Evolution or descent with modification?

[the iconoclast]

Your flood would have been limited to lowlands. Not everyone lives there. Most would not even have to climb a small hill. People that did in floods tend to be on the flood plains. By the way, there is a reason that they have that name.


Yes, but if someone claimed that a herd of buffalo just stampeded through their house and you rush over and there is no evidence of such a stamped do you believe him or not? Large scale events DO leave large scale evidence.



Sorry, a real flood would have left real evidence. You have a made up flood.


If there was evidence it would be accepted in the world of science.



Um, no. The problem with a flood is that it ultimately is a claim of a God that lies. Even when I was a Christian I did not believe that God lied. You should be thankful. The Flood story paints God as being rather evil if read literally. As an allegory one can focus on the Noah part of the story.

Hey hey

Why are you allowed to break up this post? You seem to answer this one in a similar manner to my post that was directed at you?

This is an interesting development

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hey hey

Why are you allowed to break up this post? You seem to answer this one in a similar manner to my post that was directed at you?

This is an interesting development

I was responding to a broken up post.

But for clarity, if you want to learn, ask one question per post and I will respond to that one question.

 

[the iconoclast]

I was responding to a broken up post.

But for clarity, if you want to learn, ask one question per post and I will respond to that one question.

Haha nice! I see now....

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I never said uniform evidence. But since the flood was roughly one year long all of the evidence for the flood would have almost exactly the same date. The different floods you are looking at can be dated and their dates will be different.

I disagree. Flood evidence would be different in different parts of the world. Some regions would show lots of erosion and deposition, others not. Materials in suspension would have to mix equally with the floodwater all over the earth. I don't think this would happen. Also the velocity of the flood would mitigate against very much suspended materials, which in any case wouldn't be evident after thousands of years of degradation by natural forces, especially at higher elevations. Also 'inwash' and 'outwash' have to be considered. The flood wasn't a tsunami that washed material far inland. It was rather slow moving. The outwash, or recession, would have floated much more evidence, mainly organic, back to the sea than it would have deposited inland.

 

[Speedwell]

I disagree. Flood evidence would be different in different parts of the world. Some regions would show lots of erosion and deposition, others not. Materials in suspension would have to mix equally with the floodwater all over the earth. I don't think this would happen. Also the velocity of the flood would mitigate against very much suspended materials, which in any case wouldn't be evident after thousands of years of degradation by natural forces, especially at higher elevations. Also 'inwash' and 'outwash' have to be considered. The flood wasn't a tsunami that washed material far inland. It was rather slow moving. The outwash, or recession, would have floated much more evidence, mainly organic, back to the sea than it would have deposited inland.

Yep, basic freshman geology. Geologists know all that already, and how to evaluate and date such events. There is no evidence of a global flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I disagree. Flood evidence would be different in different parts of the world. Some regions would show lots of erosion and deposition, others not. Materials in suspension would have to mix equally with the floodwater all over the earth. I don't think this would happen. Also the velocity of the flood would mitigate against very much suspended materials, which in any case wouldn't be evident after thousands of years of degradation by natural forces, especially at higher elevations. Also 'inwash' and 'outwash' have to be considered. The flood wasn't a tsunami that washed material far inland. It was rather slow moving. The outwash, or recession, would have floated much more evidence, mainly organic, back to the sea than it would have deposited inland.

You are not paying attention. I never said that the layers would not be different.

But the layers would all be the same age. Do you understand this? Once again the flood layers would all be the same age.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You are not paying attention. I never said that the layers would not be different.

But the layers would all be the same age. Do you understand this? Once again the flood layers would all be the same age.

How would this be determined?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How would this be determined?

By various means. For example we can date relative ages by fossils found in a strata. Certain fossils exist at certain times. This occurs down to the microscopic level. No amount of hand waving can explain this relationship since it is not a sorting issue. Along with that we have radiometric dating. Specific layers can be dated at specific spots when there is a layer of volcanic deposits in the strata. Those can be dated absolutely. With enough points all around the world there is a clear correlation between fossils and ages.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yep, basic freshman geology. Geologists know all that already, and how to evaluate and date such events. There is no evidence of a global flood.

They should apply their knowledge to the real flood, not the flood of the imagination of most Christians, which is the flood addressed and debunked by science. Almost every point that science makes against the flood has nothing to do with the actual flood.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

By various means. For example we can date relative ages by fossils found in a strata. Certain fossils exist at certain times. This occurs down to the microscopic level. No amount of hand waving can explain this relationship since it is not a sorting issue. Along with that we have radiometric dating. Specific layers can be dated at specific spots when there is a layer of volcanic deposits in the strata. Those can be dated absolutely. With enough points all around the world there is a clear correlation between fossils and ages.

I meant in regard to the flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They should apply their knowledge to the real flood, not the flood of the imagination of most Christians, which is the flood addressed and debunked by science. Almost every point that science makes against the flood has nothing to do with the actual flood.

No one can find any evidence for this supposed "real flood". We do see evidence for smaller but older floods. And that tell us that there was no "real flood" since a real flood that happened after smaller older floods would in effect write over those older records.

The first geologists that realized that there was no flood were Christians that were looking for evidence of the flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I meant in regard to the flood.

What? Once again, if there was a "real flood" there should be a real record of it. It is not to be seen.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What? Once again, if there was a "real flood" there should be a real record of it. It is not to be seen.

The question is why would the real flood leave such evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The question is why would the real flood leave such evidence?

Because real floods leave evidence. Moving water causes erosion and you are claiming the biggest flood ever on the Earth by several orders of magnitude and yet not one whit of evidence can be found for it. That is why your claim of a real flood occurring is akin to your neighbor claiming that a herd of buffalo just stampeded through his house. A lack of evidence of an event that definitely should have left evidence is evidence against that event.

There should be endless evidence of this flood and yet there is not one whit.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Because real floods leave evidence. Moving water causes erosion and you are claiming the biggest flood ever on the Earth by several orders of magnitude and yet not one whit of evidence can be found for it. That is why your claim of a real flood occurring is akin to your neighbor claiming that a herd of buffalo just stampeded through his house. A lack of evidence of an event that definitely should have left evidence is evidence against that event.

There should be endless evidence of this flood and yet there is not one whit.

According my reading of the narrative, the human history and environment at the time, and the dynamics of hydrology, erosion, suspension, deposition, etc. it is my conclusion that there would be little evidence left by the flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

According my reading of the narrative, the human history and environment at the time, and the dynamics of hydrology, erosion, suspension, deposition, etc. it is my conclusion that there would be little evidence left by the flood.

What on Earth do you base that conclusion on? If you want to kill off everyone except for Noah flooding one single low valley was not going to do it. There was a flood in that area that probably inspired the myth. How do we know that there was a flood and when? It left evidence of its passage:

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth

Please note this would only have affected the few people living in or near the Tigris-Euphrates system. It would not affect Europe, it would not affect most of Asia, it would not affect Africa, Australia or the New World. None of the people that lived there would have been affected by this event. If you want to claim that there was a flood then you put a huge burden of proof upon yourself. If you cannot support your claims you as much as admit that it did not happen.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What on Earth do you base that conclusion on? If you want to kill off everyone except for Noah flooding one single low valley was not going to do it. There was a flood in that area that probably inspired the myth. How do we know that there was a flood and when? It left evidence of its passage:

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth

Please note this would only have affected the few people living in or near the Tigris-Euphrates system. It would not affect Europe, it would not affect most of Asia, it would not affect Africa, Australia or the New World. None of the people that lived there would have been affected by this event. If you want to claim that there was a flood then you put a huge burden of proof upon yourself. If you cannot support your claims you as much as admit that it did not happen.

The flood as described would certainly have affected the entire populated earth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The flood as described would certainly have affected the entire populated earth.

Then there is no doubt that it would have left evidence. Did you read the article in my link? That was a much smaller local flood. Large enough to inspire the myth, but definitely nowhere near the whole Earth. You are firmly entrenched in the Buffalo problem.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then there is no doubt that it would have left evidence. Did you read the article in my link? That was a much smaller local flood. Large enough to inspire the myth, but definitely nowhere near the whole Earth. You are firmly entrenched in the Buffalo problem.

What evidence would it have left? That is the main question.

 

[VirOptimus]

What evidence would it have left? That is the main question.

In your own words, describe the flood in as much detail as posdible and also when it was supposed to have happened.