Where are the human bones and remains from the flood?

[RealityCheck]

Reading the article should answer the first part of your inquiry... the second part I don't know. If I find anything, I'll pass it along.

One quick thought... I do remember hearing about the possibility that the foundations of various Gaza Plateau structures (the great pyramids and the sphynx in particular) showed considerable signs of being underwater at some point in history. The book I heard this from was called "Fingerprints of the Gods"... can't remember the authors name, but I definitely remember that he was not a Christian! His book has some very interesting information that could support the idea of a global flood and following ice age as well as, or even better than, his pet theory about crustal slippage.

God bless!

Even if you accept creationist dating of events, a truly global flood would have occurred before the pyramids were built.

 

[The Lady Kate]

They weren't GREAT CITIES, they were most likely a bunch of huts. They wouldn't be any differt, if not less interesting, than any other excavation.

God flooded the entire planet to get rid of "a bunch of huts"?

Doesn't that sound a wee bit like overkill?

Again, they were probably so insignificantly small, the flood could have washed away any evidence.

It had to get washed somewhere... and again, if it was so insignificanly small, a little fire and brimstone would've sufficed... a la Sodom and Gomorrah.

Confucius said "don't use a connon to kill a mosquito." I can't imagine God playing the "global devestation" card unless He had a really big job ahead of him.

How do you know that we haven't? They could be any of the ancient remains, found anywhere on earth.
FYI: Remains, even bones, are not always fossilized. They could have rotted away.

But we haven't even found any geologial evidence of a global flood... never mind remians. A disaster of this magnitude would've left some serious world-wide scarring which frankly just isn't there.

 

[steen]

We have living trees that are older than the pyramids. That really precludes any kind of global flood at that time.

 

[RightWingGirl]

I think that the civilization before the flood was most likely at least as high as the Egyptians. They probably had great cities and dwelling all round the earth.
As to why we don't find many human remains--Humans being the most intelligent, they would probably be caught by the flood later that most things, and because of this tend to rot instead of being fossilized.

If anyone is interested in the answer to this question, you might want to look at this article. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4419.asp
I would really like it if someone could give me any scientific problems with it.

 

[RealityCheck]

I think that the civilization before the flood was most likely at least as high as the Egyptians. They probably had great cities and dwelling all round the earth.
As to why we don't find many human remains--Humans being the most intelligent, they would probably be caught by the flood later that most things, and because of this tend to rot instead of being fossilized.

If anyone is interested in the answer to this question, you might want to look at this article. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4419.asp
I would really like it if someone could give me any scientific problems with it.

Uh huh. Well, given that the whole period of the flooding was "forty days and forty nights of rain" and that by the end of that, even the highest mountains were covered.... how does a 40 day difference lead to animal fossils being preserved, but human remains rotting?

 

[steen]

If anyone is interested in the answer to this question, you might want to look at this article. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4419.asp
I would really like it if someone could give me any scientific problems with it.

Well, I will go with it as long as I can stand the half-truths and deceptions.

....For example, the huge Coconino sandstone formation in the Grand Canyon is about 100 m thick and extends to some 250,000 km2 in area. The large-scale cross-bedding shows that it was all laid down in deep, fast-flowing water in a matter of days.....

There is no such showing. This is a 'just because I claim so" postulation.

...Other rock layers in the Grand Canyon indicate that they were rapidly deposited also, and without substantial time-breaks between the laying down of each unit.1 ...
...Austin, S.A., Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, San Diego, CA, 1994...

reference definitely is not a scientific source. there is no scientific evidence for the claim.

...Indeed, the whole Grand Canyon sequence is bent at the Kaibab Upwarp, in some spots quite radically, and without cracking. This indicates that the strata, which supposedly represent some 300 million years of evolutionary time, were all still soft when the bending occurred.1,2 ...
...Austin, S.A., Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, San Diego, CA, 1994
...Morris, J., The Young Earth, Creation-Life Publishers Inc., Colorado Springs, CO, 1994...

There is no evidence for this. There is lots of evidence of millenia of deposits instead, evidence that this article conveniently ignores. So far, it is all "just because I say so" postulations.

....This is consistent with the layers being deposited and bent quickly, during the Genesis Flood....

No, that would have resulted in mixing instead.

....Some other evidence for the non-existence of the eons of time and for the rapid deposition of the layers are:

• polystrate fossils—tree trunks, for example, running through strata supposedly representing many millions of years (these are common in coal) show that the strata must have been deposited in quick succession, otherwise the tops of the trunks would have rotted away....

Ah, a "just because I say so" claim. We have directly witnessed the polystrate deposition of material around dead trunks over many years. So far, these are not evidence, they are arguments. Unsubstantiated, unreasearched arguments at that.

...delicate surface features preserved on underlying rock units—such as ripple marks and footprints—indicate that there was no long time gap before the next unit was deposited....

No, these show up in the middle of the material supposedly deposited by the flood. Now, how any kind of markings can show up on specific layers in the middle of being laid down by a flood is anybody's guess. But if a foot print, f.ex. is present, then the ground would have had to dry out and harden first, before the next layer would be deposited on top of it. And it gest even worse when we see seasonal patterns such as alternating pollen deposits or fish fossils with fish feces fossilised as well (Not something that would be laid down in annual layers during a raging flood. For more, see here: http://www.christianforums.com/t3086519-varves-only-discussion.html )

..lack of fossilized soil layers in the rock strata, indicating no long time gaps....

That is an absolutely meaningless claim. Soil doesn't fossilize.

...lack of erosion features in the rock layers or between the rock units (any significant time break would result in channels being formed in the exposed strata from the action of water or wind)....

And who says these are lacking? Another "just because I say so" claim in the hope that you won't actually investigate the claims closer.

...limited extent of unconformities. Although unconformities (clear breaks in deposition) indicate time breaks, such unconformities are localized, with no break evident in rocks of the same strata elsewhere, thus indicating that any time break was localized and brief....

More gobbledygook.

...clastic dykes and pipes—where a sand/water mixture has squeezed up through overlying layers. Although the underlying sand is supposed to be millions of years older than the overlying layers, it obviously did not have time to harden....

Sand certainly can be washed in throu8gh springs etc.

Now, how are salt layers explained? How is lime stone explained?

...Uluru (Ayers Rock), in central Australia, is also supposed to have formed slowly over hundreds of millions of years, but the structure of the rock shows that it must have formed very quickly and recently.4...
...Snelling, A., Uluru and Kata Tjuta testimony to the Flood, Creation 20(2):36–40, 1998....

Ah, another non-scientific source. For the heck of it, I checked.

Nice overview: http://www.ayersrockresort.com.au/geology/

For scientific references (go down about 1/3 to "We'll start with Australia's best known physical landmark, Uluru "):
http://humanities.cqu.edu.au/geography/GEOG11023/week_5.htm

These site are pointing out that the Scientific Evifdence is not what AiG claims.

...The existence of many ‘living fossils’ also challenges the supposed hundreds of millions of years of ‘earth history.’ For example, starfish, jellyfish, brachiopods, clams and snails, which are known as fossils dated by evolutionists as 530 million years old, look like those living today. Dr Joachim Scheven, a German scientist, has a museum with over 500 examples of such ‘living fossils.’...

A very off claim. What is this evidence off?

...Furthermore, some of these fossils are missing from intervening strata that supposedly represent many millions of years of evolutionary time, again indicating that there were no time gaps...

Really? they are missing in these layers? That sounds like another "just because I say so" postulation. And "some of"???????? Meaning that others are not missing? That seems to directly sink this argument, then.

Well, enough of this. Your site sucks, it has no evidence, arguing exclusively per "just because I say so" postulations that are not even evidence or factual, onyl claims and arguments.

 

[GenemZ]

Uh huh. Well, given that the whole period of the flooding was "forty days and forty nights of rain" and that by the end of that, even the highest mountains were covered.... how does a 40 day difference lead to animal fossils being preserved, but human remains rotting?

They are not the highest mountains. Years back I went to a library and did research. There are mountain ranges around the world that are much higher than mentioned, which the waters went about twenty feet above.

Genesis 7:18-20 (New International Version)
The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet."



​

Now? If God can part the Red Sea? Keep the waters heaped up, and the rest left dry?

God could also limit where the high water was to be, and keep it from spreading out much further.


We are not told how it was done in Noah's case. But, we know it can be done by God that way. We do know that only the KNOWN WORLD to man was to be destroyed. Man was yet in his infancy. Maybe only a few million on earth.

And, we know today that if animal species from all over the world were to be placed on the Ark, in pairs? They just would not fit. It would have taken a huge fleet of Arks!

And, those specialized indigenous foods for many animals? Needed to be stored on the Ark? How could these be gathered from all over the world?

Noah's flood was a local flood. Its only purpose was to destroy man. Not the planet.

Where man lived was all men knew of the world. The Known world was to be destroyed. Not the planet. It was man that displeased God.

2 Peter 2:5 niv
"If he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others..."



​

God never judges with disaster without first giving warning. Now, if men were spread all over the face of the planet? How could they have heard Noah's preaching as a warning to them?

The flood was localized. If anyone researched how many known species of animal exists on the planet? They will begin to understand why many scientists today see Noah's flood, when thought of as a universal flood, could be nothing more than a pagan fantasy belief. Because they know only a small fraction of all the species of this planet could have fit on one Ark that size.

But, I could still be wrong.

Maybe the measurements for the Ark got changed by some copyist along the way, and it stuck? It would have to be miles long, though. Miles!

Now, for another point to be explored.

Joshua 3:12-16 (New International Version)
"Now then, choose twelve men from the tribes of Israel, one from each tribe. And as soon as the priests who carry the ark of the LORD -the Lord of all the earth—set foot in the Jordan, its waters flowing downstream will be cut off and stand up in a heap."

So when the people broke camp to cross the Jordan, the priests carrying the ark of the covenant went ahead of them.

Now the Jordan is at flood stage all during harvest. Yet as soon as the priests who carried the ark reached the Jordan and their feet touched the water's edge, the water from upstream stopped flowing. It piled up in a heap a great distance away, at a town called Adam in the vicinity of Zarethan, while the water flowing down to the Sea of the Arabah (the Salt Sea ) was completely cut off. So the people crossed over opposite Jericho."



​

As we can read. The LORD can make water pile up in great heaps!

The flood to destroy the known world to man could have been in such a heap, used to only cover what God wanted to be destroyed!!!

It did not have to cover the entire planet to get twenty feet above Mt Ararat, which is not the highest Mt range on the earth. There are other ranges much taller than twenty feet above! There was dry land existing around the planet if Noah's flood were to cover the entire planet. Its only the world known to man that was flooded.

Look!


Mt. Ararat? 16,940 feet. Water only went twenty feet above it.

Mount Everest? 29,028 feet

K2 (Godwin Austen) 28,250 feet

Kanchenjunga 28,169 feet

Go here: http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/Homework/mountains/tallest.htm

There are many mountains on earth thousands of feet higher than Mt Ararat.
Mt A. was only covered with about twenty feet of water above!




Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[xpiotosaves]

God flooded the entire planet to get rid of "a bunch of huts"?

Doesn't that sound a wee bit like overkill?

They were evil, he wanted to destroy earth entirely but spared it because of Noah.

It had to get washed somewhere... and again, if it was so insignificanly small, a little fire and brimstone would've sufficed... a la Sodom and Gomorrah.

Sodom and Gomorrah was over a smaller area. There were also more rightous people on Earth then. Also God promised not to flood the Earth again so he resorted to something else.

But we haven't even found any geologial evidence of a global flood... never mind remians. A disaster of this magnitude would've left some serious world-wide scarring which frankly just isn't there.

Floods nowadays don't leave serious geological effects (maybe some erosion and new bodies of water but thats about it). What exactly are you looking for?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Floods nowadays don't leave serious geological effects (maybe some erosion and new bodies of water but thats about it). What exactly are you looking for?

the badlands of Eastern Washington state show the effects of a monster flood, far far smaller than any kind of proposed Noahic global flood. and it left lots of evidence of a flood, how it happened, when and the particulars of mechanism.

so to answer your question? "what exactly are you looking for?"
evidence of a global flood similiar to the badlands flooding example

 

[xpiotosaves]

Floods nowadays don't leave serious geological effects (maybe some erosion and new bodies of water but thats about it). What exactly are you looking for?

the badlands of Eastern Washington state show the effects of a monster flood, far far smaller than any kind of proposed Noahic global flood. and it left lots of evidence of a flood, how it happened, when and the particulars of mechanism.

so to answer your question? "what exactly are you looking for?"
evidence of a global flood similiar to the badlands flooding example

What exactly are they?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

What exactly are they?

see if your local public library has or can interlibrary loan:

Mystery Of The Megaflood [VHS] (2005)
A devastating flood occurring near the end of the last Ice Age (in what is now northern Montana) is the subject of this intriguing "Nova" program. Astonishing animations reveal what may have transpired two million years ago when a mountainous ice dam broke, unleashing a massive flood that obliterated everything in its path. 56 min.

 

[xpiotosaves]

see if your local public library has or can interlibrary loan:

Mystery Of The Megaflood [VHS] (2005)
A devastating flood occurring near the end of the last Ice Age (in what is now northern Montana) is the subject of this intriguing "Nova" program. Astonishing animations reveal what may have transpired two million years ago when a mountainous ice dam broke, unleashing a massive flood that obliterated everything in its path. 56 min.

If Noah's flood destroyed everthing, then no earth would be around. How do you know this flood wasn't a cause of the biblical flood?

 

[Willtor]

There's a preview of the documentary on the Nova website.

 

[steen]

If Noah's flood destroyed everthing, then no earth would be around. How do you know this flood wasn't a cause of the biblical flood?

Perhaps because it only happened in a localized area of the pacific Northwest US?

 

[xpiotosaves]

Perhaps because it only happened in a localized area of the pacific Northwest US?

How do you know that it was so localized? Often times a flood will cause more damage to one place than another. Maybe that was one of the areas worst hit. And also remember that the US wasn't as civilized as the rest of the earth. The damage caused in other places could have had construction on it to build markets, burial tombs, monuments, and so on. Many other places could have had substantial growth of forests and jungles over it.

 

[steen]

How do you know that it was so localized? Often times a flood will cause more damage to one place than another.

Here is a map of the area:
http://www.glaciallakemissoula.org/virtualtour/index.html
...Testifying to the cataclysm are the ancient shorelines, ripple marks, scoured lakes, dry channels, falls, and flood debris that are still visible after nearly 12,000 years. ...

Outside of that area, these signs completely disappear.

This site has a nice reference list if you look down the sidebar under appendices
http://www.nps.gov/iceagefloods/

Here is another site from USGS with more details, references and looking at specific areas in he region.
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Glaciers/IceSheets/description_lake_missoula.html

Then there is this nice USGS site where you can trace the evidence. Lots of pictures. Just keep hitting "next" when you are done looking at a page:
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/geology/publications/inf/72-2/contents.htm

A very nice site with description and pictures and lots of on-line references:
http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/corley2/missoula.htm

Maybe that was one of the areas worst hit.

It has a very distinct edge, outside of which the signs and evidence completely disappears. This was specifically a local flood. No amount of creationist wishful thinking can change that.

But it does show what signs we would see after a big flood. When such signs are completely absent, then we can be sure there was no flood in that area.

And also remember that the US wasn't as civilized as the rest of the earth. The damage caused in other places could have had construction on it to build markets, burial tombs, monuments, and so on. Many other places could have had substantial growth of forests and jungles over it.

Huh? How utterly irrelevant. This flood scoured everything down to the bedrock. It wouldn't have mattered what was on top.

 

[xpiotosaves]

• Sea originating fossils have been found at high altitudes of every continent.

• The oldest known living trees, Bristlecone Pines in California, are about 5000 years old. This would coincide with the recovery of the earth after the flood.

• The Origin of Civilization appeared near the resting place of the Ark at about the same time that the flood occurred.

• Geologist classify rock formations by the type of rock they contain. A layer of the same type of rock is called a stratum. Many scientist believe that certain types of stratum originated in certain time periods such as the Eocene, Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous periods of time. There are many places on the earth where the order of these strata in reversed. Examples of this are the Matterhorn and Mythen peaks in the Alps. The order of the strata has been completely reversed in respect to the earth around it. Though many explanations have been offered for this phenomenon, the catastrophic effects of a flood as described in the Bible is still the best explanation.

• Sedimentary deposits cover large parts of the earth. These are the type of deposits that result from movement of water.

• An analysis of 30,000 radiocarbon dating results published in the "Radiocarbon" journal shows an unmistakable spike in the death of living things about 5,000 years ago.
• In Lincoln County, Wyoming fossils have been found of an alligator, deep sea bass, sunfish, crustaceans, and palm leaves. Obviously these would not grow well in Wyoming's climate. It also suggest that at one time Wyoming was covered water. The fossils of the life found in this vicinity are very well preserved indicating a fast burial and preservation.

 

[xpiotosaves]

Here is a map of the area:
http://www.glaciallakemissoula.org/virtualtour/index.html
...Testifying to the cataclysm are the ancient shorelines, ripple marks, scoured lakes, dry channels, falls, and flood debris that are still visible after nearly 12,000 years. ...

Outside of that area, these signs completely disappear.

This site has a nice reference list if you look down the sidebar under appendices
http://www.nps.gov/iceagefloods/

Here is another site from USGS with more details, references and looking at specific areas in he region.
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/Glaciers/IceSheets/description_lake_missoula.html

Then there is this nice USGS site where you can trace the evidence. Lots of pictures. Just keep hitting "next" when you are done looking at a page:
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/geology/publications/inf/72-2/contents.htm

A very nice site with description and pictures and lots of on-line references:
http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/corley2/missoula.htm

It has a very distinct edge, outside of which the signs and evidence completely disappears. This was specifically a local flood. No amount of creationist wishful thinking can change that.

But it does show what signs we would see after a big flood. When such signs are completely absent, then we can be sure there was no flood in that area.

Huh? How utterly irrelevant. This flood scoured everything down to the bedrock. It wouldn't have mattered what was on top.

Why does one of the earlier posts say it happened 2 million years ago and yours says 12,000?

 

[notto]

Sea originating fossils have been found at high altitudes of every continent.

fossils are not at high altitudes because then landed on top of a mountain. They are in the mountains and make up the mountains. They are part of sedimentary rock that was raised to create the mountains. We can directly measure this uplift still occuring today. There is an observable mechanism to explain this and it doesn't involve a world wide flood.

The oldest known living trees, Bristlecone Pines in California, are about 5000 years old. This would coincide with the recovery of the earth after the flood.

And the colony of dead trees and other trace evidence around those bristlecone pines shows that it has been there for much longer than 5000 years. Are you familiar with where these trees are found? They certainly did not just start growing after a flood.

The Origin of Civilization appeared near the resting place of the Ark at about the same time that the flood occurred.

The origin of Western civilization would be more accurate. You seem to be ignoring Asian and South American civilization in your claims. Are you familiar with the evidence on when they started?

Geologist classify rock formations by the type of rock they contain. A layer of the same type of rock is called a stratum. Many scientist believe that certain types of stratum originated in certain time periods such as the Eocene, Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous periods of time. There are many places on the earth where the order of these strata in reversed. Examples of this are the Matterhorn and Mythen peaks in the Alps. The order of the strata has been completely reversed in respect to the earth around it. Though many explanations have been offered for this phenomenon, the catastrophic effects of a flood as described in the Bible is still the best explanation.

Can you show us the deficiencies in the mainstream view of overthrusts causing this? How large of areas are you talking about? How does the flood explain these small areas of 'reversed' strata? How many layers are 'reversed'?

Sedimentary deposits cover large parts of the earth. These are the type of deposits that result from movement of water.

Water yes, movement of water, no. Much of the deposits can only form in calm, deep water. Are you familiar with what it takes for limestone to form? Can you show us how limestone can for in moving water?

An analysis of 30,000 radiocarbon dating results published in the "Radiocarbon" journal shows an unmistakable spike in the death of living things about 5,000 years ago.

What is the name of the article and who wrote it? Do you have a reference to a year or month of this Journal? Have you read the journal article yourself?

In Lincoln County, Wyoming fossils have been found of an alligator, deep sea bass, sunfish, crustaceans, and palm leaves. Obviously these would not grow well in Wyoming's climate. It also suggest that at one time Wyoming was covered water. The fossils of the life found in this vicinity are very well preserved indicating a fast burial and preservation.

Considering we have measurable and observable mechansims that show that continental plates are still moving, we have a mechanism that would explain the climate of continents changing. What you provide here is no surprise and is easily explained with observable mechanisms.

All of these are PRATTS and ignore the mechanisms that we directly observe every day that explain them. You can't ignore science and avoid measurable and observable mechanisms as if they don't exist. Your explainations do no fit observation.

 

[GenemZ]

Even if you accept creationist dating of events, a truly global flood would have occurred before the pyramids were built.

A true global flood did occur before the pyramids were built.

Genesis 1:2-10 (New International Version)
"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good."

​

The prior creation was terminated with a universal flood. Then it was frozen over into a massive ice pack.

The beginning of this present creation, which is found on the surface of the earth, began with this universal flood being abated. The old creation is where we get our oil supply from as it was sucked under the surface of the earth in its decay.

In contrast, Noah's flood was local. For, the entire purpose for Noah's flood was destroy mankind, not the planet.

Genesis 6:5-7a niv
"The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth."
​

Man was yet in his infancy and was only living in a small area of the planet when Noah's flood took place. If you read through Genesis 5, you will read that men were not having their first child until they were eighty, etc. There was no major population explosion going on. Mankind's numbers at the time of the flood were not high, let alone covering the surface of the earth.

If you read Genesis 6, you will see that God was to destroy mankind, not the entire planet. How much flood was needed to destroy an area the size of NYC? Would it take a universal flood? Would all the species of animals of the entire planet fit on a single Ark? The answer to both questions is "NO."

The Bible must be read from the perspective of the one it was written to. God was out to destroy all that was KNOWN to mankind. Where man inhabited.....

Not, the entire planet.


Grace and peace, GeneZ