The Science Behind GLOBAL Flood Claims Examined

[Philip]

Audie: First line..hmm.
You think an omnipotent etc can exist without any cause at all?

Yes I do, Audie! The key difference between us is you apparently believe in some source for the universe that 1) had to be eternal and 2) of great power, that you apparently think could have produced what only an incredible intelligence Source could. You apparently believe that some random, non-intelligent, non-living source or sources, given vast amounts of time, blindly and randomly assembled an astounding universe of unfathomable mathematical precision of stupendous designs and necessary interconnected and complementary functionalities. What shows up not only didn't previously physically exist, but it exponentially checks every possible box of what any reasonable person would have to - or rationally SHOULD conclude - collectively reveals a universe of intelligent design. And intelligent design reveals a DESIGNER!

So, to be sure, please answer:

Do you believe the source of these previously non-existing things was eternal?

Do you not believe that non-intelligent, non-living things can blindly/randomly assemble things of astonishing precision?

Do you believe that whatever source of the universe had the ability to make the non-physical become physical? Because if you do, you have automatically jumped off into the world of - not science - but into the land of METAphysics! No matter how much you love to assert science, you ultimately believe in metaphysics. But you have no observable reasons to believe non-intelligent things can produce such sophisticated things or become physical without an Intelligence behind them. Clever comments and or assertions someone is lying about what you appear to believe are not credible. Please answer my questions honestly.

[abelcainsbrother]

If the flood wasn't worldwide Noah wouldn't have needed to build an ark. He could simply have moved away from the area that was to be flooded.

The article asks this question, "Does Earth have enough water to cover the whole planet?" If the surface of the earth were flatter the answer would be, "Yes." Scientists who try to prove that a worldwide flood generally assume that the preflood world was like the current world and was covered with water by rainfall. But what does the Bible say?

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
(Genesis 7:11 ESV)

The flood was more than just a flood. There was a global cataclysm that cause the present day continents and mountains to raise to their present heights in a short period of time. Flood deniers assume that all geological processes that are going on now have always taken place at the same rate they do now. This is just an assumption that can't be proved and it is contradicted by the historical record contained in the Bible.

Reality-deniers love to use the word "assumption" as if it actually applied everywhere they
want to put it, and that it then functions as a magic bullet to destroy all that stands in the
way.

We could of course get into the assumptions ( vast leaps of baseless faith) required of
flood-believrrs, but such would be churlish.

Now, it is my contention that such scenario as you describe is 100% fantasy,with no demonstrable
basis other than belief in the originator's notion of personal infallibility when it
comes to bible readin'.

I also say it is impossible to be even moderately well informed about the physical wotld
and make an intellectually honest claim that there was a global flood.

Our hero of the cause abe made up something about how a layer of frozen dust proves there
was a global flood, and that the glaciers were somehow "stuck down" instesd
of floating away, in ye flood. Earlier, he had it that they did flost, but sank back down in place
(Ever so perfectly ) after the water went down.

I notice you made a lot of extra-biblical claims about mountain building etc, which suggests you
feel you know more than the bible tells, and more than any geologist on earth-
is that what you really think?

How do you propose to explain the persistence of polar ice far older than
the purported flood?

I don't just make up stuff and I can't help it that you don't know dust was discovered in the glacier ice,but not just the glacier ice but in the oceans and it shows that we had a world wide drought 4500 years ago at the time of Noah's flood. You doubt the flood story and so no evidence will change your mind but I am not just making it up about the dust,it caused civilizations to be wiped out also,of course this is secular scientists who can't realize it had something to do with Noah's flood. Even if you don't believe the dust has anything to do with Noah's flood,it still shows a drought did happened at the ti!me of Noah's flood.And the dust in the ice shows that the ice survived the flood somehow.You also ignore that zircon crystals prove the earth was flooded and even secular science teaches the earth was flooded by comets after the earth was formed billions of years ago,so the only difference is a lot of time. Secular science teaches a world wide flood billions of years ago instead of 4500 years ago.Now I know you refuse to believe a flood happened but I say this dust they discovered has to do with Noah's flood. Nobody can or has proven no flood happened like you think,you just believe it did'nt.

You also ignore the fact that if the earth's surface was leveled out the whole earth would be flooded world wide.No you believe this myth that there is not enough water on the earth for a global flood,it is a myth and we also know that we have enough water inside the earth that could cover the earth at least three times,more than the deepest ocean. You also ignore the fact that different kinds of people with different cultures from around the world such as the Indians and Chinese,etc they all have a flood story to tell,but no they all just made it up. But all of this is ignored by those who choose to doubt God's word.

Yet these same people will teach that dinosaurs evolved into birds eventhough not one scientist since Charles Darwin has ever demonstrated it could happen and their own evidence shows it would not happen because salamanders remain salamanders,viruses remain viruses,bacteria remains bacteria,fruit flies remain fruit flies,etc and so by their own evidence dinosaurs would remain dinosaurs and birds would remain birds and the environment has absolutely no effect. In otherwords just like the bible teaches God created life to produce after its kind and evolution science has proven it - EvoGenesis,Genesis 8:15-19 NKJV

[PaulSacramento]

First line..hmm.
You think an omnipotent etc can exist without any cause at all?

The very definition of Omnipotence leads to an uncaused Cause, or else it wouldn't be omnipotent.

[theophilus]

How do you propose to explain the persistence of polar ice far older than
the purported flood?

How do you know the polar ice is older than the flood?

http://creation.com/the-lost-squadron

[abelcainsbrother]

How do you propose to explain the persistence of polar ice far older than
the purported flood?

How do you know the polar ice is older than the flood?

http://creation.com/the-lost-squadron

It is at least 50,000 years old,so it must have survived Noah's flood,but nonbelievers claim it couldn't survive a world wide flood.I believe the dust that dates to Noah's flood is evidence it survived the flood because it recorded a drought that I believe was caused by the flood.There have been wooly mammoths discovered in the ice frozen solid with food still in their mouth,so to me it shows a very quick freeze happened,but wooly mammoths were life that lived in the former world,they do not live in this world. God made elephants after their kind - wooly mammoths like Genesis 1 reveals.This is why it is important to notice the words created and made in Genesis 1.

[Audie]

How do you propose to explain the persistence of polar ice far older than
the purported flood?

How do you know the polar ice is older than the flood?

http://creation.com/the-lost-squadron

Most of Greenland and Antarctica is more or less a desert, with very little precipitation.

The "lost squadron' landed by the coast, in an area that gets a lot of snow. It is a big island, snowfall varies a lot.

The Sierras in California may be 20 ft of snow; LA does not get any.

Note too of course, that as it is more deeply buried, snow compacts into a much thinner layer of ice.

You COULD of course, look up for yourself how ice core dating is done.

But let me give you a simplified example.

Take a core from a glacier or an ice cap. Examine it; you can see it has layers. Now how to those layers get there?

For a start you can observe snowfall in an area over a period of years, and look at the snow / ice beneath where you started observing.

So you can see the process in action. That helps a lot in understanding.

Lets try counting the layers. Count back to say, 1883. Then examine the ice under a microscope, melt some of it and collect the dust.

You would find ash, recognizable as a fingerprint, from Krakatoa. None in the layer before or the one before or the one before. It suddenly appears, 133 layers down. What might that mean?

Look! A spike in the sulfuric acid content, too. Every year the amount is different, so
an electronic log of variations will parallel the visual count.

In come the C14 boys, they find pollen, it dates to 1883.

Count some more, now it is AD79, by visual and Elog count. Here is volcanic ash from Vesuvias. Spike in the sulfuric acid. C14 dating agrees.

Do this on Antarctic ice, you've only drilled down a few feet, and the ice continues, layer on layer on layer, for another five miles down.

How does this seem to you?

[hughfarey]

I don't just make up stuff...

That's good, although some of your conclusions are not very soundly based. You do, however tend to get your information from other websites, specifically those which support your view, and their conclusions are even less soundly based.

I can't help it that you don't know dust was discovered in the glacier ice, but not just the glacier ice but in the oceans and it shows that we had a world wide drought 4500 years ago at the time of Noah's flood.

Well, steady on. There are several studies from different places around the world showing that it was unusually dusty for various periods at various times. Greenland ice-cores and Gulf of Oman sea-floor samples are usually cited, and studies from North and South America (by Walter Dean and Lonnie Thompson) all show dust layers. Of course, few of these can be dated very precisely, but where they coincide, it is reasonable to suppose a drier than usual climate across the globe. The expression "world wide drought" implies a global human catastrophe, however, which certainly is not borne out by the archaeological evidence. The gradual collapse of the Akkadian civilisation over 200 years or so is amply borne out by this. Furthermore, there is plenty of sound archaeological evidence of continuous occupation of various sites across this 200 year "drought" throughout the world.

You doubt the flood story and so no evidence will change your mind...

That is, as usual, utterly false. The reason I doubt the flood story is because of the evidence, and if any contrary evidence could be brought forward, I should be delighted to change my mind.

but I am not just making it up about the dust,it caused civilizations to be wiped out also

Certainly it may have led to the decline of the Akkadians; but do you see where you have shot yourself in the foot here? If the Akkadians were gradually wiped out by the global drought (which may be true), then they obviously could not have already been wiped out by an instantaneous flood! The same applies to any other supposed social disintegration. There is no archaeological evidence that the Akkadians, or anybody else, were wiped out in the space of a few days.

Even if you don't believe the dust has anything to do with Noah's flood,it still shows a drought did happened at the time of Noah's flood. And the dust in the ice shows that the ice survived the flood somehow.

This is nonsense. Or, since that word seems overly pejorative - non-sense. You have circularly decided that the dust is evidence for a flood - which it isn’t - and so the dust must be the result of the flood - which it isn’t - and then that dust in the ice-cores proves that the flood happened. And having used that argument to prove that the flood happened, you then deduce that the underlying ice must somehow have survived it. That literally does not make sense.

You also ignore that zircon crystals prove the earth was flooded and even secular science teaches the earth was flooded by comets after the earth was formed billions of years ago,so the only difference is a lot of time.

Now you're just grabbing ideas out of the air. Certainly the earth was created without any liquid water on it, as the temperature was hundreds of degrees above boiling point. And yes, as it cooled, much of it became covered with water - that's what the sea is. Many geologists think that comets contributed to this to a greater or lesser extent. But to attempt to correlate the initial watering of the earth with floods billions of years later is absurd.

Secular science teaches a world wide flood billions of years ago instead of 4500 years ago.

To correlate the two is wholly irrational. See above. And while we’re on this bit, there’s no such thing as ‘secular’ science as opposed to any other.

Now I know you refuse to believe a flood happened but I say this dust they discovered has to do with Noah's flood.

You do say that, and I say you’re wrong. The difference between our two opinions is that the evidence supports my idea much better than it does yours.

Nobody can or has proven no flood happened like you think,you just believe it did'nt.

It is not the burden of an antagonist to prove that something didn’t happen; it is your obligation to prove that it did. Which you spectacularly haven’t.

You also ignore the fact that if the earth's surface was leveled out the whole earth would be flooded world wide.

I do not ignore that fact at all. You’re quite correct. So what?

No you believe this myth that there is not enough water on the earth for a global flood,it is a myth

Quite wrong. See above. But the earth wasn’t flat, was it? If it was, then Adam and Eve would have lived underwater. Anyway, suppose the earth was as flat as it could be, the highest mountain no more than 1m above sea level, and God wanted to flood it to a height of 15 cubits. That requires about four million cubic kilometres of water in addition to what was there already. The atmosphere contains about four thousand cubic kilometres, so the rest must come from somewhere else (see below).

we also know that we have enough water inside the earth that could cover the earth at least three times,more than the deepest ocean.

Eh? You are rather confused here. The rock of the earth’s crust certainly contains water - forced in by the pressure of the oceans above. If that water was suddenly removed, and placed back on top of the oceans, then the oceans would be forced down into the rock again. Try scooping a bucket of water out of the bottom of a lake and pouring it back onto the surface - does the water level get higher?

You also ignore the fact that different kinds of people with different cultures from around the world such as the Indians and Chinese,etc they all have a flood story to tell,but no they all just made it up.

Everybody has a flood story to tell. Including me. We don’t just make them up. Some floods are bigger than others. Some stories get exaggerated over time - including mine...

But all of this is ignored by those who choose to doubt God's word

I don’t doubt God’s word! I keep telling you that. What I doubt is your personal interpretation of God’s word.

Yet these same people will teach that dinosaurs evolved into birds even though not one scientist since Charles Darwin has ever demonstrated it could happen...

. Nonsense. Again. And you’re misquoting your own shibboleth. What you mean is that no scientist has ever demonstrated a dinosaur evolving into a bird (which is true), not that no scientist has ever demonstrated that it could happen (which is false).

and their own evidence shows it would not happen.

No it doesn’t. It shows very clearly that it could happen. Not that it actually has, but certainly that it could.

[Audie]

Audie: First line..hmm.
You think an omnipotent etc can exist without any cause at all?

Yes I do, Audie! The key difference between us is you apparently believe in some source for the universe that 1) had to be eternal and 2) of great power, that you apparently think could have produced what only an incredible intelligence Source could. You apparently believe that some random, non-intelligent, non-living source or sources, given vast amounts of time, blindly and randomly assembled an astounding universe of unfathomable mathematical precision of stupendous designs and necessary interconnected and complementary functionalities. What shows up not only didn't previously physically exist, but it exponentially checks every possible box of what any reasonable person would have to - or rationally SHOULD conclude - collectively reveals a universe of intelligent design. And intelligent design reveals a DESIGNER!

So, to be sure, please answer:

Do you believe the source of these previously non-existing things was eternal?

Do you not believe that non-intelligent, non-living things can blindly/randomly assemble things of astonishing precision?

Do you believe that whatever source of the universe had the ability to make the non-physical become physical? Because if you do, you have automatically jumped off into the world of - not science - but into the land of METAphysics! No matter how much you love to assert science, you ultimately believe in metaphysics. But you have no observable reasons to believe non-intelligent things can produce such sophisticated things or become physical without an Intelligence behind them. Clever comments and or assertions someone is lying about what you appear to believe are not credible. Please answer my questions honestly.

How about if you address my post honestly?
You have been all over my case with divers diversions, for having said this:

Reality-deniers love to use the word "assumption" as if it actually applied everywhere they
want to put it, and that it then functions as a magic bullet to destroy all that stands in the
way.

We could of course get into the assumptions ( vast leaps of baseless faith) required of
flood-believers, but such would be churlish.

Now, it is my contention that such scenario as you describe is 100% fantasy,with no demonstrable
basis other than belief in the originator's notion of personal infallibility when it
comes to bible readin'.

I also say it is impossible to be even moderately well informed about the physical world
and make an intellectually honest claim that there was a global flood.

Our hero of the cause abe made up something about how a layer of frozen dust proves there
was a global flood, and that the glaciers were somehow "stuck down" instesd
of floating away, in ye flood. Earlier, he had it that they did float, but sank back down in place
(Ever so perfectly ) after the water went down.

I notice you made a lot of extra-biblical claims about mountain building etc, which suggests you
feel you know more than the bible tells, and more than any geologist on earth-
is that what you really think?

How do you propose to explain the persistence of polar ice far older than
the purported flood?

Is there anything in the above with which you actually disagree?
That you could show is not correct?

Deal with that, and I will look at your second non-response to the topic, as best I can. You are not doing your best, else you'd have (honestly ) dealt with the actual topic,

ps wise, what is 'apparent' to you about me and, by extension, quite possibly several other things is no more than how you choose to have them appear to you.

[abelcainsbrother]

I don't just make up stuff...

That's good, although some of your conclusions are not very soundly based. You do, however tend to get your information from other websites, specifically those which support your view, and their conclusions are even less soundly based.

I can't help it that you don't know dust was discovered in the glacier ice, but not just the glacier ice but in the oceans and it shows that we had a world wide drought 4500 years ago at the time of Noah's flood.

Well, steady on. There are several studies from different places around the world showing that it was unusually dusty for various periods at various times. Greenland ice-cores and Gulf of Oman sea-floor samples are usually cited, and studies from North and South America (by Walter Dean and Lonnie Thompson) all show dust layers. Of course, few of these can be dated very precisely, but where they coincide, it is reasonable to suppose a drier than usual climate across the globe. The expression "world wide drought" implies a global human catastrophe, however, which certainly is not borne out by the archaeological evidence. The gradual collapse of the Akkadian civilisation over 200 years or so is amply borne out by this. Furthermore, there is plenty of sound archaeological evidence of continuous occupation of various sites across this 200 year "drought" throughout the world.

You doubt the flood story and so no evidence will change your mind...

That is, as usual, utterly false. The reason I doubt the flood story is because of the evidence, and if any contrary evidence could be brought forward, I should be delighted to change my mind.

but I am not just making it up about the dust,it caused civilizations to be wiped out also

Certainly it may have led to the decline of the Akkadians; but do you see where you have shot yourself in the foot here? If the Akkadians were gradually wiped out by the global drought (which may be true), then they obviously could not have already been wiped out by an instantaneous flood! The same applies to any other supposed social disintegration. There is no archaeological evidence that the Akkadians, or anybody else, were wiped out in the space of a few days.

Even if you don't believe the dust has anything to do with Noah's flood,it still shows a drought did happened at the time of Noah's flood. And the dust in the ice shows that the ice survived the flood somehow.

This is nonsense. Or, since that word seems overly pejorative - non-sense. You have circularly decided that the dust is evidence for a flood - which it isn’t - and so the dust must be the result of the flood - which it isn’t - and then that dust in the ice-cores proves that the flood happened. And having used that argument to prove that the flood happened, you then deduce that the underlying ice must somehow have survived it. That literally does not make sense.

You also ignore that zircon crystals prove the earth was flooded and even secular science teaches the earth was flooded by comets after the earth was formed billions of years ago,so the only difference is a lot of time.

Now you're just grabbing ideas out of the air. Certainly the earth was created without any liquid water on it, as the temperature was hundreds of degrees above boiling point. And yes, as it cooled, much of it became covered with water - that's what the sea is. Many geologists think that comets contributed to this to a greater or lesser extent. But to attempt to correlate the initial watering of the earth with floods billions of years later is absurd.

Secular science teaches a world wide flood billions of years ago instead of 4500 years ago.

To correlate the two is wholly irrational. See above. And while we’re on this bit, there’s no such thing as ‘secular’ science as opposed to any other.

Now I know you refuse to believe a flood happened but I say this dust they discovered has to do with Noah's flood.

You do say that, and I say you’re wrong. The difference between our two opinions is that the evidence supports my idea much better than it does yours.

Nobody can or has proven no flood happened like you think,you just believe it did'nt.

It is not the burden of an antagonist to prove that something didn’t happen; it is your obligation to prove that it did. Which you spectacularly haven’t.

You also ignore the fact that if the earth's surface was leveled out the whole earth would be flooded world wide.

I do not ignore that fact at all. You’re quite correct. So what?

No you believe this myth that there is not enough water on the earth for a global flood,it is a myth

Quite wrong. See above. But the earth wasn’t flat, was it? If it was, then Adam and Eve would have lived underwater. Anyway, suppose the earth was as flat as it could be, the highest mountain no more than 1m above sea level, and God wanted to flood it to a height of 15 cubits. That requires about four million cubic kilometres of water in addition to what was there already. The atmosphere contains about four thousand cubic kilometres, so the rest must come from somewhere else (see below).

we also know that we have enough water inside the earth that could cover the earth at least three times,more than the deepest ocean.

Eh? You are rather confused here. The rock of the earth’s crust certainly contains water - forced in by the pressure of the oceans above. If that water was suddenly removed, and placed back on top of the oceans, then the oceans would be forced down into the rock again. Try scooping a bucket of water out of the bottom of a lake and pouring it back onto the surface - does the water level get higher?

You also ignore the fact that different kinds of people with different cultures from around the world such as the Indians and Chinese,etc they all have a flood story to tell,but no they all just made it up.

Everybody has a flood story to tell. Including me. We don’t just make them up. Some floods are bigger than others. Some stories get exaggerated over time - including mine...

But all of this is ignored by those who choose to doubt God's word

I don’t doubt God’s word! I keep telling you that. What I doubt is your personal interpretation of God’s word.

Yet these same people will teach that dinosaurs evolved into birds even though not one scientist since Charles Darwin has ever demonstrated it could happen...

. Nonsense. Again. And you’re misquoting your own shibboleth. What you mean is that no scientist has ever demonstrated a dinosaur evolving into a bird (which is true), not that no scientist has ever demonstrated that it could happen (which is false).

and their own evidence shows it would not happen.

No it doesn’t. It shows very clearly that it could happen. Not that it actually has, but certainly that it could.

I don't have enough time to respond adequately right now but for now I'll just point out,remember perspective and what I told you before about it? It matters what perspective we are looking at the evidence. Because you accept evolution you will always say that life survive extinction events,harsh drought periods,etc like the Akaddian,it would make no difference what extinction event we talked about,you will always claim life survived it so that life can evolve.I'm looking at the evidence from a different perspective and must read between the lines concerning the evidence. I might respond in more detail later when I have time but I'm gonna be busy for a little while.

[abelcainsbrother]

Sorry if I seemed a little harsh to Audie,it was not my intention,only trying to make a point.

[Audie]

I don't just make up stuff...

That's good, although some of your conclusions are not very soundly based. You do, however tend to get your information from other websites, specifically those which support your view, and their conclusions are even less soundly based.

I can't help it that you don't know dust was discovered in the glacier ice, but not just the glacier ice but in the oceans and it shows that we had a world wide drought 4500 years ago at the time of Noah's flood.

Well, steady on. There are several studies from different places around the world showing that it was unusually dusty for various periods at various times. Greenland ice-cores and Gulf of Oman sea-floor samples are usually cited, and studies from North and South America (by Walter Dean and Lonnie Thompson) all show dust layers. Of course, few of these can be dated very precisely, but where they coincide, it is reasonable to suppose a drier than usual climate across the globe. The expression "world wide drought" implies a global human catastrophe, however, which certainly is not borne out by the archaeological evidence. The gradual collapse of the Akkadian civilisation over 200 years or so is amply borne out by this. Furthermore, there is plenty of sound archaeological evidence of continuous occupation of various sites across this 200 year "drought" throughout the world.

You doubt the flood story and so no evidence will change your mind...

That is, as usual, utterly false. The reason I doubt the flood story is because of the evidence, and if any contrary evidence could be brought forward, I should be delighted to change my mind.

but I am not just making it up about the dust,it caused civilizations to be wiped out also

Certainly it may have led to the decline of the Akkadians; but do you see where you have shot yourself in the foot here? If the Akkadians were gradually wiped out by the global drought (which may be true), then they obviously could not have already been wiped out by an instantaneous flood! The same applies to any other supposed social disintegration. There is no archaeological evidence that the Akkadians, or anybody else, were wiped out in the space of a few days.

Even if you don't believe the dust has anything to do with Noah's flood,it still shows a drought did happened at the time of Noah's flood. And the dust in the ice shows that the ice survived the flood somehow.

This is nonsense. Or, since that word seems overly pejorative - non-sense. You have circularly decided that the dust is evidence for a flood - which it isn’t - and so the dust must be the result of the flood - which it isn’t - and then that dust in the ice-cores proves that the flood happened. And having used that argument to prove that the flood happened, you then deduce that the underlying ice must somehow have survived it. That literally does not make sense.

You also ignore that zircon crystals prove the earth was flooded and even secular science teaches the earth was flooded by comets after the earth was formed billions of years ago,so the only difference is a lot of time.

Now you're just grabbing ideas out of the air. Certainly the earth was created without any liquid water on it, as the temperature was hundreds of degrees above boiling point. And yes, as it cooled, much of it became covered with water - that's what the sea is. Many geologists think that comets contributed to this to a greater or lesser extent. But to attempt to correlate the initial watering of the earth with floods billions of years later is absurd.

Secular science teaches a world wide flood billions of years ago instead of 4500 years ago.

To correlate the two is wholly irrational. See above. And while we’re on this bit, there’s no such thing as ‘secular’ science as opposed to any other.

Now I know you refuse to believe a flood happened but I say this dust they discovered has to do with Noah's flood.

You do say that, and I say you’re wrong. The difference between our two opinions is that the evidence supports my idea much better than it does yours.

Nobody can or has proven no flood happened like you think,you just believe it did'nt.

It is not the burden of an antagonist to prove that something didn’t happen; it is your obligation to prove that it did. Which you spectacularly haven’t.

You also ignore the fact that if the earth's surface was leveled out the whole earth would be flooded world wide.

I do not ignore that fact at all. You’re quite correct. So what?

No you believe this myth that there is not enough water on the earth for a global flood,it is a myth

Quite wrong. See above. But the earth wasn’t flat, was it? If it was, then Adam and Eve would have lived underwater. Anyway, suppose the earth was as flat as it could be, the highest mountain no more than 1m above sea level, and God wanted to flood it to a height of 15 cubits. That requires about four million cubic kilometres of water in addition to what was there already. The atmosphere contains about four thousand cubic kilometres, so the rest must come from somewhere else (see below).

we also know that we have enough water inside the earth that could cover the earth at least three times,more than the deepest ocean.

Eh? You are rather confused here. The rock of the earth’s crust certainly contains water - forced in by the pressure of the oceans above. If that water was suddenly removed, and placed back on top of the oceans, then the oceans would be forced down into the rock again. Try scooping a bucket of water out of the bottom of a lake and pouring it back onto the surface - does the water level get higher?

You also ignore the fact that different kinds of people with different cultures from around the world such as the Indians and Chinese,etc they all have a flood story to tell,but no they all just made it up.

Everybody has a flood story to tell. Including me. We don’t just make them up. Some floods are bigger than others. Some stories get exaggerated over time - including mine...

But all of this is ignored by those who choose to doubt God's word

I don’t doubt God’s word! I keep telling you that. What I doubt is your personal interpretation of God’s word.

Yet these same people will teach that dinosaurs evolved into birds even though not one scientist since Charles Darwin has ever demonstrated it could happen...

. Nonsense. Again. And you’re misquoting your own shibboleth. What you mean is that no scientist has ever demonstrated a dinosaur evolving into a bird (which is true), not that no scientist has ever demonstrated that it could happen (which is false).

and their own evidence shows it would not happen.

No it doesn’t. It shows very clearly that it could happen. Not that it actually has, but certainly that it could.

Perhaps you are a bit more generous spirited than I, substituting "misquoting.", "not soundly based". "utterly false" etc for "making things up".

Facts not in evidence, unsupportable conclusion, or various other expressions could be used. It still comes to making things up.

I gotta disagree with you on one thing..

It is not the burden of an antagonist to prove that something didn’t happen; it is your obligation to prove that it did.

It is oke to prove something didnt happen. The "Duke Rape Case", say.

Whether or not people set out to disprove the "flood" while doing geological work (I dont know that anyone did set out to do that) the results of their work show far far beyond any trace of reasonable doubt that no WWF ever occurred. As you and Phil realize easily enough. Including that it only takes one contrary fact to disprove a mountain of pro-data.

As for proving that it did happen, well, of course it has to have really happened for that to work.

Abe has presented one datum point, the presence of some dust at a presumably appropriate date.

Takes a lot more than that to prove this momentous event actually happened.

[Philip]

First off, Audie, please do not connect me to ACB's water/ice issues. I do believe the flood occurred - whether global or regional, I do not know. But you are discounting something that you don't even know WHERE it occurred, nor what the scale of it was. My purpose is not to argue flood dynamics, but that you clearly appear to dismiss everything Biblical based upon variables that cannot be proven - because you don't know where, when, or the scope of. It's your constant ridiculing of ALL based only upon your imperfect knowledge of some ancient flood. And so I am pointing out how ridiculous THAT is, when you have a FAR bigger problem of explaining what can only be a metaphysical belief and is in NO way a scientifically substantiable one. That is why I asked you key questions about what it appears you believe. I hope you will answer them. Because the flood issue has key unknowable things - meaning, you can't disprove it because of currently incomplete knowledge and data.

Audie, yours is not what you DON'T know that is the real problem, it's what you apparently believe that is - because of you apparently believe that the origins of all things were not from an intelligent/purposeful designing source - call that Source what you will. At the very LEAST, that Source HAD to be: Eternal, supremely intelligent (beyond our imaginations), extraordinary powerful, and astonishingly purposeful. It is absolutely irrational to think otherwise, because you see that nowhere demonstrated by science or anything else UNCAUSED or not derivative. That's but an irrational, metaphysical belief and speculation. And one you shouldn't even reference science in such a belief - because it is based upon things BEYOND and BEFORE ALL known science and human knowledge!

[Audie]

First off, Audie, please do not connect me to ACB's water/ice issues. I do believe the flood occurred - whether global or regional

I did not. You are confused. I said something to Theo, for which you ahae been trying to pound me with irrelevancies

, I do not know. But you are discounting something that you don't even know WHERE it occurred, nor what the scale of it was.

Exactly what you did, with your OP. The I'd add that you nor anyone knows if there was any actual flood of any sort that formed the basis for the Noah's ark story.

My purpose is not to argue flood dynamics, but that you clearly appear to dismiss everything Biblical based upon variables that cannot be proven - because you don't know where, when, or the scope of

Then why did you argue flood dynamics in your op? I don not "dismiss everything biblical", a completely absurd notion. Like I must dismiss Egypt, too. Honestly, put some thought into what you write.

Clearly schmaderely, you are imagining things, not seeing me at all.

Sine you brought in "proven" tho, many floods in various places and times can be proven to have happened. World wide flood is proven not to have happened. You surely have to agree to that, unless, you know, you are irrational.

You have not identified a single thing I said in my response to theo that you dont agree with.

It's your constant ridiculing of ALL based only upon your imperfect knowledge of some ancient flood.

Must I constantly defend myself against your silly falsehoods, or could you apply a bit of self discipline?

And so I am pointing out how ridiculous THAT is, when you have a FAR bigger problem of explaining what can only be a metaphysical belief and is in NO way a scientifically substantiable one. That is why I asked you key questions about what it appears you believe. I hope you will answer them

Yes, what falsely claim about me is what is ridiculous; set it up, knock it down.

But lets look at t his "far bigger problem":
So, like, a school teacher cannot correct Johnnies arithmetic coz she cant do integral calculus? You are making no sense.

. Because the flood issue has key unknowable things - meaning, you can't disprove it because of currently incomplete knowledge and data.

"Knowledge and data" will never be complete, so I guess we can know nothing? You are not putting much thought into this.


AND btw, the WWF is so easy to disprove, so obvious, that it is kind of shocking to see how many Americans are still in the 17 or 16th century.

Some have suggested that the flooding of the Black Sea might be the origin.

Whatever the origin, the way that it is told cannot possibly be accurate.

Which, speaking of bigger problems.. where does that leave a infallible book?

Audie, yours is not what you DON'T know that is the real problem, it's what you apparently believe that is - because of you apparently believe that the origins of all things were not from an intelligent/purposeful designing source - call that Source what you will.

Your problem is two fold. One that you decide what is apparent as you peer through an attitude filter (and get it wrong every time).

Do you think you know for a fact that there had to be your IPDS" (intelligent purposeful desingning source) You been statin' it as a fact; crazy not to believe it, and all.

"Infallible knowledge". Thin ice there!

At the very LEAST, that Source HAD to be: Eternal, supremely intelligent (beyond our imaginations), extraordinary powerful, and astonishingly purposeful. It is absolutely irrational to think otherwise,

Ok, ESIEPAP.


At what age did you attain the power of infallible knowledge?

The best of modern science does not come to such conclusions as that the universe has a beginning or an end. But you do know? You have to know that much at least for you to know there must be a ESEIPAP.

Astonishment should be addressed to those who somehow think that the ancient greeks nailed the ultimate mysteries of the universe. You know,
the four elements, the forces of gravity and levity...

Philosophers used to think they had the market cornered on knowledge and wisdom Was it Wittgenstein who said philosophy has left to it only arguments over what words mean?

because you see that nowhere demonstrated by science or anything else UNCAUSED or not derivative. That's but an irrational

I am confident that same argument was used to say why disease, lightning, earthquakes and so forth were proof of god. I mean, science could so totally not explain them.

metaphysical belief and speculation. And one you shouldn't even reference science in such a belief - because it is based upon things BEYOND and BEFORE ALL known science and human knowledge

See 16th century for references to how this all works.

You seem disinclined, btw, to address my question about what time is.
If a person does not understand time its pretty tough to say about beginnings, ends, infinity etc. Then there is imaginary time; maybe "regular" time and imaginary time cancel eachother? What about relativity? Time speeding up, slowing down, or stopping or being nothing but an illusion?

You also seem disinclined to Identify anything incorrect in my response to Theo. Which, btw, was only about the childish superstition about a WWF, not anything about the merits of the bible as a whole.

If I got it wrong in something I said to theo, by all means identify it.






!

[Philip]

So, once again, Audie fails to answer the bottom line questions to her metaphysical beliefs - with stuff like her ridiculous and meaningless comment "the 16th century."

Philip: And one you shouldn't even reference science in such a (metaphysical) belief - because it is based upon things BEYOND and BEFORE ALL known science and human knowledge

Audie: See 16th century for references to how this all works.

BTW, I merely posted what RTB asserts about the evidence surrounding a global flood. As I personally am agnostic on the RANGE of that flood, although I tend to think it regional in its range.

And note that I asked her specific questions that would provide illumination into what she believes is necessary to have existed, as per the origins of the universe. A lot of people here would really like to hear her answer those directly.

Again, please Audie, just answer these simple questions: And note that the questions strike not to the unknowable IDENTITY of the source(s) of the universe, but to unmistakable and necessary CHARACTERISTICS of that source.

A) Do you believe the source of ALL previously non-existing / non-physical things was eternal?

B) Do you believe that non-intelligent, non-living things can blindly/randomly/instantly assemble things in things of astonishing precision and design? (per Big Bang science assertions)

C) Do you believe that whatever source of the universe had the ability to make the non-physical become physical?

If you believe any of the above, your beliefs are metaphysical, yet without some identified spiritual Source.

D) If you don't believe any of the above, WHY not?

Audie, if you will just honestly answer the above items, it would clear up a whole lot concerning what you believe about origins. It should not be a mystery as to certain NECESSARY characteristics the source of the universe had to have - you don't need to identify it to know the inescapable basic and necessary characteristics it must have had.

Or, you and others can relentlessly and pointlessly trade assertions about some ancient flood - which is just another sideshow quarrel to the far more important issue.

[Audie]

So, once again,

And, once again, dear audience I point out that you jumped all over me for what
I said to Theo, tho you can find no actual fault in it; so then you evade responsibility for yourself by changing the subject.

I did, btw, provide substantive if brief response to your various assertions, and you have provided zero (0) in response to my request that you point out the fault in what I said to Theo.

Of course theo for his part is also nonresponsive, long gone off thro' the treetops, and posting gibberish about dragons.


The "how can you find fault in bad math when you dont know integral calculus" thing is not responsive.

Nor does it make me think any of your philosophy has helped with logical thinking.

If you care to admit that there is no fault to find in my comments to Theo, and that you in fact agree with them, I might entertain another topic.

I dont play "chase squirrel thro' the treetops".