Proofs Against Noah's Flood?

[rako]

Noah's ark is a sinker. When a wooden boat is built to the scale of Noah's ark, it sinks. It is torn apart at the seams by the "torque" of water.

How do you know?

Exactly, I do not "know" 100%. I am not God.

I go on experts, their theories of physics, and the fact that we have not been able to replicate a successfully seafaring boat of that size because of torque.

I do not know 100% and so I can't disprove it.

 

[rako]

I'll take a crack at it:

1. If a global flood happened some 4,500 years ago, then we should expect to find one very large layer of sedimentary rock (much thicker than any other layer), and we should be able to find within it the remains of virtually every life form that has ever existed. We should find this layer everywhere around the planet, except in areas where erosion may have removed it.

2. Instead, what we find around the globe are many distinct layers of different types of rock (igneous metamorphic and sedimentary). Furthermore, each sedimentary layer corresponds to a different depositional environment, and the fossils contained within each layer are specific to that layer's corresponding environment.

For example, the Grand Canyon is composed of many different layers of different types of rock. One of those layers is the "Kaibab Limestone," which was laid down by an advancing warm, shallow sea. Shark teeth have been found in this formation as well as abundant fossils of marine invertebrates such as brachiopods, corals, mollusks, sea lilies, and worms. A separate layer is known as the "Hermit Formation," and it contains the fossilized remains of winged insects, cone-bearing plants, and ferns as well as tracks of vertebrate animals. So what we have are different formations of different composition. Each of these layers requires a different depositional environment, and each of these layers contain fossils that are specific to that layer's requisite depositional environment.

3. Therefore, it is impossible that all of these layers could have been deposited in a single event.

What if it were done miraculously?

You can't disprove it, just like you can't disprove that Santa Claus magically goes down chimneys.

You can disprove it by normal reasonableness standards. But you can't disprove it by the standards of Biblical inerrantists. Even if you transported them in time and showed them visually that there was no flood, this would not be 100% proof, only 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% proof.

 

[rako]

Sure, you could. It's called scientific investigation

Sure, you could. It's called scientific investigation. :up:

No, because people who believe the Bible cannot be wrong no matter what put too high a standard of proof.

I cannot disprove it 100% even by the scientific method, because doesn't allow for "miracles".

 

[Traditio]

It seems to me that you would simply have to accept that green elephants exist merely because I said so, that you think the onus is on you show that they don't exist even though it was something I asserted?

I never made this claim. You are acting as though there were only two modalities:

1. I believe that green elephants exist.
2. I believe that green elephants do not exist.

You are neglecting:

3. I do not have compelling evidence either way; I don't know whether green elephants exist.

Why on earth would I insist that you define which specific signs of green elephants you would accept in advance of presenting my evidence?
I would surely be expected to offer my evidence of green elephants so that we could put it to the test, since my claim would stand or fall by it.

If you are the one claiming that green elephants do or do not exist, then I'm going to expect you to indicate what evidence you have for the claim.

I didn't claim that Noah's flood did or did not happen. The claim was made that science shows that it positively did not happen. I want evidence for this claim.

You are running with a bad assumption: "Unless science confirms it, we should assume it false." The better "assumption" is: "Unless it is confirmed or rejected, we should refrain from making a judgment."

 

[Traditio]

Proved? No. Asking science for such a thing is to completely misunderstand the entire scientific method.

I'm willing to accept such "proofs" as might be presented in court. Again:

If she was shot at point blank range, she would probably have gunpowder burns/marks on her body.
She does not have such marks.
Therefore, she probably was not shot at point blank range.

However, data suggests that there has been no such global event, as it would leave very specific geological evidence behind.

Like what?

The lack of data to support it is good reason to doubt the reality of a global flood event of that magnitude. It is akin to asking for evidence that 10 meters of water did not crash through the entirety of Manhattan last week. The lack of evidence is reason enough to seriously doubt such a claim.

Not unless you can tell me what specific evidence you would be looking for in the first place, and further telling me a story about why that specific evidence would most likely have to be present.

And of course, the idea that all animals except a pair of each survived and then repopulated the earth is ridiculous from a genetics point of view, insufficient genetic variation which would lead to ridiculous inbreeding problems.

Explain?

 

[Traditio]

I'll take a crack at it:

1. If a global flood happened some 4,500 years ago, then we should expect to find one very large layer of sedimentary rock (much thicker than any other layer), and we should be able to find within it the remains of virtually every life form that has ever existed. We should find this layer everywhere around the planet, except in areas where erosion may have removed it.

1. What if it happened, but not exactly 4,500 years ago?

2. Why "every" life form? Why not just the ones existent at that time? Why, furthermore, should "every" such life form be present in every area (or are you even making this latter claim)?

3. Is it physically impossible that it have happened, but there be no such layer?

 

[Stripe]

I'll take a crack at it:

You'll parrot a video without understanding anything of a viable flood model.

1. If a global flood happened some 4,500 years ago, then we should expect to find one very large layer of sedimentary rock (much thicker than any other layer), and we should be able to find within it the remains of virtually every life form that has ever existed. We should find this layer everywhere around the planet, except in areas where erosion may have removed it.

We do.

You just happen to demand that the one layer be a big homogenous mass when obvious factors would dictate otherwise.

It is impossible that all of these layers could have been deposited in a single event.

The flood was a year long.

I go on experts, their theories of physics, and the fact that we have not been able to replicate a successfully seafaring boat of that size because of torque.

That's not very convincing.

No, because people who believe the Bible cannot be wrong no matter what put too high a standard of proof.

What?

I could be wrong, therefore you definitely are.

I cannot disprove it 100% even by the scientific method, because doesn't allow for "miracles".

Is English your second language?

 

[Traditio]

You just happen to demand that the one layer be a big homogenous mass when obvious factors would dictate otherwise.


The flood was a year long.

Would you explain the significance of these two bits of your posting at greater length?

 

[Stripe]

Would you explain the significance of these two bits of your posting at greater length?

Sure.

The flood tore up billions of tonnes of sediment, mixed it with water and cementing agents then blanketed the basement rocks with the slurry.

The water emerged from an evolving source that was of planetary fierceness at the rupture point down to being just run-of-the-mill catastrophic where the source stopped growing, while the flow diminished over time.

This dynamic nature of the source, coupled with effects like:

• topography
• coriolis
• gravity settling of the planet
• effects at different latitudes
• varying supply of the three necessary ingredients in the rock recipe — which uselessname doesn't even know
• interference from volcanic activity of every sort, including meteorite-like rockfall, and the biggest factor,
• liquefaction

meant that the one big layer we call flood deposits, ie, the sedimentary record, would be expressed as vastly different strata within the flood record as the year-long process from rupture to disembarkation; the decades-long process to lithification; and the millennia-long process to final judgement marked out sharp boundaries.

If you cannot imagine that this laundry list of effects is at least capable of producing not-the-same outcomes over time, it shows that either you're completely ignorant (user) or determined to reject the Biblical account (name).

 

[alwight]

I never made this claim. You are acting as though there were only two modalities:

1. I believe that green elephants exist.
2. I believe that green elephants do not exist.

You are neglecting:

3. I do not have compelling evidence either way; I don't know whether green elephants exist.

The most rational provisional conclusion must surely be that while elephants evidentially do exist, green ones should not be given any credence at all unless evidence is provided, and certainly not to give such randomly asserted un-evidenced extraordinary claims a similar status and value to those that are evidenced.

If you are the one claiming that green elephants do or do not exist, then I'm going to expect you to indicate what evidence you have for the claim.

Yes OK the concept of real evidence is actually quite simple. I would think that you'd want to see one, not discuss what kind of evidence you would accept beforehand.

I didn't claim that Noah's flood did or did not happen. The claim was made that science shows that it positively did not happen. I want evidence for this claim.

I don't know that anyone made such a claim and even if they did then I doubt that science would even attempt to do any such thing. My own feeling is that because a global flood is not evidenced in geology then a reasonable person would conclude that the chances of there being a global flood anyway was so vanishingly small that it amounts to conclusive, if informal, negative proof.

You are running with a bad assumption: "Unless science confirms it, we should assume it false." The better "assumption" is: "Unless it is confirmed or rejected, we should refrain from making a judgment."

As above, those who disagree with my conclusion will have to provide evidence to the contrary, not expect an equal status to that which is well evidenced. It's not about getting scientific approval, why accept anything that has no evidence?

 

[User Name]

You just happen to demand that the one layer be a big homogenous mass when obvious factors would dictate otherwise.

The flood was a year long.

Which specific stratum were laid down by Noah's Flood?

 

[User Name]

1. What if it happened, but not exactly 4,500 years ago?

Pick a time for the Deluge; any time. We are still left with the same questions.

2. Why "every" life form? Why not just the ones existent at that time? Why, furthermore, should "every" such life form be present in every area (or are you even making this latter claim)?

Not every life form, but certainly a wide variety. There are an estimated 10 million species existing on earth at the present time, and it is also estimated that 99% of all species that have ever existed on earth are now extinct. That's a lot of species. So if a turbulent global flood occurred, we should be able to find one rather massive layer of flood deposits containing the remains of a wide variety of different species. Where is it?

3. Is it physically impossible that it have happened, but there be no such layer?

Yes, it is certainly physically impossible that a global flood could have occurred without leaving substantial evidence in the geological column.

 

[ok doser]

Yes, it is certainly physically impossible that a global flood could have occurred without leaving substantial evidence in the geological column.

the geological column? :freak:

which "geological column" would that be?

 

[User Name]

which "geological column" would that be?

This one? :freak:

The Geological Column

 

[ok doser]

This one? :freak:

The Geological Column

looks like a buncha layers to me :idunno:


these are columns:

 

[Stripe]

Which specific stratum were laid down by Noah's Flood?

Reading: You should try it. :up: