Evidence for God from Science

Hello everyone. I just stumbled upon a link to a website with some excerpts from a book called Introduction to Biblical Nonsense. I think I will start a little series on this forum where I post a link to the excerpts and see what responses I can give and receive from all you good posters here. I will start with the author's take on Noah's ark. He does have some very challenging points, so put on your think caps.
http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter6.html

101 anti-Noah flood beliefs is hard to tackle but I am a Christian who believes in Noah's flood and it being a global flood however I do not think we can back it up the way YEC's explain it.

So I will not use any AIG type evidence,instead I will use secular scientific discoveries that point to world wide dust,found in the ice sheets,the oceans and everywhere else scientists have looked and it amazingly dates to the time frame of Noah's flood about 4500- 5000 years ago.Now this dust that has been discovered was caused by a world wide drought and this would point to a drought after Noah's flood.This evidence does not prove a global flood though but is evidence for a drought after Noah's flood that produced this dust.

Now with this evidence discovered by secular scientists I think that with an earth covered about 70% of water with only 30% not covered,this already shows a global flood,just not completely and I do not understand how science can not conceive that there could have been a global flood.

If we look to NOAA then they say the average depth of the oceans is 14,000 feet but it goes down over 36,000 feet and this is deeper than the tallest mountains on land are tall so that if the earth's surface was once a lot more level before the flood and the water pushed some land down and some up then I do not understand how science can deny a global flood.

People can Google world wide dust and probably find the links and do the research themselves as I'm tired of posting links that give evidence,only to be rejected by anti-God people.

ConfusedMan wrote:Hello everyone. I just stumbled upon a link to a website with some excerpts from a book called Introduction to Biblical Nonsense. I think I will start a little series on this forum where I post a link to the excerpts and see what responses I can give and receive from all you good posters here. I will start with the author's take on Noah's ark. He does have some very challenging points, so put on your think caps.
http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter6.html

I didn't see any challenging points. It's all been addressed on this forum, or on the home site.

Do you have a specific point in the article that you have an issue with?

abelcainsbrother wrote:101 anti-Noah flood beliefs is hard to tackle but I am a Christian who believes in Noah's flood and it being a global flood however I do not think we can back it up the way YEC's explain it.

So I will not use any AIG type evidence,instead I will use secular scientific discoveries that point to world wide dust,found in the ice sheets,the oceans and everywhere else scientists have looked and it amazingly dates to the time frame of Noah's flood about 4500- 5000 years ago.Now this dust that has been discovered was caused by a world wide drought and this would point to a drought after Noah's flood.This evidence does not prove a global flood though but is evidence for a drought after Noah's flood that produced this dust.

Now with this evidence discovered by secular scientists I think that with an earth covered about 70% of water with only 30% not covered,this already shows a global flood,just not completely and I do not understand how science can not conceive that there could have been a global flood.

If we look to NOAA then they say the average depth of the oceans is 14,000 feet but it goes down over 36,000 feet and this is deeper than the tallest mountains on land are tall so that if the earth's surface was once a lot more level before the flood and the water pushed some land down and some up then I do not understand how science can deny a global flood.

People can Google world wide dust and probably find the links and do the research themselves as I'm tired of posting links that give evidence,only to be rejected by anti-God people.

I researched world wide dust, but I only found that the incident occurred in AD 536 or later. Are you talking about a different event? Because I couldn't find any other date for a world wide dust than Ad 536.
Also, you said something about how Noah's ark can't be explained by YEC's. I am an old-earth creationist myself, so could you expound upon that statement or perhaps just send me a link to whatever you were addressing? I would be very interested in hearing some alternative explanations for Noah's ark.

RickD wrote:

ConfusedMan wrote:Hello everyone. I just stumbled upon a link to a website with some excerpts from a book called Introduction to Biblical Nonsense. I think I will start a little series on this forum where I post a link to the excerpts and see what responses I can give and receive from all you good posters here. I will start with the author's take on Noah's ark. He does have some very challenging points, so put on your think caps.
http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter6.html

I didn't see any challenging points. It's all been addressed on this forum, or on the home site.

Do you have a specific point in the article that you have an issue with?

I was actually wondering mostly about the issue he brought up about the size of the boat and how supposedly it would be impossible to make a boat that size with just gopher wood and pitch since according to research he did someone tried to build an actual ark that size with reinforced metal and still couldn't do it somehow. Something seems a little fishy about that statement and I was wondering what your take on that was.

abelcainsbrother wrote:.Now this dust that has been discovered was caused by a world wide drought and this would point to a drought after Noah's flood.This evidence does not prove a global flood though but is evidence for a drought after Noah's flood that produced this dust.

.

The dust is from a severe climate change event that happened in the 5000-6000 BC time span. I suppose you realized that a climate change event does not indicate a flood (i.e "does not prove a global flood") and i'm not sure why it matters at all that this might be evidence of a drought after noah's flood, that's not proving anything.

Rather than starting with an unshakable preconceived conclusion and franticly scrambling for flimsy, vague evidence to support your position (like AIG), I suggest looking at evidence for each position (global flood did not happen v. it did happen) and drawing a logical conclusion based on which explanation of certain geological forms/phenomena has more support -and is more logical-. Personally, I'll take "climate change event" over the massive amounts of unfounded baggage that come with a world wide flood.

The OEC's have a much more rational explanation for noah's flood, one I personally prefer - as it's LOGICAL -. I suggest, if nothing else, doing more reading on their position. But again, dust in ice record normally indicates severe climate change event. I suppose if we deny -natural- climate change events can actually happen, noah's flood is the irrational rational conclusion.


Ohio state has a pretty interesting article if you're one for a scientific read: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/quelcoro.htm

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:.Now this dust that has been discovered was caused by a world wide drought and this would point to a drought after Noah's flood.This evidence does not prove a global flood though but is evidence for a drought after Noah's flood that produced this dust.

.

The dust is from a severe climate change event that happened in the 5000-6000 BC time span. I suppose you realized that a climate change event does not indicate a flood (i.e "does not prove a global flood") and i'm not sure why it matters at all that this might be evidence of a drought after noah's flood, that's not proving anything.

Rather than starting with an unshakable preconceived conclusion and franticly scrambling for flimsy, vague evidence to support your position (like AIG), I suggest looking at evidence for each position (global flood did not happen v. it did happen) and drawing a logical conclusion based on which explanation of certain geological forms/phenomena has more support -and is more logical-. Personally, I'll take "climate change event" over the massive amounts of unfounded baggage that come with a world wide flood.

The OEC's have a much more rational explanation for noah's flood, one I personally prefer - as it's LOGICAL -. I suggest, if nothing else, doing more reading on their position. But again, dust in ice record normally indicates severe climate change event. I suppose if we deny -natural- climate change events can actually happen, noah's flood is the irrational rational conclusion.


Ohio state has a pretty interesting article if you're one for a scientific read: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/quelcoro.htm

I know you're going to look at it from a non-biblical view but what would make you think a global flood would have no effect on the climate?There is more evidence I can get into that I did not bring up.I just presented a little evidence and I'm not a YEC and did not get this from AIG.You reject a global flood and will reject any evidence that might prove you wrong.

ConfusedMan wrote:

RickD wrote:

ConfusedMan wrote:Hello everyone. I just stumbled upon a link to a website with some excerpts from a book called Introduction to Biblical Nonsense. I think I will start a little series on this forum where I post a link to the excerpts and see what responses I can give and receive from all you good posters here. I will start with the author's take on Noah's ark. He does have some very challenging points, so put on your think caps.
http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter6.html

I didn't see any challenging points. It's all been addressed on this forum, or on the home site.

Do you have a specific point in the article that you have an issue with?

I was actually wondering mostly about the issue he brought up about the size of the boat and how supposedly it would be impossible to make a boat that size with just gopher wood and pitch since according to research he did someone tried to build an actual ark that size with reinforced metal and still couldn't do it somehow. Something seems a little fishy about that statement and I was wondering what your take on that was.

If I remember correctly, I had a brief discussion about this a little while back with Kenny. Here it is:http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... at#p169873


I guess it's a "he said, he said" kind of deal. One says the ark could float:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... 85/?no-ist

And, one says it can't float:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4OhXQTMOEc

You reject a global flood and will reject any evidence that might prove you wrong.

You've yet to present any evidence that would indicate the more logical conclusion being a global flood. So yes, I will reject bastardized 'secular' scientific study.

What you're doing is cherrypicking actual science and applying said cherrypicked verses to fit your conclusion. If you take the entirety of most of the study's you quote they're indicating either something completely irrelevant to a global flood or even indicating the opposite of support. There's also the quote's from childish YEC sites that basically do the same thing you're currently doing and deserve little credence either. When YEC can argue, predict, and create scientifically sound models against mainstream accepted science ( in this case geology) i'll gladly take them seriously and weigh wether the evidence they've provided is sufficient to discount current models. As of now, this has not happened. I've gotten a barrage of out of context, misleading, and manipulative data/information that leads me to believe the reason that they're so desperate is because there is no sound evidence for what they argue.

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:

You reject a global flood and will reject any evidence that might prove you wrong.

You've yet to present any evidence that would indicate the more logical conclusion being a global flood. So yes, I will reject bastardized 'secular' scientific study.

You don't think a global flood would effect the climate? And we have dust that proves it.Why does it seem you cannot connect the dots?If you can't get this why should I post more evidence?

How about this? It tells us the springs of the deep were opened up it did not just rain and the bible indicates in several places that water is inside the earth,and this evidence discovered could change the thought by scientists that comets brought the water to the earth,this is the prevailing thought right now,however this could change things and show that the water on the earth came from inside of it instead,or both.
http://www.geologypage.com/2014/08/scie ... z3WdC2Xxcq

"You don't think a global flood would effect the climate? "
I never said this. What I said is the more logical and rational explanation is climate change for obvious reasons.


"How about this? It tells us the springs of the deep were opened up it did not just rain and the bible indicates in several places that water is inside the earth,and this evidence discovered could change the thought by scientists that comets brought the water to the earth,this is the prevailing thought right now,however this could change things and show that the water on the earth came from inside of it instead,or both."

Perfect example of cherrypicking scientific data.
Following from known geographic data, 4.5 billion cubic kilometres of water would be needed to cover the earth. There's 1.2 in all the world oceans. I can tell you, with near certainty, that there is not 3 billion cubic kilometers of water in the earth.
So to justify your view on the flood, you'd have to completely rewrite current geographic model (to allow something like say 1.7 billion cubic kilometers to cover the earth). Even doing so (which is already beyond the scope of accepted science), you still have problems like "where did it go," a problem I think you addressed with outer space?

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:"You don't think a global flood would effect the climate? "
I never said this. What I said is the more logical and rational explanation is climate change for obvious reasons.


"How about this? It tells us the springs of the deep were opened up it did not just rain and the bible indicates in several places that water is inside the earth,and this evidence discovered could change the thought by scientists that comets brought the water to the earth,this is the prevailing thought right now,however this could change things and show that the water on the earth came from inside of it instead,or both."

Perfect example of cherrypicking scientific data.
Following from known geographic data, 4.5 billion cubic kilometres of water would be needed to cover the earth. There's 1.2 in all the world oceans. I can tell you, with near certainty, that there is not 3 billion cubic kilometers of water in the earth.
So to justify your view on the flood, you'd have to completely rewrite current geographic model (to allow something like say 1.7 billion cubic kilometers to cover the earth). Even doing so (which is already beyond the scope of accepted science), you still have problems like "where did it go," a problem I think you addressed with outer space?

What about the timing of the climate change? It dates to the time of Noah's flood if you believe it was 6-10,000 years ago when God restored the heavens and earth and made this world on the earth in Genesis 1:3-31? Is it close enough for you?Answer this before I get into more evidence.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:?

What about the timing of the climate change? Is it close enough for you?

No, specify your time period first, a 10,000-5,000 year period is being far to lenient.

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:?

What about the timing of the climate change? Is it close enough for you?

No, specify your time period first, a 10,000-5,000 year period is being far to lenient.

So its too far off? Seeing that we can't go back in time and actually find out.I think it is close enough considering man's timing and secular science.

I think you're too biased against God and you are more inclined to trust man's judgment.