point.

There are many more cultures with stories and beliefs that I could tell you about.

there are actually some good anthropological studies showing that this is not really the case. i'd start reading at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
on this issue.

Do not take this lightly; these questions are a matter of life and death.

no they aren't. you can be a Christian and disbelieve the universal and global flood ideal of YECists like Morris et al. and not have an iota of problems with the faith. it is not a salvation issue. not even close to it.
my evidence? there is not a single creed for a major denomination that makes accepting a global flood an essential doctrine to be a Christian.

 

[JohnR7]

I decided to start with the most basic of questions: Did the flood even happen?
If you look at Scripture (Genesis 6 – 8), you can only come to the conclusion that it did occur and that it was in fact a global flood.

There are other conclusions you can come to. Esp if you understand science and have a basic understanding of what was going on at the time.

We know that the glaciers push earth and rock a head of them. In some cases when the ice melted the natural land dams held back the water. In this part of the world there are a lot of mountains that would have held the water back also.

We have situations like that today in various parts of the world due to the global warming. For thousands of years the water has been held back. But now more ice is melting and there is a concern that the natural dams holding the water back will break and flood the towns and the people who are below that area.

Of course now it is easy enough to go in with some pipe and create a little suction and drain off some of that excess water so it is not so much of a danger. I am not so sure that was an option in Noahs day. It could be that he kept trying to warn the people of the danger and they did not want to listen to him.

The evidence tends to show that Noah's flood was more of a local flood. But there could have been a lot of water involved. At least 5,000 feet of water in that part of the world. But there is no evidence that the whole world was covered with 5,000 feet of water.

The water level went up maybe 5 or 600 feet at end of the last ice age. But there is no evidence of the whole world being covered with water 4,000 years ago.

The logical conclusion is that the Bible is true. Noah was a real person and there was a real flood. But from our perspective today, looking back on it, we would consider it to be more of a local flood.

Of course Noah had a different perspective. Also in terms of the allegory the meaning was to represent the whole world. We know that people like to eat fish, people like to live at sea level. So we do not know how much of the world's population was destroyed at the end of the last ice age.

Every living breathing creature that lived on dry land died;

The Bible here refers to a breath of life. It is a referance to the life that was in Eden. It is not a referance to the world that was here before God created Eden. The life that God created in Eden was different.

This really throws science off because there are a lot of things they can only trace back 6,000 years. You have sheep and goats and cattle that just do not have a record in the DNA for being here longer then 6,000 years. So science will try to claim their origion is unknown.

To me, it sounds like the author is taking a painstaking effort to stress the global effect of this flood.

The story was written from the perspective of the people who were on the ark. They had no idea what was going on in other parts of the world. They only know from their perspective for the part of the world that they were in. Their world was flooded and only they survived.

 

[Mallon]

This really throws science off because there are a lot of things they can only trace back 6,000 years. You have sheep and goats and cattle that just do not have a record in the DNA for being here longer then 6,000 years. So science will try to claim their origion is unknown.

I'm going to have to go ahead and ask you to please support that claim with references, because it sounds to me like you're just making things up.

 

[Assyrian]

I decided to start with the most basic of questions: Did the flood even happen? If you look at Scripture (Genesis 6 – 8), you can only come to the conclusion that it did occur and that it was in fact a global flood. “The flood got worse until all the highest mountains were covered – the high water mark reached 20 ft above the crest of the mountains.” That would place the water approx 29,049 ft deep, 20 ft higher then Everest. Genesis goes on “Everything died. Anything that moved – dead. Birds, farm animals, wild animals, the entire teaming exuberance of life – dead. And all the people – dead. Every living breathing creature that lived on dry land died; He wiped out the whole works – people and animals, crawling creatures and flying birds, every last one of them, gone. Only Noah and his company on the ship lived. The floodwaters took over for 150 days.” To me, it sounds like the author is taking a painstaking effort to stress the global effect of this flood.

It sounds to me like we have a writer who knew nothing about the earth being a globe, but vividly described a flood that covered the highest hills from horizon to horizon, and wiped out every living creature in the land. If you read it as a global flood, you are reading it in a way it was never intended to be read.

For a Christian, the Bible is the source of all truth and knowledge. Therefore this would be enough. Or, even if there was still doubt we could further evaluate the rest of Scripture to see what is said about the flood. Verses like Job 22:15-16, Is. 54:9, Luke 3:36, or Matt. 24:37-38. So, for the dedicated Christian, there can not be any doubt. To deny the global flood places our entire belief system at risk...

Do any of these verses refer to a global flood?

Please understand, for me Scripture is my final authority on all things. Therefore, I am not worried about searching the unknown (or at least unknown to me) for I already know the outcome.

Perhaps this is not the best way to study any question, scripture or otherwise.

 

[lands21]

The Bible here refers to a breath of life. It is a referance to the life that was in Eden. It is not a referance to the world that was here before God created Eden. The life that God created in Eden was different.

Back that up please

 

[Brennan]

So your case has three parts:

1) The worst 'science' I have ever seen.

2) Myths.

3) Some irrelevant stuff about a boat.

Oh dear.

 

[Calminian]

A topic struggled with by Christians and Atheists alike.

i know of no reason for an atheist to struggle with the issue. It was throughly disproven 200 years ago by Christians.

Er, yes they certainly have. In fact many of these same type of "christians" went on to ostensibly disprove the resurrection and all other biblical miracles. Men like Bishop Spong and members of the Jesus Seminar, along with their naturalistic scientific allies have done quite a number on the Bible (or so they think). Of course there are some that reject Genesis, but still believe the rest of the Bible. They employ the same principals, just more selectively. The most consistent ones, however, reject (or allegorize) the entire canon, at least in regard to the miracles.

I believe their methods are horribly flawed, though. Science is limited due to its necessary assumption of methodological naturalism. The problem is, Bible conveys a miraculous creation, curse, flood, etc.. It’s very logical that scientists, with false presuppositions, would be confused when looking at the physical evidence. Miracles wreak havoc on scientific investigation.

I believe most scientists are interpreting nature wrong in regard to the ancient past. Some very vast and extensive miraculous events took place in the relatively recent past that they have not taken into account. Their methodology prevents them from doing so. The scientific method is very valuable when kept within its limits, but unfortunately gets elevated to the place of religion with some.

I personally look to the historical testimony of scripture for answers about origins. Very credible men have testified of our miracle-working Creator. In fact Jesus claimed to be this Creator. While He was on earth He demonstrated His creation methods. He created wine that usually took much more time to produce. He created bread and dried fish to feed thousands in an instant, not having to wait for a single fish to mature and dry out, nor a field to produce a crop, nor baker to cook it. He healed men of diseases that would have taken modern medical scientists years perhaps (if they could have done anything all). The methods of our Creator will always confound those investigating Him with naturalistic assumptions.

 

[Calminian]

2) How do global flood legends compare with the biblical account of the flood?

At first this question did not sit right with me, I did not really care what other legends or cultures said about a flood because I did not believe the rest of their beliefs to be true. But as I started to think about it, I developed in my mind a “lying logic”. The thinking that if 10 people tell a story that has been passed on to them as history and all 10 stories have one single aspect that is the same, you can logically assume that one point is accurate. Now if you take that thinking past 10 stories, and make it 100 or 1000, the strength of this single “truth” becomes compelling. As it turns out, I was not the first to think of this. Anthropologists believe that myths come from faded memories and when two separate cultures have similar aspects in a myth; their ancestors must have the same history.

With my “lying logic” and support from the Anthropology community, I present the Inca’s of (what is known today as) Peru. The Inca Empire extended along the Pacific coast and Andean highlands of South America from the northern border of modern Ecuador, through all of Peru, and as far south as the Maule River in central Chile. We do not know how long the Inca’s had survived there as they were mostly destroyed by the Spanish in 1532-1562. They believed that their creator god, Viracocha, decided to make a world for great giants called men. He crafted these giants out of stone and then gave them life. At first everything seemed to be going fine but after some time the giants began to fight between themselves and refused to work, thus causing Viracocha to destroy them. Some he turned into stone, others he killed with a global flood. They had a well documented account of the flood, saying that it “perished all races of men and created things insomuch that the waters rose above the highest mountain peaks in the world.” It goes on to say “no living thing survived except a man and a women who remained in a box and, when the waters subsided, the wind carried them to land.”

There are many more cultures with stories and beliefs that I could tell you about. But I think the example above and the results of a study Dr John Morris completed of 200 flood legends from various groups around the world will suffice:

Common themes from Flood Myths:

1. Was there a favored family? 88%
2. Were they forewarned? 66%
3. Is flood due to wickedness of man? 66%
4. Is the catastrophe only a flood? 95%
5. Was the flood global? 95%
6. Is survival due to a boat? 70%
7. Were animals also saved? 67%
8. Did animals play any part? 73%
9. Did survivors land on a mountain? 57%
10. Were birds sent out? 35%
11. Was the rainbow mentioned? 7%
12. Did survivors offer a sacrifice? 13%
13. Were specifically eight persons saved? 9%

Very interesting. I've always found flood legends to be fascinating. The similarities are nothing short of mind boggling (at least from a chance perspective). And there's one universal theme not listed that bears emphasis. It was supernatural in origin. God brought this event on the earth. We don't know the precise mechanisms, nor how many were needed. It could have been a mere domino push in the right place at the very beginning, or perhaps countless supernatural interventions were responsible for starting, sustaining and ending it and perhaps several more to bring the earth back to livable conditions. I'm certainly open to clues from the physical evidence, but miracles just seem to confuse and confound scientific extrapolations. My guess is that this flood was so different than the ones we observe today, it didn't leave the same type of evidence that natural hydrological events leave. But legends like these corroborate the Genesis account quite well. I think science can corroborate the story also, to an extent, but presuppositions seem essential. I think that’s going to be the main obstacle you're going to run into in this forum. I do look forward to the additional evidences you intend to present, be it scientific or otherwise. Great OP.

 

[shernren]

For a Christian, the Bible is the source of all truth and knowledge. Therefore this would be enough. Or, even if there was still doubt we could further evaluate the rest of Scripture to see what is said about the flood. Verses like Job 22:15-16, Is. 54:9, Luke 3:36, or Matt. 24:37-38. So, for the dedicated Christian, there can not be any doubt. To deny the global flood places our entire belief system at risk.

Woohoo, my entire belief system is at risk. Thanks for giving me a heads-up dude.

I would take issue with the statement that "for a Christian, the Bible is the source of all truth and knowledge". If you think about it for a moment, that really isn't quite true, and the Bible itself contradicts that statement:

On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel:
"O sun, stand still over Gibeon,
O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon." So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on [2] its enemies,
as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a man. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel!
(Joshua 10:12-14 NIV)

The Bible recognizes the Book of Jashar as another source of truth and knowledge.

The other events of Jeroboam's reign, his wars and how he ruled, are written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel.
(1 Kings 14:19 NIV)

The Bible recognizes the book of the annals of the kings of Israel as another source of truth and knowledge.

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
(John 21:25 NIV)

Even the Gospel of John admits that it is factually inadequate.

Now, I know what you're trying to say, perhaps it would have been phrased as "for a Christian, the Bible is the most important source of all truth and knowledge". And in a way, now, that would be true. What could be more important than spiritual knowledge of who God is and what our relationship is with Him? And yet in some other ways it isn't true. The way in which you intend to posit the Bible as a source of truth and knowledge is when you intend to make it a source of historical and scientific knowledge.

In some aspects, yes. But like I've said before here: Is science the 67th book? Well, even if it isn't, it comes pretty close. The Bible does not force reality onto us, it takes what we know about reality and interprets it to show us who and where God is.

Having said that, let's look at some of the passages you have cited:

"Is not God in the heights of heaven?
And see how lofty are the highest stars! Yet you say, 'What does God know?
Does he judge through such darkness? Thick clouds veil him, so he does not see us
as he goes about in the vaulted heavens.' Will you keep to the old path
that evil men have trod? They were carried off before their time,
their foundations washed away by a flood. They said to God, 'Leave us alone!
What can the Almighty do to us?' Yet it was he who filled their houses with good things,
so I stand aloof from the counsel of the wicked. "The righteous see their ruin and rejoice;
the innocent mock them, saying, 'Surely our foes are destroyed,
and fire devours their wealth.'
(Job 22:12-20 NIV)

In context, Job 22:15 and 16 are clearly not talking about the Flood at all, for when was the wealth of the Flood victims devoured by fire? The passage clearly deals with the general life of the sinner who is always beset by calamity due to sin. Besides, this speech comes from one of the "theologians" who at the end of Job is told that he spoke wrongly about God, so why should I be too concerned if he is proven wrong in this particular as well?

"To me this is like the days of Noah,
when I swore that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth.
So now I have sworn not to be angry with you,
never to rebuke you again. Though the mountains be shaken
and the hills be removed,
yet my unfailing love for you will not be shaken
nor my covenant of peace be removed,"
says the LORD, who has compassion on you. "O afflicted city, lashed by storms and not comforted,
I will build you with stones of turquoise, [1]
your foundations with sapphires. [2] I will make your battlements of rubies,
your gates of sparkling jewels,
and all your walls of precious stones. All your sons will be taught by the LORD,
and great will be your children's peace.
(Isaiah 54:9-13 NIV)

I suppose you would take stones of turqoise, foundations of sapphires, battlements of rubies, and gates of sparkling jewels literally as well?

As for Luke 3, why can't a genealogy have mythical figures? The Emperor of Japan is officially a descendant of the Sun God, but that doesn't make him any less historical.

As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
(Matthew 24:37 NIV)

And I can say "As it was in the days of Sauron, so it was when the Japanese occupied Malaysia" without making Sauron any more historical or the Japanese Occupation any more mythical.

Er, yes they certainly have. In fact many of these same type of "christians" went on to ostensibly disprove the resurrection and all other biblical miracles. Men like Bishop Spong and members of the Jesus Seminar, along with their naturalistic scientific allies have done quite a number on the Bible (or so they think). Of course there are some that reject Genesis, but still believe the rest of the Bible. They employ the same principals, just more selectively. The most consistent ones, however, reject (or allegorize) the entire canon, at least in regard to the miracles.

And Calminian, I think this is the second or third time I am linking you to this: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=23643223&postcount=46 which is in any case five months old by now. Read and refute or cease and desist.

 

[theFijian]

For a Christian, the Bible is the source of all truth and knowledge.

Actually for the Christian God is the source of all truth and knowledge, the Bible is part of God's revelation.

 

[Brennan]

I believe their methods are horribly flawed, though. Science is limited due to its necessary assumption of methodological naturalism. The problem is, Bible conveys a miraculous creation, curse, flood, etc.. It’s very logical that scientists, with false presuppositions, would be confused when looking at the physical evidence. Miracles wreak havoc on scientific investigation.

Still clinging to that line eh? I think you may be hard pressed to find a situation in which science is 'confused' by the evidence. You are the one making a presupposition - and it is smashed to pieces by the evidence.

 

[Ave Maria]

I personally do not believe that there has ever been a global flood.

 

[KerrMetric]

I believe their methods are horribly flawed,......

I believe most scientists are interpreting nature wrong in regard to the ancient past.......

Spot the key words - "I believe". Not - "I know and can prove this..."

In other words it is the age old appeal from personal incredulity.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The global flood is denied for lack of geological evidence. However, such a flood would not leave uniform worldwide evidence. A fact that is denied by science. The extent of even small local floods often cannot be determined as some areas that were flooded do not appear to have been.

 

[KerrMetric]

The global flood is denied for lack of geological evidence.

Bingo.

However, such a flood would not leave uniform worldwide evidence. A fact that is denied by science.

Not so.

 

[shernren]

The extent of even small local floods often cannot be determined as some areas that were flooded do not appear to have been.

I'm assuming that you have evidence for this.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'm assuming that you have evidence for this.

I believe that science needs to discredit the flood. To admit that it occurred would cast doubt on many scientific assertions.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'm assuming that you have evidence for this.

This is self-evident. Go to the seashore and observe the tides. Some areas reveal destructive, fast moving water that deposit and remove evidence. Others don't.