Reality Bender 05 3A - A Flood of Evidence" Geological

This is the next in the Reality Bender series and looks at the vast amount of Geological evidence that actually exists for (supports) the Great Flood of Noah spokan of in the Bible.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Jesus
• atheism
• scriptures
• torah
• bible
• proof
• time
• science
• history
• archaeology
• genetics
• geology
• noah
• flood
• deluge
• scripture
• atheist
• christianity
• river
• dawkins
• religion
• spirituality

[rjswolfman]

If a massive flood event took place worldwide, why wouldn't the majority of saltwater animals that rely on a fairly constant salt density die? Did Noah bring fish and seeds aboard as well, what about the thousands of species of insects?

[IslandBard]

A good question (the salt bit) - to which we might never know the answer. Just as we do not know the salt density of the oceans BEFORE the flood the Bible does not record the salt densities during the flood either. The flood came by both rain and "springs" (ie ground water), so we can not make any assumptions on what the salt density of the flood water might have been, or even if it varied from pre-flood times. There is nothing that says it MUST have. (cont...)

[IslandBard]

As to the other Noah was instructed to stock the ark with food for the animals and themselves so we can assume a certain amount of seed. But the animals that came to Noah (he did not go out and collect them) were described as birds, cattle and creeping things which would not include fish and other marine and aquatic species which could survive a flood without the ark.

BUT some things you need to consider are:- we do not know how many species became extinct because of the flood (cont...)

[IslandBard]

But we do know that today we have fossils of many now extinct species as you would expect if they were wiped out by a flood. Indeed scientist agree that the dinosaurs were wiped out by a catastrophic "extinction level" event. It is strange they should opt for an asteroid strike for which they have little evidence rather than a flood for which they have ample evidence. But then if they admitted to a flood they would have to admit the Bible might just be accurate. (cont...)

[IslandBard]

We must also remember that apart from the seed stocks on the ark seeds and many plants have a quite remarkable ability to withstand adverse conditions and to lay dormant in hostile environments until conditions are favourable for growth. But again we don't know how many did become extinct in the flood, only that we again have fossils of now extinct plant species.

(last cont...)

[IslandBard]

Another interesting piece of evidence is a number of animal species they have tested (MAN included) show evidence of a significant genetic "bottleneck" in the past consistent with a "near extinction level" event. This also is what you would expect from a worldwide flood event sometime in the past.

Insects? Well they're certainly "creepy" critters (and also great survivors themselves). Some might have been on the ark's manifesto. Others might have stowed away in the very long building process

[johnm1108]

This is an excellent explanation of why the strata we find all over the world is consistent of a young Earth with a violent past (i.e. flood). Thank you for this excellent video!

[IslandBard]

"Didn't you just say the vegetation WASN'T ripped out?"

Where??

Didn't say ALL strata were parallel, only that parallel strata indicate deposition, but not erosion. But even where strata are parallel there is no organic layers between them to indicate vegetation cover. (I am sure there are some isolated incidents but uniformitarian theory demands that they be EVERYWHERE.)

BTW parallel strata indicate the land surface remained perfectly HORIZONTAL. Total Erosion unlikely on a FLAT plain.

[IslandBard]

Understand that radiometric dating is only ASSUMED to be accurate (by SOME scientists). They cannot KNOW if it is accurate because they have no other way of KNOWING how old the material ACTUALLY is.

When they KNOW how old the material is radiometric dating proves ... unreliable.

[IslandBard]

"If you're going to use an explanation that runs counter to radiometric dating, come up with a test."

When they tested radiometric dating against material of a KNOWN age it proved to be wildely inconsistent and inaccurate.

It is only ASSUMED accurate when it is used against material of an UNKNOWN age. If all you have to test the age of an article is radiometric dating then radiometric dating itself is untested because you have no way of INDEPENDENTLY knowing the actual age of the material.