Scientific evidence for Noah's flood

[Lcash]

So far as a practicing geologist I have seen no evidence and have been presented no scientific evidence that the flood of Noah was anything other than a regional flood. I believe it was universal in that it effected all mankind but I do not believe it was global. Since at the time man was located in one geographic region in Mesopotamia it is possible that the flood was the "Black Sea" flood or even further back in time could have been the flood of the mediteranean sea. At one time the Mediteranean was a dry valley and the conditions would have been exactly as Genesis points out as before the flood. When the headland at Gibralter broke and let in the Atlantic ocean the resulting updraft of moist air would have caused torrential rain that could have lasted months. The pressure against the shores of Africa and Egypt would have caused a sudden gushing of water from the earth just as it says in Genesis.

So, if you believe that the flood of Noah was global please give it your best shot. Keep to the facts and don't call names.

Lcash

[Lcash]

So far as a practicing geologist I have seen no evidence and have been presented no scientific evidence that the flood of Noah was anything other than a regional flood. I believe it was universal in that it effected all mankind but I do not believe it was global. Since at the time man was located in one geographic region in Mesopotamia it is possible that the flood was the "Black Sea" flood or even further back in time could have been the flood of the mediteranean sea. At one time the Mediteranean was a dry valley and the conditions would have been exactly as Genesis points out as before the flood. When the headland at Gibralter broke and let in the Atlantic ocean the resulting updraft of moist air would have caused torrential rain that could have lasted months. The pressure against the shores of Africa and Egypt would have caused a sudden gushing of water from the earth just as it says in Genesis.

So, if you believe that the flood of Noah was global please give it your best shot. Keep to the facts and don't call names.

Lcash

Are you suggesting that at the time of this flood the only humans were in Mesopotamia??

I think that is evident from the post above.

lcash

[Lcash]

So far as a practicing geologist I have seen no evidence and have been presented no scientific evidence that the flood of Noah was anything other than a regional flood. I believe it was universal in that it effected all mankind but I do not believe it was global. Since at the time man was located in one geographic region in Mesopotamia it is possible that the flood was the "Black Sea" flood or even further back in time could have been the flood of the mediteranean sea. At one time the Mediteranean was a dry valley and the conditions would have been exactly as Genesis points out as before the flood. When the headland at Gibralter broke and let in the Atlantic ocean the resulting updraft of moist air would have caused torrential rain that could have lasted months. The pressure against the shores of Africa and Egypt would have caused a sudden gushing of water from the earth just as it says in Genesis.

So, if you believe that the flood of Noah was global please give it your best shot. Keep to the facts and don't call names.

Lcash

Are you suggesting that at the time of this flood the only humans were in Mesopotamia??

I think that is evident from the post above.

lcash

How do you make it fit with the evidence that the first humans came out of Africa???

First you have to define where in Africa the first humans actualy existed. The only evidence is sporadic and I think there will be more discoveries made. The relativly few humans that existed then would make the finding of fossils extremely rare. Also when we speak of a pre-flood Mediteranean we go from the present day shore of southern europe to North Africa.

Lcash

[Lcash]

evidence for the global flood is ubiquitous

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r04/

Mt. St. Helens = a global flood?

Lcash says he is a practicing geologist. What is his take on your reference?

It is not very convincing. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

Lcash

[Lcash]

the Flood was global, why? the Genesis record specifically states it was global, and the epistles reiterate the same truth

the evidence is also global, from the fossil record to the ice age to deep oil/coal deposits to marine fossils discovered high atop mountain ranges to marine fossils buried in the billions at Grand Canyon, to massive post Flood erosional wasting of Grand Canyon and many other similar geologic formations such as Three Sisters in Australia, to evidence of catastrophic tectonic activity all over the earth and sea floor

First off you have not provided any evidence. The fossil record does not indicate any global flood, neither does the ice ages (there were more than one) deep oil and coal is certainly not evidence of a global flood, as a matter of fact it works to the advantage of those who say there was no global flood. Marine fossils on mountain tops only indicates that before the upthrust of the earths crust, these mountains were once on the sea floor. This includes Mt Everest wich is a result of the Indian sub-continent colliding with the asian continent causing an upthrust and pushing the mountains up. Catastrophic tectonic plate activity certainly is not evidence of a global flood. If you really think that there was a massive tectonic plate movent during the flood then you know nothing about tectonic plate theory. The violoence on the waters would have destroyed the Ark and everything in it including Noah.

Now, how do you explain the fact that the scripture does not talk about the fish kill that would have happened with a fresh water flood that covered the whole earth by rain and groundwater? It would have been massive.

Lcash

[Lcash]

Sorry, but this verse doesn't suggest what you want it to suggest.

sorry, but it means exactly what it says, the best scholars all agree with me, not some random talking head on an internet forum

I've debated these issues for over 15 years, believe me, I've heard every lame attack on the scripture there is, you present nothing new, same trivial, flawed, illogical, unreasoning, liberal, secular, strawman arguments

the Book stands, 3500 years and counting

If you have been making this argument for 15 years then certainly you can come up with some facts which support a global flood. Sounds to me like you are a believer in Hydroplate theory where there was a massive shift in the tectonic plates and the layer of subteranean water burst forth from the ground. Is this what you believe?

Lcash

Edited January 22, 2008 by Lcash

[Lcash]

Lcash,

I have heard that there are some coal deposits that are inexplicably young. Have you come across this?

No my specialty is in Oil and gas stratagraphy. I never paid much attention to coal. However, I would not discount the idea of young coal deposits but it would have to meet some very special conditions for that to occur. Heat, and compression are 2 that I can think of off the top of my head.

Lcash

Edited January 22, 2008 by Lcash

[Lcash]

Catastrophic plate tectonics causing the flood is referred to as Hydroplate theory. It was developed by an engineer to try and explain the flood as proposed by young earth creationists. It has many many many flaws:\

1. The subteranean water is under very high pressure and very hot due to the depth he claims this water is in. Once released it would rush to the surface and as the pressure was released it would have turned to explosive steam. This shot of steam would have shot clear through the atmosphere and into space due to the pressure and speed. This would have no chance of condensing into rain or anything else in the atmosphere.

2. The violence caused by plate movement in the flood would have caused tsunami's that make the Indonesian tsunami look like a ripple in a swimming pool. The Ark would never have survived the surging water.

3. The heat from the released water in Item #1 would have boiled the fish and caused the people and animals in the Ark to die from heat.

There are better theories concerning the flood that still line up with what it says in Genesis and with science. However, one must realize that the terms used to say earth or under heaven in many ancient Hebrew writings mean everything or people that they know or are familiar with. Later in the old testament it states that All the nations had heard of Israels exploits and were afraid. Now I am sure that the Native Americans at that time had never heard of Israel. Nor were they afraid.

Lcash

[Lcash]

This shot of steam would have shot clear through the atmosphere and into space due to the pressure and speed. This would have no chance of condensing into rain or anything else in the atmosphere.

2. The violence caused by plate movement in the flood would have caused tsunami's that make the Indonesian tsunami look like a ripple in a swimming pool. The Ark would never have survived the surging water.

lol

is this the best you have? I would encourage you to join the TJ forum and get schooled

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/tectonics.asp

What is the TJ forum? AIG is not a reliable resource for geology information. I make my living doing geology for oil companies the world over and am very successful at it. I work with fluids under pressure an as far as 5.5 miles underground every day so I do know what I am talking about.

Lcash

[WillingToDie]

immovabletruth, why is it that you feel the need to personally attack Lcash? That's uncalled for, and simply not cool, dude.