Evidence for God from Science

ABC Special coming up on the History of the Bible includes some new findings from Robert Ballard (the man who found the Titanic.) He examines the evidence he is finding of a global flood.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/eviden ... d=17884533

Very cool.
Perhaps more evidence for a a devastating local flood of such magnitude that it would have made ancient man thing that the whole world was indeed being flooded.

Excuse me if I missed it because I only read the article twice. Where did it mention a "global" flood? I saw mention of many floods due to glaciers melting. And that's even one theory about noah's flood. But one flood that covered the entire globe at one time? Don't see it in the article.

It sounds interesting, but it also sounds kind of iffy to me personally. I don't doubt that this guy is good at what he does (underwater archaeology), but frankly I'm not so impressed with what the article says. The title seems to suggest that this is all about a global flood, but both the archaeologist and the people interviewed for the story say they don't necessarily believe in a global flood at all. At least from a biblical perspective, it doesn't sound like this would do anything either way for backing up a global flood.

All I see is that he thinks a catastrophic event/flood occurred in the Middle East a long time ago. Even if he does present legitimate evidence for such a thing, that says nothing about a global flood. That would be like saying a catastrophic event like the one at Pompeii is evidence for a massive, worldwide volcanic eruption. It also seems like far cry to equate his discovery of the Titanic with discovering evidence for a global flood...Finding definitive evidence for a global flood would be much different than just locating a physical object in the ocean.

The title of the thread seems misleading. From the article:

The water from the melting glaciers began to rush toward the world's oceans, Ballard said, causing floods all around the world.

Sounds like many floods in different areas, not one global flood.

It may be that the "global flood" that some talk about was "nothing" more than a series of local floods of great magnitude.
That almost every culture has some sort of "flood myth" would account for this.
Of course it didn't have to happen at the same time in all parts of the world but within a few generations or even less.

PaulS wrote:
Of course it didn't have to happen at the same time in all parts of the world but within a few generations or even less.

If it was a global flood, it would've had to happen at once, globally. Otherwise, it wouldn't be global, right?

RickD wrote:

PaulS wrote:
Of course it didn't have to happen at the same time in all parts of the world but within a few generations or even less.

If it was a global flood, it would've had to happen at once, globally. Otherwise, it wouldn't be global, right?

Maybe, but a series of floods with very little time frame between them, in different parts of the world, that can account for the commonality of the "flood myths" in different cultures and the time frame between them.
Yeah, I know, kind of grasping at straws as a "global flood", that would be more like Global floods but still, there is a possibility that, over the generations as the ice melted it was the driving force for those floods.

Bible believing Christians worried about evidence that might actually support a global flood. Interesting.

RickD wrote:If it was a global flood, it would've had to happen at once, globally. Otherwise, it wouldn't be global, right?

When we say something has a global impact, we are saying it effects the whole world.

jlay wrote:Bible believing Christians worried about evidence that might actually support a global flood. Interesting.

RickD wrote:If it was a global flood, it would've had to happen at once, globally. Otherwise, it wouldn't be global, right?

When we say something has a global impact, we are saying it effects the whole world.

Not sure we can use the definition that way for what was written THEN, know what I mean?
Almost any major event has an effect on the whole world, EL Nino for example, or any major volcanic eruption.

Jlay, if there is evidence for a global flood, it certainly isn't in that article. That's why I find the title of the thread misleading. Maybe Bart can tell us why he titled the thread the way he did, because the article didn't lead us to believe there was evidence for a global flood.

jlay wrote:
When we say something has a global impact, we are saying it effects the whole world.

That's certainly one way to look at the meaning of "global". But the meaning of global, in regards to a global flood, has been referring to the belief that it was a worldwide flood.

Jlay, are you actually saying that you may believe in a flood that affected the world, but didn't cover the entire globe?

***I edited my post for clarity***

I may be wrong, but isn't Robert Ballard a respected name when it comes to his work? I think whatever it is that he finds, will be interesting to say the least.

Ballard discovered the remains of the Titanic and I believe he has made several other important archaeological discoveries related to ancient civilizations. He's certainly respected within his field, though I personally don't know a ton about him.

Lemme go way out on a limb and make a prediction on what he finds. Many catastrophic floods, in various places around the world. Nothing that anyone probably doesn't know already. Maybe he'll find a lost city or something. That would be kinda cool.

Quick question, were there people on every land mass in the world at that time? Because if not, a global flood doesn't logically add up

I don't know the answer to this, quite confident someone here does however

SB