Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
34 online now:
DrJones*, PaulK, Pressie (3 members, 31 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,468 Year: 18,504/19,786 Month: 924/1,705 Week: 176/518 Day: 0/50 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Was there a worldwide flood?
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2200
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 271 of 372 (510293)
05-29-2009 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Repzion
05-28-2009 5:41 PM


Re: Please Explain the Following Evidence From Geology
Repzion writes:

I did what you asked Molbiogirl, I responded to anglagard. Hopefully you read my posts.

Your response (concerning incised river meanders) was found wanting in the logic and evidence departments, as subsequent posts revealed.

If you would like to discuss any of my assertions concerning the 100 categories of evidence against a worldwide flood since the Precambrian, please feel free to start a thread covering any single point.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Repzion, posted 05-28-2009 5:41 PM Repzion has not yet responded

  
Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 3475 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 272 of 372 (510902)
06-04-2009 2:50 PM


Did you all know that over 70% of the earth is flooded right now? Yeah, just look from a shuttle, and you will see. To conclude that the remaining 30% land was not also covered by water is a 3/10ths chance. So that leaves 7/10ths probability that the earth was once completely covered. :D Hah! Bet you never thought of that one! ;)

Edited by Lysimachus, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Son, posted 06-04-2009 3:08 PM Lysimachus has responded

  
Son
Member (Idle past 2114 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 273 of 372 (510904)
06-04-2009 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Lysimachus
06-04-2009 2:50 PM


While what you said was complete nonsense, I think I can show you why (assuming you weren't being sarcastic). For a complete flood, you would need the highest mountain to be covered by water. If this mountain's height was 3000M, with your reasoning, it would have 70% chance of being flooded. But the chances would be the same if the mountain was 10000M high. You get such an absurd result because you can't use probability this way.
It would be like saying that a room that has a pool covering 50% of its surface has 50% chance of being flooded (by what?).

Edited by Son, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Lysimachus, posted 06-04-2009 2:50 PM Lysimachus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Lysimachus, posted 06-04-2009 4:28 PM Son has responded

  
Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 3475 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 274 of 372 (510912)
06-04-2009 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Son
06-04-2009 3:08 PM


quote:

While what you said was complete nonsense, I think I can show you why (assuming you weren't being sarcastic). For a complete flood, you would need the highest mountain to be covered by water. If this mountain's height was 3000M, with your reasoning, it would have 70% chance of being flooded. But the chances would be the same if the mountain was 10000M high. You get such an absurd result because you can't use probability this way.
It would be like saying that a room that has a pool covering 50% of its surface has 50% chance of being flooded (by what?).

That could pose a problem, I suppose. I've read arguments from creationists against this. Some have proposed that there was supernatural involved.

But let's assume you are correct. Would it be logical to conclude that these mountains were that high prior to the flood? Or that perhaps these mountains were created either after the flood, or as a result of the seismic upheavel caused by the flood?

In addition to this, let us not fail to recognize the fact that sea fossils have been found on the peaks of very high mountains. It is my theory that these mountains were pushed up after the flood, since the earth was still suffering seismic after-shocks.

Edited by Lysimachus, : No reason given.

Edited by Lysimachus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Son, posted 06-04-2009 3:08 PM Son has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Theodoric, posted 06-04-2009 4:30 PM Lysimachus has responded
 Message 280 by Son, posted 06-05-2009 12:17 AM Lysimachus has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6658
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 275 of 372 (510913)
06-04-2009 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Lysimachus
06-04-2009 4:28 PM


Would it be logical to conclude that these mountains were that high prior to the flood? Or that perhaps these mountains were created either after the flood, or as a result of the seismic upheavel caused by the flood?

Before addressing this, the issue of whether there was a flood needs to be addressed. Can you provide any evidence of such a phenomenon?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Lysimachus, posted 06-04-2009 4:28 PM Lysimachus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Lysimachus, posted 06-04-2009 4:44 PM Theodoric has responded
 Message 281 by Peg, posted 06-05-2009 2:13 AM Theodoric has responded

  
Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 3475 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 276 of 372 (510914)
06-04-2009 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Theodoric
06-04-2009 4:30 PM


quote:
Before addressing this, the issue of whether there was a flood needs to be addressed. Can you provide any evidence of such a phenomenon?

Not necessarily. The only question posed is, "were these mountains always there?" So regardless of whether a flood was in the picture or not matters little. Remember, the argument is that too much water would have been needed to cover these mountain peaks. I simply do not subscribe to the idea that the mountains were that high prior to the flood. And for good measure, mountains and islands are even being born today.

Could our oceans of today (that cover the earth) simply be the "left-overs" of the flood? Did the rest of the water partly vaporize and also settle into the earth as we know it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Theodoric, posted 06-04-2009 4:30 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Theodoric, posted 06-04-2009 5:11 PM Lysimachus has not yet responded
 Message 278 by Coyote, posted 06-04-2009 5:15 PM Lysimachus has not yet responded
 Message 279 by RAZD, posted 06-04-2009 7:18 PM Lysimachus has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6658
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 277 of 372 (510917)
06-04-2009 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Lysimachus
06-04-2009 4:44 PM


Ok you do know the topic of the thread don't you?

Was there a worldwide flood?

Also, this is in the science forum so proof is required for any assertions. So far you have not offered any back up, just wild assertions.

I will ask again.

Can you provide any evidence for a worldwide flood? Since you haven't I assume you cannot. If you cannot provide evidence maybe you should find a thread that you can constructively participate in.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Lysimachus, posted 06-04-2009 4:44 PM Lysimachus has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 390 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 278 of 372 (510918)
06-04-2009 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Lysimachus
06-04-2009 4:44 PM


Worldwide flood -- not
If you had a worldwide flood during late historic times, there will be evidence of that flood. And if it was worldwide, that evidence will be worldwide, including in your back yard.

Now here in the US, archaeologists have been poking holes in the ground for nearly two centuries, and we haven't found evidence of that flood. (Geologists have been looking even longer; they gave up by about 1830.)

If you would have us believe in this purported flood, you have to explain why thousands of archaeologists around the country, working in tens of thousands of sites, have failed to find any evidence.

What we find instead is evidence of continuity across the date ascribed to this flood, about 4,350 years ago. We see continuity of human populations, fauna and flora, sedimentation and the like.

That continuity is evidence that there was no flood at that time, in spite of what creationists believe.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Lysimachus, posted 06-04-2009 4:44 PM Lysimachus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Peg, posted 06-05-2009 2:18 AM Coyote has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20155
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 279 of 372 (510931)
06-04-2009 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Lysimachus
06-04-2009 4:44 PM


The Impossible Dream?
Hi Lysimachus,

Message 274

That could pose a problem, I suppose. I've read arguments from creationists against this. Some have proposed that there was supernatural involved.

Which, I predict, is where you will necessarily end up, if you insist on a world wide flood and honestly consider the evidence of long time no flood in so many areas of the world. For instance you can posit that god made the water flow over the land as it is, and end up with a much easier flood, but of course this is using the god-did-it excuse at the start.

The only question posed is, "were these mountains always there?" So regardless of whether a flood was in the picture or not matters little. Remember, the argument is that too much water would have been needed to cover these mountain peaks. I simply do not subscribe to the idea that the mountains were that high prior to the flood. And for good measure, mountains and islands are even being born today.

Correct, and no, the mountains were not always there, and also there used to be mountains that no longer exist, and there are mountains that are very worn down now compared to the (relatively) newcomers. These mountains form and erode on geological time, and when we compare the rate of geological time to grow a mountain like Mt Everest we find that the current growth of (growing) mountains is very similar to the rates of growth measured today - at Everest and other locations around the world.

Message 274

... or as a result of the seismic upheavel caused by the flood?

Curiously, water doesn't push mountains into existence. Water is less dense than rock. Now, you can of course, say that there was a supernatural cause for the seismic upheaval, in which case we've already gotten to the god-did-it excuse.

If you form the hard surface of the earth into a perfect oblate spheroid, then there is sufficient water to cover it, however you don't have the time nor a mechanism to form the mountains from that perfect oblate spheroid with known geological processes. Speeding up the processes creates more problems than it solves, as the friction would be sufficient to melt the rocks that you are trying to pile up, and your foundation collapses. In the end it requires supernatural means to accomplish in the time span YEC's insist on, so again you are already at the god-did-it excuse.

Message 274

It is my theory that these mountains were pushed up after the flood, since the earth was still suffering seismic after-shocks.

No, it is your ad hoc conjecture that this occurred. A theory has to be based on evidence and have a testable conclusion. The amount of seismic activity needed to form the known mountains in the time period of a few thousand years would be sufficient to cause the mountains to crumble and fall as fast as they formed.

Did the rest of the water partly vaporize and also settle into the earth as we know it?

Interestingly, the earth is not saturated with water, and there is a lot of void area inside the rocks and soil to take up a lot of water before flooding would occur. Fascinatingly, water doesn't "partly vaporize" there is no middle ground between liquid and gas phases (or the solid phase). Vapor doesn't "settle into the earth" it rises into the air. Which -- seeing as any time the air gets sufficient concentration it condenses and falls as rain, eventually running back into the oceans, AND as the total amount of moisture in the air right now is insufficient to cause the ocean to rise 1 foot -- doesn't solve the problem.

Message 274

In addition to this, let us not fail to recognize the fact that sea fossils have been found on the peaks of very high mountains.

Indeed. Fossils of organisms that, amazingly, make up layer after layer after layer of undisturbed mature marine ecosystem growth, including organism in every layer that are 5 to 50 years old. See Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood? for more on this:

quote:
There are fossil marine deposits on virtually every mountain, including Mt Everest.
These fossil deposits are all of mature marine life, clams many years old, etcetera.
...
Evidence of multiple layers of mature marine environments on mountains is rather evidence of long ages -- ages to form mature marine environments, ages to cover them, ages for the other mature marine environments to form, and ages for the sedimentary basin to be pushed up into mountains by tectonic activity.

Can you explain how this is evidence of a brief flood?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : no


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Lysimachus, posted 06-04-2009 4:44 PM Lysimachus has not yet responded

Son
Member (Idle past 2114 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 280 of 372 (510949)
06-05-2009 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Lysimachus
06-04-2009 4:28 PM


And you completely missed the point, what my message pointed out was that your probability calculus was completely off and made no sense. If you couldn't even see that, I will need to ask other members whether it is because I don't understand English well (I'm French) or you don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Lysimachus, posted 06-04-2009 4:28 PM Lysimachus has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3214 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 281 of 372 (510956)
06-05-2009 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Theodoric
06-04-2009 4:30 PM


Theodoric writes:

Before addressing this, the issue of whether there was a flood needs to be addressed. Can you provide any evidence of such a phenomenon?

70% of the earth is covered in water
There is more land under the sea then there is above it

is that not evidence of flooding?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Theodoric, posted 06-04-2009 4:30 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by JonF, posted 06-05-2009 8:07 AM Peg has responded
 Message 291 by Theodoric, posted 06-05-2009 8:56 AM Peg has responded
 Message 295 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-05-2009 9:22 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3214 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 282 of 372 (510957)
06-05-2009 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Coyote
06-04-2009 5:15 PM


Re: Worldwide flood -- not
Coyote writes:

What we find instead is evidence of continuity across the date ascribed to this flood, about 4,350 years ago. We see continuity of human populations, fauna and flora, sedimentation and the like.

how long would you expect the 'continuity' to be interrupted if there was such a flood?

And what evidence are you using to claim that nothing has interrupted the life of humans and animals in the past 4,000 odd years?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Coyote, posted 06-04-2009 5:15 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Coyote, posted 06-05-2009 3:23 AM Peg has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 390 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 283 of 372 (510960)
06-05-2009 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Peg
06-05-2009 2:18 AM


Re: Worldwide flood -- not
how long would you expect the 'continuity' to be interrupted if there was such a flood?

And what evidence are you using to claim that nothing has interrupted the life of humans and animals in the past 4,000 odd years?


When a series is broken it has to start over, in this case from the outside. The length of time doesn't matter.

If the flood you are hoping for occurred, the Native American populations I study would have been eliminated, only to be replaced by Noah's relatives and descendants. That destruction and replacement did not occur--rather, we have continuity through time of Native American genotypes and cultures.

Same for fauna and flora. Sediment layers are not interrupted at that time over continental areas by a discontinuity.

This is solid evidence that there was no flood about 4,350 years ago. (That and the fact that geologists have showed the same thing.)

And the evidence? Just one example: we have Native American mtDNA from a couple of sites in excess of 10,000 years of age and the same haplotypes occur among living individuals. That's what I mean by continuity. (And those mtDNA types are different from what is found in the Middle East.)

No global flood about 4,350 year ago, sorry.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Peg, posted 06-05-2009 2:18 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Peg, posted 06-05-2009 5:45 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3214 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 284 of 372 (510965)
06-05-2009 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Coyote
06-05-2009 3:23 AM


Re: Worldwide flood -- not
Coyote writes:

the Native American populations I study would have been eliminated, only to be replaced by Noah's relatives and descendants.That destruction and replacement did not occur--rather, we have continuity through time of Native American genotypes and cultures.

When did they arrive in their native lands?

Coyote writes:

Same for fauna and flora. Sediment layers are not interrupted at that time over continental areas by a discontinuity.

This is solid evidence that there was no flood about 4,350 years ago. (That and the fact that geologists have showed the same thing.)

And the evidence? Just one example: we have Native American mtDNA from a couple of sites in excess of 10,000 years of age and the same haplotypes occur among living individuals. That's what I mean by continuity. (And those mtDNA types are different from what is found in the Middle East.)

2 things:
the sediment layers are not always consistent. In view of inconsistencies, how can sedimentary layers be considered 100% accurate?

and there is evidence that the DNA you are talking about is found in all the people around the earth...not only the North Americans. So all that it tells us is that the native americans and all other nations are related to one another so rather then add weight to your argument, all it does is illustrate that the history we find in Genesis highly credible. If the flood wiped out all people except the 3 sons and daughter in laws of Noah, then you would expect that the Native Americans would also have the same dna...and they do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Coyote, posted 06-05-2009 3:23 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-05-2009 6:52 AM Peg has responded
 Message 290 by anglagard, posted 06-05-2009 8:46 AM Peg has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.0


Message 285 of 372 (510972)
06-05-2009 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Peg
06-05-2009 5:45 AM


Re: Worldwide flood -- not
the sediment layers are not always consistent. In view of inconsistencies, how can sedimentary layers be considered 100% accurate?

I am curious to know what on earth you can mean by this.

and there is evidence that the DNA you are talking about is found in all the people around the earth...

You do not present this evidence. I realize that making stuff up is easier, but ultimately it is less convincing.

If the flood wiped out all people except the 3 sons and daughter in laws of Noah, then you would expect that the Native Americans would also have the same dna...and they do.

If the flood myth was true, we would not expect modern Native Americans to have the same genetic markers as Native Americans living 10,000 years ago. Indeed, if the Biblical chronology was correct, we wouldn't expect there to be such a time as 10,000 years ago.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Peg, posted 06-05-2009 5:45 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Peg, posted 06-05-2009 8:24 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019