Fossil Record not consistent with Global Flood

[Loudmouth]

The problem is that discoveries are forced to fit the preconceptions while all counter evidence is shunted aside as irrelevant or problematical. When that modus operandi is in effect you can't really trust what is being tagged as evidence until it is examined by an objective scientist.

What you are describing is creationism:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."--Answers in Genesis
https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/

That is a direct quote from one of the largest creationist organizations.

 

[Loudmouth]

The creationists pretend that what is referred to as the Geological Time Scale is "The" Geological Column. It is wrong as the Geological Time Scale is a graphic representation of time periods and how they follow each other. For example the Cambrian is older than the Ordovician which is older than the Silurian, etc. Thus, the Geological Time Scale does not represent rock "layers". It doesn't have thicknesses or depths or anything like that.

What Geologists do is to show how their Geological Columns for areas relate to the Geological Time Scale.

Exactly. Creationists trip all over themselves trying to misunderstand the Geologic Time Scale. For example, let's say that you showed a creationist this historical time line:

Would the creationist try to claim that this time line meant that we should be able to dig a 5 meter by 5 meter hole anywhere in the world and find artifacts from each of these events neatly stacked one on top of another? If they were being consistent, they would.

 

[Jimmy D]

The problem is that discoveries are forced to fit the preconceptions while all counter evidence is shunted aside as irrelevant or problematical. When that modus operandi is in effect you can't really trust what is being tagged as evidence until it is examined by an objective scientist.

What counter evidence?

 

[Radrook]

The evidence mentioned in this article:
http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm

 

[The Cadet]

The evidence mentioned in this article:
http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm

Nothing there is being ignored. Many of the claims can be found here, on an index of creationist claims:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

It took me less than three minutes to debunk the first three:

Claim 1: Polystrate trees.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC331.html

Claim 2: Fossils require a flood
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC363.html

Claim 3: Clastic Dikes
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_Earth_and_the_universe#20

The evidence is not being ignored. It simply fails to convince. It doesn't imply what the creationists think it implies. For example, the claims about Mount Saint Helens - why is it somehow surprising that a catastrophic mudflow can carve a channel? We've known this for quite some time. However, the mudflow carved a fairly straight line - as one might expect from rushing water. By comparison, here's a photo of Goosenecks canyon:

Notice anything different about it?

Again, this bears repeating. The evidence is not being ignored. It's being considered and rejected, because there's simply nothing to it. The combined scientific value of the contributions of Creationism to our knowledge can be found listed below here in this post, my signature excluded.

 

[Radrook]

Nothing there is being ignored. Many of the claims can be found here, on an index of creationist claims:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

It took me less than three minutes to debunk the first three:

Claim 1: Polystrate trees.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC331.html

Claim 2: Fossils require a flood
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC363.html

Claim 3: Clastic Dikes
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_Earth_and_the_universe#20

The evidence is not being ignored. It simply fails to convince. It doesn't imply what the creationists think it implies. For example, the claims about Mount Saint Helens - why is it somehow surprising that a catastrophic mudflow can carve a channel? We've known this for quite some time. However, the mudflow carved a fairly straight line - as one might expect from rushing water. By comparison, here's a photo of Goosenecks canyon:

Notice anything different about it?

Again, this bears repeating. The evidence is not being ignored. It's being considered and rejected, because there's simply nothing to it. The combined scientific value of the contributions of Creationism to our knowledge can be found listed below here in this post, my signature excluded.

Thank you for the detailed response and the links.

It will take me some time to respond since there is so much to cover.
I do understand that the majority of scientists choose to reject the claims found on the website I mentioned as they do with everything else deemed religious or caused by supernatural forces. But bandwagon or appeal to authority aren't valid reasons for acceptance of any claim. You see, I have found that such a consensus can be caused by irrelevant, non-scientific motives.

For example:

1. Theophobia. The intense fear of all that is religious or related to gods, God or even a creator which some might tag as such.This causes what I have found to be temporary cancellations of the scientific method at the precise moments deemed necessary and proclamations of inability to reason or mental blindness whenever it is found convenient.

2. Professional Career Considerations:

Any scientist who interpreted data in a way that goes contrary to the popular atheists agenda will be tagged as persona-non-Grata and subjected to career hampering attention. Some have even lost professorships based on their non-atheist beliefs which they sought to convey to their students. So those unwilling to face the heat choose to play along.

3. Money Issues: Grant money will cease if it is found hat any conclusions that the archaeologist reaches is being used to support what is considered unscientific and bogus by the majority. Again, the same reaction. Better to play along than to be left empty handed, with loss of prestige, and an object of ridicule to boot.

So under such pressure, the majority of scientists will prefer to go along with the noncontroversial flow for the sake of self- preservation.


However, despite that very strong possibility, I will use the links you provided and will objectively evaluate the pros and the cons of the issues as is required. Then I and will get back to you on this. Might take some time, but I will certainly respond. Thanks again for the info. Much appreciated!


Peace!

BTW

I am not a Young-Earthist so much of what I have initially found is totally irrelevant to me.

Also, that flowing water can carve a meandering river is basic geology.

 

[The Cadet]

1. Theophobia. The intense fear of all that is religious or related to gods, God or even a creator which some might tag as such.This causes what I have found to be temporary cancellations of the scientific method at the precise moments deemed necessary and proclamations of inability to reason or mental blindness whenever it is found convenient.

In 2005, only 41% of biologists rejected the idea of god outright. The idea that large amounts of academia are ruled by "theophobia" is not just unfounded, it's patently absurd.

2. Professional Career Considerations:

Any scientist who interpreted data in a way that goes contrary to the popular atheists agenda will be tagged as persona-non-Grata and subjected to career hampering attention. Some have even lost professorships based on their non-atheist beliefs which they sought to convey to their students. So those unwilling to face the heat choose to play along.

Citation needed.

3. Money Issues: Grant money will cease if it is found hat any conclusions that the archaeologist reaches is being used to support what is considered unscientific and bogus by the majority. Again, the same reaction. Better to play along than to be left empty handed, with loss of prestige, and an object of ridicule to boot.

Just one great example: the Templeton Foundation gave out around 70 million dollars to creation research in 2007. That's not the most money, granted, but it's far more than most failed hypotheses get, and far more than any other non-scientific hypothesis gets.

But bandwagon or appeal to authority aren't valid reasons for acceptance of any claim.

Of course not. But that's not really what this is about. You made the claim that mainstream science ignores creationist arguments, and to back it up, you cited a page with a number of creationist arguments. But the problem here is that the reason the arguments have not been taken up in mainstream science is that they are fundamentally flawed, and more often than not, put into the world by dishonest hucksters with no interest in the truth unless the truth agrees with their beliefs, such as Eric Hovind or Ken Ham. In fact, for your accusations of scientists being biased or having problems, it's perhaps worth noting that both ICR and AiG have statements of faith that explicitly reject any evidence that contradicts their view out of hand.

However, despite that very strong possibility, I will use the links you provided and will objectively evaluate the pros and the cons of the issues as is required. Then I and will get back to you on this. Might take some time, but I will certainly respond.

Do yourself a favor and do this to each of the claims you propose. It's really easy to find debunkings of most of them. It'll save us a lot of time. For example, you may be inclined to cite "Expelled!" to show the suppression of creationist academics. Don't. The movie is dishonest from start to finish, and every single story cited therein has been thoroughly debunked.

Also, that flowing water can carve a meandering river is basic geology.

Yeah. But it takes time, and must happen gradually. A rapid carving process will not lead to a meander. Floodwaters simply won't cause a meander. What you need is a slow, lazy river carving slowly through uplifting rock.

 

[joshua 1 9]

"Explain the fossil record without evolution"

That is simple to do. God said: "Let there be life" and DNA was the Language He used to Create Life. Nothing more to explain.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

That is simple to so. God said: "Let there be life" and DNA was the Language He used to Create Life. Nothing more to explain.

If that's the extent of your claim then I agree. If however you support the idea that the Flood produced the fossil record then you have a great deal to explain. If you are a Floodist then I await your detailed response to the OP.

 

[Radrook]

First, I would like to apologize for posting that Young Earth link since I am not a young Earthist and cannot very well defend a viewpoint that I don't have. Should have checked first. My bad. But here are other links which offer worldwide flood data and which are not as Young-Earth oriented as the first one.

High and Dry Sea Creatures
https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/high-dry-sea-creatures/


World's Graveyards
https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/the-worlds-a-graveyard/

in: Transcontinental Rock Layers
https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/global/worldwide-flood-evidence/

Sand Transported Cross Country
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/sedimentation/sand-transported-cross-country/

No Slow and Gradual Erosion
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/grand-canyon-facts/no-slow-and-gradual-erosion/

Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/rock-layers-folded-not-fractured/

BTW

I disagree with the assumption that we should accept the majority view simply because it is the majority view or not call into question a popular view simply because the ones proposing and striving to popularize it have degrees in their field of study.

After all, there are geologists who are NOT atheists, and do not interpret the available evidence in the same manner that atheist geologists do. I see absolutely no reason to devalue their conclusions simply because they aren't atheists. In fact, I have far more confidence in their views and their scientific integrity than I have of those who have repeatedly demonstrated an inclination to twist and deform data when they find it convenient or to fit evidence into a predetermined patterns.

In short, I think it boils down to whom we are going to believe.
Atheist geologists or non-atheist geologists. I think I will believe non atheist geologists since they seem far more inclined to stay true to the scientific method than atheist scientists do.

Peace!

Addendum:

I know there are issues you brought up that need to be addressed.
I will get to those as soon as I am able.
Sorry about the delay.

 

[Radrook]

Accusation:

Willtor said: ↑
"The basic thing scientists don't understand [about their own field of inquiry] is..."

If you find yourself saying this, Stop.

Response:

Since you continue to cite the above quote let me clarify:

I don't believe that atheist scientists don't understand the basics of their own field of inquiry.
So that quotation doesn't apply to me.

----------------------------------------------------
Accusation:
In 2005, only 41% of biologists rejected the idea of god outright. The idea that large amounts of academia are ruled by "theophobia" is not just unfounded, it's patently absurd.


Response:
Please note that I made no statistical claims in reference to theophobia among biologists.
In fact, I didn’t restrict the theophobia to biologists, you did. Neither did I expand that malady to all academia. You did. I only said that one of the reasons which can cause extreme bias that interferes with a scientist’s objectivity in the evaluation of data is theophobia.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Citation Needed!



Response:

Research on discrimination

The writer surveyed 28 professors at a recent science convention about discrimination against creationists. All those interviewed stated that they doubted very much if their department would ever hire an out-of-the-closet creationist for a faculty position. Some claimed that they themselves were not opposed, but felt that because a creationist would likely encounter serious problems in their department, it would be best if they not support their hiring. One added that it would not be objectionable to defend creationism on philosophical grounds, but an attempt to do so using biology would preclude hiring.


The discrimination ranged from derogatory comments to denial of tenure or an earned degree. The writer also reviewed the literature and interviewed about a dozen academic deans and department chairs in the field of science. All, without exception, felt that openly holding a ‘scientific creation’ worldview would seriously impede or terminate an academic career. Many openly stated that they would not hire or support the candidacy of an out-of-the-closet scientific creationist for a tenured position in academia.
http://creation.com/contemporary-suppression-of-the-theistic-worldview

--------------------------------------

Statement:
Just one great example: the Templeton Foundation gave out around 70 million dollars to creation research in 2007. That's not the most money, granted, but it's far more than most failed hypotheses get, and far more than any other non-scientific hypothesis gets.

Response:
One or even several uncharacteristic exceptions don't nullify a general or predominant trend.


Here is an example of the trend with an
example of how atheist academia reacts to that support.

Peter Woit, a mathematical physicist at Columbia University occasionally writes about his misgivings with the foundation on his blog (which is hosted by Columbia University). Woit feels it is unfortunate that Templeton's money is used to influence scientific research towards a convergence between science and religion.

In June 2005, Woit wrote:

Look not at what the Templeton people say (which is relatively innocuous), but at what they do. They explicitly refuse to support serious science, and instead fund an incredible array of attempts to inject religion into scientific practice. ... Instead they are heavily funding the one part of the field that most people consider dangerous pseudo-science and a serious threat to the whole concept of what it means to do science.[76]

Woit, Peter (2005-06-12). "Multiverse, String Theory and Templeton". Not Even Wrong (Peter Woit's blog). Retrieved 2007-10-27.

"However, they unambiguously are devoted to trying to bring science and religion together, and that’s my main problem with them. ... I remain concerned though about the significance for physics of this large new source of funding, out of scale with other such private sources, and with an agenda that seems to me to have a dangerous component to it."[77]
Woit, Peter (2007-10-06). "Deep Beauty". Not Even Wrong (Peter Woit's blog). Retrieved 2007-12-28.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Of course not. But that's not really what this is about. You made the claim that mainstream science ignores creationist arguments, and to back it up, you cited a page with a number of creationist arguments. But the problem here is that the reason the arguments have not been taken up in mainstream science is that they are fundamentally flawed, and more often than not, put into the world by dishonest hucksters with no interest in the truth unless the truth agrees with their beliefs, such as Eric Hovind or Ken Ham. In fact, for your accusations of scientists being biased or having problems, it's perhaps worth noting that both ICR and AiG have statements of faith that explicitly reject any evidence that contradicts their view out of hand.

Response:

As previously explained, I am not a Young Earthist, so the arguments for a young Earth as well as all the people you mention are irrelevant to me.

Also, please note that my claim concerning atheist scientists ignoring available evidence wasn’t based on the Flood controversy. It is based on how they blatantly ignore and violate their own scientific principles in order to deny the obvious: intelligent design as clearly and compellingly manifested in nature.

So no, I am not anti science and neither were the great theist scientists, such as Albert Einstein, Robert A Milikan, Issac Newton and a host of past and contemporary scientists who readily perceived and perceive an intelligent designer. Today's evidence is even more compelling as observed in the DNA code, the intra-cellular nano-molecular machines, and in the Fibonacci Sequence evident in nature both in the microscopic and the macroscopic realm of existence.

The existence of dark matter and dark energy is considered a fact due to the observed effects. We draw the same conclusion of the existence of an intelligent designer based on our observations and our inference based on those observations are equally valid.


BTW
What is truly anti science is to put forth an idea as fact that has never been observed in nature, has never been forced to occur in a lab, and to feign total blindness to phenomena that proclaims mind and then act amazed when a few strait lines appear on some moon or a WOW signal is detected at SETI.
--------------------------

Debunked:


Response:

What you mean is that you accepted the attempt of an atheist at debunking. In my extensive conversations with atheists I have found that the debunkings they so readily announce aren't debunkings at all. So a constant proclamation that certain views have been thoroughly debunked comes across as mere personal opinion.

 

[joshua 1 9]

If that's the extent of your claim then I agree. If however you support the idea that the Flood produced the fossil record then you have a great deal to explain. If you are a Floodist then I await your detailed response to the OP.

From our perspective Noah's flood was local. Only one of the many bio diverse ecosystems were effected, not the whole biosphere. Only this was a very important biosystem because this is where farming and domestication of plants and animals began. This is why Noah's animals were divided into clean and unclean animals. Gensis 7:2 "Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate" Clean animals were the animals that ended up on the dinner table. These were the animals that we actually eat. Moses lists animals such as camels, rabbits and pigs as being unclean, or unfit to eat (Leviticus 11:4-8 Leviticus 11:4-8 4 They did not travel very far in Noah's day. NO more then 300 miles. So for Noah he simply did not know that the biosystem he lived in was not the whole world as we know it today. From his perspective sitting on the Ark his world was flooded. From our perspective looking back today we would consider it to be a local flood. The Tigris Euphrates Valley was flooded and the water went up over the top of the mountains. This most likely was caused by what they call land damns that were there after the ice melted from the last ice age. They hold the water in for a while but then they break and the water from the melting ice returns to the ocean. Even this still happens today that a land damn will give away and cause flooding. Noah would have known the flood was coming. Now a days they would drain the water off slowly rather then wait for the damn to break and flood the area. The reason people live in flood plains even today is they are very futile farming ground. The food grows really good on flood plains.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

From our perspective Noah's flood was local. Only one of the many bio diverse ecosystems were effected, not the whole biosphere. Only this was a very important biosystem because this is where farming and domestication of plants and animals began. This is why Noah's animals were divided into clean and unclean animals. Gensis 7:2 "Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate" Clean animals were the animals that ended up on the dinner table. These were the animals that we actually eat. Moses lists animals such as camels, rabbits and pigs as being unclean, or unfit to eat (Leviticus 11:4-8 Leviticus 11:4-8 4 They did not travel very far in Noah's day. NO more then 300 miles. So for Noah he simply did not know that the biosystem he lived in was not the whole world as we know it today. From his perspective sitting on the Ark his world was flooded. From our perspective looking back today we would consider it to be a local flood. The Tigris Euphrates Valley was flooded and the water went up over the top of the mountains. This most likely was caused by what they call land damns that were there after the ice melted from the last ice age. They hold the water in for a while but then they break and the water from the melting ice returns to the ocean. Even this still happens today that a land damn will give away and cause flooding. Noah would have known the flood was coming. Now a days they would drain the water off slowly rather then wait for the damn to break and flood the area. The reason people live in flood plains even today is they are very futile farming ground. The food grows really good on flood plains.

I have no objections to the notion of a localized flood. As you'll note from the thread title and my OP, the topic of discussion is the degree to which the fossil record comports with the hypothesis of a global flood.

 

[lasthero]

Atheist geologists or non-atheist geologists. I think I will believe non atheist geologists since they seem far more inclined to stay true to the scientific method than atheist scientists do.

It's not an atheist/theist thing.

Try and find a single geologist who believes there was a worldwide flood, but isn't part of the Abrahamic religions. Say, a Buddhist or a Hindu geologist who believes there was a worldwide flood, even though his religion says nothing about it.

I'll wait.

 

[Derek Meyer]

Thank you for the detailed response and the links.

It will take me some time to respond since there is so much to cover.
I do understand that the majority of scientists choose to reject the claims found on the website I mentioned as they do with everything else deemed religious or caused by supernatural forces. But bandwagon or appeal to authority aren't valid reasons for acceptance of any claim. You see, I have found that such a consensus can be caused by irrelevant, non-scientific motives...

Actually, http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var2=1137

One of the best ways of making a name for yourself in the scientific community is to challenge a widely held scientific understanding with a strongly defended alternative theory. It is thus of considerable significance that the tens of thousands of geologists worldwide are virtually in complete agreement that the question of the earth's age has been answered: roughly 4.6 billion years.

The agreement is perhaps even more striking in the world of economic geology (oil and mineral exploration) where theories that lead to increased revenue always win, even if philosophically distasteful. Understanding the age of the earth and its layers plays a critical role in natural resource exploration, yet to our knowledge there is not a single oil or mining company anywhere in the world that uses a young-earth model to find or exploit new reserves. Old-earth models work. Young-earth models do not.

David Campbell (Ph.D.) is research associate in the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Alabama and attends Trinity Presbyterian Church in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Lyle D. Campbell (Ph.D.) is professor of Geology at the University of South Carolina Upstate and attends Providence Presbyterian Church in Spartanburg, South Carolina.
Chip Cates (M.S., P.G.) is an engineering geologist and attends Trinity Presbyterian Church in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Gregg Davidson (Ph.D.) is associate professor of geology and geological engineering at the University of Mississippi and attends Christ Presbyterian Church in Oxford, Mississippi.
Keith Long (Ph.D.) is a geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey and attends Desert Springs Presbyterian Church in Tucson (Oro Valley), Arizona.
Richard F. Mercer (B.A.) is a retired petroleum geologist and attends Woodgreen Presbyterian Church in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Kent Ratajeski (Ph.D.) is assistant professor of geology at the University of West Georgia and attends Christ Church Presbyterian in Atlanta, Georgia.
Davis A. Young (Ph.D.) is professor emeritus of geology at Calvin College and attends Catalina Foothills Presbyterian Church in Tucson, Arizona.

Source:
Issue: "Canon Formation" May/June 2010 Vol. 19 No. 3 Page number(s): 6-9

You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not make more than 500 physical copies. We do not allow reposting an article in its entirety on the Internet. We request that you link to this article from your website. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by Modern Reformation (webmaster@modernreformation.org).

Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: This article originally appeared in the [insert current issue date] edition of Modern Reformation and is reprinted with permission. For more information about Modern Reformation, visit www.modernreformation.org or call (800) 890-7556. All rights reserved.

 

[Derek Meyer]

The evidence mentioned in this article:
http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm

Nothing in there is ignored.

<staff edit>

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing in there is ignored.

<staff edit>

And it is mistitled. Nothing in there was scientific evidence for a worldwide flood. At best there was merely misinterpretation of scientific evidence.

 

[KWCrazy]

From our perspective Noah's flood was local.

Of course it was. On relatively low lying ground with easy run-off to the see, all that would requires is a total suspension of natural law for the water to be able to stack upon itself and avoid that pesky urge to seek a relatively even depth relative to the core of the earth.

This most likely was caused by what they call land damns that were there after the ice melted from the last ice age.

Well that is unique, making up things that didn't exist to try and explain how water could pool in one area but not spread. These damn, however, had to be mountainous and had to completely surround the region.

Once water came to the top of these mountains, if it overflowed by one inch the level would not rise further until the water in the surrounding area was just as deep; in other words, a global flood.

 

[The Cadet]

all that would requires is a total suspension of natural law

Hang on a moment. Are you claiming that such suspension is a criticism for a theory? Because if so, I think the idea of a global flood has a whole lot more problems.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Of course it was. On relatively low lying ground with easy run-off to the see, all that would requires is a total suspension of natural law for the water to be able to stack upon itself and avoid that pesky urge to seek a relatively even depth relative to the core of the earth.

Well that is unique, making up things that didn't exist to try and explain how water could pool in one area but not spread. These damn, however, had to be mountainous and had to completely surround the region.

Once water came to the top of these mountains, if it overflowed by one inch the level would not rise further until the water in the surrounding area was just as deep; in other words, a global flood.

When the glaciers melted they left natural land damns behind. Even today this is still an issue with global warming flooding. This has always been a world wide issue, at least sense the break up of Pangaea. I studied all the elevation maps for the area to confirm my theory. But I ONLY have to convince myself, it would be a waste of my time for me to try to convince YOU, that would be CRAZY. So you can believe what you want to believe and I will believe what I believe based on my study and research. As long as we are fully convinced and not double minded and do not have any doubts. This is why we have science, so we can formula theorys and then we can look to study to see if our theory is plausible or not.

One thing you have to remember is that the Bible has been proven again and again to be absolute truth. We are reading a book written 3500 years ago, so we may not always understand. Plus the Bible is written in a way so that there are multiple layers of understanding and meaning. So it is not always easy for the unlearned and untrained to understand. But God does not require a person to go to Bible college. HE gives us the Holy Spirit of God to be our Teacher, to guide us and to lead us into the truth. So we can gain understanding, wisdom and knowledge of the Written Word of God. Of course if your not a Bible student then you and me really don't have a discussion. You have to actually study something before you can have a discussion. If you were in school would you write a book report on a book you never read? If you did then you are cheating. As that is the whole purpose is to have actually read the book that you are reviewing. If you do not actually read the Bible then you are disqualified from offering opinions because you have no working knowledge of what your talking about. If you want to teach the Bible to others then you have to go to Bible school. So you can learn how to help people to discover the truth for themselves.

ANYWAYS, do a study, look at the elevation maps and you will see that it is possible for the Tigris Euphrates river valley to flood completely so that the water goes over the top of the mountains that surround the valley.