Scientific Evidence for a Global Flood

[Quantum Paradise]

As far as the fossils are concerned, it appears to me that there is no escaping it. Thoughts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28QzxeeLqCc

 

[Willtor]

Sea creatures in rocks above sea level indicate that the rocks were once below sea level. Maybe that means the sea level was higher, or maybe it means the rocks were lower. This would be a more compelling evidence for a global flood if the fossils were sorted by density in the record. Unless there's a reason for them not to be?

 

[Papias]

Inland salt lakes are clear evidence.

They are found when a lake is an evaporative lake - meaning a lake with no outlet river, so all the water that flows into it eventually evaporates.

Many inland lakes are evaporative lakes. Since all water contains some salt, evaporative lakes concentrate this salt and become salty (salt flows in, and doesn't flow out).

Thus, with no flood we would expect salty inland lakes if they were evaporative. The real test would come in lakes that are big, but not evaporative. A big lake would start salty after the flood, and would only gradually become fresh as fresh water flowed in and lakewater flowed out.

Since we can measure the outflow of a lake, and it's size, it's simple to calculate how long it takes to replace the water, and hence how long it would take to become fresh. Some lakes, like Lake Titicaca or lake Kaban, have replacement rates of around a few thousand years.

Thus, if there were a flood, those lakes would still be measureably salty. For instance, since there is mixing in a lake, after one replacement time it would be less salty, say about half, and after one more it would be about a quarter, etc.

with only 2-4 replacement times since a flood 6,000 years ago, those lakes above would still be 1/2 to 1/10 the salinity of the ocean. But, we see that they contain fresh water. Similar information confirms this in other areas.

Plus, a global flood would leave oodles of geological evidence. Geologists agree that there is no evidence for a global flood (including the thousands of geologists who are Christians).

The evidence is clear that there never was a global flood, and that the story of the flood in Genesis is symbolic. To assert otherwise only makes Christianity look backwards and stupid.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Quantum Paradise]

The evidence is clear that there never was a global flood

In the same way that the evidence is clear that "evolution" is a biological process that actually happens, right?

Not only is this patently false, but such a position is not tenable in any way, shape or form, from a scriptural point of view. When's the last time you metaphorically went for a jog, or metaphorically drove your car?

Perhaps explain what Genesis 2:6 means, considering how the hydrological cycle didn't even exist at that time. Or does this just get relegated to the status of a "metaphor" as well, according to your paradigm?

I simply cite the fossil evidence because it's the most obvious indication that there was a catastrophic deluge in earth's past that affected the globe, as the trends are most certainly not "localized".

The fossils don't lie, here's just a few of many possible references on the topic:

The Institute for Creation Research
The Institute for Creation Research
The Institute for Creation Research

 

[Quantum Paradise]

Sea creatures in rocks above sea level indicate that the rocks were once below sea level. Maybe that means the sea level was higher, or maybe it means the rocks were lower. This would be a more compelling evidence for a global flood if the fossils were sorted by density in the record. Unless there's a reason for them not to be?

We're not just talking above sea level, we're talking "way" above sea level. And it also has everything to do with the way in which the fossils were formed, and in particular the state of preservation. To add to that, the fact that marine and non-marine organisms are found together?

 

[Willtor]

We're not just talking above sea level, we're talking "way" above sea level. And it also has everything to do with the way in which the fossils were formed, and in particular the state of preservation. To add to that, the fact that marine and non-marine organisms are found together?

How far above sea level isn't especially important. Above sea level is above sea level. But at one time, sea level was above it. I don't know anything about marine organisms found alongside non-marine organisms, but that also isn't especially outlandish. Non-marine organisms sometimes go into the water.

Again, talk a little about why not to expect sorting by density?

 

[Papias]

QP wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

The evidence is clear that there never was a global flood

In the same way that the evidence is clear that "evolution" is a biological process that actually happens, right?

Yes. Off topic though. If you'd like to go over all the different lines of evidence that converge to prove evolution beyond a reasonable doubt, then go ahead and start a thread on it.

Not only is this patently false, but such a position is not tenable in any way, shape or form, from a scriptural point of view. When's the last time you metaphorically went for a jog, or metaphorically drove your car?

I metaphorically jog my mind all the time. Besides, we both know that the scriptures are filled with metaphor, right? For example, you do agree that Ex 19:4 and Gen 3 have metaphor, right?

Perhaps explain what Genesis 2:6 means, considering how the hydrological cycle didn't even exist at that time. Or does this just get relegated to the status of a "metaphor" as well, according to your paradigm?

Are you seriously claiming that springs existed when there was no water cycle? How do you get that interpretation?

I simply cite the fossil evidence because it's the most obvious indication that there was a catastrophic deluge in earth's past that affected the globe, as the trends are most certainly not "localized".

You didn't cite the fossil evidence, you cited a youtube video already shown once to have no bearing on reality (because it mentioned salty inland lakes as evidence for a flood, when as shown earlier, the saltiness of lakes is clear evidence against a flood happening anytime in the last 10,000 years or so.

Look, if you are going to cite a youtube video, without other credentials, as evidence, then you have to agree that you can make mountain dew glow:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CbE01hyjig

We do have a statement from the those who actually are familiar with the evidence about the fact that the flood never happened. Here it is, from the Geological Society of America, made up of thousands of experts (including thousands of Christians). Practically everyone familiar with the evidence agrees:

By studying the fossil record that forms part of this rich archive of Earth¹s history, paleontologists continue to uncover details of the long and complex history of life.

Acceptance of deep time is not confined to academic science. If commercial geologists could find more fossil fuel by interpreting the rock record as having resulted from a single flood or otherwise encompassing no more than a few thousand years, they would surely accept this unconventional view, but they do not.​

Don't believe me? Google it.

The fossils don't lie, here's just a few of many possible references on the topic:

The Institute for Creation Research
The Institute for Creation Research
The Institute for Creation Research

The "ICR" is not a source of evidence, as they have been shown repeatedly to give false and misleading statements. If you want to know what the evidence says, here is a statement from the experts (in this case, the National Academy of Science).

Hundreds of thousands of fossil organisms found in welldated rock sequences represent a succession of forms through time and manifest many evolutionary transitions. . . There have been so many discoveries of intermediate forms between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and even along the primate line of descent that it is often difficult to identify categorically the line to which a particular genus or species belongs.

The fossils don't lie. Evolution is shown to be a fact, as well established as the existence of the Civil War.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Quantum Paradise]

QP wrote:
Yes. Off topic though. If you'd like to go over all the different lines of evidence that converge to prove evolution beyond a reasonable doubt, then go ahead and start a thread on it.

I've spent a lot of time looking over evolution and the various lines of evidence purported to prove it. And by evolution, I mean the Darwinian kind. Genetic ancestry does not make evolution a foregone conclusion, it's simply telling of the genetic relationship shared by biological life. At this point, I am 100% convinced that this theory exists solely as just that, a theory, and does not describe any sort of process that exists.

Reason I mentioned this is how I am so accustomed to seeing countless people speak about how the evidence is "clear", in a lot of cases it's in regards to "evolution".

In any case, I had opened a thread a while ago, this is what pretty much sealed the deal for me. If you opt to subscribe to a theory that calls upon mythical mutations producing inexplicable miracles, by all means. I would disagree if you'd call that science, though.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7807493/#post65101444

I metaphorically jog my mind all the time.

You are shifting the meaning of both my analogy and the text. There is nothing abstract or metaphorical about it.

Besides, we both know that the scriptures are filled with metaphor, right?

Of course.

Are you seriously claiming that springs existed when there was no water cycle? How do you get that interpretation?

Not sure where you get this assumption from. The scripture says what it says, I simply asked a question, can you explain it? Point being that this is a phenomenon that doesn't make sense in light of present-day observation. It says there was a "mist", and that this mist "watered the whole face of the ground", yet this was before there was any rain. You deny a global flood based on a set of perceived issues with the account. If you likewise perceive issues with this mysterious "mist", does that mean this is simply another "metaphor"? It makes no sense, we don't find evidence for it, we can't explain it, it doesn't fit = metaphor.

You have a specific paradigm through which the natural world is perceived in a certain way, of which is purely contingent on our interpretation of things in the present, as the natural world operates in the present.

And for some reason, a Biblical account (which bears zero characteristics of being a metaphor in any respect) gets relegated to the status of a metaphor, despite how there is plenty of evidence that fits hand in glove with what we'd expect from a rapid and catastrophic deluge having affected various parts of the globe. In this specific context, the fossils.

You didn't cite the fossil evidence, you cited a youtube video already shown once to have no bearing on reality (because it mentioned salty inland lakes as evidence for a flood, when as shown earlier, the saltiness of lakes is clear evidence against a flood happening anytime in the last 10,000 years or so.

Look, if you are going to cite a youtube video, without other credentials, as evidence, then you have to agree that you can make mountain dew glow:

We do have a statement from the those who actually are familiar with the evidence about the fact that the flood never happened. Here it is, from the Geological Society of America, made up of thousands of experts (including thousands of Christians). Practically everyone familiar with the evidence agrees:

By studying the fossil record that forms part of this rich archive of Earth¹s history, paleontologists continue to uncover details of the long and complex history of life.

Acceptance of deep time is not confined to academic science. If commercial geologists could find more fossil fuel by interpreting the rock record as having resulted from a single flood or otherwise encompassing no more than a few thousand years, they would surely accept this unconventional view, but they do not.​

Don't believe me? Google it.

The "ICR" is not a source of evidence, as they have been shown repeatedly to give false and misleading statements. If you want to know what the evidence says, here is a statement from the experts (in this case, the National Academy of Science).

It remains to be seen what these "statements" are, but I'm guessing that you would pretend like the folks over at the ICR are the only ones who can be found guilty of providing "false and misleading statements". But of course, the only ones who are guilty of bias are the ones who disagree with your interpretation of things. Not that this is relevant to the discussion, though.

Didn't really know this video has made rounds before, simply wanted to make a quick comment on the topic. I find it weird that you would claim the ICR to not be a "source of evidence" when they are sourcing the very evidence they are commenting on. What does it have to do with any one institute being a "source" of evidence? Evidence is evidence, and is there for all to see. The concern is how the evidence is interpreted.

The point was to simply refer to the countless examples of fossilized remains we have discovered which very clearly demonstrates a catastrophic and rapid burial of animals, many of which should not even be expected to be found with one another. And it doesn't just stop at the fossils.

The fossils don't lie.

You're right, they don't lie. And the fossils speak nothing about evolution. And no, the fact that we do not find precambrian bunnies does not equate to the biological "process" evolution being something real. It simply means there are no precambrian bunnies.

 

[Willtor]

I've spent a lot of time looking over evolution and the various lines of evidence purported to prove it. And by evolution, I mean the Darwinian kind. Genetic ancestry does not make evolution a foregone conclusion, it's simply telling of the genetic relationship shared by biological life. At this point, I am 100% convinced that this theory exists solely as just that, a theory, and does not describe any sort of process that exists.

Reason I mentioned this is how I am so accustomed to seeing countless people speak about how the evidence is "clear", in a lot of cases it's in regards to "evolution".

Are you saying that you accept common ancestry, but not evolution as the process that causes it?

 

[Papias]

Willtor wrote:

Are you saying that you accept common ancestry, but not evolution as the process that causes it?

QP, I'm interested in your answer as well.

Blessings-

Papias

 

[Papias]

QP wrote:

I had opened a thread a while ago, this is what pretty much sealed the deal for me. If you opt to subscribe to a theory that calls upon mythical mutations producing inexplicable miracles, by all means. I would disagree if you'd call that science, though.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7807493/#post65101444

I said "If you'd like to go over all the different lines of evidence that converge to prove evolution beyond a reasonable doubt, then go ahead and start a thread on it."

and in response you linked to that thread? That thread where you started by presenting one paper focussed on one narrow area, which you clearly didn't understand and doesn't support your argument anyway, and then you were corrected by an actual expert, who tried to explain it to you, yet you refused to listen?

That thread, and your behavior on it, doesn't help your argument at all.

Now, I asked if you'd like to go over all the lines of evidence.

I've spent a lot of time looking over evolution and the various lines of evidence purported to prove it.

Really? OK, then start a thread explaining those lines - or at least list a few of them, maybe 5 or 6? Do we have any reason to think you really understand these different lines of evidence?

You are shifting the meaning of both my analogy and the text. There is nothing abstract or metaphorical about it.

OK, so I'll ask again - do we not agree that there is plenty of symbolism in the scripture, such as Ex 19:4 and Gen 3?

Originally Posted by Papias View Post

Are you seriously claiming that springs existed when there was no water cycle? How do you get that interpretation?

Not sure where you get this assumption from. The scripture says what it says, I simply asked a question, can you explain it?

There is no assumption. You stated that there was a literal time when there was no water cycle, but there were literal springs according to your interpretation, and I was asking for your basis for that interpretation. Simple.

Point being that this is a phenomenon that doesn't make sense in light of present-day observation.

Present day observation? Like gravity? Like F=ma? Like humans not breathing peanut butter? Like the word "water" meaning water instead of meaning pink faery fluff? The point is that if ignore present day observation, you zero basis to say anything, and the whole text becomes meaningless.

It makes no sense, we don't find evidence for it, we can't explain it, it doesn't fit = metaphor.

Why do you think that Ex 19:4 is a metaphor?

And for some reason, a Biblical account (which bears zero characteristics of being a metaphor in any respect) gets relegated to the status of a metaphor,

Simply false. It has been clear to Christians and bible scholars for a long time that Genesis is filled with metaphor.

Early Christians such as Augustine recognized that. For instance:
..

. The door open in the side of the ark surely symbolizes the open wound made by the lance in the side of the Crucified-the door by which those who come to him enter in the sense that believers enter the Church by means of the sacraments which issued from that wound.​

(St. Augustine, De civitate Dei, 15, 26

despite how there is plenty of evidence that fits hand in glove with what we'd expect from a rapid and catastrophic deluge having affected various parts of the globe. In this specific context, the fossils.

As I pointed out before, actual geologists and paleontologists see no such "evidence". You and I do see the falsehoods stated by cranks like those at ICR, of course.

We do have a statement from the those who actually are familiar with the evidence about the fact that the flood never happened. Here it is, from the Geological Society of America, made up of thousands of experts (including thousands of Christians). Practically everyone familiar with the evidence agrees:

By studying the fossil record that forms part of this rich archive of Earth¹s history, paleontologists continue to uncover details of the long and complex history of life.

Acceptance of deep time is not confined to academic science. If commercial geologists could find more fossil fuel by interpreting the rock record as having resulted from a single flood or otherwise encompassing no more than a few thousand years, they would surely accept this unconventional view, but they do not.


Don't believe me? Google it.

The "ICR" is not a source of evidence, as they have been shown repeatedly to give false and misleading statements. If you want to know what the evidence says, here is a statement from the experts (in this case, the National Academy of Science).

It remains to be seen what these "statements" are,

Nothing remains to be seen. I showed who they are from, and you can see yourself by checking if you aren't sure. Closing your eyes does not invalidate real evidence, nor does it change what the experts tell us.

but I'm guessing that you would pretend like the folks over at the ICR are the only ones who can be found guilty of providing "false and misleading statements". But of course, the only ones who are guilty of bias are the ones who disagree with your interpretation of things. Not that this is relevant to the discussion, though.

Empty talk. Go ahead and provide examples if you think the NAS or the GSA have provided false statements. As for the ICR, your links themselves show their falsehoods, such as "fossils show rigor mortis" - silly because rigor mortis is a muscle contraction, and is long gone well before something fossilizes. "asphyxiation" - stated with no evidence. plus the article only says "MS" - we don't know if the writer knows schist about rocks.

I find it weird that you would claim the ICR to not be a "source of evidence" when they are sourcing the very evidence they are commenting on.

Making misleading statements about evidence that they don't appear to understand does not make them a source of evidence. A source of evidence is a peer-reviewed paper or other location where the evidence can be learned about, or a statement from an actual expert.

The point was to simply refer to the countless examples of fossilized remains we have discovered which very clearly demonstrates a catastrophic and rapid burial of animals, many of which should not even be expected to be found with one another.

What? All the data are consistent with known processes. Small floods do happen, and animals do swim in lakes. If you think something is inconsistent, then claim your Nobel. What animals should not be expected to be found together? Animals from different continents or times?

And it doesn't just stop at the fossils.

Oh it doesn't? What are you referring to? More examples of where you have been hoodwinked by the ICR?

And no, the fact that we do not find precambrian bunnies does not equate to the biological "process" evolution being something real. It simply means there are no precambrian bunnies.

"precambrian" ??!?!

Precambrian is based on the dating and findings of actual geologists, using the conclusion of deep time and the geologic column. If you are denying the work of the experts, then what could you mean by "precambrian"??

In Christ-

Papais