The problem of evidence for a Biblical Flood

[shunyadragon]

In that case, weathered regolith would be an initial requirement of agriculture, right?

If so, God had provided material of that quality before Adam started ploughing.

You are pleading God created with the appearance of 'millions of years of age,' which is selective fideism to justify your YEC/OEC view of Creation, which is not logical nor consistently scientific.

Note that your source is saying "an average growth rate", not "the average growth rate". Growth rates are variable due to water flow and due to acidity.

The actual measured growh rate has never significantly deviated from the average cited.

Stalagmites and stalactites. I already told you, just because it is dialectal and not scientific terminology doesn't mean the word doesn't exist.

Actually, when looking up, I found this wiki on the precise term:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowstone

The concept here of natural 'flowstones' only applies to carbonate cave deposition, and does not apply to the process of lithification in other geologic formations. In made made concrete it is an engineers term for degraded cement and concrete.

That would be another kind of cement, the one which is used in concrete and for building under water structures.

Note I said cement (I think) and not concrete. Even if it was some time back.

The same chemical formulas cited applies to ALL forms of cement and concrete that are made since Roman engineers developed it for large buildings like the Colosseum. Early forms made by Egyptians and Chinese made primitive versions of cement by burning Gypsum and crushed limestone. The only difference between cement and concrete is the gravel mix in concrete. Cement mixes (ie for brick and block mortar) has a sand only blend in the mix.

Again, again and again . . .

Naturally occurring limestones are not even chemically similar to man made cements and concretes.

[hansgeorg]

You are pleading God created with the appearance of 'millions of years of age,' which is selective fideism to justify your YEC/OEC view of Creation, which is not logical nor consistently scientific.

No, since soil that is tillable is part of a functional world man can live in, and gives an "appearance of age" only to VERY biassed evolutionists.

The actual measured growh rate has never significantly deviated from the average cited.

Except when it has.

The concept here of natural 'flowstones' only applies to carbonate cave deposition, and does not apply to the process of lithification in other geologic formations. In made made concrete it is an engineers term for degraded cement and concrete.

And how do you know how lithified a stalagmite is?

The same chemical formulas cited applies to ALL forms of cement and concrete that are made since Roman engineers developed it for large buildings like the Colosseum. Early forms made by Egyptians and Chinese made primitive versions of cement by burning Gypsum and crushed limestone. The only difference between cement and concrete is the gravel mix in concrete. Cement mixes (ie for brick and block mortar) has a sand only blend in the mix.

Again, again and again . . .

Naturally occurring limestones are not even chemically similar to man made cements and concretes.

Here is the final stage of lime cycle given in article Cement:

Once the excess water is completely evaporated (this process is technically called setting), the carbonation starts:

Ca(OH)2 + CO2 → CaCO3 + H2O

This reaction takes a significant amount of time because the partial pressure of carbon dioxide in the air is low. The carbonation reaction requires the dry cement to be exposed to air, and for this reason the slaked lime is a non-hydraulic cement and cannot be used under water. This whole process is called the lime cycle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cement

What you were describing was Portland Cement, which is where the article continues:

[shunyadragon]

No, since soil that is tillable is part of a functional world man can live in, and gives an "appearance of age" only to VERY biassed evolutionists.

The appearance of age is a phoney Creationist argument. It is not an issue of biologists nor evolutionists. It is a matter of fact application of basic physics and chemistry in the discipline of Geology, in particular geomorphology.

And how do you know how lithified a stalagmite is?

We directly objectively observe the processes of how lithified stalagmites and stalagtites, and the huge cave columns form where they join together.

Here is the final stage of lime cycle given in article Cement:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cement

What you were describing was Portland Cement, which is where the article continues:

The final stage requires the initial stage of the formation of the initial products of all cements, like Calcium Oxide and Calcium Hydroxide are man made by burning lime in ALL forms of man made cement and concrete, which is required for large scale rapid hydration. This cannot take place on this scale in the marine environment where the vast corals and sea animal remains occur in the limestones of the world hundreds of feet thick. The only known process is the precipitation of Calcium/Magnesium Carbonates over a long period of time in an aqueous environment high in Calcium and Magnesium. The vast coral reefs covering hundreds of square miles are like those found today and are found in an orderly consistent way in the same manner as they are found today, and cannot form in a flood environment.

Also the deposits of large deposits of Iron Carbonates that form by precipitation on environments high in iron.

How could this burning of huge amounts of lime (finely ground limestone) to make limestones hundreds of feet thick all over the world containing vast amounts of coral reefs and sea shells in mythical flooded word in a short period of time?

The other elephant in the room is the vast salt and gypsum deposits of the world that can only form by precipitation in environments that are observed in the world today of arid environments and vast saline seas over millions of years.

As with the vast weathered regolith of the world where soils form is the application of your own bad answer is fideism where God Created everything with the appearance of age, and the natural environments where these formations are deposited and form over billions of years.

[robrecht]

I was not wanting either to say anything in particular, I was quoting both verses in isolation doing my best with remains of Greek and a Latin I thought more fluent than this passage. Hence my guess that the Vulgate is mirroring some Hebrew syntagm which muddles the Latin here.

So you now accept translating the earliest, Hebrew consonantal text of this passage as authoritative, without any need to appeal to the Vulgate?

[stfoskey15]

You are presuming an ignorance, because you refuse to use your knowledge to debate me and measure my knowledge. Last time you actually tried that, you failed. That every place one looks there is motion, well so what? There are lots of angels, and they can be expressing their bliss in lots of dance moves ("parallax, proper movement, aberration"), and in lots of fire works. You do not directly observe that the processes need more than one light day. You also have no evidence that angels could not do these things. You most certainly don't have access to the conclusions reasonably taken by ALL earthbound observers.

You can study the physical structure of things you observe on earth. Studying the physical structure of the universe, precisely like astrology, is overstepping the bounds of your evidence.



It is also in the nature of my position that I have a good alternative to it, to that admission. It is also in the nature of my position that if so it is NOT the one you tried to paint it out as. I e, you strawmanned it.



Such "mystics" (the word has quite another connotation in Catholic theology!) most certainly think of themselves as making a scientific endeavour.

How can you guarantee God thinks differently of you?



Vulgate represents the Hebrew accessible to St Jerome in 400 AD. NASB represents the Hebrew of the Masoretic version, accessible since 1000 AD or so.



God is most certainly not a deceiver. But He can most definitely make the proud ridiculous - which is what I think "reduce to nothing" means here, as I think it does when Pharisees in the early carreer of Jesus decided to do that to Him, and failed.

Making someone ridiculous may involve giving someone enough rope to hang himself in. Metaphorically. This is what I think awaits the scientists whom you think of as representing mankind - which also makes them kind of powerful, these days. How long have Heliocentrics been ruling in Western astronomy? Since 1750, perhaps?

266 years of Heliocentric astronomy, earlier half of it not very socially dominant either, out of 7215 years, that is 3.6 or 3.7% of the history of mankind, and you think THAT represents mankind in God's eyes?



God has no more tried to actively deceive you than He has actively tried to deceive astrologers.

God has most probably given both them and you "enough rope to hang yourself", if you refuse to listen to sense.

1 light day is VERY huge and majestic, there is really no need for billions of light years in order for the verses to be true.

Also, the part of "proclaim God's glory" quite certainly concords very well with angels doing a choreography. Especially one which next year will lead up to an "astrological" equivalent of Apocalypse 12.

If heliocentrism, YECism, et al. are true, but all scientific evidence says otherwise, how is God not deceiving scientists?

I'm pretty sure heliocentrism was widely accepted by scientists from the mid-late 1600s on. But your argument about how long something has been known representing how true it is seems just plain dumb. Is germ theory false because it was only popularized from the 1850s-1880s?

[Bret]

I was having a debate (and rather enjoying it) on evidence for the Flood, and if that is what you mean, feel welcome to bring things back to a state of debate!

This is a list of things that I've put together which are problematic for the Flood and these are just from geology. It's not even getting into things like genetics and the lack of bottlenecks in terrestrial populations.
------------------------------
How does a Flood explain subaerial igneous deposits?
How does a Flood address all the heat that would be produced by the formation of limestone?
How does the Flood explain trace fossils?
How does the Flood explain faunal succession?
How does the Flood explain 60,000 varve layers in Lake Suigetsu and hundreds of thousands of layers in ice cores?
How does the Flood explain glacial erosion and deposits?
How does Flood explain eolian deposits and paleosols?
How does the Flood explain meanders like Horseshoe bend?
How does the Flood explain the different states of erosion exhibited by different mountain ranges?
How does the Flood explain batholiths?

[shunyadragon]

This is a list of things that I've put together which are problematic for the Flood and these are just from geology. It's not even getting into things like genetics and the lack of bottlenecks in terrestrial populations.
------------------------------
How does a Flood explain subaerial igneous deposits?
How does a Flood address all the heat that would be produced by the formation of limestone?
How does the Flood explain trace fossils?
How does the Flood explain faunal succession?
How does the Flood explain 60,000 varve layers in Lake Suigetsu and hundreds of thousands of layers in ice cores?**
How does the Flood explain glacial erosion and deposits?**
How does Flood explain eolian deposits and paleosols?**
How does the Flood explain meanders like Horseshoe bend?**
How does the Flood explain the different states of erosion exhibited by different mountain ranges?
How does the Flood explain batholiths?

The overwhelming evidence for the geologic features of the earth supports the uniformitism of natural processes and natural laws over the history of our solar system, the earth and life itself.

Attempts of YEC Creationists to propose an alternative to billions of years of uniform natural history have no basis in the objective verifiable evidence. I have heard some advocates propose that other alternate explanations are possible, but it remains they have failed to provide this based on objective verifiable evidence.

This problem exists for the claim of OEC Creationists for either a world or a regional flood. I placed a ** next to those geologic features which indicate that a world or regional flood is not possible. The main geologic feature that precludes any possibility of a world or regional flood is the presence of a thick weathered regolith including soils that cover much of the regions throughout the world. Also the progressive erosion of river valleys including stair stepped older river terraces that were at one time the flood plain of the river,

[Kbertsche]

...
This problem exists for the claim of OEC Creationists for either a world or a regional flood. I placed a ** next to those geologic features which indicate that a world or regional flood is not possible. The main geologic feature that precludes any possibility of a world or regional flood is the presence of a thick weathered regolith including soils that cover much of the regions throughout the world. Also the progressive erosion of river valleys including stair stepped older river terraces that were at one time the flood plain of the river,

Can you please give a fuller explanation of your argument against a local or regional flood? I don't see why your ** items preclude a local or regional flood; I would not attribute any of these features to any sort of flood. (But I agree that these items are highly problematic for a global flood.)

We DO have good evidence of at least one regional flood: the infilling of the Black Sea. The features that you mention are present in that region, yet there was a large regional flood. And no one knew of this flood until relatively recently (just a few decades ago), when geologists became interested in the history of the Black Sea. Isn't it possible that there were also other regional floods which have not yet been investigated?

[rogue06]

Can you please give a fuller explanation of your argument against a local or regional flood? I don't see why your ** items preclude a local or regional flood; I would not attribute any of these features to any sort of flood. (But I agree that these items are highly problematic for a global flood.)

We DO have good evidence of at least one regional flood: the infilling of the Black Sea. The features that you mention are present in that region, yet there was a large regional flood. And no one knew of this flood until relatively recently (just a few decades ago), when geologists became interested in the history of the Black Sea. Isn't it possible that there were also other regional floods which have not yet been investigated?

There is also the region known as Doggerland which was the home to Mesolithic people in northwestern Europe that stretched from Britain's east coast to the continental Europe, primarily the Netherlands and the western coasts of Germany, and is now beneath the southern North Sea after being submerged under rising sea levels somewhere around 6200 to 6500 BC.

Doggerland

The catastrophic final flooding of Doggerland by the Storegga Slide tsunami

Britain's Atlantis: Scientific study beneath North Sea could revolutionise how we see the past

'Britain's Atlantis' found at bottom of North sea - a huge undersea world swallowed by the sea in 6500BC

British Atlantis: archaeologists begin exploring lost world of Doggerland

[shunyadragon]

Can you please give a fuller explanation of your argument against a local or regional flood? I don't see why your ** items preclude a local or regional flood; I would not attribute any of these features to any sort of flood. (But I agree that these items are highly problematic for a global flood.)

Local catastrophic river valley flooding events are possible for the Tigris Euphrates River Valleys, but not a regional flooding event.

We DO have good evidence of at least one regional flood: the infilling of the Black Sea. The features that you mention are present in that region, yet there was a large regional flood. And no one knew of this flood until relatively recently (just a few decades ago), when geologists became interested in the history of the Black Sea. Isn't it possible that there were also other regional floods which have not yet been investigated?

Both Rogue06 and you are grasping at straws concerning the possibility of a regional flood that would be equivalent to the Genesis record. I will address the problems of Rogue06's examples in a separate post. The infilling of the Black Sea from the eroding of the Bosperus strait and the partial infilling the Black Sea between about ~15,000 through about ~5600 BC. Current consensus of this event is that it was not a sudden event, but a slow infilling by the rise of sea level in the post-glacial period.

It is further grasping at straws in hopes that any sudden regional flood has occurred in recent human history to justify a regional Genesis flood. The geology of the Mediteranian region and the Middle East as well as the whole is now well explored and studied, and there is no sign of a regional flood. There is evidence of catastrophic river valley flooding in the Tigris and Euphrates, Chinese and India's river valleys that would be experienced by humans, and the subject of legends and myths possibly leading to the Genesis record originating from Babylonian, and Canaanite legends and myths.

[Adrift]

Local catastrophic river valley flooding events are possible for the Tigris Euphrates River Valleys, but not a regional flooding event.



Both Rogue06 and you are grasping at straws concerning the possibility of a regional flood that would be equivalent to the Genesis record. I will address the problems of Rogue06's examples in a separate post. The infilling of the Black Sea from the eroding of the Bosperus strait and the partial infilling the Black Sea between about ~15,000 through about ~5600 BC. Current consensus of this event is that it was not a sudden event, but a slow infilling by the rise of sea level in the post-glacial period.

It is further grasping at straws in hopes that any sudden regional flood has occurred in recent human history to justify a regional Genesis flood. The geology of the Mediteranian region and the Middle East as well as the whole is now well explored and studied, and there is no sign of a regional flood. There is evidence of catastrophic river valley flooding in the Tigris and Euphrates, Chinese and India's river valleys that would be experienced by humans, and the subject of legends and myths possibly leading to the Genesis record originating from Babylonian, and Canaanite legends and myths.

Is there a particular reason you decided to ignore the last sentence from the Criticism section of that Wikipedia article?

[shunyadragon]

There is also the region known as Doggerland which was the home to Mesolithic people in northwestern Europe that stretched from Britain's east coast to the continental Europe, primarily the Netherlands and the western coasts of Germany, and is now beneath the southern North Sea after being submerged under rising sea levels somewhere around 6200 to 6500 BC.

Your dating of the regional submergence of the North Sea region is not correct by your source.

Doggerland

The catastrophic final flooding of Doggerland by the Storegga Slide tsunami

Britain's Atlantis: Scientific study beneath North Sea could revolutionise how we see the past

'Britain's Atlantis' found at bottom of North sea - a huge undersea world swallowed by the sea in 6500BC

British Atlantis: archaeologists begin exploring lost world of Doggerland

The view that this was some sort of sudden submergence like a 'British Atlantis' is over the top hyperbole. It was a gradual event taking thousands of years by the post glacial rise of sea level as was the most recent research concerning the Black Sea at the same time.

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2167731/Britains-Atlantis-North-sea--huge-undersea-kingdom-swamped-tsunami-5-500-years-ago.html

'Britain's Atlantis' - a hidden underwater world swallowed by the North Sea - has been discovered by divers working with science teams from the University of St Andrews.

Doggerland, a huge area of dry land that stretched from Scotland to Denmark was slowly submerged by water between 18,000 BC and 5,500 BC.

© Copyright Original Source

The evidence of 'local' coastal tsunamis, are common world wide due tectonic activity, and brief in duration.

There is evidence of post glacial catastrophic flooding in North America in the Ohio River Valley, and the channeled scablands of Washington state, associated with several events of the collapse of ice dams on a huge glacial lake actually during the glacial period.

I can easily envision the interpretation of ancient peoples of Mesopotamia of the rising sea level of the lowlands at the mouth of the Tigris Euphrates delta region, combined with catastrophic flooding of the valley, and by the way the aridification of the surrounding region in recent history, and evidence of the abandonment of large cities, as the demise of idealic Eden.

[shunyadragon]

Is there a particular reason you decided to ignore the last sentence from the Criticism section of that Wikipedia article?

I guess you are referring to this;

"In 2016 Ryan, Dimitrov et. al. reviewed the evidence accumulated and reaffirmed the catastrophic scenario (Project: DO02-337 "Ancient coastlines of the Black Sea and conditions for human presence", sponsored by Bulgarian Scientific Fund)."

Big hairy deal! Considering the wealth of academic sources documenting a gradual filling due to rise in sea level as documented throughout the Mediteranian and North Sea regions.

No, I did not ignore anything. I referred to this as a general reference for layman, because I well aware of ALL the geologic evidence that the post glacial rise of sea level cause both the rise of the level of the Black Sea and the North Sea lowlands over thousands of years between ~18,000 years ago and ~7,000 years ago, and by the way the evidence is world wide in academic research concerning ancient coastlines including North America.

I could very well cite the many academic articles covering both regions if necessary.

[Adrift]

No, I did not ignore anything.

Yes you did. You ignored the very last sentence in the Criticism section.

I referred to this as a general reference for layman, because I well aware of ALL the geologic evidence that the post glacial rise of sea level cause both the rise of the level of the Black Sea and the North Sea lowlands over thousands of years between ~18,000 years ago and ~7,000 years ago.

I could very well cite the many academic articles covering both regions if necessary.

Huh? I didn't ask you why you cited Wikipedia, I asked you why you ignored the last sentence in the Criticism section of the article.

[shunyadragon]

Yes you did. You ignored the very last sentence in the Criticism section.



Huh? I didn't ask you why you cited Wikipedia, I asked you why you ignored the last sentence in the Criticism section of the article.

. . . because it did not reflect the overwhelming amount of academic literature concerning the world wide rise in sea level in that period and the abundant literature, some cited in the article that shows a gradual sediment deposition record in the Black Sea and the North Sea that match the gradual sea level rise. There is no evidence for a catastrophic sediment deposit in the Black Sea basin associated with the increased rise in sea level. This true for the whole region around the Mediteranian, North Sea and for that matter world wide.