The Flood = many coincidences

Cooling of rocks is part of Geology Cooling of rocks is part of the physical structure of the earth. Geology is the study of the physical features of the earth and the chemical structure of those features, particularly in the sub sciences of Minerology (the study of minerals & their properties) & Petrology (the study of rocks & there properties). Emphasis =mine Edited by bluescat48, : bold emphasis

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

​

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

​

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Sorry, this is false.Biblical scholars place the flood at about 4,350 years ago.Scientists place the k-t line at about 65 million years ago based on numerous lines of evidence.Unless you can show how the numerous lines of evidence scientists use for dating the k-t line are incorrect, you are clearly off by several orders of magnitude.If you care to attempt this, please cite specifics as to why the dating of the k-t is incorrect. Statements such as, "Your dating stuff is speculative" are not enough--you need to show why, and in specific detail. And you will have to do this for each of the dating methods. And you will have to explain why multiple dating methods based on different techniques agree so closely.It's time for you to quit preaching at us and "put up or shut up."

---

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

It most certainly is. The characteristics and features of granite depends heavily on the speed at which rocks cool. How an igneous rock forms has everything to do with how it cools, where it cools, etc. Last I checked, the formation of rocks is geology. No it isn't. It is empirical and quantitative. The problem is that these interpretations are not scientific and are based on dogmatic religious beliefs. What geologic formation, if observed, would falsify a recent global flood? I think you are blowing smoke on this one. Let us know when you get to the second part. How so? You keep repeating this claim, but you never actually show how it is the case.

Did you know in every major religion in the world it talks about a great flood even the aboriginees in Austrailia,natives in Africa ,Christianity,Judaism,Hinduism and Islam.

Flooding happens all over. Why wouldn't local myths tell stories about flooding?Did you know that no two of them are the same? If they were all talking about the same event, wouldn't they be the same?Oh, and aborigines in Australia and natives in Africa are not religions.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

The Biblical Flood has be absolutely refuted, it is a fact that it just plain never happened. Period. End of discussion on the Biblical Flood.It is just myths.Floods are common world wide and so of course there are flood stories but the two mutually exclusive flood myths from the Old Testament are just that, folktales and never happened.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I'm so sorry I offended you by spelling wrong...and you cannot just say it never happend you are just tossing it out now?And I thought I was childish but men older than me just ridiculing me because of my age seriously grow up.

Hi oliver, welcome. This is a good place to learn.Some have argued that the flood story of bible was borrowed from the flood story of Gilgamesh, which is older than the bible.If there was a global flood then evidence of it would be everywhere. So far in this thread I have seen no credible proof, if you have some please share it.

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per aspera

Of course I can say that it never happened, and the correct response from you would be to ask how I can know that it never happened.But if someone tells you that the Biblical Flood happened they are at best ignorant, lying or deluded.So now I suggest that you ask how I can be so sure that it never happened, but first I suggest that you actually go and read the myths again so we can proceed.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Yes all groups of people where floods are common have flood myths, whereas there are no flood myths of mountain people which, if the so called biblical flood occurred would definitely have had something to say about it, a flood occurring in a mountainous area would be big news.Edited by bluescat48, : typ

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

​

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

​

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

The myth of the global flood ca. 4,350 years ago is just that--a myth.Massive amounts of evidence refute that myth. The evidence includes geology, archaeology, genetics, linguistics, and a myriad of other fields. All show that there was no flood at that time period.Attempts by creationists to place the flood at dates other than that selected by biblical scholars (the 4,350 years ago estimate) all rely on twisting established dating or denying the accuracy of dating methods for other events, such as the k-t line and the Cambrian, and claiming that they represent the mythical flood. In addition to the lack of explanation for the errors in dating, those efforts run into even more problems, which have never been successfully addressed by creationists.On the other hand, establishing the existence of a global flood at about 4,350 years ago requires finding evidence of that flood at that time. Simple enough, if it happened, as that time period is well known and much studied. Archaeologists, such as I, deal with that time period all the time.So, all you have to do is examine the archaeological literature or visit an archaeological excavation dealing with that time period, and observe the presence or absence of the various evidences of flooding. If there is continuity of human cultures, genomes, fauna and flora, languages, stratigraphy, and other markers, the flood didn't happen.But if there is a massive disruption at that time period, with subsequent replacement by other cultures, genomes, languages, fauna and flora, etc., then you have a case for a global flood.I've excavated somewhere over 100 sites which cross-cut that time period, and the evidence for a global flood is notable by it's absence.But there is evidence of the post-glacial floods (google "channeled scablands") which were three times as old. Archaeologists and other -ologists can read that evidence quite clearly, and can track the extent of those floods and establish their dates.If scientists can track floods three times the age of the mythical Noah's flood, why can't they find evidence for Noah's flood, which was much more recent and worldwide?Answer: It didn't happen. It is a myth.The only folks who claim there was a global flood about 4,350 years ago are those who believe the words of the bible and reject the physical evidence that is all around us--no matter how convincing it is.Is this what you are doing?

---

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

As I had posted earlier in this topic, I find it rather futile to debate things "old Earth timescale" to a young Earth creationist (YEC) who denies that old Earth timescale. I would prefer arguing the point without invoking any absolute timescale.So, instead of saying "no flood 4350 years ago", I would say "no such flood anytime in human history". It doesn't matter if you try to shoehorn that human history into the YEC time-frame, or put that human history into the modern scientifically accepted old Earth time-frame.There is no non-dubious evidence for a global flood at anytime in human history. It doesn't matter if that history goes back 5000 years, 10,000 years, 100,000 years, or 1,000,000 years.As I understand and recall, the most recent remotely global flood happened back in the Cretaceous. That's (incidentally 60+ million years ago on the old Earth timescale) long prior to any human life evidence.Moose

Does either approach ever convince a YEC proponent?And if there actually is evidence of a global flood 60+ million years ago, why wouldn't a dating denier simply suggest that you got the date wrong? In fact isn't your suggested approach impossible to use for a global flood?

One of the (IMO) better creationist "document the flood" effort was such a thing. It can be found at Assessing Creationist Stratigraphy with Evidence from the Gulf of Mexico. One concept they floated was:

quote:

---

Recent support for a Paleozoic/Mesozoic - Flood/post-Flood boundary was presented in a special symposium within the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (see Snelling 1996). Several articles proposed and defended the Paleozoic/Mesozoic boundary as marking the termination of the Genesis Flood.

---

That boundary is the end of the Cretaceous.It's been a long time since I've read that article, but as I recall, they had the honesty of admitting that that, or the other concepts explored, failed to support the Noatic flood.My point is, go ahead and set aside any and all absolute datings of the stratigraphy. All you need is geologic relative dating via stratigraphy. Cretaceous rocks are way below (earlier) than the appearance of humans. So, even if you date the Cretaceous at C. 4350 years ago, it's still a fail.Moose

I understand your point, and it makes sense except for the fact that I have a great deal of personal experience with the ca. 4,350 year old time period from nearly 40 years of archaeology. That is a point which I feel I can debate not from secondary sources, but from a lot of personal experience. And, that is the time calculated for the global flood by biblical scholars.I have no personal experience with geology of the k-t line or the Cambrian or the other time periods some use for the date of the flood.I don't know what else I can do. But it doesn't matter, as logic and evidence isn't going to change any minds anyway.

---

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