Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Taker

Proof of Noah's flood.

113 posts in this topic

Greetings, fellow Worthymen.

 

I recently got into an online debate with a very well informed atheist. He claimed that there was no scientific evidence to back up a global flood. He claimed that if a global flood happened roughly 4000 years ago it would be very easy to confirm with today's science.

 

I wasn't sure how to respond as I'm not really a scientist nor have I looked into weather or not there is physical evidence of an ancient global flood. I did point out to him that fossilized-seashells have been found atop mount Everest. His response was similar to this, "This point is of no surprise to me. Everest grows at roughly an inch each year. This is due to tectonic plates pushing one-another which is how most mountains are formed. It is very possible that hundreds of millions of years ago Everest's peak was below sea level."

 

So the question that I would like to have answered is this:

 

Is there scientific evidence of a global flood that happened roughly 4000 years ago?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Taker,

 

I would first suggest that you avoid the term “proof” in your discussions. Proof isn’t really a scientific word. Only God knows everything. And we don’t know what we don’t know. Legitimate science can only claim to have a certain level of confidence in a claim – not to have proven a claim. Tomorrow some scientist could make a discovery that invalidates whatever we think we know (or can prove) now.

 

 

 

“He claimed that there was no scientific evidence to back up a global flood”

 

Claims that an opponent has no evidence are almost always nonsense. Consider that you provided evidence (marine fossils on Everest) to support your position. Now what the atheist disputed was how you interpreted that evidence – not the existence of that evidence. So to claim you have no evidence is self-evidently untrue.

 

 

 

“He claimed that if a global flood happened roughly 4000 years ago it would be very easy to confirm with today's science”

 

This claim assumes that the facts would be interpreted fairly. We all believe thing about reality which can’t be confirmed. I believe that the Bible is true – including the Genesis account of history. But I can’t take anyone back in time to show them what actually happened. Atheists believe that the universe exists without God – including the belief that the universe is billions of years older than the Bible claims. But they can’t take me back in time to show me what actually happened either.

 

Both our beliefs have limitations as to what can be accepted as truth. My belief says that any claim that contradicts the Bible cannot be true. The atheist belief (philosophical naturalism) says that any claim that includes God (such as the Biblical flood) cannot be true. These beliefs (sometimes called paradigms, or frameworks, or world-views) determine what we see when we look at the evidence; that is, these beliefs influence how we interpret the facts.

 

Interpreting “fossilized-seashells” on Mt. Everest as evidence of a global flood is a perfectly rational way to interpret these facts. A global flood would have contributed to massive geological upheaval – changing the face of the earth. During that period, mountain ranges would have risen much more rapidly than they do today.

 

But we must also recognise that interpreting these “fossilized-seashells” as coming from an ancient ocean floor is also a rational way to interpret these facts. If we assume that processes have always proceeded at the rate they do today (this assumption is called uniformitarianism), then it is reasonable to conclude that the top of Everest started on the ocean floor millions of years ago.

 

Since your opponent is an atheist operating within the naturalistic paradigm, his perspective does not permit him to consider our interpretations of the facts to be true. Likewise, since we adhere to the Biblical paradigm, we cannot accept their billions-of-years-of-history interpretations of the facts.

 

The only problem in today’s scientific discourse is that many atheists consider their position to be somehow more logically valid (or more scientific) than ours. We who believe the Bible can hopefully be objective enough to realise that we simply disagree with each other – because we each start at different faith perspectives. It’s the same facts, but different stories.

 

 

 

“Is there scientific evidence of a global flood that happened roughly 4000 years ago?”

 

Yes, there is an abundance of such evidence (which we interpret to be consistent with a global flood) – including “fossilized-seashells”.

 

I would recommend creation.com as a good resource for such information. Most of their articles are authored by highly credentialed scientists in the relevant fields of expertise.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good question Taker.(I'm going to use the boldface character- hope you don't mind.)

 

I know that Noah's Flood happened simply because the Word of Almighty God, the Bible, tells us.

 

Science is actually dead, as I explain below. Some scientists would like us to think that until they discovered their ( ever-changing) theories of physics, no father and son/daughter could play catch with a ball: since  playing catch involves gravity(general relativity), Newtonian mechanics and Q.E.D.( quantum physics) AND now " dark energy."

 

Wow, before Isaac Newton discovered gravity, our ancestors were not smart enough to play catch with a ball! All those home movies of the 1950s to 1971, showing families playing catch, were done by  special effects,  until 1971, when the Standard Model of physics was more or less completed. Really?

 People give too much credit to science - which is completely dependent on the opinion of fallible scientists, who all have  limited intelligence, writing their impossible to prove ideas in peer-reviewed-change-their-opinion-with -the-next-theory journals.

 

(By the way gravity and dark energy - and a lot of other physical phenomena- still do not make any sense to the Standard Model of Physics or string theory physics.

 

(Furthermore String Theory physics began by using the mathematics of Leonhard Euler. Euler believed in Jesus as Savior and God. Euler also believed in the inerrancy of the Bible.)

 

Techniques or technology are not truly based in human-invented science.

 

Technology simply is discovered when humans (using Jesus' creations, the brain and intelligence) play, or tinker around with the things that have already been created by the Almighty.

 

Science can never understand completely or even remotely,  what  happens in a game of catch with a ball! I'll give the reason a bit later.  

 

Having said that, there is an interesting effect Jesus created called water cavitation.

I was partly convinced( but this is just a theory, remember the Bible  is the only perfect proof) that Noah's flood occurred because Noah's flood is the best explanation of Earth's surface features such as  the  deep Grand Canyon.

 

Noah's Flood water was moving extremely quickly at certain times and areas during the Flood and caused an effect- called water cavitation. When normal water travels very fast it will produce special  tiny bubbles because of water cavitation. 

 

The temperature of these water cavitation "special  tiny bubbles" can reach 15 000 degrees Celsius or 27 000 degrees Fahrenheit - hotter than the surface of our Sun .Water that is moving 90 feet per second(about 40 miles per hour) destroys solid steel and hard stone.{ref . source:[this paragraph only] David Catchpool, Creation.com}

 

The Grand Canyon was created water cavitation in about 3 to 6 days, not through water erosion.

 

Water cavitation is ten trillion times [ 10 000 000 000 000] times as powerful as the very slow water erosion.

 

And Taker, the greatest mathematician of recent times, Kurt Gödel, discovered the Incompleteness Theorem, which proves science can never understand the universe .Science is dead.

 

The Incompleteness Theorem is the most important discovery in mathematics ever. Kurt Gödel was a true baptized Lutheran Christian.He read the Bible at least every Sunday.

 

 And anyways, Jesus Christ is infinitely smarter than any scientist ,because he is Almighty God. Do not be even slightly impressed by dead science.

 

Sincerely, Rony .

Edited by rontiger
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very well informed athiest.... psalm 14:1

No matter what you say they will have some sort of rebuttle to explain it away. Dont waste your time.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@rontiger  I find it very amusing that you first use science to try to prove your point, and you say science is dead a few lines later.

 

Besides, Kurt Godel didn't proof science cannot understand the universe. He only proved that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure"  is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers, and that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency. However, science is much more than that.

Maybe you should first take a better look at what he really says.

 

If water erosion can create hills, mountains and valleys, why can't it not form the grand canyon? And even if it didn't form the grand canyon, it surely did form thousands of mountains and valleys. If you don't believe that, you should go and take a look at the valleys in switzerland. It's pretty clear there. In every valley there is a river in the middle, that has formed the valley.

 

Then the ultimate question: what exacly do you call science?

Edited by Schouwenaars
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings, fellow Worthymen.

 

I recently got into an online debate with a very well informed atheist. ...

I wasn't sure how to respond as I'm not really a scientist nor have I looked into weather or not there is physical evidence of an ancient global flood. ...

 

So the question that I would like to have answered is this:

 

Is there scientific evidence of a global flood that happened roughly 4000 years ago?

 

Its a case of "not seeing the forest for the trees."

 

If you put your face in the dirt like paleontologists do you get a dirty face,

 

but if they would stand back a little, they would see that 99.99% of all landscapes have sedimentary layers.

Just look at the road cuttings on the way to fossil land.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If you don't believe that, you should go and take a look at the valleys in switzerland. It's pretty clear there. In every valley there is a river in the middle, that has formed the valley.

 

Don't valleys typically have rivers running through them? Water has a tenancy to collect in valleys due to gravity. I'm not saying water erosion couldn't cause massive changes over millions of years I'm just saying that if a valley already exists wouldn't it be logical for rain-water to collect there and form a river?

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Satellite pictures of earth show wind and water erosion, on a large scale, now dormant, and on a smaller scale for thousands of years after the deluge.

 

You get the typical large valleys, and then the little streams marking the landscape.

 

Have you heard that the Grand Canyon was formed by the creek at the base? Hmm. Hardly.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

If you don't believe that, you should go and take a look at the valleys in switzerland. It's pretty clear there. In every valley there is a river in the middle, that has formed the valley.

 

Don't valleys typically have rivers running through them? Water has a tenancy to collect in valleys due to gravity. I'm not saying water erosion couldn't cause massive changes over millions of years I'm just saying that if a valley already exists wouldn't it be logical for rain-water to collect there and form a river?

 

 

You can test erosion yourself: take a bag full of sand and make a height difference. Then let water flow from the high side to the lower side. If you continue to do this some time, you'll see that the water makes a deep hole and that, if you capture the water, there will be transported sand too. Now imagine this on a larger scale and over millions and millions of years. And there you have your valley! :)

 

And yes the rain water is also collected in the river, wich makes it even more powerfull, so that the proces goes faster.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.chem.tufts.edu/science/franksteiger/grandcyn.htm   Creationist Grand Canyon Argument

 

Creationists claim that there is geological evidence that the Grand Canyon was formed as the result of one, or at most a few, flash floods that occurred when water in a huge lake was suddenly released when a lava dam broke. They claim the process was basically the same as the Mount St. Helens eruption, which created a deep channel down one side of the mountain. This, they claim, supports their belief that all of the earth's major geological features were brought about by catastrophic events that occurred in a relatively brief period of time. They argue that their explanation of the formation of the Grand Canyon is supported by the evidence, whereas evidence indicating that it was formed by slow erosion over millions of years is either missing or contrived by proponents of "evolutionism." However, any reasonable evaluation of the physical evidence shows conclusively that the creationist position is completely without foundation.

When Mount St. Helens erupted, one side of the caldera was blown out, and the resulting rush of water from melted snow, plus the blast of hot ash, carved out 300 feet of recently laid loose ash and sediment. area.

To view a topographic map of Mount St. Helens, click here, then click on "Get a Map" and type in latitude = 46.2007 and longitude = -122.1918. Click on "Map It." View at 1:25,000 and also at 1:50,000. The topo map clearly reveals that this washout, described by creationists as a "miniature Grand Canyon," is in fact a large blowout quickly spreading to a wide, shallow channel at the foot of the caldera.

For additional information, click on this talk origins faq.

An excellent publication for the layman is GRAND CANYON the Story Behind the Scenery, by Merrill D. Beal, published by K C Publications, P.O. Box 94558, Las Vegas, NV 89193. This is a 9" x 12" soft cover, 64 page publication with topographic maps and many large color photographs.

The Colorado River is 1450 miles from its source to the Gulf of California. It has four main tributaries: the Little Colorado, San Juan, Dolores, and Green Rivers. The Green River is the main tributary, arising in Wyoming and traveling 720 miles to join the Colorado, 1100 miles above its entry into the Gulf. The Colorado River system is characterized by meandering courses with many U turns. In this respect it is similar to the Mississippi River system. So why does the Colorado system consist of deep gorges while the Mississippi is essentially flat? Because the Colorado River has cut into, and is still cutting into, a rising rocky plateau. The average load of suspended solids carried is almost 400,000 tons per day. [p. 8, Beal publication] This includes heavier material pushed along the bottom. The Colorado acts like a giant conveyor belt, carrying the material to the delta at the Gulf of California. The harder rock walls remain vertical, while the softer rock erodes to form a sloping wall. The Grand Canyon system high plateau extends over thousands of square miles. The geology of this plateau consists of horizontal layers of different kinds of solid rock. Starting at the top and going down, these layers are:

Kaibab Limestone: 300 feet thick, formed in a marine environment. Fossils include molluscs, crinoids, and brachiopods.

Toroweap formation: 200 feet thick, varying from predominantly sandstone to limestone.

Coconino Sandstone, 50-300 feet thick. Sandstone formed from desert sand dunes. Numerous reptile tracks preserved in the sandstone.

Hermit Shale: 300 feet thick. Siltstones formed from deposits in swamps and lagoons.

Supai group: 600-700 feet thick; plant fossils indicate a depositional environment that was low and swampy. Abundant evidence of cross bedding.

Redwall Limestone: 400-650 feet thick. Abundant fossil evidence of crinoids, brachiopods, bryozoans typical of a warm, shallow clear ocean.

Temple Butte Limestone: 100-1000 feet thick. Limestone converted to dolomite.

Mauv Limestone: 150-800 feet thick. Limestone with green micaceous siltstones.

Bright Angel shale: 250-450 feet thick. Shaly green mudstones, with some fine grained sandstones. Many fossils of trilobites, brachiopods, and worms. Gradual transition to overlying Mauv Limestone.

Tapeats Sandstone: 100-300 feet thick. Formed from coastal sand dunes.

Grand Canyon Supergroup: 15,000 feet thick. Angled layers (10 to 15 degrees) of sedimentary rock and interbedded lavas eroded to a horizontal surface prior the deposition of the Tapeats Sandstone.

The fossils occurring in these deposits indicate that the topmost layers are at least 250 million years old, and represent life forms that do not exist today. Limestones are formed by the slow deposition of microscopic marine creatures. There is absolutely no way that these creatures could have laid down deposits hundreds of feet thick in the one year period of the Genesis flood.

There is no evidence to support the creationist contention that the limestone deposits were formed from "chemical rich waters," and no reasonable explanation of how this could have happened. The enormous quantities of limestone present would require concentrations of calcium ions and depths of water entirely beyond any possibility of existing at any one time. They had to be formed slowly over millions of years as microorganisms extracted the dilute concentrations of carbon dioxide present in sea water to form the calcium carbonate which is the main constituent of limestone. Furthermore, there is no mechanism, and creationists have not provided any, to show how the huge quantities of calcium carbonate (limestone) could have been precipitated, especially in the short time frame alleged by young earth creationists.

The geology clearly shows that the Grand Canyon formations were deposited in an environment which existed as a flat coastal marine area for hundreds of millions of years. This region began to be uplifted at the end of the Paleozoic era. At the same time the existing meandering river systems began to cut down into the rock, keeping pace with the uplift over the ensuing millions of years. The Colorado River acted as a "conveyor belt," carrying the material, as it gradually eroded from the canyon walls, into the Gulf of California.

The amount of rock removed was hundreds of cubic miles. Hundreds of cubic miles of SOLID rock! Just to transport that amount of rock (to say nothing of removing it) would require a flash flood consisting of thousands of cubic miles of water! There is no evidence whatever that such an enormous body of water ever existed at an elevation sufficient to result in a flash flood. We are dealing with a flat plateau. Where was the elevated source of all that flash flood water?

Furthermore, how could a flash flood create a meandering river system with four tributaries and numerous U turns in a flat plateau? Did each tributary have its own source of flash flood water?

Faced with the impossible task of explaining how all that rock could be removed in one or at most a few flash floods, creationists have concocted the theory that the Grand Canyon formations were originally mud laid down at the time of the biblical Genesis flood, and the canyons were washed out from these mud deposits by water trapped in some fashion and then released as a flash flood after the flood waters receded. All this is postulated to have taken place only a few thousand years ago.

This theory does not explain the steep vertical walls and numerous U turns of the canyon system. Mud does not have the strength to permit vertical walls to be formed by a flash flood, or to divert raging flash floods spreading over a level plain to form meanders and U turns.

 

Weirdly, creationists consider the Mount St. Helens/Grand Canyon argument one of their best examples of refuting "evolutionism." For more information on the Genesis flood argument, click on: Genesis Flood

 

For detailed photographs of the Grand Canyon and additional information, click on Jon Woolf's Grand Canyon website.

For additional detailed information comparing the Grand Canyon to "Young Earth" creationism, click on Jon Woolf's revised and expanded web site

1

Share this post


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