There really was a flood


One of the problems I have with scientific evolution is the absence of science.

First I was told there was no flood, then I was told Moses borrowed the story, and now?

BBC story on swimming pools.

I find evidence of world wide flooding in a story about swimming pools?


But, if it is in the Bible, I am told it must be fiction ….

I believe Noah rode a big wave, do you?



About Wayne

First, I blogged on blogger, then Myspace - soon I was consistently ranked. Next, I quit. Then the blogging addiction came back .... Comments are appreciated. Not nice comments are edited. You can follow me at the top right.
This entry was posted in Blogging, News, Politics and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to There really was a flood

  1. agnophilo says:

    Tell me when in the last six thousand years you think the entire world was under water and I will list for you many civilizations that were around then and still exist. Of course floods happen, who doesn’t know that? The claim in the bible is that the entire world flooded all at once and everybody and all the animals but a handful got wiped out. Historically this is a non-event. There are many things which would have to be true about the fossil record, the DNA of living animals, the geological record and the written and archeological records of countless cultures. None of which is the case.

    Also none of this has to do with evolution.

    • Wayne says:

      Thank you for stopping by.

      I can agree with the statement that this has little to do with evolution.

      As for the world-wide flood, there is a lot of evidence, you just interpret the evidence differently than I do.

      But, what evolution does say is that there was a global world wide event that they call a bottle neck …. the human race and most mammals came very close to extinction.

      But, that does not prove the Genesis account.

      I do understand that.


      • tildeb says:

        Actually, several bottlenecks.

        And the evidence for a global flood is not just missing but stands contrary to the overwhelming and mutually supporting evidence that indicates quite different weathering patterns at very different times for various places. The claim for a global flood only comes from the assertions found in various creation stories… stories that do not align but also occur in different places at different times. A global flood is supported only by the belief that empowers it; reality doesn’t support the claim.

      • Wayne says:

        Possibly multiple bottlenecks, but one major bottleneck that shrunk humanity to under 1,000 people.

        Your statement is much closer to supporting a global flood than you might realize.

        Evidence of catastrophic flooding all over the world, the only reason it is not called a global flood is we are told they were at different times.

        When the inland oceans on N. America broke out, they caused HUGE flooding. Worldwide.

        But, semantics and time are the real problem in the discussion, not the reality.



      • tildeb says:

        Your honest opinion is not a reliable guide here: geology and geography are. And they arbitrate your claim to be lacking evidence that should be there if true. It’s not there. This means your opinion is factually incorrect.

        There was no outpouring of interior water from North America to cause a global flood. Yes, there were large interior lakes that drained through glacial moraines (I live where the major one on the continent occurred) and carved river valleys that still contain rivers to this day but this is not to say these waters caused a ‘global’ flood. There is no evidence for a global flood where these lakes drained, for example. And I’m speaking of topography that was not shaped and altered by glaciation. No flood evidence. No uniform sedimentation that would result from flooding, for example. These ancient lakes themselves were of considerably less elevation than the local topography that contained them and the sedimentation samples where these lakes once existed do not show a previous or post flood layer that should be there. And these lakes drained at significantly different times.

        Your explanation simply doesn’t hold water, so to speak, but stands in stark contrast to the evidence the local geology and geography reveals (certainly contrary to the geography and geology where I live).

      • Wayne says:

        Wow …. your claim is without merit.

        As always, your comment is mostly well written, and I appreciate that. Honestly, I think this time you accidentally disagree with me.

        Scientists believe that there were multiple lakes which burst from North America. Since there were multiple, I doubt you live where each of the outbursts occurred.

        Or do you travel a lot like I do?

        Again, others say that, not me. I do not know if any of our modern named floods was the flood mentioned in Genesis.

        However, there are at least 3 major flood releases from North America which affected world sea levels. Lake Agassiz, Lake Bonneville, and Lake Ojibway.

        Lake Agassiz has been credited with forming the English Channel, and possibly being the flood credited in the Genesis account. And I have read someone write that the Lake Agassiz flood re-filled the Mediterranean.

        The other two lakes were also massive. When these burst their dams, they reshaped global, or at least northern, landscape. And they all three raised global sea levels.

        So, while I know you love to doubt my honest opinion, my opinion has always been based upon logic, facts, and Science.

        The fact that I also believe God is the Author of the Universe and Science does not get in the way of my studying the Universe around me.

        Rather, I think my faith in God gives me a greater understanding of the magnificence around me.

        I am not certain of how much each of these flood events raised the oceans world wide, but I have read at least one flood was credited with a 100 foot rise globally …. I think that is a lot, don’t you? I actually would be more comfortable with a number of around 10 to 20 feet.

        However, I still consider that a global event, wouldn’t you?


      • agnophilo says:

        The line about interpreting the evidence differently I’ve heard from creationists and creationist websites/videos etc constantly, it ignores the fact that science works because it doesn’t base the validity of an experiment on interpreting the data, but rather on the power of a model to predict it beforehand. It either matches the prediction or it doesn’t. Science isn’t based on post-experiment spin the way political debates are. If the idea that there was a global flood could be used to predict discoveries in geology, paleontology, genetics etc before they were made then it would be viable and scientific, but as far as I know it can’t and creationists don’t even try to do that (mainly because if the experiment went the other way they would have to abandon their model, which is a sin in their worldview).

        As for the bottleneck there have been many bottlenecks, some global and some local. In humans the smallest bottleneck is estimated to be as little as a thousand people, and it wasn’t global since it happened at a time when humans only existed on one continent. There is no evidence that everyone but one family died, and the time frame of the most severe bottlenecks goes back before the universe existed according to most forms of young earth creationism.

      • Wayne says:

        Thank you for your comment.

        As usual your comment is thought provoking.

        And I do not entirely agree. The biggest disagreement is with your view of science. Evolutionary science does not make a predictive model and then discover. Evolutionists find, and then fit the finding into the model.

        Not the science I was taught in school.



      • tildeb says:

        Evolutionary science does not make a predictive model and then discover? Au contraire: Tiktaalik to name but one of the more famous predictions. But then you’d know this if you came at evolutionary biology with an open mind rather than already know it’s contrary to creationism so, therefore, must be wrong. It must be nice to start with all the right answers, but I can’t do that and call myself intellectually honest.

      • Wayne says:

        As of yet, there are no conclusive ‘missing links.’

        Yes, I know you think I hold the bar higher than it needs to be, but the truth is they are not there. I have a meeting to go to, and I do not have the books in the house – packed the library. But, I guess I need to get the library back down and go over some of the data

        from Evolutionists.

        We will continue this, but it may take some time.

      • agnophilo says:

        Actually evolution does make predictions. I can name several very specific predictions from darwin and others. Darwin predicted the existence of an extinct species of early bird with separate digits in it’s wings (something that no one had ever found before in fossils or living birds). He said that if birds evolved from land animals which almost universally have five digits in their limbs then early birds must have had separate digits (modern birds do not). Two years later this species was discovered:

        It is an early bird with dinosaur characteristics, five separate digits and claws.

        When a skeptic challenged him by saying that his theory couldn’t account for how certain species of tulip could evolve that have extremely long petals, he explained that they could, according to his theory, have evolved in a symbiotic relationship with an extremely long-tongued moth, and predicted that one day someone would discover a moth with a foot long tongue which fed on those flowers. The moth:

        This species was discovered about a century after darwin made his prediction and observed feeding on the flower species in question some thirty years later.

        Others have made countless predictions, predictions which were often parodied by critics of the theory… until they came true. Here are some examples:

        I also read a book recently by one of the people who found titaalik (a fossil someone else mentioned as one that was predicted) and I can confirm that they were specifically looking for it in the precise environment and geological period where it must have evolved according to dawinian evolution and the rest of the fossil record. What the commenter might not know is that the same scientist later went on to do the same thing, predicting intermediate fossils in the evolution of reptile-type teeth to mammal-type teeth (which are very different from each other). He then went and found them right where they and when (chronologically) they ought to be according to the theory of evolution.

      • Wayne says:

        Darwin also said that God caused Evolution, do you believe that?

      • tildeb says:

        We know that Darwin ‘transitioned’ over his life away from belief in God from his autobiography. Though “very unwilling to give up my belief”, he found that “disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.”

        From the same source, we know that he thought “The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered.”

        What’s your source, Wayne?

      • Wayne says:


        I read his opus.

      • tildeb says:

        Yeah, so did I. But I don’t recall him stating what you say he stated: God caused evolution. I’m asking you for the source for this specific claim, please.

      • Wayne says:

        So, you read Darwin, but missed this, “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one”

      • Wayne says:

        I always find it so ironic that Evolutionists keep telling me I do not study enough.

        My personal library is more exhaustive than most public libraries in the US, and even more than many college libraries. I could be wrong on that challenge, but with around 100 books on Cosmogony, I think that is a fair challenge for any library to compete with – and I would note, unlike most libraries, my tomes are tomes, not children’s indoctrination books.

        I am fascinated by the study, but that does not mean I must drink the cool-aide.

        “On the Origin of Species.”

        You will find that Darwin was a Theistic Evolutionist, specifically, he did believe in Jesus for salvation, but was a Liberal Christian. Because of his Liberal Theology, he seemed to avoid discussion of his Religion.

      • tildeb says:

        Yes, he trained as vicar. Anyone familiar with Darwin the man knows perfectly well that, like most people of the day, he was christian but moved away from these beliefs over time. In the same way Einstein used the god metaphor to describe the cosmos and all it contains, so too did most people involved with science here in the West. But you take a huge leap to assert that Darwin claimed that your God caused evolution except in the SAME figurative way.

        Also, like most creationists, you misrepresent as easily as you breathe: the full quote is: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

        Oh my. Oh dear. Houston, we have a problem with your justification for this claim; you presume ‘several powers’ means only your God, which makes no sense in the plural. I wonder what came before this quotation that might shed some light on what ‘these powers’ might be?

        Lo and behold, there is… and they aren’t your God. They are, says Darwin, the laws of Growth with Reproduction, Inheritance, Variability… from use and disuse, Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of Less Improved Forms. This is the grandeur Darwin is talking about and not you God; these are the comparisons of fixed laws in biology to that found in physics using gravity by way of example.

        You have completely, utterly, and unequivocally (as well as unashamedly) misrepresented Darwin’s notion of evolution in this quote (not that you care about accuracy of anything if it’s in the service of your beliefs).

        Your central justification for the claim that Darwin thought your God caused evolution is missing here. How can this be? Where’s the bit you’ve made bold about evolution caused by a Creator?

        Oh, right! It was included after the first publication run when the religious were all in a tizzy! We find the inclusion in the 2nd through 6th additions… after he published and defended his thesis at the Royal Society. The ‘after’ bit is rather important to your claim in that it fatally skewers it: Darwin formulated his idea (along with Wallace) before any consideration of the role Creators may have played you claim that Darwin said ’caused’ evolution.

        Funny, that. Sad, too.

        Now why might he have included the Creator bit later, I wonder? I suspect it was to help believers such as yourself to look at the idea without promptly dismissing it as anti-biblical. Unlike most reasonable open to reality’s arbitration of such ideas, you seem to have remained immune to his gesture of accommodating your religious beliefs (more evidence that such accommodating is not just a waste of time but counterproductive to science; it’s a means by which the believer can misrepresent important ideas). It’s good you stay true to form, Wayne. But why bother with all the books if you’re not going to allow them to speak their meaning to you fairly and honestly?

      • Wayne says:

        Darwin said what he said. Not me.

        Yes, you do stay true to form, you make the stretch to believe something Darwin did not believe.

        And then you frame what I believe with straw men arguments.

        I hope and pray some day you will allow great minds to speak to you and inform what you believe.


      • agnophilo says:

        I neither discount that assumption nor make it. I don’t pretend to know how life or the universe began, but a creator making it just magically happen doesn’t explain it any more than just saying it happened somehow on it’s own. My answer is I don’t know. It could be some kind of god-like being, but then the question would be what is that being, where did it come from etc, and how did it start life/the universe/the properties of matter/etc.

      • Wayne says:

        Great comment.

        I think we have a lot more in common than when we started all of this discussion.

        Don’t you agree?


      • agnophilo says:

        My views are the same ones I came in with – have yours changed?

      • Wayne says:

        No. But, I think you realize I am much more balanced than you would have thought I was.

      • agnophilo says:

        I try not to make judgements about people I don’t know.

      • tildeb says:

        I didn’t know that about the teeth development. Thanks.

  2. Since so much of the Bible, and especially the Old Testament, were intended as symbolic wisdom stories, I don’t think having a literal global flood matters at all. The entire point of the flood story was to emphasize for an audience that cared about meaning rather than detail, that if there is even a teensy bit of goodness in an evil world, God will act to preserve it, and always has.

    • Wayne says:

      Thank you for your comment.

      And I actually like it. I disagree that the flood was symbolic. But, I like the way you reasoned that statement.


  3. tildeb says:

    The Indus valley – a river valley – flooded? Truly astounding. It must be scientific evidence for the biblical global flood. Or a non sequitur. I’m leaning hard to the latter.

    • Wayne says:

      I am not certain this would prove a biblical flood ….

      But this is a problem I have with the science I was taught.


    • agnophilo says:

      In that passage darwin was talking about his not believing in christianity, not disbelief in the existence of a creator. As far as I know he went from young earth creationist in his youth to old earth theist, to deist in his later years.

      • tildeb says:

        Well, I’ll go with Darwin himself who identifies as agnostic. What more this means about deism or monotheism is unknown because of his reticence to talk more plainly about his religious beliefs even in private correspondence. What we do get are paragraphs like this one:

        “I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or the cat should play with mice.”

        Certainly Wayne’s god is not a critter Darwin would believe in even if he wished to.

      • agnophilo says:

        I didn’t say he was. And in the full quote you gave part of darwin talks further about his religious views.

      • Wayne says:

        Good comment.

        I think Darwin might agree now. But, that begs the questions about life after death.


      • Wayne says:

        Thank you for your comment.

        That could be. I do not know for certain.

        I am always amazed at how we are told what to believe, even when there is evidence to the contrary.

        Aren’t you?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s