The Flood of Noah's Day

[Hans Blaster]

Don't you believe that men can become women?

Why should anyone take what you say seriously?

Go away! that is irrelevant to this topic. And no, that is not what I believe.

 

[BPPLEE]

While I very much want to believe the story of the flood some things have led me to believe that the story may not be literal or that it was not a global flood.

Are Noah’s ark and flood literal scientific facts? « SMR blog

www.sciencemeetsreligion.org

 

[Gene2memE]

There are many creatures found in the fossil record who were in the process of eating and even giving birth - all instantly killed and rapidly fossilized.

Does that indicate a singular global flood? Or does it suggest that mundane fossilisation events can occur rapidly?

What does the evidence from radiometric dating and stratigraphy lead to?

 

[Zaha Torte]

Does that indicate a singular global flood? Or does it suggest that mundane fossilisation events can occur rapidly?

What does the evidence from radiometric dating and stratigraphy lead to?

You agree that fossilization can occur rapidly?

 

[Zaha Torte]

Go away! that is irrelevant to this topic. And no, that is not what I believe.

There may not be evidence to support some ideas - so they enter into belief and theory - while others have all evidence against them.

Someone believing something that has not been proven can still be credible - while those who still believe when all evidence is against them?

 

[CoreyD]

While I very much want to believe the story of the flood some things have led me to believe that the story may not be literal or that it was not a global flood.

Are Noah’s ark and flood literal scientific facts? « SMR blog

www.sciencemeetsreligion.org

May I ask why you would want to believe the account of Noah and the flood?
Is it because

1. it is in the Bible - Genesis 6:1-10:1:
2. God recounted the account as historical - Isaiah 54:9
3. God spoke of Noah as an actual real historical figure, like Job and Daniel - Ezekiel 14:14, 20
4. the prophets and Jesus referred to Noah and the flood as historical - Matthew 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-30
5. Noah is found in the genealogical record - Luke 3:36
6. Jesus' apostles spoke of Noah, and the events of his day as historical - Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:19, 20; 2 peter 2:4-6

All the above, are not only good reasons to believe the account, but to do otherwise, is to disregard the word of God.
The flood account cannot be interpreted figuratively, in order to kiss up to interpretations of scientists.
We either believe the Bible is God's word, or we don't. Would you not agree?

Let's take one of the interpretations from the article you supplied.

1. A large percentage of the world’s fauna, including, for example, dodos, sloths, penguins, kangaroos, koalas and many other species, are not native to the Middle East (assuming that was the location of Noah’s ark). How did they travel there to board the ark?

The materialists' question is a clear indication of why you don't want to follow their materialistic world view - that everything must have a "natural" explanation.
1 Corinthians 2:14

The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

How was it possible for any animal to board the ark? How did Noah bring all animals into the ark?
Did Noah send out a bird call, and all the birds came flying to him?
Did he have a special drum roll, for all the insects to hear, and come scurrying to him?
No. Those who are looking at this from a human perspective are greatly mistaken.

Note what the Bible says at Genesis 7:15, 16... "[the animals] went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life. A male and female of each kind entered, just as God had commanded Noah. Then the LORD closed the door behind them."

Obviously, God - the divine one - the Almighty, directed the animals and actually brought them to Noah, and then God closed the door, when all were inside.
Noah could not know if all the animals were in. Noah was not a zoologist, and he had not written a book with a list of all the animals alive, so divine intervention needs to be considered.
See Genesis 2:19

The naturalist would like to get away with their arguments, by ignoring this fact.
Don't let them do it to you.
Even if others compromise, please... do not you do the same.

 

[BPPLEE]

May I ask why you would want to believe the account of Noah and the flood?
Is it because

1. it is in the Bible - Genesis 6:1-10:1:
2. God recounted the account as historical - Isaiah 54:9
3. God spoke of Noah as an actual real historical figure, like Job and Daniel - Ezekiel 14:14, 20
4. the prophets and Jesus referred to Matthew 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-30
5. Noah is found in the genealogical record - Luke 3:36
6. Jesus' apostles spoke of Noah, and the events of his day as historical - Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:19, 20; 2 peter 2:4-6

All the above, are not only good reasons to believe the account, but to do otherwise, is to disregard the word of God.
The flood account cannot be interpreted figuratively, in order to kiss up to interpretations of scientists.
We either believe the Bible is God's word, or we don't. Would you not agree?

Let's take one of the interpretations from the article you supplied.

1. A large percentage of the world’s fauna, including, for example, dodos, sloths, penguins, kangaroos, koalas and many other species, are not native to the Middle East (assuming that was the location of Noah’s ark). How did they travel there to board the ark?

The materialists' question is a clear indication of why you don't want to follow their materialistic world view - that everything must have a "natural" explanation.
1 Corinthians 2:14


How was it possible for any animal to board the ark? How did Noah bring all animals into the ark?
Did Noah send out a bird call, and all the birds came flying to him?
Did he have a special drum roll, for all the insects to hear, and come scurrying to him?
No. Those who are looking at this from a human perspective are greatly mistaken.

Note what the Bible says at Genesis 7:15, 16... "[the animals] went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life. A male and female of each kind entered, just as God had commanded Noah. Then the LORD closed the door behind them."

Obviously, God - the divine one - the Almighty, directed the animals and actually brought them to Noah, and then God closed the door, when all were inside.
Noah could not know if all the animals were in. Noah was not a zoologist, and he had not written a book with a list of all the animals alive, so divine intervention needs to be considered.
See Genesis 2:19

The naturalist would like to get away with their arguments, by ignoring this fact.
Don't let them do it to you.
Even if others compromise, please... do not you do the same.

Not all Christians take the whole Bible literally and they are still Christians. If you believe Jesus is the Son of God, that he died for your sins on the cross, was buried and rose on the third day and you accept him as Lord and Savior, it makes no difference if you don't take all of Genesis literally.
I always have but I don't condemn those who don't and I'm open to the idea.
There are more problems with the story than the one you mentioned

 

[Zaha Torte]

Not all Christians take the whole Bible literally and they are still Christians. If you believe Jesus is the Son of God, that he died for your sins on the cross, was buried and rose on the third day and you accept him as Lord and Savior, it makes no difference if you don't take all of Genesis literally.
I always have but I don't condemn those who don't and I'm open to the idea.
There are more problems with the story than the one you mentioned

I would argue that those "problems" are very much by design.

We cannot find the truth of God by any other means than the Holy Spirit.

 

[sjastro]

Why may I ask, are you only interested in physical geological evidence?

Physical geological evidence would not confirm or deny the global flood.
It will only lead to further debate, because that is only one piece of evidence which is interpreted by various geologists in different ways.

If however, you just want to see the physical geological evidence, when searching through the papers, you have to scroll down to make sure the pages show up first, before searching... and then be patient.
I'll help you a bit, because based on the behavior of a couple posters in the other thread, I think this is important to mention.
Biblical explanations [which is what I was doing, only to be insulted, disrespected, and judged as being dishonest, and trying to fool people, especially by one identifying themselves as Christian] are usually rejected by the scientific community for the following reasons....

The truth sometimes hurts and it is a bit rich of you to play the victim card when your own behaviour was less than exemplary by gaslighting me and your condescending responses to my posts.
Now you have crossed the line by violating forum rules.

"Calling out" a member is an unsolicited comment about another member in reference to something they may have said, their personal beliefs, their signature, or their avatar (challenging the member in a negative manner). This applies to any thread, whether the called out member is participating in that thread or not. Do not quote, or make comments about another member, in your signature or user title.

And this.

Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed.

I digress however since this is about evidence of a global flood logically since the flood was global and submerged the tallest mountains, we should be able randomly select any point on the Earth’s surface where there is a land mass and find evidence.

What better spot than in the region where I live.
Exhibit A: A geological map of the region.

Sedimentation is a key piece of evidence of a flood.
The code Qvn refers to a basalt layer due to a volcanic eruption of nearby Mt Anakie and dated roughly 4 million years ago during the Pliocene-Pleistocene period which predates the flood.

The only evidence of sedimentation is yellow region labelled Qpe and Qpt.
Qpe indicates Eolian deposits which are materials transported and accumulated by wind, such as sand dunes or loess. These types of deposits could form in arid or semi-arid conditions, or in areas where strong winds transport fine sediments and therefore are not due to any flood.

Qpt deposits usually consist of river terraces or floodplain sediments indicating phases of river activity, where streams deposited layers of sand, silt, gravel, and clay over time.
The formation of terraces typically occurs as rivers incise into their floodplains during periods of falling sea levels, leaving behind elevated remnants of earlier floodplain deposits.
Once again clearly a flood was not involved.

Exhibit B. A geological map of southern Victoria, the state where I live.

Here we have evidence a flood did occur!
The green regions indicate areas where fluvial (river) sediments, coastal deposits, and other materials accumulated when sea levels were higher.
There is a problem however the rising sea levels occurred during the Holocene interglacial 6000-8000 years ago and predates the flood.

A number of dating techniques were used which complement each other.
Radiocarbon dating – for estuarine and peat deposits along rivers and bays.
Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating – for dunes, beach ridges, and river sediments where organic material is absent.
Microfossil analysis (foraminifera, diatoms, pollen) – to identify marine transgressions in estuaries.
Sediment cores and stratigraphy – to reconstruct the sequence of sea-level changes.
Shell and coral dating – to determine the timing of marine influence.

The most compelling evidence of all is sedimentation was localized indicating the flood which occurred during Holocene interglacial was local and not global.

This is only part of the story, in the other thread I asked you to explain why there is no evidence of a mass extinction and other factors which you conveniently ignored.
Another consideration which I brought up in another thread which typically was ignored by other literalists, if the flood did occur around 2350 BC and wiped out humanity bar a few individuals how was it possible the ancient Egyptians were still constructing pyramids and other monuments in the 5th dynasty when the global flood occurred.

 

[Panthers]

Clarity is good.

Belief is one thing. What is the evidence? When did this interstellar deluge happen? What form did it take? How much water fell to Earth? (The whole of the ocean? More than current ocean, but some went away? Just a small fraction current ocean?

Sounds like not too long ago.

How long did it take to fall to Earth? (ie, what was the duration of the event?)

Sounds like 150 days and nights.

Based on what evidence?

Bible

We know of evidence of water on Mars (some of the ice cap is water) and more water in the past. Where do you get the notion that there was water on the Moon, let alone a flood?

Everyone knows there was an ocean on mars.

Where? When did they form? How do you know it doesn't snow there? (Rain is not a major source for glacial growth.)

nor do rivers that flow upstream

There are many floods and certainly many dead things were trapped in the debris of floods. That doesn't make them global in nature. Many, many fossils are *clearly* not formed in flooded environments.

many species survived on the flood debris

What "empty canyons" are you speaking of? (And what does that even mean?)

every canyon that exists is now mysteriously vacant of most of it's water. they were formed quickly.

 

[CoreyD]

Not all Christians take the whole Bible literally and they are still Christians. If you believe Jesus is the Son of God, that he died for your sins on the cross, was buried and rose on the third day and you accept him as Lord and Savior, it makes no difference if you don't take all of Genesis literally.
I always have but I don't condemn those who don't and I'm open to the idea.
There are more problems with the story than the one you mentioned

What did Jesus say at John 8:31, 32?
If anyone does not believe Jesus or his father, do you think that any amount of crying that they are Christian, will appeal to Jesus?

Jesus does not believe the flood happened. He knows it happened. He was there when his father did it, and he witnessed every command his father gave Noah, and everything that happened.
Thus, Jesus spoke about it. God did the same.

I have a feeling you did not take the time to consider those six facts I mentioned, and the scriptures that go with them. They do not leave room to not "take all of Genesis literally".

Please. Read them, and tell me how you can get Noah and the flood to be figurative.

1. it is in the Bible - Genesis 6:1-10:1:
2. God recounted the account as literally historical - Isaiah 54:9
3. God spoke of Noah as an actual literal real historical figure, like Job and Daniel - Ezekiel 14:14, 20
4. the prophets and Jesus referred to Noah and the flood as literally historical - Matthew 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-30
5. Noah is found in the literal genealogical record - Luke 3:36
6. Jesus' apostles spoke of Noah, and the events of his day as literally historical - Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:19, 20; 2 Peter 2:4-6

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sounds like not too long ago.

What do you mean "sounds like not too long ago". Which source is implying that?

Sounds like 150 days and nights.

Same question.

Bible

A bible-like flood is what you are trying to demonstrate. You can't use the thing you are trying to verify as evidence.

(at least that's what I think you are trying to demonstrate. I'd rather you tried to demonstrate this "interstellar flood" thing directly using geological evidence.)

Everyone knows there was an ocean on mars.

I didn't ask about Mars. I asked about your claim of water flowing on the Moon.

nor do rivers that flow upstream

What is this about.

many species survived on the flood debris

That is not relevant.

every canyon that exists is now mysteriously vacant of most of it's water. they were formed quickly.

You can't make that assumption. It must be demonstrated for every such canyon.

 

[BPPLEE]

What did Jesus say at John 8:31, 32?
If anyone does not believe Jesus or his father, do you think that any amount of crying that they are Christian, will appeal to Jesus?

Jesus does not believe the flood happened. He knows it happened. He was there when his father did it, and he witnessed every command his father gave Noah, and everything that happened.
Thus, Jesus spoke about it. God did the same.

I have a feeling you did not take the time to consider those six facts I mentioned, and the scriptures that go with them. They do not leave room to not "take all of Genesis literally".

Please. Read them, and tell me how you can get Noah and the flood to be figurative.

1. it is in the Bible - Genesis 6:1-10:1:
2. God recounted the account as literally historical - Isaiah 54:9
3. God spoke of Noah as an actual literal real historical figure, like Job and Daniel - Ezekiel 14:14, 20
4. the prophets and Jesus referred to Noah and the flood as literally historical - Matthew 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-30
5. Noah is found in the literal genealogical record - Luke 3:36
6. Jesus' apostles spoke of Noah, and the events of his day as literally historical - Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:19, 20; 2 Peter 2:4-6

That still leaves the possibility that the flood was not global.
Let me ask you something, how old is the earth?

 

[Gene2memE]

I don't believe they know, and science is limited, when it comes to knowing everything.


No, because "this evidence", is not factual, because scientist believe that they somehow have the ability to know whatever they want to know.

To me, this is the core of your response.

Science doesn't know everything, therefore I can dismiss everything known to science. Scientific evidence is not factual, because scientists are viewpoint biased.


I think this renders and hope of an honest discussion with you null and void. You're taking a position where any evidence that is contrary to your position (or you can't misconstrue/distort to support it) is wrong. Why is it wrong? Because it doesn't support your position.

You're pre-supposing the answer (the Bible is accurate and a global flood happened) and ignoring any countervailing data that refutes these points.

Do you think they will ever find an accurate answer that is 99.9% reliable, and why?

Reliability is the wrong metric here. That's a bit like asking what flavour an inch is. Evidentiary support is the metric here, along with usefulness and verifiability/falsifiability.

So no, I don't think they'll ever "find an accurate answer that is 99.9% reliable", because time is linear in one direction and all we have to go on are the fragmentary remains left to us.

But, we can look at the evidence and build useful, testable answers and then accept those provisionally as the best supported theories until something better comes along.

Science works by assuming the answer arrived at is WRONG, and then trying to prove that so. Only when you've failed to prove a hypothesis wrong do you then go publish it. And, the reason you publish it is so that other people can work out if you're wrong.

What reasons do you have for not believing the Bible is reliable?

You've got that question backwards. What possible reason should I have to believe the Bible is reliable at all?

On an evidentiary basis, I find it no more credible than any other Near Eastern creation myth of the same time frame.

If the mammoths all went extinct around 4,000 years ago, and they died from a sudden catastrophe,

But, we have good evidence they didn't all go extinct 4000 years ago. And we have good evidence that mammoths didn't die out as the result of a sudden catastrophe.

The best evidence available to us shows the the inhabited range and population suze of mammoths declined over a period of at least 20,000 years. A combination of climactic change and predation are though to be responsible.

We also know that mammoths died out in different regions at different times. Evidence from preserved remains shows that mammoths disappeared from Northern Europe somewhere around 3000 to 5000 thousand years before those in North American. And Siberian populations didn't did out until about 1000-2000 years later still.

The final known population - an isolated reproductive group in Wangel Island - may have died out suddenly about ~3700 years ago. But, even then there's no good evidence to support the proposition that a global flood was responsible for their extinction.

so sudden they did not have time to chew and swallow the food in their mouth, and there was a global flood around that same period, what would that be strong evidence of?

But, we have no evidence of a global flood.

Such an event would have produced distinct global population and genetic bottlenecks. There is no evidence of such.
Such an event would have produced a distinct interruptions in human cultures. There's no evidence of that within the last 25,000 years, all the way up to the epipaleolithic-paleolithic boundary. Any older than that and it's not really worth talking about 'cultures' in the same sense.

 

[Gene2memE]

You agree that fossilization can occur rapidly?

Fossilisation can occur rapidly. This is well know. The speed depends wildly on the type of fossilisation and the initial conditions and circumstances.

I've dug up carbonisation type fossils, which are known to occur rapidly. However, for permineralisation and crystalisation the process is substantially longer.

 

[dlamberth]

There's so much wrong here, I'm going to touch only an a few points.

Why may I ask, are you only interested in physical geological evidence?

I'm very much a Lover of God. And the Earth from my experience can not lie being made by the hand of God. So when stories from an ancient middle-eastern desert tribe are brought forward into today's world, I have to look at what the Earth itSelf, as created by God, is actually showing us. That doesn't take God out of the picture, but it sure questions those ancient stories in a major way.

Physical geological evidence would not confirm or deny the global flood.

Your quite wrong there. Geology of floods are well understood. If there is no evidence of a global flood, especially one that was suppose to happen only 4000 years ago, there was no global flood.

It will only lead to further debate, because that is only one piece of evidence which is interpreted by various geologists in different ways.

As I mentioned above, the geology of floods are well understood. There's not really much difference in interpretation these days. When it comes to floods geology, interpretation isn't a problem. The only difference geologist might have would be water rate and flow or how many times not unlike the Ice Age Floods in the Pacific Northwest. The depth is easy to interpret. The physical geology left behind tells the story. When it comes to the physical story of a global Noah flood...there simply is no physical evidence of said flood.

In the 19 th century, many scientists came to favour erratics as evidence for the end of the last glacial maximum (ice age) 10,000 years ago, rather than a flood. Geologists have suggested that landslides or rockfalls initially dropped the rocks on top of glacial ice (some of them are traced for more than 3,000 km!) 3 . The glaciers continued to move, carrying the rocks with them. When the ice melted, the erratics were left in their present locations. In fact erratics only prove that a large part of the earth was under water about 10,000 years ago.

When going through the paper and as I read this part I was pretty blown away at his ignorance of glaciers and moraine rocks that the author exhibited. He clearly had not visited nor studied glaciers. His focus is archaeology which is the focus of most of the paper, but clearly not geology. Moraine's are only found at the edge of ice flows. Google "Foothills Erratic Train" for a 580 mile long example.

I'm also wondering how the author would approach the more than 350 lava flows of Columbia River Basalt groups, also here in the Pacific North West, with the same ignorance of geology as he's shown in the paper.

 

[Panthers]

What do you mean "sounds like not too long ago". Which source is implying that?

It's proven that a clock on the wall moves slower than a clock on a wrist.

Same question.

A bible-like flood is what you are trying to demonstrate. You can't use the thing you are trying to verify as evidence.

There are oceans of water on this planet that are alien.

(at least that's what I think you are trying to demonstrate. I'd rather you tried to demonstrate this "interstellar flood" thing directly using geological evidence.)

I didn't ask about Mars. I asked about your claim of water flowing on the Moon.

The moon is soaked in water, everyone knows this

What is this about.

That is not relevant.

You can't make that assumption. It must be demonstrated for every such canyon.

Every canyon is a canyon because of the lack of apparent water

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's proven that a clock on the wall moves slower than a clock on a wrist.

What?

There are oceans of water on this planet that are alien.

Again, demonstrate this.

The moon is soaked in water, everyone knows this

Hahahaha. NO. The Moon is dry. People have been there. No water on the surface.

Every canyon is a canyon because of the lack of apparent water

Which means exactly nothing.

 

[jayem]

This may be off topic, but the biblical account of Noah's flood is illogical. Here's Genesis 6:

5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. (RSV)

If God is omniscient--and knows everything that has or will happen--why would God be grieved by the wickedness of mankind? It makes no sense that--except for one man and his family-- an all-knowing, supreme God would be shocked by the bad behavior of his own creation. The only logical explanation as I see it, is that this is an origin myth like many others, in may other religious faiths.

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

It is you who are using the word "shocked". Not God. Take out your word, and it becomes clear. He gave them much freedom, they squandered it, He was grieved to see the need to destroy them, and destroyed them.