Scientific Evidence of a Global Flood

...

[Gen 1:7 ESV] 7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse."
It confirms the presence of water "accumulating in the atmosphere" and that this water accumulation or water canopy (as we call it) was the source of the Biblical Great Flood that forever changed the face of the earth. And it's this same water that is now locked in the form of glaciers, ice caps. It's the same water that is now found in underground rivers, underground seas, trenches, abysses, geysers etc.

www.dailymail.co.uk...
www.uweb.ucsb.edu...

I can cite more but I'm running out of text space.

Maybe it's best that I create a thread dealing with why the Global Flood is a fact from Biblical and Geological standpoint. This way the OP won't get upset at me.

ciao.

originally posted by: edmc^2
...

[Gen 1:7 ESV] 7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse."
It confirms the presence of water "accumulating in the atmosphere" and that this water accumulation or water canopy (as we call it) was the source of the Biblical Great Flood that forever changed the face of the earth. And it's this same water that is now locked in the form of glaciers, ice caps. It's the same water that is now found in underground rivers, underground seas, trenches, abysses, geysers etc.

www.dailymail.co.uk...
www.uweb.ucsb.edu...

I can cite more but I'm running out of text space.

Maybe it's best that I create a thread dealing with why the Global Flood is a fact from Biblical and Geological standpoint. This way the OP won't get upset with me.

ciao.

or you could just concede the fact that all of your evidence does NOT in fact indicate a global flood. as pointed out numerous times in this thread. if you are going to use science, use it properly or you will be schooled.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2
...

[Gen 1:7 ESV] 7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse."
It confirms the presence of water "accumulating in the atmosphere" and that this water accumulation or water canopy (as we call it) was the source of the Biblical Great Flood that forever changed the face of the earth. And it's this same water that is now locked in the form of glaciers, ice caps. It's the same water that is now found in underground rivers, underground seas, trenches, abysses, geysers etc.

www.dailymail.co.uk...
www.uweb.ucsb.edu...

I can cite more but I'm running out of text space.

Maybe it's best that I create a thread dealing with why the Global Flood is a fact from Biblical and Geological standpoint. This way the OP won't get upset with me.

ciao.

or you could just concede the fact that all of your evidence does NOT in fact indicate a global flood. as pointed out numerous times in this thread. if you are going to use science, use it properly or you will be schooled.

Hah!

By all means school me then? If you can.

But just to test you out, can you point to me if my statement below is not scientifically accurate?

For example:

Anyway, right off the bat I do agree with what you said. That the

"Earth is not smooth or even ellipsoidal, and the Earth is not made of uniform rock throughout. The crust, and thus the gravity, differs based on location."

.
Yes, no disagreement there since it's an established fact. But it does not mean that a Global Flood is only a hypothetical event. No, in fact just by going back in time, by lowering the mountain tops and raising the sea floors, we can readily see how its impact on the water levels throughout the world! It will drastically rise and there will be a lot less land to inhabit. Agree or not you know that I'm correct!

Mind you, this is only changing the surface (elevation) of the earth, the effect is already obvious.
But if we add to it the water volumes found in glaciers, ice caps, all underground water deposits, is there anymore doubt of further increasing the water level earthwide? What do you think?

Of course it will! Thousands feet over!

To quote again what is stated in the New Encyclopaedia Britanica, it said that:

“The average depth of all the seas has been estimated at 3,790 metres (12,430 feet), a figure considerably larger than that of the average elevation of the land above the sea level, which is 840 metres (2,760 feet). If the average depth is multiplied by its respective surface area, the volume of the World Ocean is 11 times the volume of the land above sea level.”

(NEB 1987, Vol. 25, p. 124)

...

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2
...

[Gen 1:7 ESV] 7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse."
It confirms the presence of water "accumulating in the atmosphere" and that this water accumulation or water canopy (as we call it) was the source of the Biblical Great Flood that forever changed the face of the earth. And it's this same water that is now locked in the form of glaciers, ice caps. It's the same water that is now found in underground rivers, underground seas, trenches, abysses, geysers etc.

www.dailymail.co.uk...
www.uweb.ucsb.edu...

I can cite more but I'm running out of text space.

Maybe it's best that I create a thread dealing with why the Global Flood is a fact from Biblical and Geological standpoint. This way the OP won't get upset with me.

ciao.

or you could just concede the fact that all of your evidence does NOT in fact indicate a global flood. as pointed out numerous times in this thread. if you are going to use science, use it properly or you will be schooled.

Hah!

By all means school me then? If you can.

But just to test you out, can you point to me if my statement below is not scientifically accurate?

For example:

Anyway, right off the bat I do agree with what you said. That the

"Earth is not smooth or even ellipsoidal, and the Earth is not made of uniform rock throughout. The crust, and thus the gravity, differs based on location."

.
Yes, no disagreement there since it's an established fact. But it does not mean that a Global Flood is only a hypothetical event. No, in fact just by going back in time, by lowering the mountain tops and raising the sea floors, we can readily see how its impact on the water levels throughout the world! It will drastically rise and there will be a lot less land to inhabit. Agree or not you know that I'm correct!

Mind you, this is only changing the surface (elevation) of the earth, the effect is already obvious.
But if we add to it the water volumes found in glaciers, ice caps, all underground water deposits, is there anymore doubt of further increasing the water level earthwide? What do you think?

Of course it will! Thousands feet over!

To quote again what is stated in the New Encyclopaedia Britanica, it said that:

“The average depth of all the seas has been estimated at 3,790 metres (12,430 feet), a figure considerably larger than that of the average elevation of the land above the sea level, which is 840 metres (2,760 feet). If the average depth is multiplied by its respective surface area, the volume of the World Ocean is 11 times the volume of the land above sea level.”

(NEB 1987, Vol. 25, p. 124)

...

even if a global flood were technically possible, do we see evidence of it having actually happened? no, we dont. a global flood has NEVER been proven to have happened in actual history. and if you DO prove it, i suggest you take it public. nothing like public endorsement by a committee of modern science to show that you know what youre doing. instead of dropping it on a conspiracy forum where you can say the moon is made of cheese and your ratings will go up.

originally posted by: edmc^2
...

[Gen 1:7 ESV] 7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse."
It confirms the presence of water "accumulating in the atmosphere" and that this water accumulation or water canopy (as we call it) was the source of the Biblical Great Flood that forever changed the face of the earth. And it's this same water that is now locked in the form of glaciers, ice caps. It's the same water that is now found in underground rivers, underground seas, trenches, abysses, geysers etc.

www.dailymail.co.uk...
www.uweb.ucsb.edu...

I can cite more but I'm running out of text space.

Maybe it's best that I create a thread dealing with why the Global Flood is a fact from Biblical and Geological standpoint. This way the OP won't get upset at me.

ciao.

Noah's Flood is alleged to have covered the mountains of the earth to a depth of 15 cubits (about 8m). To have covered Mt. Everest it would have required a depth of water of about 9km above sea level. If the flood was only required to cover the mountains in Urartu (Ararat), where Noah's boat is said to have settled, about 5km of water would be needed.

The "vapor canopy hypothesis" states that before the flood, the water existed in the atmosphere as water vapor. The flood occurred when this vapor condensed and fell as rain, flooding the earth. The flood subsided later, various explanations being given for where all that water went.

First, let us look at atmospheric pressure. For the earth's atmosphere, the pressure is almost exactly hydrostatic, since it is held to the earth by gravity and velocities are too low to significantly change the pressure. In plain language this means that the air pressure at any point is equal to the weight of the air in a unit area column above that point. At sea level, air pressure in US engineering units is about 14.5 pounds/sq inch because a column of air one inch square extending to the top of the atmosphere weighs (Guess what!?) 14.5 pounds. On top of Mt. Everest, the pressure is lower because the lowest and densest 9km of the atmosphere is below that point.

Now the "vapor canopy" would form a part of the atmosphere, being a body of gas (water vapor) gravitationally held to the earth. It would in fact be most of the pre-flood atmosphere. There would have to be enough vapor to form 9km of liquid, when condensed, and, therefore the vapor would weigh as much as 9km of water. The pressure at the earth's surface, where Noah and family lived, would be equal to one atmosphere PLUS the weight of a 9km column of water of unit area. This is equivalent to the pressure 9km deep in the ocean. What is this pressure? Well, each 10m of water is roughly equivalent to one atmosphere, so the pressure would be 900 atmospheres. The atmosphere would also have a composition of about 900 parts water vapor to one part of what we call air today.

How could an atmosphere almost 100% water vapor not condense? The temperature would have to be raised to the point where the partial pressure of water equals 900 atmospheres, i.e. the boiling point at that pressure. So we find Noah et al. living in a 13,000psi boiler. Is this credible? Not even remotely so.

a reply to: edmc^2

Howdy,

Thank you for responding, I apologize for my anxiousness in the matter. I'll be returning to my university tomorrow, so I hoped I could respond before my schedule gets more hectic.

You are perhaps correct that if the Earth were currently flat then the water would likely cover the Earth's continents. But that is not the case currently, we have no geological evidence to suggest that such a global flood happened recently, and as far as I can tell, there has been no such evidence of any global flood... in recorded geologic time. You cannot change the parameters of a system and create a "strawman Earth" where conditions would allow for your hypothesis without calling it a hypothetical situation. Let me give you some general information as to why you did create a strawman Earth.

Let's start with the Hadean Earth. This is the earliest time in Earth's history, where the planet is literally comprised of molten rock. It is during the Hadean that an impact causes the ejection of the material from Earth that forms the moon. The rocks on the moon have the same hydrogen isotope ratios as Earth, suggesting that the water on Earth has been on Earth since the formation of the Moon (very shortly after the Earth formed).
www.sciencedaily.com...

Aside from that, the high temperatures of the Earth would have meant that there would be no liquid water, so no flood there.

Let's move to the Archean, shall we? The Earth is cooler, with evidence of early life via geochemistry, and water existed in the liquid state. That said... Contrary to what Peter said earlier (he was correct that the tectonic regime would not be what we would consider the normal, modern regime) plate tectonics were active in the Archean, but the motions of the plates were much quicker, likely with less subduction. Archean plate tectonics are often called "bumper car tectonics" for that reason. As a result, Archean geology is quite... interesting.
en.wikipedia.org...

Do note, land was being created at a fast rate, but also being eroded and deposited as pelites and sandstones. Of particular importance, do note that the geology section above mentions how most early (young) land is created... Volcanic island arcs. Volcanic islands grow upwards, and are not flat structures in geology. You could argue that increased erosional rates flattened the new islands, but the volcanism of the time was also much greater than now. Of the MOST importance to note, look at greenstone belts.
en.wikipedia.org...

Greenstone belts have changed over time, recording the changes in plate tectonics over time. Archean greenstone belts are the points of collision and suturing between island arcs that have crashed together (such as to create what is known as a terrane). Collision of material during plate tectonics results in either subduction (unlikely, as these island arcs will be roughly the same density) or crustal thickening, which leads to volcanism and stacking, creating mountains in an event known as an orogeny... See, orogenies happened in the Archean.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

As the Earth cooled, more modern plate tectonic regimes became apparent, and in general, more land and larger continents with mountain ranges have been the norm since the Archean.
serc.carleton.edu...

Much of what you say is hypothetical, though. I don't know what would happen if lots and lots of water would suddenly and instantaneously be dropped on a landmass (more than just rain...). What I can tell you is that we know how trenches and plate tectonics have formed and do form.
en.wikipedia.org...

See, subduction of crust is observable through seismic studies. In fact, it's what drives modern plate tectonics. Mid ocean ridge basalt (MORB) is the record of a rift in the Earth's crust under an ocean, a boundary between two plates pulling apart from each other, with changes in the direction of magnetically susceptible minerals indicating the change in Earth's polarity. There is evidence of this kind of activity for at least ~270 million years, despite the usual problem of oceanic basalt being subducted. "Rare" geological occurrences actually thrust fault subducted slabs upwards... The result is an ophiolite section.
earthquake.usgs.gov...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

See, that's all fact supported evidence against a flat Earth that would allow for a hypothetical flood based purely on geologic "flattening." Even if it weren't, a large flood would weather and erode a substantial amount of rock, creating a substantial amount of sediment, and that would create a thick layer of flood deposit in the geologic record. If the flood were global, there should be such a global deposit, perhaps with minor unconformities (but if it happened only a few thousand years ago, it should be pretty evident). We do not see that. If you want to argue that the soil we see around us it that deposit, sorry, no. Soil scientists classify and understand the different soils of the world, and not all soil is universally the same. A paleosol is obviously different from an ultisol, and the conditions that form each are not consistent with global flooding.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

As for the origin of the water, the isotopic ratios of hydrogen are the evidence. The fact that moon has the same ratios is further evidence. You have failed to give ANY evidence of the water’s origins. I have given two pieces…

I have always been fascinated by nature. Please do not assume I don’t know how awesome the forces of a lahar flow, tsunami, lava flow, or earthquake are.

Now, I do take offense to your assertion that water is necessary for lithification and metamorphosis. Certainly, I agree that they often involve fluids, as fluids are a major constituent in the Earth’s crust and sedimentary rocks, but to claim they are necessary…

Let’s start with lithification… Lithification is actually a process that requires the removal of fluids that were trapped in deposited sediment, usually because water is the most common means of erosional deposition, but it is not the only means, and thus water is not actually… necessary.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Now for metamorphism… You are indeed correct; a lot of metamorphism is dependent on fluid. This is because many chemical reactions that will change the mineral reactants require water, but another common fluid (and one important for many limestone/dolostone metamorphic minerals) is CO2. In such cases, CO2 content is actually much more important than water content… Funny thing, though, as the water for metamorphic reactions usually comes from the dewatering of sedimentary rocks below being dewatered. Sometimes, burial metamorphism (from sheer accumulation of sediment in an accretionary prism/delta) is seen. This will take me to my next point.
gsabulletin.gsapubs.org...

... to be continued below...

a reply to: hydeman11

Not all metamorphism is created equally. See, burial metamorphism is a lower heat, low pressure type of metamorphic process. This would differ with the tectonic higher heat, higher pressure metamorphic regime. (There are a lot of metamorphic regimes, I am generalizing). Basically, some minerals act as a “geobarometer,” recording maximum (or close to) pressure and conditions, while other minerals act as “geothermometers” showing the highest possible temperature… Petrologists understand the processes that created those mineral assemblages, and they can differentiate between them. I touched on this earlier, but briefly. Now, when the geobarometers and the geothermometers indicate that the metamorphism of Mt. Everest occurred in two different events rather recently and yet the rocks contain very old fossils and no younger fossils (as determined by faunal succession in rock sequences), then the conclusion drawn should obviously be that the rocks were not carried to the mountain tops by flood, but were there when deposited into an basin. (Look back at my previous sources… For some common indicator minerals look below…)
d32ogoqmya1dw8.cloudfront.net...
en.wikipedia.org...

Now, to conclude, you can cherry pick the pieces of the bible that fit with modern human understanding of nature all you like, but the fact remains that the bible does not and cannot always fit. There is no evidence of a global flood layer, soil or rock… I’ve looked, I’ve tried to fit the world into such confined structures, but I have failed. In showing you this general summation of my knowledge of paleontology to structural geology to petrology and petrography, I hope you can understand why I cannot fit the Noachian flood into my understanding and interpretation of reality. My interpretation has facts and evidence, yours only has faith and cherry picked hypothetical situations that might explain some of the facts, but cannot explain all of them without the employing of a deceptive deity who hides evidence as a test of faith. That is the only out.

Sincerest regards,
Hydeman

P.S. Sorry for the large wall of text... A lot needed to be said.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2
...

[Gen 1:7 ESV] 7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse."
It confirms the presence of water "accumulating in the atmosphere" and that this water accumulation or water canopy (as we call it) was the source of the Biblical Great Flood that forever changed the face of the earth. And it's this same water that is now locked in the form of glaciers, ice caps. It's the same water that is now found in underground rivers, underground seas, trenches, abysses, geysers etc.

www.dailymail.co.uk...
www.uweb.ucsb.edu...

I can cite more but I'm running out of text space.

Maybe it's best that I create a thread dealing with why the Global Flood is a fact from Biblical and Geological standpoint. This way the OP won't get upset with me.

ciao.

or you could just concede the fact that all of your evidence does NOT in fact indicate a global flood. as pointed out numerous times in this thread. if you are going to use science, use it properly or you will be schooled.

Hah!

By all means school me then? If you can.

But just to test you out, can you point to me if my statement below is not scientifically accurate?

For example:

Anyway, right off the bat I do agree with what you said. That the

"Earth is not smooth or even ellipsoidal, and the Earth is not made of uniform rock throughout. The crust, and thus the gravity, differs based on location."

.
Yes, no disagreement there since it's an established fact. But it does not mean that a Global Flood is only a hypothetical event. No, in fact just by going back in time, by lowering the mountain tops and raising the sea floors, we can readily see how its impact on the water levels throughout the world! It will drastically rise and there will be a lot less land to inhabit. Agree or not you know that I'm correct!

Mind you, this is only changing the surface (elevation) of the earth, the effect is already obvious.
But if we add to it the water volumes found in glaciers, ice caps, all underground water deposits, is there anymore doubt of further increasing the water level earthwide? What do you think?

Of course it will! Thousands feet over!

To quote again what is stated in the New Encyclopaedia Britanica, it said that:

“The average depth of all the seas has been estimated at 3,790 metres (12,430 feet), a figure considerably larger than that of the average elevation of the land above the sea level, which is 840 metres (2,760 feet). If the average depth is multiplied by its respective surface area, the volume of the World Ocean is 11 times the volume of the land above sea level.”

(NEB 1987, Vol. 25, p. 124)

...

even if a global flood were technically possible, do we see evidence of it having actually happened? no, we dont. a global flood has NEVER been proven to have happened in actual history. and if you DO prove it, i suggest you take it public. nothing like public endorsement by a committee of modern science to show that you know what youre doing. instead of dropping it on a conspiracy forum where you can say the moon is made of cheese and your ratings will go up.

Hah!

So in you're book, a billion year old event like the theory that "The Moon is thought to have formed from a disc of debris left when a giant object hit Earth 4.5 billion years ago, very early in Earth's history" is more believable than a recorded 4000 year old event, correct?

That somehow this moon event is factual but not a Global Flood of 4000+ years ago.

Is that how it works because some scientist said it so?

Oh now I see.

a reply to: edmc^2

Howdy,

I can't speak for the Tzar, but that's certainly the case for me. The rock that comprises the moon has the same hydrogen ratios as the Earth. This suggests a common water source, as not all water sources have the same isotopic signature. (I do hope you don't mind my intrusion here. Just saw something relevant. )

Whatsmore, the Great impact hypothesis (which is by far the most accepted theory) explains the low density of the moon (the lack of great deals of metals in the core), the lack of volatiles in the lunar rocks (although recent studies show less depletion than some models predicted, this is still somewhat true), but there is a much stronger "piece" of evidence at play...
en.wikipedia.org...

See, more than just hydrogen isotopic similarity, the moon shares oxygen isotope similarity and titanium isotopic similarity...
www.sciencemag.org...
adsabs.harvard.edu...

If you could show evidence, such as seen in the articles I have provided, for this global flood layer, then it would cease to by a hypothetical scenario. But until you do, the evidence supports the great impact forming the moon and does not support a global flood.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

originally posted by: edmc^2
Yes, no disagreement there since it's an established fact. But it does not mean that a Global Flood is only a hypothetical event. No, in fact just by going back in time, by lowering the mountain tops and raising the sea floors, we can readily see how its impact on the water levels throughout the world! It will drastically rise and there will be a lot less land to inhabit. Agree or not you know that I'm correct!

Irrelevant. The mountain tops weren't pushed down and the sea floors weren't higher 4000 years ago. Your point has no merit and doesn't support your pre determined conclusion.

FACT: If today weren't Wednesday, it COULD be Friday! Therefor tomorrow being Friday is a viable theory!

I hope you realize this is the type of logic you are using.

originally posted by: edmc^2
Hah!

So in you're book, a billion year old event like the theory that "The Moon is thought to have formed from a disc of debris left when a giant object hit Earth 4.5 billion years ago, very early in Earth's history" is more believable than a recorded 4000 year old event, correct?

That somehow this moon event is factual but not a Global Flood of 4000+ years ago.

Is that how it works because some scientist said it so?

Oh now I see.

The difference between the moon formation theory and your hypothesis is that there is evidence of the moon formation theory as hydeman11 has pointed out above. As for your hypothesis, there is no evidence of such a thing occurring. It has been pointed out to you by several different posters, including me, that there is ZERO evidence of a global flood in the geologic record. Again, such an event would easily be identifiable in the geologic record. We can easily identify the point when that comet/asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs (K/T barrier) because there is a marker everywhere in the world indicating that this major event happened in the planet's past. The K/T extinction event happened 66 million years ago. So it reasons that a global flood that covered the earth in water would show markers as well. Clearly as the article in the OP pointed out, we can find evidence of local floods in the geologic record, but nothing exists for one global flood. It's all fantasy.

a reply to: edmc^2

Hah!

So in you're book, a billion year old event like the theory that "The Moon is thought to have formed from a disc of debris left when a giant object hit Earth 4.5 billion years ago, very early in Earth's history" is more believable than a recorded 4000 year old event, correct?

there has never been a global flood in recorded history, so your attempts to make the Flood sound credible are hogwash. and there is much more substantial evidence for the current scientific theories regarding the moon than there has ever been for a global flood.

That somehow this moon event is factual but not a Global Flood of 4000+ years ago.

Is that how it works because some scientist said it so?

Oh now I see.

as opposed to anonymously posting ridiculous theories on a conspiracy forum. oh now i see.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2
...

[Gen 1:7 ESV] 7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse."
It confirms the presence of water "accumulating in the atmosphere" and that this water accumulation or water canopy (as we call it) was the source of the Biblical Great Flood that forever changed the face of the earth. And it's this same water that is now locked in the form of glaciers, ice caps. It's the same water that is now found in underground rivers, underground seas, trenches, abysses, geysers etc.

www.dailymail.co.uk...
www.uweb.ucsb.edu...

I can cite more but I'm running out of text space.

Maybe it's best that I create a thread dealing with why the Global Flood is a fact from Biblical and Geological standpoint. This way the OP won't get upset with me.

ciao.

or you could just concede the fact that all of your evidence does NOT in fact indicate a global flood. as pointed out numerous times in this thread. if you are going to use science, use it properly or you will be schooled.

Hah!

By all means school me then? If you can.

But just to test you out, can you point to me if my statement below is not scientifically accurate?

For example:

Anyway, right off the bat I do agree with what you said. That the

"Earth is not smooth or even ellipsoidal, and the Earth is not made of uniform rock throughout. The crust, and thus the gravity, differs based on location."

.
Yes, no disagreement there since it's an established fact. But it does not mean that a Global Flood is only a hypothetical event. No, in fact just by going back in time, by lowering the mountain tops and raising the sea floors, we can readily see how its impact on the water levels throughout the world! It will drastically rise and there will be a lot less land to inhabit. Agree or not you know that I'm correct!

Mind you, this is only changing the surface (elevation) of the earth, the effect is already obvious.
But if we add to it the water volumes found in glaciers, ice caps, all underground water deposits, is there anymore doubt of further increasing the water level earthwide? What do you think?

Of course it will! Thousands feet over!

To quote again what is stated in the New Encyclopaedia Britanica, it said that:

“The average depth of all the seas has been estimated at 3,790 metres (12,430 feet), a figure considerably larger than that of the average elevation of the land above the sea level, which is 840 metres (2,760 feet). If the average depth is multiplied by its respective surface area, the volume of the World Ocean is 11 times the volume of the land above sea level.”

(NEB 1987, Vol. 25, p. 124)

...

even if a global flood were technically possible, do we see evidence of it having actually happened? no, we dont. a global flood has NEVER been proven to have happened in actual history. and if you DO prove it, i suggest you take it public. nothing like public endorsement by a committee of modern science to show that you know what youre doing. instead of dropping it on a conspiracy forum where you can say the moon is made of cheese and your ratings will go up.

Hah!

So in you're book, a billion year old event like the theory that "The Moon is thought to have formed from a disc of debris left when a giant object hit Earth 4.5 billion years ago, very early in Earth's history" is more believable than a recorded 4000 year old event, correct?

That somehow this moon event is factual but not a Global Flood of 4000+ years ago.

Is that how it works because some scientist said it so?

Oh now I see.

There is more evidence for that than for god!

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: edmc^2

Hah!

So in you're book, a billion year old event like the theory that "The Moon is thought to have formed from a disc of debris left when a giant object hit Earth 4.5 billion years ago, very early in Earth's history" is more believable than a recorded 4000 year old event, correct?

there has never been a global flood in recorded history, so your attempts to make the Flood sound credible are hogwash. and there is much more substantial evidence for the current scientific theories regarding the moon than there has ever been for a global flood.

That somehow this moon event is factual but not a Global Flood of 4000+ years ago.

Is that how it works because some scientist said it so?

Oh now I see.

as opposed to anonymously posting ridiculous theories on a conspiracy forum. oh now i see.

Speaking of anonymous, TzarChasm, do you have anything against ATS?

What's with the bad vibe about posting here?

And why are you here if not to Deny Ignorance? I guess it doesn't apply to you!

But do you know that there are many members here who are pretty SMART! Now I wonder why they are here? What are they doing here "posting ridiculous theories on a conspiracy forum"?

So again, why the animosity towards posters of different belief / opinion / theories than yours?

Like they say, if you can't stand the heat - get out of the way!

Debate the message not the messenger. Explain why such message is ridiculous. Back it up with data, otherwise you present yourself as an empty ... - no substance.

As for the Moon...

"The Moon is thought to have formed from a disc of debris left when a giant object hit Earth 4.5 billion years ago, very early in Earth's history"

Did you get it? It's a thought, a theory at best, full of assumptions and guesses!

Whereas the Great Flood is quite evident. Problem is people interpret the data the wrong way in order to:

1. Deny it ever happened.
2. Portray it as a myth.
3. Support evolution theory.
4. Ridicule the messenger.
5. Deny the Scriptures.

originally posted by: edmc^2


Whereas the Great Flood is quite evident. Problem is people interpret the data the wrong way in order to:

1. Deny it ever happened.
2. Portray it as a myth.
3. Support evolution theory.
4. Ridicule the messenger.
5. Deny the Scriptures.

Then why do you continue to pretend that valid data does not exist that proves the biblical flood absolutely impossible and refuse to respond to that information ?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: edmc^2

Howdy,

I think you should read this quote, as it stands on quite logical grounds...
"...explain why such message is ridiculous. Back it up with data, otherwise you present yourself as an empty ... - no substance."

You've presented a hypothetical situation for which we have no evidence, although I will admit, the logic is not flawed. If the Earth's continents were flattened, we would surely be under water. But there is no evidence to support the flattening of the Earth's crust since it's initial accretion and Cambrian times, at latest. There is no evidence to support a flood layer spanning the Earth's continents. There is evidence in isotopic ratios for the moon being Earthly ejecta from a collision with a planetoid like body...

Now, you're arguing that scientists (academic and private sector...) are in on a global conspiracy... Geological understanding is necessary for the location and extraction of oil, coal, minerals, resources that make people lots of money. IF these private sector people could not reliably use geological teachings (theories) to make money, they would lose their jobs...

Also, I don't mean to attack you, but you are repeating yourself with your last points... Points 1 and 5 are pretty much the same thing. Also, geology has nothing to do with evolution...

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

a reply to: edmc^2

Speaking of anonymous, TzarChasm, do you have anything against ATS?

What's with the bad vibe about posting here?

And why are you here if not to Deny Ignorance? I guess it doesn't apply to you!

But do you know that there are many members here who are pretty SMART! Now I wonder why they are here? What are they doing here "posting ridiculous theories on a conspiracy forum"?

So again, why the animosity towards posters of different belief / opinion / theories than yours?

Like they say, if you can't stand the heat - get out of the way!

i was referring to the fact that ats is not gospel, and as such, its contents must be taken with a large fistful of salt. why are you talking about me anyway? attacking the messenger indeed. i am not the topic here.

Debate the message not the messenger. Explain why such message is ridiculous. Back it up with data, otherwise you present yourself as an empty ... - no substance.

i dont need to explain anything. this whole thread is one giant explanation. why would i present to you any data when dozens of other members have done just that and failed to move you. you simply refuse to take "thats incorrect, and this is why" for an answer.

Did you get it? It's a thought, a theory at best, full of assumptions and guesses!

Whereas the Great Flood is quite evident.

this is the part where you stonewall the entirety of the forum to maintain your theory.

1. Deny it ever happened.
2. Portray it as a myth.
3. Support evolution theory.
4. Ridicule the messenger.
5. Deny the Scriptures.

sounds like you've spent this whole thread consistently ignoring every post that didnt explicitly agree with you.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2
Yes, no disagreement there since it's an established fact. But it does not mean that a Global Flood is only a hypothetical event. No, in fact just by going back in time, by lowering the mountain tops and raising the sea floors, we can readily see how its impact on the water levels throughout the world! It will drastically rise and there will be a lot less land to inhabit. Agree or not you know that I'm correct!

Irrelevant. The mountain tops weren't pushed down and the sea floors weren't higher 4000 years ago. Your point has no merit and doesn't support your pre determined conclusion.

FACT: If today weren't Wednesday, it COULD be Friday! Therefor tomorrow being Friday is a viable theory!

I hope you realize this is the type of logic you are using.

I need to correct you Barcs, you misstated what I said.

It's NOT...

The mountain tops weren't pushed down and the sea floors weren't higher 4000 years ago

But the mountains were at a lower elevation and the sea floors were shallower.

In other words, due to tectonic plate movements the mountains are pushed up from a lower elevation. While sea floors are depressed by the weight of water that is above the crust - the thinir the crust the deeper the depth.

www.earthfacts.com...

In any case, you seem to believe that it takes millions even billions of years for a land mass to rise. As if the forces of nature is not capable of doing such feat in a much shorter period of time.

If that's what you believe/know then you're quite mistaken because we have evidences of land masses rising up above sea level in a very short period of time.

Case in point:

Here's a recent report about an island that rose

People use boats as they visit an island that rose from the sea following an earthquake, off Pakistan's Gwadar coastline in the Arabian Sea"

news.yahoo.com...

Now just imagine the forces involved in moving the plates to be able to raised mountains.

What made the plates to move so violently that it can cause powerful earthquakes?

Large amounts of water! No doubt.

In fact we see this even today.

To quote:

... large amounts of water in different areas and at different depths, which in turn suggested three distinct processes by which the fluid deforms the crust above it and helps pave the way for earthquakes:

•Beneath the South Island's eastern coast, where the Pacific Plate begins to dive under the Australian Plate, water is released about 10 miles underground. It comes from seafloor sediments that are squeezed as they are carried underground on the subducting Pacific Plate. Much of the water rises upward into the overlying crust of the Australian Plate, cracking the crustal rock further to create and widen existing cracks. This "mesh" of fault fractures "is weakening the crust and promoting the formation of new strike-slip faulting," Wannamaker says.

•Farther west, water is released from hydrated rock – rock with chemically bound water – within the subducting Pacific Plate. The water collects within cracks roughly 6 to 20 miles underground in the "ductile" or taffy-like part of the Earth's crust.

Such fluids help accommodate the oblique or southwesterly motion of the Pacific Plate under New Zealand – motion that created the strike-slip faults on the South Island.

"These fluids certainly could burst upward into the strike-slip zone and trigger major earthquakes," Wannamaker says.

"And many smaller quakes have been centered along the edges of these reservoirs."

•The largest accumulation of water beneath the subduction zone also is the deepest and farthest west beneath the South Island. Freed by the action of heat and pressure on hydrated minerals, the water forms a huge plume extending upward from depths of 60 miles or more – something also seen in older, more mature subduction zones. It appears these fluids trigger major earthquakes – and did so during magnitude-7 and larger earthquakes in the Murchison area in the early 20th century, Wannamaker says.

Faults in that area are high-angle thrusts, meaning that during quakes, ground on one side of the fault moves up and over the ground on the other side. Laws of rock mechanics say such faults should not rupture when they are steep, because it is difficult to push one block of ground up and over the other when the fault between them dips at an angle of more than 30 degrees – unless water is present. Yet big quakes near Murchison have occurred on faults that dip at angles of more than 55 degrees, Wannamaker says...

www.sciencecodex.com...

So you see, barcs I do know what I'm talking about.

Hydeman,

You present quite intriguing and enlightening information. For that I thank you.

And if I seem to be repeating myself, my apologies. This topic is dear to me so it carries a lot of emotion. Hence I do tend to repeat myself.

But the fact that neither of us was present when such events (moon creation / earth wide deluge) occurred thus we're left with the data. Data to be interpreted based on available evidence as we see them.

Question is which interpretation is correct?

For me, all the data that I've seen, read, studied so far supports what I believe to be the fact.

Unfortunately, there's so much to cover and I've only presented just a few. And this thread is not adequate to present even half of it. Time is also too short to further the discussion.

So in the interest of time, I think its best to present my side in a new thread. This way I can just list the evidence point by point and you decide for yourself whether I'm all wet or not.

ciao.

a reply to: edmc^2

Howdy,

Thank you for taking the time to look over my responses. Not everyone does, I'm sure, as they're quite long winded. lol

I didn't mean to say you were repeating yourself with respect to evidence, merely that points 1 and 5 were essentially the same thing (1 being a part of 5, I would say...). I understand your personal relationship to the issue, I used to have such a personal relationship.

That said, just because I was not there (and you were not there) does not invalidate the evidence supporting the standard geologic models that do not support the flood and do support the moon being mostly Earth ejecta. Do you believe in forensic scientists using DNA evidence at crime scenes to find murderers? Do you believe that the acceleration of gravity has remained constant (as evidence by it's noted effects for hundreds of years...)? Again, I agree that the data is all we have, but the data seems pretty clear, and only a few possible explanations can account for the data. I've linked previously to the Wikipedia page about the origin of the moon. There are three or so major hypotheses supported by the data, with the great impact being the most likely to explain the most evidence as interpreted by the most scientists. This is about as close to fact as we can get, unless you think that DNA evidence in forensic sciences should be disregarded in court cases...

See, for me, all the data clearly indicates geologic time. For example, that island you posted about isn't a result of tectonic "crumpling" of plates. It was a mud volcano triggered by the earthquake. Mud volcanoes are common features after quakes, even occurring on continental interior land.
www.slate.com...

I think this thread is more than relevant to the discourse of the evidence pertaining to the "great deluge." If you have any scientific evidence, what better thread than this? Of course, I've personally found no scientific evidence supporting the flood, no matter how much I had attempted to reconcile that.

Again, thanks for responding. I can see you truly care about the topic and you are sincere in what you believe (unlike some others I have recently discussed such topics with. ). Whatever you decide to do, know that it has been a pleasure talking with you, as geology is a topic very dear to me now.

Sincerest regards,
Hydeman