100 Categories of Evidence Against Noah’s Flood

That would require a Creationist to propose a "mechanism." They don't do that. Instead, they assert that geological features including mountains, canyons, valleys, sediment layers, and other such things "could have been created by a global flood."They never say how, they just say "yeah, a flood could have caused that."

You have a few problems, Buzz.1) For sufficient water to meaningfully contribute to a global flood to exist as a vapor canopy surrounding the entire Earth, it would require enough cloud cover to wrap the Earth in the most dense clouds ever seen multiple times over. That means no sunlight, period. For evidence:The current estimated total of all water in the atmosphere: 3094 cubic milesThe current estimated total of all water on the planet, inclusive of that number: 332,500,000 cubic miles.The surface area of the Earth is 196,940,400 square miles.The amount of water required to raise the water level just 1 meter: 122 cubic miles.For just 1 additional meter of sea level globally (that's enough water to come up to my waist, assuming we were all standing on a uniform surfaced planet at exactly sea level), you'd need to add 4% of the cloud cover of the Earth. Doesn't sound like a lot...until you turn it into a real global flood. To cover Colorado, for instance, you'd need to raise sea level by 2000 meters, raising the number to 8000% of the current cloud cover. That still doesn't come close to covering even smallish mountains, which you'd absolutely need to do for a global-killer flood.You'd never see the sun at all with the additional cloud cover required by the canopy. Flooding would be the least of Noah's problems.2)You have not provided a mechanism to keep all of that water in the air. See, normal clouds go through a cycle - they eventually cause rain, and they don't stay up for decades at a time not participating in that cycle. What mechanism causes your canopy clouds to be special?3) Where did the water go? After the Flood, we still dont have enough water on the entire planet to cause a meaningful global flood. That includes subterranean water, and water trapped in rocks. Where did the water go when the flood waters subsided?Edited by Rahvin, : Dammit, did some bad math. Fixed it.

The ice caps, subterranean water, and tundra were all taken into account with the water estimate I gave. It even includes all of the water in clouds right now.Bringing catastrophic plate tectonics into play (necessary if you want to raise and lower the altitude of the land) makes your scenarios even worse.So, you're either proposing catastrophic plate tectonics, which is a stupid idea refuted a thousand times, or you're suggesting that a global flood could cause mountains and valleys to form and continents to shift in such a way that we have mountains that rise several thousand feet above sea level, and yet wind up with the amount of water we see today...which is an even more ridiculous statement.Immediately explain the mechanism by which flooding can in any way cause a mountain to form. Explain the mechanism that allows a global flood to take a uniform-surface Earth and form the surface we see today.How can a flood cause a mountain to form that is higher than the level of the flood? If you believe the water did cover the mountains before it receded, you still need to raise the water level higher than the level of the mountains.

That's rather difficult. The terms "smaller" and "smoother" don't give us much to go on. You could raise the ocean floor to raise sea level, for instance, or you could lower the altitude of the land-based features, or some combination of both. In any case: either more water than Buz can imagine is necessary (water that came from and went to nowhere, apparently), or geological activity is required (again, with no mechanism showing why increased geological activity would happen or why it would cease after the flood) that would sterilize the planet with the amount of heat and energy required.But if you attribute the formation of a geological feature to a global flood, the water must have been high enough to cover the feature at the moment the water began to recede. That means you can't cause the land to be, say, 2000 meters above sea level without making the water be 2000 meters above sea level.He's not resolving the problems by assuming a differently-shaped Earth, hes just making it more complicated because he's too lazy to actually do any math or research any mechanisms himself.Note how no mechanism is proposed to explain how a global flood can take a "smoother and smaller Earth" and create the features we see today. He simply insists that the flood is responsible without anything to show how.

Cute. So you'll continue to ignore all of the mathematics and problems we've demonstrated. Your canopy scenario has ben ripped apart, and yet you're going to ignore nearly all of the points by failing to address any specific posts, instead providing a "one size fails all" post filled with more of your speculative musings with no evidence to back up your bare assertions. You haven't explained how the canopy could even exist as a stable structure without blotting out the sun completely. Pressure is the least of your worries. Why is the pressure relieved? Why does the canopy disappear and never return? Why is this water exempt from the water cycle that all of the other non-subterranean water on the planet is subject to? Lowering air pressure will not cause the Earth to expand. The Earth is not a balloon. ...what? What does water have to do with the magnetic feild of the Earth, wich is generated by the fluid motion of the molten iron core of the planet? And what does the magnetic field have to do with any aspect of the flood myth? Well, when the water comes down you'd have a near-100% humidity level globally. The increased pressure that you're mentioning would ave mostly negative affects or none at all. Look at places on Earth right now, like the Dead Sea, that have a very high air pressure due to its low altitude. Nobody there lives to be 800 years old, and carnivores don't magically eat plants. "Subterranean water" is an awfully general term. For the water locked in rock, there couldn't possibly be any effect at all. But you're likely meaning to say "would subterranean water be squeezed out of the "fountains of the deep" by the falling rain?" The answer is "that's ridiculous, unless you're really proposing that the rocky crust of the Earth is as elastic as a sponge." "Squeezing" porous rock doesn't tend to do much, Buz. Obviously you don't have even the barest, Jr. High level comprehension of volcanism. Floods do not cause volcanoes to erupt. The pressure involved in a magma chamber from the weight of rock already dwarfs the pressure gained by dumping a bunch of water on the surface. Water, after all, has a MUCH lower density than rock, and magma chambers are already buried pretty damned deeply.Of course, if you're trying to mention catastrophic plate tectonics again to explain continental movements and billions of years worth of geological change squeezed into the time period of the flood so that we still see the world as we see it today, well...that's a scenario that's been thoroughly torn apart many times here. You'd wind up liquifying the surface of the planet with that much energy, and you still have no mechanism by which the tectonic motion would suddenly accelerate for a year and then stop before the waters recede. ...what? Do you seriously think that even the crazy amounts of water you're proposing will have an effect on the Earth's core? It's molten goddamned iron, Buz, buried under multiple miles of rock already so compressed as to be relatively pliable.Once again you're speculating on wild fantasies without providing mechanisms or evidence for your claims. You're saying "maybe a flood could do this," but you have no idea how, and you don't have even a faint grasp of the topics you're bringing into the equasion. It doesn't. Any person whos taken even a Jr. High school level of geology and meteorology could tell you your position is total bollocks with just a little applied mathematics. But then, you like to ignore math and evidence, don't you Buz. Why don't you try addressing the rebuttals we've all made to your silly fantasy rather than repeating even more delusional bare assertions? 1) Im not going to do your homework for you. Either post your position in your own words or admit you don't even comprehend the articles you're putting forth as "evidence."2) Increased oxygen in the atmosphere in the past is well-known, and has nothing to do with your canopy scenario. Neither does rapid climate change. We expect rapid climate change to have occured after volcanic eruptions or asteroid impacts, like the one that likely killed the dinosaurs.While we know that the air pressure and oxygen content of the atmosphere were higher in the distant past, we also know that the sun was not blotted out by a few million extra cubic miles of water hanging out in a global cloud canopy. We also know that we do not have enough water on the planet now to accommodate your scenario, and that the sort of geological change required to have a "flatter" Earth prior to the flood is completely impossible for a hundred different reasons.Your cut-n-paste does nothing to support your position, Buz. Wait, stop right there. "concurs with the biblical model of the early earth?" In what way? I don't recall a Biblical passage regarding increased oxygen content or giant dragonflies. I remember astounding longevity - but human beings don't suddenly live longer in higher-oxygen environments. If we did, we'd all walk around with oxygen tanks and live to 800.There's a giant leap here from "increased oxygen contend and bigger critters in general" to "zomg teh Bible it iz true!" None of the longevity or flood-based claims you or anyone else have made actually cause or result from an increased oxygen content in the atmosphere. You certainly have never proposed a mechanism by which a vapor canopy would increase oxygen content.Your scenarios, as always, fail. Even a broken clock can be right twice a day. Biblical claims (like the global flood) have been utterly refuted a thousand times from a hundred different angles usind dozens of different tactics. You don't have anything more than ignorant speculation, Buz. It wouldn't. Radiometric dating is unaffected by the oxygen content of the atmosphere, or by air pressure, or by large amounts of water. Radiometric dating works by ratios of decaying substances and their products.Again, an argument from total ignorance. You just don't know what you're talking about, Buz.Now, feel free to ignore all of this as usual, and repeat yourself after a few other posters take their turns ripping your positions to shreds. Don't worry about supporting your arguments with any sort of evidence, or proposing mechanisms to tie your ideas together. Ignore all that silly "math" stuff. The Bible is infallible, so you have to be right.Right?

A summary of the video would be nice for those of us at work who can't view videos at the moment.

Trees do this funny thing called "falling down." Sometimes, they fall down a hill or into a ditch, and can wind up upside down leaning on one side of the hill...which happens to be made of many different rock layers. Over a few hundred more years, the tree is petrified and buried, and we find a fossilized tree upside down sitting amongst many layers of sediment.The sedimentary layers themselves disprove a catastrophic flood: they look exactly like layers we have directly observed being created annually. When you see, for example, annual layers of sediment deposited every year for 50 years making 50 layers from seasonal runoff, it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that the million layers beneath those 50 observed layers that look exactly the same likely were produced over a million years. It's not reasonable to assume that those layers were deposited by a global flood, because the evidence directly contradicts such a model. A conclusion like that would be, in fact, stupid.Unless you can provide an example by which a local flood has been observed to result in layers that look exactly like the layers that scientific models currently show to be created over long timeframes, you're blowing smoke.It's even worse than that, in fact, because you also need a flood that sorts not by density, but rather for some reason consistently places all living, breathing animals of only specific types below stone and metal tools and pottery (which presumably are not only more dense than say, dinosaurs, but also display less aptitude with swimming).I could go on...but really, the polystrata tree argument has been dismantled so many times it's laughable.

How funny. Perhaps next time you'd like to say something resembling an argument? perhaps an argument refuting my last post? or perhaps a concession? Id accept that, too.

Then please provide the mechanism by which a billion years worth of tectonic activity and the raising of mountains and the deepening of oceans is caused by a flood over a period of a year without sterilizing the planet.Saying "a flood can do that" is blatantly false unless you can demonstrate that a local flood has been observed to create similar structures on smaller scales, or at least provide a plausible mechanism by which 40 days of global rain and a massive global flood can do so.

If the number of dead creatures for which we have iscovered fossils were all alive at one time (and they have to be by your model, sicne they were all laid down in the flood), there would be no room to move. The Earth's surface would be covered with life.Fossils do not require "great pressure." I'm not even certain they require "sudden death" or "sudden burial." Fossilization is an extremely rare event due to the conditions required to fossilize a living creature, but many of the fossils we have uncovered were quite clearly not the result of a flood. Some were fossilized in volcanic ash, for instance - and yet found in the exact same geological layers as all of the other members of their species found in other types of rock. This means that somehow your flood needs to have deposited all of the fossils of species x in a single set of layers and somehow retain the layers of volcanic ash that only occurred in specific regions.By what mechanism does your flood sort by species rather than body density or ability to swim?By what mechanism does your flood consistently sort fish and dinosaurs below metal tools, every single time? What about cases where a layer of igneous rock is laid on top of many sedimentary layers? What about when this happens multiple times in a single location due to repeated volcanic eruptions? Could each set of sedimentary layers have been sandwiched between the igneous layers by a flood?If so, by what mechanism? Why? Dead animals tend to float to varying degrees based on body density. Provide an example of an observed flood where animals living at the lowest elevations are always found at the bottom and never in higher layers despite ability to swim or lower body density. That tends to happen even discounting a catastrophe like a flood, except with certain migrational species. It's not a meaningful prediction of your scenario. Explain "simplest shapes." Provide the mechanism by which water sorts by shape rather than density. Explain why fossils discovered in sedimentary layers are not sorted by density, but rather are sorted vertically by species type despite wide variety in body density and ability to swim. Provide an example of a flood that has been observed to do such things, rather than the most dense objects sinking to the lowest layers or haphazard burials from mudslides that do not sort at all. Why? Many invertebrates are capable of swimming and have a very low body density. In turbulent water, why would they not occasionally wind up on top of more dense creatures? For that matter, why do we find fossilized invertebrates on top of mountains? Shouldn't they be at the lowest poitns by your model? Why is this then not the case? We find fish sorted by species, both above and below (in different locations) land animals that are also sorted by species. Why are the fish not always on top?In fact, how are any fish alive at all? The flood scenario requires all salt-water and fresh-water to be mixed. Sudden, drastic changes in salinity like that would be lethal to nearly all fish. Why? They can swim. Shouldn't they survive a flood longer than land animals with higher body densities who are incapable of swimming? Shouldn't we always find amphibians above such animals given a global flood? What about reptiles that are unable to swim. Why would they be found at the same level as amphibians who can swim?Why are all amphibians and reptile fossils (along with all the others) sorted by species and not by body density or ability to swim? Why? Land plants certainly cannot swim. Wouldn't they be found below the animals who could? Provide an example of an observed flood where land plants were rarely at the bottom of the deposited sediment. "The first?" According to the Bible, god created all plants at the same time. Explain the "first plants," and explain why they should be found with the reptiles and amphibians despite wildly different density and roots that attach them to the ground. Why? Again, the amphibians can swim. Why do we see sorting by species rather than by density or ability to swim? Explain how birds could remain flying during a global thunderstorm that lasts 40 days. Explain how those birds are again sorted by species, but not by density or ability to stay airborne for long periods of time. Irrelevant. This is the case even without a global flood - local burials caused by local floods or volcanic eruptions, for instance, tend to do the same thing.But why are the same species of all animals always found in the same set of layers, not sorted by body density or ability to swim? Then why are dinosaurs of all sizes found in the same set of layers, every single time, regardless of size, density, strength, or speed?Why are they always found below stone and metal tools, despite the fact that tools tend to sink like the rocks they are?Honestly, antiLIE, I think that's enough. Your model doesn't work.Here's what we should expect given a global flood:Sedimentary layers sorted by density that occur globally.There should be no cases of observable annual sedimentary deposits where there are more than a few thousand such identical layers at most.Buried animals should be sorted by density and ability to swim, meaning amphibians and fish should be found above large ground-based dinosaurs.There should be no layers of volcanic ash deposited between sedimentary layers, and this should certainly not occur several times in the same location with sedimentary layers in between. All volcanism in the sedimentary layers should look exactly like underwater eruptions.There are many more things we should see, but this is getting rather long and unfocused (the price of a flood topic - it can be disproven from hundreds of separate avenues independently).Honestly, antiLIE, it is completely impossible to have a global flood and end with the world we see today. It requires a large number of miracles which must be taken on faith and leave no objective observable evidence. While you and other Christians are most certainly welcome to do so, such beliefs have nothing to do with science.

You never provided the mechanism that would skew dating, Buz, you simply proposed that a canopy could do so. That doesn't work. You may as well say "my bicycle could cause rain." It's a bare assertion that frankly looks completely loony. The presence of water in the atmosphere has nothing whatsoever to do with radiological decay rates.At the amounts you're talking, of course, it would crush all life under overwhelming pressure, and blot out the Sun.I note that you completely ignored those points. A two flood model is neither supported by the scriptures nor makes your problems any easier. The problems with energy levels, age, nd amount of water are orders of magnitude greater than you seem to believe them to be. Whoa, what?How does Mt St Helens in any way model a flood? As I recall, there was no water involved, as is typically the case with volcanic eruptions.And the holy spirit? Miracles? Buz, if you want to explain the flood via miracles you can feel free to do so. We can't even argue against you except that such beliefs would violate parsimony. But since you're looking for rational, objective evidence of a flood, miracles don't really fit in. This thread isn't about my position, Buz. It;s not about modern geology. it's about flood geology. Even assuming there are gigantic holes in modern geology as you imply (and there are not), proving modern geology wrong still wouldn't prove your model to be correct. Thats another one of those false dilemmas you love so much, Buz.So since this thread is about "100 categories of evidence against noah's flood," I'd say rendering the noachian position (ie, yours) blatantly false would be the entire point of the goddamned thread.So. Are you going to actually provide some evidence to back up your assertions? Perhaps a mechanism that would explain how your outlandish ideas could produce the results you claim they can?Or will you continue to ignore rebuttal after rebuttal and focus on how other people make you feel bad?One of those belongs on a debate forum. The other belongs in Jr. High.