Global Warming

[Root of Jesse]

While I am not a believer in AGW, I believe that climate cools and warms naturally. And I know that those of you who think Global Warming will have catastrophic results believe that sea level is going to rise because of the phenomenon of Global Warming.

So...I want to ask why it is that nobody wants to believe there was a real world-wide flood event? Every culture on earth, from the Aboriginal People to Native Americans has a worldwide flood scenario. Then there's the specter of a product we find on the shelves these days "Himalayan Sea Salt". Don't we know that the Himalayan Mountains are rising as a result of the continental shelf being pushed up by another plate?

So again, if Global Warming is going to cause the level of the ocean to rise, and given these other facts, why is a global flood of Biblical proportions so unbelievable?

 

[archer75]

I don't find the notion of a widespread flood "impossible".

But I would guess that those who don't understand the Flood to have covered the whole world as we know it today interpret that story as best they can and they interpret the evidence for AGW according to their understanding.

And they're not the same thing anyway. One is described as an event that God 'directly' caused, the other is a set of expectations based on observations. Further, a rise in sea levels, no matter how catastrophic, is not the same as the entire world being 100% covered by water, if that is indeed what you mean by "a real world-wide flood event".

 

[Root of Jesse]

I'm just asking why one is possible and the other is not. There is no time element in the Noah story. It doesn't say the earth flooded in 20 minutes, 20 hours, 20 days or 20 years. Noah had time to architect an Ark. So it wasn't immediate. It also doesn't say when it happened.

 

[archer75]

Well, for what it's worth, I think both are "possible".

 

[Root of Jesse]

Also, note that I didn't say that there's no such thing as global warming. I only believe that mankind doesn't cause it, though mankind does contribute. The difference in population only proves that.

But most scientists that think Global Warming can be catastrophic and cause meteoric rises in sea level would also discount the floods of Genesis.

 

[Loudmouth]

While I am not a believer in AGW, I believe that climate cools and warms naturally.

Some people die of natural causes. This doesn't change the fact that some people die because of man made causes.

Just because something can happen naturally, it doesn't preclude humans as another cause.

And I know that those of you who think Global Warming will have catastrophic results believe that sea level is going to rise because of the phenomenon of Global Warming.

That's usually what happens when the Earth warms and ice melts.

So...I want to ask why it is that nobody wants to believe there was a real world-wide flood event?

Because there is no world wide flood layer that dates to that time.

Every culture on earth, from the Aboriginal People to Native Americans has a worldwide flood scenario.

No, they don't. Many of those myths describe a local flood, not to mention the myths are all different from each other. They are much more consistent with local floods, which isn't surprising given the fact that many human populations live in flood plains.

So again, if Global Warming is going to cause the level of the ocean to rise, and given these other facts, why is a global flood of Biblical proportions so unbelievable?

Because we have evidence for sea level rises in the past, but no evidence for the entire Earth being covered by water just a few thousand years ago.

 

[Radrook]

I'm just asking why one is possible and the other is not. There is no time element in the Noah story. It doesn't say the earth flooded in 20 minutes, 20 hours, 20 days or 20 years. Noah had time to architect an Ark. So it wasn't immediate. It also doesn't say when it happened.

Doesn't the account say that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights during which time the floodgates of the deep were also opened?

After Noah and the remnant of animals were secured, the fountains of the great deep and the floodgates, or windows, of the heavens were opened, causing rain to fall on the Earth for 40 days. The waters elevated, with the summits of the highest mountains under 15 cubits (22 feet 6 inches) of water,[17] flooding the world for 150 days, and then receding in 220 days.
Genesis flood narrative - Wikipedia

 

[Root of Jesse]

Some people die of natural causes. This doesn't change the fact that some people die because of man made causes.

Just because something can happen naturally, it doesn't preclude humans as another cause.



That's usually what happens when the Earth warms and ice melts.



Because there is no world wide flood layer that dates to that time.



No, they don't. Many of those myths describe a local flood, not to mention the myths are all different from each other. They are much more consistent with local floods, which isn't surprising given the fact that many human populations live in flood plains.

95% of them describe a worldwide flood. And they agree in essence.

Because we have evidence for sea level rises in the past, but no evidence for the entire Earth being covered by water just a few thousand years ago.[/QUOTE]Who said anything about a few thousand years ago???
When two separate cultures have the same "myth" in their body of folklore, their ancestors must have either experienced the same event, or they both descended from a common ancestral source which itself experienced the event.

The only credible way to understand the widespread, similar flood legends is to recognize that all people living today, even though separated geographically, linguistically, and culturally, have descended from the few real people who survived a real global flood, on a real boat which eventually landed on a real mountain. Their descendants now fill the globe, never to forget the real event.

What amazes me is that people believe in one, that being global warming (which I agree is true, just not man-caused), and discount the other. You say there's no world-wide flood layer, but who's to say where that layer would reside? Especially if we're not saying it was a few thousand years ago...

 

[Root of Jesse]

Doesn't the account say that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights during which time the floodgates of the deep were also opened?

You're right, it does. But I don't know, nor does anyone, necessarily how much it means. Then again, the rains in California the last forty days were pretty devastating. If the rain were torrential, who knows how long it would take?

 

[Radrook]

You're right, it does. But I don't know, nor does anyone, necessarily how much it means. Then again, the rains in California the last forty days were pretty devastating. If the rain were torrential, who knows how long it would take?

But it did not just depend on rain. The watery deep or underground reserves of water were involved.

Springs of the great deep



Springs of the great deep - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science


The Springs of the Great Deep (or the "Fountains of the Great Deep," as in the KJV) are described in the Bible as a source of the devastating global flood that was brought by God to destroy mankind due to their wickedness. While some have contended that the main source of the waters was the 40 days of rain (See: canopy theory), today most creation scientists agree that it was principally caused by waters of a subterranean origin.

 

[Loudmouth]

95% of them describe a worldwide flood.

There still isn't any evidence that one actually occurred, even if that is true.

And they agree in essence.

No, not even close.

Who said anything about a few thousand years ago???

It was implied by your citation of recent human cultures having flood myths.

When two separate cultures have the same "myth" in their body of folklore, their ancestors must have either experienced the same event, or they both descended from a common ancestral source which itself experienced the event.

Or it is just made up.

The only credible way to understand the widespread, similar flood legends . . .

First, you would need to show that they are similar.

Komililo Nandi:

Ilet, the spirit of lightning, came to live, in human form, in a cave high on the mountain named Tinderet. When he did so, it rained incessantly and killed most of the hunters living in the forest below. Some hunters, searching for the cause of the rain, found him and wounded him with poison arrows. Ilet fled and died in a neighboring country. When he died, the rain stopped.
Flood Stories from Around the World

What amazes me is that people believe in one, that being global warming (which I agree is true, just not man-caused), and discount the other. You say there's no world-wide flood layer, but who's to say where that layer would reside? Especially if we're not saying it was a few thousand years ago...

We discount a global flood because there is no geologic evidence for one.​

 

[Root of Jesse]

There still isn't any evidence that one actually occurred, even if that is true.



No, not even close.

On at least 10 details.

It was implied by your citation of recent human cultures having flood myths.

It was your implication. Not my insinuation.

Or it is just made up.

Or not.

First, you would need to show that they are similar.

Komililo Nandi:

Ilet, the spirit of lightning, came to live, in human form, in a cave high on the mountain named Tinderet. When he did so, it rained incessantly and killed most of the hunters living in the forest below. Some hunters, searching for the cause of the rain, found him and wounded him with poison arrows. Ilet fled and died in a neighboring country. When he died, the rain stopped.
Flood Stories from Around the World

We discount a global flood because there is no geologic evidence for one.​

How would you know where to look?

The points of similarity: A favored family, flood was forewarned, flood due to wickedness of man, the catastrophe was only a flood, it was global (95%), survival was in a boat, animals were saved as well, and survivors landed on a mountain.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Loudmouth]

How would you know where to look?

Now let me think . . . where should we look for evidence of a WORLD WIDE flood . . . hmm . . . maybe the evidence should be across THE WHOLE WORLD????

The points of similarity: A favored family, flood was forewarned, flood due to wickedness of man, the catastrophe was only a flood, it was global (95%), survival was in a boat, animals were saved as well, and survivors landed on a mountain.

Doesn't change the fact that there is no geologic evidence for a global flood and literal mountains of evidence demonstrating there was no global flood.

 

[Radrook]

While I am not a believer in AGW, I believe that climate cools and warms naturally. And I know that those of you who think Global Warming will have catastrophic results believe that sea level is going to rise because of the phenomenon of Global Warming.

So...I want to ask why it is that nobody wants to believe there was a real world-wide flood event? Every culture on earth, from the Aboriginal People to Native Americans has a worldwide flood scenario. Then there's the specter of a product we find on the shelves these days "Himalayan Sea Salt". Don't we know that the Himalayan Mountains are rising as a result of the continental shelf being pushed up by another plate?

So again, if Global Warming is going to cause the level of the ocean to rise, and given these other facts, why is a global flood of Biblical proportions so unbelievable?

One reason for the opposition is because admission of a worldwide flood would strengthen the case for the Bible's divine inspiration and historical accuracy. That in turn would mean gaining credence for its chronology and creation account which goes completely contrary to what popular atheistic science believes. In short, they feel that if you give the creationist a foot then a yard will follow and pretty soon they will have Biblical history being taught in schools as an alternative explanation to regular atheistic history. You know, the slippery slope idea.

 

[Loudmouth]

One reason for the opposition is because admission of a worldwide flood would strengthen the case for the Bible's divine inspiration and historical accuracy. That in turn would mean gaining credence for its chronology and creation account which goes completely contrary to what popular atheistic science believes. In short, they feel that if you give the creationist a foot then a yard will follow and pretty soon they will have Biblical history being taught in schools as an alternative explanation to regular atheistic history. You know, the slippery slope idea.

If there were any evidence for a global flood, I would be happy to accept it. Funny how no one can present that evidence.

In fact, the very evidence that allows us to reconstruct past climates disproves a flood. We wouldn't have hundreds of thousands of annual ice layers stacked one on top of another in Antarctica and Greenland if there had been a global flood. We wouldn't have hundreds of thousands of uninterrupted annual lake varves. This is just the top of the mountain of evidence that disproves a global flood.

 

[Radrook]

If there were any evidence for a global flood, I would be happy to accept it. Funny how no one can present that evidence.

In fact, the very evidence that allows us to reconstruct past climates disproves a flood. We wouldn't have hundreds of thousands of annual ice layers stacked one on top of another in Antarctica and Greenland if there had been a global flood. We wouldn't have hundreds of thousands of uninterrupted annual lake varves. This is just the top of the mountain of evidence that disproves a global flood.

There was billions of years of geology BEFORE he biblical Flood.

 

[Loudmouth]

There was billions of years of geology BEFORE he biblical Flood.

And no evidence for a global flood during the time period that it was supposed to have occurred.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

There still isn't any evidence that one actually occurred, even if that is true.



No, not even close.


It was implied by your citation of recent human cultures having flood myths.



Or it is just made up.



First, you would need to show that they are similar.

Komililo Nandi:

Ilet, the spirit of lightning, came to live, in human form, in a cave high on the mountain named Tinderet. When he did so, it rained incessantly and killed most of the hunters living in the forest below. Some hunters, searching for the cause of the rain, found him and wounded him with poison arrows. Ilet fled and died in a neighboring country. When he died, the rain stopped.
Flood Stories from Around the World

We discount a global flood because there is no geologic evidence for one.​

Very few people would deny humans have an impact on the planet and we could (some have actually) done better in that regard. Either way a whale is probably gonna die anyway. (some will get it)
That is not the dispute any way about why the seas level may rise. From the evidence sea levels have been much lower - miles offshore former continental "shorelines" for example and they have been higher. The global alarmist point to the observations and suggest that not only are humans the prime driver but we can stop it. Those two points are what the majority of naysayers like me dispute. That it appears our climate is a .03 to .04 temp increase/100 years over several centuries now is not the point debated by almost anyone. That we could ever do anything to stop that trend without knowing how to control the major real driver is a nice thought but seems pointless folly, especially trying to divert public funds to attempt an impact. Right now a single eruption could erase all the increase and more from the trend over night and we know it can. We can't do that and until or if we ever learn how, what is the point? It's like suggesting if we all took a breath and blew it out facing the same direction we could alter the rotation of the earth or change wind patterns.

The OPs points out that the evidence we are the prime drivers of climate change is far less supported by any observation than a global flood is. So why all the belief for human influence as a major climate change driver with zero support other than there is a current trend and no love at all for a global flood. The evidence for a flood has not changed. Yet Christians are more willing today to accept a "local" flood than they were 50 to 100 years ago simply because it is not a popular cultural crowd thought today because someone started a historical criticism method to look at a belief in a supernatural event that was formerly unquestioned by most Christians. [Staff edit].

 

[Loudmouth]

The global alarmist point to the observations and suggest that not only are humans the prime driver but we can stop it.

Scientists have pointed to the fact that humans have driven the CO2 from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm in just 150 years, well above any natural levels found in the last several interglacial periods. Scientists have pointed out that this is due to burning fossil fuels.

Unfortunately, people like to use epithets like "global alarmists" to hide these facts.

That it appears our climate is a .03 to .04 temp increase/100 years over several centuries now is not the point debated by almost anyone. That we could ever do anything to stop that trend without knowing how to control the major real driver is a nice thought but seems pointless folly, especially trying to divert public funds to attempt an impact.

Massively increasing the concentration of a greenhouse gas in our atmosphere will trap more heat. It is just basic physics.

Right now a single eruption could erase all the increase and more from the trend over night and we know it can.

No, it wouldn't. The CO2 would still be here in 3 years when all the volcanic ash has settled.

The OPs points out that the evidence we are the prime drivers of climate change is far less supported by any observation than a global flood is.

That claim is made up. There is mountains of evidence demonstrating that the main driver for the increase in temperature over the last 150 years is due to man putting CO2 into the atmosphere.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence

So why all the belief for human influence as a major climate change driver with zero support other than there is a current trend and no love at all for a global flood.

Because there is evidence for AGW, and none for a global flood.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Some people die of natural causes. This doesn't change the fact that some people die because of man made causes.

Just because something can happen naturally, it doesn't preclude humans as another cause.



That's usually what happens when the Earth warms and ice melts.



Because there is no world wide flood layer that dates to that time.



No, they don't. Many of those myths describe a local flood, not to mention the myths are all different from each other. They are much more consistent with local floods, which isn't surprising given the fact that many human populations live in flood plains.



Because we have evidence for sea level rises in the past, but no evidence for the entire Earth being covered by water just a few thousand years ago.

The question was not whether the evidence supporting a flood would convince the agnostic or anyone for that matter. Obviously in the face of unreliable "modern" historic criticism the crowd mentality has been swayed against even having many Christians believe in it today. But what has changed other than their criticism of there being in valid basis for the belief?

That lack of belief today from say 50 yeas ago says more about human's penchant for not wanting to stand out in a crowd of people seemingly all in agreement on something than it does about the validity of the belief. There have been no major revelations from science either way regarding a flood in 50 years, only people applying a particularly modern method of criticism toward the belief. As long as no one in the crowd stands up and objects, the herd gradually moves in a the same direction, in this case unbelief. Humans will do that even if deep down they may not really agree and could easily swayed to return to holding the belief.

Rather similar to the driving a herd mentality by taking weather observations and making overly confident and optimistically bold statements about the relative significance of human impact on our climate while attacking anyone who objects in any manner rather than sticking with the facts.