Potential Evidence for a Global Flood

Sorry, no. I have tested well over 100 sites whose strata included the approximate 4,350 year time period. That is a very easy time period to find in most archaeological sites where I work!My colleagues have tested tens of thousands of other such sites.None contained the evidence of a flood which would have to be there if the flood was truly global.But we have evidence of older, more limited floods. Google "channeled scablands" and see what archaeologists, geologists, and other -ologists have found. Then ask why evidence of a more recent, and hugely larger flood can't be found.Face it: the global flood as described just didn't happen.

---

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

I agree--the Channeled Scablands are fascinating. I did some field trips into that area in grad school and have flown the area in a small plane.For the purposes of this thread, they show evidence of several pretty large floods over 10,000 years ago. Scientists of various types have been able to track the course of those floods, date them, and study the damage they did.This is most interesting because a purported flood of vastly larger proportions a third that age has left no evidence at all.

---

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

The date centers around about 4,350 years ago.Unless creationists get pinned down and then it ranges to the Cambrian explosion (550 million years ago) and beyond.

---

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

And we should see the same in all flora as well.Also, we should see some form of discontinuity in sediment profiles of that age (we don't).We should see some massive discontinuity in Native American cultures at that age (we don't).Related to your point, we should see a change in mtDNA profiles between 5-10,000 years ago and living descendants in the same areas (we don't).The evidence against a global flood is overwhelming. The evidence for a global flood is all but non-existent.Legends are not evidence unless they are specific enough to unambiguously associate them with specific events. And when those legends are contradicted by a massive amount of empirical evidence they simply have to be dismissed as myths.

---

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

We have a lot of "pre-flood" genetic data, or at least genetic data from earlier than 4,350 years ago.I have some from my own archaeological research, dated to about 5,300 years ago. It matches living individuals in the same area, showing that there was no disruption at the date you accept for a global flood.This by itself is evidence that there was no global flood about 4,350 years ago.

---

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

Because there was no such flood! That's what we have been trying to convey to you.

---

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

Creationists always berate scientists for the assumptions they make. But take a look at the assumptions Baumgardner, in the article you cited, makes!

Baumgardner (2005) has suggested, based on earlier studies (Brown 1979; Giem 2001; Morton 1984; Scharpenseel and Becker-Heidmann 1992), that the pre-Flood biosphere and atmosphere just prior to the Flood could have had, conservatively, 300—700 times the total carbon relative to our present world’s biosphere and atmosphere. Then if we assume the total number of 14C atoms was similar to what exists in today’s world, and these were uniformly distributed throughout the pre-Flood biosphere which had 500 times more total carbon than today’s biosphere, then the resulting 14C/C ratio would be 1/500 of today’s level, or about 0.2 pMC, which is equivalent to an apparent radiocarbon age of more than 50,000 years.

Problems: there is no evidence for a flood, and hence no evidence for a pre-flood atmosphere radically different (300-700 times as high!) in total carbon. But given carbon levels 300-700 times higher, we are for some reason to asked to assume the total number of 14C atoms is similar to what we have today.All of these assumptions are necessary to make radiocarbon dates older than the date of the purported flood come into line with a young earth belief.The assumptions scientists make have a solid basis, while these creationist assumptions are pulled out of thin air because they are critically needed to support both a young earth and a global flood. There is no evidence for any of them! Creation "science" as usual.An example of the types of assumptions scientists make: we can count tree rings, annual deposits in bogs and glaciers, and a variety of other annular events. These different methods all agree with one another quite closely. Knowing the age of particular tree rings, we can determine the levels of C12 and C14 (as well as C13) in each of these rings. This information, when compared with the age of each ring established by direct counting, gives us the correction factor to account for atmospheric fluctuation (and to calibrate radiocarbon dates).It also lets us check on the levels of the various carbon isotopes back to about 12,000 years (using bristlecone pines from the White Mountains). Those levels are similar to the levels we see today, give or take about 10% due to atmospheric fluctuation.All of this lets us calibrate radiocarbon dates using empirical data, not assumptions. We have directly measured tree rings from particular ages and this lets us account for atmospheric fluctuation. It also tells us what the atmosphere was like for the past 12,000 years. The levels of the various carbon isotopes has remained relatively constant (within about 10%).This is just one example of an "assumption" used by scientists. It has a very solid basis, and is not just a wild guess as creationists are wont to claim.Compare this with the "assumptions" in the paragraph from Baumgardner, above. Those claims are not only not supported by evidence, they are flatly contradicted by real-world evidence.In other words, your creationists sources are lying to you, same as always.(Note: no web searches were used in the creation of this post.)

---

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

This is a good thread for archaeologist to present his evidence for the global flood.Archaeologist keeps claiming that the bible is 100% accurate and that there is no evidence of error.This is a perfect thread for him to present his refutation to all of the evidence we have presented in various threads showing the belief in a global flood about 4,350 years ago is erroneous.On many of those other threads a detailed discussion of flood evidence would be off topic, but this thread is perfect!So please, archaeologist, show where the posts I have made in several places are incorrect.And don't just recite your catechism. Bring evidence.

---

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

I addressed those claims, but he never responded. And he hasn't responded on the other threads either.One might begin to think he has catechism and dogma, but no real evidence, eh?Archaeologist, here's your big chance! Present your evidence for the global flood ca. 4,350 years ago and refute the evidence I have presented on several different threads.

---

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

Bump for archaeologist.

The date of the "global flood" is widely placed at about 4,350 years ago by biblical scholars.At that time period you are dealing with soils, not geological formations (rocks).Also, you are dealing with bones, not fossils. All of your examples dealing with fossils and geological strata are rendered moot by this fact alone.We have an excellent record of that time period produced by archaeologists (not geologists). I have excavated perhaps a hundred sites that cross-cut that time period and provide evidence of what occurred back then.Neither I nor my thousands of colleagues around the world have found evidence supporting a global flood at that time.Another bit of evidence: we now have well-dated mtDNA from both before and after that time period. If the global flood idea were correct, we would have a massive discontinuity at about 4,350 years ago. All previous mtDNA haplotypes would be eliminated, to replaced by those from Noah's female kin. This is not the case.A skeleton from On Your Knees Cave in southern Alaska produced a rare mtDNA haplotype. That skeleton was radiocarbon dated to 10,300 years ago. That mtDNA haplotype has been found in a number of living individuals. If there had been a global flood that mtDNA haplotype would have been eliminated, to be replaced by a near-eastern type. Another example from my own archaeological research: a skeleton from the western US dated to 5,350 years ago was found to be a mtDNA match for living individuals in the same area. Again, a global flood would have eliminated that haplotype in favor of one coming from the near east.This evidence strongly suggests that there was no global flood at that time.If you disagree, you need to deal with two very specific issues:1) The date of the "global flood" is recent, during human history, not back in the Cambrian or some such. You need to deal with soils, not geological strata. You need to deal with bones, not fossils. You need to deal with human history, not 500 million years before humans evolved.2) There are examples of continuity across the 4,350 date in all areas of the world. Contrarily, there is no evidence for a global flood at that time. The evidence for continuity comes from human cultures, fauna and flora, sediments, DNA, and so on. There is no evidence for a global flood (discontinuity of the above items) at that time period. Nor is there positive evidence such as flood strata, massive erosion, etc.However, if you disagree, then please pick the precise time period when you believe the global flood occurred. It does you no good to pick-and-choose from various events spanning 500 or more million years. You have to pick one specific date, and provide your reasoning for that date.This is the science forum, you know. {In my judgement, this is rather a Coyote boilerplate rant and is in little or no way a reply to the content of the message it is a reply to. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note in red.

You have not even attempted to refute a single point I made.Perhaps you should give it a try and provide some evidence to refute my points.(And yes, I saw you try to change the subject.) Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

I quoted no texts.I cited the consensus of biblical scholars for the date of the "global flood" and archaeological evidence beyond that.And you still have not refuted a single point I made.Your dodging and weaving is noted. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

The closest I can figure this "fulcrum verse" you're talking about is the date given the "global flood." I stated that biblical scholars center around a date of 4,350 years ago. Here is my basis for that statement:The date of the global flood is given variously as:

​

2252 BC -- layevangelism.com

​

2304 BC -- Answers in Genesis (+/- 11 years).

​

2350 BC -- Morris, H. Biblical Creationism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993.

​

2370 BC -- TalkOrigins.com

​

2500 BC -- nwcreation.net

Once again this shows we are dealing with recent times, with sediments not geological formations, and with bones, not rocks or fossils. Our information will come more from archaeology than geology.And you have yet to address any of the points in my original post, above. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

Diamond is used as a source free of 14C for testing instrumentation. With AMS dating the technique is so sensitive that residual amounts of 14C in the machinery become significant, so diamond is used as a material containing no 14C to determine the residual contamination in the instrumentation.(See Taylor and Southon, Use of natural diamonds to monitor 14C AMS instrument backgrounds, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259:282—287, 2007.) Only dishonesty could claim that this proves a young earth and a global flood.For an excellent discussion of this see RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination? by EvC poster Kirk Bertsche.As for the initial claim of a young age from coal, that was a boo-boo on the part of creationists. The claim is often made that "Coal from Russia from the 'Pennsylvanian,' supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966)" The original source for the false information seems to be Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Weiland’s The Answers Book, published by Master Books, El Cajon, CA, in 1992 (page 73).But that was just sloppy translation from the Russian. The "coal" was clearly charcoal from a cultural deposit. The original Radiocarbon article makes this very clear, but this fooled creationists and their false claim can be found widely on the web to this day. Source14C dating does not support a young earth or a global flood, and creationists' claims to the contrary have been repeatedly refuted.