Opinions of non-biblical evidence of the Noah Flood?

[Magnetic]

+http://pw2.netcom.com/~horse/flood.html

Just curious as to your take on this link.

Thanks.

[Keevan_Colton]

All bullshit.

And mostly biblical bullshit too...

[Magnetic]

To the "scientific lay person", the site seems almost convincing. Could you give some examples how what was offered as evidence is, in fact, NOT a good example?

[Azrael]

^^seconded. Especially that "I'll just post a list of claims from a book and leave to the reader to back up my bullshit" trick.

[Magnetic]

Ghetto edit to add: . . . . . I would appreciate it!

[Azrael]

GHETTO EDIT: the "seconding" was for keevan

To the "scientific lay person", the site seems almost convincing. Could you give some examples how what was offered as evidence is, in fact, NOT a good example?

No it doesn't. I'm a scientific layperson, and I saw right through it. Although, I went in knowing the flood story was a myth, so that probably colors my perceptions.

[Magnetic]

GHETTO EDIT: the "seconding" was for keevan

To the "scientific lay person", the site seems almost convincing. Could you give some examples how what was offered as evidence is, in fact, NOT a good example?

No it doesn't. I'm a scientific layperson, and I saw right through it. Although, I went in knowing the flood story was a myth, so that probably colors my perceptions.

Well, then I'm even MORE of a scientific layperson then. Sure, some of them I could throw out, but some do sound convincing.

[/b]

[Ryushikaze]

Let's see, the world flood myths all vary in scope, detail, even what was flooding. Some civilizations known to exist before and after the flood was supposed to happen, have no record of such a flood- the egyptians especially, but also several other regional superpowers- and continued uninterrupted without so much as a 'my feet are wet'. I'm sticking with the huge, developed civilizations that didn't mysteriously vanish at any point around when any of the flood myths were supposed to happen.

[Keevan_Colton]

Here's a hint. There's no evidence presented there.

[Magnetic]

Let's see, the world flood myths all vary in scope, detail, even what was flooding. Some civilizations known to exist before and after the flood was supposed to happen, have no record of such a flood- the egyptians especially, but also several other regional superpowers- and continued uninterrupted without so much as a 'my feet are wet'. I'm sticking with the huge, developed civilizations that didn't mysteriously vanish at any point around when any of the flood myths were supposed to happen.

I'm currently debating someone on another forum and have brought this fact up, . . . . . . . he made no attempt to address it, but posted this link. I'm sure you've all been there before.

[Magnetic]

Here's a hint. There's no evidence presented there.

Are these just vague assumptions based on psuedo-science? The "mixing of fossils from different ages", "absence of meteorites in geologic column", "existance of polystrate fossils". .I'm not sure what a "polystrate fossil" is.

Again, I appreciate all the insites you can give.

[Lagmonster]

Flying duck fuckers, Magnetic, you can't be serious that you can't figure out what's wrong with that presentation.

Most of their non-biblical proofs are outright lies, and the rest are just out-of-the-ass claims with neither evidence nor explanation of what it means and what it has to do with anything. I mean, they aren't even TRYING here. It's the ultimate example of "it sounds scientific, therefore you can trust it", with no effort to tie in their pointless statements to any evidence, describe the relevance to their theory, and show how it can't be used as evidence for existing geological theory.

If you're absolutely stuck, use the talk.origins website archives. It has a well-designed list of creationist claims, each dashed to pieces.

[Keevan_Colton]

I'd guess it's a fossil that spans more than one strata, of course, that can happen without a flood thanks to the fact that the ground can be disturbed etc, and some things are just big.

[Keevan_Colton]

And here you have a piece picking apart polystrate fossils:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Yes. All bullshit. Total, unremarkable, bullshit. While Talk.origins addresses many of these points in exhaustive detail; quick refutation of all thirty-two points will follow anyway, just because "See talk.origins" has been mentioned repeatedly and yet we still see these same claims brought up over, and over again:

1. Worldwide distribution of flood traditions.

Most civilizations originated in river valleys and settled on the rich soil of flood-plains. Hilarity ensues, next.

2. Origin of civilization near Ararat-Babylon region in post-flood time.

Archeologists accept the Middle East as being one of the cradle of civilization. Unrelated to flood chronology. Next.

3. Convergence of population growth statistics on date of flood.

Flood date established using arbitrary methods. Chronology happens to neatly coincide with rise of civilizations. Next.

4. Dating of oldest living things at post-flood time.

Outright mistruth. There are several species of pine which have extremely old individuals which were alive prior to the flood. Next.

5. Worldwide occurrence of water-laid sediments and sedimentary rocks.

Well, of course. Geological processes alter the course of rivers and the landmasses they run on. This is entirely unrelated to the flood. Next.

6. Recent uplift of major mountain ranges.

Outright lie. The youngest mountain ranges are tens of millions of years old. Mountains are also subject to erosion, so the lifetime of the typical mountain range is measured in the low hundreds of millions of years. Next.

7. Marine fossils on crests of mountains.

Due to the same geological processes that create mountains. Colliding tectonic plates may elevate land which was once part of the sea floor. Entirely unrelated to the flood. Next.

8. Evidence of former worldwide warm climate.

The planet was quite a bit warmer many tens and even hundreds of millions of years ago. However, plate tectonics once again provides an answer. Continents tend to wander around on geological timescales. All of them have moved through temperate climate zones at some point in their history. Next.

9. Necessity of catastrophic burial and rapid lithification of fossil deposits.

All this explains is why fossils are comparatively rare. Unrelated to the flood otherwise. Next.

10. Recent origin of many datable geological processes.

Distortion of the facts. Erosion and geological processes serve to distort, bury, and recycle much of the Earth's older crust. "Recent" in this case is relative. The Andes are recent, and they started forming in the Paleozoic. Next.

11. Worldwide distribution of all types of fossils.

Animal species migrating on various transitory land-bridges. Given suitable corridors, a given group of species can colonize the entire planet in 20,000 years. Unrelated to the flood. Next.

12. Uniform physical appearance of rocks from different "ages".

A rock is a rock. While they may look the same on the outside, they may have undergone chemical changes on the inside, or may have formed through geological metamorphosis in a much earlier time and survived long enough to be preserved by new deposits forming on top of it. Next.

13. Frequent mixing of fossils from different "ages".

Simple geological processes can upset the orderly layering of rocks via folding, faulting, uplifting, and erosion. However, the claim is something of an outright lie as most fossils tend to only occur in their specific strata, permitting their ready identification and dating simply by examining the rocks they were found in. Next.

14. Near-random deposition of formational sequences.

Much of this can be accounted for by plate tectonics moving continental land masses around. Pulling them apart and recombining them. So a given continent today might be comprised of pieces of several ancient continents. However, applying the word "random" to it is disingenuous and an outright distortion. Next.

15. Equivalence of total organic material in present world and fossil world.

This is hardly surprising. Geological processes may serve to temporarily sequester organic material in the crust. However, it is later recovered through erosion and volcanic outgassing. This is all proof for a non-flood regime, where material is recycled through long-period processes. Next.

16. Wide distribution of recent volcanic rocks.

Not surprising. Volcanic activity typically occurs at the boundaries of continental plates. Not to mention volcanic material tends to weather rapidly and metamorphosize into other types of rock due to exposure to water and the atmosphere. And again, the word "recent" is entirely relative. "Geologically recent" would be a better term, but it would prompt unwanted thinking by the site's target audience. Next.

17. Evidence of recent water bodies in present desert areas.

Desertification occurs on timescales of thousands of years and is reliant on global climate and the mechanisms affecting it. Several thousand years ago, it was much more temperate in North Africa, allowing people to colonize that part of the continent. Then gradual shifts in climate caused things to dry out and the Sahara started to form. This squeezed human settlements to river valleys and would eventually trigger the rise of the Egyptian civilization. The process goes the other way too. Roughly a thousand years back, the Great Plains in the United States became a vast expanse of desert complete with vast, migratory sand dunes. This was due to a shift in the winds from the south to the southwest, cutting off the flow of tropical moisture from the Gulf of Mexico. However, the winds gradually shifted back, and the Great Plains became prairie again. This is irrelevant to the flood. Next.

18. Worldwide occurrence of raised shore lines and river terraces.

Erosion and ice ages are to blame for this one. Not some angry God-tantrum. Next.

19. Evidence of recent drastic rise in sea level.

We're only 12,000 years beyond the end of the last major ice age. There was quite a bit of water locked up in the glaciers. When they started to melt, it triggered a feedback mechanism which caused them to melt faster. The end result, a drastic rise in sea-level. Next.

20. Universal occurrence of rivers in valleys too large for the present stream.

Rivers frequently change course over the course of their lifetimes. As they meander to and fro, they cut new channels for themselves. The cumulative result of all this wandering tends to be large river valleys. Next.

21. Sudden extinction of dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals.

The extinction of the dinosaurs occurred 65 million years ago and very neatly coincides with a massive asteroid impact and the resulting iridium layer. The angry God-tantrum has nothing to do with this. Next.

22. Rapid onset of glacial period.

Unrelated to flood. Next.

23. Existence of polystrate fossils.

Not a standard geological term. Not to mention so-called "polystrate fossils" are those of trees in river sediments. These were large trees which had deep root systems. See Talk.origins for further details. Next.

24. Preservation of tracks and other ephemeral markings throughout geologic column.

This is evidence against a catastrophic flood, which would've completely obliterated such markings. Not for one. Next.

25. Worldwide occurrence of sedimentary fossil "graveyards" in rocks of all "ages".

An animal or plant tends to stand the best chance of fossilization in sediment. Therefore, we should expect to see more of them in sedimentary rock. Not to mention most plants and animals tend to live near sources of water, which . . . lo and behold is where you also find sediment. It's uncanny, really. Next.

26. Absence of any physical evidence of chronologic boundary between rocks of successive "ages".

Outright lie. Next.

27. Occurrence of all rock types (shale, limestone, granite, etc.) in all "ages".

The world and the laws of chemistry and physics governing it weren't magically different 100 million years ago. The processes then, are essentially the same as the processes now. Next.

28. Parallel of supposed evolutionary sequence through different "ages" with modern ecological zonation in the one present age.

This is more an argument for evolution than an argument for some angry god-tantrum flood. Not to mention there are only so many ways to fill a given ecological niche, and there are only so many niches in a given environment. Not to mention some evolutionary patterns take place over geological timescales. Next.

29. Lack of correlation of most radiometric "ages" with assumed paleontologic "ages".

Outright lie. Next.

30. Absence of meteorites in geologic column.

Meteorites and meteorite craters tend to weather away and undergo chemical metamorphosis due to exposure to Earth's chemistry. The only meteorites we can conclusively say are meteorites tend to fall in places where they are slow to weather, like Antarctica. Not to mention a sufficiently large body will be mostly vaporized by impact with the Earth, or the Earth's atmosphere. However, the claim that no meteorites or evidence thereof exists in the geological record is an outright lie. Visit Meteor Crater in Arizona for a demonstration. Next.

31. Absence of hail imprints in geologic column, despite abundance of fossil ripple-marks and raindrop imprints.

Have you seen a hailstorm? These aren't exactly placid events. If the repeated impacts and melting of the hail don't obliterate traces of their fall, then the heavy rains which usually accompany them will. Next.

32. Evidence of man's existence during earliest of geologic "ages" (e.g., human footprints in Cambrian Carbon- iferous, and Cretaceous formations).

Outright lie, and a gross attempt at attempting to see patterns which aren't actually there. Fossil hoaxes, now disproven, were sometimes perpetuated in earlier years. Not to mention supposed "human" footprints actually belong to dinosaurs or other animals. Next . . . oh wait, I'm out of bullshit to refute.

The rest of the site goes on to make a long winded claim that the flood happened because the Old and New Testaments of the Bible says so. Which is more proof of an enforced, retold, and recorded traditional mythology than anything else.

[Magnetic]

And there you have it.

That's the reason why I brought it here. Yes, I'm embarrassed to say that, even though I had a feeling that it was misinformation, I had no certain grounds on which to debate against it. There IS a couple of scientifically intelligent people on that board in question. I'm sure they'd see through that list as well.

Thanks for thie insights everyone.

[Magnetic]

GrandMasterTerwynn, if you're okay with it, I'd like to be able to use some of what you posted.

[Dooey Jo]

Darn, GMT beat me to it. Well I'll post it anyway since I went through effort of writing it.

1. Worldwide distribution of flood traditions.

It is interesting to note that the flood myths of other cultures (and far from all cultures have one (and some have several) ) are all very different from the Xian version. It's hardly proof for a worldwide flood, but rather that floods occur worldwide and everyone was afraid of them before they understood what was going on.

2. Origin of civilization near Ararat-Babylon region in post-flood time.

That's funny, the actual location of the biblical Mt. Ararat is unknown. Not to mention that the exact date of the flood isn't stated.

3. Convergence of population growth statistics on date of flood.

Bullshit, for above reason, and because it's wrong.

4. Dating of oldest living things at post-flood time.

Funny how dating methods only work when the creationists think they support their position. Well they're wrong, the oldest living plant is estimated to be some 40 000 years, and there are others that are 10 000 years. That's before the Earth was created according to stupid people.

5. Worldwide occurrence of water-laid sediments and sedimentary rocks.

The way the sediments are laid is evidence against a deluge, not for it.

6. Recent uplift of major mountain ranges.

There is no such evidence so it's also bullshit-

7. Marine fossils on crests of mountains.

And exactly why would a flood put such fossils on mountains?

8. Evidence of former worldwide warm climate.

So? What has that got to with a flood? "The Earth got colder - must have been a flood!" or what...

9. Necessity of catastrophic burial and rapid lithification of fossil deposits.

There is no such necessity.

10. Recent origin of many datable geological processes.

Bull.

11. Worldwide distribution of all types of fossils.

Is inconsistent with the effects of a global flood, yes.

12. Uniform physical appearance of rocks from different "ages".

What the hell? Does he expect granite of the same size to look wildly different depending on where it's found? Needless to say, this too is bullshit.

13. Frequent mixing of fossils from different "ages".

No such thing.

14. Near-random deposition of formational sequences.

That's nice, but a flood doesn't predict a random sequence, it predicts a sequence based on the hydrodynamic properties of the fossilised materials.
Not that I'm sure of what he thinks he's talking about.

15. Equivalence of total organic material in present world and fossil world.

That's probably the biggest lie of them all. He pulled this one completely out of his ass and apparently he thinks that everything that dies is fossilised.

16. Wide distribution of recent volcanic rocks.

Uh yeah, that's evidence for volcanoes, not a flood. There are a lot of volcanoes.

17. Evidence of recent water bodies in present desert areas.

Recent perhaps but certainly not in all deserts simultaneously.

18. Worldwide occurrence of raised shore lines and river terraces.

That didn't occur recently and a flood wouldn't do that.

19. Evidence of recent drastic rise in sea level.

Hmm I wonder, was that because of a global flood or because of the rapid melting of a huge fucking glacier that covered much of the Northern hemisphere, as per the end of the latest ice age?

20. Universal occurrence of rivers in valleys too large for the present stream.

Why would a flood create such rivers? Erosion could, but the flood would have to be pretty magical...

21. Sudden extinction of dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals.

Yeah, and it occured some 65 million years ago. Of course, there's that dating again, only now it probably doesn't work because it doesn't agree with the "theory".

22. Rapid onset of glacial period.

Also a large number of thousands of years before the supposed flood. And one wonder why a flood would cause such a thing...

23. Existence of polystrate fossils.

Why aren't such fossil depth sorted based on their hydrodynamic properties? Why is the fossils they run through depth sorted based on age? Why would a flood create such fossils?

24. Preservation of tracks and other ephemeral markings throughout geologic column.

Wouldn't a flood quite effectively remove any foot prints and the likes? Yes it certainly would!

25. Worldwide occurrence of sedimentary fossil "graveyards" in rocks of all "ages".

What is that even supposed to mean?

26. Absence of any physical evidence of chronologic boundary between rocks of successive "ages".

Has he even ever looked at rocks? I doubt it.

27. Occurrence of all rock types (shale, limestone, granite, etc.) in all "ages".

Why are they not depth sorted based on their respective densities, as the flood theory predicts?

28. Parallel of supposed evolutionary sequence through different "ages" with modern ecological zonation in the one present age.

What does that even mean? That the fossil record is filled with modern day organisms? That's pure bull.

29. Lack of correlation of most radiometric "ages" with assumed paleontologic "ages".

B. fucking S. There's the inconsistent use of dating methods again.

30. Absence of meteorites in geologic column.

Uh-huh, if this was true (which it's not), how the hell would a flood explain it?

31. Absence of hail imprints in geologic column, despite abundance of fossil ripple-marks and raindrop imprints.

Lies, there are such fossils. And why the hell would there be rain, but not be hail prior to the flood?

32. Evidence of man's existence during earliest of geologic "ages" (e.g., human footprints in Cambrian Carbon- iferous, and Cretaceous formations).

And finally... more lies.

That's about it. These people basically look at things and say to themselves "yup, this huge flood can have done this and that" and think that they are explaining something. They're not.

[Darth Wong]

Using their method of simply making bald-faced claims of fact out of thin air, I can also prove that there are flying unicorns. Here is the evidence:

1) Worldwide distribution of flying unicorn myths, which are found in every civilization from native America to Egypt and China.
2) Numerous fossils found of flying unicorns, including the notorious group of fossils found in Panama in 1989 by Forsythe et al, which were mysteriously bombed during the American invasion of Panama in December of that year.
3) Photographic evidence of flying unicorns, of which the most famous is the McKinley picture from Australia.
4) Numerous US Air Force radar tracking events of flying unicorns, starting in March 1973 in New Mexico.

Can you explain all of this evidence? Can you? Ask yourself why mainstream science refuses to recognize flying unicorns in the face of this overwhelming evidence for their existence.

You see, the trick to making bullshit claims is to make up specifics, and sound very emphatic when you say it. Just spout bullshit but don't sound ambiguous about it at all, and people will take you seriously.

[Dooey Jo]

Ghetto edit:
That should be "granite of the same type", not size.

You see, the trick to making bullshit claims is to make up specifics, and sound very emphatic when you say it. Just spout bullshit but don't sound ambiguous about it at all, and people will take you seriously.

Just like commercials and marketers. It's painfully obvious (or should be, to everyone) that these people aren't interested in science but are just trying to literally sell their religion to others.

[Darth Wong]

Precisely. They rely on readers not being critical enough to check the claims against reputable scientific sources. That's one of the reasons that almost all people peddling this sort of bullshit devote so much time to tearing down scientific credibility; they don't want you to check reputable scientific sources, so they try to poison the well so that you don't bother.

[Ariphaos]

1. Worldwide distribution of flood traditions.

Outside of other creation myths, to my knowledge only one culture outside the Middle East involves a worldwide flood.

2. Origin of civilization near Ararat-Babylon region in post-flood time.

Which says nothing about how the Egyptians and Chinese went through that period completely unaffected.

3. Convergence of population growth statistics on date of flood.

Evidence, please? Compare with growth after the Black Death and I'll see.

4. Dating of oldest living things at post-flood time.

Only for very generous definition of post-flood, but this would conflict with point #2.

5. Worldwide occurrence of water-laid sediments and sedimentary rocks.

At obviously different geological eras.

6. Recent uplift of major mountain ranges.

Recent, as in, the past tens of millions of years.

7. Marine fossils on crests of mountains.

Caused by said uplift occurring over hundreds of millions of years.

8. Evidence of former worldwide warm climate.

WTF does this have to do with the flood? Guess what? There's evidence of a cold climate before that, a warm climate before that... OH NOES THE EARTH HAS CYCLES

9. Necessity of catastrophic burial and rapid lithification of fossil deposits.

Even if entirely true this would require a global flood why? Explain the organization of bacterial fossils which Brownian motion should have mixed.

10. Recent origin of many datable geological processes.

An outright lie.

11. Worldwide distribution of all types of fossils.

An outright lie.

12. Uniform physical appearance of rocks from different "ages".

Misleading.

13. Frequent mixing of fossils from different "ages".

Misleading.

14. Near-random deposition of formational sequences.

An outright lie.

15. Equivalence of total organic material in present world and fossil world.

An outright lie. There are trillions of fossils.

16. Wide distribution of recent volcanic rocks.

Misleading.

17. Evidence of recent water bodies in present desert areas.

Desertification is a recent phenomenon, yes.

18. Worldwide occurrence of raised shore lines and river terraces.

Caused by melting glaciers, which coincidentally also factors into the above desertification.

19. Evidence of recent drastic rise in sea level.

Misleading. Drastic is a couple hundred feet.

20. Universal occurrence of rivers in valleys too large for the present stream.

Aquifers are not eternal.

21. Sudden extinction of dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals.

Misleading. Periods covering thousands of years are not sudden.

22. Rapid onset of glacial period.

A worldwide flood would supress glacial activity.

23. Existence of polystrate fossils.

Misleading.

24. Preservation of tracks and other ephemeral markings throughout geologic column.

Misleading / outright lie.

25. Worldwide occurrence of sedimentary fossil "graveyards" in rocks of all "ages".

An outright lie.

26. Absence of any physical evidence of chronologic boundary between rocks of successive "ages".

An outright lie.

27. Occurrence of all rock types (shale, limestone, granite, etc.) in all "ages".

A partial lie, but pointless anyway.

28. Parallel of supposed evolutionary sequence through different "ages" with modern ecological zonation in the one present age.

This sentence has no meaning as it stands.

29. Lack of correlation of most radiometric "ages" with assumed paleontologic "ages".

An outright lie.

30. Absence of meteorites in geologic column.

An outright lie.

31. Absence of hail imprints in geologic column, despite abundance of fossil ripple-marks and raindrop imprints.

I have no information about the truth or falsity of this claim, either that of raindrops or of hail.

32. Evidence of man's existence during earliest of geologic "ages" (e.g., human footprints in Cambrian Carbon- iferous, and Cretaceous formations).

A well known outright lie.


...yadda yadda yadda.

[Surlethe]

And there you have it.

That's the reason why I brought it here. Yes, I'm embarrassed to say that, even though I had a feeling that it was misinformation, I had no certain grounds on which to debate against it. There IS a couple of scientifically intelligent people on that board in question. I'm sure they'd see through that list as well.

Thanks for thie insights everyone.

You've been given a fish here, but have you been taught how to fish? The man who wrote the webpage in question simply threw out a list of mostly dishonest claims which he expects you to assume as true. There's no rhyme or evidence behind them; and if you try to refute them, he's going to expect you to do the work for him. The moral of the story is to never accept his premises, and never accept that they lead to the conclusion he wants. Always double-check both his assumptions and his argument.

[Magnetic]

And there you have it.

That's the reason why I brought it here. Yes, I'm embarrassed to say that, even though I had a feeling that it was misinformation, I had no certain grounds on which to debate against it. There IS a couple of scientifically intelligent people on that board in question. I'm sure they'd see through that list as well.

Thanks for thie insights everyone.

You've been given a fish here, but have you been taught how to fish? The man who wrote the webpage in question simply threw out a list of mostly dishonest claims which he expects you to assume as true. There's no rhyme or evidence behind them; and if you try to refute them, he's going to expect you to do the work for him. The moral of the story is to never accept his premises, and never accept that they lead to the conclusion he wants. Always double-check both his assumptions and his argument.

I haven't been formally taught to fish, but sometimes a person learns best by watching those who actually know how to fish, . . . as evidenced by the amount of fish in the cooler (as opposed to throwing an unbaited hook in the water).

Having very little college training in such fields (I'll have a BS in Design Arts by Summer of 2007), I have to rely on those who are more knowledgeable in such things. Some Christians may accuse me of "going to the other side for answers", but there are a few Christians on the other board who would agree with what was stated, point by point here.

[Darth Wong]

The unfortunate reality is that if you state a lie emphatically enough, a sizable proportion of the population will assume it must be true. Especially if it just so happens to fit with what they want to believe. And the Internet has a tendency to make lies viral in nature, ie- they spread. And the more websites confirm something, the more reliable people assume it is. As Steve Colbert pointed out, we live in the era of truth by democracy.