100 Categories of Evidence Against Noah’s Flood

quote:

---

1. A thoughtful reading of the opening statements of Genesis 1 substantiates that according to the Biblical record there were two significant global floods, the first of which comprised of all of the existing water of planet earth being on earth.

---

A more correct reading is that Genesis 1 assumes that the initial state of the cosmos was an ocean. This is the case with other Middle Eastern creation myths. It is not, strictly speaking a flood because - as Genesis states - there was no land to flood.

quote:

---

Factoring this important fact in the debate may account for some of the sedimentation/layering/platonic activity etc. As the atmosphere was created by unknown amounts of heat/light pre-sun/moon, the earth surface had to have been significantly affected by sediment layers etc due to the settling and drying up of the continents.

---

Since it is not a fact - and since land is the major - perhaps only - source of sediment. This does not seem likely.

quote:

---

The 2nd global Noahic flood clearly implied a preflood terrarium atmosphere. The flood likely resulted in deeper oceans, raised mountain ranges and lowered valleys. Recent evidence for this is the Dr. Robert Ballard discovery in the depths of the Black Sea of human structures 300' below the existing shoreline. I believe National Geographic and Ballard claim this was a regional flood phenomena but imo that only reflects their bias against global flood ideology.

---

The flood story does not imply a terrarium atmosphere. A global flood is unlikely to raise mountains (although it might reduce their height somewhat by erosion in the early stages). Nor is it likely to lower valleys, let alone the ocean floor. Ballard's discoveries have been discussed here and relate to the failure of a natural dam. Morevoer it has since been shown that the flooding of the Black Sea was slower than was originally suggested, so that even the idea that the flood story is a greatly exaggerated version of the Black Sea flood has been abandoned.

quote:

---

2. The unproven but also unrefuted terrarium hypothesis implies a non-uniformitarian chemical makeup of land and atmosphere, thus rendering all dating methods as debatable/questionable/non-imperical.

---

You know perfectly well that this is not true. You have been asked to support it more than once and every time you have run away. Not once have you given even one reason to believe it.

quote:

---

4. The terrarium hypothesis may account for the formation of the ice caps of the poles, given sudden cooling due to the loss of the terrarium H2O in the new atmosphere leaving the cold poles unprotected. Thus also the possibility of explaining the phenomena of frozen tropical animals existing in the ice in regions of Siberia etc.

---

Again this makes no sense. And there are no "frozen tropical animals" in the ice of Siberia to need explaining.

quote:

---

5. I've cited in my Buzsaw Hypothesis of the probability of the dinosaurs being the pre-fallen serpent species which became extinct due to the curse of the genes of the offspring of the parent dinosaurs which existed before the flood, the modified/cursed belly crawling reptiles/serpents being the only ones given place in Noah's Arc. Keep in mind here that all reptiles were considered serpents in the language of the Genesis manuscripts.

---

This hypothesis fails to account for the evidence that snakes are not closely related to dinosaurs. And it was refuted by the fossil evidence which proves that snakes co-existed with the dinosaurs (unlike humans).

quote:

---

7. Both Biblical floods would have most likely effected extensive volcanic activity which seemingly could account for just about anything one might cite relative to lava layering etc.

---

Lava flows which formed underwater are recognisable as such. And there is no obvious connection between a flood and the release of lava.Other than that it can be noted that you did not offer a valid refutation of even one of Anglagard's points.

I notice that your quotes miss out any reference to the Bible. If the Bible REALLY implied the existence of the mythical "vapour canopy" then that would not be the case. THe page tat you quote is trying to harmonise a "literal" reading of Genesis with an erroneous view of science.The "waters above the firmament" are not described as vapour, nor is there any reason to assume that this is what the author of Genesis meant.Genesis 2:6 is part of a creation account and does not claim that this state lasted until the Flood. If the author of Genesis meant to sat that this situation persisted to the time of the Flood, then why is it not explicitly stated ? Likewise, the rainbow is said to be a miracle, not something which occurred naturally as a consequence of a "change" in "weather systems". And we must ask, what does the "vapour canopy: have to do with the absence of rain ? Surely the presence of more water vapour in the atmosphere would be unlikely to prevent rain.The alleged evidence of a "greenhouse effect" caused by the vapour canopy is equally lacking. The alleged "ninety-foot plum tree" is an error (obviously the author is relying on creationists rather than scientific sources). And the alleged benefits of hyperbaric chambers are still controversial. (It is also worth noting that there is no attempt to estimate the extra pressure resulting from the alleged canopy).The section on dinosaurs is also inaccurate. For a start it is quite likely that dinosaurs were warm-blooded. And certainly there were predators among them. It is a stretch to say that the prohibition on meat-eating (itself inferred) applied to any species but humans (and according to Genesis even humans sacrificed animals).There is an interesting question here. Why would someone who genuinely revered the Bible create an error by insisting on a strained reading ? Surely putting a falsehood in God's mouth is blasphemous to any Christian.The claim about brontosaurus is in error (the real story is that the same species was named twice and that the late name - brontosaurus - was dropped when it was realised). The species certainly did exist, but the rules require that the official name is "apatosaurus". There was a mistake about the head, but it has nothing to do with the identification of the species - merely the creation of a display specimen. (See hereEdited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

1. My quotes were merely beginnings of link paragraphs.

---

That's no use, you're meant to make your case in your own words - and use links for support. When even the quotes from the link are useless, you're doing it wrong.

quote:

---

2. It is assumed that the waters above the firmament are vapor as the link explains for sunlight etc to reach earth. The waters above the firmament were more vapor consisting of vaporized water which would likely appear as a cloud line forming the canopy. The firmament below the canopy would be what would be ideal for optimal life conditions on earth whereas the waters/vapors above would serve as the canopy.

---

Yet that is not said in the Bible it is described as water, meaning the liquid, not vapour.

quote:

---

1. Unless there becomes a reason (such as the flood) to indicate a change in the Genesis atmosphere one should logically conclude that it was the same. Your argument here makes no sense. There would be no reason for the writer to state what should be assumed.

---

But I am not assuming a major change in the atmosphere. Nor do I accept your assertion that the Flood indicates such a change. And you have not explained why the alleged vapour canopy should prevent rain.

quote:

---

2. The text clearly implies by statements cited that there was no rain but that the mist did the watering.

---

The text also says that no plants were growing. If you take that as applying to the whole world you contradict Genesis 1:11-12. And in the flood story there is no suggestion that rain is new - Genesis 7:4 is written as if Noah should know what rain was.

quote:

---

3. That God designed the rainbow relative to rain is no more of a miracle that our present rainbow would be to the IDist. That statement simply states that God, the designer designed the rainbow which would be effected by the phenomenon of rainfall. The rainbow clearly implies a different atmosphere pre-flood to that of post flood.

---

Or different laws of physics. Or it implies that the story is a myth. Given that even this mist should diffract light it seems unlikely that it was the atmosphere.

quote:

---

l. The benefits of hyperbaric chambers are being applied regularly by health practitioners. What is so controversial about them.

---

Apparently the benefits for many conditions are under question. If you check Wikipedia that is explciitly stated. The list of conditions it is established for is quite limited. There are also potential problems.

quote:

---

Of course the pre-flood atmosphere was not this perse but the point is made that the atmosphere likely provided a better mix of oxygen than that of the post flood one which likely contributed to longer life and larger species.

---

The oxygen content is independant of the pressure. And the alleged vapour canopy only contributes pressure.

quote:

---

You have not provide any specifics to substantiate your objections to the possibilities set forth here.

---

Then please provide some evidence from a reliable source that this "ninety-foot plum tree" really was found. But here's what Ed Babinski found when he investigated it And what else should I do to substantiate my assertion that the article does not estimate the pressure ? Surely it is up to you to refute it - if it is not true.

quote:

---

Don't forget that the above also has other corroborating evidence for it's credibility, including fulfilled prophecy, the Exodus evidence/archeology, and other phenomena. This hypothesis is not pie in the sky based on blind faith.

---

As I've seen there's no record of prophetic success - it's easier to find failures. Real archaeologists have abandoned the idea of the Exodus. It would take blind faith to believe your "corroboration".

quote:

---

1. Quite likely does not mean proof. It's a matter of opinion and ours isn't required to coincide with yours. The link does quite a good job, imo, of explaining an alternative POV, though it doen't necessarily coincide with my own on dinosaurs either.

---

But it does mean that any argument that relies on assuming that dinosaurs were cold-blooded is in trouble. Probably false premises do not make a convincing argument.

quote:

---

2. That Abel sacrificed animals doesn't necessarily mean he ate the sacrifice.

---

I didn't say that it did. (But the animals are still killed and cooked).
However there is no verse which says that animals were forbidden to eat meat until the flood (and if there was it would be wrong).

quote:

---

I'm not qualified to make judgement about brontosaurus, but there's plenty more of substance in the link supportive of my POV besides coverage of this animal which you've cited.

---

Then you have to present it. You haven't even dealt with all the points I raised. Most significantly it does not support your assertion that there were "tropical animals" found frozen in Siberia - although it certainly does talk about frozen animals in Siberia. Nor does it support your contention that the Flood would affect dating. It only refers to an idea that the "vapour canopy" - if it existed - might affect carbon dating, but that idea is known to be false. As you should know from discussions here.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Paul, that you're not assuming a major change and I am as per the Biblical account, this debate is going nowhere. We could argue till the cows come home on opposite assumptions and find it to be a waste of time.

---

If you're assuming your conclusion you ARE wasting your time. The point is that your "criticism" of my argument completely missed the mark - BECAUSE I don't assume a major change in the atmosphere - and because the Bible does not mention one or imply one, either.

quote:

---

I've made my points and put all the time I can afford into responses to you.

---

You neglected to provide any significant support for your points. In fact a good number of your points had already been refuted in previous discussions.

quote:

---

Nothing I say is going to change you and vise versa.

---

Repeating unsupported assertions is certainly not going to change my mind. Nor is repeating assertions that have already been shown to be false.

quote:

---

I'm sure you'll go on and on in the future accusing me of running off from it but sorry I just don't have that much time to put into your assumptions.

---

Only because you DO run away - instead of supporting your assertions. If you don't have time for honest discussion this is not the site for you. You are expected to support your points or withdraw them. You are not expected to keep repeating them and refuse time and time again to support them.

To handle some bits that others haven't covered.1) depends on the amount of water .2) Unless the "vapour" was VERY high (implausably so) the pressure on the Earth is not likely to change much. It'll weigh about the same and the pressure on the Earth itself will therefore be about the same whether it's vapour in the air or liquid on the surface.3)
a) Lowell's findings (abstract) are no use to you until integrated into a YEC view. The YEC view greatly compresses the Pleistocene - and the carbon dates used by Lowell. Lowell's results only cover the most recent period of glaciation, leaving the others to be accounted for. There is no clear link to any "vapour canopy"b) The presence of larger-than-expected quantities of hydroxyl also needs more examination. Without an understanding of the reasons why the amounts were unexpected we certainly cannot assume that the "vapour canopy" is the solution.
Fortunately the complete article is online And surprise, surprise your creationist source misrepresents it.
It does NOT claim that there is excess hydroxyl in the atmosphere. It claims that there are "patches" of water appearing in the atmosphere, and these lose some of their substance as a trail of hydroxyl radicals. That hardly supports the "vapour canopy".c) If there is a connection between increased oxygen content and the "vapour canopy" it has not been produced. Higher pressure does not increase the oxygen content of air.So, as it stands, not one of your examples actually supports the "vapour canopy". All you have is the assertions of a source that has been proven to be unreliable.

A little bit of advice:1) Don't rely on other peoples arguments if you can't understand them.2) Creationist sources are frequently unreliable.3) Learn to vet your sources. You can find all sorts of rubbish on the web. Try to pick out reliable sources. If there aren't good reasons to assume that it is reliable check out its claims elsewhere - including looking for important references (If the page makes that more difficult than it should be, by say omitting the titles of articles it cites be wary).

quote:

---

Of course, what is considered reliable on the internet is a matter of ideology preference, Paul. Certainly you wouldn't consider anything reliable which counters your POV relative to the flood.

---

It certainly seems to be a matter of "ideology preference" to you.However I proved that the page you quoted was unreliable - as a matter of objective fact.If you had followed my advice and done the sort of checking I did you would have discovered that. I didn't choose that page - you did. You might ask yourself why, if my opinion does not have a basis in fact - it turned out to be right.