Scientific Evidence of a Global Flood

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: wmd_2008

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

To the contrary, I'm just looking at the evidence available and projecting it 3000 to 4000 years ago.

Case in point:

Marine life forms on top of mountains - i.e. sea shells found on the Himalayas.

How would you explain the presence of sea shells and other marine lifeforms on top of these mountains if they were not under water at some point in time?

So as you can see, the evidence is quite undeniable and incontrovertible.

THOSE are MILLIONS of years old NOT thousands!!!!

So are you admitting then that they (marine life forms) got there because of water?

BTW - when you say MILLIONS of years old , are you referring to the age of the mountains or the age of the marine life forms?

Millions of years ago various mountain ranges were at A LOWER LEVEL, due to plate movement mountains are thrust up Everest grows around 4mm a year even now!!!

The creatures were dead buried and thousands of feet up the mountains before man appeared!!!

Same question - do you agree then that at one point in time mountains were under water? Hence the presence of marine life forms?

The creatures were dead buried and thousands of feet up the mountains before man appeared!!!

Obviously YOU don't understand the meaning of the above?

a reply to: wmd_2008

Actually, the clams have never been carbon-dated(I wonder why as there should be a ton of carbon in those clams).

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: edmc^2
But still, the question is - do you agree that at one point in time mountains were under water?

Yes, but not 5 - 6000 years ago. More like millions of years ago. Plate tectonics doesn't work that quickly.

So the question really has something to do with or the contradiction is with timeline NOT the Global Flood itself. Isn't it?

That it's a fact that the earth can entirely be covered with water - even high mountain tops.

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What pressure? By your logic, all clams would die(even without being crushed by sediments) because of the pressure from the water, even without flooding. And what part of being underground so not being affected by the pressure is it so hard to get? Your faulty assumption is that roots need air to live.

actually, its your faulty assumption that the y don't need air to live. you can quite literally drown a plant or tree. Someone else has already given a perfect example of an experiment you can do on your own. Go to the store and buy a couple of healthy plants. water one of them normally as your control, water another one to the point of oversaturating the soil and leave no drainage at the bottom of whatever container your plant is in. the plant with no drainage that is oversaturated will be dead in a week. if the University of Iowa data I already posted isn't enough to convince you then try this simple experiment. the plant with proper drainage and normal watering schedule will be quite fine while the other one won't make it to 10 days and I would be surprised if it makes it a week if you do the experiment honestly and kept the plant oversaturated.

As far as the pressure, your example of clams was kind of a poor choice. The vast majority of clams live in waist deep water in the sand. Unless you're talking about giant clams who are adapted to deeper waters and utilize chemosynthesis to survive near sulfide and hydrogen vents. They have no digestive tract, no skeletal structure, no eyes, no ears. The pressure for the average clam in comparison is nearly nothing and you're trying to compare and contrast it with flora adapted solely to land that requires photosynthesis to survive as well as air...yes even the roots need to breath. You can literally drown a plant or tree. Just try the experiment above, record your results and post a thread proving me wrong.

How many trees grow underwater? name me just one.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: edmc^2
But still, the question is - do you agree that at one point in time mountains were under water?

Yes, but not 5 - 6000 years ago. More like millions of years ago. Plate tectonics doesn't work that quickly.

So the question really has something to do with or the contradiction is with timeline NOT the Global Flood itself. Isn't it?

That it's a fact that the earth can entirely be covered with water - even high mountain tops.

absolutely not even remotely in the ball park with that assumption. Your example for the Himalayas is a rather good one. The fossilized sea life found high up in the Himalayas was not covered in water while atop the mountains. It was underwater when that sea life was on the ocean floor between two continental plates. 80 million years ago, India was an island approximately 4000km from the Eurasian plate boundary. by 60 MYA it was getting very close to impact. Once the two continental plates collided the immense pressure caused an upheaval in the land because it had nowhere else to go but up. The tops of the mountains were never underwater, not in the way you're trying to portray it. The tops of the mountains used to be the floor of an ancient ocean.

a reply to: peter vlar

If it's dead within a week, then it's actually a lot longer than I expected. And you clearly haven't read the arguments carefully. We're not talking about the stems and leaves, i.e the parts above ground, we're talking about the roots. Did the roots in your plant examples die? Even if it did, then you have to show that an entire root system would die, and a very large root system, and so on, within 40 days.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Would this suffice as enough ocean?

Massive 'ocean' discovered near core of the earth

Another 'ocean' link

So clearly we have the amounts of ocean on and in the earth to cover it. Didn't the bible say the earths "flood gates" were opened?

Well, I have no idea whether or not there was a flood. Wasn't there nor have I explored the topic enough. I care more about taming myself and normalizing those traits which I consider to be good for me and others around me.

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: Akragon

How do you explain the clams still being there after million of years? Shouldn't they have disintegrated, once the sediments above them eroded? Yes, they got petrified, but if we assume that they were crushed by sediments(which is the only way that they can die closed), and the sediments got eroded, and the clams themselves are petrified by those sediments(or the same process), then they should also be eroded, and dissolved by now.

Clams dissolve after 1700 years. What process is allowing them to remain up there for million of years?

Probably being encased in whatever substance fell upon them after several thousand years...

With no exposure to eroding elements theres no reason to think they would dissolve

a reply to: np6888

You must have skipped over the part where I explain that even the roots need to breathe and when a flood of that magnitude occurs the silicate deposits would be quite substantial. leaving photosynthesis completely out of the equation, The root system would still not be able to survive let alone regenerate. Even after flood waters recede, the earth will still be covered in silicate and completely over saturated. No plant life would have survived that.

and you're still entirely discounting the effects of water pressure on literally everything. if there was enough water to cover all the earths mountains 7000 BPE then there would be copious geologic evidence of this. The average depth of all the Earths oceans is 14,000 ft. If Everest was covered, that's twice as deep as the average ocean depth and yet you don't seem to think that would affect anything. I find that to be quite interesting.

Back six thousand years ago in the middle east, the common person probably did not know that there was other continents. A major event that wiped out much of the middle east would have been a world wide event to them. They knew of the people from India, they traded with them. They also knew of the people of what is now China. They knew of the people far north, but not necessarily as high as Scandinavia. Now the people who knew the trade routes lived by the ocean, they were probably all wiped out. So this event probably erased history of that whole region.

So in their minds the whole world was effected. Whatever caused the flood caused an eruption of groundwater, and probably a sinking of the land as the water came out. It is written that the water came up from the earth, I believe this is possible. It would have been a huge seizmic event of some sort that would have caused this. Since people mostly lived by the sea, rivers, or lakes, most people would have been effected.

If the event was strong enough, seismic activity in North and South America could also have triggered big dams and glacial lakes to break, flooding out the rivers along which people lived.

It is all possible. I do not know if these possible events could all have happened at the same time though. Different events could have been assumed to be the same event when people met. I am sure many big floods have happened in earths history from different events everywhere.

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: wmd_2008

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

To the contrary, I'm just looking at the evidence available and projecting it 3000 to 4000 years ago.

Case in point:

Marine life forms on top of mountains - i.e. sea shells found on the Himalayas.

How would you explain the presence of sea shells and other marine lifeforms on top of these mountains if they were not under water at some point in time?

So as you can see, the evidence is quite undeniable and incontrovertible.

THOSE are MILLIONS of years old NOT thousands!!!!

So are you admitting then that they (marine life forms) got there because of water?

BTW - when you say MILLIONS of years old , are you referring to the age of the mountains or the age of the marine life forms?

Millions of years ago various mountain ranges were at A LOWER LEVEL, due to plate movement mountains are thrust up Everest grows around 4mm a year even now!!!

The creatures were dead buried and thousands of feet up the mountains before man appeared!!!

Same question - do you agree then that at one point in time mountains were under water? Hence the presence of marine life forms?

The creatures were dead buried and thousands of feet up the mountains before man appeared!!!

Obviously YOU don't understand the meaning of the above?

Sure I do. But you haven't answered how they got there in the first place.

We know that they are there. In fact Sir Edmund Hillary was reported to have found sea shells at 27,000+ feet level of mt. Everest. So no question of their presence.

How they got there is the question I'm getting at?

Water is the logical answer.

a reply to: peter vlar

Roots don't need to breath. It's faulty to assume that everything works like humans. Roots are more like sea animals in that they can live underwater.

The only reason we need to breath in air is because we need the elements for energy, it's that simple. Energy is the key to survival, not air(at least not for certain species).

a reply to: np6888

trees are not one of those species... they require photosynthesis to live...

And what is underwater is not sufficient for trees to survive...

a reply to: np6888


Do yourself a favor and look things up,before you post. Due diligence never killed anyone, I promise. The roots do indeed need to breathe. If they are in soil that is beyond its saturation point they die. It's quite simple. I'm not comparing trees or their roots to how human physiology works. The roots develop root rot and can not function. They die and then the plant dies. The plant doesn't need to be u der water, only the roots do. If both are under 28,000 ft of water between root rot, lack of photosynthesis and water pressure the entire Eco system is completely destroyed. It's basic botany not magic.


I'm still patiently waiting for you to name just one tree that grows under water, let alone at a depth where water pressure would crush any type of plant life. Nothing would survive even 40 days let alone the literally months it would take for the ground to dry out enough for new plant life to tale hold.

a reply to: Akragon

So,e people just want to male assumptions because it supports their predisposed belief systems and don't want to know that photosynthesis can not work below 200 meters depth. Every organism below that depth is aphotic and there is no longer any plant life.

a reply to: peter vlar

I never said that trees can live underwater, I said roots can. Can you show me an example where the roots die if you submerge them underwater? How about a root system? A large root system? Within a month?

Here's an example of a tree that can grow underwater:

answers.yahoo.com...

Now it's only temporary, but this is the stems, not even the roots. To prove that roots cannot survive, you have to cut off the stems or trunks in your example, and see if they grow back, and then you have to do it to the Pando trees themselves, and their root system. Heck, some plants can grow without water, so you can't just assume that every plant. tree or root works the same way.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: edmc^2
But still, the question is - do you agree that at one point in time mountains were under water?

Yes, but not 5 - 6000 years ago. More like millions of years ago. Plate tectonics doesn't work that quickly.

So the question really has something to do with or the contradiction is with timeline NOT the Global Flood itself. Isn't it?

That it's a fact that the earth can entirely be covered with water - even high mountain tops.

absolutely not even remotely in the ball park with that assumption. Your example for the Himalayas is a rather good one. The fossilized sea life found high up in the Himalayas was not covered in water while atop the mountains. It was underwater when that sea life was on the ocean floor between two continental plates. 80 million years ago, India was an island approximately 4000km from the Eurasian plate boundary. by 60 MYA it was getting very close to impact. Once the two continental plates collided the immense pressure caused an upheaval in the land because it had nowhere else to go but up. The tops of the mountains were never underwater, not in the way you're trying to portray it. The tops of the mountains used to be the floor of an ancient ocean.

Interesting take.

But you're actually confirming what I'm getting at. That the earth CAN be covered entirely by water!

For instance you said:

"The tops of the mountains were never underwater, not in the way you're trying to portray it. The tops of the mountains used to be the floor of an ancient ocean."


Which means that there was a time where there were no tall mountains. And that they were under water just like what you said.

The Himalayas "...was underwater when that sea life was on the ocean floor between two continental plates.

So a Global Deluge is not far fetch but agrees with scientific facts.

The earth can be completely covered with water.

If fact the Bible says this to be so right from the very beginning:

[Gen 1:2 ASV] 2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters"

Then a division was created between the waters - water above the earth and water on earth.

[Gen 1:6 ASV] 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."

[Gen 1:7, 9 ASV] 7 "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. ...

Then there was a separation between water and land.

"9 And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so."

And that this "water above the firmament" was broken / released during Noah's time to Deluge the earth.

Now just imagine the amount of force that impacted the earth's crust when the "water above the firmament" came falling down from such a high altitude?

Surely the earth's crust would buckle and bend. The tectonic plates will move at considerable force and rate, moving continents to higher elevation while further lowering sea basins. It would also create dramatic climate change such that animals can suddenly froze to death from the north pole to the south pole.

Sound incredible?

Not really because we have evidence of animals being buried alive and frozen to death while grazing.

We have evidence of crust folding.

And so much more.

So really, the Noachian Flood is supported by facts.

originally posted by: np6888
Here's an example of a tree that can grow underwater:

answers.yahoo.com...

Now it's only temporary, but this is the stems, not even the roots. To prove that roots cannot survive, you have to cut off the stems or trunks in your example, and see if they grow back, and then you have to do it to the Pando trees themselves, and their root system. Heck, some plants can grow without water, so you can't just assume that every plant. tree or root works the same way.

Nice try, the entire plant is not submerged and there is not 5 miles worth of water pressure crushing everything such as in the biblical flood. Care to show some actual scientific research that shows your hypothesis to be possible? You can't change parameters and move the goal posts as the erate moves forward. That's just intellectually dishonest and devoid of integrity. You're grasping at straws here.

originally posted by: np6888
Heck, some plants can grow without water, so you can't just assume that every plant. tree or root works the same way.

They may be able to grow without the amount of water that most plants need, but can they survive long term without water? Even desert plants require water to survive, the difference(s) arise when you analyze how the plants utilize the water.