Evidence for Noah's Flood! Finally!

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Abdelrahman
Student
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 11:36 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Evidence for Noah's Flood! Finally!

Post #1

Post by Abdelrahman »

Peace be unto you all!

Is anyone here familiar with the modern evidence being discussed for Noah's flood? Specifically the work of Randall Carlson and Graham Hancock!

I highly encourage anyone with a basic understanding of environmental science or geology to watch their interviews with Joe Rogan on YOUTUBE. Mind blowing stuff they're discovering.

Graham Hancock studies ancient civilizations and shows us how the story of Noah's flood isn't exclusive to Abrahamic faiths but that many traditions across the world narrate a very similar story. I am not surprised to hear this sense it was a worldwide phenomenon. Randall Carlson gets into the geology, ice core samples, satellite images etc.. Its fascinating.

I challenge someone with a scientific background to watch one of their interviews and discuss the evidence here with me! Believers should rejoice at this evidence, I just wish more people were aware of their work!

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Post #21

Post by brunumb »

Here is my calculation relating to the flood water issue.

The total surface area of the Earth is 510 million square kilometers. The height of Everest is 8.85 km. The volume of water that needs to be *added* to the surface to reach the top of Everest is 4 513 500 000 cubic kilometres. One cubic kilometre of water is 1 000 000 000 000 litres. So we need 4.5135 x 10^21 extra litres of water.

The amount of water present is 1.332 x 10^21 litres.

Compare :
Have 1.332 x 10^21 litres
Need 5.846 x 10^21 litres

So, this is 4.4 times as much water as is actually present.

Just sit there and imagine 8 km (5 miles) of water above your head across the planet.
Where did it all come from and where did it all go? And, no, water vapour won’t work nor will the fanciful ‘fountains of the deep’.

Add all the other problems to the water one and……Noah’s flood never happened.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Post #22

Post by Purple Knight »

Yes that's a ludicrous amount of water, but... it doesn't all have to be water.

Solids also displace water, and could very well cause a flood.

I don't believe this is likely on this planet, but suppose an undersea volcano filled the Marianas Trench with rock.

Well, the water level on the surface would rise.

Then plates move, another trench cracks open, and the water seems to seep away.

I don't think it's geologically feasible, especially on such a short term, but meh... technically possible, making a flood with no increase in water volume also technically possible.

There is more than enough water on Earth to cover all the land, if land level was uniform. We only have land because land level is not uniform. The tall bits that stick out are land, and everything else is under water.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Post #23

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 22 by Purple Knight]
There is more than enough water on Earth to cover all the land, if land level was uniform. We only have land because land level is not uniform. The tall bits that stick out are land, and everything else is under water.
Right, but the problem comes when you quantify things. The numbers I came up with in post 18 are simplified in that it is the difference in volume between two spheres ... one with a radius of center of earth to sea level, and another with a radius of center of earth to the top of Everest. So it ignores the existing tall bits that stick out above sea level now (I think I can find that total volume), but it includes all the existing sea water that, by definition, is the top surface of the seas. So it represents the extra water that would be needed beyond what is contained in all the world's oceans now.

If you subtract the volume of all the tall bits this would reduce the amount of water needed, but it is still far beyond what is available. And as you say, creating this much extra water in such a short time period makes it even more impossible that Noah's flood actually happened as described in the bible. Unless, of course, an all powerful god is brought into the picture who just made it happen with his magic wand. That explanation solves the problem without any need to try and make the story scientifically feasible, and I would think this should satisfy the believers. But there are some who insist on trying to make the story scientifically valid, despite the mountains of evidence (pun intended) against it.

Edit: Found a source stating that the average height of land above sea level is 841m, so editing the post 18 numbers gives the needed amount of extra water to fill the volume as 4.1e9 km^3 rather than 4.5e9 km^3 as in post 18. So a little less water is needed, but still far more than is available through any natural events. Using a total volume of water in the oceans now of 1.332e9 km^3, this is 3.1x less than would be needed to fill the gap (and is comparable to brunumb's factor of 4.4 from post 21). The flood story just doesn't hold water when the numbers are crunched.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Post #24

Post by Purple Knight »

DrNoGods wrote:So it represents the extra water that would be needed beyond what is contained in all the world's oceans now.
So again I'm not arguing that this could actually happen.

I'm just pointing out that none of this extra volume has to be water.

If you chopped down every mountain and threw them all in the ocean, the sea level would rise.

If undersea volcanoes erupt, or plate tectonics shift and close the Mariana Trench, sea level would rise... without any added water.

Things like this don't happen within one person's lifetime, however, even if people are regularly living to be 900 years old. The geological timescale is still unfathomable.

It's just that we know all the land can be underwater, because it once was. (Again, geological timescale, though!)

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Post #25

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 24 by Purple Knight]
I'm just pointing out that none of this extra volume has to be water.

If you chopped down every mountain and threw them all in the ocean, the sea level would rise.

If undersea volcanoes erupt, or plate tectonics shift and close the Mariana Trench, sea level would rise... without any added water.


I appreciate the point and don't disagree that water can be displaced with any material to raise sea levels. But the fundamental problem is that there simply isn't enough water available (oceans, ice caps, atmospheric water, etc.) to come anywhere close to the volume needed to fill the gap no matter how you cut it. The Noah's flood literalists need the extra water to come from subsurface water and they often make this argument in a hand-waving style. There are estimates for total groundwater like this one (in top 2 km of the crust):

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34837461

which suggest an extra 180 m of sea level rise if it were all to suddenly spill out (up?) onto the surface. This is nearly 3x the rise expected from a melt of all the surface ice (~60m), but still woefully short of the amount needed to reach the top of Everest.

A Wikipedia article estimates total underground water to be some 1.5 - 11x total surface water, indicating just how uncertain estimates like this are:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_dis ... n_on_Earth

But most of this is not in the form of liquid water, and of course it didn't just suddenly burst forth onto the surface to create Noah's flood only 4300 years ago unless the god magic wand is invoked.

The OP suggests that an asteroid hitting the earth some 12,000 - 14,000 years ago could melt enough ice to cause the "great flood", but that is clearly not possible given the amount of water needed. So it isn't evidence for Noah's flood ... just another hand-waving argument by someone who has not done even back of the envelope calculations. But there are plenty of other arguments against this event without even considering the fact that there was no viable source for the water.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #26

Post by Goat »

Abdelrahman wrote:
Willum wrote: It never ceases to amaze me, how, every region of the world has a flood MYTH, which they acknowledge as something that did not happen, but, because everybody else has a myth, some people believe their fairy-tale story, is true.

If everyone else acknowledges it is a children's story, it doesn't prove your "Holy Story" is true, it demonstrates that it is false, and should throw doubt on all the others.
There may be examples of civilizations that don't regard their flood 'myth' as true and I am not aware of them, but I am aware of the many that believe it happened. Just like followers of Abrahamic faiths who believe it to be true as well. Of course that doesn't prove it to be any more true, but what does get me thinking, is why everyone has the same myth? Why does this one 'myth' seem to cross so easily across cultures when other concepts are declined between people. Why is this a story so many were willing to accept?

My answer: Global flood, global record.

I highly advise you go look at the science im referencing!
THe 'science' you are referencing is from self proclaimed experts, who do not have the proper scientific background. How about presenting some of the evidence here, and discussing it from a scientific point of view, rather than reference books that would have to be bought, podcasts that are vague, etc etc.

Rather than put up people who have all the earmarks of being charlatans, can you bring forward and discuss the actual evidence and points?
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #27

Post by Goat »

Purple Knight wrote: Yes that's a ludicrous amount of water, but... it doesn't all have to be water.

Solids also displace water, and could very well cause a flood.

I don't believe this is likely on this planet, but suppose an undersea volcano filled the Marianas Trench with rock.

Well, the water level on the surface would rise.

Then plates move, another trench cracks open, and the water seems to seep away.

I don't think it's geologically feasible, especially on such a short term, but meh... technically possible, making a flood with no increase in water volume also technically possible.

There is more than enough water on Earth to cover all the land, if land level was uniform. We only have land because land level is not uniform. The tall bits that stick out are land, and everything else is under water.
There is several problems with that speculation. 1) No evidence for it. 2) No actual phsycal model that shows it could be possible 3) no place for the 'water' to go. 4) The disruption to the techtonic plates that would be required would rip the crust apart.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Post #28

Post by Purple Knight »

Goat wrote:There is several problems with that speculation. 1) No evidence for it. 2) No actual physical model that shows it could be possible 3) no place for the 'water' to go. 4) The disruption to the tectonic plates that would be required would rip the crust apart.
I didn't say it happened or even probably happened. I don't think it did.

I just said it was possible. (And I admitted, not on a short, one-lifetime, 900-year timescale, as far as we know.)

But as to 4, this is always happening and the crust is always ripping apart. Maybe the San Andreas Fault gets wider and California falls in.

Even if California does not fall in, we get a huge gaping rift in one place, and a mountain in another. As long as the new rift does not fill with water, and the new mountain or newly closed gap is under water, that would mean a rise in sea level... with not a milliliter of added water on Earth.

Additionally, Dr. Nogods is correct that this could never reach up to Everest. We would have to have a simultaneous event that leveled the highest mountains. Unlikely in the extreme. Not even worth discussing really, so I'm not sure why I am.

But we do know for a fact that there is enough water to cover all the land because all the land was indeed once covered (long, long ago) by all the water.

https://www.livescience.com/waterworld-earth.html

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Post #29

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 28 by Purple Knight]
But we do know for a fact that there is enough water to cover all the land because all the land was indeed once covered (long, long ago) by all the water.


Yes, but of course it isn't a question of whether there is enough water to cover the surface of the earth if all the mountains were "flattened out." It is whether there was enough extra water to reach the top of the highest mountain that existed 4300 or so years ago when the Noah's flood story is set. And given geologic time and the slowness of mountain formation on those time scales, we can be pretty sure that the tallest mountain in the mythical Noah's time was similar to today. There simply is no source for that much extra water.

But I think the story can be discarded without any such considerations when it starts with a 600 year old man who fathered his first child at 500 with a wife of similar age. A pretty big clue that fiction writing was in full swing:)
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

DeMotts
Scholar
Posts: 276
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:58 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 22 times

Post #30

Post by DeMotts »

[Replying to Purple Knight]

I appreciate you arguing the point, but there's a back half of the question: where does the water go afterwards? Do massive rifts open up to swallow the water? Is there huge tectonic shifts to reconfigure mountain ranges and continents? For the water to recede in short order we'd have yet another cataclysmic event.

Post Reply