Evidence for God from Science

I don't think it was merely 10,000 years ago, because there were humans living in North America and Australia, and a local flood thus could not have killed all of humanity.

The bible is clear the flood was over the whole planet. In order to rise above the heights it had to be the whole planet. The length of the flood year and slowness to subside insists it was everywhere. The Ark was for to save dry land creatures who otherwise would not of survived. All evidence in geology shows all the earth (80%) was clearly under water in order to accumulate sedimentary rock. The 205 is missing this because it was areas of great volcanic action which prevented or knocked off the flood year sediment.
To construe from Genesis a local flood is hopeless. If you don't believe in the bible then imagine the audience the bible was first made for. They would never of concluded anything other then a planet flood.

This post is more on the location of the local flood. If you would like to debate the flood epic, please do so here...

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... f=6&t=2551

To construe from Genesis a local flood is hopeless. If you don't believe in the bible then imagine the audience the bible was first made for. They would never of concluded anything other then a planet flood.

Not to go too off topic GMan, I'm gonna ignore the first paragraph of impossibilities

But the quoted material above clearly lends SUPPORT to the flood being local. I ask Byers... did Noah know of North America, South America, Australia, Europe, Africa, China, Pacific Islands? No, they didn't. If a local flood of the scale GMan posted about struck that region, humans with the knowledge of Noah and his neighbors would immediately assume their whole "world" was flooded. You also have to realize this was a tale told describing a flood MUCH EARLIER, as in Gilgamesh or even earlier than that. So most likely the actual event was blown out of proportion to include all man and the whole world when it really was something smaller scale... to say otherwise requires evidence on your part. There is no evidence, despite what AiG tells you, of a global flood.

No, it had to include all men. The Bible is very clear on that, including the NT mention in 2 Peter 3:6.

all men in that region, since it was the "world" to them. Unless you can prove they actually knew of the entire world, and what is looked like?

Isn't it a bit silly to say Noah's flood was local when Noah stayed on the Arc for over a full year? If it was local, why not tell Noah to move?

I do not believe it is up to us to question why God did what he did, but to examine the available evidence to determine what God did, and to go from there.

djshuttering wrote:Isn't it a bit silly to say Noah's flood was local when Noah stayed on the Arc for over a full year? If it was local, why not tell Noah to move?

Already explained here...

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

I do not believe it is up to us to question why God did what he did, but to examine the available evidence to determine what God did, and to go from there.

I think the evidence that GMan has posted speaks for itself?

Himantolophus wrote:all men in that region, since it was the "world" to them. Unless you can prove they actually knew of the entire world, and what is looked like?

Yes, not to mention that the terrain was probably totally different as well back then too. There is convincing evidence that there was a rather large glacier called the Eurasian Ice Sheet that covered much of Europe and Russia at that time. The melt from this glacier (rivers of water) would probably have confined humans to smaller areas possibly as well...

Himantolophus wrote:

I do not believe it is up to us to question why God did what he did, but to examine the available evidence to determine what God did, and to go from there.

I think the evidence that GMan has posted speaks for itself?

I think if we question why God did what he did, He didn't even do what we think He might have done...

Gman wrote:

Himantolophus wrote:

I do not believe it is up to us to question why God did what he did, but to examine the available evidence to determine what God did, and to go from there.

I think the evidence that GMan has posted speaks for itself?

I think if we question why God did what he did, He didn't even do what we think He might have done...

Well said, Gman.

I just don't get how YEC's say "how can it be local when the Bible says the entire world", when they forget the fact that the Bible was written by a culture that was firmly rooted in the Middle East/Mediterranean region. When they wrote down the word "world, globe, earth, etc.", they had no idea what that term meant. To them the "world" could only be the "world" they've visited or heard about, which for 90% of them was probably a few square miles. For the lucky travelers or people in the army, this may extend a few hundred miles. Hardly the world we know today.

I think the use of the word "world, globe, earth" in Genesis does not equate with the current usage of the word. To say otherwise you must show evidence of the global geographical prowess of the Middle Eastern man.

The evidence for the local flood is very strong and it's location and timetable fits perfectly into Middle Eastern Flood epics like Noah and Gilgamesh. It also explains flood stories elsehwere because the same glacial retreat was happening all over the planet at the same time

Himantolophus wrote:I just don't get how YEC's say "how can it be local when the Bible says the entire world", when they forget the fact that the Bible was written by a culture that was firmly rooted in the Middle East/Mediterranean region. When they wrote down the word "world, globe, earth, etc.", they had no idea what that term meant. To them the "world" could only be the "world" they've visited or heard about, which for 90% of them was probably a few square miles. For the lucky travelers or people in the army, this may extend a few hundred miles. Hardly the world we know today.

Yes, this is the same argument I had in the other flood post. Apparently to them, God gave them the "vision" that it was the entire world. If so, my question was, then why did the ancients propose that the world was flat? Their response? They didn't..

Himantolophus wrote:I think the use of the word "world, globe, earth" in Genesis does not equate with the current usage of the word. To say otherwise you must show evidence of the global geographical prowess of the Middle Eastern man.

Being that we would also see one civilization being replaced by another in the geologic columns...

Himantolophus wrote:The evidence for the local flood is very strong and it's location and timetable fits perfectly into Middle Eastern Flood epics like Noah and Gilgamesh. It also explains flood stories elsehwere because the same glacial retreat was happening all over the planet at the same time

Correct...