Does the evidence support the Flood? (attn: DwarfishSquints)

In order to have condensation (rain) you need to have evaporation of the same amount or water. It is impossible for rain to fall worldwide. So NONE of the water that caused a worldwide flood could come from the atmosphere as the amount of water in the atmosphere worldwide has to be in equilibrium. So the only source of water to cover mountains has to be those "fountains of the deep". Any calculations which include rain are flawed.

Yeah well even when I was a YEC (couldn't help it, I was indoctrinated in it from a babe) I never could quite understand how it could rain everywhere for forty days. Being a realist is such a drag. The Ark story is so much more fun.

quote:

---

The question is why are there fossils of 20 and 30 year old seashells on mountain tops ... and how this can be evidence for a flood of only a couple hundred days.

---

Yes, I think even the most diehard YEC would admit that most of the water had to come from the "fountains of the deep". So unless they can come up with a plausible scenario for that (and they can't of course) they are scrod, as it were.

quote:

---

Thirdly and more to the point even the Himalayas were under water, the fossil hunters will vouch for that.

---

But this is not good evidence for a global flood, as there is a more parsimonius alternative explanation (the fossils formed before the mountains were pushed up). And of course the fossils in the many layers underneath the surface of the mountains cannot be explained at all by a global flood.

Edited by deerbreh, : duplicate post

quote:

---

No. Your not listening. This has nothing to do with the age of the earth. This is about the flood.

---

However this does not work. You cannot separate belief in the global biblical flood some 4,000 years ago from the age of the earth. It absolutely cannot work with an old earth for all sorts of reasons, the major one being the height of the mountains and the need to cover them with water. If you accept an old earth you have to accept that the mountains themselves are also very old - very much older than 4,000 years. If on the other hand, you concede that Noah's flood was a local flood - well that may work a little better though there are still plenty of problems with the literal text in Genesis. There certainly were local floods in the area of the Tigris and Euphrates watersheds and people may have used rafts to rescue livestock at one time or another but an ark to save all the animals? No evidence for it other than the Genesis account.Oh and if you are going to post on forums you will be taken a little more seriously if you learn proper grammar. It is "you are" or "you're," not "your" in that context.Edited by deerbreh, : grammar note.Edited by deerbreh, : No reason given.Edited by deerbreh, : No reason given.

quote:

---

if life has been around for billions of years we'd be knee deep in bones.

---

Actually, no. Bones decompose. Not as fast as flesh, but they do decompose. If they didn't, we WOULD be knee deep in them, even if life had only been around for only 10,000 years.

quote:

---

Genetics. It's in its infancy.

---

The scientists who mapped the human genome would be surprised to hear that genetics in in its infancy. So would Gregor Mendal, who worked out the basic mechanisms of genetic inheritance around 1860. By the 1940s plant breeders had worked out the details enough to allow commercial production of hybrid corn seed - not exactly the product of a scientific field "in its infancy". The basic structure of DNA was described in 1953. The human genome was mostly mapped by 2003 - a massive undertaking involving over 25,000 loci. This type of project was not for amateurs as your "infancy" comment would imply. These were scientists who were at the peak of their professional careers. And one does not need to have entire genomes mapped in order to do relationship studies - those were being done even before genetic fingerprinting techniques were perfected in 1984. Genetic fingerprinting can distinguish between INDIVIDUALS in a population. How much easier do you think it is to distinguish among species and genera using DNA? Recombinant DNA techniques (genetic engineering) were perfected in 1973. Genetics in its infancy? Compared to what, I would like to know? You really need to stop commenting on stuff you don't know jack shit about. Of course, if you aren't concerned about appearing to be an ignoramus - by all means, carry on. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic - Content hidden. Message kind of cranky also.

quote:

---

Just give me some convincing evidence that disqualifies a global flood.

---

You have it backwards - Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - provided by the person making the extraordinary claim. The burden of "convincing evidence" of a global flood is on you - not on those saying otherwise. It is not up to us to disprove that a global flood happened - it is up to you to prove that it did.

quote:

---

I think over all it is a great example of how people on both sides of a debate, will ignore all the facts and implications of the evidence in order to hold true to their small understanding of something that can have greater implications. If the theist was able to treat this scenario as way to understand how people record their history and how legends develop. They would have a better grasp on why they believe what they believe, instead of having to fall back on faith for faith alone sake. The same holds true for the atheist. It would allow them to use what little written history from antiquity that we do have as a reference. i believe if this theory is indeed true, it perfectly demonstrates how slivers of truth can come through in all the stories and myths that man has created.

---

Whoa, Rueh and NJ, wait a minute. In your eagerness to "treat both sides fairly" you both are muddying things up just a bit. Non young earth creationists (they aren't all atheists, by the way) do not deny history - whether oral or written. Nor do they deny that local floods may have occured that local people thought were world wide floods and that may have generated various flood myths. The Black Sea flood poses no "problem" for those opposing the YEC scenario. We do not deny that even the most fantastic stories in the Bible and other ancient texts may have some factual basis. But of course the key word there is "some." Stop trying to treat this as a civil dispute where everyone has certain rights. Everyone does NOT have the right to their own facts. In the Creationist/Evolutionist debate, the facts are not equal on both sides of the debate. In fact, the Evolutionists have the facts on their side, Creationists have only religious belief.Edited by deerbreh, : No reason given.

The difference in scope and plausibility between large local floods and a world wide flood is so great that it is quite silly to even suggest that confirmed geological evidence for a large local flood would present any kind of problem for naysayers of Noah's Flood. Of course the naysayers recognize that flood myths likely had some basis in reality. It really goes without saying and proves....actually, nothing of interest to a geologist. To someone who makes a study of myths and their origins, yes. But to a geologist, no, and this thread is about geological evidence for a global flood, is it not? Origins of flood myths is actually off topic.