Besides the Bible's account, {Genesis Chapter 6-9}- What evidence do we see on the earth to confirm there was a global flood?

I think you're missing the point. It's very easy to gather information from a handful of people and come to a conclusion based on that alone.
It's not a coincidence that this opinion in the minority. There isn't a global science conspiracy against a great flood. The facts against a global flood are so evident it is scary. To deny that based on just that handful of scientists is ignorant. The only people with a real agenda, are the ones with a religious perspective. I thought that was obvious.

I would rather look at all of the evidence presented and only then come to a conclusion. Not simply take what a few people say, and have that point to the truth of something. It's lazy, and it is not the way to come to a conclusion. if all you needed for proof of something was a band of scientists going against the grain, then you'd have a lot of unrespected theories out there that you'd have to believe in, based on the fact that they have a conclusion. I'm impressed you don't see how funny that is.
I'll go with the abundance of data supporting something before I go with the few people that support what I 'want' to believe in. That's the smarter way to do things. And yes, I'm pretty sure of that.

The fact is, mainstream science is secular, and if your scientific research doesn't reach secular conclusions it will be ignored by the secular majority.

That is not "fact" at all! Where are you getting this from?
Let me explain it to you since you seem to be a bit confused.

"Mainstream" science studies subjects across the board, without the forethought of whether it is 'blasphemous' or not. Experiments are conducted, data gathered, then the findings are posted and picked at, with the main goal of other scientists to PROVE IT WRONG. If the data from a study, let's say on the grand canyon, suggests that it is older than 6,000 years, this does not automatically make the whole of science "secular". If by "secular", you actually mean without an agenda one way or the other, then yes. What would you rather have, the whole of science only work on problems that relate to the bible, or only post data that suggests that the mythologies of Christianity are true? That would be biased, and that would wholly messed up. But I'm sure that's the way you'd like it. I'm sorry science doesn't concern itself with religion, or proving or disproving biblical theories, it has better things to do.
But at no point in time, should anyone suggest that science has an anti-religious standpoint... That's ridiculous. One doesn't automatically give you the other.
That's like saying someone is a comedian just because they happen to make you laugh. That doesn't make them a professional comedian, its the humor that you added on. And I'm afraid that you're convinced of a global conspiracy., but the only proof you have of it is that science doesn't talk about god a lot, or what they find contradicts what the bible days. Still doesn't make it anti religious, just makes it contrary to what you believe.

Gah. Give me a break.

my/our thread>Atlantis is Antarctica as Giza was once the north pole ... has been proven right after i wrote it..i am Mr computer of the NSA linked into the mainframe computers by my stimoceiver...there is nothing i cannot know if i want to..

And also, what you're suggesting, is that when a scientist with a religious viewpoint finds evidence of something biblical, those results ARE posted, they're mainly done by creationist scientists, who've either attained their degree via an online school, or actually have a respected doctorate in something, but have been proven wrong so many times, and their evidence picked apart and shown the holes in it, that they are no longer respected by their peers. That happens a lot. Someone attempts to prove something in the bible actually took place, and often will go to extreem measures to make their data match up to what they're saying.

When you use science, in all its majesty, for something like proving a holy book right, you're going to inevitably have to stretch to come out with something. I'm not making this up. It happens a lot. So, it's not like these "scientists" are being shunned, they're being proved wrong, and you can do that research, there has yet to be a paper suggesting a flood or anything of this manner, that hasn't been blown apart by other academics. I don't know how else to say it. You're dead wrong.

Okay, if we're taking a break, let's talk casual.

Would you agree that science is a tool? Science itself is impartial and is used to systematically measure observances, yes?

So, we need to seperate Science from "The Sciences" because "The Sciences" means something a little different, it means the body of knowledge derived from the systematic measurement of observances.

This body of knowledge ideally governs itself, facts will remain and things that are not true or are no longer supportable based on new findings will be discarded.

Unfortunately, "The Sciences" are governed by Human Beings, and Human Beings are governed by Money, status, power and all manner of corruption.

Scientists require funding for equipment and to sustain their manner of living. Scientists require approval in order to get their findings published.

Who controls the publications? Who controls the flow of money? Can these institutions that provide all this money so generously be accused of having an agenda?

This argument works on both of our sides, by the way.

For example, Brigham Young University has money and power and publication and will be very happy to publish findings that suggest a truth about The Book of Mormon.

On the other hand you have your super leftist Liberal secular schools that will ruin your career if you were to find evidence to support global flood. How will they ruin your career? Because they will find four scientists who *are willing* to use the common "shill" type arguments used here at GLP to break it down and support their own conclusions, be they true or false. You are fired, and they keep their tenure and position.

So, what it really comes down to are numbers: Leftist, Secular Schools vastly outnumber Rightist, Conservative schools and the publication houses are owned and operated by Leftist elite.

If you deny any of this, you really are "on a break" from reality.

Enjoy.

Have we found Troy? Are we sure it's Troy?

Let's step out of the Bible for a moment and address the Troy question, above and also the dating of the Pyramid/Sphynx.

The Pyramid/Sphynx "Mainstream" viewpoint regarding it's age and construction is fruitbat crazy, unsupportable, and yet it's bullet-proof because questioning it will get you ostracized by those who support it.

They are still trying to tell us the Pyramids were tombs. Maybe a couple of shitty copycat pyramids out in the desert were shitty tombs for shitty Post-empirial Pharoahs, but not the Great one.

Water erosion damage at the base of the Sphynx shows it existed at a time when the area was fertile and had a great deal of rain.

Yes, let us take the age of the sphinx into question.
Whether the current belief of its age is the opinion of
All archeologists, or whether most actually believe the dating is probably vastly off. To say that the dating is wrong is one thing, but to say that the dating is wrong, and everyone supports is because of some vast conspiracy., well.. that is an entirely different animal altogether.
I'm quite sure that most egyptologists will tell you without question that the dating is most likely off, and also I know plenty of archeological programs, that do discuss the fact that dating could be off.
Does that point to liberal leftist agendas? No. Come on.

What most will believe, based on evidence such as fossil placement, and better dating techniques than let's say carbon 14, is the difference between knowing, and guessing. We can guess that the age of the sphynx is older than current estimates, but we cannot change the properties of a wave. Do you see the difference. Science is evolving, always, but that doesn't mean that all the evidence against a flood will someday be different, the data remains, it cannot be changed just because science changes, or opinions change. There's a difference there. We can't say that because they found Troy (they believe) that it is inevitable they will find Noah's Ark. Besides the very obvious inconsistencies, and the fact that a task like his was virtually impossible, not just in his time, but any time. Not possible, there's no discussion about it. A child could see that superhuman feats do not occur in the world. It's a real problem of logistics, that no amount of thinking outside the box will fix.

I stand behind science, and respect it and what it has done and continues to do to help the human race. I refuse to believe that science has anything to with religion, simply based on the fact that it doesn't need to in order to operate and function. God isn't needed in the equation. If some would like to keep god on the wayside while being a scientist that is a personal choice, not an obligation.

I just don't see it. And I honestly think the reason that you see it, is because without the evidence provided by science to secure beliefs, then if holds no purpose for you, and therefore, must be evil. I don't see how troy, or anything else is going to alter the truth of the matter.

Well, that is not exactly how it works..
If you study something enjoy, let's say you're into quantum loop gravity. You decide that will be your feild. So, you eventually get the degree desire/required, blah blah.
Then.. you work, most of the time in groups of like minded people, studying what you are, looking at all the different aspects of the thing you are doing.
Then money comes into play. Where does the money come from?
It does not come from some shadowy group, who then coerces you into working on something 'They' want you to.. you continue working on the same thing you were beforehand.
You might make a breakthrough, post you findings.. you know the rest

Although, the way you explain it, is that there is an evil group of scientists, who control the wealth and the destinies of other scientists.. and when you post things like that, I become pretty worried about how much you don't understand. It is a simple process, that doesn't involve manipulation, for the most part. The only agenda is science, is science done in the name of Religion. Well, there's also pharmacutical companies, but that isn't the kind of science we are talking about.
The paranoia, and fear of massive world wide conspiracies here is really worrying.

Noah's Flood was the precursor to the the Ice Age some millions of years ago. The heavy precipitation and the opening up of channels for hot water from below caused heavy clouds and volcanic ashes to cover the Earth for many years. This prevented sunrays to protrude, thus causing much cooling, and the evaporation from the hot oceans were transported north- and southwards to form large ice sheets. A repetitive sequence of the Ice sheets forming and melting again then occured for some million years (4-5(?)). So we get Sub-IceAges with almost ice free interglacials. This I believe was a consequence of the periodic cycles in the Sun intensity combined with the precession of the Earth's axis.
The consequence of Noah's Flood could, however, be an overall significant decline in the average temperature of the Biosphere. This was caused by the removal of the watercanopy covering the Earth above the Biosphere prior to the Flood.

So we can tell from the Bible account that since the Noah's Flood must have caused a fall in the temperature by the removal of the watercanopy and combined with a heavy evaporation of oceans that this can be inferred as resulting in the Ice Age.

If we consider the precessional movement of the Earth axis, it has now a maximum inclination towards - or away from the Sun when the Earth is farthest away or closest to the Sun respectively. These parts of the ecliptic movement of the Earth around the Sun, the Summer and Winter seasons have a shorter path way than the parts where the axis is inclined close to 0 degrees with the Sun rays.

About 12000 years ago the last Sub-IceAge ended. At that time the Earth axis was half way through a precessional cycle relative to the present. Therefore, at that time, the Earth axis was inclined maximum towards- or away (Summer or Winter) from the Sun during the longer paths of the present Spring and Autumn paths.

The longer Summer season 12000 years ago could have caused the melting of the Ice Caps and the heating of the oceans around the Poles thus changing the ocean current patterns. Higher water temperatures and new currents (Gulf Stream) prevented any continuous Ice Cap of forming.

So this could be the reason we are now in for a new Sub-Ice Age of forming again. Just as for example the Gulf Stream changes or halts, the Ice caps can start growing. May be it will occur as abruptly as the former Ice cap melted.

As a reminder here in Norway, the deposits from the ice movements in the last Sub-IceAge are not covered by any other sediments as it should if Noah's Flood covered the whole land.

To me it is therefore easy to conclude by using my naked eyes that Noah's Flood could not have been after the Ice age

The Bible doesn't say anything about the age of the Earth. God sees time in a circular pattern and each of the patriarchs in the Bible represents a new circle of time. Each of these circles is a repetition of former processes. May be the genealogies from Noah started out while a huge Ice covering were forming just in the North and they started to move South wards to the Persian Gulf and forming cities in Iraque and then some moved even further south to Africa.

Some of the main personalities mentioned in the Bible may be representing only the start of a new circle of time. If these new time periods for example could correspond to the the Interglacials of the Ice Age, it would be nice to find out that. One of Abraham's ancestors (Arphaxad for example ?) thus we could place early into the present Interglacial.

Each of the patriarchs of the predeluvial world also may correspond to start of a new time circle. So when was Adam and Eve created? 10 time circles before the flood. I believe that the repetetive time circles before the flood were very much longer than after the flood. But they may be separated by some catastrophic event starting with the breaking up of the Gondwana continent into the present 5 major contients about 80 million years ago. As I see it.

These "secular leftist" schools that you keep mentioning. They do not exist. They are purely the exaggerated fabrication of the religious right.
The creation of which is easy to trace by simply imagining a reason as to any there is a lack of research, and of academics in major colleges, that lend credence to religious arguments. How many times do I have to repeat the fact that it is the lack of supporting evidence for these arguments, and not the suppression of these people's ideas, of work?
Everytime someone finds "evidence" of a biblical flood or what have you, they do so by stretching, estimating, and taking already known work out of context, to the point that they are no longer respected. These are documented facts, they have happened more than once. It is not the other way around.

You can imagine a secular agenda in all of science, in all of schools, in everyone who holds wealth, or power, but at the end of the day, you really have to ask yourself if there is really an agenda, or is it that you've just created it out of necessity..

You do realize that there is no mention of this flood anywhere in Egypt, before, during, or after the time it is estimated to have ocured?
None. Whatsoever. You can look at what you want, but that fact alone is more than enough to believe that is not true. It is a good story though, would be a lot better story if it were original though. I suppose that the fact that the entire story was just copied and pasted from earlier cultures doesn't matter right? That's what Christianity is though, an amalgamation of precious religions, mashed up into a more modern package. The metaphors are good, but the unoriginality is horrid.

>>>>> "Genesis has the only accurate account... Because the one who brought the flood gave us the story"

Well, that;'s ignorant bunk.

There are whole rafts of texts across the world, including the one from which the Bible one was originaally copied.

Additionally, there is clear evidence such as Lake Titicaca, thousands of feet above sea level, despite being entirely landlocked, has lots of fish and creatures usually only found in the sea.

your argument has validity;

it does seem to me, however, that the scientific community is more willing to accept differing evidence [although sometimes slowly] ,than right wing religious groups

I don't see the validity, that really isn't how science is funded, used, or received. It's a nice fantasy for someone who thinks the world hates their religion. It's most likely the other way around.
Faith has no place in schools whatsoever, that's the bigger picture.
Most science teachers in this country as afraid to teach Darwinism, even though it has more than supporting evidence, and at this point it is fact and not opinion.. they're afraid because parents of students, do not want their child learning that we came from another animal.. its so backwards and harmful to a student that might Excel at science, to not even learn about it until he or she is too old to care either way.
You're right though, there is an agenda. It is a religious agenda, and this country set off to keep that stuff out of schools, but yet again most people just can't accept that we should keep faith at home.

....so.....about the Flood

I don't watch YouTube videos on my phone.
Was that some enlightening info uploaded by some
'Soldier of god'? I'm sure there's tons of YouTube videos ;)

A global flood would have produce evidence contrary to the evidence we see.

How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.

Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time.

insidious people's of south America had record of the flood


no, no, you are right. that is WHY THEY survived.....wink....wink

I don't even need to post the endless facts against the flood to prove it didn't happen. That can be done with simple logic.. alas there is much, much, much more.

Please tell me that was a Freudian slip, and you actually meant indigenous.. Haha "insidious". That's grand.

You give me a "scientist" who finishes his video presentation with the words "who are we going to believe the scientists who werent there and sometimes make mistakes or the god's word"?!

I wonder if he at least agrees with the rest of his colleagues on the formation of the Himalayas, for example.

insidious, indigenous...its all good!

Just for the sake of the same story being told throughout the world, gives credence to the fact that some sort of global catastrophe took place. Being that it is commonly believed that some of these tribes were completely isolated from other parts of the world; how then is it possible that they all have the same historical account. Although oral traditions tend to become convoluted over time, their basic principle tends to remain constant.
According to the logic of mass, stating that there is not enough water to completely inundate the world; perhaps there is a different explanation to this "flood" accord. When looking at places, such as in Alaska, where the "black goo" is; one can easily conclude that this tangled/shredded mess of plant and animal, is the result of some form of violent aquatic inundation. So with understanding that this "black goo" is dated from the same period as when believed the "flood" happened; perhaps what we commonly think, was not a "flood" at all. I speculate that the "flood" was in fact a near-global reaching, super-sonic tidal wave of immense proportions--one which was perhaps 2 miles high. With such an event, places that are far inland would not experience the destruction of the super-sonic tidal wave; but instead, it would be more of a rapid influx of water, coming from the runoff and/or slowing inlet of the tidal force flowing inland.
One possible cause of this super-sonic tidal wave, could have been from a comet impact. One which struck somewhere, so that its trajectory spread it all across the near-entire globe---such as some place in the southern ocean, near Antarctica. Another thought is that it could have struck the continents' ice sheet itself, shattering it so that it's flooding repercussions, spread the entire globe. Or perhaps this "flood" was caused by some form of violent volcanic eruption which took in the southern ocean. The end result of the volcanic eruption, would have been the same as in a cometary impact.

The culture destroyed by the Flood in Mesopotamia, named ‘Ubaid after its peculiar hand-made pottery, was contemporary with the Early Badarian culture of Egypt, which was also terminated by a cataclysmic of nature. (See Flinders Petrie, The Making of Egypt (London, 1939) p. 7)


[link to www.emmetsweeney.net]

logic of mass?

due to the spin of the earth there is a great deal of water caught up in the spin around the equator. change that spin for any reason and that water will go somewhere else, catastrophically.




Therefore the energy gained from the trip to the centre, is sufficient to increase the height of the water at the equator by 0.58/300 times the earth’s radius, which is about 12.3 km. If we add this to the 11.035 km bulge caused by the centrifugal force, we are already above our required value of 22 km


[link to squishtheory.wordpress.com]

thank you for your reply ac,
i believe in god, and yet i am an evolutionist.
the two need not be exclusive
i believe that the separation of church and state was a stroke of pure genius, mutually protective of religion, science, and democratic government.
because i believe that the purpose of education is to open minds and offer more than one opinion i would not oppose creationism being taught in school.
the problem becomes, would the religious right, then, demand the banishment of darwinism from schools as they have in the past?
that i would stridently oppose.

"Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse. And it came to be so"- Genesis 1:7

I will only answer to this. Go to the deadliest tsunamis list and only count the ones from 1950 to today, no need to go very back in time.
Of course now we know that these were separate events
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

BUT imagine in the past with limited communication and no dates given, you only have reports of an event from several people around the word, on the same subject with similar descriptions and the reports come to us by third persons, not the ones who experienced it but their descendents and they put their explanation and imagination of what has happened in this reports and this is how it could have happened.
On the Bible tale and probably the Greek too (the most popular of the tales), we have the tale of the flood from the epic of Gilgamesh where Utnapishtim was the only human survivor (and dont forget the Eden tale too). So they probably come from a common source originating in Mesopotamia.