Noah’s Ark: Flooded with Facts
Folklore of a global flood among many religions worldwide, including Christianity. Not to say the Bible’s words do not carry important messages and morales, but not all of it’s accounts can be taken literally. The story of the Great Flood is one such story. The biblical account of Noah is impossible. One reason why is a problem with the Great Flood:
There is not enough water on the earth to cover the planet as described in the Christian Bible. Even if enough water were present to cover all land on earth, the conditions produced would have killed Noah and his family.
This article deals with the flood itself. It does not cover the ark, nor does it talk about the animals. This article bases its reasoning and conclusions on what we can observe.
Rain and the Vapor Canopy
According to Genesis chapter 7:11 and 12, it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. The resulting water covered every bit of land on earth. But where did so much water come from?
One model proposed by believers is that much of the flood water was suspended in the atmosphere until the start of the rain period[1]. How was this much water suspended? It would have been heated to keep it in vapor form. In this case, it’s a lot of water, so it would be superheated. Unfortunately, this heat would have cooked Noah in the process. (This assumes the atmosphere is able to be superheated, a tough feat to attain when so much water vapor is blocking sunlight.)
But let’s assume a vapor canopy with enough moisture to flood did earth exist. The canopy’s presence would raise the humidity levels to nearly 100%. If this moisture (somehow) did not condense, it would raise oxygen and nitrogen levels to levels toxic for humans. If Noah and his shipmates somehow survived toxic and superheated air, they would have drowned by simply walking outside[2].
But for the sake of argument, let’s say it does rain and Noah is alive to see it. If this event happened literally, rain water would not even cover half of the earth’s land[2]. A few simple calculations can show why.
Mount Everest, the highest point of land on earth, recorded a height of 29,035 feet in 1999. It would have rained 725 feet (not inches!) a day for 40 days to cover Mt. Everest at its present height. Not to say weather patterns in Noah’s day were the same as in the 21st century, but the most rainfall in a single day in recorded history is a paltry 73.62 inches. According to Genesis 7:10 7:20, this condition had to be met, but the math indicates nature isn’t even close. At a height of 16,854 feet, rain would have had to fall at 421 feet per day to cover Mount Ararat, the supposed docking place of Noah’s ark. That’s 5,056 inches per day. Still not even close. If there were enough water on earth to cover the planet’s land masses, it was have to fall at an incredible rate to to do so in just 40 days.
Underground Reservoirs and Comets
But wait! Rain originating from the atmosphere is not the only source of water involved in the great flood. Genesis 7:11 claims water spewed from under the earth as well. But how exactly where underground did this water come from and how did it get up to the surface? If the water was about 10 miles underground [3], it would already have been heated by the earth’s core (but not heated enough to rise to the surface). It would have required even more heat to rise to the surface as vapor, producing rather hot clouds of steam coming from underground.
If Noah encountered any of these superheated steam vents, again he would have been cooked.
A similar situation would have resulted if a comet made of ice entered the earth’s atmosphere and been reduced to steam.
So far there isn’t a natural, feasible explanation that puts enough water on earth without killing Noah and his family. Is this Bible ‘myth’ debunked? Not yet.
The Earth’s Surfaced Changed
Some believers contest that the shape of the earth’s surface was much flatter at the time of the flood, allowing ocean water alone to cover all earth’s land. It was only after the flood, through a series of natural catastrophes (possibly avalanches), were the mountains raised and ocean basins lowered to their present levels [1, 3]. Another report published by the Institution for Creation Research details how the required tectonic movement necessary for the flood could have occurred within the required time period. The steam that rose from the oceans would also have killed off all air-breathing life (including airborne life).
However unlikely, what if this scenario occurred and the earth’s mantle moved? In today’s day and age, the slightest underground movement causes earthquakes and, if underwater, tsunamis. Techtonic shifts of biblical magnitude would have produced numerous tsunamis on a tremendously large scale. How did the ark survive?
When reading through the two research studies from the ICR cited, I noticed the authors using phrases like “appears to be” and “possibility” several times when drawing their conclusions. While they provide science and mathematical calculations supporting their claims, they certainly don’t prove them.
Fossils, Geological Footprints, and More
A global flood would leave geological evidence in mountains, ice caps, the sea floor, mineral deposits, fossils, and other areas. Aside from the amount of water required for a global flood, other arguments that support the Great Flood exist. TalkOrigins does a good job of covering the implications of a global flood here and here. These pages examine evidenceheat and more.
Again, I chose not to focus on these topics for this article, but encourage those with outstanding questions to visit the site for further explanations.
It’s A Miracle!
If you take the Bible’s word on faith, then I can’t touch you. But the biblical account of Noah’s ark doesn’t work without miracles. But if you believe in miracles, Talk Origins eloquently notes…
the whole [flood] story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It’s entirely possible that a global flood occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what’s the point?
Citations
- Brown, Walt, 1997. In the beginning: compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. ( www.creationscience.com/onlinebook)
- (2007). History’s Mysteries: The Search For Noah’s Ark [Television and DVD Series]. New York: A&E Television Networks.
- Whitcomb, J.C. Jr. & H.M. Morris, 1961. The Genesis Flood. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia PA.
You should follow us on twitter.
The flood could just correspond with post ice age flooding. The result of massive releases of freshwater held atop the glaciation by fragile ice dams. When said dams break, colossal amounts of fresh water would have inundated the world’s oceans causing a rise in sea level of many meters of the course of just a few weeks. Sure its a far cry from covering the entire world in water, but it would globally take out coastal cities and account for the various flood mythos.
Josh, this article seeks to disprove the flood as it is described in the Bible. If all the water on this planet were released on the surface at once, sure it would flood a good portion of the land (including nearly every coastal city).
Would it cover every square inch of land on the planet? No. I am stating that Noah’s flood, as described in the Christian Bible, is impossible on earth.
I don’t disagree with that you say in your comment, nor do I doubt a flood happened (since so many cultures have similar accounts of a flood around the same time).
okay you “genious” atheists
you didn’t even read the whole story!!!!!!!
also what do you mean “The resulting water covered every bit of land on earth.”
the rain covered most of the Earth! if it rained 40 days & 40 nights
without stopping…
the earth would flood.
I actually don’t even know why I am wasting my time arguing with you about this.
seems to me that you are having doubts about your own point of view.
God exists ,
I know 100% with all my heart
I have seen and been through things that are beyond your imagination.
The only proof you have is the “scientific evidence”.
But it’s your choice.
I am not saying you made the right one
but you only have 1 lifetime to make that choice.
Just think about it for a second…life without a God is completely pointless.
PS(Darwin died as a Christian)
Who said we were atheists? We’re skeptics.
If you want to believe in God and stories like the flood that’s ok. But please don’t “just claim the flood story is true because you believe in God with all your heart.” If you look at the story mathematically it’s not possible.
We’ve done out best to lay it out and explain why we’re claiming what we’re claiming. What’s your reasoning? Besides “just knowing…”?
I have been away from this page for awhile, but now I see a few things I need to comment on.
Larissa, I just read your comments. I have to tell you, it’s comments like that that ulitimately hurt your cause, rather than helping it. I have long suspected that people believe in religions not because of evidence, but because of emotional connections to said religion. You are proving that very clearly with your arguments.
You say we didn’t read the whole story. If you’re referring to the Noah story, I can promise you that we have, indeed, read the whole story many times. It’s just that we look at it with a different point of view than others would. The purpose of this article was to show that, from a scientific standpoint, a global flood would be impossible. Sure, for a god who can do miracles nothing is impossible, but unless you can prove that god exists AND that he has the power to override natural laws, than you don’t have much of a case.
You say you have seen and been through things we couldn’t imagine. Well, like what? Do you have any evidence to back it up? You are quite welcome to e-mail us if you have more info, and if you have any evidence of god’s existence, we’d love to see it. However, we are looking for more than “I know it in my heart.”
You say the only thing we have is scientific evidence, as though that’s a bad thing. That’s like saying, scornfully, that the only way to know that 2 + 2 equals 4 is to put two apples with another two apples and count them up. If you think of scientific evidence as totally invalid, than it’s clear your values greatly differ from ours.
And finally, please do a little research on your claim that Darwin died a Christian. That is widely known to be a legend, and even many creationist would agree that it’s highly unlikely that Darwin had a death-bed conversion. Once again, if you can come here and claim that Darwin died a Christian, it shows me that you either do very little research, or that all your research is biased. If you want to help your cause, you can do so by checking your facts before jumping into an argument.
I’ve been doing alot of thinking about this recently and some research. I’ve read many articles that talk about the lack physical evidence and the mathematical impossibility of the flood happening. Quite frankly, I can’t argue with it. Mostly because I believe the arguments to be valid but also because I lack the knowlege to prove or disprove them.
You stated that the flood doesn’t work without it being a miracle. That is true and that’s the point I wanted to make. You said if it was a miracle and God removed all signs of it, then what’s the point? I argue that that is the nature of miracles.
When Peter cut off the ear of the soldier when Jesus was arrested, Jesus healed the ear. That’s a miracle. Do you think there was any sign left over, like a scar, to show that it had been cut off? The bible doesn’t say so and I think it would be unlike Jesus and his message to leave a visible scar.
When he healed lepers do you think afterward, someone looking at the person might say, “Hey, you used to be a leper, I can tell by looking at you”. Again, we don’t know for sure but probably not. The same with Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead.
My point is that it’s possible that the nature of a miracle is to not leave any visibile signs that it ever happened. The flood could have happened and no scar was left over. Therefor you either believe it on faith or dismiss it as never happening.
Dean, you’re right. If a miracle like this can be covered up like you’ve described, then it’s 100% possible that it DID happen and there’s no way we’d ever be able to prove it. I guess when you put it that way, it comes down to faith.
Larisa, you have been lied to. Darwin DID NOT die as a Christian. He died as an agnostic. You are repeating a popular MYTH told among churches to make evolution seem less believable. Do not be deceived by liars, Larisa. Check the facts out from several independent reputable sources. It is not historically accurate. However, Darwin was NEVER an atheist, this is apparent by his own words. By his own words (verified, in his own handwriting), he says that his spiritual beliefs would best be described as agnostic.
He attended church regularly in his youth, but as he became older he took to taking walks on Sunday while his family went to church. He didn’t die a Christian. He didn’t die an atheist either, but he definitely did NOT die a Christian.
As far as the validity of evolution, it makes ZERO DIFFERENCE what Darwin believed. Either the theory is right or it is wrong by its own validity. Recently scientists have decoded the DNA of the common cold. Guess what they found? They found that it is possible for you to get infected by two different strands of it, and for those two strands to mix DNA and produce a BRAND NEW third strand of cold inside your body. THAT is speciation, and it is PROOF that at least some forms of evolution are undeniably true.
Lucky for you believers, there is no unquestionable reason that Christianity and evolution cannot compliment each other. See Kennith Miller’s “Finding Darwin’s God” for details.
If you nimrods had read the bible you would notice that it sais that the floodgates of heaven had beeen opend and that a wind went over the earth to make the waters recede. Although i myself am skeptical on the bible and the events that happen in it i really hate these people that go against it without actually reading it.
You yourselves need to prove-to yourselves- whether God exists. Stop arguing with people, get down, on your knees, and ask him to reveal himself. But do it honestly, with an open heart. If you are not, willing to do this, then you have only yourselves to blame.
Michael, your initial comment came in two days before my wedding, or I would have commented on it sooner. I would like to say though, that I don’t see how your pointing out that” the floodgates of heaven had beeen opend [your spelling] and that a wind went over the earth to make the waters recede,” has any major impact on the arguments made in this article. Our whole argument was that the Noah’s Ark story was scientifically impossible, and if one chose to believe it, the reasoning would have to be faith. Claiming that the “flood gates of heaven opened” is not a scientific argument. If the floodgates of heaven opened, it would have to be believed on faith.
And yes, we HAVE read the Noah’s Ark story. I personally, read it as a child in catechism class, and then again, more recently. I have seen documentaries on the story AND visited the Creation Museum in Kentucky, where they have a detailed exhibit on the flood. So while I certainly am not biblical scholar, I think it’s fair to say I’ve done my homework on this.
Based on your comment, though, I would argue that you probably didn’t read (or at least, didn’t understand) our article.
Carol, just so you are aware, I believed in god as child, pretty much up until my sophomore year of college. At that time, I said regular prayers, and made sure to say a prayer every night before I went to bed. In college I began to doubt God (for obvious reasons) but still believed overall, and still WANTED to believe. I added to my night time prayer something along the lines of, “God, please quiet my doubting mind.” In otherwords, I prayed sincerely that I would stop doubting, so that I could maintain my faith in god.
You can see, from my work on Skeptical Monkey, how well that worked out.
You say the following in your article: “This article bases its reasoning and conclusions on what we can observe.”
Were you there? The scientific method can prove NOTHING about past events. It can help make inferences based on historical accounts; but THAT something happened and HOW it happened needs to be revealed by SOMEONE who was there…and it has been!!
God bless.
Right Shaun… I was not there. Otherwise I would have given a play-by-play account of what happened.
Since this is not possible, using scientific method, which is responsible for many things (including how you left your comment on this site).
Hi, Ido believe a flood happened and the ice age too. can this be explained well let’s try The bible is said to be the word of god the people at the creation institute have given plausible evidence that a flood was possible and others that it was not can we explore both possibilities and see where it takes us ?
looking at the fossil record there is evidence of a world wide event that killed off a enormous part of life on the earth followed by an ice age. Is that correct?
Thanks for the information. I am going to use it as a discussion topic in my high school sunday school class today. Something to consider, some believe the flood was a regional event. However, science does not have to explain God’s power because He does not need your approval.
I’ll never understand why people like Carol assume that people who do not believe as herself have never asked god to reveal himself honestly and with an open heart.
Interesting article. Especially this week with a group claiming to have found noah’s ark (again).
I love science, I love watching science programs and reading about new discoveries and theories. Here is a funny thing about science though- it changes. It always will change. Have we reached a point where it is fairly stable, or will next week a new theory be presented that will radically change our understanding of space, time, or life? Nobody knows, and I guess that is one thing that makes it very interesting.
So why do I believe in God? I guess one reason is because I look out at the stars, or the seas, or the amazing complexities of life and I just can’t accept that it all happened on its own without a reason, without direction. I can’t accept that it is all due to just random collisions, explosions, and evolutions. Not that these things don’t happen, but there must be a purpose and a power behind all of it. An atheist must have great faith. Not in the same things that I have faith in, but great faith in man’s understanding of the universe… yet we know so little indeed.
So back to the flood. I hold to quite a literal interpretation of the bible. I have faith that the whole earth was covered by water and that Noah built an ark, etc. How did that happen? No idea. There are some plausible theories that I can think of in my mind, but as has been stated none of us were there when the flood happened (or didn’t happen), so it is speculative.
So, theories will come and go and morph over time. Some may lend some creedence to a great flood, many will not. It will be fascinating to watch. We are starting to understand more and more of genetics all the time. If you believe in God, then this is the code of creation so it will be very interesting to follow. And then, one day, your life is over. Then what?
Thanks for the comment, Matt. Very well written and a pleasure to read!
I’m a bit confused about how you enjoy watching science and seeing how things change… but still latch on to ideas like the global flood and 7 day creation theory without budging.
You may have seen shows on the discovery channel about Big Bang, evolution, and other topics. Is it so far fetched that everything happened coincidence. I mean… live had 6 billion years… that’s a lot chances for the right mix of molecules to find each other and make life. And a hell of a lot of time for evolution. After all… the ‘hear and now’ didn’t happen overnight. Or even in thousands or millions of years. With that amount of time, the odds start to favor random coincidences to happen.
Anyway, my two cents.
Also, I (mostly) agree with you on atheism and faith. It takes strong faith to be one. For this reason I consider myself a militant agnostic; I just think atheist have a more convincing argument than theists. I could be wrong, sure. But theists, atheists, agnostics, everyone… no one here knows what happens after life. I admit that. Do you?
Well sence your trying to prove wrong of God’s word. Then look at another scientific fact. I’m thinking the world was alot flater then. look at all the new islands that eroupted in a short amount of time?? Everything could have been lower elevation. God doesnt give us a full mind to understand everything. The flood is something to show people about how great our God is. How he can make something happen with little effort what he says goes! Also global warming has something to do with you theorey, back then there wasn’t alot of humity not alot of heat in the atmostshpere so i really think is a person so into proving wrong sould be more open and reshearch a bit more. Not saying im any smarter then you, im probably not. But I know in my heart that Jesus is the way, and God is our creater. But i liked reading others thoughs. Good artical backed up with facts for once. haha
In today’s present conditions, it is impossible to have a global flood that covers the highest mountains with 20 feet to spare. But I believe one of the biggest flaws of science is that we assume the present conditions are exactly what it was like in the past. Scientists say for millions of years, nothing has really changed much.
Well, what if the antediluvian world didn’t have mountains as high as they are now? What if their was indeed a thicker global atmosphere? What if the very act of the flood began a rapid shift in plate tectonics which not only began rapidly growing the mountains, but also created large craters for which water flowed – forming oceans.
There is a great deal of scientific evidence which supports a young-earth (less than 10,000 years). When you begin with that assumption, then things like the Grand Canyon, Yosemite National Park, and other great natural formations would have had to have formed quickly — NOT over millions of slow erosion.
Haven’t we all seen the incredibly powerful forces of nature quickly reshape things dramatically? Of course. To me it requires FAR more faith to believe that things haven’t changed dramatically for millions of years than to think about the possibilities of what a worldwide flood would mean for catastrophic reshaping of the earth.
Good article, though. I’m glad people are skeptical because I believe the Bible holds up to skepticism when you look for the possibilities of its truth instead of its fiction.
NBC, I always appreciate theists who welcome questioning and skepticism. In my mind, if the bible is true, it should stand up to scrutiny–and if isn’t true, it isn’t worth defending. So many theists I’ve met don’t want their bible questioned at all…thanks for keeping an open mind!
Hi NBC, thanks for commenting, your response was very pleasant to read. I’m afriad, though, I must disagree with your opinion of what is physically possible in a human-inhabitable world.
First, I agree with you that the earth’s topography constantly changes. There is evidence that shows how mountains continually change in height (both increasing and decreasing).
But this happens over a very, very long period of time… like millions of years.
I’m not sure what scientific evidence you refer to that supports a young earth, but there is a staggering amount of evidence that supports an old one. Case in point: the Grand Canyon. If the Grand Canyon was created in a quick, catostrophic manner, its canyons would be cut pretty straight. However, many the canyons make sharp, 180 degree turns.
I haven’t come across anything that supports catastrophic events concerning the raising of mountains, reshaping of continents, or the creation of ocean basins in just a few thousand years. Seems like the earth would crack in half of that happened! (Well, maybe not literally crack… hehe.)
I’m glad you are keeping us in check. It’s nice to have readers come to the site and question our logic in a pleasant manner. (In fact, we’re due for an audit for some of our posts.)
I agree that the Bible holds a good amount of literal truth. But I think it’s pretty clear that the Bible’s account of Noah’s Flood is not one of these literal truths.
this is a super interesting discussion and after reading the article and everyones comments I believe I have new information that is pertenent to the subject. The article points out the problem with rain for 40 days and this is correct but it fails to recognize the fact that if we are going to consider the bible position on historic events then we need to remember the according to the bible the earth was streached over the waters, even today we know that there exists subterrenian water still to this day. The bible also tells us that there was water above the “firmement” or the air, this phenomon can explain why there are fossils of giant animals of every type in the fossil record because there would be a greenhouse/indoor environment on the entire earth. When the bible talks about the flood it says the windows of heaven were opened, and the fountians of the great deep were opened up. The arguement about rain cant flood the earth is not valad because the bible says the water came from fountians of the deep, windows of heaven, and rain for 40 days… there is ample evidence of this as the entire world is now unstable techtonic plates that are broken up thru the fountians of the deep breaking apart. The largest mountians formed as a result of the broken up plates of the earth colliding (forming mountains, and holes i.e. oceans).
When we see canyons and multiple layers stacked together with flat contacts between each layer, this is exactly consistent with a flood. As a matter of fact it presents a problem to people who want to claim that the layers are different ages because why is it that the layers in the past had no erosion (canyons, hills, etc..) but today the surface of the earth has erosion? It should be no suprise that fossils of animals in the past are often times gigantic (the bible says there were giants on the earth in those days), and that clams and ocean creatures are in the bottom layers (first to get buried in a flood) and the birds (birds float) are on top along with the larger animals that can seek high ground. I still feel convinced that the evidence is very much in favor of the genesis account. lemme know if you have anything to add.. sorry for the spelling
Steve, if there was enough water to flood the earth, where did it all go? It’s true there is presently water under the earth, but a very small amount. There are no water chambers like there are magma chambers. Geysers don’t contain much water. There simply is not enough water present to cover the earth.
And are you saying that water broke up the tectonic plates? I’m a little unclear as to what you’re saying.
it makes sense that presently there is only a small amount of subterranean water, and that is exactly what one would expect with a flood model. Try to really picture in your minds eye what would happen geologically in a flood scenario in a perfect world as it was created as described in the first chapter of genesis. There was not only a small amount of subterranean water at that time but the foundations of the earth, the granite rock (granite rock incidentally is found everywhere in the earth if you go deep enough), was unbroken. there was at that time therefore no great canyons or steep cliffs like we see today in yosemite national park or grand canyon. Unfortunately the bible does not give any indication as to what the trigger was that broke the tectonic plates, this however is not as problematic as one might think because evidence is there that they are broken today and therefore it is logical to deduct that at one point they were unbroken. If you find a broken pot you might rightly assume that at one point it was together.
As far as where the water went… to understand where the water went you need to understand how mountains can rise. Today we can see that mountains do indeed rise and the reason for this is that the tectonic plates are colliding and causing an uplift. At the moment the foundation granite bedrock was broken these newly made “tectonic plates” would have then slid apart from each other using the water underneath as lubricant to keep them moving. Water would have been shooting out of these fissures in the rock at amazing pressure and the points where these unstable plates collide create mountains, and the places they slide apart will create deep chasms as we see today in the mid atlantic ridge, the water would recede naturally into the cracks not before rushing across the present day landscape carving out canyons that reveal layers and layers of mud sediment filled with fossils of dead things. Not only that but if the bible scenario as i just described is in fact true than you would expect the dead animals to be hydrologically sorted in the sediment, which is exactly what we find. It is true that the subterranean water would have been hot during the flood but i think its unfair to say high pressure steam broke the rock and therefor find fault with the steam problem as the article does. Especially since the bible uses the term “fountain”, i’ve never seen a steam fountain. And the water above the earth today is vapor, but its not fair to say that the water above the earth in genesis 1 is vapor because the bible calls it “the windows,” vapor doesn’t make a good window, perhaps it was ice. Just try to stay consistent with the bible when you criticize the flood model. We live in an extremely biblically illiterate day of age and it is unfortunate that most christians think they need to cherry pick the bible to stay consistent with science. I would like to hear a scientific reason that one has to reject to claims of the genesis account. As a critic of the bible it would be prudent take the extra time to understand the position that it takes with these issues. Remember that most people are required to learn the evolution point of view and are taught that the bible is fiction. This would be understandable if it did in fact conflict with physical evidence but as I observe it appears that the genesis account is being misstated and then rejected as unscientific and this is unwarranted. Not only that but the material being taught to support long ages and evolution are unscientific. For example, we are taught that el capitan in yosemite was once molten and lifted up hardening on the way up and creating a cliff. What they don’t say is that el capitan is made of solid granite which when melted and hardened becomes a completely different kind of rock. Incidentally granite rock cannot even be replicated in a laboratory. This foundation rock was part of Gods own creation according to the bible, “he laid the foundations of the earth.”
To my understanding, your description of how the earth’s crust works is accurate… just replace the water with magma. Magma exists in great volumes underground and forms oceans on which the earth’s crust floats and moves. It is extremely hot and pressurized, and it occasionally punches holes in the earth’s crust. It can also cool and become part of earth’s crust. Water does not possess these qualities, nor do we see it spewing out of any cracks or fault lines today.
Combine that with the fact that mountains didn’t (and don’t) rise as fast as in the scenario you describe (I’m hoping this is obvious enough that I don’t have to cite a source).
I’m sorry, I just don’t buy your explanation.
As stated before, the Bible has many many positive implications (please, please note this). But when someone takes certain parts too literally it begins to skew the percetption of reality. It’s not an inerrable science or history book.
To my understanding, your description of how the earth’s crust works is accurate… just replace the water with magma. Magma exists in great volumes underground and forms oceans on which the earth’s crust floats and moves. It is extremely hot and pressurized, and it occasionally punches holes in the earth’s crust. It can also cool and become part of earth’s crust. Water does not possess these qualities, nor do we see it spewing out of any cracks or fault lines today.
Combine that with the fact that mountains didn’t (and don’t) rise as fast as in the scenario you describe (I’m hoping this is obvious enough that I don’t have to cite a source).
I’m sorry, I just don’t buy your explanation.
As stated before, the Bible has many many positive implications (please, please note this). But when someone takes certain parts too literally it begins to skew the perception of reality. It’s not an in-errable science or history book.
I’m not sure you understood my response about where the water went… the ocean is basically a big low spot or a hole and it is full of water from the flood. theres actually more water than there is land. Im not saying the water is still underground. Land masses are created by volcanic activity but it doesn’t account for all land masses. If all land masses were at one point molten magma then there would not be granite land masses because granite cannot be melted and turn back into granite again.
As far a mountains rising, they obviously don’t rise that fast today but that shouldn’t be a problem as far as the bible claim is concerned because the catastrophic flood presents a plausible mechanism to raise mountains very quickly to the point they are today. Look, i can respect anyone who doesn’t buy into the genesis flood scenario so long as there is a valid reason to think that it is in error. So far I don’t see how one can take the reading too literally. Who is supposed to decide what is literal and what is an allegory? and not only that but where is the problem with the literal reading that makes it unscientific?. I understand that it is a religious point of view and obviously none of us were there to see it, but nobody is forced to abandon reason and science to conceive that the genesis account is literally true. You can make a blanket statement that says “it’s not an inerrable science or history book” but why have you come to that conclusion? Where is the conflict with science or history?
Ahh ok it sounds like you’re referring to the earth’s topography changing. If this is the case, I talked about this in the article under the heading “The Earth’s Surfaced Changed”.
I respect your religious view, though one must abandon science to believe the account in Genesis is 100% accurate. Please refer to “Fossils, Geological Footprints, and More” and “It’s A Miracle” in the original article.
I have come to the conclusion that the Bible is not without error because I’ve encountered the errors myself. The flood story is one. Since this article is about the Biblical Flood and not errors in the Bible, I’m not going to cite more examples. You can use Google for that.
thanks for indulging my desire to criticize your article. Its nothing personal but i guess thats just how science works. I took another look at the parts of the article you referred to and in the portion “the earths surface changed.” I see how it explains in a broad sense what the creationist view is but when you make the statement “however unlikely this would have been,” without giving a physical evidence based reason seems to show a bias. Its absolutely right that if that “unlikely” scenario was true then the evidence we find would support it, and everything about what we find seems to support this scenario however unlikely it may seem, massive amounts of oil (oil is made by burying organic material in high pressure and heat), theres coal seams (also made by heat and pressure on organic material), giant fossils of animals in the past that show the world was full of giants, marine fossils on top of mountains, grand canyon like formations all over the world that show layers (each layer has flat contacts between them and the next, which presents a huge problem if you want to say the layers are different ages, why is there no erosion on the ancient layers?), theres even some convincing evidence of a man made ancient boat shaped object petrified in the mountains of Ararat complete with iron rivets and drogue stones (look up Ron Wyatts findings on Noah’s ark, theres even a visitors center in turkey there and the government has declared it Noah’s ark). So however farfetched it may seem i suppose if the evidence points there then you have to explain it, and the bible explains it quite accurately so far. I agree that it would be a difficult task to build a boat that could withstand the conditions of a worldwide flood but first of all it was gods boat design not Noah’s and i’m sure i would have been puking like a maniac if i were on it but were here and the evidence seems to point in that direction. You know they have found manmade jewelry in the coal seams. difficult for that to happen if the coal was made before man existed, talk about farfetched…
the “fossils and geological footprints” section gives some “problems with the flood model but there is evidence based counter arguements for each one. for example it talks about ice ring core samples that have the “annual rings” dating the earth much older the the bible allows but the problem lies in the belief that the rings are annual rings. The rings in the ice core samples are caused by warm cold warm cold, not summer winter summer winter. you need to read about the lost squadron, the airplane went down in greenland 50 years ago some brave souls went to find it because it was in perfect condition and they figured they can just dust off the snow fuel it up and fly it out. they had to use ground penetrating radar to locate the airplane and then go into the ice to get it out. The airplane was burred under hundreds and hundreds of these “annual layers.” if they were annual layers there should have been 50 layers. I therefore don’t believe ice core samples can prove that the ice is 10000 years old. Theres also talk in the link on the article about tree ring samples not supporting the bible chronology. I disagree because the oldest known tree is a bristlecone pine and is approximately 4400 years old. makes sense since the flood happened at about that time. And there are many such examples.
what about the petrified trees that are found standing up and going thru multiple layers? Those layers cannot be different ages with a tree going thru millions of years worth of layers… be carefully about coming to conclusions, don’t let your conclusion keep you from looking at new information objectively. not that you are doing that, its just hard to debate constructively when you have already reached a conclusion.
Steve, I did not mean to provoke you but I’m afraid that I’m leaning toward closing the comments on this article as well so I don’t provoke another unwanted emotional response from you.
There are a number of shows I’ve watched on The History Channel that debunk so-called Ark findings. They are pretty convincing and I’d encourage you to watch one, if able.
Thanks for pointing out the Ron Wyatts site. Ron Wyatts seems like a religious guy looking for confirmation for his beliefs. I’m not saying I don’t believe him, but it’s easy for his findings to be tainted with this approach. Thanks for the site, though.
With the exception of your mention of how the ark can float, I couldn’t make much sense of the rest of your comment. Can you please use paragraph breaks, spell- and grammar-check, and perhaps focus on one thing at a time. Your comment is hard to read. Sorry, I really don’t mean to be a jerk in writing this (I know it’s hard for tone to come through over the web). Please, it’s not meant to be an insult.
Im sorry i was unclear. Ill try to keep my response on one point. Guess i just have alot to say. Please understand that i dont think your a jerk, or rude so im not insulted. Ill keep this response about ice core samples.
The article has a link that says that ice core samples in greenland show that the earth is much older than the bible says. The ice core samples have annual rings that can be counted and when one counts the annual rings there appears to be a record that goes back tens of thousands of years.
My response to this scientific find is that the rings in the ice core samples cannot be annual rings. The rings in the ice are caused a consecutive warm then cold then warm again etc.. not summer winter summer winter as is assumed by the name “annual” rings.
A perfect example of what I am talking about happened with an airplane that got lost in greenland and landed on the ice 50 years ago. look up “the lost squadron.”
In only 50 years this airplane was under many hundreds of these “annual rings.” How then can these core samples prove the earth is old? This example shows that the rings are not annual, but that they can occur many times in any given year.
By the way i love this web site. Im not intending to have an emotional response i apologize if it came across that way. I will keep my responses more concise.
Ahh, thanks Steve! Great comment. I’m going to look more into ice rings and how form over time. I’m operating under the assumption that rings form at a consistent rate over time, rather than “1 ring = 1 year.” Still, it’s an assumption and not one that disproves a global flood.
Thanks for comment and I’m glad you enjoy the site!
it is called an “annual ring.” Let me know when you are finished looking into the ice core samples evidence..
Im going to address some the other point i was trying to make previously. The “problems with a global flood” section in the link on the article also mentions that there is no flood evidence in tree ring samples, and that tree ring records go back more than 10000 years.
Are you sure this is not also a false statement. To my knowledge the oldest living tree is a bristle cone pine and it is approximately 4500 years old according to most experts. Not 10000. This not only shows that the problem mentioned against a flood is not true (because there is no 10000 year old tree), but the fact that the oldest tree is 4500 years old seems to be a perfect fit with the flood of the bible. The bible chronology indicates that the world wide universal flood happened about 4400 years ago. At this time the trees were destroyed and had no chance to regrow until after the flood. So a christian will expect to see no tree older than 4400 years. It fits.
If the world is millions of years old, why is there no tree older than 4400 years? Why does the article mention trees 10000 years old as evidence? There are no 10000 year old trees.
Pando Tree is older than a young earth.
More from Talk Origins (cited):
Also haven’t fully researched ice cores, but noticed the link just above offers this (again, cited):
hey, thanks for continuing the discussion.
you referenced the pando tree… Or “network of trees.” That would be a huge problem for my view if you are correct. I do however still question how one can determine the age of this network of trees. The article just said thats how it is but i know from experience (like ice core samples) that sometimes these dating methods are a little tricky. ill look into it..
You also reference the question about the lack of evidence in tree rings. Last i knew the oldest tree was the same age as the biblical flood. i need to look into the pando tree, but if im right about the oldest tree then obviously there will be no record in trees because the trees began to grow again only after the flood. I dont know of a tree with rings that go back 10000 years because the oldest single tree is only 4500 years old… I dont know how both of our facts can be true. The one negates the other. either the trees are old or young. cant be both.
Just something to remember about the ice rings. The sources you are giving me do say that there are 40000 year old records in ice rings. This is the “evidence” being cited to disprove the bible. Often times there is a confusion of what it means to present “evidence.” The “evidence” in ice core samples that we are examining, is not “annual rings that date back 40000years” but “many rings in ice core samples”. Try to understand my point. There is a difference between “evidence” and the “interpretation” of evidence. The “evidence” is ice core rings. The interpretation is, “annual rings.” The Interpretation is not consistent with the actual physical testing. You can just google “the lost squadron annual rings,” or check out the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSjKssN8A0E
Thanks again for your time Ill get back to you on the pando trees
Steve, I you for doing some research with me. I really do.
But I can’t fight the feeling that you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible (including Genesis) and are just setting out to prove that theory correct. You may have a few cases going in your favor (such as these ice rings, though the jury is still out), but there is a ton of info, some of which is mentioned above, you you seem to ignore. Can you step back and, at a high level, explain why everything said above can’t be true?
I kinda feel like this is getting stale.
Hey im trying to figure out what the deal is with the pando trees… I found this link that describes how to date and study annual rings in trees http://www.bigsiteofamazingfacts.com/how-can-you-tell-how-old-a-tree-is … but i’m having trouble finding the way to date the pando trees…
Ya I totally get what you mean. We can argue every point of evidence down the line and that will take forever… This is the main point of the entire scope of all the evidence that exists. At least as i see it. I think you and some of the others are seeing evidence that is already interpreted, and mistaking it for evidence that has not been interpreted. Thats why it looks to you as if i am simply ignoring a mountain of evidence. Even the pando trees being 40k years old is an interpretation of evidence not evidence. Because the trees don’t come with a stamp that says “40000 years”. Which is why i want to know the science. The way they came to the interpretation. You might say that I believe creationism and am trying to prove myself right. but… you might more rightly say that I am trying to prove that its wrong. I think you and maybe others on this site have to evaluate if evidence is actually stacked up against the creationists or if there is a stack of evidence that has been interpreted, to prove them wrong. But in many cases, like the ice core annual ring (it was your example from the beginning), the conclusion that the ice core rings are annual comes BEFORE there is a test to show how they form. The scientist “assumes” from the beginning that the world is millions of years old and then interprets the evidence accordingly.
I’ll try my best. Thanks for checking up on your evidence in ice cores. If I have to explain the overall purpose of this discussion it is this… you are telling me that I am ignoring a mountain of evidence while at the same time I am just searching for little things to show how some microscopic thing doesn’t fit. If that’s how you feel I totally understand. It’s a bit overwhelming when you really grasp the big picture of what I’m talking about. But even though it might sounds foreign, think of it as scientifically and un bias as possible. Maybe it can be invalidated and I’m open to that.
You now site the pando trees that are 40000 years old as evidence and are frustrated because it appears that I don’t consider ALL the evidence… I believe the way you feel this way is because you are confused about what constitutes evidence. I mentioned this in my last comment, but let me elaborate… to say that old trees, annual ice rings, vestiges, or any of the plethora of citations for evidence for evolution are “evidence”, is not correct. Let me explain why. As I just illustrated with annual rings in ice core samples, there is a significant difference between “evidence” and “the interpretation of evidence”… the ice core samples are the “evidence”, but the “interpretation” that these ice core samples are “annual rings” is not evidence, it is the “interpretation”, and an illogical one. As you can see there was no test to decide scientifically how quickly the rings in the ice were forming. Instead the “assumption” that the world is millions of years old is reason to “”assume” that the ice rings must be annual. Just like the “evidence” cited of pando trees that are 40k old. Everything I can find in my search just states that the pando trees are 40k years old but doesn’t explain how they arrive at that “interpretation.” I did find some information on dating tree rings, http://www.bigsiteofamazingfacts.com/how-can-you-tell-how-old-a-tree-is but this doesn’t help me with the pando trees.
It appears to me that someone is making claims to have proof and evidence, but so far there is no reason believe that the “evidence” has been evaluated very scientifically. Try not to think of evidence as: one pile of evidence on this side for the evolutionist, and another pile on the other for the creationist. We all are evaluating the same evidence together and arriving at different conclusions. Many people would conclude from the ice core samples and the study of how quickly ice forms, that the glacier is very young. I’m not saying you have to believe it but just evaluate it scientifically and decide.
Thus I challenge an evolutionist to cite the best evidence for evolution. When evaluated, you find that the evidence has an illogical interpretation. For me that is sufficient reason to throw out that interpretation at which time I am free to look at how others, (i.e. creationists) interpret the same evidence and, if it is scientifically arrived at, I accept it as a fact.
I hope this helps you with my perspective…
if this goes thru, its a test because my comments are not being posted.
This is Steven Kramar but for some reason my posts arnt working so im trying something else…
I’ll try my best. Thanks for checking up on your evidence in ice cores. If I have to explain the overall purpose of this discussion it is this… you are telling me that I am ignoring a mountain of evidence while at the same time I am just searching for little things to show how some microscopic thing doesn’t fit. If that’s how you feel I totally understand. It’s a bit overwhelming when you really grasp the big picture of what I’m talking about. But even though it might sounds foreign, think of it as scientifically and un bias as possible. Maybe it can be invalidated and I’m open to that.
You now site the pando trees that are 40000 years old as evidence and are frustrated because it appears that I don’t consider ALL the evidence… I believe the way you feel this way is because you are confused about what constitutes evidence. I mentioned this in my last comment, but let me elaborate… to say that old trees, annual ice rings, vestiges, or any of the plethora of citations for evidence for evolution are “evidence”, is not correct. Let me explain why. As I just illustrated with annual rings in ice core samples, there is a significant difference between “evidence” and “the interpretation of evidence”… the ice core samples are the “evidence”, but the “interpretation” that these ice core samples are “annual rings” is not evidence, it is the “interpretation”, and an illogical one. As you can see there was no test to decide scientifically how quickly the rings in the ice were forming. Instead the “assumption” that the world is millions of years old is reason to “”assume” that the ice rings must be annual. Just like the “evidence” cited of pando trees that are 40k old. Everything I can find in my search just states that the pando trees are 40k years old but doesn’t explain how they arrive at that “interpretation.” I did find some information on dating tree rings, http://www.bigsiteofamazingfacts.com/how-can-you-tell-how-old-a-tree-is but this doesn’t help me with the pando trees.
It appears to me that someone is making claims to have proof and evidence, but so far there is no reason believe that the “evidence” has been evaluated very scientifically. Try not to think of evidence as: one pile of evidence on this side for the evolutionist, and another pile on the other for the creationist. We all are evaluating the same evidence together and arriving at different conclusions. Many people would conclude from the ice core samples and the study of how quickly ice forms, that the glacier is very young. I’m not saying you have to believe it but just evaluate it scientifically and decide.
Thus I challenge an evolutionist to cite the best evidence for evolution. When evaluated, you find that the evidence has an illogical interpretation. For me that is sufficient reason to throw out that interpretation at which time I am free to look at how others, (i.e. creationists) interpret the same evidence and, if it is scientifically arrived at, I accept it as a fact.
I hope this helps you with my perspective…
Hi Steve, sorry our trusty little SPAM filter was triggered by your comments earlier. They should now appear above. (let me know if you’d like any deleted, if some are duplicates)
Ice cores and panda trees aside, do you disagree that there is nothing on this planet more than 6,000 or 10,000 years old?
For the sake of argument, let’s say no tree lives more than 4,000 years old… what about other, non-biological things? Mountains, fossils, fossil layers, can anything be more than a few thousand years old? Do you think the process of carbon dating is flawed or sufficient?
I mean yea… we’re looking at the same evidence and arriving at different conclusions… but the creation version requires a leap of faith. I can’t help but think that ‘the science version’ looks at present day and attempts to work backward… where as Christianity starts with Genesis and looks around for evidence to support that.
I should say that you certainly do not fit this mold and I’ve enjoyed a productive conversation. But I still think you’re ignoring a lot of evidence. To name a few:
It’s not like just one of those arguments in the article can be untrue and the whole argument fall apart, you know what I mean?
I’ll try my best. Thanks for checking up on your evidence in ice cores. If I have to explain the overall purpose of this discussion it is this… you are telling me that I am ignoring a mountain of evidence while at the same time I am just searching for little things to show how some microscopic thing doesn’t fit. If that’s how you feel I totally understand. It’s a bit overwhelming when you really grasp the big picture of what I’m talking about. But even though it might sounds foreign, think of it as scientifically and un bias as possible. Maybe it can be invalidated and I’m open to that.
You now site the pando trees that are 40000 years old as evidence and are frustrated because it appears that I don’t consider ALL the evidence… I believe the reason you feel this way is because you are confused about what constitutes evidence. I mentioned this in my last comment, but let me elaborate… to say that old trees, annual ice rings, vestiges, or any of the plethora of citations for evidence for evolution are “evidence”, is not correct. Let me explain why. As I just illustrated with annual rings in ice core samples, there is a significant difference between “evidence” and “the interpretation of evidence”… the ice core samples are the “evidence”, but the “interpretation” that these ice core samples are “annual rings” is not evidence, it is the “interpretation”, and an illogical one. As you can see there was no test to decide scientifically how quickly the rings in the ice were forming. Instead the “assumption” that the world is millions of years old is reason to “”assume” that the ice rings must be annual. Just like the “evidence” cited of pando trees that are 40k old. Everything I can find in my search just states that the pando trees are 40k years old but doesn’t explain how they arrive at that “interpretation.” I did find some information on dating tree rings, http://www.bigsiteofamazingfacts.com/how-can-you-tell-how-old-a-tree-is but this doesn’t help me with the pando trees.
It appears to me that someone is making claims to have proof and evidence, but so far there is no reason believe that the “evidence” has been evaluated very scientifically. Try not to think of evidence as: one pile of evidence on this side for the evolutionist, and another pile on the other for the creationist. We all are evaluating the same evidence together and arriving at different conclusions. Many people would conclude from the ice core samples and the study of how quickly ice forms, that the glacier is very young. I’m not saying you have to believe it but just evaluate it scientifically and decide.
Thus I challenge an evolutionist to cite the best evidence for evolution. When evaluated, you find that the evidence has an illogical interpretation. For me that is sufficient reason to throw out that interpretation at which time I am free to look at how others, (i.e. creationists) interpret the same evidence.
I hope this helps you with my perspective…
————————————————————————
Im glad you guys fixed the bug in the comments. To answer your last question, do i believe there is nothing older than 6000 years old? my answer is yes. There is nothing older than 6000k.
I think theres alot of good science that can be learned from carbon dating. Do you understand how the process of carbon dating works? From what i can tell about the carbon dating process, it assumes that the atmosphere has always had the same amount of carbon 14. The research shows that this assumption is incorrect. I don’t think scientists are carbon dating the earth. Are they? Its more of a secondary dating process on artifacts they already know a general date range on for some reason. Maybe the scientists are, in fact, working backwards to arrive at the dates in an impartial way. I just don’t know how they have done it.
I’m sorry i didn’t address the other evidence.
- the amount of water that it took to require a global flood did in theory kill alot of humans and animals. The bible says all but 8 people died in the flood. This is why there are so many dead animals (fossils) found in the mud (layers). But of course these are interpreted differently.
-The bible says the arc was made of gopher wood. Can you elaborate why a boat cannot be made big enough? I have not yet found a problem with the size or proposed purpose of the arc.
-you are correct that the earths surface doesn’t change that fast. But if you look at the changes that happened, it seems that they can be accounted for by a world wide flood as the bible appears to record it.
I’m sure you have tons of questions as to why I disagree with you on this. I also have, maybe even the same number of questions you do.
If the flood didn’t happen, i’m going to need to know why in a way that i can defend it to others of my persuasion.
Steven, I can grasp the big picture of what you’re talking about, but there’s too much to ignore for your vision to be accurate. Wood is porous… and would not be able to sustain a boat that size in open water; it would fall apart (I found a TON of creation sites claiming the boat was waterproof. Even if it was, it’s the material vs. dimensions that seems to be the ark’s achilles heel). I don’t think carbon dating is perfect but it gives us a ball park of a few thousand years. I don’t think the Bible is a better tool for dating artifacts.
If you don’t think pando trees or anything else is more than 6,000 years old, then what can possibly be said to have you reconsider your stance? You’ve gone to amazing (yet sometimes admirable) lengths to find things on the web that justify your stance on creation. Yet many of your sources are quite questionable. (in fact you might double-check The Big Site of Amazing Facts since it’s a 2 1/2 year old WordPress blog edited Wikipedia-style. I wouldn’t consider it proof for or against anything at all).
If you’d like one good collection of evidence for Evolution, I will again point you to Talk Origins. The site might look amateur, but it’s content has been tested, updated, and stood a good test of time. I encourage you to comb through the site and evaluate the claims. Personally I think they’re more believable that creation claims.
Overall you’ve given me some things to think about and re-review what I’ve written, both of which are always good. But ultimately I haven’t really swayed in my stance and don’t think I’ve swayed you at all either. I hope you continue to do the research, but perhaps just upgrade what you chose to look at.
Cheers!
Hey, we can go back a fourth forever, but as long as we are learning more about the subject, it cant be bad. I’m sorry that the sites I linked you too were questionable. All I can say is that I was just trying to learn a little about the way trees are dated. I’m not trying to find a way to prove you wrong. My mission was to learn how to date trees so that I can explain it. If there’s not an objective way they came to the age of the pando trees, they cant exactly serve to prove anything.
I don’t understand your arguments about the boat… I think we could make a boat out of wood that works on the open sea. It has been done for thousands of years. As far as the boat being that big… is it impossible or even improbable? Remember, the arc is presumably just a big floating barge. Some of these people site problems in larger wood boat construction because the mast has serious problems when it gets too big. The ark doesn’t have a mast. It just needs to float, like a floating house.
About the carbon dating…. Your right that it would presumably work for samples that are within a range that is less than the amount of time it takes for full decay of the atomic particle. But you have to remember, that carbon 14 is made in the atmosphere as sunlight clashes into the nitrogen creating an unstable carbon 14 particle. If you assume that the atmosphere is millions of years old, the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere should be at equilibrium don’t you think? Anyways, carbon 14 dating doesn’t serve to rule out young earth creation scientifically, because if the atmosphere is young, there would have been a very small amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere, and the living things, of the recent past. Can still explain how carbon 14 dating invalidates the young earth creation hypothesis, in light of these facts?
When I look at the “talk origins,” the evidence being sited… (here’s some quotes I’m finding in your site)..
“genetic information specifies everything about an organism and its potential… This obviously should be one of the areas where evolutionary change is seen, and genetic change is truly the most important for understanding evolutionary processes.”
This statement is absolutely true. I just don’t think there is an aknowledgement that there are no examples of genetic information being increased, and thereby making common decent of all living things possible. Here are some of the observed genetic change that happens as quoted in talk origins…
“Extremely extensive genetic change has been observed, both in the lab and in the wild. We have seen genomes irreversibly and heritably altered by numerous phenomena, including gene flow, random genetic drift, natural selection, and mutation. Observed mutations have occurred by mobile introns, gene duplications, recombination, transpositions, retroviral insertions (horizontal gene transfer), base substitutions, base deletions, base insertions, and chromosomal rearrangements. Chromosomal rearrangements include genome duplication (e.g. polyploidy), unequal crossing over, inversions, translocations, fissions, fusions, chromosome duplications and chromosome deletions.”
Note that none of these mechanisms are able to “create” unique and new functions that were not somehow already present in an ancestor. Changing genetic expression though the given mechanisms don’t make new genes. Every example in the articles is factual science, I would not disagree with that, but the kinds of change you need are changes in the actual genes. A change in the expression of the genes are not enough to prove common decent. This is why new animals don’t come out of these processes. Speciation happens, but remember, a dog and a wolf are different species, but they are still the same kind of animal. I don’t see a problem with the science in this source. I only see a problem with the conclusions.
Steven you’re right, we could go on forever.. and that’s what looks like is starting to happen.
RE: the ark collapsing, I’m sure you know that all known types of wood are somewhat porous. The ark would absorb an amount of water and eventually collapse under the brunt of its own weight once it got going (read: this wouldn’t happen right away; it would initially float). The Bible mentions gopher wood which is not around in today’s day and age to test, so the flood story gets a free pass.
If you’re questioning the validity of carbon dating, we should bring it up with a scientist or someone who’s much more familiar with it than you and I. I’d say a majority of the scientific community supports it’s use as a tool and agree that, while it can’t pinpoint years exactly, carbon dating does not support a young earth. I think this paper (on AnswersInCreation.org, no less) pretty much buries that. Besides, where are the secular scientists claiming evidence for a young earth?
Overall Skeptical Monkey has given you evidence against the literal interpretation of the Bible’s flood story. So has Talk Origins. A lot of science has to be undone to convince me that a global flood happened.
This evidence doesn’t cut the mustard for you. You seem to be starting at the finish line and working backward to explain it. And with the WWW, there is no shortage of like-minded sites who will publish what you’re looking for. I don’t know what could possibly happen to make you believe.
So I’m going to leave this comment thread open for now. I don’t want to be that guy who gets the last word and then closes it off from rebuttal… but I’m really hoping you don’t continue the debate here. I suggest we agree to disagree on this one.
ok… thanks for your time.