Evidence for God from Science

Well, firstly can I say thank you so much for at last coming clean and actually presenting something.

However, I'm so sorry, but can you not see that none of this is evidence? It is an account, a listing of unsupported statements and consequences.

1) "before the flood the earth was mostly just hilly and did not have the tall mountains we now have" Have you any evidence for this at all? Is there any evidence that indicates a lack of mountains at any time in the past, or is this just wishful thinking to reduce the amount of water needed to cover them?

2) "The earth was not covered with 70 % of water but only had much shallower seas." This is a bit of a non-sequitur, if I may say so, and anyway logically unsound. The shallower the depth, the greater the surface area for the same volume. I think that the oceans of the carboniferous period were on average shallower than they are now, but then the water covered rather more than 70% of the earth's surface. Anyway, whatever the dimensions, the volume remains the same.

3) "Most of the water now on the earth came from inside the earth". Is there any evidence for this? Sure, even now there are rocks 'soaked' with water - a recent discovery has found a vast repository of such - but the total volume of it could not be more than a very small fraction of the oceanic total.

4) "from geysors that broke open shooting heated water up into the atmosphere". Again, you do not give any evidence for this, although there are plenty of geysers still around. The question is whether geysers could spew enough water into the sky in 40 days to flood the whole earth, and whether, as they spewed, the falling water would not seep back into the places where the geyser water came from in the first place.

5) "the weight of all of that water pushed down on the crust of the earth,for every action there is a reaction,but the weight of the water pushed the crust of the earth down forming the deep trenches we now have that holds all of that water." Again, you present no evidence for this. You seem to be suggesting that before the flood the continents were largely 'floating' on oceans of subterranean water, and that the flood caused the continents and the water to swap positions: is that correct? It is an entertaining proposition, and perhaps not wholly impossible in some circumstances, but is there any evidence that it's what happened on earth?

6) "This pushed the earth's crust down and the water level lowered all over the earth as the weight of the water settled pushing down on the crust". Well, no, it wouldn't, would it. Rock and water being largely incompressible, the total volume of the earth would be unchanged. The more the rock went down, the more the water it replaced would go up, so the water level would not be lowered but increased. Even if the rock was actually compressed, and the whole earth got smaller, the water level would still be increased.

7) "suddenly lowering a little more as it settled the water level lowered exposing the continents and land,but this also pushed up the continents and pushed up mountains.etc as the water level lowered from the weight of all of that water spewing out of the earth until it reached a level where the water could no longer spew out of the earth from the pressure of the weight of all of that water now on the surface of the earth." Try reading this to yourself. It really doesn't make any sense at all. I'm trying to envision water of a density greater than rock, pushing down on malleable rock so that the rock oozes upwards like the blobs in a lava-lamp? Is that what you think happened? Well, fair enough, but once again, have you any evidence for any of this?

Now before you jump in and say in breathless prose with no punctuation that I am dismissing your evidence because of my bias please understand that I'm not. I cannot dismiss your evidence because, as usual, you haven't presented any. You've told a story, but not even attempted to justify it with evidence at all. Hey ho. Back to the drawing board.

hughfarey wrote:Well, firstly can I say thank you so much for at last coming clean and actually presenting something.

However, I'm so sorry, but can you not see that none of this is evidence? It is an account, a listing of unsupported statements and consequences.

1) "before the flood the earth was mostly just hilly and did not have the tall mountains we now have" Have you any evidence for this at all? Is there any evidence that indicates a lack of mountains at any time in the past, or is this just wishful thinking to reduce the amount of water needed to cover them?

2) "The earth was not covered with 70 % of water but only had much shallower seas." This is a bit of a non-sequitur, if I may say so, and anyway logically unsound. The shallower the depth, the greater the surface area for the same volume. I think that the oceans of the carboniferous period were on average shallower than they are now, but then the water covered rather more than 70% of the earth's surface. Anyway, whatever the dimensions, the volume remains the same.

3) "Most of the water now on the earth came from inside the earth". Is there any evidence for this? Sure, even now there are rocks 'soaked' with water - a recent discovery has found a vast repository of such - but the total volume of it could not be more than a very small fraction of the oceanic total.

4) "from geysors that broke open shooting heated water up into the atmosphere". Again, you do not give any evidence for this, although there are plenty of geysers still around. The question is whether geysers could spew enough water into the sky in 40 days to flood the whole earth, and whether, as they spewed, the falling water would not seep back into the places where the geyser water came from in the first place.

5) "the weight of all of that water pushed down on the crust of the earth,for every action there is a reaction,but the weight of the water pushed the crust of the earth down forming the deep trenches we now have that holds all of that water." Again, you present no evidence for this. You seem to be suggesting that before the flood the continents were largely 'floating' on oceans of subterranean water, and that the flood caused the continents and the water to swap positions: is that correct? It is an entertaining proposition, and perhaps not wholly impossible in some circumstances, but is there any evidence that it's what happened on earth?

6) "This pushed the earth's crust down and the water level lowered all over the earth as the weight of the water settled pushing down on the crust". Well, no, it wouldn't, would it. Rock and water being largely incompressible, the total volume of the earth would be unchanged. The more the rock went down, the more the water it replaced would go up, so the water level would not be lowered but increased. Even if the rock was actually compressed, and the whole earth got smaller, the water level would still be increased.

7) "suddenly lowering a little more as it settled the water level lowered exposing the continents and land,but this also pushed up the continents and pushed up mountains.etc as the water level lowered from the weight of all of that water spewing out of the earth until it reached a level where the water could no longer spew out of the earth from the pressure of the weight of all of that water now on the surface of the earth." Try reading this to yourself. It really doesn't make any sense at all. I'm trying to envision water of a density greater than rock, pushing down on malleable rock so that the rock oozes upwards like the blobs in a lava-lamp? Is that what you think happened? Well, fair enough, but once again, have you any evidence for any of this?

Now before you jump in and say in breathless prose with no punctuation that I am dismissing your evidence because of my bias please understand that I'm not. I cannot dismiss your evidence because, as usual, you haven't presented any. You've told a story, but not even attempted to justify it with evidence at all. Hey ho. Back to the drawing board.

Yeah I know this was only a brief explanation and not only did I not include evidence I also didn't add any scripture references either. This was just a brief explanation of this flood hypothesis.I might explain it in greater detail sometime and add in scripture references and evidence but I think to those who do accept a world wide flood this hypothesis makes the most sense from a scientific standpoint than other flood hypothesis's out there.

Oh, no! Back to Square One. I know the hypothesis. What I want is evidence to demonstrate that the hypothesis is correct. And it has to be physical evidence, not Scriptural references. I'm afraid that Scripture is no help at all in this respect, as there are so many different interpretations of it, each one fiercely defended by its adherents, and no way for an impartial observer, even one who accepts the Bible's truth implicitly||+"'[/[ to determine which, if any, is correct. So it's physical evidence you need to supply.

"I think to those who do accept a world wide flood this hypothesis makes the most sense from a scientific standpoint than other flood hypothesis's out there." Really? I'm not sure what other hypotheses there are, but I can think of some that make much more sense myself. Even if there's no evidence for them either!

hughfarey wrote:Oh, no! Back to Square One. I know the hypothesis. What I want is evidence to demonstrate that the hypothesis is correct. And it has to be physical evidence, not Scriptural references. I'm afraid that Scripture is no help at all in this respect, as there are so many different interpretations of it, each one fiercely defended by its adherents, and no way for an impartial observer, even one who accepts the Bible's truth implicitly||+"'[/[ to determine which, if any, is correct. So it's physical evidence you need to supply.

"I think to those who do accept a world wide flood this hypothesis makes the most sense from a scientific standpoint than other flood hypothesis's out there." Really? I'm not sure what other hypotheses there are, but I can think of some that make much more sense myself. Even if there's no evidence for them either!

As far as a world wide flood goes? This is the best as far as it being scientifically feasable even if there was no evidence.I don't see how you can deny it it if you are scientific minded.It seems that you have problems believing the bible yet can believe life evolves without physical evidence,so I doubt if I did provide evidence it would change your mind,but I might get into the evidence for it sometime anyway,for those who do believe God's word over what man says is true or not.It is not as easy as you make it out to be as there is so much more to it than just my brief explanation,plus adding in evidence and scripture too.So until then I'll just encourage you to believe God over what man says is true or not,as man has been wrong so many times throughout history that he cannot be trusted like God can.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

hughfarey wrote:Really? I'm not sure what other hypotheses there are, but I can think of some that make much more sense myself. Even if there's no evidence for them either!

As far as a world wide flood goes? This is the best as far as it being scientifically feasable even if there was no evidence. I don't see how you can deny it it if you are scientific minded.

Nonsense. A much better one would be that it simply rained so much that it eroded all the mountains away into the sea, and then some volcanoes popped up to form Mount Ararat. Simples!

It seems that you have problems believing the bible yet can believe life evolves without physical evidence.

No. We have been here before. I have no problem with the bible at all. What I have problems with is your own personal and rather idiosyncratic interpretation of it. And there is plenty of evidence for evolution - as usual, you are confusing evidence with proof, which is quite different.

so I doubt if I did provide evidence it would change your mind,but I might get into the evidence for it sometime anyway

Are you admitting, at last and at last, that in fact you haven't provided any evidence so far? Is this the same as admitting that there isn't any?

for those who do believe God's word over what man says is true or not.

Everybody who believes in God believes "God's word over what man says." Your trouble is that you do not know what God's word is, let alone man's, and yet you still have the confidence to promote your own personal version of it over everyone elses. Tut tut.

It is not as easy as you make it out to be as there is so much more to it than just my brief explanation,plus adding in evidence and scripture too.

I don't make any of this out to be easy. Quite the reverse. The story of the flood is fraught with a complexity which you fail completely to investigate, let alone understand.

So until then I'll just encourage you to believe God over what man says is true or not,as man has been wrong so many times throughout history that he cannot be trusted like God can.

Well, how odd. That's just what I was going to say you - but first of all, find out what God says. I think you'll find he agrees with me.

hughfarey wrote:Well, firstly can I say thank you so much for at last coming clean and actually presenting something.

However, I'm so sorry, but can you not see that none of this is evidence? It is an account, a listing of unsupported statements and consequences.

1) "before the flood the earth was mostly just hilly and did not have the tall mountains we now have" Have you any evidence for this at all? Is there any evidence that indicates a lack of mountains at any time in the past, or is this just wishful thinking to reduce the amount of water needed to cover them?

2) "The earth was not covered with 70 % of water but only had much shallower seas." This is a bit of a non-sequitur, if I may say so, and anyway logically unsound. The shallower the depth, the greater the surface area for the same volume. I think that the oceans of the carboniferous period were on average shallower than they are now, but then the water covered rather more than 70% of the earth's surface. Anyway, whatever the dimensions, the volume remains the same.

3) "Most of the water now on the earth came from inside the earth". Is there any evidence for this? Sure, even now there are rocks 'soaked' with water - a recent discovery has found a vast repository of such - but the total volume of it could not be more than a very small fraction of the oceanic total.

4) "from geysors that broke open shooting heated water up into the atmosphere". Again, you do not give any evidence for this, although there are plenty of geysers still around. The question is whether geysers could spew enough water into the sky in 40 days to flood the whole earth, and whether, as they spewed, the falling water would not seep back into the places where the geyser water came from in the first place.

5) "the weight of all of that water pushed down on the crust of the earth,for every action there is a reaction,but the weight of the water pushed the crust of the earth down forming the deep trenches we now have that holds all of that water." Again, you present no evidence for this. You seem to be suggesting that before the flood the continents were largely 'floating' on oceans of subterranean water, and that the flood caused the continents and the water to swap positions: is that correct? It is an entertaining proposition, and perhaps not wholly impossible in some circumstances, but is there any evidence that it's what happened on earth?

6) "This pushed the earth's crust down and the water level lowered all over the earth as the weight of the water settled pushing down on the crust". Well, no, it wouldn't, would it. Rock and water being largely incompressible, the total volume of the earth would be unchanged. The more the rock went down, the more the water it replaced would go up, so the water level would not be lowered but increased. Even if the rock was actually compressed, and the whole earth got smaller, the water level would still be increased.

7) "suddenly lowering a little more as it settled the water level lowered exposing the continents and land,but this also pushed up the continents and pushed up mountains.etc as the water level lowered from the weight of all of that water spewing out of the earth until it reached a level where the water could no longer spew out of the earth from the pressure of the weight of all of that water now on the surface of the earth." Try reading this to yourself. It really doesn't make any sense at all. I'm trying to envision water of a density greater than rock, pushing down on malleable rock so that the rock oozes upwards like the blobs in a lava-lamp? Is that what you think happened? Well, fair enough, but once again, have you any evidence for any of this?

Now before you jump in and say in breathless prose with no punctuation that I am dismissing your evidence because of my bias please understand that I'm not. I cannot dismiss your evidence because, as usual, you haven't presented any. You've told a story, but not even attempted to justify it with evidence at all. Hey ho. Back to the drawing board.

Evidence? Read over my brief explanation again and then look into this.
http://www.geologypage.com/2014/02/is-t ... -feet.html

Marvellous! Thank you so much. May I have a look at this?

1) "Scientists at the University of Liverpool have shown that deep sea fault zones could transport much larger amounts of water from the Earth’s oceans to the upper mantle than previously thought." Note that word: transport. The essence of the research is not the amount of water in the rocks, but its transport. It is the rate of circulation that is "much larger", not the actual amount of water, of which we remain still fairly ignorant.

2) "Seismologists at Liverpool have estimated that over the age of the Earth, the Japan subduction zone alone could transport the equivalent of up to three and a half times the water of all the Earth’s oceans to its mantle." Yes, indeed. This is more than was previously thought - but again, its the transport which is important here, not the actual amount. Over 4.5 billion years, a maximum of 3.5 times the volume of the oceans has been transported from under the crust to over the crust - and, guess what, the same amount of water has been transported back again, by gradual tectonic processes. We may ask ourselves, how much water is transported up to and down from the surface every century? Well I'll tell you. Using these figures, which you think support a global flood, in any one century, eight billionths of the volume of the oceans is transported from the upper mantle to the surface. And back down again. This is wholly unnoticeable. Of course, from time to time there are massive catastrophes, causing huge volcanic activity, earthquakes, tsunamis and all the rest, but there is no evidence that it affected the global oceanic water level at all. And in fact the experimental evidence suggests only one billionth of the volume of the oceans every million years. See (http://www.livescience.com/42904-subduc ... antle.html) for a more detailed review of the research.

3) "the sea water that percolated through the faults reacted with the oceanic rocks to form serpentinite – a mineral that contains water." So it did. And so it does. The water reacts with the rock. The resultant rock is not wet, and you must not get the idea that there are subterranean oceans, as claimed by some of the less scientific newspaper reports. The mantle undoubtedly contains the constituents of water, mostly in the form of ions, in huge quantities, and this article goes some way towards an attempt to quantify it.

4) “This supports the theory that there are large amounts of water stored deep in the Earth.” Yes it does. And that that water is circulated. But it does not support, or give any indication of, a global flood at any time.

Now I know what you're going to say. You're going to say that because I'm locked into denying the global flood, that somehow I have misunderstood this research, and that you think it says something quite different. You are completely wrong, but I think it fair to give you the opportunity to explain how I have misrepresented what these scientists have said, so please go ahead.

But anyway, abelcainsbrother, this research is very recent. Isn't there anything else?

Why couldn't it be a regional flood ? I mean that is supported by the different cultures of that time talking about a regional flood taking place , plus to the ancient people of those times that region was basically the whole world .
Makes sense doesn't it ?

bippy123 wrote:Why couldn't it be a regional flood ? I mean that is supported by the different cultures of that time talking about a regional flood taking place , plus to the ancient people of those times that region was basically the whole world .
Makes sense doesn't it ?

So the Bible isn't inspired by God? It is the work of man?

Stu wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Why couldn't it be a regional flood ? I mean that is supported by the different cultures of that time talking about a regional flood taking place , plus to the ancient people of those times that region was basically the whole world .
Makes sense doesn't it ?

So the Bible isn't inspired by God? It is the work of man?

The young earth/global flood INTERPRETATION, isn't equal to Scripture. It's an interpretation of scripture, by man.

Surely you're not so narrow-minded and dogmatic, that you can't understand the difference?
You seem intelligent. Why don't you understand that concept? It's not rocket surgery.

bippy123 wrote:Why couldn't it be a regional flood ? I mean that is supported by the different cultures of that time talking about a regional flood taking place , plus to the ancient people of those times that region was basically the whole world .
Makes sense doesn't it ?

Since all the cultures that exist are descendants of Noah it seems obvious that all the legends refer to the same flood and it was worldwide.

RickD wrote:

Stu wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Why couldn't it be a regional flood ? I mean that is supported by the different cultures of that time talking about a regional flood taking place , plus to the ancient people of those times that region was basically the whole world .
Makes sense doesn't it ?

So the Bible isn't inspired by God? It is the work of man?

The young earth/global flood INTERPRETATION, isn't equal to Scripture. It's an interpretation of scripture, by man.

Surely you're not so narrow-minded and dogmatic, that you can't understand the difference?
You seem intelligent. Why don't you understand that concept? It's not rocket surgery.

I was talking about what bippy said which equals that man wrote the Bible and not God. Did you see the bold part.

Perhaps we should wait to see what he meant and not interpret for him

theophilus wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Why couldn't it be a regional flood ? I mean that is supported by the different cultures of that time talking about a regional flood taking place , plus to the ancient people of those times that region was basically the whole world .
Makes sense doesn't it ?

Since all the cultures that exist are descendants of Noah it seems obvious that all the legends refer to the same flood and it was worldwide.

Bingo

Stu wrote:

RickD wrote:

Stu wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Why couldn't it be a regional flood ? I mean that is supported by the different cultures of that time talking about a regional flood taking place , plus to the ancient people of those times that region was basically the whole world .
Makes sense doesn't it ?

So the Bible isn't inspired by God? It is the work of man?

The young earth/global flood INTERPRETATION, isn't equal to Scripture. It's an interpretation of scripture, by man.

Surely you're not so narrow-minded and dogmatic, that you can't understand the difference?
You seem intelligent. Why don't you understand that concept? It's not rocket surgery.

I was talking about what bippy said which equals that man wrote the Bible and not God. Did you see the bold part.

Perhaps we should wait to see what he meant and not interpret for him

Stu here is what I meant .

Of course God wrote the bible inspired through man .
That regional flood was also an historical event so it would make sense that it would be recorded in other cultures . This makes what's written in the bible even more accurate historically . I don't see why this disproves that the bible is divinely inspired ?

bippy123 wrote:

Stu wrote:

RickD wrote:

Stu wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Why couldn't it be a regional flood ? I mean that is supported by the different cultures of that time talking about a regional flood taking place , plus to the ancient people of those times that region was basically the whole world .
Makes sense doesn't it ?

So the Bible isn't inspired by God? It is the work of man?

The young earth/global flood INTERPRETATION, isn't equal to Scripture. It's an interpretation of scripture, by man.

Surely you're not so narrow-minded and dogmatic, that you can't understand the difference?
You seem intelligent. Why don't you understand that concept? It's not rocket surgery.

I was talking about what bippy said which equals that man wrote the Bible and not God. Did you see the bold part.

Perhaps we should wait to see what he meant and not interpret for him

Stu here is what I meant .

Of course God wrote the bible inspired through man .
That regional flood was also an historical event so it would make sense that it would be recorded in other cultures . This makes what's written in the bible even more accurate historically . I don't see why this disproves that the bible is divinely inspired ?

The Bible says:

"4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth."

It says EVERY living substance, not a couple or some located in a region in this part of the earth, but EVERY. And these are Gods own words.

I checked several different versions of the Bible and all say EVERY. From this it is pretty clear that the flood was worldwide.