Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

More evidence of Noah's Flood?

183 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

Scientists have recently come across a discovery that could prove there's a reservoir of water under the earth so massive it could contain all the water currently in the earth's oceans.  Of course the article doesn't point to the biblical flood, but says it's more like how it's imagined in Jules Verne's "Journey to the Center of the Earth."  But if you ask me, it really take away the argument that there's not enough water on the earth to cover the mountains.  It also speaks to the bible saying that water burst forth from within the earth and not just 40 days and nights of rain.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2579584/The-vast-reservoir-hidden-Earths-crust-holds-water-ALL-oceans.html

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I always wondered what happened to all that water

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The bible says it retreated, so it probably went back to where it came from. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

There has never been a problem with the amount of water. According to most creationist models, the global flood caused massive geological upheaval on the surface of the earth; forming high mountain ranges and deep ocean basins. Given the current amount of water in the oceans, the suface of the earth would be several km under water if the surface of the earth was evenly distributed.

 

But yes - finding such large amounts of sub-terrainian water would be consistent with the Biblical claim that water disseminated from "fountains of the great deep" (Gen 7:11).

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

How does Science deal with the problem of loads of water over our heads (not clouds)?

 

clb

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Too bad there isn't a uniform layer of sediment over the entire earth...not to mention either the energy of the water coming from under the surface of the earth or pouring down on it would have destroyed everything and all species/kinds of animal fossils are not mixed...  Now, if you want to claim supernatural agents then maybe you should stop talking scientific evidence.  This is why this sub-forum is called "science vs faith". 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Too bad there isn't a uniform layer of sediment over the entire earth...not to mention either the energy of the water coming from under the surface of the earth or pouring down on it would have destroyed everything and all species/kinds of animal fossils are not mixed...  Now, if you want to claim supernatural agents then maybe you should stop talking scientific evidence.  This is why this sub-forum is called "science vs faith". 

 

 

Creationist flood models do not require a single, uniform sedimentary layer or a uniformly mixed fossil record.

 

 

A single uniform sedimentary layer is only necessary if the secular assumption of universal superposition is applied to the creationist flood model. This assumption has long been scientifically demonstrated to be unnecessary for any model.

 

see:

Berthault G (1986). “Experiments on lamination of sediments, resulting from a periodic graded-bedding subsequent to deposition—a contribution to the explanation of lamination of various sediments and sedimentary rocks”, Compte Rendus Acadèmie des Sciences, Paris, Vol. 303.

&

Julien PY (1993). “Experiments on stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures”, Bulletin of the Geological Society of France, Vol. 164.

 

 

From a creationist perspective, the fossil succession is easily explained through burial by the order of deposition, the vertical habitat, and motility of organisms.

All aquatic habitats have fauna/flora zones. When catastrophic flooding occurs on a large scale, we observe that sedimentary burial is by habitat. We expect that the same would be true in the context of a global flood; with the bottom dwellers of the oceans buried first and the phytoplankton last. This would also include mammals in the higher layers since the upper surface is their habitat. On land, it is reasonable to assume that during a global flood, the most mobile creatures would be buried last (and that there would be an abundance of fossil remains of animal activity; i.e. running, swimming, eating, copulating, drowning etc.). This explanation (albeit a basic summary) is consistent with the observed record of fossil succession.

 

Furthermore (and contrary to what secular propaganda would have you believe), the fossil record is under constant revision. Fossils found “out of place” are a perpetual nuisance to the Common Ancestry paradigm; causing significant range extensions, and even some unsolved yet “highly intriguing geological problem

(Stainforth RM (1966). “Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana”, Nature, Vol. 210).

Edited by Tristen
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I always wondered what happened to all that water

Interesting this faith of yours... you believe He can speak it into exist -but- not out :D
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The massive oceans we see are the result and remnant of the flood waters.  We tend to read our present experience into the past.  We assume that the amount the of land we see today is what was in existence before the flood.  There was most likely much, much more dry land prior to the flood and that the massive oceans we see today probably didn't exist prior to the flood. We assume that our present conditions have always been, and that assumption may be false.

 

But unbelief by both Christians and nonChrisitans alike in the Bible's claim of a massive flood as described has forced people to find other explanations for why we are finding man-made structures deep in the oceans floor.  If we believed the Bible people would not be forced to resort to the stupidity of some who suggest that man must have had extra-terrestrial assistance in builidng those underwater structures.

 

As for fossils.   The reason we generally don't find fossils of animals that died say two or three hundred years ago is that animals decay or our eaten by scavengers prior to decaying.  

 

Fossilization doesn't take place over millions of years.  Fossils are the product of a massive and rapid deposition of sediment.  The mere existence of fossils are testimony to a massive catastrophe that killed and preserved animals instantly.  We have fossils of fish in the process of eating other fish, but were suddenly buried instantly in sediment and preserving a snapshot in time.   The way it is presented  by modern science, the layers of sediment were layed down slowly over millions of years, but that doesn't make sense because animals  generally decay long before they would be covered by a slow deposition.  Yet we find so much soft tissue preserved in the fossil record.

 

Plant fossils are the same way.  Plant's don't fossilize, they decay unless they were buried rapidly and preserved under huge layers of sediment.   That would speak to the massive flood event and a flood event would be a reasonable explanation for such.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Too bad there isn't a uniform layer of sediment over the entire earth...not to mention either the energy of the water coming from under the surface of the earth or pouring down on it would have destroyed everything and all species/kinds of animal fossils are not mixed...  Now, if you want to claim supernatural agents then maybe you should stop talking scientific evidence.  This is why this sub-forum is called "science vs faith".

I personally don't like the name of this sub-forum. How about science and faith against evolution? That would make more sense.

I am a believer in a world-wide flood, but I believe the argument that most of the fossilization from paleozoic through to cenozoic was caused by one flood has many flaws, as you pointed out.

I prefer to believe in a flood at the late paleozoic/early mesozoic boundary and there is extensive geologic evidence for extensive flooding during that period.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Too bad there isn't a uniform layer of sediment over the entire earth...not to mention either the energy of the water coming from under the surface of the earth or pouring down on it would have destroyed everything and all species/kinds of animal fossils are not mixed...  Now, if you want to claim supernatural agents then maybe you should stop talking scientific evidence.  This is why this sub-forum is called "science vs faith". 

 

I would say not having a uniform layer of sediment would be absolute proof of the flood.  It would've caused a mixing of sediments would it not?  And there are plenty of places where the fossils are mixed and in different places.  There are marine fossils on the highest mountains (including Everest).  There are whale fossils in the middle of deserts.  So there are definitely fossils where they don't belong.  And I would also assume that the plants and animals closer to the ground and unable to move as fast would get buried before the larger animals that can run to higher ground away from the oncoming water.  So that explains how scientists can interpret layering as different ages that could've resulted from a flood. 

 

I believe that the existence of a Supernatural Creator changes the whole thing.  Scientists trying to record events as they occured naturally will definitely come up with millions of years. BUT if a flood happened and God does exist, it changes everything science thinks it knows about the earth or even the universe.  That's why I refuse to watch that show on FOX, "Cosmos".  I don't like being lied to.

Edited by anthonyjmcgirr
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

That's why I refuse to watch that show on FOX, "Cosmos".  I don't like being lied to.

 

 

 

======================================================================

 

That's why I refuse to watch that show on FOX, "Cosmos".  I don't like being lied to.

 

I try and catch all of them....the hyped ones I record.

 

I look for:  Logical Fallacies, Sweeping Generalizations, Basic Physics Violations, Non-Sequitur's. The best ones are when they make stuff up; which happens immediately after: "Welcome to....." and continues Non-Stop to the end.

 

Then I invite friends over and we treat it like Comedy Night @ the Ritz

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

Too bad there isn't a uniform layer of sediment over the entire earth...not to mention either the energy of the water coming from under the surface of the earth or pouring down on it would have destroyed everything and all species/kinds of animal fossils are not mixed...  Now, if you want to claim supernatural agents then maybe you should stop talking scientific evidence.  This is why this sub-forum is called "science vs faith". 

 

I would say not having a uniform layer of sediment would be absolute proof of the flood.  It would've caused a mixing of sediments would it not?  And there are plenty of places where the fossils are mixed and in different places.  There are marine fossils on the highest mountains (including Everest).  There are whale fossils in the middle of deserts.  So there are definitely fossils where they don't belong.  And I would also assume that the plants and animals closer to the ground and unable to move as fast would get buried before the larger animals that can run to higher ground away from the oncoming water.  So that explains how scientists can interpret layering as different ages that could've resulted from a flood. 

 

I believe that the existence of a Supernatural Creator changes the whole thing.  Scientists trying to record events as they occured naturally will definitely come up with millions of years. BUT if a flood happened and God does exist, it changes everything science thinks it knows about the earth or even the universe.  That's why I refuse to watch that show on FOX, "Cosmos".  I don't like being lied to.

 

fossil mixing isn't about geography, it's about time.  Older fossils are under newer ones.  if your slower fossil claims are true, why would you have new, slow mammals in a higher strata than fast dinosaurs? 

Edited by jerryR34
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Scientists have recently come across a discovery that could prove there's a reservoir of water under the earth so massive it could contain all the water currently in the earth's oceans.  Of course the article doesn't point to the biblical flood, but says it's more like how it's imagined in Jules Verne's "Journey to the Center of the Earth."  But if you ask me, it really take away the argument that there's not enough water on the earth to cover the mountains ...

Does it even have to cover the mountains?

Since Google Earth wasn't available to Noah and his neighbors, if their whole world was Mesopotamia and all of Mesopotamia was under water, wasn't the "whole world" flooded, at least as far as they were concerned?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Blessings Everyone....

     It is an interesting article......and someone pointed out (I believe it was Jerry)that this is the science versus faith sub forum & if we want to talk supernatural agents then why talk scientific evidence at all?Well,they can discuss whatever they like,for some people scientific evidences do confirm many Biblical accounts  & it is amazing & interesting conversation

     Personally,I have been down that road(up &down-lol) but I sure do walk by faith & not by sight.....if God said it is so then I do not need to to produce any evidence(physical or seen)to anyone or to have any scientific evidence shown to me....................those that require or desire some type of physical evidences to prove Gods Word is true lean on their own understanding & have not yet come to that place of trusting or KNOWING God,,,,,maybe they will,maybe they won't & thats okay too,I think I will just pray for them......God Bless us all

                                                                                             With love-in Christ,Kwik

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Blessings Old School....

    I don't think so,that as far as "they "were concerned the whole earth as flooded.......the Scriptures are Gods Word,not by any interpretation of men(they were merely Gods "pen')So if the Lord says....the earth was flooded,then the earth was flooded......IMO     God Bless you

                                                                                                      With love-in Christ,Kwik

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

fossil mixing isn't about geography, it's about time.  Older fossils are under newer ones.  if your slower fossil claims are true, why would you have new, slow mammals in a higher strata than fast dinosaurs?

=====================================================================================================

 

<--------------------999 Woo Hoo

 

 

Sorry to interrupt.....

 

Older fossils are under newer ones.

 

How do you differentiate "newer" vs "Older" fossils without using a Circular Argument?

 

 

slow mammals in a higher strata than fast dinosaurs?

 

The "slower" mammals were viewing Google Earth on Higher Ground while the Faster Dino's were Plugging Holes on Lower Ground, Obviously.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

Older fossils are under newer ones.

 

How do you differentiate "newer" vs "Older" fossils without using a Circular Argument?

 

Several methods, please research - that in no way requires circular resoning. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Blessings Old School....

    I don't think so,that as far as "they "were concerned the whole earth as flooded.......the Scriptures are Gods Word,not by any interpretation of men(they were merely Gods "pen')So if the Lord says....the earth was flooded,then the earth was flooded......IMO     God Bless you

                                                                                                      With love-in Christ,Kwik

I find it odd that our God -- who goes to such great lengths so that men would follow Him of their own free will -- would turn His writers into nothing more than mere (automatic) pens?

And if all scripture is inspired (2 Tim 3:16), spiritual possession of its scribes is not only unnecessary, it's unbiblical.

Now as to the whole earth being flooded ...

"The language used in Genesis 6-9 does not insist that the flood was global.

"First of all, the Hebrew kol erets, meaning whole Earth, can also be translated whole land in reference to local, not global, geography. The Old Testament scholar Gleason L. Archer explains that the Hebrew word erets is often translated as Earth in English translations of the Bible, when in reality it is also the word for land, as in the land of Israel.6 Archer explains that erets is used many times throughout the Old Testament to mean land and country. Furthermore, the term tebel, which translates to the whole expanse of the Earth, or the Earth as a whole, is not used in Genesis 6:17, nor in subsequent verses in Genesis 7 (7:4, 7:10, 7:17, 7:18, 7:19).7 If the intent of this passage was to indicate the entire expanse of the Earth, tebel would have been the more appropriate word choice. Consequently, the Hebrew text is more consistent with a local geography for the flood.

"Moreover, in this period of history, people understood the whole Earth as a smaller geographical area. There is no evidence to suggest that people of this time had explored the far reaches of the globe or had any understanding of its scope. For example, the Babylonian Map of the World,8 the oldest known world map, depicts the world as two concentric circles containing sites of Assyria, Babylon, Bit Yakin, Urartu, a few other cities and geographic features all surrounded by ocean ..."

http://biologos.org/questions/genesis-flood

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Several methods, please research - that in no way requires circular resoning. 

 

 

==================================================================================

 

Go ahead and list the Top 2, then I'll go ahead and research then put them through the Crucible.

 

Thanks

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Why even go there - your reserach will be attacking fossil order via a couple of extraordinary circumstances (overturned folded strata et al.).  Also, you will impugn radiometric dating based on a couple methods or examples at the tails of the bell-shaped curve.  Your arguments are tired, and ingnored by science.  They are only valid in a forum such as this where people know what they want to believe and believe the tiniy fraction of the evidence that supports it in spite of the overwhelming body of evidence that does not. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Blessings Old School

      lol....I guess you will have to take it up with God,I did not write 2Peter 1:20-21........He is the One that has told us the Scriptures are not written by anyone's interpretation....................You are most certainly entitled to believe as you will but "please"....do not tell me what I say is ";unbiblical" because I disagree with you,thanks

                                                                                                                       With love-in Christ,Kwik

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Well, if I'm not mistaken, mammals could climb trees and dinosaurs couldn't.  And they were probably more intelligent. 

 

Why would Noah waste 120 years to build an Ark for a local flood?  It would be simpler to move a few miles or into the mountains for a small local flood.  A small local flood wouldn't cover the mountains.

 

How else would you find massive fossilized clams on top of mountains? 

 

 

As for the so-called Geologic Column...it is completely built upon false assumptions and circular reasoning.  Scientists say, "Wow, we found this bone in this layer, so this layer must be X millions of years old because this dinosaur lived at that time."  "Whoa, how do we date this bone?  Well, it was found in X layer, so it is X millions of years old."

 

And the ONLY way you get a fossil is if the animal is immediately covered in sediment which is most likely to happen in a flood.  And not to mention, you cannot get any accurate date by any dating method.  Those, too, are also made in bias because you can't accurately date anything beyond 50,000 years old. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Why even go there - your reserach will be attacking fossil order via a couple of extraordinary circumstances (overturned folded strata et al.).  Also, you will impugn radiometric dating based on a couple methods or examples at the tails of the bell-shaped curve.  Your arguments are tired, and ingnored by science.  They are only valid in a forum such as this where people know what they want to believe and believe the tiniy fraction of the evidence that supports it in spite of the overwhelming body of evidence that does not. 

 

================================================================================

 

So in response to......."Go ahead and list the Top 2, then I'll go ahead and research then put them through the Crucible."

 

Your response......Translation:  There aren't any we just make them up "ad hoc" as we go.

 

Science doesn't "Ignore".....Logical Fallacy (Reification)

 

 

You know, here @ Worthy, they have Automatic Spell Check.....if it's misspelled, a Red Squiggly Line shows up beneath it.  (just FYI)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

 

You know, here @ Worthy, they have Automatic Spell Check.....if it's misspelled, a Red Squiggly Line shows up beneath it.  (just FYI)

 

I have not seen spell check on here.  I usually copy and paste to word - was in a hurry on that post.

 

 

 

Ok... top two - although they go hand in hand...1)  fossil sorting  2) radiometric dating.  Try to surprise me...

Edited by jerryR34
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0