Where are the current ripples from Noah's Flood?

[KevinT]

Chicxulub, though large and violent was more or less localized when considering the whole of the earth. The Noah Flood on the other hand was suppose to have violently covered the entire globe. We have physical evidence of Chicxulub as well as other asteroid hits on the earth. There is no such physical evidence of a Noah Flood. It's that simple.

Well, if in 2024 we don't have evidence for something, then 100% it didn't happen.

Whew! Glad we got that cleared up!

KT

 

[Astrid]

Many have tried...all have failed.

Same with perpetual motion, and squaring the circle.

At some point ( early on) the quest becomes crackpot.

 

[Astrid]

Well, if in 2024 we don't have evidence for something, then 100% it didn't happen.

Whew! Glad we got that cleared up!

Do you really- really think that ansensible way to thunk?

The sarcasm is seriously misplaced!

Like, every single datum point on earth says the Bible- flood
did not happen, not for it, but you hold out that it did.

The lack of elephant- doody or footprints, odor or disarray
says Joe told the police a lie when you said a herd invaded
just minutes ago

Woul you jump in to defend the story
with the same sarcastic remarks?

Might get a free ride to the funny farm that way!

 

[dlamberth]

Well, if in 2024 we don't have evidence for something, then 100% it didn't happen.

With a global wide event like the Noah's Flood that was suppose to have happened only 4,000 years ago?..., Absolutely it did not happen!

 

[Tinker Grey]

Well, if in 2024 we don't have evidence for something, then 100% it didn't happen.

Whew! Glad we got that cleared up!

KT

Look up Modus tollens - Wikipedia

​

If P, then Q.​

Not Q.​

Therefore, not P.​

If this were Tuesday, we'd be having soup for supper. We are not having soup for supper. It is not Tuesday.

If there were a flood, we'd have X, Y, and Z evidence. We don't. Ergo, no flood.

Now you can contradict premise 1 thusly: It is not true that Q would happen if P happened.

You can contradict premise 2 thusly: Yes, but we are having soup so you cannot conclude it is not Tuesday.

But if it is true that there is no X, Y, or Z, then there is no flood.

So under some conditions, yes, you can prove a negative.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I am convinced that there was an asteroid strike because there is physical evidence of it in the world today. I am not convinced that humans evolved from nothing (abiogenesis). I have had extensive training on cellular biology and genetics, and I do not see that system as being sufficient to generate humans.

So in your framework, there would be a conflict if the meteor strike is dated before humans were around. But in my view, the timeline is not clear and there is room for many possibilities.

Best wishes,

KT

Even if you don't agree with abiogenesis, your idea still has massive holes, mainly that humans were not around for the asteroid strike. There were no witnesses for that. Simple as.

 

[AV1611VET]

I can prove I’m not tall enough for the American NBA even if I identified as a man. And tall.

Who would ask you for proof? or demand evidence, lest they not believe you?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Chicxulub, though large and violent was more or less localized when considering the whole of the earth. The Noah Flood on the other hand was suppose to have violently covered the entire globe. We have physical evidence of Chicxulub as well as other asteroid hits on the earth. There is no such physical evidence of a Noah Flood. It's that simple.

Was it supposed to be "violent"? It rained a lot for a long time and the water rose until every one drowned. If "fountains of the deep" is supposed to be anything it sounds like a big spring in the sea or something bubbling water up.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I am convinced that there was an asteroid strike because there is physical evidence of it in the world today.

Exactly.

I am not convinced that humans evolved from nothing (abiogenesis).

Humans didn't evolve from nothing. We evolved from earlier apes. Depending on what you want to call "human", it occurred in the last few million years or less.

I have had extensive training on cellular biology and genetics, and I do not see that system as being sufficient to generate humans.

So in your framework, there would be a conflict if the meteor strike is dated before humans were around.

It's not the framework of anyone here, but rather the firm date established for the Chicxulub impact (65 Myr ago) and the evolution of humans (last few million years). There are no apes or even monkeys at older layers than the K-T boundary that was created by the Chicxulub impact.

But in my view, the timeline is not clear and there is room for many possibilities.

The items in discussion here have clear positions on the time line. It is not possible for any human to have experienced the Chicxulub impact.

Best wishes,

KT

 

[AV1611VET]

The items in discussion here have clear positions on the time line. It is not possible for any human to have experienced the Chicxulub impact.

Ya -- all neatly hidden away within a timeline that has been stretched from 6000 years, out to 13.7 billion.

That allows them to put ANYTHING within that time span, then claim no one was around to observe it.

 

[Astrid]

Was it supposed to be "violent"? It rained a lot for a long time and the water rose until every one drowned. If "fountains of the deep" is supposed to be anything it sounds like a big spring in the sea or something bubbling water up.

Super heavy rain, lakes, rivers overflowing, sea level rising…

Then with even the highest point of land several meters under water
( how was that determined) water stays an inordinate time, then
a wind wafts it to Neptune.

in there somehow the Grand Canyon of USA was dug, clams
scooped from seabed landed on Everest, and several meters of
”muck” landed in the arctic and flash froze all the Mammoths.

I heard about that.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Super heavy rain, lakes, rivers overflowing, sea level rising…

Then with even the highest point of land several meters under water
( how was that determined) water stays an inordinate time, then
a wind wafts it to Neptune.

in there somehow the Grand Canyon of USA was dug, clams
scooped from seabed landed on Everest, and several meters of
”muck” landed in the arctic and flash froze all the Mammoths.

I heard about that.

There is always rivers overflowing from floods, but that's not what tsunami's look like either from earthquakes or meteors. Those overflowing rivers seem to be what the "ripples" of the OP are about, but we've drifted a bit from that.

 

[AV1611VET]

clams scooped from seabed landed on Everest,

Re the clams, a poster (Armoured) here made this up for me almost ten years ago:*

Oh, they float through they air with the greatest of ease,
Those magical clams of AV's fantasies.
Their movements are graceful, they waft on the breeze,
No longer to mire in the muck.

They flock all around us sans feather nor beak,
Flapping their shells as they dive and they streak.
They inherit the heavens, no longer so meek,
'Neath the oceans where they once were stuck...........

* To the tune of: The Daring Young Man on the Flying Trapeze

 

[dlamberth]

Was it supposed to be "violent"? It rained a lot for a long time and the water rose until every one drowned. If "fountains of the deep" is supposed to be anything it sounds like a big spring in the sea or something bubbling water up.

We have two recent hurricanes as examples of the damage that rushing water can do. And by comparison, they would have been tiny compared to a Noah Flood. Yes, after a certain depth I can see more of a bathtub sort of filling. But not at first where it would be a gush. But than there's the drainage effect afterwards. You just can't have that much water on the face of the earth with out evidence left behind.

 

[AV1611VET]

You just can't have that much water on the face of the earth with out evidence left behind.

Can God take away leprosy from a person and leave that person so clean, you'd never know he had it?

Moses' face literally shone when he came down from Mt Sinai.

Exodus 34:29 And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him.

 

[Hans Blaster]

We have two recent hurricanes as examples of the damage that rushing water can do. And by comparison, they would have been tiny compared to a Noah Flood. Yes, after a certain depth I can see more of a bathtub sort of filling. But not at first where it would be a gush. But than there's the drainage effect afterwards. You just can't have that much water on the face of the earth with out evidence left behind.

Oh I agree. I suppose a 5 week hurricane could fit the Noah story, but not a big tsunami.

 

[common prophets]

And again, there are people who claim that the Bible DOES describe a global flood and thus they try and prove it through very poor science.

I agree that they first misread the Bible and then they do bad science.

 

[common prophets]

The flood story is exactly what makes genesis a non credible sourc.
And
It says a whole lot more and more specific than just your short paraphrase.

Actually, the Bible is credible. Only the reading is non-credible. If we take alternative meanings that are consistent with science, then the Bible becomes credible.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I agree that they first misread the Bible and then they do bad science.

I mean, the Bible does describe a global flood since God talks about covering all the Earth in water: Genesis 6:17 -
- NIV - I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.
- KJV - And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
- ASV - And I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is in the earth shall die.

So they're not misreading it. It's just that context isn't applied.

 

[Astrid]

Actually, the Bible is credible. Only the reading is non-credible. If we take alternative meanings that are consistent with science, then the Bible becomes credible.

Of what use is the Bible if you need
science to tell you what the facts are?