Six Evidences for the Genesis Flood

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Revmitchell, Apr 12, 2016.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,378
    Likes Received:
    790
    Evidence #1—Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents.
    We find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers that cover all the continents. For example, most of the rock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils. Fossilized shellfish are even found in the Himalayas.

    Evidence #2—Rapid burial of plants and animals.
    We find extensive fossil “graveyards” and exquisitely preserved fossils. For example, billions of nautiloid fossils are found in a layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon. This layer was deposited catastrophically by a massive flow of sediment (mostly lime sand). The chalk and coal beds of Europe and the United States, and the fish, ichthyosaurs, insects, and other fossils all around the world, testify of catastrophic destruction and burial.

    Evidence #3—Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas.
    We find rock layers that can be traced all the way across continents—even between continents—and physical features in those strata indicate they were deposited rapidly. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone and Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon can be traced across the entire United States, up into Canada, and even across the Atlantic Ocean to England. The chalk beds of England (the white cliffs of Dover) can be traced across Europe into the Middle East and are also found in the Midwest of the United States and in Western Australia. Inclined (sloping) layers within the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon are testimony to 10,000 cubic miles of sand being deposited by huge water currents within days.

    Evidence #4—Sediment transported long distances.
    We find that the sediments in those widespread, rapidly deposited rock layers had to be eroded from distant sources and carried long distances by fast-moving water. For example, the sand for the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon (Arizona) had to be eroded and transported from the northern portion of what is now the United States and Canada. Furthermore, water current indicators (such as ripple marks) preserved in rock layers show that for “300 million years” water currents were consistently flowing from northeast to southwest across all of North and South America, which, of course, is only possible over weeks during a global flood.

    Evidence #5—Rapid or no erosion between strata.
    We find evidence of rapid erosion, or even of no erosion, between rock layers. Flat, knife-edge boundaries between rock layers indicate continuous deposition of one layer after another, with no time for erosion. For example, there is no evidence of any “missing” millions of years (of erosion) in the flat boundary between two well-known layers of Grand Canyon—the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Formation. Another impressive example of flat boundaries at Grand Canyon is the Redwall Limestone and the strata beneath it.

    Evidence #6—Many strata laid down in rapid succession.
    Rocks do not normally bend; they break because they are hard and brittle. But in many places we find whole sequences of strata that were bent without fracturing, indicating that all the rock layers were rapidly deposited and folded while still wet and pliable before final hardening. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone in Grand Canyon is folded at a right angle (90°) without evidence of breaking. Yet this folding could only have occurred after the rest of the layers had been deposited, supposedly over “480 million years,” while the Tapeats Sandstone remained wet and pliable.

    https://answersingenesis.org/the-fl...lood-3089&utm_campaign=&utm_campaign=20160412
     
  2. dad1

    dad1
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2016
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    6
    No. Uplifted seas with fossils may be pre flood. That is not proof of the flood.
    Maybe. But if there was massive uplift after the flood that could have pushed up some former marine areas, In addition I assume that life reproduced a lot faster in the former nature, so a lot of creatures need not mean the great flood. Hard to say either way.
    No again. Rapid deposition in the former nature was likely normal.
    Maybe. But I think they claim the ripples a wind caused?
     
  3. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    The ancient Hebrew people believed that the earth was a flat disk covered by a dome that separated “the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.” (Gen. 1:7). Today, however, the large majority of Christian evangelicals deny this fact because they do not like the implications of it. I have read and re-read their arguments, and their arguments manifest either an unfortunate ignorance of the facts, or a willful, deliberate rejection of the facts. Some of them go so far as to falsely claim that translation ‘dome’ in our Hebrew-English lexicons and commentaries on the Hebrew text of Genesis is based upon the translation of רָקִיעַ in the Latin Vulgate even though we have rock-solid proof that that is not the case. Moreover, their claim that the waters that were “above” the רָקִיעַ were the moisture in the earth’s atmosphere ignores the fact that the earth’s atmosphere, even at as high of a temperature of 150° F., could not hold even one millionth of the necessary water. Therefore, in order for the flood story to be true, the earth would necessarily have been flat and covered with a dome strong enough to hold the immense weight of the water.

    Moreover, if Genesis 1-11 is an accurate account of historical events, after the end of the hundred and fifty days the flood waters returned (שׁוּב) from off the earth; and if Genesis 1-11 is an accurate account of historical events, the only place the waters had to go was back above the dome! On the basis of these facts from the Bible, we know for an absolute certainty the Genesis flood is not an account of an actual event.

    Furthermore, it is absurd (if not dishonest) for anyone to claim that they hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible while spiritualizing the “the windows of the heavens” (Genesis 7:11) and all of the many places in both the Old and New Testaments that describe the earth as flat rather than spherical.


    For the view of a conservative but learned evangelical Christian (he staunchly believes in the infallibility of Scripture) regarding the word רָקִיעַ as used in Genesis, please see the following,

    https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/te...s/text/articles-books/seely-firmament-wtj.htm

    If Genesis 1-11 is an accurate account of historical events, the earth was a flat disc covered by a dome that separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome (Gen. 1:7). Furthermore, if Genesis 1-11 is an accurate account of historical events, nearly all of the water that brought about the Genesis flood came from above the dome. Moreover, if Genesis 1-11 is an accurate account of historical events, after the end of the hundred and fifty days the flood waters returned (שׁוּב) from off the earth; and if Genesis 1-11 is an accurate account of historical events, the only place the waters had to go was back above the dome! On the basis of these facts from the Bible, I choose to believe that what is described in Genesis 1-11 is not an accurate account of historical events.


    A few more facts regarding Noah’s Ark that must be considered in evaluating the literalness of the account in Gen. 6–8 are:
    • There are today about 2,000,000 genetically distinct populations of animals living on the earth. If we assume a date of about 2,349 B.C. (Bishop Ussher’s date), microevolution reduces the number of “kinds” of animals that must have been aboard the ark (to account for the about 2,000,000 genetically distinct populations of animals living on the earth today) to a few hundred thousand “kinds.”
    • The few hundred thousand of “kinds” of animals, including the dinosaurs, mammoths, giant ground sloths, etc., which have become extinct must also be considered. Did they all become extinct before the flood? If not, they were, according to the account in Genesis, aboard the arc.
    • The ark, as literally described in Genesis, was much too small because the amount of water that it would be capable of displacing would weigh less than the animals, cages, and food on board, thus making it impossible for the ark to float.
    • The floor space on the ark was too small to hold any more than a tiny fraction of the cages that would be necessary to keep the animals in place (and from eating each other).
    • The amount of food required for the animals would weigh at least nearly as much as the animals, and would require a vast amount of storage space.
    • Many of the animals aboard the ark would have required specific FRESH fruits, vegetables, leaves, grass, bark, roots, etc., including fresh fruits that are produced only on MATURE plants. Therefore, these mature plants would necessarily have been kept and maintained aboard the ark, and subsequently planted in the ground after the flood.
    • Most of the genetically discrete populations of fish (including many VERY LARGE fish) would have to be taken aboard the ark and kept in tanks of water that met their very specific water chemistry needs in order to survive.
    • The weight of the water on the earth would have crushed to death any of the land plants that did not drown in the water.
    • After 150 days when the water abated, there would be no vegetation on the earth for the herbivores to eat, and no meat for the carnivores to eat, therefore a vast amount of food would necessarily have been kept aboard the ark to sustain the animals AFTER the flood.
    • The Animals could not all be released all at once or in the same place because many of them would eat each other.
    • The coming of the animals to Noah from all over the earth would have been a physical impossibility no less impossible than Santa Clause delivering presents to every boy and girl on the night before Christmas. The polar bears and penguins, not to mention all of the unique kinds of animals in Australia, would have posed more than a few special difficulties.
    • After the flood, the animals could not be returned to their original habitat because all habitats would have been destroyed by the flood.
    • Many of the necessary habitats would take 50 years or more to be reestablished and their reestablishment would have required the effort of many thousands of persons.
    • Until all the necessary habitats could be reestablished, the animals requiring these habitats would have to be kept and cared for by Noah and his family.
    • If the reported sightings of the Ark are factual, the Ark came to rest on a VERY high mountain on VERY rugged terrain from which the large majority of the animals would not have been able to descend.
    Therefore, the narrative of Noah’s Ark cannot be a literal account of an historic event. Indescribably huge and very numerous miracles would have been necessary, and a literal interpretation of Genesis does not allow for these miracles because the whole point of the narrative is that through the natural, physical means of an ark built by Noah and his family, mankind and all the kinds of animals were saved from the floodwaters.
     
  4. dad1

    dad1
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2016
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    6
    Show us where any character--or God-- in the early part of Genesis said the earth was a flat disc?

    The waters were likely outside our space that the windows of heaven allowed to come down. Beyond the stars.
     
  5. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Genes 1:6. And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
    7. So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
    8. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day. (NRSV)

    Domes do not cover spheres; they cover flat disks—like a dome over a pie or cake plate.


    Gen. 8:13 says that the flood waters returned (שׁוּב) from off the earth. They most certainly did not return to outer space! According to Genesis, the waters came from above the dome, and returned—that is, to where they came from, above the dome.
     
  6. dad1

    dad1
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2016
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    6
    No. The stars were put IN that firmament.

    6 Then God said, "Let there be an F4 expanse R13 in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 7 God made the expanse, F5 and separated the R14waters which were below the expanse F5 from the waters which R15 were above the expanse; F5 and it was so. 8 God called the expanse F6 heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

    ...
    14 Then God said, "Let there be lights R20F15 in the expanse R21F16 of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs R22 and for seasons R23 and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights F17 in the expanse F18 of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. 16 God made the two great F19 lights, the greater R24 lightF20 to F21 govern the day, and the lesser light F20 to F21 govern the night; He made the R25stars also. 17 God R26 placed them in the expanse F22 of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to F23 govern R27 the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
    I don't doubt much water did actually.
     
  7. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    The translation that you are quoting from is absurdly incorrect. In the Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, we find an excellent article (Vol. III, pp. 568-569 [two lengthy columns of fine print per page] on the word רָקִיעַ. Of special importance is the following from the article,

    The verb רָקַע, raká, means to expand by beating, whether by the hand, the foot, or any instrument. It is especially used, however, of beating out metals into thin plates (Exod. xxxix, 3, Numb. xvi, 39), and hence the substantive רַקֻּעַים “broad plates” of metal (Numb. 16:38). (The italics are theirs).

    Furthermore, the Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver, and Briggs published by Oxford University gives us the following meaning of word רָקִיעַin Gen. 1:7, “the vault of heaven, or ‘firmament,’ regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting ‘waters’ above it.” (p. 956). Moreover, John Skinner, the late Principal and Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature at Westminster College, Cambridge, in his commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis, writes,

    6-8 Second Work: The Firmament.—The second fiat calls into existence a firmament, whose function is to divide the primeval waters into an upper and lower ocean, leaving a space between as the theater of further creative developments. The “firmament” is the dome of heaven, which to the ancients was no optical illusion, but a material structure, sometimes compared to an “upper chamber” (Ps. 104:12, Am 9:6) supported by “pillars” (Jb 26:11), and resembling in its surface a “molten mirror” (Jb 37:18). Above this are the heavenly waters, from which the rain descends through “windows” or “doors” (Gn 7:11, 8:2, 2 Ki 7:2, 19) opened and shut by God at His pleasure (Ps 78:23).

    For further and much more extensive proof that this word רָקִיעַ is correctly translated as “dome” rather than “expanse”, please see the article for which I provided a link to in a post above. Here is the link again,

    https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/te...s/text/articles-books/seely-firmament-wtj.htm


    The KJV, and many other translations use the word firmament which comes from the Latin word firmamentum. Firmamentum is the Latin word for ‘support’! And indeed, that support, the dome, would have to be immensely strong to hold up the weight of the water above it—enough water to cover even Mount Everest! (Just one gallon of water weighs approximately 8.35 lb (about 3.785 kg).
     
  8. dad1

    dad1
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2016
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    6
    Foolishness. Space need not "hold" whatever is beyond space!

    Still waiting for your verses from Scripture that say the earth was some silly flat disc. What rubbish. The stars were put in the firmament.


    Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
     

Share This Page

Loading...