Question about flood evidence?

There are six separate lines of evidence supporting Noah's flood.

1. Shared experience - 500 separate flood traditions coming from every ancient culture on every continent but Antartica (which has no extant culture).

2. Ice core samples from three different continents indicating a sudden drop 1.8 degrees C in global temperature corresponding with the estimated time of Noah's flood.

3. Collapse or civilizations evidenced by gaps in their history that correspond to the estimated time of Noah's flood.

4. Genetic evidence indicating ancient European population suddenly vanished only the be replaced by a population with a very different genetic profile - this also corresponds with the timing of Noah's flood

5. Astronomical evidence indicating a shift in the earths axis - again the timing corresponds to Noah's flood.

6. Evidence of world wide dust spikes corresponding to a time shortly after Noah's flood infer the earths hydrological equilibrium was resetting itself.

That does not even count marine fossils on virtually every mountain, a whale cemetery in the middle of a desert, etc. etc.

There is clear evidence of a world wide phenomena about the time of Noah's flood and there are several things that are best explained by a flood.

Trixie: Yes and there is a vast store of water in the mantle of the earth, an estimated 3 to 11 oceans worth! More than enough to cover the highest mountains several times over.

Don H: That directly contradicts the Pangaea theory of continental drift. Europe and Asia started out next to each other there was no vast ocean between them to be lifted up.

Mitch V: No look at Pangaea - and look at the location of those mountains -- Your hypothesis does not work unless you wish to assert the Pangaea theory is incorrect..

I would direct you to my earlier response: that starts out saying "Nothing you say and no evidence you present will ever get an atheist or scoffer to recognize the flood because although they deny it they operate under the presupposition of materialism, upon which they base the assertion there is no God."

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ag.SX...

If there is no God then the Noah story cannot be true, and if the Noah account is true that seriously challenges their faith that there is no god. In other words Atheists don't want to be confused by the evidence!

Paul B: Nonsense, there is more than enough water on the earth to day to flood the highest mountains several times over..

The explanation should have answered the question. At one point or another, most mountains did not exist. They were part of the ocean floor and ocean creatures landed on the ocean floor, died and where covered by sediment. Different parts of the ocean floor are large masses of hardened sediment that formed into rock. When one part pushes against another in opposite directions, one part will be pushed down under while the other is pushed upward and in many cases above the water line. This is what forms many mountain ranges. The part you see forming the peak is just the edge of the plate of rock that was pushed upward. Seeing that the peak was once part of the ocean floor means that there would be fossilized ocean creatures in it. If it was because of a flood, the ocean creatures would only be on the surface of the mountain and not deep in the layers below. The fact that they are found consistently in layers shows that they were not a result of floods. Each layer of rock is from a different time period. When you compare fossils from the same time period but miles apart, they still tend to have the same fossils in them, but when you compare that layer with a layer only 30 feet lower, you get different fossils. This is because the creatures that belonged to those fossils went extinct before the upper layers where formed, and the creatures in the upper layers had not yet evolved to die in the lower layers. I hope this helped you.

Where did all the extra water for the flood supposedly com from? Where did it go?

The average radius of the earth is about 6400km. The volume of ocean water ( the major source of water on earth is about 1.3x10^9 km^3. If the earth were a smooth sphere with a shell of water, the average depth dR = dV/ 4 x pi x R^2 where dR is the average depth, pi = 3.14, R = 6400km. Plugging in the numbers gives a depth of about 2.5 km. (~ 1.6 miles). If that's all the deeper the water would cover a smooth Earth with no mountains or deep ocean trenches, where in hell did the extra water come from to cover it to a depth of over 29,029 feet, almost 5.5 miles, the height of Mount Everest?

The mountains got pushed up there from the sea floor, where the sharks lived and died.The water was never at that altitude.

I read not to long ago about clams that were found on mountain tops. The clam shells were closed. When a clam dies of natural causes, the shell opens. For a clam to die with the shell closed, it would have had to be a rapid event. Like being buried suddenly, and pushed up as the mountains were being formed during the global flood,

You should take note when you research this, that the mountains were not all that high before the flood, It was the result of the violent breaking up of the crust of the earth, the actions of the tectonic plates, and the run off of the flood waters at the end of the flood that formed the mountain ranges that we now have.

Here is a short video on the Hydroplate Theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD9ZGt9UA-U

Once again, Occam's Razor. The simpler explanation, plate tectonics, is more likely to be true than a creation myth, especially when the former is well-supported by other evidence, such as radiometric dating of the rocks on Everest, while the latter has no independent support other than the questionable account in the Bible.

Prof. Walter Veith was for most of his teaching career an evangelist for evolution. Taught it to medical students. Then he took up a challenge to prove evolution and the Big Bang using nothing more than standard scientific evaluation. He discovered science is better at supporting the Creation story of Genesis than either evolution or the Big Bang.

He's made a series of videos explaining the origins of our world. Some give great detail on how the flood occurred. http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/c/10/The_Genesis_Conf...

The flood actually occurred before mountains were around.

Scientists have shown that if all land mass was completely flat it would all be submerged underwater. Which once upon a time, all the land WAS flat. Then God caused the tectonic plates to crash into each other creating mountains that broke through the water making dry land, thus ending the flood. That's why Noah's ark landed on a mountain because they were the only things that weren't underwater, until the north and south polls froze enough water to unsubmerge more land.

It certainly does not support it. It seems that you are not taking the time scales into account.

With the rare exception of certain volcanos, the mountains have been around since long before humans existed. They were underwater millions of years before the Biblical Flood is believed to have happened, not as a result of it.

Ironically today i watched a video in World Geo about how there was plant fossils on a rock on top of Mt. Everest showing that at one time Mt. Everest was underwater.

Good try trying to prove the flood, but if it happened scientists would have figured out by now, especially if at one time 99% of the human population was supposedly killed by a flood. It didn't happen.

It is impossible that the "highest points on earth were underwater". There simply isn't enough water on the planet (and there never was) to flood the entire Earth to a depth of 8.5 kilometers (5.5 miles), as would be required to cover Everest.

Also, according to Biblical scholars the flood occurred around 2500 BC, some 4500 years ago. That just isn't enough time for fossils to form. The fossils you are referring to are evidence of tectonics, specifically a phenomenon called "uplift". Those fossils are found near the edges of tectonic plates, where the seafloor of one plate has been forced upwards by its neighbour to form a mountain range over millions of years.

There is no evidence in the geological record for the Biblical flood. And that's just talking about geology. There is plenty of biological evidence to debunk the Biblical flood/Noah's Ark myth as well.

EDIT: NDMA, have you done the calculation? I have, based on global water data available from the USGS website. Earth has about 30% of the water required for the Biblical flood. Taking into account all of the water available including icecaps, atmospheric water and groundwater, we're still short by around 842 quintillion US gallons (that's 842 followed by 18 zeros). But let's assume I've made some errors in my calculation. Let's double the amount of water available. That still leaves a shortfall of nearly 100 quintillion gallons.

Sorry dude, it can't be done. Unless you would like to point out where I am "confused by the evidence".

As for your claims about Pangaea, you are incorrect. The Indian subcontinent finally collided with Asia about 55 million years ago, closing off that section of the global ocean and continuing the uplift of the Himalyas which had begun 5 million years before when the continental plates met and subduction/uplift began. Also, for those who claim that Earth was mountainless at the time of the flood and that the flood (somehow) caused the uplift of the mountains, there is no evidence to support your claim. Geological evidence indicates that the Himalayas have been building for the past 60 million years. Their current rate of uplift is around 5mm a year. Given that there’s no evidence in the geological record of any major variation in that rate over the past 4500 years, I’ll give you 22.5 metres (about 74 feet) less in height. That's hardly a mountainless Earth and won’t substantially change the calculations.

NDMA, do you have any pro-flood evidence that didn't come from a creationist website? I would be interested to see the scientific papers which support your claims.

With regard to your mini-rant about atheists' motives for disagreeing with you btw, I have to point out that debunking the flood does nothing to debunk the existence of your deity of choice. We're just saying that the flood couldn't have happened.