Is Evidence of a Local Flood Absent?

[technomage]

If you were not around to be an eyewitness to the flood the only observations and evidnece you can have one way or the other is second-hand at best and you would have to be a fool to insist that the flood happened or did not happen in a particular way based on such observations and evidence.

This is not correct, Flaja: catatrophic events (on large or small scales) leave evidence. That evidence can be analyzed.

Again, will you examine the evidence, or ignore it sight-unseen?

[shunyadragon]

This is assuming that you know exactly how many layers of rock there is supposed to be. This would be a blasphemous statement if it weren't so foolish. You were not around when the Lord laid the foundations of the earth, so you cannot possibly know what those foundations are supposed to look like.

False, the sediments and depositions and boundaries of ALL the strata in these locations do not even show the slightest sign of this type catastrophic event. We can easily compare the nature of these depositions and their boundaries with the way sediments are deposited today and their boundaries, including vaste strata of lake deposits and coral reefs.

[ReligionFails]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: sc_q_jayce

Please note that this forum is for theists only.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[oxmixmudd]

If you were not around to be an eyewitness to the flood the only observations and evidnece you can have one way or the other is second-hand at best and you would have to be a fool to insist that the flood happened or did not happen in a particular way based on such observations and evidence.

Flaja - is this the only response you have - "no-one was there?"

Should we then let every murderer go free where the only eyewitness to the act was the victim?

What actually happens when a person 'sees' and act take place? Certain chemical reactions take place that 'record' the event in the witnesses mind. Those chemicals can then be 'read' and 'interpreted' by the mind to reconstruct what happened (not always correctly).

Now, the same physical principles that allow for memories to be formed (cause and effect) allow for a great many more 'witnesses' to events than just living humans. The entire universe is both actor and witness. It is only up to us to figure out how to read the record that exists in the various 'recorders' that make up this universe.

One such 'recorder' is sedimentary rock. And while these rocks don't record everything, they record enough for us to know there is no a single event across the whole of the Earth that matches the most literal reading of Genesis. So either the sediments and other formations of the Earth for some reason did not record this event, or the event did not happen. The former would be highly irregular, as we find evidence of floods at various times and in various regions recorded in sediments all the time.

So at best, you are limited to an invisible global flood, one that killed off all animal life on the planet save what was in Noah's ark, but left no identifiable record of its coming and (especially) going.

Do you know how to deposit and remove miles of water depth from the surface of the Earth w/o leaving a consistent worldwide indication of the event? Do you have even a guess as to how that might work other than God performed a Genie like action and suddenly there was an extra mile or two of water on the Earth, then next there wasn't? Can a natural system add miles of water and then drain it off at such a slow pace as to disturb only isolated areas? Can that much water be added and drained without disturbing placid lakes with lengthy sedimentary histories (40,000 years) like Suigetsu in Japan?


Jim

[MooseOnTheLoose]

So I guess what you're saying, Jim, is that God can only work within the parameters of human science?

If you flooded your kitchen and then cleaned up the mess afterwards, future occupants of your house might find no evidence of a flood.

[oxmixmudd]

So I guess what you're saying, Jim, is that God can only work within the parameters of human science?

Not at all. If you believe the flood happened, but that it was a miraculous event where God not only caused it but purged all evidence that would reveal it actually happened, then you are fine. But even with the resurrection, an event that is impossible without miraculous intervention, God left the stone rolled away and the tomb empty.

If you flooded your kitchen and then cleaned up the mess afterwards, future occupants of your house might find no evidence of a flood.

Depends on where they looked and how well I cleaned it up. Ever take up a carpet in a new house you've bought and discover all the places the previous owner's dog pee'd on it? Natural events typically leave evidence of their occurrence. Especially events of global scope (big meteor impacts, massive volcanic eruptions, mega tsunamis). Now we have all kinds of evidence for those kinds of events. A flood of the scope of the traditional Noah's flood dwarfs all these. For it to not leave any evidence would require purposed intervention on the part of God and make it stand out in that given all the evidence for a tremendously long history on the Earth that does exist - why would God chose an event that would firmly establish the truth of His word and then erase that.

Do you really think it makes sense to suppose God purposefully erased the flood's consequences?



Jim

[franktalk]

Faith that speaks where evidence is silent is one thing. Faith that speaks contrary to evidence is quite another--usually spelled "delusion."

I so look forward to post like yours. Now you are going to have to define for me the evidence you are talking about. Are you talking about evidence that is accepted by most experts as fact or are you talking about evidence that in deed is fact. As far as I know the later set of data is almost non-existent. The former is widely known and is supported by many people in ivory towers. Maybe that is your definition of evidence. Or maybe a classic legal evidence is even better, that way data not gathered in the proper way can be excluded from our decision making process.

Now faith can be described in many flavors but in its true form is not common. Take your own faith, how has it served you? What fruit has it born? Has your faith handled the test of time? Does your faith require the sacrifice of others or of yourself?

[greentwiga]

I thought that the original questions were well thought out and should be focused on

1. Is it true that there's no evidence for even a local flood that wiped those people out?
2. What evidence would have been left behind?
3. If 1 is true, then is it possible that the evidence would have vanished by now?
4. Is there any way we can know how many human beings existed at the time of the Flood?
5. At least how small would the Flood have had to been?
6. Does the Bible directly mention EXACTLY where the Flood occurred?

We can only look for evidence where the flood occurred, if it was local. Since Peter, in mentioning the flood destruction does not use the word Ge as he does for the creation of the earth and the final destruction, but uses Cosmos, meaning world or the organized society, let's see where we are led if the flood only destroyed the organized world. About 3,000 BC, the only truly civilized area of the whole world was in lower Sumer. Lower Sumer had a method of worship that resembled Gen 6:1-4. Lower Sumer built towers exactly like the tower of Babel. The two rivers are mentioned in the garden of Eden, and Abraham's home was in the area. If it was a local flood, it had to be in lower Sumer.
Looking in Sumer, we have found a couple of cities that have flood layers dated to 3,000 BC, but other cities that existed then either don't have them or we can't dig so low due to the water table. Not only do we have that possible evidence, but we have the historical record. Both the Sumerians and Babylonians record a flood story with a man in a boat. They indicate it was about 3,000 BC. They also name the cities flooded. Kish, almost up to Baghdad was said to be the most southerly to survive. The flood would be between Kish and Ur to the south. All the world's cities at 3,000 BC were in this area.
A third area of evidence was the ark. The Sumerian account indicates the ark was built out of reeds. A reanalysis of the Bible shows that it also says the ark was built out of reeds. We even have tar chips with reed impressions on one side and barnacles on the other.
If local, the animals would only have to be the local ones, the domesticated animals that have been adapted to the heat of Sumer and the wild marsh animals, a doable task.
Further, look at the flood account. Analyze science. What kind of flood can last one year and three months? There is only one, and that is a marsh or floodplain flood. Lower Sumer is a huge marsh. In a very rainy year with lots of snow in Turkey, the marsh would stay flooded all year until the next year's rainy season. If in the second year, the rainy season almost failed, as is common in Sumer, the land would dry out by the end of the rainy season, or one year and three months. Remember, if the Bible is saying it is a local flood, you have to then say that some of the rather global statements in Gen 6 were dramatic statements but only meant to be applied to the region. That is a tough argument. Still, if it was local, the physical evidence is only debatable evidence but the historical evidence agrees with part of the Biblical account. On a more positive side, a local flood is scientifically realistic.

[technomage]

I so look forward to post like yours. Now you are going to have to define for me the evidence you are talking about. Are you talking about evidence that is accepted by most experts as fact or are you talking about evidence that in deed is fact.

Here we go, ladies and gentlemen--yet another episode of "YEC Verbal Gymnasics," brought to you by the same self-deceived souls who bring you such products as Dr Dino,

Cut the horsehockey, Frank: all evidence "in deed is fact," and it matters not one whit whether you accept it or reject it. The evidence does not agree with your mythical flood, and the only thing in the universe that stands between you and that fact is your own refusal to accept it.

As far as I know the later set of data is almost non-existent.

And there's that wonderful phrase, "As far as I know." If your so-called "knowledge" was not coming from the deluded, the deceived, and the occasional dead-beat con artists among the YEC community, you might actually have a measure of knowledge that reflects the actual state of the universe. Next time, try getting your knowledge from sources who actually know of what they speak. The YEC poison pablum you've been slurping with a spoon is not good for you--you'll pardon me if I decine the taste you offer to all and sundry.

Now faith can be described in many flavors but in its true form is not common. Take your own faith, how has it served you? What fruit has it born? Has your faith handled the test of time? Does your faith require the sacrifice of others or of yourself?

You've yet to demonsrate that you have any ability to deal with the real world, Frank--indeed with a relatively minor aspect of the real world. There is a phrase from my precepts that has an analogy in Christian thinking: he who fumbles a small thing cannot be trusted with weighty matters." Most Christians would probably paraphrase the Gospel of Luke or Matthew an say "He who is faithless with little will be faithless with much."

You stumble over the relatively unimportant maters of scientific reality. What precisely makes you think I'm brimming with trust in your ability to deal with spiritual reality?

I'm not. I trust your abilities not one whit. If I wish to discuss spiritual issues with a Christian, I will consult with Rogue or Oxmyxmudd (sp?). They have proven, time and time again, that following Christ does not mean throwing your mind down the nearest hole.

[fm93]

Thanks for the link, but where does this guy Morton actually write about where the flood occurred?

[fm93]

• Edited by a Moderator •

[fm93]

Hey guys, thanks for posting, but unfortunately a lot of you forgot about the questions I asked in my opening post. I read in an article about Ballard's investigation of the Black Sea flood that Ballard's team found signs of previous human life in their expedition. So as of right now, the best answer I've got is that the Flood was a local flood which occurred around the Black Sea region (since it's pretty close to the Ararat mountains, which is where the Bible says the Ark landed).

[rogue06]

Destroyed evidence for human settlement and activity such as the houses found beneath the water of the Black Sea if the flood were local. But if the flood was global you would not only find fossilized remains of plants and animals, but you would find places where massive amounts of fossils are all jumbled up because they were mixed together by surging flood waters and deposited en masse as the flood water drained away. Such evidence is known, but old earth creationists and Darwinists either reject it as evidence for a global flood or they ignore it altogether.

Really? Please show me just one bonebed with a jumble of fossils the have both ammonites mixed in with chambered nautilus. Or rhinos with triceratops? Or dolphins with icthyosaurs? Or pterosaurs with modern birds? If there was a global flood a couple thousand years ago and the Earth is only a couple thousand years older than this, then we should expect to find the mixtures I mentioned. But we don't. Not anywhere. Not once. I wonder why.

[fm93]

Oh yeah, and one more thing I forgot to mention:

Like I said, I know very little about geology, so again, sorry if this is pathetically stupid, but is it at all possible that humans could have gotten rid of some of the evidence for the flood?

[rogue06]

Thanks for the link, but where does this guy Morton actually write about where the flood occurred?

I'm assuming here that you're referring to Glenn Morton who's home site is HERE and who posts quite regularly as grmorton in the Natural Science forum.

If not, please ignore.