geological evidence disproving global flood (noah)

[Hughes]

Oh jeez, you used to be an atheist? Well who am I to even put forth any sort of arguments for you. For the record, I used to be mormon, but I am not saying that because that actually means anything. It doesn't. Reasons for belief (or the lack there of) are the only thing that matters and should be considered.

Science is not faith. I used to try and explain why this isn't the case. However, when religious people put this forward, I can't help but laugh for a moment, as I am doing now.

I mean, it's a lot like saying, "Well, I know that religion is absolutely crazy, but science isn't any better, neener neener neener". It's like saying, yeah, well I may be a pedophile, but so are you. If I were religious, I would be offended.

For what its worth, you weren't a scientist. You missed the point if you ever thought you needed to believe anything. As someone that does "real" science, it's never about belief.

Now, before you go putting words in my mouth, I never claimed what you just said with those fancy words of yours. So my "contention of whatever it is you said" is wrong- I never said anything of the sort, whether I believe it or not. If you mean that science can't be used to speculate on what happened in the past, well then you are wrong. How on earth can a theory make future predictions, without us being able to reflect in the future if they were real or not.

You must be trolling. Is trolling allowed on these boards? I mean, Hughes is putting words in my mouth that I in no way even began to say. I didn't even suggest them.

you said, "The scientific method has been consistently right. Religion has been consistently wrong..."

My reply is, but "The scientific method can't test the past." (if you really don't believe this, then I'm sorry I'm mistaken.)

Given that the topic is how some supposed evidence is disproving the global flood theory.

[thesometimesaint]

Second, the whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that a global flood occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

[Hughes]

Second, the whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that a global flood occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

Every bit of evidence doesn't look like something else happened. That's your opinion.

What's the point of the story? There are many.

[Rob Osborn]

Second, the whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that a global flood occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

It's funny how two people can see things totally different. I see a God who caused the earth to flood and in it's wake left a paramount testimony of physical evidence in which if one can't see it with their eyes, they most definately must be blind. The evidence is staggering, we can't go anywhere without the literal mountains of it staring us in the face.

[thesometimesaint]

Hughes:

Unless water has magically changed its physical properties in the last 7000 odd years.

* How was the water suspended, and what caused it to fall all at once when it did?

* If a canopy holding the equivalent to more than 40 feet of water were part of the atmosphere, it would raise the atmospheric pressure accordingly, raising oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxic levels.

* If the canopy began as vapor, any water from it would be superheated. This scenario essentially starts with most of the Flood waters boiled off. Noah and company would be poached. If the water began as ice in orbit, the gravitational potential energy would likewise raise the temperature past boiling.

* A canopy of any significant thickness would have blocked a great deal of light, lowering the temperature of the earth greatly before the Flood.

* Any water above the ozone layer would not be shielded from ultraviolet light, and the light would break apart the water molecules.

[FutureTwitBlog]

Rob, sorry if I'm just prolonging a topic you want to be done with but I wanted to comment.

The problem that people often miss is the fact that the scientific method can't be used on the distant past.

So, the comparison between modern scientific discoveries and supposed tests that reveal large amounts of time have passed are not verifiable like any discovery that advances technology is. We can't put time under a repeatable test, like the scientific method demands. Instead what happens are a set of faith based assumptions are used (Like uniformitarianism), and as long as everyone agrees on the assumptions, then the results are also agreed on.

Please define "distant past". At what point in history does science start failing to predict the past? 1 year? 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years? 10,000 years? 1 million years? What is so special about this date? For example, if you say it's at 10,000 years, why not 9,999 years or 10,001 years? Why would it have stopped correctly predicting the earth at this point in time? Did the laws of Physics and science change dramatically at that exact point in time? Have they changed previously to that? Are they changing currently? Is there any evidence of this change?

These are the questions I would like to explore to confirm or refute your theory that science is unable to explain the distant past.

[FutureTwitBlog]

It's funny how two people can see things totally different. I see a God who caused the earth to flood and in it's wake left a paramount testimony of physical evidence in which if one can't see it with their eyes, they most definately must be blind. The evidence is staggering, we can't go anywhere without the literal mountains of it staring us in the face.

Huh, that's interesting. According to the scientific community, there is ZERO evidence for the flood. So, something must be amiss.

Perhaps you could refer me to the article in a scientific journal that outlines all of this evidence? I would be interested to see it. Thank you.

[volgadon]

The scientific method has been consistently right. Religion has been consistently wrong, and is simply modified when it is shown to be wrong in order to be stomached by believers.

I won't respond much to your sanctimonious drivel apart from saying, here, watch this. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=video&cd=1&ved=0CCgQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D7837974920864540806&ei=kfsETdvaLIacsQOZo7n8DA&usg=AFQjCNFaEhrjmLK_tNbabMs8NpSim4-4cw&sig2=eN90zYWE5uzbQ-lPUtLHow

[Hughes]

Hughes:

Unless water has magically changed its physical properties in the last 7000 odd years.

* How was the water suspended, and what caused it to fall all at once when it did?

* If a canopy holding the equivalent to more than 40 feet of water were part of the atmosphere, it would raise the atmospheric pressure accordingly, raising oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxic levels.

* If the canopy began as vapor, any water from it would be superheated. This scenario essentially starts with most of the Flood waters boiled off. Noah and company would be poached. If the water began as ice in orbit, the gravitational potential energy would likewise raise the temperature past boiling.

* A canopy of any significant thickness would have blocked a great deal of light, lowering the temperature of the earth greatly before the Flood.

* Any water above the ozone layer would not be shielded from ultraviolet light, and the light would break apart the water molecules.

The water came primarily from volcanic activity.

"So, where did the Flood waters come from? There are several sources available. The Bible certainly speaks of water coming out of the earth. That can be from major geyser activity and from volcanic venting. The thermal expansion of the ocean floor mentioned in "The Genesis Flood" will displace ocean water onto the continents, probably accounting for so much marine sediments in the geologic record on the continents. If there was much continental drift, rifting, and subduction occurring at the time of the Flood (such as in the Baumgardner et al. model), then hot basalt rock was coming in contact with the bottom of the ocean, locally boiling the water into steam and heating the water elsewhere. Hot oceans evaporate much water into the atmosphere to form clouds and much precipitation. This is seen in the El Ni

[Hughes]

Please define "distant past". At what point in history does science start failing to predict the past? 1 year? 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years? 10,000 years? 1 million years? What is so special about this date? For example, if you say it's at 10,000 years, why not 9,999 years or 10,001 years? Why would it have stopped correctly predicting the earth at this point in time? Did the laws of Physics and science change dramatically at that exact point in time? Have they changed previously to that? Are they changing currently? Is there any evidence of this change?

These are the questions I would like to explore to confirm or refute your theory that science is unable to explain the distant past.

It seems to me that it's a dynamic problem. In other words, there isn't a static answer, say 10,000 years is too far. In some instances it could be 5 thousand years. In some it could be much longer. I don't know depends on the topic.

I posted the following on page six of this thread, that illustrates one problem with using Ice Cores as a dating method.

Ice cores vs the Flood

Michael J. Oard:

Seely states that volcanic spikes in acidity can be used to check the dating from deep in the ice cores. There are numerous problems relating volcanic acidity spikes as marker horizons. Volcanic history is known accurately to only 200 years! A few large eruptions are known beyond 200 years, but with all the other acidity spikes, it is difficult to match the eruption with an acidity spike in the ice core. It is very difficult to pin a precise date on an acidity peak beyond 2,000 years ago. 29

[thesometimesaint]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_water_on_Earth

Some of the most likely contributory factors to the origin of the Earth's oceans are as follows:

* The cooling of the primordial Earth to the point where the outgassed volatile components were held in an atmosphere of sufficient pressure for the stabilization and retention of liquid water.

* Comets, trans-Neptunian objects or water-rich meteorites (protoplanets) from the outer reaches of the main asteroid belt colliding with the Earth may have brought water to the world's oceans. Measurements of the ratio of the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and protium point to asteroids, since similar percentage impurities in carbon-rich chondrites were found to oceanic water, whereas previous measurement of the isotopes' concentrations in comets and trans-Neptunian objects correspond only slightly to water on the earth.

* Biochemically through mineralization and photosynthesis (guttation, transpiration).

* Gradual leakage of water stored in hydrous minerals of the Earth's rocks.

* Photolysis: radiation can break down chemical bonds on the surface.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/3427/ice-asteroids-likely-source-earths-water

[FutureTwitBlog]

It seems to me that it's a dynamic problem. In other words, there isn't a static answer, say 10,000 years is too far. In some instances it could be 5 thousand years. In some it could be much longer. I don't know depends on the topic.

I posted the following on page six of this thread, that illustrates one problem with using Ice Cores as a dating method.

Ice cores vs the Flood

Michael J. Oard:

Source for the quotes above.

To me, this explanation smacks a bit of the "magical elves on the sun" argument that I mentioned earlier. Someone can always twist data past the point of the most reasonable explanation and make it fit something fantastic. For example, I could take a coin, flip it 1,000 times, and have it come up heads every time. Then, instead of saying that the coin was 'biased', I could just claim it was chance, or a miracle, or something. The same thing could be (and has been) done with the data about the hypothetical flood of Noah by the advocates. On top of all that, we could simply dismiss all of it as a series of supernatural events, similar to what parents do to get their kids to believe in Santa Claus for a few years. I guess that there really is no way to argue against that type of logic when it comes down to it. You've already assumed the conclusions; evidence (or the lack thereof from flood advocates) isn't going to sway your views on the matter one way or another, I'm assuming.

[Hughes]

To me, this explanation smacks a bit of the "magical elves on the sun" argument that I mentioned earlier. Someone can always twist data past the point of the most reasonable explanation and make it fit something fantastic. For example, I could take a coin, flip it 1,000 times, and have it come up heads every time. Then, instead of saying that the coin was 'biased', I could just claim it was chance, or a miracle, or something. The same thing could be (and has been) done with the data about the hypothetical flood of Noah by the advocates. On top of all that, we could simply dismiss all of it as a series of supernatural events, similar to what parents do to get their kids to believe in Santa Claus for a few years. I guess that there really is no way to argue against that type of logic when it comes down to it. You've already assumed the conclusions; evidence (or the lack thereof from flood advocates) isn't going to sway your views on the matter one way or another, I'm assuming.

Maybe you missed this quote, "On the other hand, belief in deep time may be internally reinforcing, but has no external reference point. Either must be accepted by faith, only one will be right."

The assumption that deep time exists, that uniformitarian assumptions must be the "most reasonable" is the basis for the vast agreement among scientists. These are based on faith alone. There is no objective evidence to say one way or another.

[Rob Osborn]

Huh, that's interesting. According to the scientific community, there is ZERO evidence for the flood. So, something must be amiss.

Perhaps you could refer me to the article in a scientific journal that outlines all of this evidence? I would be interested to see it. Thank you.

According to "your" scientific community would be more appropriate. You see, my scientific community I have tons of evidence that they have shown. Let's apply this to Christ- According to your scientific community, he may have been a real person, though probably not God or even the son of such. He probably never really walked on water, never really turned ordinary water into wine, and never really miraculously healed the sick. He more than likely never took up his dead body and came back to life either. Show me for instance, some of the work from your scientific community that Christ is exactly who and what the scriptures say he is?

This to me shows the improbable power of the scientific community alone to really sort out the truth of the past.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Osborn:

The best evidence so far shows that Yeshua Bar Joseph probably did live some 2000 years ago. Anything supernatural that he did, or claimed to be is beyond the realm of science.

You are appealing to the Supernatural.

The whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that a global flood occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

[nickleus]

I have seen this argument over and over again. It's weak to say the least. We are not debating if "science" as a whole is on the chopping block because of ice core dating methods. Science is a great tool but there are many ways to interpret or view the results.

I get tired of these arguments because it leads one in the false assumption as follows-

Person disbelieves ice core dating methods

Ice core dating methods are "scientific"

Person must disbelieve all things "scientific" then

Do you see the error of this false assumption?

You cannot assume that just because I question how a specific method is used that I must thus discount all of science in the same manner. This is a shallow approach to debate. It falsely attacks and seeks to belittle others intelligence. We all use scientific technology everyday and believe in it's myriad of uses. But just because a person questions one tiny aspect within a specific field of science does not make him out to discount "all" of science.

Does this make sense? Can we thus move on?

in order to believe christianity/lds doctrine you have to question a LOT of scientific evidence, not just ice core dating...

regarding the flood myth particularly, its not just ice core dating you have to question, but there are many other rational arguments supporting the idea that it is only a myth, e.g.:

* salinity of water suddenly changing killing sea life, plants, etc

* everything dawkins brings up in the video about noah's ark

* older flood myths

* impossible logistics concerning all kinds of animals on one boat

* chinese civilization existing before and after the flood (not flooded, not wiped out)

* etc

whereas christianity/lds says simply: "believe"

[Rob Osborn]

Rob Osborn:

The best evidence so far shows that Yeshua Bar Joseph probably did live some 2000 years ago. Anything supernatural that he did, or claimed to be is beyond the realm of science.

You are appealing to the Supernatural.

The whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that a global flood occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

Thanks for helping me make my point. I was hoping for this type of reply to show my point. There are two types of knowledge- 1. That which we know from testing and direct observation. and- 2. That which we hope to know but cannot readily test or observe but which others say is true.

This also applies in all things scientific. I disregard the word or term "supernatural" because its a way of weakly admitting ones lack of knowledge or even ones attempt to fictionalize something. Was Jesus walking on water a feat of science or a feat of the supernatural. If you are a knowledgeable person you must conclude that if he did do such a feat it was done entirely following scientific laws, although perhaps unknown in the direct observation manner. Nothing really is supernatural except for Hollywood and the fictional fantasies they make up. Every act done in the historical records of man, including that of our BoM and other scriptures can be chalked up as scientificaslly feasable acts. We may not readily possess the knowledge to correctly explain them but this in no way assumes that it must be supernatural. Often, when the realms of modern science can't explain something, they just deem it to be supernatural. This is a weak argument and one that shows a general lack of knowledge.

Now certainly you don't lack knowledge do you? Perhaps you should look at all the miracles performed By Christ and really say to yourself that perhaps our modern science can't explain them yet but someday we will possess the true knowledge to understand the phsically and scientifically sound acts that God works within.

What does modern science have to say on matters like eternal life and immortality for instance?

[Rob Osborn]

in order to believe christianity/lds doctrine you have to question a LOT of scientific evidence, not just ice core dating...

regarding the flood myth particularly, its not just ice core dating you have to question, but there are many other rational arguments supporting the idea that it is only a myth, e.g.:

* salinity of water suddenly changing killing sea life, plants, etc

* everything dawkins brings up in the video about noah's ark

* older flood myths

* impossible logistics concerning all kinds of animals on one boat

* chinese civilization existing before and after the flood (not flooded, not wiped out)

* etc

whereas christianity/lds says simply: "believe"

Well for one thing we cannot be sure what the properties were in the water in the global flood in Noah's day. I mean really- how would one know waht the conditions would be like? At this point it is all conjecture.

Dawkins is, in my opinion, a distorter of the truth. He believes honestly, through his own research, that mormonism is a joke and a deceptive and manipualitive religion. He honestly thinks that my God is an evil being. Based on this alone, I can imagine that he is either not a good researcher in any field, or that he is a liar, or perhaps both. How am I supposed to give any credit to an individual who can't do basic simple research work and be honest about it? Next item.

Let me ask you this- Would you consider the events of the Jaredites taking all kinds of animals on barges and sailing upon the mountain waves a myth?

Impossible logisitics of animals on a boat? Is this coming from the same department that stated that there could have been no pre-Columbus era ships traversing the oceans such as both the Jaredites and Nephites? I have no problem with the logistics of a myriad of animals on one boat. Then again, I have no problem in the logistics of the resurrection and preaching the gospel to hundereds of billions of Gods children.

Chinese hostorical records are anything but "factual" regarding the actual dates of their civilizations.

[Hughes]

in order to believe christianity/lds doctrine you have to question a LOT of scientific evidence, not just ice core dating...

regarding the flood myth particularly, its not just ice core dating you have to question, but there are many other rational arguments supporting the idea that it is only a myth, e.g.:

* salinity of water suddenly changing killing sea life, plants, etc

* everything dawkins brings up in the video about noah's ark

* older flood myths

* impossible logistics concerning all kinds of animals on one boat

* chinese civilization existing before and after the flood (not flooded, not wiped out)

* etc

whereas christianity/lds says simply: "believe"

Of the many false assumptions critics make is that "animals" indicate one of each specie. This is an error. As we have seen, species or diversity can come from a rich set of genes. Noah probably had a group of animals that we'd probably be surprised that so few were needed to produce the great diversity that we see today.

[volgadon]

* older flood myths

All this challenges is the date of the flood.

[FutureTwitBlog]

According to "your" scientific community would be more appropriate. You see, my scientific community I have tons of evidence that they have shown. Let's apply this to Christ- According to your scientific community, he may have been a real person, though probably not God or even the son of such. He probably never really walked on water, never really turned ordinary water into wine, and never really miraculously healed the sick. He more than likely never took up his dead body and came back to life either. Show me for instance, some of the work from your scientific community that Christ is exactly who and what the scriptures say he is?

This to me shows the improbable power of the scientific community alone to really sort out the truth of the past.

There is only one scientific community of which I am aware, and I've never seen any evidence coming from that community to substantiate a global flood. If you're aware of some, please CFR.

As for Jesus, I thought that this thread was talking about Noah; but I'll respond anyway. As I said, the whole story of Noah, Jesus, Buddha, Santa Claus, etc. can be explained away as a series of supernatural miracles. If this is the position you want to take, that is fine with me. As a believer too, this is the position that all of us have to take at one point or another, for example on the ability to change water into wine. However, this is not what the thread is about. The original point of the thread is that the flood has been scientifically disproved, based on ice core data from Greenland.

As for your last sentence, I agree that science can never really give us "truth". It can only conjecture a hypothesis and try to support/disprove that hypothesis based on available evidence. Something else could have happened, despite a mountain of evidence otherwise. Angels could have come down to the earth and cleaned up all of the evidence from the flood, or God could have simply remade the world and replaced Noah on it after the flood was finished. Again, you can't argue against that type of reasoning scientifically.

[Hughes]

* older flood myths

All this challenges is the date of the flood.

Only if the other myths claim to have a date. How accurate are their records?

[Rob Osborn]

There is only one scientific community of which I am aware, and I've never seen any evidence coming from that community to substantiate a global flood. If you're aware of some, please CFR.

As for Jesus, I thought that this thread was talking about Noah; but I'll respond anyway. As I said, the whole story of Noah, Jesus, Buddha, Santa Claus, etc. can be explained away as a series of supernatural miracles. If this is the position you want to take, that is fine with me. As a believer too, this is the position that all of us have to take at one point or another, for example on the ability to change water into wine. However, this is not what the thread is about. The original point of the thread is that the flood has been scientifically disproved, based on ice core data from Greenland.

As for your last sentence, I agree that science can never really give us "truth". It can only conjecture a hypothesis and try to support/disprove that hypothesis based on available evidence. Something else could have happened, despite a mountain of evidence otherwise. Angels could have come down to the earth and cleaned up all of the evidence from the flood, or God could have simply remade the world and replaced Noah on it after the flood was finished. Again, you can't argue against that type of reasoning scientifically.

This is the point to where we come to a head where we will just not agree no matter what each side puts forth as evidence. It's fine with me to know that I am right and that may be unsettling to you. But on the otherhand you can believe the same thing from your view- that you are the one who us right and that it may be unsettling for me to know that. I won't lose any sleep over it though because I know that I am right and so it really don't matter. My faith isn't challenged, I feel good about knowing the truth, and it gives me peace.

You see, it doesn't matter what kind of evidence they come up with to rationalize that the flood never happened because the evidence I know to be true is so overwhelmingly in my favor. To know that a grand secret about the earth's history is made known in my life is a special feeling. I wish others could experience it also. Knowing the real truth is peace.

[volgadon]

Only if the other myths claim to have a date. How accurate are their records?

What I'm trying to say is that assuming the date is earlier, all that it changes really is the date.

[FutureTwitBlog]

This is the point to where we come to a head where we will just not agree no matter what each side puts forth as evidence. It's fine with me to know that I am right and that may be unsettling to you. But on the otherhand you can believe the same thing from your view- that you are the one who us right and that it may be unsettling for me to know that. I won't lose any sleep over it though because I know that I am right and so it really don't matter. My faith isn't challenged, I feel good about knowing the truth, and it gives me peace.

You see, it doesn't matter what kind of evidence they come up with to rationalize that the flood never happened because the evidence I know to be true is so overwhelmingly in my favor. To know that a grand secret about the earth's history is made known in my life is a special feeling. I wish others could experience it also. Knowing the real truth is peace.

I'll just leave it at that then.