The Flood = many coincidences

Just for a start, Peg's response raises these two items as possible evidence for a global flood:--Pleistocene extinctions
--Jurassic/Cretaceous mixThis is pretty typical of what we get from creation "science" -- "what if" stories.The problem is that these two "events" Peg mentions as evidence for a global flood are separated by millions of years. The Jurassic occurred about 206-144 million years ago, and the Cretaceous about 144-65 million years ago. The Pleistocene dates to about 1.8 million years ago to 10,000 years ago.So are we to believe that the flood lasted 200 million years or what? Or there was more than one flood? Or time was compressed? Or geology is all wrong?Where is the serious proposal here? Where is the evidence? Sorry, no got.There is no attempt to do science here, with a coherent proposal supported by evidence; its just a series of "what if" stories. The same applies to fossils on mountain tops -- well covered here in another thread.And this is a significant difference between creation "science" and real science: creationists don't need evidence, as they already have belief. All they need is a "what if" story to create a potential gap in scientific evidence and to leave room for their belief.Unfortunately, these "what if" stories are nothing more than Whac-A-Mole: knock one down and another pops up somewhere else.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Let's start with something simple.Do you accept the date given by most biblical scholars of about 4,350 years ago for the global flood?A simple yes or no would suffice; please don't give me a huge page of text to wade through.If you agree with this date then we can proceed. If not, please specify a date and your reasons 1) for that date, and 2) why biblical scholars are wrong.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Since you're back, could you answer my question above concerning the date of the global flood?

Thanks for the response.The reason I am concerned with the exact date is that it tells us where to look for evidence. One of the first things I learned in archaeology was "If you want 10,000 year old sites, look in 10,000 year old dirt."A date of about 4,500 years ago tells us we need to be looking in soils, not geological formations. That eliminates the Cambrian "explosion" and all the rest of the geological materials from consideration. (This also eliminates plate tectonics.)What we need to do is examine soils of the approximate 4,500 year old time period. And that is exactly what archaeologists in the US and elsewhere in the world do all the time. I've been doing just that for nearly 40 years. And I've not found any evidence of a flood in the areas I've worked (not counting the Channeled Scablands of southern and eastern Washington, which show evidence of a significantly older and much smaller flood).Now that we've come this far, pinning down an approximate date, can you show evidence within this time period that may be attributed to the global flood?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Buz, you're doing "what ifs" like Peg.All of your suggestions are nonsense. Proposing "what ifs" may keep your belief in a global flood alive in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, but they are just another method of self-deception. Please don't try to pass them off as science.If you have evidence, present it, but why don't you knock off the "what ifs" presented with no evidence whatever.Your "what ifs" do not constitute evidence.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Nonsense. There is no reason to think that at any time the earth was smooth enough to allow uniform worldwide flooding. This is just another "what if" and it means nothing. Various parts of the planet have been underwater at various times. Big deal.To support a global flood such as claimed in the bible you have to have a global flood about 4,350 years ago -- that's the consensus of biblical scholars. The Egyptians who noted the flooding of the Nile with great precision did not mention such a flood. Archaeologists who deal with that time period all the time have not found such a flood. Rather, we have found continuity of everything -- human cultures, fauna and flora, mtDNA, as well as tree rings and all the other annular evidence. The proponents of a global flood have found squat. All they have are "what ifs." Not.You can't derive a logical conclusion from false statements. Well, using logic I guess you can, but its junk.Face it, the global flood is a religious belief that has been soundly falsified by science.Now you can believe what you want, but when you try to distort science to conform to your beliefs you are trying to build a lie. That doesn't do anyone any good.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

From Wiki:

.
​
The scientific criticism of the vapor canopy focuses on the required pressure and temperature of the atmosphere. For water vapor equivalent to one kilometer of liquid water, the pressure at the surface of the Earth would be 100 times greater than it is now. The critical pressure of water is only 217 atm, so it is difficult to distinguish between liquid and vapor under these conditions, but either the temperature would be high (hundreds or thousands of degrees) or the density of the vapor would be more like that of liquid water than our present atmosphere. Finally, to get this vapor to condense into rain, an enormous amount of heat would have to be extracted and disposed of.
​
The idea of a canopy of liquid water or ice faces other difficulties. A stationary layer of water would, of course, not be stable and would immediately fall. An orbiting ring or shell of water or ice, even if it could be made stable for long periods and then suddenly fall, would be heated by conversion of gravitational energy during the fall, resulting in steam rather than rain. (This incidentally rules out the mammoths as evidence of a vapour canopy converting to ice at high latitudes).

I don't like long posts (too much like the Gish-gallop) so let's focus on one problem at a time.As shown by this article:

quote:

---

From this we can conclude that a cloud cover 200 miles thick would block all sunlight, leaving the world in perpetual darkness, but nevertheless could not account for a flood more than 200/18,000 = 0.0112 miles thick, or 0.0112 X 5280 = 59 feet flood depth!

---

It would seem that physics and mathematics renders the hypothetical vapor canopy impossible.This is just one of many problems with the global flood. Care to respond with actual evidence to this one point?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You make it very difficult to discuss this, but I'll give it a try. Actually, from this list it is a list of beliefs. Irrelevant. That is a religious belief, not something confirmed by scientific evidence. In fact, it is strongly contradicted by scientific evidence. Actually the settlement is what cannot be argued. There has been no evidence provided for the flood. Not so. We don't have to rely just on that area for evidence of continuity before and after the dates purported for the flood. And as you don't have evidence for a flood in the Jericho archaeology, that is a moot point. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Biblical scholars place the date of the flood at about 4,350 years ago. We don't need rocks or geology at all! We are dealing, at that time period, with soils. Irrelevant (and wrong). Irrelevant. Irrelevant; and about 530 million years too old. Certainly not from what you have presented above, nor from the archaeological record. They place the flood at about 4,350 years ago.Unfortunately there is no physical evidence for the flood at that time period. That's why I am trying to get you to settle on a particular date -- so we can focus in on that particular time period and examine the evidence, or lack of evidence, at a single time.But you keep squirming and wriggling and flopping about like a fish out of water! This really can be very simple; pick a date and we'll examine the evidence at that date.If you follow the biblical scholars, that date is about 4,350 years ago. That means that Ethiopia, origins of life, the dating of rocks, volcanoes, Jericho and the Cambrian explosion have nothing to do with it!Why don't we settle on about 4,350 years ago for the date of the flood and go from there? Is that agreeable?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

They want it to be supported by science, thereby affirming their beliefs.And for the most part they don't care if it is real science, junk science, or creation "science."Some of the arguments we've seen in these threads show that clearly.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

But they'll make up the silliest scientific-sounding excuses for flood-related questions! And defend them to the hilt!Why can't they just stick to their beliefs, and stop twisting and manipulating scientific data in an effort to validate those beliefs?Twisting and misrepresenting science does their argument no good and it annoys scientists to no end.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

quote:

---

“Evolutionist” is a term used by creationists to include all scientists who disagree with them.

​

How Old is the Earth: Some Creationist Ages of the Earth

---

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You are off by a little bit in your dates.The date given by biblical scholars for the global flood is about 4,350 years ago.At the time period we are dealing with soils, not rocks; archaeology and sedimentology, not geology.The K-T boundary has nothing to do with it either, nor do the dinosaurs or the Grand Canyon. Nor do any other geological formations or events or those vast volcanoes.You can't just go mixing events vastly separated in time just because you think they might relate to a global flood.As to the rest of your post? Its nonsense too.You should be ashamed to post such unscientific and anti-scientific nonsense in the Science Forum. The only folks who believe that stuff are diehard creation "scientists" -- an oxymoron to be sure.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Cartoons?Creationists know Jack Chick about evolution...

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

One thing I'm waiting for is for Creationists (note the capital C--to separate the TRVE believers from the more rational among them); one thing I'm waiting for is some agreement on the date of the purported flood.A majority of biblical scholars place the flood about 4,350 years ago. Creationists, on the other hand, attribute the flood to everything from that date to the extinction of the dinosaurs (some 65 million years ago) to the Cambrian "explosion" (some 500+ million years ago).So which is it? Was the flood within recent historic times at about 4,350 years ago or was it 500+ million years ago? And what is your evidence?In phrasing your answer, please remember, this is the Science Forum, so your answer should include scientific evidence, not magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, crop circles, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, geocentrism, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, what televangelists say, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo or any of that other weird stuff.Stick to science, and please settle on a date that can be tested for evidence for this flood.-------------Won't happen.There is no scientific evidence for a global flood, so they play a shell game. It wasn't at 4,350 years ago? Then maybe it was over here! Not over there? Then maybe it was over there! And around and around we go.Face it, the global flood never happened as described. You don't agree? Present evidence!

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Where are the bones?As an archaeologist in the western US for 40 years I've dealt with lots of bones, but never dinosaur bones. I've handled mastodon bones, and the bones of tiny sardines, and everything in between. But never any dinosaur bones.Where are they? And why don't any of us who actually deal with this subject ever find them?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.