Evidence for God from Science

So...where do you come up with 50,000 years? Is that an arbitrary number? Even with the generations you say were skipped, 4,000 and 50,000 are very different.

The date I gave was not simply based on raw genealogies from the Bible coming from creation, it was a date come up with by using major dates in biblical history after the flood and counting backward using other biblical references.

After Abraham, you can not get good dates from the Bible.

MtDNA gives us a date of about 100,000 yrs and Y-chromosome comes in around 50,000 yrs. The Y-chrom. is pointing us to Noah, because all of the men on the ark were related to him. The mtDNA points closer to Eve, because all of the women were not related.

Genesis 2:5 tells us that the region of Eden was arid at the time Adam was created. Also, the four rivers mentioned in Gen. 2 came together in one place. We can see the four rivers through radar and they would have come together in what is now the Persian Gulf. Starting 70,000 yrs ago, the gulf dried up, because the sea levels were much lower.

Dates for other parts of the world being populated are around 50,000 yrs. This of course would come after the Tower of Babel.

Like I said, the Bible was not trying to give dates, it was simply connecting the past to the present.

Ivellious wrote:

The Biblical flood was not global, although it was universal, because all of humanity lived in one region.

Well, I'll disagree with your reasoning on that one. I agree that if anything the flood had to be local, but the idea that all of humanity lived in the middle east back then doesn't really make sense, considering the Bible says that the flood happened only about 4,285 years ago. There is no way that I can think of that supports the idea that humans never left the Middle East until just that long ago...there is a massive amount of archaeological and scientific evidence to support that we had spread across the world by the time of the flood.

Oh, here's how I got my year estimate, it's a creationist site called Answers In Genesis. While I disagree with much of what is on the site, I figured it would be a reasonable estimate that we could all agree on based on the Bible only.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... oahs-flood

Ivellious, you're mixing Yec and OEC. It won't work. Like dayage said. Local flood, and the estimated date for the flood, was a lot further back than the @4,000 years ago, Young earth estimate. You have to remember, almost all YECs believe the universe, including the earth, is no more than 10,000 years old. Answers in Genesis is definitely not a site we all agree with. They have their interpretation of the bible, and despite what they say, their interpretation is not equal to scripture itself.

Before Pangea there were Rodinia and Columbia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodinia

Ivellious wrote:The problem with evaporation is just that when water evaporates, it either stays in the air as water vapor or it becomes clouds...Again, it just seems hard to say that there was enough "new" water to flood the Earth and kill everything, but then it just evaporated (we'd have miles of clouds covering the entire Earth at that point).

I'm not saying it's wrong to believe that God may have just taken the water back or something (cuz obviously he can do that). I just think drawing relationships between certain events may be stretching it.

Also, plate tectonics is (I'm presuming) a point of contention among young-Earth creationists. It kind of violates the idea that Earth was made perfect as is. Just pointing that out.

About the evaporation... There was no percepitation, before the flood of course. Now by saying that, after the flood, after all the rain, there was a major climate shift. This would cause an ice age. I think you and I can see this. So... the north and south poles stayed cold, and everything melted and became our oceans, lakes, etc... And most importantly the water would be held in the ice caps. That's why people are afraid of the caps melting, due to the flooding. This is just a belief of mine. We can have differences yeah?

Dallas,

Did you read my reply, dealing with "no rain," on the previous page? It did rain before the flood. It was raining on day six, according to Genesis 2:6.

Also, the Biblical evidence is against a global flood.

jlay wrote: The current land scape of the earth with giant jagged moutain ranges is good reason to believe that more violent activity occured in the past. Take two cars, put them bumper to bumper and depress each accelerator at 1 m.p.h. What will happen? not much. Now put those cars 50 feet apart and press the accelerator at 30 m.p.h and see what happens.

It isn't speed, it is power. Look at this video starting around 48 seconds in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiGlq740 ... re=related. How fast is the aluminum moving? What do you think would happened to the aluminum billet if you hit it with a car going 30 or 60 mph? It is how much force is used which depends on more than just speed of collision.

Dayage,

I'm fascinated by the information you provide. I've been studying issues related to ancient Mesopotamian history and Noah's flood (which I believe to be local to the Mesopotamian/Mediterranean region). I would like to compare and discuss some notes with you, if you wish; I'm learning more all the time and want to sharpen my intellect.


sylvanicdawn

sylvanicdawn,

I would love to.

The destruction from the flood probably covered an area over 1.5 million square miles. 40 days and nights of continual extreme rain was likely covering the area from the Arabian Sea, North to the mountain range just above the Syrian-Turkey border and from the Red Sea, East to the Western Mountains of Iran. Anything in and around these mountains would have been inundated with a tremendous amount of flowing waters and mudslides. The area in the middle of these mountains is like a giant bowl. This could easily have killed everything in this 1.5 million sq. mile area.

The water would settle in the area from northern Mesopotamia, south to S.E. Saudi Arabia and into Oman and part of Yemen. This would form a lake over 320,000 sq. miles in size and 600 ft deep.

The idea that the the flood was localized is not a new one though the idea itself has recently been introduced to me, I still call it into question. I submit the following reason for my skepticism.

If the flood was indeed local why then does the archaeological evidence strongly suggest otherwise?
Why does the archaeological evidence support it as well as one huge super continent?

While we're at it why does scripture seem to point strongly to the hydro plate theory that I see nobody has mentioned? Hydro plate theory offers so many answers to the archaeological evidence for so many issues.

The Arabian Sea to the South of Mesopotamia. That would make geographical sense; the Black Sea and Caspian Sea lie to the North, but the high mountain ranges of Turkey and Iran would have served as a natural barrier. As I study the physical geography of the Middle East, I see the location of the Anti-Lebanon Mountains, just east of the Bekaa Valley, and the Coastal Mountain Range of Western Syria and wonder if these mountains would have served, along with the mountain chains of western Iran (Persia) to hem in the Deluge, to keep the flood from escaping the boundaries of the civilizations in Mesopotamia in that time.

Genesis 7:11 states that, on a specific day of Noah's life, "all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened" (NIV) Would the fountains of the 'great deep' only include the Arabian Sea? What about the Mediterranean Sea to the west? Could some of the flood waters have originated from that source?

Also wonder if you had heard of an scientist named Robert Ballard? Several years, he and other investigators had found evidence of human civilization in and around the Black Sea area. He had theorized that, during the last Ice Age (I think it was around 12,000 years ago) that huge glaciers to the north melted because of atmospheric warming and caused much of the flood waters that were spoken of in the Genesis account. The National Geographic article about it is: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/black ... frame.html I was wondering what your take on this was because of the high mountain ranges in Turkey, south of the Black Sea. Would have the glacial flood waters have been enough to surmount those high topographical features?

sylvanicdawn wrote:Also wonder if you had heard of an scientist named Robert Ballard? Several years, he and other investigators had found evidence of human civilization in and around the Black Sea area. He had theorized that, during the last Ice Age (I think it was around 12,000 years ago) that huge glaciers to the north melted because of atmospheric warming and caused much of the flood waters that were spoken of in the Genesis account. The National Geographic article about it is: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/black ... frame.html I was wondering what your take on this was because of the high mountain ranges in Turkey, south of the Black Sea. Would have the glacial flood waters have been enough to surmount those high topographical features?

The Black Sea deluge appears to still be an open question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_ ... hypothesis.
The channeled scablands of Washington are a clearer example of massive flooding http://hugefloods.com/Scablands.html.

sandy_mcd,


Thank you for the links. I will read through them. Washington State is a place I've never been to, although I understand there are some great geological and natural features there.

The plaque dedicated to Mr. Bretz is...I want to say it is "good", but I'm looking for a better word than that, and I don't have one.

Thwarp,

If the flood was indeed local why then does the archaeological evidence strongly suggest otherwise?
Why does the archaeological evidence support it as well as one huge super continent?

I gave some answers to this above. Rodinia existed before Pangea. Humans began spreading out from the Middle East around 50,000 yrs. ago. This would be the Tower of Babel, after the flood.

While we're at it why does scripture seem to point strongly to the hydro plate theory that I see nobody has mentioned? Hydro plate theory offers so many answers to the archaeological evidence for so many issues.

On page one of this discussion, I tried to show how other Biblical creation texts line up with the first three days of creation and rule out a global flood.

sylvanicdawn,

For all cultures to have the same basic flood story, the flood would have to have happened before humans were scattered around the world. As I mentioned, humans migrated around the world, from the Middle East, about 50,000 yrs. ago.

Genesis 5:29 indicates that when Noah was born he lived in the region in Eden (the ground which the Lord cursed). The first three chapters of Genesis are focused in on the land of Eden. From the descriptions of the lands and rivers, Eden is under the Persian Gulf.

The spring of the deep were likely the underground aquifers in the Persian Gulf, Arabian region. The Arabian Sea was probably cut off. The is geologic eveidence that deep sand dunes blocked the Strait of Hormuz. This would trap the flood waters in during the year-plus that the waters of the flood existsed and would keep out the Sea. If the Arabian Sea could enter the Persian Gulf, then the waters could not be deeper than the Sea level. There would not be enough water for the Ark to float far enough North to reach the foot hills of Ararat.

The rain would have drianed from all of the mountains in the area I mentioned. This would have formed the lake. But, the waters could not settle into a lake more than about 600 ft. deep, because the hills of S.E. Oman would not allow it. Therefore, the Mt. ranges you mentioned would not "hem in the Deluge."